【推文】James Lindsay - In all this discussion about individualism and collectivism, there's something..

連結

• 原推文1 - x.com/conceptualjame...

原文及個人翻譯

In all this discussion about individualism and collectivism, there's something important lurking. Consent and coercion.

Individualist programs don't atomize people who don't want to be atomized. They allow people to voluntarily assent or dissent from a given program.

Collectivism does not allow this voluntary assent or dissent except in a false way. You can voluntarily dissent and be punished, or you can assent in a way, no matter how much you believe in the program, that knows these are the stakes. Thus, coercion is always part of the program, and it will be visible eventually.

The only way you can have group unity that admits no coercion over time is for it to be based on the truth that each individual can assess for himself and decide to assent to. That is, to maintain a coercion-free unity requires both individual liberty and a belief in the truth, literally that true things are true for all people in all times in all places.

Since actual truth isn't actually attainable, the unity in an individualist system (like classical liberalism) is around the shared pursuit of truth and a faith in both the truth and the value of the truth. It isn't without conflict and disagreement, which are a kind of disunity, but the unification is in a shared faith in the pursuit, a certain love of wisdom, not believing, like fools, that we possess it.

在所有關於個人主義和集體主義的討論中，有一些重要的事情潛伏其中：自願與脅迫。

個人主義專案不會將那些不想被孤立的人孤立起來。 它們允許人們自願同意或不同意某個特定的專案。

集體主義不允許這種自願的同意或不同意，除非是以一種虛假的方式進行。 你可以自願反對並受到懲罰，或者你可以以某種方式表示同意，無論你對該專案有多麼相信，但你知道這些是代價。 因此，脅迫始終是該計劃的一部分，並且最終會顯現出來。

當群體團結不涉及任何脅迫時，要在一段長時間內維持這種團結，必須基於一個真理：每個人都可以自行評估並決定是否同意。 也就是說，要維持一種無脅迫的團結，既需要個人自由，也需要對真理的信仰，即真正的東西對於所有人和所有時間、所有地方都是真實的。

由於真正的真理實際上是無法企及的，因此在個人主義體系（如古典自由主義）中的團結圍繞著對真理的共同追求以及對真理本身和真理價值的信仰。 它並非沒有衝突和分歧，這些都是一種不統一的形式，但這種團結在於對追求的共同信念，一種對智慧的熱愛，而不是像傻瓜一樣，認為我們已經擁有了它。

This discourse is not new. Damn the ancients, for having stolen all our best ideas. Socrates himself gives this discourse when asked if he is wise. He responds that it is for the gods, and beyond man, to possess wisdom (sophia); all we mortals can do is love it (philos), which would mean believing in it and its value and pursuing it. This is where we get the most Socratic word: philosophia, philosophy: the love of wisdom, not its possession.

Individualist systems recognize this limitation, whether because of the Greek discourses on wisdom or the Judaic discourses on the limitedness and fallenness of man, which Christianity has also adopted. Thus, men pursue the truth, debate the truth, and find true, lasting unity in recognizing those parcels of the truth that we can be confident of.

Collectivist systems, like all human systems, offer some approximation of the truth, which is the best human beings can ever hope to achieve. They do not have the truth. They do not possess wisdom. They present themselves as though they do. Analysts of the collectivist condition like Robert Jay Lifton identify a trait of collectivist systems: believing they alone possess the "Sacred Science," that is, "the truth," around which the collective is organized.

Reality being what it is, eventually people notice that the collectivist system does not actually possess the truth but a mere approximation. They notice in exactly the spots where it isn't working.

這種討論並非新鮮。 該討論源於古人，他們已經竊取了我們所有最好的想法。 蘇格拉底本人在被問及是否具有智慧時，就提出了這種觀點。 他回答說，擁有智慧（sophia）是神和超越人類的事物所具備的；我們凡人能做的只是熱愛它（philos），這意味著相信它及其價值並追求它。 這就是我們獲得最蘇格拉底式的詞彙：philosophia，哲學：對智慧的熱愛，而不是對其的佔有。

個人主義體系認識到這種侷限性，無論是由於古希臘關於智慧的討論，還是猶太教關於人類有限性和墮落性的討論，基督教也採用了這些觀點。 因此，人們追求真理，辯論真理，並在認識到我們可以確信的真理部分時，找到真正的、持久的團結。

集體主義體系，與其他所有人類體系一樣，提供對真理的一種近似，這是人類所能達到的最佳狀態。 它們沒有真理。 它們不擁有智慧。 它們把自己表現得好像是擁有了真理。 分析集體主義現象的學者如Robert Jay Lifton，指出了集體主義體系的一個特徵：相信只有他們自己擁有「神聖的科學」，即「真理」，而整個集體就是圍繞著這個「真理」來組織的。

由於現實就是現實，最終人們會注意到，集體主義體系實際上並沒有掌握真理，而只是對真理的一種近似。 他們會在那些系統無法正常運作的地方發現這一點。

This is where the difference between individualist and collectivist shows itself. The difference between having real (and humble) unity in the pursuit of truth versus having false (and prideful) unity in the declaration of truth maintained by collectivist consensus and coercion.

Inside the so-called "warmth of collectivism," to point out the real truth is to threaten the sanctity of the so-called "Sacred Science" that defines the collective and its false, worldly authority. The collective, behind higher than the individual in all ways, will therefore protect its organizing principle at the expense of the individual. The dissenting individual will be dispatched. Thus, coercion always underwrites the collectivist program.

When we notice things aren't working in the individualist program, we debate. When someone notices things aren't working in the collectivist program, the collectivists punish or kill him. Believing themselves wise, they become fools.

Within the collectivist program, there is belonging. That's the "warmth of collectivism." The problem is that it's highly conditional, and eventually everyone realizes it, at which point it isn't so "warm" anymore. The intrinsic trouble is that the truth, whatever it is, really is out there, including in the places where it will undermine the collectivists. Woe unto ye who dare to recognize it, especially when it matters. All of history repeats this lesson.

這就是個人主義和集體主義之間的區別：在於追求真理時，擁有真正的（且謙遜的）團結，與在宣稱真理時，擁有虛假的（且驕傲的）團結，這種團結由集體共識和脅迫來維持。

在所謂的「集體主義的溫暖」中，指出真實的真理就是威脅到定義集體及其虛假、世俗權威的所謂「神聖科學」的神聖性。 因此，集體，在所有方面都認為自己高於個人，會以犧牲個人的代價來保護其組織原則。 反對的個體將被清除。 因此，脅迫始終是集體主義計劃的基礎。

當我們注意到個人主義專案中的某些事情沒有起作用時，我們會進行辯論。 當有人注意到集體主義專案中某些事情沒有起作用時，集體主義者會懲罰或殺害他。 他們自以為明智，卻變成了傻瓜。

在集體主義專案中，存在歸屬感。 這就是「集體主義的溫暖」。 問題在於，這種歸屬感是高度有條件的，並且最終每個人都會意識到這一點，此時它就不再那麼「溫暖」了。 固有的問題在於，真理，無論是什麼，確實存在於那裡，包括在那些會破壞集體主義的地方。 凡是敢於認識到真理的人，尤其是當真理很重要時，都將面臨不幸。 歷史一遍又一遍地重複著這個教訓。

In the individualist program, on the other hand, belonging is a voluntary matter. You are free to pursue experiments testing the truth, and you are also free to dissociate and dissent when you think something is going wrong. The "frigidity of rugged individualism" is that sometimes you have to go out on your own because truth, including moral truth, demands it. Because reality really is out there, and if we want to live successful lives, we have to be able to recognize it.

Collectives do not recognize truth or reality. Individuals do, even inside collectives. Individuals may fail to recognize it, suppress it, or ignore reality, all to their peril, but collectives must at times fail to recognize it, suppress it, and ignore it, also all to their peril. The collective itself is a social belonging mechanism that biases toward the cohesion of the collective at the cost of being able to recognize reality when it doesn't support the beliefs of the collective. This is intrinsic.

在個人主義專案中，另一方面，歸屬感是一種自願的選擇。 您可以自由地進行實驗來檢驗真理，並且當您認為某些事情出現問題時，您可以自由地脫離並提出異議。 「堅韌的個人主義的冷酷」在於，有時您必須獨自行動，因為真理，包括道德真理，要求這樣做。 由於現實確實存在於那裡，如果我們要過上成功的生活，我們必須能夠認識到它。

（集體主義）集體不會識別真理或現實。 個人會識別，即使在集體中也是如此。 個人可能會未能認識到真理，壓制它，或者忽視現實，所有這些都會帶來危險，但集團有時也必須未能認識到它，壓制它，並忽視它，同樣也會帶來危險。 集體本身是一種社會歸屬機制，它傾向於維護集體的凝聚力，而犧牲了能夠認識現實的能力，尤其是在現實不支援集體信仰時。 這是內在的。

What has made America different is that it is framed around self-government, that individualist perspective that dares the seas of the pursuit of truth and wisdom and invites conflict about ideas within those unified in the pursuit.

This is why America has been the best, freest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world. This is why even the people who hate America don't leave it. This is why people under the boot of collectivist coercion have for centuries risked everything to come to America and to be part of the great rugged individualist experiment of self-government with the liberty to pursue truth, wisdom, and profit (as one of their proxies) for themselves. And this will continue so long as America continues as America.

What a foolish shame to toss it away for the "warmth of collectivism," whether from Leftist DSA trash or Rightist post-liberal garbage. What a foolish shame.

是什麼讓美國與衆不同？ 是因為它建立在自政府的基礎上，這種個人主義的視角敢於探索真理和智慧的海洋，並邀請那些致力於追求的人們就觀點進行辯論。

這就是為什麼美國是世界上歷史上最好的、最自由、最繁榮的國家。 這也是為什麼即使是那些憎恨美國的人也不會離開它。 這也是為什麼幾個世紀以來，那些生活在集體主義脅迫下的人們冒著一切風險來到美國，併成為這場偉大的個人主義實驗的一部分，即自政府，他們擁有追求真理、智慧和利潤（作為其代理）的自由。 只要美國繼續保持美國的特性，這種狀況就會持續下去。

爲了「集體主義的溫暖」，而放棄這一切，無論是來自左翼DSA的垃圾，還是右翼后自由主義的胡言亂語，都是多麼愚蠢可悲的事情。 真是太愚蠢、太可悲了。