NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, this is a tough one to put into words. I get random thoughts when I'm driving or doing some other mindless activity, and most of the time they are difficult to relate in clear terms. Right now this one seems especially so.

This question runs along the lines of Hegelian dialectic and memetics. Mainly I am interested in just how society and culture progress into the future.

On NSG, there is a great deal of political theorizing concerning the way the state and society itself is to be conducted, but very rarely is there an in-depth discussion of how this governance is going to come about. Thinking about this lead me to a deeper question, namely, does all of our individual political ideas actually lead to anything, at all, or are our ideas just a reflection of the advancement of society as a whole?

There are a great many thinkers that get a credit for bringing about social and political change on an enormous scale, but how much credit do they really deserve? Should they just be considered the lucky forecasters of cultural tides?

I guess I more or less cast this as a "great individual vs. the masses" argument, but I don't really intend for that argument, per se. Maybe I don't know what I want to argue, but just maybe this rambling post can spark some discussion.

I personally think it's the ideas of individuals that come first, and spread to the rest of the population depending on whether or not they are successful relative to the ideas that already exist.

Many, even most world-changing social, economic, and scientific ideas were reviled, rejected, and even supressed by the culture at the time of their development because they were completely contrary to the values of the time. It took decades or even centuries for those ideas to be accepted as a common part of society, and some of them are resisted even to this day.

And, of course, there's the problem that the success or failure of an idea can only be seen after the fact. For example, in the 1950's and 1960's, many people on all sides thought the USSR was likely going to overtake the US and win the Cold War, only to see the Communist system collapse and the USSR vanish in another generation.

I personally think it's the ideas of individuals that come first, and spread to the rest of the population depending on whether or not they are successful relative to the ideas that already exist.

Many, even most world-changing social, economic, and scientific ideas were reviled, rejected, and even supressed by the culture at the time of their development because they were completely contrary to the values of the time. It took decades or even centuries for those ideas to be accepted as a common part of society, and some of them are resisted even to this day.

And, of course, there's the problem that the success or failure of an idea can only be seen after the fact. For example, in the 1950's and 1960's, many people on all sides thought the USSR was likely going to overtake the US and win the Cold War, only to see the Communist system collapse and the USSR vanish in another generation.

That ideas were reviled at their conception does not imply that they were not still cultural phenomenon rather than individual flashes of inspiration. It only means that the idea was reflected in only a small fringe minority of the population.

This is a difficult chicken or the egg question, and I guess it revolves around the question, "Where do our ideas come from?"

That ideas were reviled at their conception does not imply that they were not still cultural phenomenon rather than individual flashes of inspiration. It only means that the idea was reflected in only a small fringe minority of the population.

It may be that individuals build upon general developments and turn them in to full-fledged new ideas; in this case this would be a combination of the two rather than a product of one or the other.

Another interesting thing is when the same idea is being developed by two different people at the same time; for example, calculus was invented almost simultaneously by Newton and Leibniz even though they had no contact with each other.

This is a difficult chicken or the egg question, and I guess it revolves around the question, "Where do our ideas come from?"

I think culture gives us the basic framework, which we work with to develop new ideas.

It may be that individuals build upon general developments and turn them in to full-fledged new ideas; in this case this would be a combination of the two rather than a product of one or the other.

Another interesting thing is when the same idea is being developed by two different people at the same time; for example, calculus was invented almost simultaneously by Newton and Leibniz even though they had no contact with each other.

But couldn't the individuals responsible be merely a product of their environment as well? The values that lead to these great ideas don't just spontaneously produce themselves, do they?

(And Leibniz and Newton are a very interesting comparison for another discussion.)

I have another idea. It is the idea that as society becomes more technically complex and requires more and more education to run, every day things will become increasingly complex. This will create a situation where the technically adept and engineering classes will be as educated as the elite creating an opportunity for an inevitable social revolution.

But couldn't the individuals responsible be merely a product of their environment as well? The values that lead to these great ideas don't just spontaneously produce themselves, do they?

Well, they are a product of their environment. The problem is, it takes thought to develop those new ideas; they don't just spontaneously emerge from society and develop, it requires people actually applying cultural and educational skills and turning them in to something new.

It seems to me that this discussion could wind up taking a general 'free will vs. cultural determinism' tangent.

It seems to me that this discussion could wind up taking a general 'free will vs. cultural determinism' tangent.

I know, and that is not at all what I intend, but I don't know just exactly what I want out of this thread, either. Maybe I should just let it die.

I know, and that is not at all what I intend, but I don't know just exactly what I want out of this thread, either. Maybe I should just let it die.

It's an interesting idea that merits further discussion. I'd say just work on it and repost the idea once it's more along the lines of what you want, because it's better to scrap this thread and post something better later than have it degenerate in to something you don't want.

Does all of our individual political ideas actually lead to anything, at all, or are our ideas just a reflection of the advancement of society as a whole?


It really depends on the individual.
I read an article in the local paper about an election last year, and one woman featured said that she wouldn't be voting because the government had never done anything for her, and then went on to say that there were lots of things she'd like to see done. Clearly her ideas (and those of others who never bother voting) are unlikely to lead to anything.
Many people will act on their ideas by voting for the party most in agreement. This means that their ideas will, slowly, contribute to the advancement of society as a whole.
Others still will take there ideas futther, and actually pursue a career in politics. Their ideas (assuming they do not abandon core party values in order to win over voters, as seems to have happend with first New Labour and now the Conservatives in the UK) will almost certainly lead directly to changes in society.

I think that covers most people.

Alright, this is a tough one to put into words. I get random thoughts when I'm driving or doing some other mindless activity, and most of the time they are difficult to relate in clear terms. Right now this one seems especially so.

This question runs along the lines of Hegelian dialectic and memetics. Mainly I am interested in just how society and culture progress into the future.

On NSG, there is a great deal of political theorizing concerning the way the state and society itself is to be conducted, but very rarely is there an in-depth discussion of how this governance is going to come about. Thinking about this lead me to a deeper question, namely, does all of our individual political ideas actually lead to anything, at all, or are our ideas just a reflection of the advancement of society as a whole?

There are a great many thinkers that get a credit for bringing about social and political change on an enormous scale, but how much credit do they really deserve? Should they just be considered the lucky forecasters of cultural tides?

I guess I more or less cast this as a "great individual vs. the masses" argument, but I don't really intend for that argument, per se. Maybe I don't know what I want to argue, but just maybe this rambling post can spark some discussion.

I think that it si the same as Evolution, a combination of micro and marco evolution....

micro-there is a constant but gradual evolution of society where groups of individuals like us here in NS exchange ideas and influence each other

macro-occasionally there is an individual with great insight sees through all the crap and shows the way forward in a great leap

don't know if that is what you were looking for....