Individualism vs Collectivism

A worthy opponent, I see. Well I am glad you have brought such a reputable argument with many points I agree with. However, I still have some things I will comment on. It is true that a collective is needed so you can compare your skills and ideas. In fact, I would say that it is essential for people to communicate with one another to share ideas and grow as people. But, Who"s job is it to learn from the shared information? As much as we learn and have access to knowledge, It is a common fact that people do not apply themselves to make the most of the knowledge given to them. You should know this; you said you play the cello and have taught others how to play. No matter how much information, Tips, And techniques you personally taught your students, You knew that it was up to them to do it. That"s why I truly value individualism. No matter what knowledge you have and how much support you get from others, It"s still your choice to take advantage of that. If you take advantage of the world around you then you are a successful individual inside of a group. However, An individual with no group is weak, And a simple person that is a function of the group is still weak. I argue this point not because one is better than the other but that you must be an individual that thrives in the group. Simply having the group alone does nothing to benefit a person. But let"s say we have a successful group, A family for example. You mentioned that a group doesn"t need to know every aspect of its members which I will agree with after some personal discussion. Instead, It can be assumed from your words that it is through selflessness that a group works and benefits each other. To that I say, "Of course, But who is selfless? " You are selfless to your wife because you two connect and have overcome struggles to remain together. The example of a soldier sacrificing themself to save the lives of the rest of the troop is only true because they struggled together and have grown closer over time. But, What reason do I or any random person have to be selfless to the man in the distance? He stands and labors with a pickaxe in his hands and sweat pouring down his sides. I have no reason to help him. What reason would others come to help him? Of course, I would personally say that selflessness founded upon religion and God would make you want to help anyone in need thus making the group functional, But let"s stick to the example. Why should anyone help the unknown? It is through others stimuli that we decide to help others. It was because of the struggles we as people face that groups form. If you didn"t fight that struggle you don"t necessarily care about it. You most certainly won"t have the same determination and heart as the original people who fought and formed the group you are in. There needs to be a reason for people to care for others in the group. This won"t happen naturally without stimulus. So, I"m summary, The group is needed, But it takes an individual with a reason to care for the group to make the group functional. There are many reasons in the world for someone to care about a group, But a random person has no attraction to another random person. They could help if they were selfless, But we all know we are not perfect people. Protect yourself first and grow, And then you can worry about the man who labors in the distance.