From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Society and the Individual: The Sociological Gambit :-)
Summary: Trashing the libertarian/objectivist position again! (Yea, right!)
Keywords: libertarianism, objectivism, anthropology, sociology
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:42:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan11.004252.18024@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes...
>I cannot believe that I am going to try and refute the religion of
>the Libertarian Church of the Most High Truth Revealed (smile when
>I say that... :-)  ) but I figured I have all these anthropology
>books collecting dust on my shelves, I might as well put them to
>some use.

	I suppose so.  Go right ahead.


>"To the self sufficient individual it opposes man as a social
>being; it considers each man no longer as a particular incarnation
>of abstract humanity, but as a more or less autonomous point of
>emergence of a particular collective humanity, of a <society>." (5)

	Does it?  I'm not convinced that either libertarianism or
objectivism really "oppose" man as a social being.  I'll admit that
objectivism may have been improved as a philosophy by bringing in
more elements from the Nichomachean ethics (by Aristotle) which it
appears to be loosely based on.  Aristotle specifically stated that
man was a social animal and could not achieve eudaimonia (well-being,
happiness) without friendships.  Ayn Rand left this part out of her
philosophy.  However, it is not clear to me that adding such an
observation would really change her political recommendations.

	My point is this: does this additional information on human
nature really add anything significant enough to change
libertarian/objectivist politics?  Is individual liberty a threat
to some needed sociability?  Why?  Examples?  Will social engineering
help matters any?  How?


>Thus sociology is founded upon the premise that there IS a
>sociological realm to be studied and that that realm consists of
>more than a collection of individuals who are merely interacting. 

	I have absolutely no problems with sociology.  Sure, the
sociological realm can be studied.  I don't see any threat to my
politics from sociology, however.


>This society is a difficult thing for many folks to understand or
>even accept (e.g. Libertarianism or Objectivism).  We need to raise
>that first important question and that is the genesis of the
>individual.  Dumont uses the example of the child as evidence of
>the existence of a social reality.

	Oh, of course!  *Children* exist.  How could I have been
so silly to become a libertarian.  :)  Sorry.  I don't deny a
"social reality".  Never did.


>It is only through a complicated set of biological and sociological
>circumstances that an individual is socially produced.  There are
>no individuals prior to society because there are no human beings
>prior to society.  Humans are social animals, we aggregate not out
>of some capitalistic desire to exploit one another, to compete and
>to get ahead, but because it is in our very nature.

	I think that there are many reasons why people "aggregate".
I also believe that capitalism is one of them.  Capitalism brings
people together in 'trade' relationships (what Aristotle might have
called "advantage friendships").  There are other kinds of relationships
of course.


>In this brief essay I have tried to lay the foundation for a
>resonable approach to the study of the individual and society. 
>Rather than bracket off "the individual" as a static variable in
>the equation, I have shown that the individual is quite dynamic,
>shaped and shaping society through time.

	I see nothing wrong with what you have said, however, it
does not seem to pose much of a threat to libertarian/objectivist
politics.



Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.activism