Read on Twitter
Mutual interdependence seems to be a very consistent theme across multiple themes of literature.
The Stoics regarded sympathea as the core of their philosophy.
MLK explicitly wrote that human life is interdependent.
Heidegger wrote about existentialism being a communal web.
The Stoics regarded sympathea as the core of their philosophy.
MLK explicitly wrote that human life is interdependent.
Heidegger wrote about existentialism being a communal web.
There are probably many others. The clearest expression of what this means seemed to come from Seneca:
âIf you wish to live for yourself, live for the other person.â
In order to conceptualize what this means we need a basic framework.
âIf you wish to live for yourself, live for the other person.â
In order to conceptualize what this means we need a basic framework.
One way is to look at life as a set of layers. Each layer serving as a whole, and an individual as a part to that whole.
Meaning, there is a relationship between each layer and in the individual. A long with relationships between each layer.
Meaning, there is a relationship between each layer and in the individual. A long with relationships between each layer.
Three basic layers can be:
1. The immediate, family, friends, your âworldâ.
2. The national, your country and its institutions.
3. The global, human life generally.
In each you find that the individual is in relation to the whole. MLK put it clearly âall life is social.â
1. The immediate, family, friends, your âworldâ.
2. The national, your country and its institutions.
3. The global, human life generally.
In each you find that the individual is in relation to the whole. MLK put it clearly âall life is social.â
So each layer shapes our lives in different ways. And each whole is shaped by its parts.
But the relationship goes both ways. The parts make up the whole. Meaning, each individual contributes to the collective in some way. Good or bad.
But the relationship goes both ways. The parts make up the whole. Meaning, each individual contributes to the collective in some way. Good or bad.
Therefore, it must follow that there is some inherent effect for all the parts.
For example, the issue of crime and guns is a good visual.
For example, the issue of crime and guns is a good visual.
Crime is an issue that effects us all. Most people who commit crime are poor. They are poor b/c of neglect. America has a poverty problem. So it has a crime problem. This creates the value of mistrust. So people donât feel safe. B/c they donât feel safe, they buy guns.
But then the problem of safety just becomes worse. Now we have poverty, crime and guns. The parts have therefore weakened the whole.
Now this is one only general example. There are arguably millions of ways to conceptualize this.
Now this is one only general example. There are arguably millions of ways to conceptualize this.
A non-political metaphor is that of a movie. A film is divided into various acts (parts). Each act doesnât make the movie on its own.
They work in conjunction so the whole of the film makes sense by the end.
Thus, the acts (parts) are dependent on each other.
They work in conjunction so the whole of the film makes sense by the end.
Thus, the acts (parts) are dependent on each other.
And so it seems fairly hard for someone to ignore the fact that neglecting demographics in their own community inherently harms them in some way.
To that end, a functional society balances the freedom of the individual in relation to the collective.
We are interdependent.
To that end, a functional society balances the freedom of the individual in relation to the collective.
We are interdependent.
