It strikes me that most kinds of atheism have some kind of psychology or sociology as the bottom-line explanation and justification for judgments of value. Purpose and meaning are regarded as products of humans; and particular judgments regarding values such as truth, beauty and ethics reach their final explanation in terms of psychological concepts such as the human mind, human instinct; and in terms of collectives or groups of people and their psychology.
In other words; when individual psychology seems too diverse and conflicted to rationalise values - for many generations people have reached for collective values to make their bottom-line judgements.
For instance; when it seems obviously inadequate to relate a prohibition on murder to what is best for or wanted by a single person; it seems natural that when the problem is restated collectively - as what is best for or wanted by some large (or universal) conceptualized of many-people (some community) - that this is a more "objective" explanation and justification.
Consequently, many of the most influential kinds of atheism have some collective value as their bottom line. Utilitarian philosophy is stated as aiming at the greatest happiness (or "utility") of the greatest number. This usually led to economic conceptualizations of society (as with communism and other types of socialism) - since the group utility was described and manipulated in terms of statistics about income, wealth, working-hours and the like.
Nationalism regards the well-being of the collective nation as primary; and the value of individuals of that nation as derivative of the national "spirit"; so that the individual may be (and should be, when required by the collective nation) sacrificed to the imputed nation - potentially even to the point of near extinction of the individuals of the nation.
The kind of public health thinking that (for instance) underpinned the Birdemic-response was rationalized on the basis of what was best for the health of the collective - in which health was analyzed and expressed statistically; in terms of measures such as disease numbers and rates, and death numbers and rates.
Another example is Jung's collective unconscious - which was conceptualized as a universal group mind; so that what might have been individual, experiences, instincts, needs etc. were restated as deriving from a shared, group reality.
This was regarded as more spiritual, because such things were not detectable or measurable by perceptual means, nor were there measurements; but instead via qualitative phenomena such as archetypes, and evidence came from inter-personal communications of dreams, myths, artistic productions and the like.
But although often regarded as "spiritual", the collective unconscious seems to be - in reality - a quasi-biological entity.
I wonder why it is seen as too subjective to have individuals as bottom-line, whereas it is more objective to have a collective bottom line - despite that the collective is dependant (ultimately) on the individual?
It seems, on the face of it, irrational that people seem ready to reject the significance of the individual experience or evaluation, as "merely" personal and subjective; whereas the same people seem not just willing but more highly motivated to suppose that there is an objective reality - and an imperative value, that we should be guided by it - about the collective.
This would hardly be likely if the collective was nothing-more than the collecting-together and combining of many individuals.
Yet this is so; and (apparently spontaneously) we actually do regard group phenomena as (at least potentially, ideally) in some way more objective, more binding on our values.
My interpretation is that there is a fundamental underlying truth behind this "collective" way of thinking - even for those (like communism or "healthism") badly distorted by abstraction, which is what lends such systems a degree of motivational effectiveness.
There is also an untruth - which is why none of the atheisms have proved sufficiently effective social motivators - none have come close to replacing religion, none have been able strongly to motivate men to acts of courage and self-sacrifice for long-term goals. The consequences we see all around us, in mainstream hedonic nihilism, and the prevalent self-loathing and covert suicidality of Western civilization.
In sum - the collective is, in practice, as well as theory - not just a collection of individuals; but what exactly it is (or could be) is distortedly and incompletely formulated by the most influential kind of atheism.
Conclusions? I think we have a vague but true sense that we are justified in some kind of groupish and collective way.
To some extent this is a mistaken attempt to overcome the nihilistic meaninglessness of atheism - partly by a sleight of hand, and also by a kind of averaging process in the group. Individuals generally change more rapidly than do groups, and individuals usually have a shorter lifespan than groups - so that the sheer lability and instability of individual life is ameliorated by immersing individuals into a conceptualized group.
In other words; while collectives are not more objective than individuals; groups seem somewhat more objective: quantitatively, not qualitatively. Compared with a single person; groups are bigg-er, strong-er, wealthi-er, more powerful, long-er-lasting... In a sense, this makes groups feel "more real".
But deeper than this lies the potential of a profound truth about "the collective".
If the true collective is the totality of divine creation - rather than merely some group of humans - then it would seem that there is a valid and ultimate sense in which a big question about life is whether or not we affiliate our-selves to the collective that is creation: whether we join our individual person to God's creation and God's creative will.
By the decision and act that Christians term "love"; we can choose to put "creation" above our individual selves; and to derive our values from the totality of our-selves in loving-alliance with creation - in a mutual relationship. (Mutual because we love God, God loves us.)
Instead of the relatively great-er objectivity of human collectives compared with the individual person, there may be an everlasting and qualitative objectivity of the resurrected individual Man, in the wholly divine reality of Heaven.
1 comment:
The relationship between the individual and the collective is something I've often pondered myself, but I can't say I've arrived at any firm conclusions. If you'll indulge me, I'll offer a few thoughts.
Humans are undoubtedly social creatures, "pack animals" if you will. We depend on others for our safety, sustenance, and support. We have a social need. Everywhere you encounter humans, you find them in groups. Moreover, one of the most striking of human traits, our use and mastery of language, is a profoundly social attribute. From a materialist perspective, we evolved as members of a group, and the survival and continuity of that group undergirds our survival and reproduction, and hence our instincts to protect and if necessary sacrifice ourselves for the group make sense.
That said, our groups (nations, tribes, communities, etc) are human creations, while our individual selves are the creations of God, and so it is not unreasonable to suppose that the individual, or at least the individual's soul, is of higher importance than the group, it being a divine creation rather than a merely human one. Of course, a group that is participating in God's plan, whatever that may be, could be said to also be an aspect of the divine plan, and thus of still higher importance, especially since the individual is anyways mortal, and will die eventually regardless, while the soul cannot be killed by material means.
I have never studied St. Thomas of Aquinas, but I wonder if his conception of the angelic order of Principalities, the angels charged with guiding nations and states, might not be relevant here. I should love to hear your thoughts
Post a Comment