“Do they, your Majesty? Is such a concept as individual merit even valid? Are not individual qualities but social consequence of the communal matrix within which these men inhabit? What within your realm can your subjects claim to as their own? Do they have private property without your Majesty’s vast judicial bureaucracy codifying property ownership as a legal concept? Do they have recourse against theft without your Majesty’s security apparatus enforcing proper social rituals prescribing property transfer? Can they engage in any economic activity within your realm without your Majesty’s Accountant of Exchequer issuing the ba liang? Can they have said to possess even their own thoughts without your Majesty’s academic and archival references from whence they draw their perceptual matrix? Are they even allowed their very lives without your Majesty’s military institutions keeping the Xiongnu at bay? Individuality is a nice fiction that can be used to flatter the conceit of the untrained and the ignorant, when necessary, but propagation of such pernicious poison within social consciousness will result in inevitable disintegration of society.”
My favorite paragraph, and very Hobbesian in its philosophy. Individualism vs society seems to percolate so many disciplines. Utilitarianism vs Kantianism in philosophy for instance, or genes (Dawkins) vs group selection (E. O. Wilson) in biology. It's always a theme, almost an archetype. Nietzsche thinks it's the geniuses who create everything and the masses merely act as fertilizing soil, setting up the right conditions for the rise of the great man. Our movies I think show the public's preference is the individual, as can be seen from the many-vs-the-few trope, Neo vs Smith...so often they even make the many literal bugs, as in Starship Troopers. So 'the many' is often identified with 'the villainous'. One exception I can think of is the horror genre, where often it's one villain vs many (usually teen) 'innocents' (usually sexually immoral). Still, the villain survives into sequels, while the 'good guys' perish, so in a sense he becomes the protagonist, and the public kinda likes watching those promiscuous teens die, so I don't know if it's truly an exception.
Very true. There is a strong tendency against individualism in the common man. Man establishes social constructs that essentially advocates conformity. Men's desire for super man is essentially the cry of masses praying for a god to lead their conformist construct into eternity. Geniuses who dare shift the social consensus too much are vehemently opposed by the masses, even as they supposedly wish for individuality, spontaneity, and creativity.
Yet, the paradox of man's existence is that without conformity, man can not exist in a society, nor can he recognize true genius. Conformity allows for a reference frame within which man may gauge his aptitude, creativity, morality, and individuality. The current Western social milieu, in which all boundaries are demolished, every one considers his opinion (however idiotic) valid, established methods of inquiry is blatantly disregarded in the name of individuality, establishment in every form is vilified regardless of merit, creates a strange atmosphere where the concept of individuality has become social conformity. When opinions of idiots have the same valence as conclusions of geniuses, nothing can be created and even that which was created is destroyed.
Creativity cannot exist without conformist boundaries, free speech cannot function without established lese majeste, and geniuses cannot be recognized without conformist drones.