Individual and Society

The traditional definition of 'individual', ='distinct from others', inscribes in the 'individual' an antagonism to any collective interest that entails unity and order. Thus, for example, this 'individual' experiences 'Morality' as an imposition. Given this defintion, the abyss between personal and collective interests is probably best demonstrated by the recourse some 'individualists' have to an 'invisible hand' to bridge that abyss, a recourse which, unbeknownst to most of them, would not be endorsed by Adam Smith, for whom social cohesion is created by Sympathy. Others have proposed that sociality is prudent for the 'individual', but classifying the former as a 'necessary evil' only underscores its burdensomeness to the latter. And, some neo-Darwinians have changed tack in trying to reconcile the two sets of interests, by deriving the survival of a species from the fitness of its strongest members. But, this proposed bridge over the abyss has been proven to be as specious as the 'invisible hand', as the destructiveness of the collective by tyrants has repeatedly shown. In contrast, the etymologically accurate notion of 'Individual', ='undivided', entails no such sociopathy. To the contrary, internal coherence is a moment in both Propriation and Exposition: termination and initiation, respectively. And, since Exposition is the gregarious Principle of the Individual, the interests of the latter are not systematically antagonistic to those of the collective.