Individualism and Judachrislam

[aneeshm]

A question to Judachrislims and others who have grown up in such a society:

How "individualist" is the Judachrislamic tradition?

I define individualism in the two senses of the term that I know:

Western: the ideal of freedom from interference by the community. An individualist society is structured so that coercive interference in an individual's affairs will be minimal.

Indic: the ideal of an individual striving for perfection. (Usually, this takes the form of building up and maintaining a strong body, mind, and character.) An individualist society is structured so that institutions exist to support this process of greater individual achievement.



What is the Judachrislamic position on these two definitions? How do they relate? In general, what's the deal?

 

[Bill3000]

How "individualist" is the Judachrislamic tradition?

Depends on the tradition. You can go from full blown communism to free market capitalism as applied to an individual depending on which tradition you're looking at.

 

[aneeshm]

Well, let me narrow it down a bit.

Judaism: the three main sects which are extant today.
Christianity: Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.
Islam: Shia and Sunni.

These should do for a start.






But I was wondering more about how much primacy it had or could have given the substrate structure common to all three.

 

[Winner]

A question to Judachrislims and others who have grown up in such a society:

How "individualist" is the Judachrislamic tradition?

I define individualism in the two senses of the term that I know:

Western: the ideal of freedom from interference by the community. An individualist society is structured so that coercive interference in an individual's affairs will be minimal.

In other words, people should be free to pursuit happiness, whatever it is. The indic tradition as you've described it (I really doubt that common Indians think about it in the same way you do) is not individualist at all, from the Western point of view, since it implies a common goal, it implies you are supposed to do something (strive to be "better"). Westerners just want to do whatever they want with their freedom.

Indic: the ideal of an individual striving for perfection. (Usually, this takes the form of building up and maintaining a strong body, mind, and character.) An individualist society is structured so that institutions exist to support this process of greater individual achievement.

What is the Judachrislamic position on these two definitions? How do they relate? In general, what's the deal?

I think it's utterly wrong idea to estabilish that the views of the three religions and the cultural tradition stemming from them is similar.

Islam is strongly anti-individualistic religion, as its name ("Submission") implies. Muslims are not expected to be free and live as they want, they're expected to obey the religion 24 hours a day. Islam is also very communitarian.

Christianity is more focused on personal salvation and the means depend on the denomination. Catholicism is arguably the less individualist, most communitarian form of Christianity.

A can't say for Judaism, I don't know enough about its tradition.

 

[DNK]

It depends on the historical period, the place, the specific community, and the specific individual.

It's far from a homogeneous group, even within specific sects. The Catholicism I was taught in high school is probably a far cry from the Catholicism taught in other parts of the world, and even the US, and is probably a far cry from what was being taught 30 or 40 years ago.

I think Christianity, on the whole, has a balance between the community and the individual, and really it's up to the various believers to strike that balance as they see fit.

 

[Mise]

I define individualism in the two senses of the term that I know:

Western: the ideal of freedom from interference by the community. An individualist society is structured so that coercive interference in an individual's affairs will be minimal.

I know this thread isn't about the definition of individualism, but I really don't think that the above is accurate. I don't think it's even necessary for an individualist to live in a non-coercive society. There are PLENTY of individualists in China, despite it lacking basic Western freedoms. But that's not all that's wrong with it...

A better definition would be that an individualist is primarily self-interested and seeks to put their own goals ahead of all others', regardless of consequences to others. An individualist therefore requires coercive interference, in order that they don't screw up other people's lives to their own ends. However, an individualist would not care whether society is restricting its freedoms or not; an individualist would do what's best for them, regardless of what society they find themselves in.

Point being: Individualism has nothing to do with "freedom" (or anarcho-capitalism, or whatever).

Indic: the ideal of an individual striving for perfection. (Usually, this takes the form of building up and maintaining a strong body, mind, and character.) An individualist society is structured so that institutions exist to support this process of greater individual achievement.

I would rather be this kind of individualist than the "Western" individualist

 

[Elrohir]

A question to Judachrislims and others who have grown up in such a society:

How "individualist" is the Judachrislamic tradition?

I define individualism in the two senses of the term that I know:

Western: the ideal of freedom from interference by the community. An individualist society is structured so that coercive interference in an individual's affairs will be minimal.

Indic: the ideal of an individual striving for perfection. (Usually, this takes the form of building up and maintaining a strong body, mind, and character.) An individualist society is structured so that institutions exist to support this process of greater individual achievement.



What is the Judachrislamic position on these two definitions? How do they relate? In general, what's the deal?

As a fairly conservative psuedo-Protestant American Christian () I say, of course, that it depends. Not just on sect - Roman Catholic, Orthodox, various Protestant groups - but on time, place, and even individual churches. Christianity is a very diverse religion. (Perhaps not as diverse as Hinduism, but diverse nonetheless) Even within any one particular denomination, there's a wide variety of doctrine and beliefs that are held. I can try to come up with a general statement for you, though, so here goes:

I'd say Christianity strikes a middle path between the individual, and the community. It's quite clear that Christ came and died for the individual. It's clearly stated many places that God cares for every one of us individually, and not just as a member of a greater whole. (See Matthew 10: 29-31) I can only speak for myself, but I see theme, running through Scripture, of strong individualism - a man's choice being so important, a man's rights sanctity, a man's value in and of himself. However - the central tenet of Christianity is about Jesus Christ, who came and died for us. Christ sacrificed himself, his own individual body, for the greater mass of humanity. Christians are called to spread the word to all peoples of the Earth, and to serve God and the Christian Church - and if necessary, die for Christ. So while there are strong elements of individualism, of the value of the individual, I would say that Christianity also teaches of the virtue of self-sacrifice, and of love for our communities, nations, and species, in addition to our friends and family. (See John 15: 12-13)

In short, I'd say that it teaches the both the freedom and dignity of the individual, but the virtue and value of serving the greater good, as well.

That help at all?

 

[GinandTonic]

Well the proddies split from the catholics on the basis of their wanting the individual to be able to read the bible and to have services in the local language, so clearly it is more individualist - indeed the fuss over wether the individual can talk with god or if that is only possible via the priest/ church. The thing is this individualism is based on opposing institutionalism not collectivism in it's wider sense.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Quick answer: I'm Sunni, and you can justify just about anything as a Sunni. It's not as freewheeling as Hinduism (which, a good friend told me, is fully-customizable), but anyone can believe almost anything in Sunni Islam, so long as it accepts the Qur'an as the Word of God.

 

[jessiecat]

Quick answer: I'm Sunni, and you can justify just about anything as a Sunni. It's not as freewheeling as Hinduism (which, a good friend told me, is fully-customizable), but anyone can believe almost anything in Sunni Islam, so long as it accepts the Qur'an as the Word of God.

A close friend of mine in London is a very secular Hindu. When his new baby was born he went to the temple to consult a priest over choosing a name for him. He was shown a a glossy brochure with over 800 gods names to choose from. But the priest told him that whichever god he chose,
" If it doesn't bring him luck or success in life he can always choose another one to worship".

 

[Gooblah]

hehehe. Yes, Hinduism is geared to be fully customizable. As long as you understand the basic values of life, and the entire karma theory, Brahman concept, etc, you're good to go. the entire point of early Hindu polytheism was to:
a) merge Hinduism with local culture, and
b) allow each person to worship Brahman in his/her own way.

Christianity: Well, it depends. With so many different denominations, the individual can select the way he wants to interpret the Bible. On the flip side, community based on church is heavily emphasized; a lot of your friends are probably (at least in my town) part of the same church. Not to say there's conflict...there's very little, and disagreements tend to be simple things (the exception being the whole Episcopalian/Anglican split going on right now).

Islam: This I don't know too much about. The mosque, to me, seems similar to the church in terms of community over individual, and since there are only a few main branches of Islam to follow, with both pretty (AFAIK) similar to one another, there aren't many 'options' for the individual.

Judaism: Liberal v Orthodox v Reform. I think Judaism is the least community based out of the three. The few Jews I know don't really have a synagogue affiliation...it's just "oh, I had better go to synagogue today...which one should i go to?". While there's a sense of Jewish pride and identity, it manifests itself in a myriad of ways..from ultra-Zionists to ultra-liberals.

 

[jessiecat]

hehehe. Yes, Hinduism is geared to be fully customizable. As long as you understand the basic values of life, and the entire karma theory, Brahman concept, etc, you're good to go. the entire point of early Hindu polytheism was to:
a) merge Hinduism with local culture, and
b) allow each person to worship Brahman in his/her own way.

Christianity: Well, it depends. With so many different denominations, the individual can select the way he wants to interpret the Bible. On the flip side, community based on church is heavily emphasized; a lot of your friends are probably (at least in my town) part of the same church. Not to say there's conflict...there's very little, and disagreements tend to be simple things (the exception being the whole Episcopalian/Anglican split going on right now).

Islam: This I don't know too much about. The mosque, to me, seems similar to the church in terms of community over individual, and since there are only a few main branches of Islam to follow, with both pretty (AFAIK) similar to one another, there aren't many 'options' for the individual.

Judaism: Liberal v Orthodox v Reform. I think Judaism is the least community based out of the three. The few Jews I know don't really have a synagogue affiliation...it's just "oh, I had better go to synagogue today...which one should i go to?". While there's a sense of Jewish pride and identity, it manifests itself in a myriad of ways..from ultra-Zionists to ultra-liberals.

From what Ive learned from Muslim friends and colleagues, Islam probably is less heirarchical as
there is no church in a Western sense and no priests either. A mosque is any place dedicated to
God where you are inspired to have a one-to-one with God in prayer and meditation. It doesn't
have to be some grand building. It could be just your own home.
The iman is literally a teacher and not a priest in that his role is to teach and interpret sripture
for you. He may preach a sermon but he is always open to questions and discusion.
These debates can get pretty vigrous at times, I've been told.
While Islamic faith is very individual and self-examining (the true meaning of "jihad") it has
a community dimension, not just your local community but more about the world community
of the faithful ("Ummah") which transcends racial or political boundaries. In that it is more like
Judaism than Christianity, IMHO.

 

[Princeps]

I don't care what forms of individualism some superstitious cults support.

Most individualistic ideologies are solipsitic and delusional because they're based on the illusion that rights stem from individuality or "individual soverignity", which they obviously do not.

 

[Arwon]

I suppose the Sufis are a pretty individualistic branch of Islam.

 

[jessiecat]

I suppose the Sufis are a pretty individualistic branch of Islam.

I think you're right about Sufis esp. in the self-enquiring, seeking enlightenment sense, a lot like Buddhism I guess. Which furthers the discussion along I think, in an academic sense.

Unlike the previous poster whose dismissive flippancy only proves that he has a real problem distinguishing advocacy of a phenomena from a dispassionate discussion of it.

 

[GinandTonic]

I suppose the Sufis are a pretty individualistic branch of Islam.

I think you're right about Sufis esp. in the self-enquiring, seeking enlightenment sense, a lot like Buddhism I guess. Which furthers the discussion along I think, in an academic sense.

Unlike the previous poster whose dismissive flippancy only proves that he has a real problem distinguishing advocacy of a phenomena from a dispassionate discussion of it.

Radio 4 Beyond Belief did a show today on Sufism which put it as a lot closer to Hinduism than most other branches of monotheism. Sadly I was rewiring the mains and so rather preocupied with not being electrocuted or starting a fire or whatever.

 

[GoodGame]

Well for one that is a loaded question. Strictly speaking Judachrislim is probably a neologism that will never pick up. In the west, Judeao-christian is usually a catch-all phrase for '10 commandments' and religious tolerance, with the boundaries of the 'old testament god'. Neither really have anything to do with the Indic values (And incidently your description of 'Indic' seems like the Greco-Roman renaissance type values that survive in the west as Humanist / Collegiate values, and aren't automatically at odds with Judea-christian values). The traditional values of political freedom and independence in the west are really reactionary, anti-absolutist (monarchy), and while probably flavored by 'deist' beliefs pulled out of Judeao-christian believes and early, they really don't fit the Judeao-christian believe system tightly (which is probably just at home in feudalism).

Strictly speaking, modern western society is a mish-mash of several value systems. If you really want to try to grasp a 'judchrislamic' tradition, I'd suggest by reading the Old Testament and focusing on the Abrahamic law, which is really the common denominator there.
I'd say in general, Abrahamic traditions are more about dedication to god and god's law, and generally avoid both worshiping freedom and humanist goals. Edit: with greater liberalism in that under a Christian messiah, with regards to the form of religious worship.

A question to Judachrislims and others who have grown up in such a society:

How "individualist" is the Judachrislamic tradition?

I define individualism in the two senses of the term that I know:

Western: the ideal of freedom from interference by the community. An individualist society is structured so that coercive interference in an individual's affairs will be minimal.

Indic: the ideal of an individual striving for perfection. (Usually, this takes the form of building up and maintaining a strong body, mind, and character.) An individualist society is structured so that institutions exist to support this process of greater individual achievement.



What is the Judachrislamic position on these two definitions? How do they relate? In general, what's the deal?

 

[innonimatu]

I think it's utterly wrong idea to estabilish that the views of the three religions and the cultural tradition stemming from them is similar.

Islam is strongly anti-individualistic religion, as its name ("Submission") implies. Muslims are not expected to be free and live as they want, they're expected to obey the religion 24 hours a day. Islam is also very communitarian.

Christianity is more focused on personal salvation and the means depend on the denomination. Catholicism is arguably the less individualist, most communitarian form of Christianity.

A can't say for Judaism, I don't know enough about its tradition.

Nope, wrong again.

All of the salvation religions (judaism, christianism, islamism, and also, in their own fashion, buddhism, hinduism) share three common traits:
1) They all (obviously) propose that a "salvation" can be achieved by following a correct code of conduct (it's not just islamism...).
2) They all promote the idea of a direct relation between the worshiper and the divine - the shamans or the priestly caste that controlled the cult of more ancient religion loses power, becomes just an aide, no longer the sole link between man and the divine (think ancient Egypt). This was a gradual transition, already visible in the greek cults, for example. Perhaps somewhat incomplete among some Hindu sects.
3) They all introduce the idea of the believer as part of a wider community that includes all believers, or even all of mankind. The jewish kahal, the christian ecclesia and the islamic ummah were single idea, rehashed throughout the centuries. The idea of universal unity preset within buddhism is another form of this same communitarian idea, underneath an individualistic appearance.

Or at least this is my opinion. Perhaps our theologian will bother to post a more informed view here, through I fear the weird word in the thread title may put him off.

Western: the ideal of freedom from interference by the community. An individualist society is structured so that coercive interference in an individual's affairs will be minimal.

Indic: the ideal of an individual striving for perfection. (Usually, this takes the form of building up and maintaining a strong body, mind, and character.) An individualist society is structured so that institutions exist to support this process of greater individual achievement.

That issue has a long history of debate in the west between roughly the two views you propose as "western" and "indic", and which Isaiah Berlin would put as "negative freedom" and "positive freedom". FYI positive freedom (your "indic" one) is the one embraced by the "leftists".

 

[GoodGame]

Innonimatu, you make some good points, but I have to agree with Winner overall here.

 

[GinandTonic]

2) They all promote the idea of a direct relation between the worshiper and the divine - the shamans or the priestly caste that controlled the cult of more ancient religion loses power, becomes just an aide, no longer the sole link between man and the divine (think ancient Egypt). This was a gradual transition, already visible in the greek cults, for example. Perhaps somewhat incomplete among some Hindu sects.

The Catholics had a number of wars specifically against the idea of a personal relationship with the devine. The devine being specifically the preserve of the priests which the laity had no access to. Toned it down a lot these days though.