Individualism vs Unity?

Question

Should we all strive to be individual or united?

Or can we be both?

Answer 1

We can be both.  This is the essence of a democratic republic.

Answer 2

Both - For example the human body is made up of many individual cells that work together in unity to form a being.  Life would be dull if we were all the same, but it would be chaos if we were not at all united.

Answer 3

I think we are what we are. Some people like to be individuals some like to be around people 24/7.  It is important to have a balance of sorts.  There will always be leaders and followers.  Just be who you are, and the world will still go around.

Cheers!

Answer 4

Life must exist as both entities, both entities are intertwined, none is possible without the other. It's like Railway tracks - two tracks running parallel.

Our life is individual, so interactions between families, so life must continue as individual entity. However as a community we must be united if we are too achieve a common goal. So imagine individual entity as one circle, and united entity made up of all the smaller circles into one large one.

Individually we can strive unhindered, even when sometimes we have to rely on other individuals. However if these individual don't form a common bond, a united front it can result in disastrous results. Our national policies are not defined by individual needs but have impact on the whole nation.

Answer 5

We are eternally individual and this cannot be changed. Temporarily mystics can merge into the Brahman effulgence of the Supreme (the white light) but after some time when desires to enjoy again arise in them, they must fall down again into the material world and take a material body. This is the closest to a 'merging' and erasing of individuality this is possible for us. But it is not actual merging and our individuality continues unchanged.

We can work for unity on the material level but this doesn't have any lasting effect since our individuality eventually causes dissension. And thats ok because for the most part there is very little to recommend in the crowd consciousness at this point in time. Better to remain alone and free to rise above the consciousness of the lowest common denominator.

Answer 6

Too much focus on individualism leads to selfishness.  For a society to function well there has to be unity of sorts.  

Retaining individual identity in a group is the best.

Answer 7

"Individual commitment to a group effort - that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work."  - Vince Lombardi

Answer 8

Individualism is where it all starts. No, that's not true. The "question" individualism verse collectivism or unity is where it really starts. Unity, from my perspective, is a metaphysical question. I believe the answer to that question, however, encompasses all three. Unity, if it unifies, will resolve the dicotomey of individualism opposed to collectiveism, so here is my answer to that dicotomey (unity takes care of itself because that's all there is):

Having struggled with this question, first from an individualist perspective and then from a collectivist perspective, I defer to a person more informed then I. For Don Martindale--both are needed. He says:

“The representatives of every society inevitably seek to strike some kind of balance between the latitude or freedom permitted to the individual and the requirements of society. The theoretical limits represented by anarchism and authoritarian absolutism are rarely approached in practice. Furthermore, the line between individual and collective requirements is constantly shifting. In the formative period of a new collectivity considerable scope is usually permitted the individual. Often when a collective is in danger of falling apart in the last attempt to retain control authorities may place a virtual straitjacket of restrictions on the membership. When this fails the result may be revolution or collapse into anarchism.

“There are few decisions more basic made by students of human social life than the comparative importance they assign to the individual and to the collective. Do they take the social system or the individual to be the primary reality? All students of human social life inevitably recognize both. However, it makes significant difference whether one treats individual as the primary reality, considering social life merely as what they do together (elementarism) or whether one sees the social system as a reality sui generis with laws of its own viewing the individuals who compose it as the raw materials from which a society is made. From the time of the origin of the conflict to the present, the tides of battle have surged back and forth between the holists and elementarists.” [Don Martindale, The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory, 1981, p. 605-606]  

Answer 9

As a mortal we are all children of our creator. As a Universe citizen we are all united. We are unique in that we have unchanging personality which we make our own through choosing.

P.52 - §1 Throughout the universe, every unit is regarded as a part of the whole. Survival of the part is dependent on co-operation with the plan and purpose of the whole, the wholehearted desire and perfect willingness to do the Father's divine will. The only evolutionary world without error (the possibility of unwise judgment) would be a world without free intelligence. In the Havona universe there are a billion perfect worlds with their perfect inhabitants, but evolving man must be fallible if he is to be free. Free and inexperienced intelligence cannot possibly at first be uniformly wise. The possibility of mistaken judgment (evil) becomes sin only when the human will consciously endorses and knowingly embraces a deliberate immoral judgment.