2008 Woodie Awards
Even nonconformists must join individualism club
Brittani Wray
Issue date: 11/30/06 Section: Opinion
Individualism does not exist. I don't care what you say, in the end there always is someone who thinks the way you do.
Yes, personalities are like fingerprints, as in that none are exactly the same, but each has a similar look (like a bulls eye or a loop).
Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, both transcendentalists (which, according to wikipedia.com, means they believe there is an ideal spiritual state that "transcends" the physical and empirical and is realized only through the individual's intuition rather than through the doctrines of established religions) ranted and raved in their lifetimes through works of literature about how a person truly can be a person once they discover their own individual and steer clear of the ways of the crowd.
That is fine with me. I do not care if you dance to the beat of your own drummer, so long as you remember that you're not the only one dancing.
In a sense, yes, we all are individuals, but whether or not we like it, we all conform to something. We're all human, and we all experience the same emotions.
Between anger and depression, joy and angst, fear and loneliness, people are people. We can't consider ourselves to be totally different from our neighbors. It just isn't true.
There is no such thing as a true individual no matter how hard you work to achieve that.
Even if you did manage to alter yourself so dramatically as to become a complete individual, you've conformed to the idea of individualism, just like that guy over there with his pants on backwards and a tie looped around his head.
Why do so many people try so hard to stick out, to be different from everyone else?
The way I see it, we all need companionship, and if your views are so radically different from everyone else's, there's no way you ever could agree with someone long enough to establish a bond.
Individualism equals death. Why not embrace your neighbor, bond closely and work together as a unit to better humanity? That makes more sense to me.
In defense of Thoreau (I respect both men as brilliant authors even if I don't agree with their beliefs), he does make a valid point about being self-reliant.
While I don't believe people can thrive without the companionship of a like-minded friend, I do believe people should learn to depend on themselves for their needs.
You can't rely on someone else your entire life. Whether you're fortunate enough to have the means of being dependent on someone else, everyone should be equipped with the knowledge and experience required to be totally independent.
I don't mean by growing your own food and cultivating it or foraging for water in the wilderness, as Thoreau did on Walden Pond, but instead just having the basic life skills it would take to support yourself.
Generally, people aren't that dependable, and you never know when the person you trust with your livelihood might dump you out on your own to fend for yourself.
Yes, personalities are like fingerprints, as in that none are exactly the same, but each has a similar look (like a bulls eye or a loop).
Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, both transcendentalists (which, according to wikipedia.com, means they believe there is an ideal spiritual state that "transcends" the physical and empirical and is realized only through the individual's intuition rather than through the doctrines of established religions) ranted and raved in their lifetimes through works of literature about how a person truly can be a person once they discover their own individual and steer clear of the ways of the crowd.
That is fine with me. I do not care if you dance to the beat of your own drummer, so long as you remember that you're not the only one dancing.
In a sense, yes, we all are individuals, but whether or not we like it, we all conform to something. We're all human, and we all experience the same emotions.
Between anger and depression, joy and angst, fear and loneliness, people are people. We can't consider ourselves to be totally different from our neighbors. It just isn't true.
There is no such thing as a true individual no matter how hard you work to achieve that.
Even if you did manage to alter yourself so dramatically as to become a complete individual, you've conformed to the idea of individualism, just like that guy over there with his pants on backwards and a tie looped around his head.
Why do so many people try so hard to stick out, to be different from everyone else?
The way I see it, we all need companionship, and if your views are so radically different from everyone else's, there's no way you ever could agree with someone long enough to establish a bond.
Individualism equals death. Why not embrace your neighbor, bond closely and work together as a unit to better humanity? That makes more sense to me.
In defense of Thoreau (I respect both men as brilliant authors even if I don't agree with their beliefs), he does make a valid point about being self-reliant.
While I don't believe people can thrive without the companionship of a like-minded friend, I do believe people should learn to depend on themselves for their needs.
You can't rely on someone else your entire life. Whether you're fortunate enough to have the means of being dependent on someone else, everyone should be equipped with the knowledge and experience required to be totally independent.
I don't mean by growing your own food and cultivating it or foraging for water in the wilderness, as Thoreau did on Walden Pond, but instead just having the basic life skills it would take to support yourself.
Generally, people aren't that dependable, and you never know when the person you trust with your livelihood might dump you out on your own to fend for yourself.
Be the first to comment on this story