I am a thinker of all thoughts. There is nothing I believe that no one else agrees with; but my ways of thinking on anything I know anything about are so unusual that it is difficult to find people in daily life who agree with me.
I am at once an atheist, a humanist and a naturalist. I have been a libertarian, a capitalist and an anarchist, but the more I read, the more I realise that, while the societies libertarians, capitalist and anarchists envision are interesting, they may not be the best for humankind. I would call myself a liberal if the word still meant anything, but it is used for so many unrelated ideas that it is meaningless. To me, liberalism means a system that supports individual freedom. I think freedom is a universal value because it is the best way everyone can choose the ways of life they want. It is possible to want to deny others of freedom but it is not possible to want to deny yourself of all freedom.
I am an extreme individualist, a passionate interculturalist and a cultural relativist. However, I prefer to eschew traditional political science lenses such as “realism” because I am not trying to explain everything from one angle so much as understand with as much accuracy as possible. I am a critical thinker, always questioning my beliefs. I see nuance where others do not. I seek the truth and cannot bear avoiding it, even though the truth often does not lead to happiness. I love arguing with people because it is a good way to advance my point of view, but also because I learn others’ views. I am intensely curious, loving seeking out new perspectives and incorporating them into my worldview. I love open minded people and despise the closed minded. All these traits leave me in continual conflict with others. And I love it.
July 4, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Your individualism is in tension with your cultural relativism. On the one hand, you want to assert that there is no human nature, everything is relative to cultures…and yet, in your analysis of political struggles you apply an individualistic ethic as if it were a universal (as opposed to being culturally conditioned).
Which is it? Is there a universal human nature which underpins your belief in individualism? Or is your appeal to “individualism” in analyzing struggles simply another example of cultural imperialism, of you projecting your culture onto others?
July 4, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I have not said there is no human nature for three years. I am an individualist because it is ideal, but I also believe that it is not right for me to say how cultures should change. I believe in individualism because of the terrible damage collectivism causes.
Nevertheless, you are right that there is tension between those beliefs. I do not want to stake out an advanced ideology and analyse everything through it when I could see things from multiple perspectives.