From Athenian Ideals to Viennese Thought:

Individualism and civil liberties discussed throughout various

movements of political and social philosophy.

An evolutionary review of selected theories favouring and opposing libertarianism and individualism.

Prepared By:

Mathias Royce [ID3915] Doctoral Candidate in Political Economy Swiss Management Center University

Prepared For:

Prof. Dr. Hardy Bouillon Swiss Management Center University

April 18

th, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Early Theories on Individualism ............................................................................................................................ 5

The Socratic Belief in the Athenian State ...................................................................................................... 5

British Classical Thoughts on Individualism and Liberty ............................................................................ 6

Individualism according to Hobbes and Locke ........................................................................................... 6

The Classical German Philosophers ..................................................................................................................... 7

The Views of Kant, Humboldt and Schopenhauer on Individualism ................................................. 7

19th Century Utilitarian Aspects on Civil Liberties ...................................................................................... 10

John Stuart Mill – On Liberty ........................................................................................................................... 10

Weimar Classicism: The Initiation on Existentialism ................................................................................ 11

Nietzsche, Freud, Kierkegaard and Stirner on Existentialism ........................................................... 11

The French Philosophers of the Modern Era ................................................................................................. 16

Camus, Sartre, de Beauvoir – The Ethical Debates ................................................................................. 16

The Socialistic-Communistic View ..................................................................................................................... 18

Marx and Engels, Luxemburg, Adorno, Lenin and Mao – Moderation to Extremism ............... 18

The Influences of the Austrian (Viennese) School ...................................................................................... 23

Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter, Wittgenstein and Popper – Neo-Classical Views ............................. 23

INTRODUCTION

One of the first and foremost topics within the field of humanitarian sciences encompasses

the metaphysical realms of the human condition. A subject so vast, yet precise enough to

pinpoint the network of interactions that makes us – humans, behave like humans. In essence,

it is the holistic understanding of the interwoven particularities that embody knowledge about

humans and their manifold ways of interacting amongst each other, or simply just reacting to

challenges that arise in day-to-day situations. In recent as well as contemporary history,

[political] philosophers have generally become acquainted with the idea of accepting the use

of the many ways of the human condition to explain common phenomena. For instance,

Nobel laureate F. A. von Hayek’s conclusions outlined in his acclaimed writings “The

Sensory Order (Hayek, 1952)”, where he concludes upon the dependence of mind and body

in pre-cognitive sciences – an experience that forms part of the human condition, which von

Hayek gathered in ontological studies. This is now widely regarded as a fundamental

challenge in Descartes’s belief in the independence of the mind over the body. In exploring

this further, and in believing a renowned source of definitional truth – the Encyclopædia

Britannica, the human condition would also be influenced by individualism, since

individualism – at least in the sense of political and social philosophy, entails to some large

degree the “moral worth of the individual (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010)”, hence, some

expression of one’s personality or one’s character that seems to be pre-occupied with

fostering one’s sense of self-interest. Within the context of the human condition,

individualism thus is seen as the phenomenon that exploits predominantly arrays of various

interactions on the cognitive level of the human society. These interactions occur between

men under the preamble of developing one’s own interest prior to the deferred and

subordinated communal interests of society. This treatise aims to deliver a review of selected

historical, neo-classical, and modern-contemporary views on theories surrounding

individualism in the field of political philosophy. The aim, by no means, was not to deliver a

complete reference work of all theories, expressions and manifestations of libertarianism

plausible and known to the field of humanitarian science – due to the sheer vastness of

information available this would most likely result in a rather fateful attempt under the

constraints of this assignment, but to deliver an overview of – in the author’s own opinion,

most important notions of this subject matter.

EARLY THEORIES ON INDIVIDUALISM

THE SOCRATIC BELIEF IN THE ATHENIAN STATE

Before I start, I will make an assumption that I uphold but which is at everyone’s liberty to

refute: individualism and knowledge are inherently intertwined. The foundation of any form

of pursuit of individualism must lie in knowledge – or to be more precise, in the various and

diverse ways of attaining knowledge. Individualism, after all, is the activity of maximising

one’s personal experience and self-interest. Experience as such can then only be considered

as being knowledge about past events that increase self-utility. Knowledge then becomes a

requirement within the realm of all things encompassing desired self-fulfillment. Self-

fulfillment can take on various forms and can be associated with different means to different

ends, depending on one’s personal viewpoint, but perhaps – just to illustrate this with more

clarity, my next-door neighbour’s desire to experience the pleasure of eating home-grown

organic fruit and vegetables correlates in all likelihood with the requirement of him acquiring

knowledge about at least the basic principles of plant-farming. So, within this scenario, we

establish a dependency between one’s desire to be individualistic – or express individualism,

and the need of knowledge that is required to fulfill this desire, keeping in mind, that it

remains an explicit desire and not only a means of self-preservation. In consequence this

means, that my neighbour starts farming vegetables because he unequivocally sees a pursuit

in individualism in doing so and not because organic plant-farming has been coerced upon

him, due to him, for instance, living in a remote area where these kind of fruits and

vegetables are hard to come by or because of a general food-shortage for that matter. Under

the Socratic philosophical belief system, virtue is knowledge and virtue is also happiness – as

such these beliefs have found grounds in factual, philosophical discussions that revisit the

underlying constructs of Socrates’s philosophical framework, e.g. (Santas, 1964). Does the

argumentum e contrario then hold true, that individualism achieves virtue and finally

happiness through applied attainment of knowledge, and as such, the spirit of Socrates’s

philosophy should be seen as being in support of pro-individualism? The answer to this is in

my opinion self-explanatory, considering – and I shall underline, that Socrates not only

stood-up for what were his opposing beliefs, but he ultimately died for the cause of

denouncing and criticising for what were then the beliefs of the Athenian society. His refusal

to leave town, but to stand by his principles of self-love and self-interest – the core values of

individualism, turned out to mark his fate.

BRITISH CLASSICAL THOUGHTS ON INDIVIDUALISM AND LIBERTY

INDIVIDUALISM ACCORDING TO HOBBES AND LOCKE

At the forefront of Hobbesian thought, the antecedent idea of natural equality and liberty of

all individuals is positioned. Antecedent, because it serves as the deep-seated, primary and

original belief that man – according to Locke, “is free in the state of nature” (Locke, 1764).

Hobbesian thought sees the need for the installation of a guardian of civil peace – a

sovereign, to which its subjects will subscribe in order to seek protection from amongst them

on disputes over proprietary rights and titles (Hobbes, 1651). Under this premise, Hobbes

continues his views on liberty and explains that man’s individualism and liberty of freedom

would remain unaffected as such by the rulings of a sovereign leader, for domains in which

no unambiguous and explicit legislation has been passed by the sovereign. To all intents and

purposes, Hobbes articulates henceforth that the only restriction of man’s civil liberties would

thus only be of prevalence in the realm that concerns the safeguarding of man’s claims to

individual property. Locke, on the contrary is a staunchly defender of what C. B. Macpherson

justly classifies as “possessive individualism” (Macpherson, 1962). Under Locke, freedom of

man corresponds remarkably with attributes that are known to be present in individualism

and in civil liberty. These attributes that ultimately conclude in the freedom of man are not

tampered with, by the sovereign powers of a ruler – not even on the grounds where the

protection of individual property is concerned, since it is seen as unjustifiable that one man

shall be a subordinate or a subject to another. Endowments of each individual, such as talents,

skill or abilities – acquired through celestial decree and donation and regardless of their form

or appearance pertain to this individual only, and not to any other sovereign entity, regardless

of how this entity may materialise in society. Consequently, behind Locke’s theory of

individualism must lay a framework that is based upon exclusive, mutual trust when it comes

to safeguarding the individual’s right to property. Locke rallies the individual’s responsibility

to rationalism as a support for his theory, under which property remains protected by

rationally acting men constrained by the law of nature. By focusing on the roles and

responsibilities of the individual in a society in the state of nature, Locke’s theory remains a

landmark and also the most fundamental and original starting point for political and social

examination of individualism and civil liberty in society.

THE CLASSICAL GERMAN PHILOSOPHERS

THE VIEWS OF KANT, HUMBOLDT AND SCHOPENHAUER ON INDIVIDUALISM

Immanuel Kant’s philosophy on the individual and the importance of autonomy of freedom

are reflected in his written works. Himself taking a considerable amount of influence from

the writings of Locke, he claims that freedom is obligatory and hence indispensable for an

individual to become and remain a person (Kant, 1785). Only in doing so he is able to

contrast that the “state of being free is the state of giving law to oneself”. Fundamental of his

thought is the underlying connotation of treating persons as ends, rather than means (Otteson,

2009), which embodies the Kantian spirit of being free of submission to a ruler and free to

choose whether to enter into contracts or not, based on the person’s own rational decision,

rather than by coercion or through the means of force. Kant’s theory stresses that a feature of

commonality in his logic is dignity – a virtue that is attributed by means of obligation to an

individual person. Rationality and autonomy – the main constituents of Kantian

individualism, relate to a person and this fact would allow for a conclusion, that individual

persons naturally would demand respect and dignity, due to their nature being based on these

aforementioned constituents. Lastly, the use of a person against his or her own will (in the

sense of using the person as a mean, only in the simple way) in order to achieve another

person’s end is considered non-moral by Kant, as it forces the person to adopt another

person’s aphorism or tenet through the introduction of heteronomy into the his or her will.

This brings to light a violation of the dignity of the person and infringes the underlying moral

code on which Kant's theories are based upon. All of the aforesaid facts are examples that

relate to and substantiate Kantian individualism.

For Wilhelm von Humboldt, individualism was a necessity for societal development and

advancement of future generations to come. In his theory, nevertheless, Humboldt saw solely

education as the underlying source that could be held accountable for aspects of superiority

and distinction of aforementioned development. Hence, in his philosophy, individualism was

just a means to an end. A method – that if employed, would lead society to a higher and

considerably more distinct level of human development. Such “aesthetic individualism” – or

the worshipping ‘cult of geniuses’ as it is sometimes referred to, is the basic belief system on

which Humboldt’s doctrinal framework is based upon (Spranger, New Series, Vol. 18, No. 71

(1909)). With this in mind, drawing-up a comparison that this conviction of his and credence

or faith in education has indeed Socratic roots is not a comparison as such, I deem to be far-

fetched – being Socrates the one philosopher in ancient times, which considered knowledge

being the virtue of it all. Humboldt’s philosophy consequently should then be regarded as

true epistemological, in the rather abstract sense of not investigating the nature of knowledge,

but employing knowledge as a means to attain an end – to the point, where “the individual is

not only entitled, but also obliged, to play his part in shaping the world around him

(UNESCO, vol. XXIII, no. 3/4, 1993)”.

Schopenhauer’s principles – such as exaggerated struggle, lack of fulfillment and suffering

are entrenched and ubiquitous disharmonies that are present in nature. Society – in an

attempted form of comprehension of these phenomena, represents these observable facts

through the ulterior human desire of will-to-life in its most significant extent (Palante, 1909).

Schopenhauer – for what he certainly should be remembered upon, amongst his other

ideologies, is his view on and his understanding of nationalism as an abandonment of

personal identity ( (Schopenhauer & Saunders, 2009), (McKim & McMahan, 1997)). This

value of personal identity is an inherent trait and quality of Schopenhauer’s arrangements of

beliefs: humans, on the road to personal attainment express desires. These desires fall within

the will of an individual and can be considered as individualistic experiences and expressions.

This desired, humanistic attainment although is not free of holistic detriments.

Schopenhauer’s claims state that the will of individualistic expression is based on personal

motivation and this motivational desire is the origin and foundation of aforementioned

principles of disharmony. Struggle and pain are identified as such principles and are driven

by society in attainment of individualistic desire and will-to-life to the highest degree. In

epistemological terms – with reference to the deeper-rooted pre-cognitive science,

Schopenhauer’s aphorism firmly believes in the “Noumenon”: the theory of the thing itself

and the absence of phenomena, (Grier, 2007) it [the thing itself], being independent of its

senses and clearly advocates for the Kantian view of the distinction between the phenomenon

and the thing itself, where a mediating intellect is in between cognitive knowledge and things.

In my opinion, sensory independence is an intrinsic trait of individualism, which

Schopenhauer evidently manifests in his aphorism.

19TH CENTURY UTILITARIAN ASPECTS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES

JOHN STUART MILL – ON LIBERTY

Albeit Mill based his views on utilitarianism largely on Bentham’s position, that the outcome

of utilitarianism must result in maximisation of the overall good – including one’s own, Mill,

by and large, held a couple of opinions about the hedonistic calculus that aims to deliver the

greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people. Mill opposed Bentham’s opinion

on hedonism as being too egalitarian in the sense that complex pleasures would not achieve a

higher scoring in the hedonistic calculus as one would presume, when these are being

compared with more simplistic pleasures and to second that, the absence of qualitative

pleasures in Bentham’s hedonistic framework that would leave the question open, if pleasure

experienced by animals for instance, could be regarded as equal to the pleasure experienced

by humans. The latter would forcefully result in regarding animals’ moral sentiments and

feelings as no different to the moral sentiments and feelings experienced by others ( (Driver,

2007), (Mill, On Liberty, 1859)). The utilitarian view on freedom and civil liberties, hence, is

an understanding of hedonism in the individualistic sense: governments should not interfere

with the pleasures of individuals, since it is liberty’s foremost preoccupation to fend-off any

advances of authoritarianism and defend the social and civil liberties, “which are the nature

and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual

(Mill, On Liberty, 1859)”. Mill considers the individual within society as sovereign – as far

as this sovereignty is concerned, Mill opposes government intervention to the strictest of all

possibilities: then, and only then when the stake of society is endangered, shall man be

governed. Otherwise, man’s rule upon himself is absolute, self-arbitrary and it shall remain

that “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign (Mill, The

Contest in America, 1862)”. Sovereignty, hence, is a fundamental, built-in attribute of

individualism, since only the individual – a person, that is distinct from other persons in

among motivation, aims and requirements, can achieve his desired or intended purpose

through the form of self-government. These are elements and characteristics of individualistic

independence and are tied to the individual person’s pursuit of utilitarian happiness.

WEIMAR CLASSICISM: THE INITIATION ON EXISTENTIALISM

NIETZSCHE, FREUD, KIERKEGAARD AND STIRNER ON EXISTENTIALISM

The period associated with Weimar classicism bears a strong impact on humanitarian aspects

and virtues of philosophy around the late 18th century in Europe. Goethe and Schiller,

amongst other philosophers, are both widely understood to be the forbearers of a then cultural

revolution, that both held equal shares in being responsible for stirring-up the arts and

literature of that era to an extent which is even nowadays still perceptible. Elements of

Weimar classicism include the opposing characters of its nature towards the then omnipresent

and heavily used Germanic romanticism. This disparate, competing and rather novel style

that was brought-upon the arts and literature was then regarded as out of the ordinary from

the contemporary style of aforesaid romanticism. It is, nevertheless, not so much of greater

importance for this digression what this particular period has brought-forward in terms of

thoughts, beliefs and principles concerning the freedom of man in society and individualism,

as what philosophers of the late 19th and early 20th century have contributed in allowance and

in provision of the Weimar classicism, and the debate of existentialism that is supposedly

anchored in one’s personal individualistic self.

Existentialism, according to Macquarie (Macquarie, 1972), maintains that the “focus of

philosophical thought should be to deal with the conditions of existence of the individual

person and their emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts.” Within this somewhat

broad definition, the rise and importance of Schumpetarian methodological individualism can

easily be determined. Individualism as such that would foresee the spectrum of decisions

aggregated by an individual for the sole purpose alone, to be of use in explaining societal

events and changes. Apart from having been the source of the emergence of Schumpetarian

logic when it comes to explaining methodological individualism, existentialism per se, sees

the individual as uniquely responsible for fulfillment of one’s own attributes of quality of life

– these attributes include meaning in the sense of leading perhaps a non-meandering life,

which aims to direct all efforts towards attainment of one’s desires and one’s passions,

regardless of any impediments or hindrances that may lie ahead in the future and

subsequently will have to be overcome to achieve realisation. To a significant degree,

existentialism reflects in a non-negligible and important declaration the affirmation of man’s

civil and social liberties in the context of personal individuality.

Kierkegaard, under the nom de plume of Johannes de Silentio, at the forefront outlined in

‘Fear and Trembling’ the stark contrast between the ‘knight of faith’, ‘the knight of infinite

resignation’ and the ‘slave of aestheticism’. He concludes that paradoxically, the knight of

faith is the one being that is able to fully adopt and accept life that is free of pretentions or

connections (Silentio, 1985). Kierkegaard draws his conclusions further and emphasizes the

critical difference between infinity and faith, where he explains individualistic behaviour

spiritually bound to and guarded by resignation would forfeit the individual’s belief of

accomplishment in this world infinitely. The same logical reasoning applies, according to

Kierkegaard’s, on the causal dependence between the aesthetic slave and the knight of faith:

the former would find itself in a state of abandoning his intentions of accomplishment out of

a multitude of reasons – foolishness, e.g. seeing oneself as a fool for wanting to attain such

accomplishment in the first place, as a matter of fact, can be considered amongst these

reasons. Kierkegaard’s paradoxical knight of faith must as a consequence, believe in the

illogical-bizarre – the absurd, e.g. any person’s individuality must materialise in the belief in

something that is impossible to be attained by any human being, in order to uphold his faith

of believing to attain this exact same end that is a priori unattainable. One of the most

important points of Kierkegaard’s suppositions is, that man is free in liberty to choose,

whether he’s an aesthetic slave, a knight of infinite resignation or a knight of faith and by

selecting either role, man expresses his own will to do so.

Nietzsche took another independent yet nonetheless largely similar approach on explaining

existentialism through individualism. His knight of faith is the ‘Übermensch’ (Nietzsche,

1974) – a philosophical concept that sees the struggle of mankind and the entire human race

to essentially overcome man itself. In Zarathustra’s prologue, Zarathustra the central

character and protagonist proclaims: “I love those who do not first seek beyond the stars for

reasons to go down and to be sacrifices: but who sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the

earth may one day belong to the Übermensch.” Zarathustra, hence Nietzsche, sees the

Übermensch as an attainable objective for all mankind. Some higher, ulterior end the human

race aspires to become, by giving meaning to humanity through societal advancement of the

individual existence of a person. An individual’s ontological raison d'être

[Daseinsberechtigung] is thus cultivated in the individualistic efforts of persons giving utility

to society through the applied use of this utility which leads to a form of constant

advancement.

Freud, like Nietzsche, considered amongst his scholars as an avid follower of Weimar

classicism and as such does not provide to be an exception when it comes to having his own

views on the debate around individualism. Like many philosophers before him, Freud sees

the individual to a varying degree as the nucleus of all human social interactions, in so much

so, that he sees any form of expressed individualism – or rather the actions that have sprung

out of individuality, as being a totem relative to a cult and in doing so the scope and spectrum

of these actions concerning one’s-self turn into societal fetishes, driven by the culture that

surrounds each individual and its actions. A Freudian fear of neglecting complex, underlying

processes that represent the patterns, arrangements and inherent configurations of individual

social interaction manifests: seemingly, the trade-off between socio-cultural interaction and

the costs associated with understanding individualistic action seems to be unbalanced and

each of the both aforementioned principles can be considered as the countertype to each

other, per se. Freudian theories of individualistic social interaction encompass – broadly

speaking, unconscious biological motivation which for him are at the heart of expressed

mental behavior of humans. Such biological motivation - aggression and sexuality, for

instance, are according to Freud the main and original motivational drives that are connected

to an individual’s mind. Hence, Freudian individualism to a large extent should really be

considered as the implications of an individual’s struggle with the attempt to reduce tensions

arising from aggression and sexuality that affect man’s socio-cultural scope of actions.

Within existentialism, Freud opinionated that the “recognition of an emergent human reality

irreducible to either nature or nurture or their interaction … and the ego's capacity to

substitute thought for action (Carveth)”, are emergent and symbolic characters of

existentialism. Under Freud, these previously discussed characters become especially

apparent when the individualistic self-consciousness is being rationalised and the struggle of

an individual’s understanding and “coming to terms” with one’s angst that arises out of finite

existentiality from one’s awareness and perception of future death is put in question.

Freudianism in itself is hence also the toils of an individual to attain knowledge and as an

ultimate goal, attain knowledge through it – “at the same time this reveals how limited

knowledge is and how consciousness always appears contaminated by factors that lie outside

it (Landau & Sullivan, 1986)”.

Stirner’s radical philosophical egoism – the right of man to do whatever man is capable of

doing, is perhaps the most extremist and uncompromising view on principles of

libertarianism and civil liberties anyone could uphold in this particular era. In many ways,

Stirner postulates characteristics of anarchistic behaviour that rejects the classical view and

commonalities associated with libertarianism, e.g. the outright rejection of natural rights of

man but contrarily also directly denies existence to and cohesion with communism – the latter

exercising authoritarian rule over the individual. Individuality according to Stirner, is

expressed in egoism. This he illustrates eloquently by giving inference to the debate of

property: individual property in the sense of communism is paradoxical and hence, does not

exist, whereas in libertarian-economist belief, equity redistribution must be given enough

thought. In Stirnerite egoism, the premise stands as follows: “Take hold, and take what you

require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have.

(Stiner, 2005)”. Individualism expressed under the maxims of anarchistic egoism thus, is the

comprehensions of an individual’s own free will over factors, such as ideologies or thought –

or in the words of Benjamin Tucker: “I do not admit anything except the existence of the

individual, as a condition of his sovereignty. To say that the sovereignty of the individual is

conditioned by l is simply another way of saying that it is conditioned by itself. (Tucker,

1926)”. Stirner’s view of existentialism is essentially atheistic and in doing so bears

resemblance to the reflections of aforementioned thinkers like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche –

the “unambiguous rejection of the standard enlightenment idea of progress (University Of

Cambridge, 2008)” being central to Stirner’s view, rejecting heteronomy through “egoistic

cultivation of total freedom” and perceiving religion as a method of thraldom, but not as

means of individualistic expression.

THE FRENCH PHILOSOPHERS OF THE MODERN ERA

CAMUS, SARTRE, DE BEAUVOIR – THE ETHICAL DEBATES

Camus’s theory of individualism revolves mainly around two divergent concepts: one, being

the ‘will of all’ and second, the ‘general will’. The former, in his opinion, represents the

collective and precise will of every single individual in society and thus, represents

individuals acting as a single, unified social entity. This is contrasted against the general will,

which according to Camus represents totalitarianism: it employs the state of being as a thing

ought to be, in social actions and exploits that are absolute in nature. On the topic of the

individual, Camus put forward, among others, the following key opinions which are central to

his thought: the badness or goodness of the human character and actions are moral in nature

and the philosophy of moralism is concerned with judging these actions which lead into

absurdity. Subsequently, absurdity is further expressed in the purest form of atheism – e.g. to

arrive at a meaningful life in the eyes of a God, which doesn’t exist. The contraposition of his

hypothesis then is that life per se, is meaningless. As such, Camus identifies the individual as

unique and remote, if not isolated, in an antagonistic and apathetic environment that stresses

the significance of an individual in choosing to solve personal problems of reality and

morality in an individualistic experience of existence that is unexplainable as much as it is “a

futile passion (Camus, 1989)“, since existence as it is known by humans is lacking rational

meaning or order. This outlined irrationality leads into the aforementioned absurdity of

individuals permanently wanting to create rational meaning and wanting to find order in their

lives – a futile attempt, so Camus, hence order does not exist.

Sartre’s belief, in his earlier days, was a conviction founded upon epistemological

arbitrariness. This form of voluntarism sees the belief system related to the will itself, much

rather than being proposed by a cognitive mind-set. So, it is only natural for Sartre to bring

forward his opinion that value is not inherent to an object but more exactly, value being an

attribute assigned to an object because individually, that’s what the human belief system

deems appropriate to do. Hence, any and all objects are considered valueless. Sartre sees the

individual as an entity that removed from ethics, principles and morality in thought. To this

extent, the following sums up Sartre’s idea on the correlation of individualism and existential

humanism quite well: “The individualism of Sartre’s thought … undermines the belief that

God gives us values that are universally binding. It corrodes the Kantian belief in the

existence of universal moral laws that are objectively valid for all moral agents. The denial of

a fixed human nature also corrodes an ethics based on human pleasure or happiness, like

hedonism and utilitarianism. What is judged `good' or `bad' is a matter of individual choice.

The individual must give weight and substance to values. In themselves, therefore, they are

all weightless (Mason, 2010)”. Considering these aspects, Sartre’s portrays a bare form of

individualism, stripped to its purest form, which puts the individual’s own responsible actions

– the matter of choice, above everything else. Through expressing choice as an individual,

Sartre’s view on existentialism is warranted.

De Beauvoir’s central theme on the interplay between ethics on the one side and

individualism on the other are expressed in the ambiguity of both: harmony – or a centralised

accord can be achieved by attributing an absolute value to the individual and through the

recognition of the individual that the powers are within one’s own self, to establish the

framework for his own existence. From an ontological perspective, her argument is based

around the denial of a finite holistic emptiness that argues that one’s own mind is all that

there is in existence. This solipsistic view she is in denial of, she expresses firmly in revealing

the pillars of her philosophical doctrine: “since the individual is defined only by his

relationship to the world and to other individuals; he exists only by transcending himself, and

his freedom can be achieved only through the freedom of others. He justifies his existence by

a movement which, like freedom, springs from his heart but which leads outside of him

(Beauvoir, 1948)”. De Beauvoir’s standpoint on existentialism is derived from aforesaid

definition of individualism, and by extension is embodied in the postulate that man is free and

paradoxically in this same, very freedom, man will find his law. Freedom must be assumed

by the individual, as an individual does not and will never exist without doing something. If

this freedom – the mere basis of one’s existence is not readily assumed, man quickly will lose

any virtues associated with individuality and fall-back into the thraldom of infantile morality

and on the contrary, if man exploits this freedom, man will find his utter existence validated

in the spirit of adventure and will become “totally indifferent to the content of its actions and

to the existence of others (Bays, 1948).” De Beauvoir rightfully concludes, that there is no

easy answer to this dilemma and an implementation of rules must be guided by the premise

and understanding that liberty conceptually emerges from within, since it is considered the

source of all ethical values. Authenticity in terms of moral values will call for a method that

understands and accepts the dualism of existence in humanity – man as an individual contrary

to man as a social being.

THE SOCIALISTIC-COMMUNISTIC VIEW

MARX AND ENGELS, LUXEMBURG, ADORNO, LENIN AND MAO – MODERATION TO EXTREMISM

Out of the many theories about individualism that were discussed in previous sections of this

document, the pivotal idea that can be obtained from the ideas and concepts of freedom is

that it promotes individualism and civil liberties. Nevertheless, in political theory, one of the

great philosophically debatable questions is if indeed capitalism or its diametrically opposed

counterpart, socialism, is responsible for stifling and choking these aforementioned civil

liberties which are being taken for granted and exercised as such under the beliefs of

individualism. Countless political theorists warn of the great dangers that lie buried and

hidden in capitalism that has taken on ‘a life of its own’ – a capitalism that has gone beyond

self-regulation and transforms society into an oligarchy of a few lobbying timocratic rulers

that oppress the state’s subjects until thraldom or another modern form of slavery comes into

existence. Certainly and without the shadow of a doubt, the Marxists and Leninists – the

embracers of socialism and communism violently oppose capitalist societies downrightly, but

retrospectively, don’t the Marxist-socialist as well as communist ideologies pose a threat per

se for the civil liberties of man?

Marx sees perhaps the biggest fear of expressed individualism in the potential danger that

emits from it. Individualism, according to him, is the sole driving force of deterioration that

destroys the construct of the social community – the personal, individualistic expression

regarded alone is counter-productive, since only in a community of men or in the context of

society, the individual would thrive and prosper to its fullest degree. Taking this into account,

Marx believed essentially in the Aristotelian city – the organic, natural and thriving

community that is superior to the individual (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2001). In doing so,

Marx advocates the idea of a largely ‘communist’ egoism that sees the extension of the will

of being a human being as the will to be a social human being, rather than just an individual

human being that weakens the overall assembly of social structures.

Rosa Luxemburg advanced the divide between Marxist thought and the classical bourgeois

individualism that is characterised through the ownership of capital and related culture and

the denial of existence of a “working class individualism (Young, 1988)” on anti-ethical

grounds, Luxemburg drove forward the belief that “individualism based on the view that the

individual self-realisation and development of all men can be achieved only through

socialism… (Meiksins-Wood, 1972)“. Luxemburg’s position on socialism evolved into a

form of extremism exhibiting a genuine belief in the rejection of equal individual rights,

advocating a dictatorship based on class principles by the proletariat contrary to the opposing

principles of dictatorship exercised through a political party. For the proletariat to ascend to

and assert power, stringent socialist principles would need to be enforced (Baring, 2009).

As one of the main theorists of the Frankfurt School and proponents of neo-Marxism, Adorno

saw individualism as the origin of critical consciousness, eliminated by the rising objectivist

basis of revolutionary consciousness. Adorno used goods in popular culture to clarify his

understanding of “pretentious individualism (Adorno, 1938)”, in which he claims that

standardisation in the general equipment and availability of these goods would give pretense

to manipulation of individualistic taste. Consequently, what appeared to be perhaps novel on

the outset remains largely just a variation of the initial theme, leading to the conclusion that

individualistic expression in consumerism is by and large a volatile and fickle ‘imagination’

of the mind – or as he puts it, an effort of pseudo-individualism. This pseudo-individualism

Adorno promulgates, finds application in one’s false pretense of individual self-realisation

trough the development of a personality within the liberal arts: “the more dehumanised its

method of operation and content, the more diligently and successfully the culture industry

propagates supposedly great personalities… (Huhn, 2004)“. Adorno upheld neo-Marxist

beliefs in which he accuses capitalism to be the root of all evil, triggering immeasurable

suffering through an ‘institutionalised’ bourgeois society and the relentless inherent

imperialistic impulse and urge of capitalism, blaming the defunct self-regulating capitalist

property system for being in the way of abolishing societal materialistic poverty. In effect, so

he outlines, man is born imprisoned – conditioned to the notion that the “gigantic apparatus

of human production must function to service a small group of exploiters (Bernstein, 1994)”.

Hence, personal expression is non-individualistic, of certain identicalness and of collective

resemblance of culture.

Communism under the theory of Marx, would follow socialism which itself would replace

capitalism. The materialisation of capitalism over feudalism, Marx saw explained in the

inherent nature of capitalism as a more modern and efficient method of production. Albeit

him being wrong in terms of the emergence of the workers’ revolution – he predicted the

workers’ revolution to happen in a fully capitalist society, when in reality, the revolution in

Russia and the coming-out of the Soviets was triggered in a rather feudalistic state. The

Russian revolution then initiated the shift to communism, and essentially, Lenin’s break with

Marxism. As said afore, for Marx, the belief in evolutionary principles were of the highest

priority, as he had faith in communism being of greater utility – a higher degree of

productivity for the greater good of all, than capitalism, and for this to happen, communism

had to necessarily evolve out of capitalism and socialism. Lenin’s ideology, later aptly named

Leninism, on the contrary is the coerced indoctrination of communist principles upon an

essentially agrarian and still feudalist state. Under applied Leninism, it is not so much the

individualistic thought that counts but rather the understanding of and adherence to

revolutionary principles that were considered real and true virtues in the Soviet Union. Lenin

formed his revolutionary beliefs around Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done” in

which Chernyshevsky outlines, that only the total and complete dedication to the

revolutionary cause by each and every individual as well as renouncing civil liberties

associated with the pleasures that encompass one’s lifestyle will make the revolution a

success. Furthermore, a revolutionary should only possess education dignified to support the

cause of the revolution and that the ‘right thought’ would instill through limitation of

individualistic thought. Lenin applied Chernyshevsky’s theories about individualistic thought

and put policies in place that restricted individual civil liberties, pretty much from day one

after his ascension to power in post-revolutionary Russia. This limitation of individualism

was again contrary to Marx’s theory: for Marx, individualism was non-prohibitive, as he

reasoned, that just because society allows individualism, does not give anyone the right in

this society to exploit another. Leninism is the pre-emptive prohibition of individualistic

thought.

Mao, early in his life, had an ardent belief in individualism and the freedom of civil rights,

inspired by the libertarian views of T.H. Green’s ideas-matter-most doctrine in political

obligation infused with compatible principles of Confucianism (Terrill, 2006). Amongst one

of his greater convictions was that he saw the revolution in Russia as an eruption of civil

rights and liberties for individuals, that he could see happening in China as well. His

understanding of the Russian revolution coupled with him developing a strain of

authoritarianism that manifested itself in his belief in ‘military heroism’ – physical education

at foremost would lead to a trained force that would salvage and rescue China and combat

injustice, led him to take on revolutionary characteristics. The loss of Mao’s admiration for

individualism can be attributed largely to a rise of nationalistic tendencies in China, linked

with insidious violence stemming from political and civil disorder within the country that

restricted argumentative politics and resulted in an increase of cruelty and repressive-

domination amongst the subjects of the state. Mao, as a consequence, can be seen taking a

liking of the communist doctrine, which embodied his understanding of Marx’s and Engel’s

“Communist Manifesto” connected with the vehement stringency of Leninism that led him to

finally believe in 1958, that the predominantly agrarian Chinese economy can be transformed

into a avant-garde and progressive communist economy. Regretfully, Mao’s stance in

executing the ‘Great Leap Forward’ was of an ill-devised and highly unrealistic, utopian

nature that even to contemporary standards would have nowadays difficulties in finding its

own peers in terms of malice, brutality and callousness that destroyed the life of millions of

people in the name of the ‘Cultural Revolution’ (Terrill, 2006). These are among the most

decisive factors that negated individual freedom and civil liberties under Mao’s totalitarian

communist regime.

THE INFLUENCES OF THE AUSTRIAN (VIENNESE) SCHOOL

MISES, HAYEK, SCHUMPETER, WITTGENSTEIN AND POPPER – NEO-CLASSICAL VIEWS

In defense of capitalism and the freedom of the individual, the following – in my opinion, all

encompassing quote, can be directly attributed to von Mises (Mises, 1958):

The distinctive principle of Western social philosophy is individualism. It

aims at the creation of a sphere in which the individual is free to think, to

choose, and to act without being restrained by the interference of the

social apparatus of coercion and oppression, the State. All the spiritual

and material achievements of Western civilization were the result of the

operation of this idea of liberty.

Von Mises further outlines, that he uniquely holds the capitalist market – a free, efficient and

self-regulating environment that foresees the unbounded economic system of private property

ownership, accountable for a thriving modern intellectualism. In postulating the linkage

between freedom and individual civil liberties on one side – these being universally defined

as the most significant and outstanding virtues of the Austrian School of Economics, and

capitalism on the other, von Mises, in an allegorical interpretation, pile-drives a wooden stake

through the heart of oppressors and totalitarian societies, which for him represent socialist-

communist cultures, that fundamentally repress society through annihilation of individualism,

and trough precisely this repression inferentially he sees overall regression of personal choice

and freedom.

Von Hayek, having been a scholar of von Mises himself, extents von Mises position on

individualism and proposes the following two epistemological theories. For von Hayek, there

is a distinction between false and true individualism. The difference between true and false

individualism is that the true form originates from individuals whose ‘individualistic self’ –

their characteristics, spirit and temperament is shaped and governed by the society they are

engulfed with, whereas false individualism stems from individuals that are confined to

solidarity and isolation and do not form part of the society that surrounds them. Hence, for

the latter theory of false individualism, constructivism would apply in the sense of

rationalism that sees individualistic knowledge as constructed – rather than experienced, and

with this definition the a priori / a posteriori debate according to the Aristotelian definition

springs to mind, if indeed individual knowledge is attained through means of deduction –

cognition through effect, or, cognition through cause [Erkenntnis durch Ursache/Wirkung]

(Hayek, The Sensory Order: An Inquiry Into The Foundations Of Theoretical Psychology,

1952). With these two epistemological views on knowledge opposing and invalidating each

other, individualism than can be regarded as relative to the perspective of the individual who

questions it: the general understanding of this relativity in the epistemological sense reveals

the relativity of human knowledge as a whole and the resulting ridiculousness of attempting

to attain a higher degree of insightfulness that reaches further afar than the objective form of

entities. Plato expressed this remarkably in Theæt. 152 A: “Man is the measure of all things”

– emphasizing that man in essence is an individual and as such should not be confused with a

nonspecific subject.

Schumpeter’s aim was to separate political individualism from methodological and

sociological individualism, and by doing so, he outlined that each and every form of

individualism is largely independent (Udehn, 2001). Schumpeter’s political individualism

represents for the most part Manchesterism, since it’s based on the liberal movement that

originated in Mill’s aforementioned utilitarianism and in the theoretical writings of Hume,

advocating for the establishment of liberal free-trade and the abolishment of protectionism,

showing strong characteristics of the free capitalist market. The individualism that is

safeguarded by Manchesterism expressed a socio-political desire to eradicate borders as these

were seen as an obstacle to the free movement of trade and an elimination of colonialism and

militarism as it was seen as a source of exploitation by nobility. Sociological individualism is

seen under holistic maxima, with a striking similarity to Durkheim’s egoism. In Durkheim’s

theory of positivist sociology, there exist two distinct human natures: the individualistic

nature confronts the social nature with the individualistic nature being the human nature of

origin and due to this primordial individualistic nature, man’s pursuit is primarily of egoistic

character and the entirety of his actions center around his self. With egoism being the

remarkable feature of Durkheim’s individualistic nature it lies near, that the man under the

influence of the individualistic nature does not subscribe to social contact among other men.

Likewise, in Durkheim’s theory of social nature, the characteristics are inverted: it is largely

focused on the attainment of primarily superordinated motives that eclipse egocentric motives

of self-fulfilment and as such is based upon moral virtues. The social nature also would

voluntarily seek interaction with different social beings. That Durkheim’s theories compared

to Schumpeterian thought is fundamentally not very different, could be explained by the

influence of Max Weber on Schumpeter and Durkheim. Schumpeter’s methodological

individualism is largely endorsed by Weber and Weber himself was known to be an avowed

positive sociologist. Durkheim’s egoism thence relates to Schumpeter’s sociological

individualism in the sense that the individual occupies an important and somewhat prominent

role in efficient and rationalized cultures, whereas methodological individualism seeks to

explain social phenomena in terms of understandable individual actions in the individual

social context, outside the scope of ethical or sociological individualism. This is further

explained by Weber’s explanation between ‘Verstehen und Erklären’ (Weber, 2005) – this in

itself heavily influenced in the author’s opinion by Gomperz’s work: “Über Sinn und

Sinngebilde” where he examines the dispositional characteristics of individuals which gave

rise to the development conducted by von Mises and von Hayek to become one of the

fundamental cornerstones of the Austrian School.

Wittgenstein’s idea of individualism should be interpreted as having a strong exposure to

morality and as such, probably, finds a closer resemblance in ideological thought to the ideas

of aforementioned philosophies of Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer. For instance: in reviewing

Kierkegaard and his intense dislike for Christendom we ought to understand the extent of the

corruption of the origins of self-awareness and self-actualisation. These fundamental

individualistic expressions, which are prevalently found in Christianity and which have

become severely warped by Christendom’s false pretenses of morality, are supposedly ill-

favouring personal attributes such as weakness over strength and the achievement of comfort

over struggle. Wittgenstein, hence, takes the human belief system and explains it as some

construct based upon fictional foundations. Morality, and to a wider degree, ethics, are to be

understood as human passions and individual sensations. This construct has no objective

means of being evidenced and varies in degrees of perception and expression – thus being of

truly individualistic nature. It is precisely this framework of characteristics of personal

expressions that make the cohabitation of human life feasible and he illustrates this exactly in

his view on religion, where he outlines that: “… a religious belief could only be something

like a passionate commitment to a frame of reference. Hence, although it is a belief, it is

really a way of living, or a way of assessing life (Wittgenstein, 1984). Apart from a few

occurrences, such as aforementioned passage that expresses and highlights both philosophers’

ideas on individualism in view of religion, the relationship between Kierkegaard and

Wittgenstein on the subject of religion is fundamentally asymmetric, with Wittgenstein

having made public very little material which has a prima facie connection with religious

issues (Creegan, 1989).

Popper is regarded by some as one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century.

His view on individualism is heavily influenced by theories of the Austrian School which he

further developed and per se, it does not really come as a surprise to see him defending

individualism based on Schumpeterian methodology. The safeguarding of the virtues of the

Open Society that encompass “that a society is equivalent to the sum of its members, that the

actions of the members of society serve to fashion and to shape it, and that the social

consequences of intentional actions are very often, and very largely, unintentional (Thornton,

2009) Popper defends as one of the primary obligations of mankind. With the use of

methodological individualism Popper advocates, that groups as well as events that occurred

in the past yield a succession of social processes. These processes are based upon facts that

can be explained through the belief system and actions of an individual. Methodological

individualism, hence, is inevitably concerned with the explanation of individualism – not its

existence as such. Knowledge of the individual stands in reciprocity to the individual’s ability

to solve problems, meaning that the amount of knowledge one individual possesses increases

throughout the period in which the same individual is confronted with problems and its

individual efforts in solving these. This method of individualistic learning emphasises

Popper’s arguments against the opposed approach of collectivism that sees society only as a

functioning entity in it being composed out of clusters of humans being dependent on each

other. Popper’s “The Open Society and its Enemies” bears witness to the rise of

totalitarianism in society and the ill-effects of a commonly accepted intellectual approval of

social moral, politics and education in the shadow of totalitarian oppression. Popper’s

ultimate aim was to show a discrepancy between historicism and methodological

individualism. Historicisim is being driven by inexorable laws of historical development and

advocated by naturalists and anti-naturalists alike, since the common goal of historicism is to

predict history by treating society as a whole which is in stark contrast to Popper’s

methodological individualism, which explains individualistic human behaviour in

correspondence with the present, situational social circumstances.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adorno, T. L. (1938). On the Fetish Character in Music and the Regression of Listening - The

Essential Frankfurt School Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

Baring, A. (2009, March 18). Die Welt Online - Politik. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from Hubertus

Knabe: Honecker's Erben - Die Linkspartei als Erzfeind der Demokratie:

http://www.welt.de/politik/article3399155/Die-Linkspartei-als-Erzfeind-der-Demokratie.html

Bays, G. (1948). Simone de Beauvoir: Ethics and Art. Yale French Studies, No. 1, Existentialism ,

106 - 112.

Beauvoir, d. S. (1948). The Ethics of Ambiguity. Secaucus: Citadel Press.

Bernstein, J. (1994). The Frankfurt School: Critical Assessments. London: Routledge.

Camus, A. (1989). The Stranger. New York: Vintage International.

Carveth, D. L. (n.d.). York University, Glendon College - Department of Sociology. Retrieved March

22, 2010, from Psychoanalysis, Philosophy, Existentialism:

http://www.yorku.ca/dcarveth/existentialism

Creegan, C. L. (1989). Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard - Religion, Individuality and Philosophical

Method. New York: Routledge.

Driver, J. (2007, March 27). The History of Utilitarianism. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Ebenstein, W., & Ebenstein, A. O. (2001). Introduction to Political Thinkers. Belmont: Wadsworth

Publishing; 2. Edititon.

Encyclopædia Britannica. (2010). Individualism. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from eb.com:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/286303/individualism

Grier, M. (2007, February 28). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved March 21, 2010,

from Kant's Critique of Metaphysics: http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/kant-

metaphysics/

Hayek, v. F. (1952). The Sensory Order: An Inquiry Into The Foundations Of Theoretical

Psychology. London: G. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Republished 1981).

Huhn, T. (2004). The Cambridge Companion to Adorno. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kant, I. (1785). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Peterborough: Broadview Press (1969).

Landau, G. P., & Sullivan, R. (1986). Freud and Freudianism. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from The

Victorian Web: http://www.victorianweb.org/science/freud/intro.html

Locke, J. (1764). The Two Treatises of Civil Government. London: A. Millar et al.

Macpherson, C. B. (1962). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA (December 31, 1964).

Macquarie, J. (1972). Existentialism: An Introduction, Guide and Assessment. London: Penguin

Books.

Mason, J. (2010). tpm online. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from Sartre's Existential Humanism Part

II: http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/article.php?id=193

McKim, R., & McMahan, J. (1997). The Morality of Nationalism. New York: Oxford University

Press US.

Meiksins-Wood, E. (1972). Mind and Politics: An Approach to the Meaning of Liberal and Socialist

Individualism. Berkely: University of California Press.

Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green.

Mill, J. S. (1862). The Contest in America. Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 143 ,

683 - 684.

Mises, E. v. (1958). Liberty and Property. 9th Meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society. Princeton:

Princeton University.

Nietzsche, F. (1974). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. London: Penguin Books.

Otteson, J. R. (2009). Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism. The Independent

Review, v. 13, n. 3, , 389 - 409.

Palante, G. T. (1909). La sensibilité individualiste. Paris: F. Alcan.

Santas, G. (1964). The Socratic Paradoxes. Philosophical Review 73 , 147 - 164.

Schopenhauer, A., & Saunders, T. B. (2009). The Wisdom of Life: Being the First Part of Arthur

Schopenhauer's Aphorismen zur Lebensweisheit. Charleston: BiblioLife.

Silentio, d. J. (1985). Fear and Trembling. London: Penguin Classic.

Spranger, E. (New Series, Vol. 18, No. 71 (1909)). Wilhelm von Humboldt und die

Humanitatsidee. Mind , 446 - 450.

Stiner, M. (2005). The Ego and His Own: The Case of the Individual Against Authority. Mineola:

Dover Publications.

Terrill, R. (2006). Mao Now. The Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4 , 22 - 28 .

Thornton, S. (2009, February 9). Karl Popper. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from Stanford

Encylopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Tucker, B. (1926). Individual Liberty: Selections From the Writings of Benjamin R. Tucker . New

York: Vanguard Press.

Udehn, L. (2001). Methodological individualism: background, history and meaning. New York:

Routledge Chapman & Hall.

UNESCO. (vol. XXIII, no. 3/4, 1993). Wilhelm von Humboldt. Prospects:the quarterly review of

comparative education , pp. 613 - 623.

University Of Cambridge. (2008). Pessimism. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from Investigating

Atheism: http://www.investigatingatheism.info/pessimism.html

Weber, M. (2005). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Frankfurt:

Zweitausendeins.

Wittgenstein, L. J. (1984). Culture and Value. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Young, J. D. (1988). Socialism since 1889. Totowa: Barnes & Noble Books.