lol.. rewording the same bullsh*t point doesn't change the flaw in your argument.

Seriously Kepi... If you want a more sophisticated argument then read some Confuscious.

It's basically what East Asian society is largely based on.

Come back then and we can have a proper discussion.

I might even be able to agree with some of what you say.

I mean it's why in Japan, if you commit suicide on train tracks then your next of kin is fined a lot of money for the disruption to services etc.

In the more harsh North Korea.. if someone defects then the rest of their family is imprisoned.

So I think the family CAN be a fundamental unit of society.

But I don't think it's a given... and it goes without saying that in Western societies it is the individual that is the fundamental unit

Oh, I see the problem here... Government is a componant of society, it is not synonymous with society. Society encompases culture, economics, education, religion, etc. The basic indoctrination and education on all these matters is handled by the family. Our governance certainly is from an individualist orientation, however, all the other elements are generally held, maintained and continued or discontinued by family.

On Friday 10/21/11 - 8:40:04 PM Kepi wrote: Oh, I see the problem here... Government is a componant of society, it is not synonymous with society. Society encompases culture, economics, education, religion, etc. The basic indoctrination and education on all these matters is handled by the family. Our governance certainly is from an individualist orientation, however, all the other elements are generally held, maintained and continued or discontinued by family.

No I understand they're not synonymous.

You're still talking crap.

While I don't disagree that the basic indoctrination of the individual GENERALLY SPEAKING comes from the family (lol... My family is Christian FYI), I don't see how you can think this qualifies them as the fundamental unit in society.

I mean it makes more sense to me to define the fundamental unit of society as the individual.

Because simply put, the interests or actions of any collective within society is the sum of the combined interests/actions of the individuals that make up said collective.

I think this is a much more logical, apolitical definition.

Because every single way you plug into society has to do, in some way, with that indoctrination. They raised individuals to walk upright, eat certain foods, talk a specific language, urinate and deficate in particularly socially approved places, how to respond to other people in society... They socialized you. While individuals may negotiate changes over time to the circumstances (regarding anything from religion, to food, to how and when it's appropriate to use the restroom) the socialization process never changes and is the fundamental way that people develop their basic social understanding of the world around them.

For instance, let's say that you never procreate and start a family, whatever yout take on your culture is dies with you. It never has the opportunity to be accepted or rejected by society as a whole. Even if you wrote a widely popular book that took the world by

Storm, their interpretations of your ideas, not your ideas in their pure form, would be espoused.

What?

There are many famous artists, philosophers and scientists that have had an impact on or contributed to society but haven't produced families throughout history.

Furthermore if we look at the impact of other collectives and institutions within society, it can be argued that they are just as necessary in order to sustain "culture" which makes your argument that the family is the fundamental unit of society based on it's unique role kinda stupid as all aspects of society are unique in the way that they function.

Not to mention you're supposing that the way in which our society has evolved to date is inevitable.

No matter what hypothetical human societal structure you can imagine, the individual will always exist within it (whether it's role is diminished or not is another story).

Whereas the family unit and what constitutes a family can be and has been imagined in various ways throughout history.

There are communities around the world that don't make the distinction between the nuclear family and the extended family.

Whatever network of relationships exist within various communities worldwide though, the building block is always the individual.

In case you can't be bothered reading all I've said.

My main points are.

-The family as you imagine it is simply a construct.

-The individual is too... but it is the fundamental construct, (the definition of which is fundamentally unchanged) within the construct that is society however you imagine it.

Except without family, the individual isn't a construct, he's merely a beast.

On Friday 10/21/11 - 10:20:48 PM Kepi wrote: Except without family, the individual isn't a construct, he's merely a beast.

lol.. your use of the pronoun "he" says otherwise.

Furthermore I'm not even saying that the family unit (however you choose to define it within the various societies that have existed throughout history) is not essential to society as a whole.

I'm just saying it's not the fundamental unit of society because it is one of many collectives that INDIVIDUALS are a part of.

That and also however you define it.. be it the matriarchal arrangements in some tribes in SE Asia/ Pacific or the multiple wife arrangements that some cultures in the Middle East, you are essentially just labelling an entirely different network of relationships with the label "family" where in reality they work nothing like the traditional Western nuclear arrangement that you imagine.

Therefore we can conclude that family, as you define it, is not the fundamental unit of society.

And family as defined broadly cannot be the fundamental unit of society because the way families work and have worked throughout the world and throughout time have been different.

And family as defined broadly cannot be the fundamental unit of society because the way families work and have worked throughout the world and throughout time have been different to the point where to say that to argue that they were the fundamental unit in society as opposed to the individual which on the other hand can be defined consistently regardless of time and place is just ... well.. stupid.

On Friday 10/21/11 - 10:20:48 PM Kepi wrote: Except without family, the individual isn't a construct, he's merely a beast.

On Friday 10/21/11 - 10:26:56 PM newtownninja wrote: lol.. your use of the pronoun "he" says otherwise.

My cat is a he, he's also a beast. Nearly every modern instance of found feral children has shown they're intellectually stunted, unable to learn basic social skills, and often are unable to learn the basics of language. The basic construct of a family, regardless of how you define it, is essential to society. It's what makes them able to be a society and not just a group of individuals, much like we would note a difference between a random group of unbonded particles and an atom. Socialization may just be a construct, but it's a construct that's essential to taking advantage of human beings basic advantages that

Make them more than any other simian scavenger.

On Friday 10/21/11 - 10:37:58 PM newtownninja wrote: That and also however you define it.. be it the matriarchal arrangements in some tribes in SE Asia/ Pacific or the multiple wife arrangements that some cultures in the Middle East, you are essentially just labelling an entirely different network of relationships with the label "family" where in reality they work nothing like the traditional Western nuclear arrangement that you imagine.

On Friday 10/21/11 - 10:39:21 PM newtownninja wrote: Therefore we can conclude that family, as you define it, is not the fundamental unit of society.

On Friday 10/21/11 - 10:41:48 PM newtownninja wrote: And family as defined broadly cannot be the fundamental unit of society because the way families work and have worked throughout the world and throughout time have been different.

On Friday 10/21/11 - 10:43:53 PM newtownninja wrote: And family as defined broadly cannot be the fundamental unit of society because the way families work and have worked throughout the world and throughout time have been different to the point where to say that to argue that they were the fundamental unit in society as opposed to the individual which on the other hand can be defined consistently regardless of time and place is just ... well.. stupid.

It's still folks directly related to eachother providing the groundwork for social learning. That's family, dude. It's like saying that governments are unrelated constructs because they have variances. Constructs, sure, but they're related, as they preform similar functions via different methods. A rotary engine is still a combustion engine, even if it's a different way of arranging it.