The Relation of The Individuals and Society > 영어토론방

• 목록

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 구글+ 공유
• 

개인과 사회의 관계

Many people believe that a few individuals or small groups (family, friends, teachers, celebrities, for example) have caused them to think and behave in the way they do. Yet it is always society as a whole that defines us and our attitudes, not a few individuals.

To maintain a society in well-being is a hard and essential target to any government. And when governing a nation, the leader always meets the dilemma between overall and individual benefit. I believe a nation should put its own overall success on the first place, but also should not lookdown the well-being of individual citizens.

A nation is a union of all people, but not some people. It is firstly must protect the public benefit. Only a nation defend the majority benefit, can it be cold a democracy nation. And only it can effectively protect public benefit, will people support it. If a nation looks down the overall success, it is doomed the nation's end day is coming soon. Retrospect the history, no thrived country didn't put its own overall successfully. Take the Tang Dynasty in China for instance. At the beginning of Tang, the King built new water construction, widened river width, and drew many disciplines to help people. The science, technology and art in Tang Dynasty all developed greatly, which bring China into a thriving time. But at the end the Tang Dynasty, the leader's negligence of the public trouble and the thought about living in richness and lavish sonly made the overthrow of the Tang Dynasty.

Of cause, we speak of putting overall success before the individual well-being doesn't mean any government should neglect individual, or even use it as excuse for his failure in protecting individual benefit. After all, any nation is composed by every individual. Only most individual's benefit has been gained, only could call it the overall benefit has won. What is the radical benefit of a society? I think there may be a paradox between your words in precedent paragraph and this one. And any individual disaffection must has its reason, which is very probably will be the source that will grow the overall rejection power. So any government should also often detect and research the reason of individual's dissatisfaction.
Maybe an example that a failure of overemphasizing overroll benefit can make your demonstration cogenter.

It is really not easy for a government to balance the individual and the majority benefit. But these two aspects are not absolutely opposite. The group is composed by every individual, and the group represent all individual also.

Many people believe that a few individuals or small groups (family, friends, teachers, celebrities, for example) have caused them to think and behave in the way they do. Yet it is always society as a whole that defines us and our attitudes, not a few individuals.

1.The thoughts and behavior of people depends on their exposure to the society.
It depends on the amount of exposure and the type of society. Their attitudes are different at different periods of their life since these factors vary.

We often see the reflection of parent attitude and behavior in small toddlers. When they are exposed to a school, friends and teachers, a reformation of their thoughts is seen. Their attitude seems to mould by those who spent maximum time with them. By a transition to the adolescent period when they are hot in blood and green in judgment they may get inspired by a celebrity in their line of interest. They follow the footprints left by great lives on the sands of time or those whom they admire or seek advice may canalize their thoughts. These part of people life is influenced by a small group of people.

When the people are exposed to the society as a whole, they reach a stage in their life when their attitudes get influenced by their observations of the society and their experiences in it. Some exceptions may retain the principals nurtured by their parents or teachers but their behavior is definitely decided by the society. A person who steps in a high society from a lower one would adapt himself to its norms which changes his behavior or mannerisms.

If a girl is allowed to trod in a miniature world consisting of a small group of people then her attitudes would remain confined to it. How can a person decide his view about the things when he is not exposed to it, the more he is exposed the more he develops his views and attitudes. When WTC was attacked even a illiterate farmer who heard about the atrocity and saw the heart-throbbing scene developed an attitude of sympathy towards the victims and anathematized the culprits.

Thus the society as a whole but to which the people are exposed defines the attitudes and behavior of the people. This exposure can constitute of a small glimpse of society such as parents, friends and teachers or of the whole world.

2.Who shapes our attitudes and identity? This is a contentious issue. Many people believe that it is society as a whole that determines our style, our thinking as well as our behavior. I disagree with this viewpoint. Instead, I shall argue that it is a small group of people that influence us most.

Those who believe that society plays a more important role in shaping ourselves cannot explain the diverse behavior exhibit by individuals who live in the same society. Assuming that society has a greater influence on one's behavior and style, then we should observe the exactitude of behavior within a community. But our experience tells us that it is impossible to meet two persons who share the same interest, same tamper and same thinking. Each and every one of us is distinct from others because our genes vary and we live in different environment. Jewish Bankers in Manhattan can provide their children with best education. Their children are nurtured in the sphere of love and care. As a result, they manage to attend Ivy Leagues and thus enjoy a successful life. By contrast, the poor who live in slums probably have to end up in jail because their families have too little time to teach them. So they are left with their own and to get lost because of the peer's influence.

In everyday life we make contact with our families, friends, teachers etc. These people's attitude, thinking and behavior have the greater influence on us because we stay with them everyday. We mimicked their style and we learn to talk like them because we want to gain acceptance from them. As a result our character is shaped innuendo. Take for example; most people take drugs under the peer pressure, not under society's pressure. Teenagers who attend party have a difficult time to resist smoking because they do not want to lose friends. Smoking is a highly addictive behavior and those who smoke once is likely to smoke for the rest of his life. In fact survey found that most smokers first lighten their cigarettes under the pressure of their peers. This statement holds true ubiquitously regardless of which society one lives in.

Besides that, the role model we choose can also determine our behavior or even our destiny. In 1960's Bill Clinton had a chance to visit white house. The opportunity to meet with John Kennedy boosted Bill's determination to become president. The career of JFK was to become the path of young Bill. Later in his presidency Bill Clinton admitted that it is the desire to achieve John Kennedy's success that drive him to make a career in politics.

Clinton's story is nothing new. We get so fond of our idols that we determine to do everything they do. We wear their hairstyles and learn their dictum. We are determining to be as successful as them. They are the ones who change us more than other people.

It is clear that our behavior is heavily influenced by a small handful of person. Society plays a trivial role in determining our identity. We can't choose our background, but we can choose the types of friend we make and the kinds of idol we admire. Our destiny is directly link to them.

3.I tend to disagree with the statement's drastic conclusion, which affirmatively states that society always define our behavior and attitude. In my point of view, the statement is missing crucial points on the formation of human character. Although an individual is indeed influenced by society as a whole, few people could have actually achieved more profound and lasting moments in someone's life, such as parents, teachers, and friends.

Society is indeed a very important part on the formation of one's character. Since we are born, we assimilate most of the environment around us and start building our behavior traces and refine our attitudes day after day. Nowadays, television plays a big role in many children lives by teaching them lessons about right or wrong and common-sense, to name a few. However, parents, friends, and teacher are able to achieve the same effects in more efficient ways.

Parents are individuals that raise their child and therefore provide them with the necessary guidance, so they can better face the real world. A mother usually strive to teach manners to their kids. Behaving at the table or at some friends' house is usually reflected on similar occasions experienced when adult. In the same way, the majority of fathers are eager to pass on to their beloved children, especially their boys, the knowledge acquired during his life. This evidence is clearly seen on many professions such as policeman, fire fighting, and car racing, where the experience is passed over to their son generation after generation.

Friends are equally important pieces of the conundrum of a person's character formation. One can always remember lasting moments with their friends, either in their childhood days or in their grown-up lives. A good friend is usually able to teach them the meaning of loyalty, fidelity, friendship, and even more complex feelings such as hate and love. Even though society might be able to show all different feelings through art (movies or theatrical plays), a single instant with a friend can define one's posture towards a political, economical, or social matter. Having had some very warm friends during my childhood have definitely helped me be nicer and more sympathetic to people today.

Last but not least, teachers are undoubtedly one of the most important figures of a person's character. Even though it might be arguable from person to person, a substantial amount of the knowledge we acquired was indeed learned at school inside a class room. My colleagues and I can surely remember our biology teacher who used to take us to field trips and teach us about nature, its fauna and flour. I can safely assure that all my classmates and I are able to appreciate the various form of nature in a more sensitive way than ever before. No single TV documentary or social program could have ever matched the knowledge acquired during this teacher's lectures both inside the classroom and outside at national parks.

In sum, society alone cannot determine one's character without the help of parents, friends, and teachers, to enumerate just a few more important. The impact of mother and father advices and experiences on their child behavior and attitude is certainly accentuated, for bad or for good. Nevertheless, friends and teachers undeniably affect someone's judgment in serious matters such as loyalty, friendship, political thoughts, and even love.

It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves.

1.A lot of times, we question ourselves "Who am I?”; and we are in pursuit
of the answer to it throughout our lifetime. The definition of
ourselves is a dynamic process, in which we position ourselves to form
expectations and in which we integrate with social groups to get
feedbacks. The latter is the primary one.

To begin with, nothing is absolute in the world. However, everything
is judged according to a standard, which is relatively absolute. Things
are compared and ranked according to the standard. We also define
ourselves refer to a certain standard. The abstract standard is usually
set according to our own values and social norms as well. Our own values
are very subjective. It is ultimately difficult to look into ourselves.
Therefore, we just define ourselves as we wish. Things become very
different when the third party is involved. The third party could be a
friend, a professor or our parents, and let us call them "social group"
as a whole to see to the difference from a high level. The third party
involvement makes the our process of defining ourselves more objective.
Due to the interaction with others, we get feedbacks from others. People
judge us by social norms and the reaction they have towards us works as
a mirror, reflecting our true self from a beholder's perspective. We
always behave in respect to the definition that we set for ourselves, and
from people's feedback, we get to know how the others think about that.
In this sense, our definition is adjusted to be a better one, eventually
end up complete. That is to say, we primarily define ourselves through
the indemnification with social groups. Without the self-positioning
beforehand, the latter identification with social groups won't be so
effective and useful.

Next, we are likely to go to one extreme if we just define ourselves
totally on our own; and we are also inclined to go to the other extreme if
we merely take others' opinions into account. In the first occasion,
since the definitions are all done by ourselves, we were like blind to
the people and world outside. Our own standard with out comparison with
others is an absolute and not necessarily right one. We are possibly holding
the view that we are perfect and that we are always correct. In the second
occasion, we are in loss of ourselves, and the force coming from the
outside taking control over us. We are probably dragged by different opinions
to different directions in order that we could never come out with a
consistent edition of definition of our own.

To end up, our ultimate effort to achieve the answer to "Who am I?" provides
us with the motivation to define ourselves, to judge our past behaviors
and to set our future goals. Our contact with the social groups helps us to
understand ourselves in a more comprehensive and objective way, which plays
a primary role in the definition process.

2.Some may say that people learn about themselves more by being alone than by being among others. However, I believe that people can mostly define themselves through interaction within the social groups.

First off, it is easier and more efficient for people to define themselves trough social interaction than trough self reflection because people can use the method of comparison and contrast among the social groups. Owing to gregarious human nature, people try to earn a sense of security by being a member of social groups. People look for similarities and differences with others partly because they want to establish the distinctiveness of their social groups, partly because they want to make their peculiarities compatible with other members of the social group. For example, When I was participating a study club, "Philosophy Society", I fortunately managed to find some characterizes about myself. I found that seriousness for logical reasoning, eagerness for discussion and likeness of alcohol are common with other members. Also, I recognized that sensitivity for word choice and extreme fervor for humanity are a little different from others. Without comparison and contrast among the people, I might not get a clear idea about who I am.

On the other hand, loners have lesser opportunities to know about themselves. They may have enough time to meditate or reflect about who they are, however, it is likely that they become "frogs in the well" due to the lack of social interaction. The process of knowing about oneself is not like the process of solving a mathematical problem. Both process may be similar in that they require "trial and error" process while figuring out the solution. However, there is no "fixed" answer for defining oneself while mathematical problems has its right answer in the back of the book. The only guide line people can rely on in figuring out who they are is "the feedback from others". I tried to find about myself through meditation and self-reflection when I had to choose my major in college. It was not very easy thing to do by myself. However, when one of my best friend, Min, indicated that I had a tendency of being concerned about logical reasoning during talking, I could learn about one of my characteristics. As a result, his sincere remark on my characteristics was helpful in selecting "philosohpy" as my major in college.

In sum, I have shown that the advantages of social interaction outweigh the advantages of self-reflection in terms of defining ourselves. Comparison and contrast among social groups as well as some feed backs from others are very crucial in getting a clear idea about who we are. 

Choice is an illusion. In reality, our lives are controlled by the society in which we live.

For centuries, philosophers have been arguing about the free will problems. Those who believe in free will hold that humans are free to choose under every circumstances, while those who believe that choice is just an illusion asserts that our lives are controlled by the society in which we live in and hence, there is no real free will at all. I hold a moderate view points between two extremes; I believe that we are always presented with choices, but these choices are limited.

Those who assert that choice is just an illusion believe that humans are just programmed robots which works according to algorithm prescribed in the chip. They believe that we are controlled by the society. Society determines how we think and what we should do. If society says X is bad, we would avoid it. Likewise, if society endorses Y act, then we must embrace it. Take for example, in Muslim country, wearing bikinis is considered as a sin because it instigates men's lustful desire. Women are forced to wear tiding because their religious teachers teach them that it is inappropriate to expose their body to strangers. Thus Muslims women have no option to comply with the society's demand. They can't defy those teaching (no matter how unreasonable it sounds), because going against religious teachers is tantamount to betraying religion. In Muslim countries, religion is everything and those who deny its authority would face society pressure, if not legal action. This is an example some will cited to support the idea that our lives are indeed controlled by society.

However, are we really deprive of choices? No. The fact is, we are still presented with options in which we can choose from. Within the tolerance limits of society, there are still plenty of options available whether we realized it or not. Take the above Muslim women as example, if a Muslim woman do not wish to wear tiding, she can choose to stay in house instead of going out. For those who are wealthy, they can choose to migrate to other secularized countries in which religion is not a big issue. The point here to learn is that, we have choices, even though these choices are limited.

People who believe that choice is just an illusion would not do anything to challenge conventional society. Since choice isn't a real thing, why should we fight for it? This sort of attitude would impede society's advancement. In the past history, there are a lot people who were dissatisfied with their lives. Some took a nihilism attitude and complied submissively with the society; others who were more courage challenged the conventional wisdoms. Those valiant fighters stubbornly believed that we are not controlled by society. Instead, they believed that we can shape the society, enlarged the choice set we have by reforming the society values. Martin Luther King stands out as a quintessence example. Before 1960's blacks in America are not treated equally. They didn't have the right to vote, they couldn't attend the same school alongside with their compatriot whites and they were discriminated in every aspect. Blacks who believed that their lives are controlled by the society would not stand up to speak against the unjust. King was different, with a great vision in mind; he believed that we can make a change to the world. Had King constrained himself with the contemporary standard, the blacks would not be liberated and US society today would be very different.

To sum up, humans are not presented with infinite choices; we are not free to do anything. Rather, our options are limited by society's standard. History is replete with examples of society reformation. Each time a reform is made, society standard became more lenient and people were presented with more freedom. Thus if one believe that the society standards are too rigid, then social reformation is the way.

2.The speaker claims that our lives are controlled by the society in which we live and the choices offered by the society is in illusion. I strongly agree with the speaker for the very reason that the entire life cycle of any individual is molded by the environment in which they live and the policies of the ruling government
For children, the most important decisions are taken by their parents. Which school to go, what to eat and what not, when to sleep and when to wake, and also decisions about the type of friends to have and the type to be reserved from, all these decisions are taken by their parents. faith in God, pray regularly and take interest in various kinds of religious ceremonies. As a result, the members of the Hindu society are generally religious and participate in many religious activities round the year.

When babies grow up they start going to school, their knowledge about the things around the world is definitely dependent on the education they receive in schools. So, if students is taught that dictatorship is the worst type of government for a country and democracy is the best, their intellects is not at a standing to decide the relative benefits of the two types of rules and so they believe what their text book and teachers say. Though schools provide reason based explanation of things that they teach, only a very few of the gifted students possess the mental ability to doubt those reasons. As a result, schools possess the ability to mold any student into the way they like. This is the reason why two citizens of two rival nations generally have ill-will towards each other. They don't have the freedom to take a stand in opposition to their nation if their nation is cause of such conflict. Although exceptions to such a trend exist, but those who work against the general trends face extreme suffers and it takes a very long time for them to convince others about their views.(always rt. specific examples, and I get a feeling that u r specifically pointing toward India Pakistan)

Grown-up adults exercise maximum freedom of their wills and schools of thought. If its in conformity with the society, adults have the freedom to do anything they wish in a democratic government. But to go against the society requires a great amount of courage, even sacrifice of worldly pleasures, to ultimately achieve their goals. For example, the employment opportunities in developing economy like India, are restricted. Job-seekers, unless they have a very high educational qualification or enough family income to start a business, struggle hard to obtain a good job or start a business. Under such conditions, the type of job one takes up is rarely dependent on their ambitions and is greatly controlled by the availability. So, those who had dreamt of becoming a doctor might end up running a medicine store on account of lack of funds. In short, the choices though available in all fields are dependent on other factors like the economic background.

In conclusion, although the choice list available to members of a society might be very long, but exercise of such choices is dependent on the family, societal and economic factors among others. The path that a child or high school student is controlled by their family and social beliefs. As an adult, no individual enjoys extreme freedom of their choice in selecting their long-term occupation. Hence, the inescapable fact is that our lives are controlled by the society in which we live.

"The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its heroines."

The word character can be defined as: the combination of qualities or features that distinguishes one person, group, or thing from another. Whether the best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the man and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its heroines depends on one fact that is whether the characters of those heroes or heroines are representative enough. Personally speaking I think if one wants to understand the character of a society heroes and heroines may sever as guidance but not the best way.

In the first place, many heroes and heroines are legendary figures and their authenticity are open to doubt. Every nation and every culture have their own heroes and heroines and some of those great figures can trace bake to the very beginning of themselves. For so many years their heroic deeds are still popular among its peoples and some of them are even been idolized so much that they are just perfect. However, we know that no one is perfect, and due to the lack of sufficient history documents we can never know if they really did those magnificent things and if they did it for a noble purpose. It is very likely that people combined many heroes and heroines into one person for a realistic purpose such as to unite its people, to encourage its people or just to raise the moral of its people. Under these circumstances, those heroes and heroines are false images and relay on them to understand the character of the whole society is indisputably problematic.

In the second place, there are good chance that it is because lake of such heroes and heroines that the society deliberately created them. For instance, in a country where corruption is widespread and its people are complaining violently. In order to achieve social harmony and stability the government may try very hard to create one righteous government official to sever as heroes. Despite that this government official may be a good one serves his country and people diligently without selfishness, he is not representative enough and he is just in minority. If we presumptuously drew a conclusion about the whole society merely based on what he said and did then we can see how ridiculous we are.

However, in many cases heroes and heroines may give us valuable information about the character of the society, because many heroes and heroines are derived from ordinary people that is the basic of our society. From the character of the heroes and heroines we can see what character this society cherishes and by this way we can know something about the inner world our its people.

To sum up, heroes and heroines are more often than not realistic figures and if we try to understand the character of a society through the understanding of its heroes and heroines we should take great care because of the false image they may represent. Nevertheless, it is still a useful way for us to get a better understanding of the character of a society indirectly.

 What's Your Opinion This?