• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

work as a team

fridgebuzz

fridgebuzz

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
318
Location
Florida, US
how many agree the full potential of a human is achieved only when he is working in a group?

man himself is not endowed with all abilities, but he can bring a separate and correct view to a social group, varying in different numbers, that can add to a collective gestalt idea.
 
"Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Click to expand...

I have no decent reply for the moment, I apologize, maybe I'll come back later if my philosophical intoxication has worked out.
 
What if said man is not endowed with the ability to work in a group?

All jokes aside, I don't think it's always the case that working in a group is the only way to realize one's potential. For example, Michelangelo accomplished many things on his own. The Sistine Chapel is foremost in my mind, but he also invented the helicopter and other things I can't recall at the moment. I think it's fair to say he realized his potential, I don't know.
 
Tude, you helped me to revisit the lone-wolf survivalist approach. I find when a community comes together, beautiful things happen and the standard of living increases. Being part of a collective whole has safety and insurance benefits, but that doesn't say individuals have to adhere to this survival scheme to be successful. Unless you're completely confrontational warrior blood Rambo lifestyle man, I think you'll find man has a greater chance of survival when he is part of a gang. The quote 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours', and the phrases 'I got your back' and 'cover me' come to mind.

In a group each unit has a responsibility to contribute to the group. Artists, scientists, doctors, priests, soldiers, chefs, they all have an uncommon specialty to offer. People often times work alone, but their end result benefits the whole. Not many people could spend 4 years painting a beautiful masterpiece on a church ceiling. Michelangelo shared himself with us and we thank him for that. Does the invention of the helicopter not offer some usefulness to society? The cultures we're immersed in provide so much for us, but it only progressed this way because people gave back.
 
Last edited:
Working together is the story of evolution, if we continue working together will we become the specialised parts of a greater entity just as our cells are a part of us - the ultimate in evolution so I've heard tell, perhaps our potential is to become servile ?
 
I think we can work for the good of all even if we remain mostly alone in doing so. In general I work better alone, although I'd like to remain functional within society without really being a part of it.
 
I believe that God has designed the world for two people hence marriage.....there are many benefits.....the world is designed to work better if you have a family. You earn two incomes.....etc. I believe however that an individual must do 50% of the work themselves and the rest 50% can be done with a group yielding an effective result. The group efforts case doesn't really work unless everyone is one the same page and done their homework individually. But the 50%-50% case only works in a perfect world.
 
I agree, the individual has a big role in a group, more than just his percentage. Meaning in a group of 10, each person doesn't just complete 10% of the work. Each unit has a responsibility to work hard, and yes that means doing 50% of the work or more. The more each individual puts in, the more the group puts out. If one person misses a step or slacks off there is a big difference in the performance of the group, and sometimes, I believe, the individual is the weakest link and if one fails the group idea collapses. We all have a time and place. Every dog has its day. It's like riding in the passenger seat of a car with a distracted driver and a rowdy crowd in the backseat - the driver might have his hands full for a moment and does not notice the road hazard, but you do, and if you don't speak up and contribute, the car crashes.
 
Personally and broadly, I believe that the maximum benefit is achieved through individual effort towards both the personal and social ideal.
Additionally, I find the only instance where teamwork is necessary is in a task logistically necessitating more than one person, when trying to get something done.
Still, teamwork is indeed necessary for anything large-scale, automatically valuating the concept.
 
Is man innately social? I consider man to be a gestalt organism like an ant where everyone has a role to fill. Plato organized the roles of the individuals in a successful society as rulers, soldiers and workers.
 
Hmm.. Well, I think that society must be innately built on the roles of individuals within the organization.
That doesn't necessarily mean man is innately social though.. Many of the greatest examples I can think of for human achievement have been solitary people.
 
sorry im off subject here a little but lately ive being wondering about this : people say competition is good, and it is, but wouldnt collaboration be better ?

like company suing each other over patent...isnt that counterproductive
idk
 
Collaboration would benefit the idea/concept/patent (etc.) itself, but it does not benefit the creator materially, which is what most are after.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top