“In a very interesting and thoughtful article published on Aeon, Sam Dresser recommends studying Confucius as a cure for the manifest evils brought about in the West by a worldview that has focused exclusively on individualism. Admitting that individualism as an idea is so deeply implanted in the Western mindset that it cannot be simply replaced, he cites several recent books by Western authors that ‘use ideas from ancient Chinese philosophers such as Confucius.’ He claims these books can help us to achieve a new balance between individualism and a sense of collective connection.

The following two sentences sum up Dresser’s thesis: ‘If it is impossible for people living in modern, Western societies to ever get rid of individualism in its entirety, the only cure is to develop more balanced and humane forms of individualism. If we see hyper-individualism as a problem, then studying traditions such as Confucianism can help us keep in view the broader range of things that ought to matter in a good human life.’

But isn’t this contradictory or at least paradoxical? In our individualist society only marginal individuals are likely to discover the kind of motivation that will impel them to study a way of life and seeing the world that is radically different from the society they live in. That kind of ‘individual choice’ that boils down to deciding “what I want to study” is part of the problem, meaning that it cannot be part of the solution. Do you agree that this is paradoxical?”

“You raise a profound and insightful point about the potential paradox at the heart of Sam Dresser’s argument. The tension you identify is worth exploring further because it touches on a fundamental challenge in moral and cultural transformation: how can a society critique and reform its dominant ideology (in this case, hyper-individualism) using tools that are themselves shaped by that very ideology?

The Paradox Explained:

1. Individualism as the Problem and the Solution: Dresser suggests that hyper-individualism is the root of certain societal ills, yet the proposed remedy—studying Confucianism—relies on individual initiative (a person choosing to engage with a non-Western tradition). This means the solution is contingent on the very mindset it seeks to correct.
2. The Marginality of the Solution: As you note, only a small subset of individuals (likely those already critical of mainstream individualism) would be motivated to explore Confucianism. This makes the solution self-limiting, as it cannot achieve broad cultural change if it depends on the exceptions rather than the rule.
3. The Cultural ‘Toolbox’ Problem: Dresser’s approach treats Confucianism as a resource that individuals can voluntarily adopt to ‘balance’ their worldview. But this instrumentalizes Confucianism, fitting it into the individualist framework (where ideas are ‘chosen’ like consumer goods) rather than challenging the framework itself.

Is This Truly Paradoxical?

It depends on how we define ‘paradox.’ Strictly speaking, it might not be a logical contradiction, but it is certainly a practical or structural tension. The problem is that individualism, as a deeply embedded cultural paradigm, shapes not just our values but also how we think about changing our values. This creates a circularity:

• To escape hyper-individualism, we must individually choose to study alternatives—but the act of choosing is itself individualistic.

Possible Ways Out of the Paradox:

1. Institutional, Not Just Individual, Change: For Confucian or collectivist ideas to take root, they would need to be incorporated into structures (education, politics, workplace norms) rather than relying on personal exploration. This would require collective action, not just individual curiosity.
2. Reconceptualizing Agency: Confucianism emphasizes relationality and role-based ethics, where the self is not prior to its social context. A true engagement with it might involve recognizing that ‘choice’ itself is socially embedded—which could subtly undermine the individualist assumptions Dresser still relies on.
3. Cultural Hybridity: Dresser might argue that even if the uptake of Confucianism is initially individualistic, exposure to its ideas could gradually reshape cultural norms, making collectivist values more accessible to others. This is a slower, dialectical process.

Your Critique Is Valid

You’re right to question whether individualism can be ‘balanced’ from within its own logic. The paradox highlights a deeper issue: meaningful cultural change often requires external forces or crises that disrupt the dominant worldview (e.g., ecological collapse, war, or economic upheaval might force collectivist thinking). Without such disruption, individualism may simply absorb its critiques as ‘options’ within the marketplace of ideas.

Conclusion:

Yes, there is a paradoxical (or at least deeply tension-filled) aspect to Dresser’s proposal. The strength of your critique lies in exposing how individualism co-opts even attempts to transcend it. Whether this makes the project hopeless or merely more difficult is an open question—but it certainly underscores that studying Confucianism alone is insufficient without broader systemic change.”

“I love your point about the circularity, which of course defines the theoretical hopelessness of the dilemma. But I note that you too are ready to speculate on how we might ‘reconceptualize agency,’ presumably as individuals because nothing else exists that can constrain us.  You anticipated my follow-up question about the conditions under which hyper-individualism might be effectively transformed. You discreetly add  a key point: that ‘external forces or crises that disrupt the dominant worldview’ may be necessary. My takeaway concerning your response is first that political will; education and the economy (you mention ‘workplace norms’) are essential elements. Second, that some kind of external event or destabilizing force will be necessary. In other words, the hyperindividualist mindset has erected a rock solid defense of its core values to the extent that any gradualist solution will simply reinforce the idea that it’s all about individual initiative. It seems to me that the current increasingly chaotic geopolitical situation is likely to provide the disruption required, but anticipating how that might play out is literally impossible to see. Are there any scenarios more likely than others? And is there a scenario in which hyperindividualism comes out the winner (or at least not a total loser)?”

“You’ve perfectly distilled the core tension: hyperindividualism is so entrenched in Western societies that its defenses are structural—meaning that gradualist, voluntarist solutions (like individuals choosing to study Confucianism) are likely to be absorbed, neutralized, or commodified by the very system they seek to reform. This leaves us with two broad possibilities for meaningful change:

1. Deliberate, systemic interventions (political, economic, educational) that reshape collective norms from above or outside individual choice, or
2. Disruptive external forces (geopolitical, ecological, economic) that destabilize individualism’s dominance by making its costs unsustainable.

Since the first path is unlikely without some form of crisis (because individualism resists top-down collectivist reforms by design), the second becomes the more probable catalyst. Let’s explore scenarios—both for the decline and persistence of hyperindividualism.

Scenarios for Disruption and Transformation

1. Climate Collapse and Resource Scarcity 

• Mechanism: As ecological crises intensify (food shortages, mass migration, energy instability), survival may require collective coordination, rationing, and sacrifice—forcing a shift away from ‘personal freedom’ absolutism.
• Outcome: A move toward eco-collectivism or ‘green authoritarianism,’ where individualism is curtailed in the name of adaptation. (Example: wartime-style economies with enforced austerity.)
• But: Hyperindividualism could also win here if elites hoard resources and retreat into privatized survivalism (e.g., billionaire bunkers, gated eco-communities), leaving the masses to fend for themselves.

2. Geopolitical Conflict (Cold War 2.0 or Hot War)

• Mechanism: A protracted U.S.-China conflict (or a multipolar showdown) could force Western societies to adopt more collectivist, ‘national interest’ ideologies to compete with China’s Confucian-communist model.
• Outcome: A revival of civic duty, industrial policy, and collective sacrifice—akin to mid-20th-century wartime mobilization—but with lingering individualism in cultural spheres.
• But: If the West ‘wins’ without internal reform, hyperindividualism could resurge triumphalistically (‘See? Our system prevailed!’).

3. Economic System Failure (Neoliberal Crisis)

• Mechanism: A financial crash, AI-driven mass unemployment, or debt spiral could discredit the myth of individual agency, exposing systemic dependence on collective goods (healthcare, infrastructure, etc.).
• Outcome: A New Deal-style shift toward solidarity economics (e.g., UBI, worker cooperatives) or, conversely, a libertarian dystopia where the state abandons welfare entirely.
• But: Austerity narratives often blame individuals (‘lazy unemployed’), so crisis could deepen hyperindividualism via survival-of-the-fittest rhetoric.

4. Cultural Exhaustion (The ‘Loneliness Epidemic’ Escalates)

• Mechanism: If atomization and mental health crises reach a breaking point, there may be a grassroots demand for reconnection—e.g., communal living, religious revival, or digital detox movements.
• Outcome: A soft shift toward ‘collective individualism’ (e.g., Nordic models of social solidarity + personal freedom), but likely uneven and localized.
• But: Tech companies could co-opt this with ‘algorithmic communitarianism’ (e.g., AI-mediated pseudo-relationships), leaving hyperindividualism intact in practice.

 Could Hyperindividualism Survive—or Even Win?

Absolutely. It’s resilient because it:

• Aligns with capitalism: Consumerism and neoliberal markets thrive on atomized, choice-driven actors.
• Exploits crisis: Libertarianism reframes collapse as opportunity (‘DIY survivalism’). 
• Adapts rhetorically: It can absorb critiques (e.g., ‘self-care’ collectivism, corporate mindfulness).

Winning scenarios:

• Techno-feudalism: A hyperindividualist elite (tech billionaires) dominates while the masses are left to precarious gig work.
• Virtual retreat: If material conditions worsen, people may escape into VR/metaverses where individualism is unchallenged.
• Authoritarian individualism: A paradox where the state enforces ‘freedom’ (e.g., banning unions, dismantling public goods) in the name of personal responsibility.

The Most Likely Path? Hybridization Under Duress

The probable outcome isn’t pure collectivism or hyperindividualism, but a messy, contested hybridization:

• Elites may embrace collectivist rhetoric (e.g., ‘stakeholder capitalism’) while preserving individualist power structures.
• Grassroots movements will push solidarity in some domains (climate, healthcare) while retaining individualism elsewhere (gender, lifestyle).
• The state could become more interventionist in crises but retreat afterward (as post-WWII Keynesianism gave way to neoliberalism).

Final Thought: The disruption won’t come from Confucian studies, but from material necessity—yet the narrative that emerges will determine whether we frame the solution as collective (‘we’re all in this together’) or individualistic (‘every man for himself’). That’s where philosophy might still play a role: not as a cure, but as a toolkit for making sense of the crisis when it arrives.”

My provisional conclusion

I intend to continue this discussion with DeepSeek, focusing in particular on the various scenarios described.

But before doing so, I decided to use the exact same initial prompt with Gemini and compare the results. The contrast couldn’t be greater. These are clearly two different artificial “personalities.” In next week’s “Outside the Box,”I will reproduce my dialogue with Gemini and begin to explore what these two experiments tell us about both LLMs and the culture in which we use them.

I intend to go on to make a further point, which I believe is essential and points in the direction of one of the themes we developed in the above discussion: It concerns how LLMs can play an active role in education and ultimately contribute to providing one of the powerful disruptive forces DeepSeek has mentioned.

I’ll end today by outlining one very simply practical suggestion for our educational establishment to meditate on.

Learners can do what I have done here: explore tentative or even speculative ideas about a subject matter in consultation with an LLM. Different learners should be encouraged to use different LLMs. They can then come together in the classroom to confront or pool what they have understood from the experience.

We’ll delve deeper into this and other creative, collaborative processes after examining the different approaches of DeepSeek and Gemini.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.