Three observations on the above view: First, some scholars think the above description is gilded nonsense, that is, we are really sheep in a powerful, Orwellian Big-Brother system, have been tricked into thinking of ourselves as true individuals in order that the powers-that-be increase their control and reduce our resistance. If this Big-Brother scenario is true, then it seems absolutely vital that we investigate the history of individualism, that we read important statements of it, see the evolution of it, discover what went awry, round up the usual suspects, and reduce Big Brother to a small pet.

            Second observation: Some scholars believe that our generation has gone well beyond the apex of individualism, that we have gone over the edge and fallen off (as described above) into the vale of individual chaos and anti-nomianism. This view sees radical individualism as isolating each person, destroying society, and making each individual the selfish, self-centered arbiter and/or victim of self-serving notions about right, wrong and every other important question -- thus pointing us toward violent self-destruction. The main question here is whether the patient is in serious condition (curable) or if the fall was fatal (either give up on individualism, or begin all over again and re-invent it properly). If this view is accurate, it is clearly vital to study individualism, for all the obvious reasons.

         A Third observation: Many believe that this generation is essentially healthy and highly developed in terms of individualism, as described in the first paragraph, but not to that extreme. So, the study of individualism is not really necessary, except to pat ourselves on the back through its study. After all, Big Brother would never develop in our culture, would it? We would never go too far, never fall off the edge, would we? And naturally, our culture is so positive in its individualism that problems and limitations have either literally ceased to exist, or will do so in time as we tackle them. For example, today we have mostly solved problems of inequality (if not entirely, nearly so); no prejudice (systemically); no lack of respect for ourselves (drug-use, deep insecurities, professors' beloved books stolen -- these are more exceptions than indicators); no lack of respect for other human beings, etc. However, if problems turned up, we would automatically dive into the best of our culture and individualism, and from those deep roots, beat the problem. Wouldn’t we?

         In other words, in terms of individualism, have we passed the Hell-Gate of Group-ism that says, "Abandon all hope, ye individuals who enter here"? Or not?

           How does Colin Morris define "individualism"? How does individualism fare in our day? What inhibits, what promotes it? How does religion, education, literature, philosophy (e.g., Abelard & Bernard) enter into the topic? What sources, what development, what results concerning individualism arise from Morris? And, how does this fit into Dante's work? Does Dante promote, or inhibit (or both)? What do the balance scales of your thought and reading conclude?