/lit/ - Literature

The most evil man that's ever lived.

what are moden-day examples if higher pleasures?

This dude has got to be one of the most boring writers I have ever read. It’s taken me two hours just to get 25 pages into Utilitarianism.

He hasn’t even made an argument yet. He’s not being overly verbose, either, it’s just dry and not really saying anything. Should I even bother with On Liberty or is it more of the same?

>Mill was a notably precocious child. He describes his education in his autobiography. At the age of three he was taught Greek.[18] By the age of eight, he had read Aesop's Fables, Xenophon's Anabasis,[18] and the whole of Herodotus,[18] and was acquainted with Lucian, Diogenes Laërtius, Isocrates and six dialogues of Plato.[18] He had also read a great deal of history in English and had been taught arithmetic, physics and astronomy.

>At the age of eight, Mill began studying Latin, the works of Euclid, and algebra, and was appointed schoolmaster to the younger children of the family. His main reading was still history, but he went through all the commonly taught Latin and Greek authors and by the age of ten could read Plato and Demosthenes with ease. His father also thought that it was important for Mill to study and compose poetry. One of his earliest poetic compositions was a continuation of the Iliad. In his spare time he also enjoyed reading about natural sciences and popular novels, such as Don Quixote and Robinson Crusoe.

How the fuck am I supposed to compete with that?

>>18910454
You have a unique chance. Don't mess it up.

>heh you're like little babies watch this
>*fires his cannons of induction into your dogmatic scholastic bullcrap "metaphysics"
>nothing personal kids, just Anglo superiority

Rousseau has interesting things to say about cosmopolitan vanity and amour de soi, but the rest of his theory is awful dreck. I think pic related is surprisingly underrated nowadays in both relevance and influence, and basically all of his theories have been unmitigated disasters for the fabric of community and pursuit of pleasure above all else.

>>15739153
>most damaging

the only people it influenced were autists like >>15739688


despite being a colossal figure in academia I don't think Kant had a meaningful effect on society at large

pic related, on the other hand, helped lay the moral groundwork for the debasement of humanity

Was there ever greater bugman?

>The respect Joyce had for Newman continued throughout his life. When Joyce was writing the “Oxen of the Sun” episode of Ulysses, one of the writers he imitated was Newman. Joyce told Jacques Mercanton that while all the other authors were parodied, “Newman alone [was] rendered pure, in the grave beauty of his style.”

>>14757835
Do you count headbumps when you are calculating how wide the skull is?

>>14605889
You are a nigger

I don't understand why liberalism is hated so much. It seems like the best political philosophy to endorse.
>belief in political equality of individuals
>all people in a state deserve the right to have their interests heard and represented
>people shouldn't be discriminated against according to factors they cannot change
>men and women have the same intellectual capabilities
>people have the right to believe whatever they want so long as they are prepared to be confronted with the discursive consequences of those beliefs
>censorship shouldn't be determined by the interests of one group
>no one has the right to govern solely in virtue of their familial status
>the goal of society is to reduce injustice as much as possible
>the market economy is the most efficient and natural medium for practical problem solving
>If we were all to adopt a position of empathy, many injustices would dissolve, and therefore its best to act as though everyone were as empathetic as you
Please convince me otherwise, I really don't understand.

How would you go about creating the ultimate philosopher from birth?

*saves Bentham and destroys Kant*

I'm not sure if I'm retarded or not, but Mill seems to contradict himself in the space of 2 paragraphs. So, on page 13 Mill states
>"The principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of thier number, is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully excercised over any number of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forebear because it will be better for him to do so, or make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be right, or even wise."
But then he states on page 14:
>"It is proper to state that I forgo any advantage which could be dervided to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concerns the actions of others."
So my contention is: how can Mill rule out the use of coercion for a person's own good, while supporting his harm principle as utility in "the permanent interests of man as a progressive being", which is to say, as forwarding what is for man's own good? Am I missing something here, or is he ruling out paternalism while supporting liberty on paternalistic grounds? Or is he not against paternalism at all, but rather sees the "greater good" of liberty to be higher than any good that could be derived from State coercion?

What does /lit/ think of John Stuart Milton? No memes or bullying.

>muh freedom

>>7080637
Pleasure and Pain are undeniably good and bad, this is the foundation of Utilitarian ethics and I point I personally believe to be immovable.

I ground my ethics in gearing my actions towards being the kind which produce the more pleasure than pain as a consequence.

>Anyone
>Studies Law
>Generally likable person
>Smart
>Acknowledges that utilitarianism is not without it's faults but a good starting point nonetheless

This is the proto-feminist. First MP in history to openly support women's suffrage.

Holy shit this guy likes to ramble.

It's not nice not to let people develop how they want to.