/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14333089]

This is the gayest fucking crap I've ever read in my life.

[Anonymous No.14333106]

>Anglo "philosophy"
What were you expecting?

[Anonymous No.14333107]

Ironic that anglos, the freest people in history, could never articulate the conditions of freedom very well. Croce and Hoppe are much better desu

[Anonymous No.14333183]

>read leviathan
>read locke/mille afterward
>all i see is idealist ranting about human rights and the inherent goodness of men without any proof
>mfw

[Anonymous No.14333194]

>>14333107
>anglos, the freest people in history,

single-digit IQ

[Anonymous No.14333362]

>>14333089
What's wrong with it OP?

[Anonymous No.14333377]

>>14333362
>muh liberty
>muh individualism
Jordan Peterson tier tripe

[Anonymous No.14333437]

>>14333377
okay, so mill argues against paternalism using a kind of epistemological argument that no one can know what is better for a person than that person themselves, and as such they should not have their interests dictated to them by the state or from other members of society. what do you think of that argument?

[Anonymous No.14333438]

>This is the gayest fucking crap I've ever read in my life.
Because you're a pleb incapable of accounting for alterity and understanding the context of philosophers before you engage them directly.

You're not supposed to read Mill and these guys expecting to be mindblown by writings of over a century ago, but to understand how they devised their systems as response to the social and cultural circumstances surrounding them and all the values and ideas they wanted to dethrone and replace by tapping into a collective pool of resources from science to rhetoric - all of which may now feel alien to us - and take from that valuable insights regarding the development of human thought and its historical dimension.

Making a shallow, brainlet reading that only leads you to idiotic conclusions such as "lol he talks about liberty like the fedora people!" is a bad look on you, not him.

[Anonymous No.14333576]

>>14333437
What about women who drink while pregnant? What about alcoholic's and drug addicts? Do those people really know what's best for them?

[Anonymous No.14333591]

>>14333438
dont use nigger terms such as "a bad look on you"

[Anonymous No.14333640]

>>14333437
>no one can know what is better for a person than that person themselves
That factually false. Does spending time on social networks, buying useless staff and being famous is good for you? And yet that's most people want.
>>14333438
So we need read philosophy only as a historical anecdote, as it has no value for current time?

[Anonymous No.14333663]

>>14333089
>Mill
>retarded assumptions
>retarded conclusions
who would have thought?

[Anonymous No.14333886]

>>14333576
do you think that women who drink while pregnant, alcoholics, and drug addicts think what they are doing is good for themselves?
>>14333640
aren't you guilty of exactly what mill was arguing against, of imposing your own conception of how one ought to live on others without knowing their particular situation? how can you know that spending time on social media isn't fulfilling for these people? remember, mill was a utilitarian, and though he thought some pleasures higher than others, if liberty allows the greatest good for the greatest number, he would ask: what does it matter if people find enjoyment in things you consider frivolous, if they aren't harming anyone?

[Anonymous No.14333934]

Bentham is even gayer. The first "let people enjoy things"philistine. At least Mill recognized the notion of higher pleasures.

>If the quantity of pleasure be the same, pushpin is as good as poetry.

[Anonymous No.14333943]

His argument for freedom of speech is compelling.

[Anonymous No.14333982]

>>14333886
>how can you know that spending time on social media isn't fulfilling for these people?
Because it's objectively unhealthy and destructive, as many things are, both for individual and society. Most even come to realise this but can't stop and start self-hating and misanthropy.

Also, society is made up of individuals, the sum of them, so saying that one has no say in what others do is dumb because society clearly affects you as an individual, as it does everyone else. Which means your actions are the say by default, society the sum of says- though destructive says, due to the structure of it, are more vocal than healthy and kind says. Indeed, this sum affects what you can think, feel, believe, your lifestyle and habits and diet and so much more. There are objective measures, at least provisional, that we can come to. Even many that most people already recognise and desire but fail to achieve due to so-called liberty which is really a cover for ignoring the structure, starting conditions, and loudest voices that dictate you.

[Anonymous No.14334018]

>>14333934
>Bentham never married, and died in the company of friends on the eve of the signing of the Great Reform Act. Convinced that even the dead should serve a utilitarian purpose, in his last will he directed that his body be publicly “anatomised” in order to publicize the benefits of donating bodies for medical research (Richardson 1986). The sanitary reformer and physician Thomas Southwood Smith (1832) delivered the eulogy over Bentham’s dissected remains. In preparation for this final act, in an unpublished pamphlet written in the year before his death, Auto-Icon; or Farther Uses of the Dead to the Living (printed 1842, but not then published), he proposed the display of auto-iconized bodies and heads as a means to public instruction. He requested that his own mummified head and skeleton, dressed in his habitual garments, be displayed, and it can still be viewed today at University College London. Bentham’s (admittedly eccentric and somewhat humorous) ideas about “auto-iconism” can also be understood as an attempt to find a secular substitute for the rituals and practices of conventional religion.

>tfw your educational institution doesn't display the mummified body of your favorite philosopher

[Anonymous No.14334166]

>>14333982
>it's objectively unhealthy and destructive, as many things are, both for individual and society
assuming this is true, is that justification enough for coercive action to prevent it?
>Which means your actions are the say by default, society the sum of says- though destructive says, due to the structure of it, are more vocal than healthy and kind says. Indeed, this sum affects what you can think, feel, believe, your lifestyle and habits and diet and so much more.
isn't this precisely what mill argues against? that people ought to free from the destructive influence of others, and the established customs and prejudices shouldn't be forced on dissenters.
> Even many that most people already recognise and desire but fail to achieve due to so-called liberty which is really a cover for ignoring the structure, starting conditions, and loudest voices that dictate you
i think mill thought that such conditions would be improved not through coercion but education, and that free speech would allow for the correct ideas to assert themselves through "the marketplace of ideas". the melioristic project of liberalism would eventually solve these problems, given time.

[Anonymous No.14334343]

>>14333089
Mill is what one gets when the person starts with the Greeks. Like it or not, he is what /lit/ promotes, willfully or not.

[Anonymous No.14334354]

>>14333438
Based, I was assigned this reading in a Business Ethics class. Loved it

[Anonymous No.14334372]

>>14334018
Wouldn't want to run into this creepster in a dark alley!

[Anonymous No.14334428]

>>14334343

This...so bad

[Anonymous No.14334445]

>>14333107
>>14333194
NGE seemed like it could be so much better, a mysterious air around. Disappointing kids show.

Jin-Roh was better.

[Anonymous No.14334456]

>>14333183
I want to read them, is this true?

Either way, one may see their value lays in what they say from that presupposition of inherent goodness.

[Anonymous No.14334461]

>>14334354
>Business Ethics
lmao

[Anonymous No.14334469]

>>14333934
>>If the quantity of pleasure be the same, pushpin is as good as poetry.
There's definitely some of that within the Anglo outlook, and I do appreciate that spirit, however at the bleeding heart it is wrong and remains a source for great vice and evil within this world.

[Anonymous No.14334486]

>>14333591
don't use faggot terms such as "dont use nigger terms such as 'a bad look on you'"