The following is an extract from my examination of the accounts of Mill and Nietzsche with regards to the concepts of political tyranny and social tyranny:

"As with about 90% of all logical leaps, the fissure in Mill�s account is traceable to a single faulty premise: that absolute freedom is absolutely desirable. Mill assumes this to the same degree that Bentham assumed happiness to be �logically good� before him. Ironically, and somewhat paradoxically, Mill is so prejudiced against prejudice that he gleefully forces absolute freedom upon those who cannot accommodate it; Mill�s philosophy prescribes this forceful behaviour or �tyranny� against such people, of whom there are at least as many as there are people affected by political or social tyranny. This �liberal tyranny� as we shall henceforth refer to it, tongue rooted decisively in cheek, is a by-product of the political and social tyranny that every society arguably requires by definition: we define a society by its rules and limitations, yet tyranny is also defined by such terms. It remains to be seen whether these definitions are biconditional, in which case we would have grounds for suggesting that perhaps the distinction drawn between the words �tyranny� and �society� is worthy of revision!"

(Note that this is published as my own work and I own the rights.)

As we established prior to hi5's decorative reform, this concept of liberal tyranny sends Jim running for his rifle - however, I would appreciate some feedback. Bear in mind that this is taken out of context, and I will clarify certain elements if you need me to.

Al.

The following is an extract from my examination of the accounts of Mill and Nietzsche with regards to the concepts of political tyranny and social tyranny:

"As with about 90% of all logical leaps, the fissure in Mill�s account is traceable to a single faulty premise: that absolute freedom is absolutely desirable. Mill assumes this to the same degree that Bentham assumed happiness to be �logically good� before him. Ironically, and somewhat paradoxically, Mill is so prejudiced against prejudice that he gleefully forces absolute freedom upon those who cannot accommodate it; Mill�s philosophy prescribes this forceful behaviour or �tyranny� against such people, of whom there are at least as many as there are people affected by political or social tyranny. This �liberal tyranny� as we shall henceforth refer to it, tongue rooted decisively in cheek, is a by-product of the political and social tyranny that every society arguably requires by definition: we define a society by its rules and limitations, yet tyranny is also defined by such terms. It remains to be seen whether these definitions are biconditional, in which case we would have grounds for suggesting that perhaps the distinction drawn between the words �tyranny� and �society� is worthy of revision!"

(Note that this is published as my own work and I own the rights.)

As we established prior to hi5's decorative reform, this concept of liberal tyranny sends Jim running for his rifle - however, I would appreciate some feedback. Bear in mind that this is taken out of context, and I will clarify certain elements if you need me to.

Al.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

I don't suppose you might clarify the overall subject of this post... I am familiar more with Mill's politicalwork than his straight philosophical work.

I will respond despite the fact that I'm unclear on the subject by saying that I think Mill had evey right to assume freedom is desirable. The fact that his work in justifying that premise is lacking in no wa diminishes his other work.
It seems to me that freedom is not in itself desirable, however. It is instead desirable in practice because the only obvious alternative is human dictation. As people generally do not all have the same needs, complete governance by other humans is likely to result in people's desires being left unsatisfied. As "the satisfaction of needs and desires" is what we in the world of moral and ethical philosophy define hapiness to be, it seems logical that hapiness is better achieved with freedom than with control. If we are not assuming that hapiness is a good thing then this is a whole different ballgame...

I don't suppose you might clarify the overall subject of this post... I am familiar more with Mill's politicalwork than his straight philosophical work.

I will respond despite the fact that I'm unclear on the subject by saying that I think Mill had evey right to assume freedom is desirable. The fact that his work in justifying that premise is lacking in no wa diminishes his other work.
It seems to me that freedom is not in itself desirable, however. It is instead desirable in practice because the only obvious alternative is human dictation. As people generally do not all have the same needs, complete governance by other humans is likely to result in people's desires being left unsatisfied. As "the satisfaction of needs and desires" is what we in the world of moral and ethical philosophy define hapiness to be, it seems logical that hapiness is better achieved with freedom than with control. If we are not assuming that hapiness is a good thing then this is a whole different ballgame...

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

Go to last of the ORIGINAL posts here before hi5 changed the format.All previous messages explaning this subject are there.
JIM

Go to last of the ORIGINAL posts here before hi5 changed the format.All previous messages explaning this subject are there.
JIM

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

I didn't realise it was possible to see our old topics - how's it done?
Since you asked, Jeff, I will clarify this position slightly:
Much of the other material in the paper is concerned with the analysis of human beings in relation to the psychological desire for freedom - and moreover, domination. The assertions made in the above extract are made in light of an in depth study of Nietzsche's work on the herd mentality and religious neurosis. It doesn't do him justice to summarise and I heartily recommend that you read some of his books - however, I'll say that the general idea is that the weaker inhabitants of our little green-grey planet band together in order to survive, and arguably require a direction for their collective mind. This sacrifice of autonomy is what keeps them alive and sane, so to take it away - to forcefully return to them their individuality - will be far from beneficial.

I didn't realise it was possible to see our old topics - how's it done?
Since you asked, Jeff, I will clarify this position slightly:
Much of the other material in the paper is concerned with the analysis of human beings in relation to the psychological desire for freedom - and moreover, domination. The assertions made in the above extract are made in light of an in depth study of Nietzsche's work on the herd mentality and religious neurosis. It doesn't do him justice to summarise and I heartily recommend that you read some of his books - however, I'll say that the general idea is that the weaker inhabitants of our little green-grey planet band together in order to survive, and arguably require a direction for their collective mind. This sacrifice of autonomy is what keeps them alive and sane, so to take it away - to forcefully return to them their individuality - will be far from beneficial.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

Oh and Jim, I've been thinking about our confused discussion of this prior to the 'hi5 renaissance' and I realised that I may be able to convince you further if I point out that my criticism of Mill is not based on ny desire to protect the herd - it is a criticism of his misguided aims in philosophy. HE was the one who really wanted to save the herd, but if you accept my assertions as valid then it becomes clear that he was shooting himself (and the mindless majority) in the foot.
...on the other hand, this epiphany might only serve to repel you further. I'm still not really sure where it is that you stand in terms of liberalism. If so, whoops.

Oh and Jim, I've been thinking about our confused discussion of this prior to the 'hi5 renaissance' and I realised that I may be able to convince you further if I point out that my criticism of Mill is not based on ny desire to protect the herd - it is a criticism of his misguided aims in philosophy. HE was the one who really wanted to save the herd, but if you accept my assertions as valid then it becomes clear that he was shooting himself (and the mindless majority) in the foot.
...on the other hand, this epiphany might only serve to repel you further. I'm still not really sure where it is that you stand in terms of liberalism. If so, whoops.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

I have a problem with your statement "This sacrifice of autonomy is what keeps [people] alive and sane".

If that statement is true, then anyone who is entirely autonomous must be either dead or insane or both.

It seems to me that that would imply that the people in charge of governing others (the autonomous rulers at least) are all insane.

Thus, you are effectively arguing for a society in which the majority is kept sane by being ruled over by the insane.


You know... it sounds crazy at first, but when you really think about it... It's not all that far from the truth! ;P


Still, I think that you make a good point when you say that it is unity that keeps our species alive and that it is by banding together that we become strong. The only problem I see is that we do not necessarily need something to direct the collective mind. Rather, we need a set of laws that keep our collective (and individual) mind on track.

I have a problem with your statement "This sacrifice of autonomy is what keeps [people] alive and sane".

If that statement is true, then anyone who is entirely autonomous must be either dead or insane or both.

It seems to me that that would imply that the people in charge of governing others (the autonomous rulers at least) are all insane.

Thus, you are effectively arguing for a society in which the majority is kept sane by being ruled over by the insane.


You know... it sounds crazy at first, but when you really think about it... It's not all that far from the truth! ;P


Still, I think that you make a good point when you say that it is unity that keeps our species alive and that it is by banding together that we become strong. The only problem I see is that we do not necessarily need something to direct the collective mind. Rather, we need a set of laws that keep our collective (and individual) mind on track.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

Oh Jeff, you see- this is what happens when anyone tries to explain Nietzsche!
Firstly: the herd who sacrifice their autonomy are NOT representative of the entire human race, only the MAJORITY of people.
Secondly: They sacrifice their individuality in favour of religion, fashion, science etc. because they are WEAK. The fundamental opinion held by Nietzsche was that those who remain autonomous are the strong, worthy few, who are of some value to him and even to themselves.
Thirdly: The unity that keeps this weak majority alive is a sign of their weakness, their inability to fend for themselves, and ulitmately their worthlessness as inidividual entities - since although they are physically seperate, they make distinctive contribution in their own right: anything formulated by such a person is done for more than their own benefit.

I'm sorry to say that with each passing word I am burying Nietzsche's work beneath another shovelful of shite: if you are interested in the idea of amorality and the strength of the autonomous man, I suggest you read Beyond Good and Evil. It's not Nietzsche's greatest book, but it's probably the most accessible work that is also comprehensive.

NB: Although you made the wrong conclusion in your post, Nietzsche is famous for having gone mad in Turin. Coincidence? Hopefully.

Oh Jeff, you see- this is what happens when anyone tries to explain Nietzsche!
Firstly: the herd who sacrifice their autonomy are NOT representative of the entire human race, only the MAJORITY of people.
Secondly: They sacrifice their individuality in favour of religion, fashion, science etc. because they are WEAK. The fundamental opinion held by Nietzsche was that those who remain autonomous are the strong, worthy few, who are of some value to him and even to themselves.
Thirdly: The unity that keeps this weak majority alive is a sign of their weakness, their inability to fend for themselves, and ulitmately their worthlessness as inidividual entities - since although they are physically seperate, they make distinctive contribution in their own right: anything formulated by such a person is done for more than their own benefit.

I'm sorry to say that with each passing word I am burying Nietzsche's work beneath another shovelful of shite: if you are interested in the idea of amorality and the strength of the autonomous man, I suggest you read Beyond Good and Evil. It's not Nietzsche's greatest book, but it's probably the most accessible work that is also comprehensive.

NB: Although you made the wrong conclusion in your post, Nietzsche is famous for having gone mad in Turin. Coincidence? Hopefully.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

I replied twice with long posts here and I timed out or something.They sent me back to the log in, losing the post.I gave up.I wish I could type something up and paste it.I don't know how or if it would work.Oh well.
JIM

I replied twice with long posts here and I timed out or something.They sent me back to the log in, losing the post.I gave up.I wish I could type something up and paste it.I don't know how or if it would work.Oh well.
JIM

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

Keep trying!

Keep trying!

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic

  

Hebrews3


1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Hebrews3


1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

Note: To add an image or link in your message,
use <img src="image URL"> or <a href="link URL">Text </a>

 Quote Original

 Watch this Topic