›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

John Stuart Mill, Awesome Dude

gomidoggomidog
edited October 2008 in Everything Else
Who among you forum-ites know this guy? Well, you should. I didn't know much about him until this morning when I read a review of his biography. I think Rym and Scott would agree with me when I say he was ahead of his time. Basically, he sums up many Scrymily beliefs quite succinctly.

Instead of reading the Wikipedia, read the New Yorker bit. It's interesting.

Comments

  • ......
    I never heard about the man, he just never appeared upon my radar. Sounds interesting though. I'll poke through that article.
    Scrymily
    That's awesome too.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    On Liberty. Can there be any argument?
  • rhinocerorhinocero
    edited October 2008
    John Stuart Mill is a pretty alright guy. Seriously, he's awesome.

    Also, Adam Gopnik, the guy who wrote that, is a really cool, down-to-earth literary critic. He also wrote this piece on GK Chesterton that I enjoyed a lot (although Chesterton was nowhere near as right as Mill). I really enjoy getting his take on things.
    Post edited by rhinocero on
  • ErynEryn
    I know that John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
  • BlattusBlattus
    I've come across Mill's stuff in the past, and it is definitely interesting to say the least. Also, my philosophy class is reading Mill later on in the semester so I'll be sure to bump the thread once I have more philosophical stuffs to say about the subject.
  • YoshoKatanaYoshoKatana
    This is amazing.

    If we taught this in school, we'd be able to actually harness the thoughts of history, rather than simply cycling through them over and over, pondering the same questions. We might be able to build on great minds, and find the answers.
    "The French experience burned Mill badly. It led him, for a while, to propose, in the ideal republic, giving educated voters more votes than uneducated ones—it was a nation of peasants who had voted in Louis-Napoleon."
    That's a question I've pondered for years. I think we could figure out the answers, given a sufficient amount of information-sharing and dissemination.
  • SailSail
    I was him in a debate in 10th grade.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited October 2008
    John Stuart Mill is a pretty alright guy. Seriously, he's awesome.

    Also, Adam Gopnik, the guy who wrote that, is a really cool, down-to-earth literary critic. He also wrotethis pieceon GK Chestertonthat I enjoyed a lot (although Chesterton was nowhere near as right as Mill). I really enjoy getting his take on things.
    I have an absolutely insane ethics and theology teacher who seems to feel that Chesterton was the greatest thing since St. Paul. Now, I'm conflicted, because I really want to read The Man Who Was Thursday, but I don't want it to appear like I trust that psychotic anti-semite.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • Hitman HartHitman Hart
    edited October 2008
    John Stuart Mill is a pretty alright guy. Seriously, he's awesome.

    Also, Adam Gopnik, the guy who wrote that, is a really cool, down-to-earth literary critic. He also wrotethis pieceonGK Chestertonthat I enjoyed a lot (although Chesterton was nowhere near as right as Mill). I really enjoy getting his take on things.
    I have an absolutely insane ethics and theology teacher who seems to feel that Chesterton was the greatest thing since St. Paul. Now, I'm conflicted, because I really want to readThe Man Who Was Thursday, but I don't want it to appear like I trust that psychotic anti-semite.
    I read that book. It was pretty psychadelic to read over the summer for high school. At least, I think it was high school.
    Post edited by Hitman Hart on
  • AdelbertAdelbert
    On Liberty. Can there be any argument?
    Sure. His theories and books aren't very relevant.
    Specifically in On Liberty he writes well and clear, but eventually you (the average western reader) live in a society where all his major conclusions were implemented, or drawn upon for an outline of the current laws. this means you probably approve all the major concepts before they're introduced.
    The book is no longer thought provoking as it already proved its thesis, and the all the logical steps taken in order to prove it seem now like a debate on semantics (positive liberties versus negative liberties).
    I haven't read many of his other writings, but he seems very outdated.
  • StarfoxStarfox
    Sure. His theories and books aren't very relevant.
    Specifically in On Liberty he writes well and clear, but eventually you (the average western reader) live in a society where all his major conclusions were are implemented, or drawn upon for an outline of the current laws. This means you probably approve of all the major concepts before they're introduced.
    The book is no longer thought provoking as it already proved its thesis, and the all the logical steps taken in order to prove it seem now like a debate on semantics (positive liberties versus negative liberties).
    I haven't read many of his other writings, but he seems very outdated.
    First of all, I was saying that John Stuart Mill is an awesome dude for writing On Liberty, an awesome book. There is no arguing this.

    However, if you want to debate it, your argument is akin to saying "Newton wasn't that smart, today everybody knows about calculus." It's a little different when you were the first to come up with the idea. Additionally, On Liberty is a classic, and highly influential on today's society. His ideas formed the basis of many of our laws today. That's the opposite of irrelevant. Furthermore, there are many laws still in effect (at least in the U.S.) that contradict the harm principle. So "all his major conclusions" are not yet implemented in western society. It's still relevant. It's still important.
  • rhinocerorhinocero
    John Stuart Mill is a pretty alright guy. Seriously, he's awesome.

    Also, Adam Gopnik, the guy who wrote that, is a really cool, down-to-earth literary critic. He also wrotethis pieceonGK Chestertonthat I enjoyed a lot (although Chesterton was nowhere near as right as Mill). I really enjoy getting his take on things.
    I have an absolutely insane ethics and theology teacher who seems to feel that Chesterton was the greatest thing since St. Paul. Now, I'm conflicted, because I really want to readThe Man Who Was Thursday, but I don't want it to appear like I trust that psychotic anti-semite.
    Yeah, Chesterton is good, but a lot of his fans are sort of crazy. And there are some things that just aren't cool in the worldview of Chesterton himself. But The Man Who Was Thursday is really, really good, and it's a quick read, so... go for it.
  • Kate MonsterKate Monster
    edited October 2008
    We covered him pretty solidly in my Law, Politics and Society in U.S. History class at CTY in my 7th/8th grade summer.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
Sign In or Register to comment.