/lit/ - Literature

>>17296075
Why do you think the only legitimate life goals are state mandated?

>>17296075
Why does /lit/ love the idea of being enslaved? The amount of Nazi, feudalism, monarchy, etc. sympathizers I see on this board is worrying.

>>17296075
If this was what got out of this very easy to read book you are functionally illiterate. Go read "The very hungry caterpillar" and discuss it with a kindergarden.

>>17296075
You clearly haven't read it, you dense fucking cunt.

>Where will people find a meaning for their lives if there's no goal?

You just don't look for the meaning of life in politics. Politics is peripheral.

>>17296108
>Besides these I have been toiling through Stirling’s Secret of Hegel. It is right to learn what Hegel is & one learns it only too well from Stirling’s book. I say "too well" because I found by actual experience of Hegel that conversancy with him tends to deprave one’s intellect. The attempt to unwind an apparently infinite series of self–contradictions, not disguised but openly faced & coined into [illegible word] science by being stamped with a set of big abstract terms, really if persisted in impairs the acquired delicacy of perception of false reasoning & false thinking which has been gained by years of careful mental discipline with terms of real meaning. For some time after I had finished the book all such words as reflexion, development, evolution, &c., gave me a sort of sickening feeling which I have not yet entirely got rid of.

>>17296075
Is this bait?

>>17296095
Because they think other people are as stupid as they are, so they need someone to care for them.

>>17296095
Yes I love being enslaved.
I love to wear masks everywhere I go.
I love that my country considers less than an animal, since pets were allowed to go for a walk during quarantines while we had to remain inside.
I love being an animal until the point that the government has power over what chemicals should I be given without choice.
I love being an animal and therefore being treated like an animal since that's materialism's furthest conclusion.
I love being controlled by corporations all the time, like the animal that I'm.
I love voting for the next 4 year term puppet so that the crowd psychology makes possible to enforce policies that wouldn't be possible to apply if it weren't for the illusion of the general will.
I love that all my rights are positivist farces that consider human nature an ever-changing nature, therefore subject to endless political adjustment.
I love having no roots but manipulable market identities that companies will fight over for like sharks in a swimming pool.
I love porn and having my 5 minutes of somatic release to continue in this hellwheel, without future.
Did I say that I love being a slave?
I also love living in a liberal democracy.

>>17296508
Don't extrapolate your depression to politics anon, a fringe ideology will not solve your/our problems.

>>17296108
If it's not what you got out of it, you missed the entire point not only of his book but of modern liberalism too.

>>17296110
I did and I understood it better than you. Post your best counter arguments and I'll dismantle them tomorrow morning when I wake up cunt.

>>17296130
Goes for you as well cunt. Better brainstorm worth replying to or I don't wanna see you posting on my threads ever again.

>>17296222
You too brainlet.

Keep this thread alive until I have time to whip your pseud ass.

bump

>>17296092
fpbp

>>17296095
/pol/ crossboarders

>wake up
>none of the cunts dared to reply
Embarrassing display fags.

Op hasn't read this

>>17299892
Write your very best counter argument this moment or forever hold your peace.

>>17296092
I don't. Make an argument without misrepresenting mine.
>>17296095
>is worrying.
If people with other views worry you, you should go back, cunt.
>>17296120
First of all, politics is not peripheral in a democracy. Second of all, state-encouraged or state-mandated life goals are not politics and have been the case for the vast majority of our history.

>>17299892
>>17299472
>>17297881
>>17296222
>>17296130
>>17296110
>>17296108
>still no argument
Last chance to prove you're not a bunch of pussies faggots. I'll go back to read my books and enjoy my cozy weekend. I'll check back later if it's still alive but we all know I'm the only person ITT who read this book. Cunts.

>>17299996
That burden, which is to make a definite assertion that can be tested, is on you.

>>17296075
Economically yes this is exactly how it works and why the free market is based. That being said we have a morality issue and no system of government can fix that anon.

>>17300209
I accept your concession.
>>17300710
>That being said we have a morality issue and no system of government can fix that anon.
We have plenty of problems that no system of government can fix. That doesn't mean Mill's liberalism as presented in this book is any good. It's a narrow elisitic view that presumes that all, or at least most, people are similar to Mill in their capabilities and desires to enjoy "freedom". In Mill's system there's never the realisation that his system may in fact lead to the privation of happiness for people who don't enjoy his flavor of "liberty". Also it's extremely conceited to think you hold an authority over what liberty means when most of your belief system relies on arguably misguided post-French Revolution ideas.

>>17297149
perhaps not, but a fringe ideology gives me something to read about, so I can then lose myself in delusions about living in a utopic universe ruled by that specific fringe ideology. It's complicated.

>>17296075
>needs government to set his life goals
Take control of yourself.

What are you talking about? he famously expresses a limit of what people can do, namely, use the state to sanction and control the private lives of others. He then further demarcates the limit of where state coercion is acceptable (and by extension where individual freedom ends):when an action is both socially-directed and harmful. Hence the famous Harm principle. There are two realms of acting: the self-directed and the socially-directed. The socially-directed, as it effects the actions of others, must balance the interests of all involved. insofar as it further harms them, it become subject to social reprisal and control. However, self-directed actions only bear on the individual, and, not impacting the interests of others, are beyond any claim they have to arrest or control. If we talk about finding meaning in our lives, this is clearly something self-directed: whatever meaning you attribute to your life has no impact on me, and as such is beyond mine or societies jurisdiction to dictate
The whole point of the essay is to protect individual’s capacity to make their own meaning independent of the interests of the ruling elite or the zealous mob, that every functional rational agent has the best knowledge of their own needs and goals, and further ought to decide them. For it is only under considerable freedom and self-direction where individuals are free to express and debate that that very independence can develop. Enlightenment, as Kant put it, is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity meaning the inability to use your own reason without the guidance of another. Mill wants you to develop as an autonomous and self-directing agent who has both the knowledge and capacity to define your own happiness, as otherwise you will be living with the imperfect and impersonal edicts of another who presumes to know your happiness without knowing your situation. And, more often than not, is not even operating in your interests. To transpose Hayek's epistemic argument against central planning (which Mill makes a simplistic version of): even had the best intentions, it isn't possible for them to have the knowledge to realise those intentions. That knowledge, even if not properly leveraged, is only available to the individual
In many ways OP, the book is directed towards you. He gave you many reasons—if you value truth—to restrain your desire to dictate the terms of life for all. Arguments i don't need to repeat. We live in a largely Millian world, and most people have proven themselves more than capable of dictating their own meaning and goals in life. People largely aren't perfect enlightened actors, but what Mill proposes works well enough even with imperfect actors. Society is largely self-regulating, there are mechanisms beyond the state for coordinating action and punishing antisocial behaviour. He didn't deny the role of morality in this, he just didn't think that morality is law or within the purview of the state to enforce

>>17301183
Holy pseud. No one asked you to write a Goodreads review about the book you narcissistic cunt. Your post is even more vacuous than the book, so thanks for answering that first question.

Now answer the second one: where will the average person find a meaning in life? Sure, some will find in "pursuing their dreams" but what about the people who can't find a meaning unless one is provided to them like it's been for most of human history? It sure doesn't seem like most people today spontaneously found a meaning in life if you cared to interact with people.

>>17296095
liberalism is spiritual slavery

>>17301327
Do you have meaning in your life? How did you find it? Did you figure it out yourself or somebody gave you a reason to live? In my experience people who lack meaning in their life eventually find something to live for. Providing meaning to someone else's life is inadequate because you can't have a framework that fits everyone. I like the Millian approach because it offers a solution without a solution. We can't have a universal meaning that fits everyone but you can find your own meaning that might fit you. (I understand it is a great responsibility and it might be scary for you). We can maybe offer help to people who lack meaning by encouraging them to try out new things, join clubs, try to find interest with trial and error.
Is there something anon you always wanted to try but you were afraid to try it? Do you think your current believes hold you back from something that you wanted to do? What was your childhood dream? Do you want to rediscover that? Come on anon, try to find something to live for go read something you want, ask that girl out, try to imagine yourself in a world where you are happy and strife for it. I can't give you a meaning nobody could but you can try to figure it out yourself and encourage others to find it for themself. You have every freedom in the world to think that all that I am saying is bullshit but I want you to be happy and be just a little bit more understanding with the Millian approach.

>>17296222
>Because they think other people are as stupid as they are, so they need someone to care for them.
Which is true.

'For, besides what has been said, it should be borne in mind that the temper of the multitude is fickle, and that while it is easy to persuade them of a thing, it is hard to fix them in that persuasion. Wherefore, matters should be so ordered that when men no longer believe of their own accord, they may be compelled to believe by force'
- De Principatibus

>>17296508
Eat the bugs anon.

>>17301889
Can you talk like a normal human? I'm discussing his political theory as it applies to a state; it has nothing to do with my happiness or purpose. I'm not sure if you're trolling or liberalism and individualism fried your mind to such an extent that you no longer have a concept of a state and politics.

>>17296508
based

>>17301332
>spiritual
No such thing. Cope.

>>17302863
>No such thing.
You're the one coping.

bump

>>17302822
I recognise that anon's writing style from other threads, they're incapable of formulating a thought without it being entirely obnoxious.

>>17296508
You don't live in a liberal democracy, you live in a borderline authoritarian oligarchy. Today's world is not really related to the world that Mill is talking about.

>>17304019
>noo it wasn't real democracy!!!

>>17304044
No one said democracy is good, including Mill.

>>17296075
What parts of the book are you against and why?

>>17296092
fpbp

>>17301327
Judging by your OP it seemed you needed it. You said Mill thought people could do whatever they want, when that isn't what he thought. I then gave you arguments from Mills mouth addressing why state enforced 'meaning in life' is inadequate, none of which you've answered or addressed.
All you have done is repeated the premise that the majority of people are both lack the actuality and the possibility of finding meaning in life without it being imposed upon them by the state. But, being a premise and not a conclusion, it requires further argument secure, which you haven't provided. If you want an argument, first you have to make one.

>>17304352
keyed
>>17302822
locked

>>17304209
I'm against his entire system because it fails to provide and implicitly downplays a meaning for citizens.
>>17304352
Mill thinks that if you remove the pressure of the government, people will spontaneously find a meaning. He thinks that because he supposes that people are self-directed and this just happens. I say it doesn't. It's not me who's supposed to build an argument because all human history prior to the 19th century agrees with me and it's been the default state of societies. You and Mill are responsible to support this statement, but you both failed to do so far.

I'll read your argument tomorrow if you have one: why are you certain most people spontaneously find meaning if the government acts like Mill wants it to act? Try using logic not Enlightenment sophistry.

>>17304397
You write your argument too, brainlet.

>>17296075
>government
Why do you think anyone should be regulated by a pack of midwit subvertionists?

>>17301327
The State's purpose is to serve the interests of the ruling class, not to give people meaning for their lives. How does the State even do that in the current world? People, when they can, create their own meaning for life, whether it's art or a certain profession or raising a family, etc. Of course most of the population doesn't have an opportunity for self-realization because they're wage slaves.

“To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.” -Oscar Wilde

>>17304466
>I'm against his entire system because it fails to provide and implicitly downplays a meaning for citizens.
The only meaning the current system gives people is to be used as instruments for the ruling class

>>17304473
People find "meaning" in faith and family. No government mandate is needed for that because that's been the nature of good people for all of time. If you're talking about meaningful work, people should be able to figure out what they're best at/what drone work they find least torturous and stick with it. If you mean some greater national purpose or ultimate goal, I dont see how that applies to the individual. To be fair I havent read the book, I just think you're a retard and were criticizing the style of that other anons argument and not the substance.

>>17296508
fucking based post

>>17296095
They haven't read Nietzsche.

"For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is. Private property has crushed true Individualism, and set up an Individualism that is false. It has debarred one part of the community from being individual by starving them. It has debarred the other part of the community from being individual by putting them on the wrong road and encumbering them."

>>17304630
Neat. Gonna post this on Instagram with a shirtless pic and pretend I wrote it

"Outside the academic establishment, the “far-reaching change in all our habits of thought” is more serious. It serves to coordinate ideas and goals with those exacted by the prevailing system, to enclose them in the system, and to repel those which are irreconcilable with the system. The reign of such a one-dimensional reality does not mean that materialism rules, and that the spiritual, metaphysical, and bohemian occupations are petering out. On the contrary, there is a great deal of “Worship together this week,” “Why not try God,” Zen, existentialism, and beat ways of life, etc. But such modes of protest and transcendence are no longer contradictory to the status quo and no longer negative. They are rather the ceremonial part of practical behaviorism, its harmless negation, and are quickly digested by the status quo as part of its healthy diet."

>>17296075
>just let your drug addicted brother kill himself as long as he isnt harming other people bro

>>17304721
He's against that retard

>>17304610
Your argument is self-refuting and implicitly revealing of the weaknesses of Mill's system. I'll elaborate tomorrow if the thread is still up cause I'm in bed now.

>>17296095
A hands off monarchy is the most free system in practice.

>>17305507
This dumb thread will be pruned by then, maybe you should try and find some meaning in your life beyond shitposting

bump

>>17305546
Do go on

>>17296095
Because /lit/ has been invaded by the political equivalent of Mac users, liberal rightoids.

>>17296075
Utilitarianism is a weak sauce and milquetoast philosophy for the masses for many reasons, but your take is pretty retarded.

>>17300788
You’re trying to force a horizontal structure of economy. Why? Nothing in nature is like that. There will always be poor and their will always be rich. Trying to alleviate that is of course a noble cause but naive, especially in the United States where value is in the eye of the beholder and that shit is all over the fucking place. Mill and Hayek are not naive in any sense. The free market is the way to go. Humans being shit is another issue. Doesn’t degrade the doctrine presented by libertarians. People many don’t like them because crazy people tend to gravitate there.

>>17296095
It's not so much that they enjoy slavery, moreso that they imagine themselves as the slave owners.

>>17296095
/lit/ is not one person. The ones advocating for those political systems on here are just of a different frame of mind. Maybe some of them are desperate for a structural reordering, either because they've suffered misfortunes personally, or because they're inept failures and have hit rock bottom. Maybe they're simpletons who need to be told how to live. Most of them probably just value different things than you do and see the current structure as empty and meaningless.

>>17304554
>Medicine's purpose is to serve the interests of doctors, not to give people medical treatment. How does Medicine even do that in the current world? People, when they can, create their own treatment for illness, whether it's yoga or a certain herbal remedy or simply living with it, etc. Of course most of the population doesn't have an opportunity for self-medication because they're wage slaves.

>"All diseases begin in the stomach" - Hippocrates

This thread has only cemented my opinion that Mill is an unparalleled genius in political philosophy and the only reason his followers don't take the time to btfo retards like OP more often is because they it's generally a waste of time

>>17307550
>unironic appeal to nature
Based retard

>>17304466
>Mill thinks that if you remove the pressure of the government, people will spontaneously find a meaning
Again he doesn't think that. His entire 'Considerations on Representative Government' is dedicated to how the process of education and improvement must be gradual. That it is precisely in an initially limited participation that people are able to practice and learn the virtues of self-direction without damaging each other. The limits imposed in 'on liberty' are precisely to allow for that participation over time without the masses (who are still in their political and moral tutelage) arresting their own development by imposing an environment inimical to that very improvement.
>Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury [...] [until they have] become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion
Which follows the same pattern of all learning, but, due to the special nature of the lesson, requires the freedom to determine their own ends. The system he proposes in 'Considerations' limits the negative effects of an underdeveloped character—while preserving the educative function—through varied franchises, weighted voting, and an emphasis on localized participation in limited offices. He doesn't support the absolute anarchy and utopian fancy you attribute to him. All that this is predicated on in that people are ‘progressive beings’ i.e. capable of improvement through education. It would be an incredible claim to deny this. That people historically have been denied self-direction as you claim (itself dubious) tells us nothing of their capacity towards it.
And If we’re going to talk about logic, so far the only argument to support your premise that it is impossible has been of the form
>(1) a --> b (P) (historically governments dictated goals which allowed people to find meaning in life (if governments dictate goals then people find meaning in life))
>(C) ¬a --> ¬b (1) (therefore, if the government does not dictate goals then people cannot find meaning in life)
In which not only have you proposed another unsupported premise, but you've committed a converse error when attempting to derive your conclusion from it. And if you add the hidden premise that would make the argument valid (‘necessarily, meaning in life can only be defined through the government’) you are just assuming exactly what is in contention and proving nothing.
So far all your statements about Mill have been misrepresentations, you have failed to produce a single valid (never mind sound) positive argument for your claims, you have failed to address any argument that Mill actually made, all the while acting with an abrasive and completely unsupported arrogance. I have no interest in humouring you any further. Find someone else to be your tard wrangler for the day.

>>17296095
For those who have a real goal, nearly anything is tolerable. For those without, nearly nothing is.

>>17296095
and that's terrifying (and that's a good thing!) and heres why

>>17296075
The brain damage caused by Enlightenment liberalism is irreparable.

>>17296095
All freer systems than liberal capitalism, as it turns out.

>>17304554
>The State's purpose is to serve the interests of the ruling class
No, that's a corrupt state, not the state in general.

>>17304610
>People find "meaning" in faith and family.
You're improperly using data from before liberalism. Let's take a look at Mill's country: divorce rates have been steadily increasing (close to 50%) and multiple reports show that the majority of people in the UK consider themselves "not religious" (see: https://web.archive.org/web/20170927052351/http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/1469605/BSA-religion.pdf ). So you're saying people find meaning in fath and family, but both these institutions are heavily in decline in liberal countries. You may say it's not liberalism that causes it, but the fact remains: you say people spontaneously and naturally find meaning in faith and family and the data disagrees with you. You think it's not the State that kept those institutions together, so I ask you: how does Mill's system address this issue seeing that people no longer seem to find their meaning in the institutions you listed?

>>17306794
>>17307570
>>17307589
>no argument
Back to your Nietzche threads, midwits.

>>17307550
When did I ever talk about economics?

>>17307846
You misrepresented my argument again. If someone wants to change society for the better, they're the ones who should support their argument to show why it's better. I don't have to prove that if the government doesn't dictate goals then people cannot find meaning in life because that was already the status quo. Mill wants a change so he has to prove that his solution is better than status quo.

(1) Where in his book does he prove it and how?
(2) If he didn't, how does today's world support his claim? Do people have more meaning in life today than before? Are people better off mentally than before? How do you support the idea that liberalism helped people find a purpose in life better?

>>17307507
Go on. Also the thread is not his Utilitarianism book but on his On Liberty book.

>>17301183
do you really expect me to read all that shit by you?

>>17308359
what do you mean?