The Mill Limit... The Apex of Liberty

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drogue
It is, which is why elijah took it further. I am undecided, but that is why he broke it down into impedance and influence.

I know - I just find this distinction opaque if it doesn't rely on other hypotheses which I find to be dubious.

[Drogue]

Yes, I agree on that. However, with extensive discussion, I think Ben has more of an idea about exactly where that distinction lies that his essay states. Whether it should be classified as those terms is another thing. I think the idea is there, but not just necessarily to to express the difference.

if you want people to swallow it idealism is hardly the way to go.

I've been trying to tell him that for ages. I think he's more concerned with the ideal than actually getting it implimented.

I agree with Agathon that "liberty is merely a culturally inculcated idea ", but it hs been a goal of many for centuries. I don't see that changing much. Indeed, I think as society progresses, people want more and more liberty. One of Ben's ideas was that it will happen, and he is just predicting it. He may be right, I can see society moving in this direction.

being able do what I want" which isn't saying much.

Isn't it? I think that is saying quite a lot. People want more and more Liberty, having total liberty, or as much as possible without directly impacting others, would be saying quite a bit IMHO.

[Whaleboy]

"phenomenological liberty"

Wow, I thought it was just me that had a love for the polysyllabic! Iike that definition though, with your permission, can I use it in a spin-off text, spawned partly by this conversation?

" I didn't know that? I Must read some. I thought that was Nat's area"

Im sure you know. Nats "poetry" is mere drivel. I have never seen more pointless abstractions, repetitions and similes in my life! USE METAPHORS!!!

Freudians would also argue that the though the foundation for their field in not canonical science, it makes it no less valid.

"I just find this distinction [between influence and impedence] opaque if it doesn't rely on other hypotheses which I find to be dubious"

Can you further explain that? If you're alluding to what I think you are, then impedence is physically taking away ones liberty, for example a bop on the nose takes away my right "Not to be assaulted" (remember the context of the rights in society).

However, influence is anything that in this case, if you are to use my definition as opposed to Drogues (I find mine to be somewhat more coherent in context of the Mill Limit, while Drogues appears to be based on morality and common sense [subjectives even in this context, as both vary on the individual]), that solely goes through the mind of the individual.

You are reading this post, which is going through your mind and being interpreted as a concept (no doubt that of an 18 year old Briton with no idea what he's on about, but bare with me). As such it is influencing you. Any reaction caused because of it is down to you, and not me. In that respect, if one is to use this definition, one could say that Plato is entirely unresponsible for the holocaust.

Using Drogues interpretation (if he hasnt explained, I'm sure he will), then he may argue that Plato is in part responsible, because 3000 years ago, in The Republic, he nurtured the idea of eugenics, a concept brought to its ugly realisation when 6-11 million people were butchered.

As I have this particular distinction between influence and inhibit, I can say that I hold Plato in no part responsible for those deaths.

Another analogy would be if one was to blame Marx for Stalins pogroms.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Im sure you know. Nats "poetry" is mere drivel. I have never seen more pointless abstractions, repetitions and similes in my life! USE METAPHORS!!!

Come on, it isn't bad at all. I've read much, and she has quite a talent for it. A little abstract, but no moreso than most common poets today. Much as she's not my favourite person right now, she writes damn well.

Originally posted by elijah
Using Drogues interpretation (if he hasnt explained, I'm sure he will), then he may argue that Plato is in part responsible, because 3000 years ago, in The Republic, he nurtured the idea of eugenics, a concept brought to its ugly realisation when 6-11 million people were butchered.

I wouldn't say that. I simply think if you have 5 people, all lying together, one with a gun. If 4 of those people cajole the one with the gun into shooting someone, then those 4 are also guilty of something. Maybe less so than the one who pulled the trigger, but they are guilty of something. With Plato, I would disagree, I don't see a direct link between Plato's writings and Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by elijah
Another analogy would be if one was to blame Marx for Stalins pogroms.

Again a little far for me to say he was.

[Whaleboy]

True, that is the extreme end of a sliding scale, but nonetheless, the concept holds.

The holocaust was based on the principles of eugenics, a concept first described by Plato in The Republic.

The four people cojoling the one into shooting, are guilty of a moral offence... incitement to murder or whatever, but not a legal offence under the Mill Limit. As abhorrent as it is, the Mill Limit states only the shooter should be prosecuted.

Nonetheless, I believe that is a bullet that must be bitten. With the enhanced level of education and cultural development, I doubt that this will happen often enough to make it a bitter pill to swallow, when compared to the benefits of this liberty.

[Whaleboy]

Im certain that people here are not interested in my cousins *cough* poetry.

I am more concerned with tuning the concept than actually implimenting it. I am working on a philosophy for the idealist, something of an artistic article, but nonetheless (who says concepts cant be beautiful? ), and in it, I state that we are concerned with ideas. We leave the implimentation to the pragmatists and beancounters.

Agathon: Liberty, in this sense, really is "doing what you want". On the contrary however, I believe that it is saying a lot. We are diverse creatures, the more we can explore that diversity, then surely the more fulfilled we become, look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. According to Mill, more liberty is very useful for attaining self-actualisation.

Consider the fact that every human is unique. There will never be another you, me, or Drogue (thank god ). All of our differences create certain specialisations , and as such, there is something that each human that has, is, or will ever live, can do better than any other human that has, is, or will ever live. The more liberty we give that individual to find that "talent" as it were, then certainly in the sociological context, the better.

In this sense, liberty good for the individual, and is good for society. I know about the non-objective nature of "good and bad" etc, but in this pseudo-objective context, I believe it holds.