This script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy Vibe 'Political Philosophy' eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe9 - The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
@@PhilosophyVibe Social media (including YT) is, just as in broader society, not very meritocratic. Your subsribership and views vastly understate the quality of your product. I have now viewed ten or more of your vids. You get to the core of topics quickly and clearly, using effevtive graphics and accessible language that illustrates you understand the material yourself. Too many disguise their ignorance behind a veil of polysyllabic jargon. You deliver in digestible quantities, too, in appreciation, no doubt, of limited concentration spans.
Like every sort of great and impressive ideology, the problem with Mills' is that when applied absolutely, it inevitably fails quite a lot of theoretical tests before it's even used in fact. This failure generates reactions in humans do the degree to which they are devoted to the ideology, clearly devotion or rejection of an ideology is a sticking point in using it as a tool. The overlooked area is the rejection of ideology as necessarily pure, and the acceptance of many ideologies as useful in part. Thus one must never apply an ideology absolutely, nor even expect to. Instead one must view an ideology as a template for something less rigid but nearly as useful. Unfortunately therefore (for devotees of ideology), all ideals must be mitigate by wisdom. Wisdom is a refinement process & the result of learning from mistakes over time, thus it resides in recorded experience. We have plenty of recorded experience to use for this task of discerning and then applying wisdom, unfortunately (for devotees of ideology) there is a time requirement on the part of decision makers for this process. Decision makers need people who are well-studied in many particular parts of past application of ideology, in order to have the wisdom at hand to make wise decisions themselves. Thus quick & easy answers are not to be found in ideology per se, they are to be found in the study of past solutions and mistakes, within an honorable effort to be serious and ethical with the greatest good in mind.
Nice comment. So a wise person would use different ideologies to examine a thing from different perspectives? It seems like this would help the wise person understand a thing better, and allow for good judgement. Phronesis.
This is basically the same as the tolerance paradox. Absolute tolerance would allow intolerance to exist, making it effectively impossible to be absolute. Absolute freedom would allow tirany to exist, making it effectively impossible to be absolute. Wholeness include everything, even its contrary. The emptyness is an essential part of the wholeness. Therefore there is no right answer to these problems, other than playing a game of balance and struggles between forces that pull from one side and the other. At the end it's all a game of imposing force, .. by numbers, by strength, by reason... regardless, it will still be an imposition.
This is another great video, as usual! Mill was great. In almost complete agreement with his positions of speech (which feel especially relevant today). But the classical liberal intellectuals don’t understand that human beings are not scale-free - conserving some traditions, at least at a local level, feels deeply necessary
There is nothing wrong with conserving tradition if it's not harmful. There are harmful traditions that disadvantages groups of people that should be changed and not unchallenged because they happen to be tradition.
But isn’t the problem with the “hate campaign” already a problem that Mill established and said that such actions should be restricted by the law? But the other problems were very helpful and made it possible for me to even further expand on them and connect them to other political philosophers in my work that I’m doing at my uni right now. Had a b**ch of a time identifying some problems with Mills theory before I watched this vid. Thank you, guys!
The answer to bad speech is more speech. Who decides what speech is dangerous and what speech isn’t? If it’s not a direct threat of violence leave it alone.
A couple of things that come to mind: 1. Speech (not to be confused with thinking) is action. 2. The principle is more or less worthless owing to the rubberiness of the term 'harm'. 3. Any sensible definition of harm includes psychological damage.
In the country called Nepal, Majority of the people use body shaming, sexist, racist, derogatory term for people living with disability, people of certain gender identity, sexual orientation to make other people laugh although it is harming emotionally for a person of a certain class. So, I think there should be gender, race, disability, body love friendly comedies or communications. Thank you for the videos.
Does Mill actually not address the common restrictions on speech we accept today? I am thinking of defamation, incitement, and assault (spoken or written credible threats of battery even without actual battery). Without those restrictions, that involves a free speech absolutism to an insane degree.
When absolute freedom of speech is there and some section of people spread violence and destruction, it is doing harm to people - may be their property , their health -- which ultimately brings us back to the harm principle. According to which that section of people will be stopped by state. Hence, absolute freedom will not lead to violence.
How about in a situation where the state falls in line with the hate speech, or vice versa, like Nazi Germany? A general consensus amongst the German population towards an oppressed group of people - there was no effective internal intervention.
If hamburgers and ciggerates were made illegal and companies forced to shut down their products people would just make their own at home or get from other sources. A company should not take blame for simply meeting the demands of the market. Also creating a violent mob, threatening, or harrasing somebody are already illegal. Just seems like a pointless objrction to make if its already refuted by the harm principle
