John Stuart Mill was a revelation for me when I was preparing my lecture for today. I only know him as the man of Utilitarianism, form the ethical theories. But he is much more, a brilliant mind, whose substantial corpus of works includes texts in logic, epistemology, economics, social and political philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, religion, and current affairs.
And especially his ideas on logic and epistemology were new (and yet old) to me. New in the sense that I never have known that he actually is one of the founding fathers of the Anglo-American Analytical tradition, of which we all think started with men like Wittgenstein and Russell.
Let me explain what makes Mill such a philosophical monument. It is not his utilitarian theory. It is his fight against Intuitionism, in particular against "German" philosophy, a philosopher like Immanual Kant who "invented" the A PRIORI (that which is known before sensory experience). This in contrast to A POSTERIORI (that which is know by sensory experience).
Though there are many differences among intuitionist thinkers, one “grand doctrine” that Mill suggests they all affirm is the view that “the constitution of the mind is the key to the constitution of external nature—that the laws of the human intellect have a necessary correspondence with the objective laws of the universe, such that these may be inferred from those.”
The great danger of this intuitionism is that it supports the belief that one can know universal truths about the world through evidence (including intuitions or Kantian categories of the understanding) provided by the mind ALONE rather than by nature. If the mind constitutes the world that we experience, then we can understand the world by understanding the mind.
This means that intuitionism never has to come with a proof of their correctness, for at the end they claim that it is the insight in the mind, that justifies their claims in areas like epistemology or moral theory.
All the works of Mill show his concern about the consequences of intuitionism and his zeal to proof that we need to base our certainty of knowledge and our moral rules on a pure empiricism.
For instance in his book "System of Logic" he claims, for example, that the law of contradiction (i.e. the same proposition cannot at the same time be false and true) and the law of excluded middle (i.e. either a proposition is true or it is false) are both real propositions and not just verbal propositions.
They are, like the axioms of geometry, experimental truths, not truths known a priori. They represent generalizations or inductions from observation—very well-justified inductions, to be sure, but inductions nonetheless.
Just imagine, logical principles based on induction! An intuitionist would be horrified by the very idea. For him they are the most clear and distinct insights of the mind.
In his analysis of the moral sciences Mill had an interesting opinio too. People have to live together in a society and you can ask yourself the question, is a society more than just a bunch of people living together.
This is what Mill thought: “The laws of the phenomena of society are, and can be, nothing but the laws of the actions and passions of human beings united together in the social state. Men, however, in a state of society, are still men; their actions and passions are obedient to the laws of individual human nature. Men are not, when brought together, converted into another kind of substance with different properties.”
This means that that social and political phenomena are explicable by appeal to the behavior of individuals. In other words, social facts are reducible to facts about individuals. This means that ethics is in particular a responsability of the individual himself.
And in this respect the individual has to evaluate his actions according to the principle of utility—that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”
In his work "On Liberty" he adds to this the "Harm principle", which adds the social context to his utility principle: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
So much more can be said about the philosophy and great influence of John Stuart Mill in his time and still has in our time, but that would definitely take many more extra lectures.
The fundamental philosophical question, with which he left is, like Jerememy Bentham did, is: can you give a clear undisputable definition of concepts like pleasure, pain, happiness, unhappiness and more important, can you legitimately make the equation "what promotes happiness = right, morally good" ?
The Discussion
[13:20] Herman Vos: So far on John Stuart Mill
[13:21] Herman Vos: If his ideas raise any questions, let us know....but slow down..not ten at once plz
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:22] Osrum Sands: I like his induction from the individual to the societal level
[13:22] arabella Ella: Herman he was quite a liberal in spite of his upper class background wasn't he and also an advocate of freedom of expression?
[13:23] Sage Hartmann: Is the use of induction really fundamentally opposed to a priori approach? Wouldn't it be reasonable to argue that we arrive at a priori thought through an inductive process but that the process increases the transparency of an idea which, once made transparent, can't be reasonably denied?
[13:23] Herman Vos: Yes he was in the right tradition of the Radicals..
[13:23] Osrum Sands: eg man in his natural state has the 'right' to survive = the states 'right' to survive
[13:23] AristotleVon Doobie: His simple belief that the individual was soveign and the sole owner of himself set the stage of the rest of his contributions
[13:23] Ember Milena is Online
[13:23] Herman Vos: STOP....
[13:23] Herman Vos: Read what Sage said..
[13:24] arabella Ella: very interesting Sage
[13:24] Herman Vos: I think apriori and induction are mutually excluding eachother...
[13:24] Herman Vos: It was Mill's horror to see this a priori
[13:25] arabella Ella: but herman if i may continue on this point ...
[13:25] Herman Vos: because for all knowledge he had the proof of sensory input and could refer to that to justify knowledge claims
[13:25] Herman Vos: sure..
[13:25] arabella Ella: if you take Kant's forms of sensibility, space and time ...
[13:26] arabella Ella: we (in a sense) use induction to understand that space and time are forms through which we obtain knowledge
[13:26] Herman Vos: Kant refers to how the mind is constructed..
[13:26] arabella Ella: yes
[13:27] Herman Vos: In a human way speaking yes....he has discovered these insights by induction, by observation
[13:27] arabella Ella: we cannot know anything outside space and time ... and the quesion arises ... is this induction or is it a priori ... or does induction lead to a priori?
[13:27] Herman Vos: I may be wrong, but this is not the formal justification for these insights
[13:28] Herman Vos: Induction leads to empirical judgements
[13:28] arabella Ella: i think you are correct herman it is not the formal justification but Sage's 'insight'
[13:28] Herman Vos: Yes and Mill was against that claim of insight
[13:28] Herman Vos: without reference to sensory experiences
[13:29] Herman Vos: But you state the problem well Arabella...we can not know without the categories of time and space..
[13:29] Herman Vos: where do they come from...
[13:30] Herman Vos: I think this is one of the greatest controverses in Western epistemology
[13:31] arabella Ella: yes i agree it is a big problem herman
[13:31] Herman Vos: It is a fascinating problem
[13:31] Sage Hartmann: i was arguing for 'insight' in reference to sensory experiences, but in such a structure that we recognize we could not be asking certqin questions without already presupposisng them to be true.
[13:31] Herman Vos: It brings you to the core of philosophical thinking
[13:32] Herman Vos: I nearly would respond like Jeremy Bentham did in matters like this: The discussion must start somewhere...:-)
[13:32] Sage Hartmann: haha indeed :)
[13:33] arabella Ella: yes Sage if I may add on to what you just said ... cos we only know that all our knowledge is contrained by the forms of sensibility, space and time, due to the fact that we perceive (sensory experience) in space and time ... empirical evidence
[13:33] Osrum Sands: ah yes that unmoving point on which all the rest of the shifting sand revolves
[13:33] Herman Vos: Yes...and that is what has been discussed here already several time.
[13:34] Herman Vos: We see through history the fight of great minds with this paradox
[13:34] Herman Vos: we have to know before we can know, it seems
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: does the sponge need moisture to absorb water
[13:35] Herman Vos: Well..I think we can let this issue rest for a few lecture...when we get to the 20th century the fire will burn even stronger....
[13:35] Herman Vos: The fight goes on..
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:36] Sage Hartmann: Herman, from the way you described society, do you think Mill believed there was a fundamental difference between individual-identity and group-identity?
[13:37] Herman Vos: I would say that according to Mill there was not such a thing as group - identity...
[13:37] Sage Hartmann: :) fair enough
[13:37] Herman Vos: all group things could be reduced to statements about actions of individuals
[13:37] Sage Hartmann: one more question if i might -
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I think he specifically said that being part of a group does not change the superiority of the individual
[13:37] Sage Hartmann: why do you think nietzsche talks poorly of mill? Their views don't seem so far off
[13:38] Herman Vos: Well...first..you I right Aristotle...
[13:38] Laila Schuman: it dependds on which phase of Nietzche one refers to
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: Didnt Nietzche adn Mill differ on slavery
[13:38] Herman Vos: and about Nietsche....I had to dig into that first before I can give a decent answer to your question Sage.
[13:39] Sage Hartmann: cool fair enough :)
[13:39] Herman Vos: so we may postpone your question to the moment Nietzsche is online..:-)
[13:39] Laila Schuman: he did total flips in his opinion... very emperical at one stage... very almost mystical at the ther
[13:40] Sage Hartmann: true laila, reading nietzsche is like a state of constant growth and turn-overs :)
[13:40] Herman Vos: Should we stick to Mill for the moment?
[13:40] Sage Hartmann: right sorry!
[13:40] Laila Schuman: smiles...
[13:40] Herman Vos: And to the second problem...
[13:41] Herman Vos: the problem of utilitarianism with the concepts of pleasure , pain etc...
[13:41] Herman Vos: What I constantly think about is behaviorism
[13:41] Herman Vos: and explanation of human behavior so close to Mill's and Betham's
[13:42] Herman Vos: And psychologically...behaviorism has its pros, but falls short of explaining all human behavior
[13:43] Herman Vos: And I see a relation here with the inability to define the fundamental concepts of Utilitarianism too
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: didnt he exonerate the indivdul in all behavior except for harm to others
[13:43] Herman Vos: but it is so hard to define when you HARM others
[13:44] arabella Ella: didn't he give the example of shouting fire in a crowded room when there was no fire ... or perhaps that is a modern example analogous to his
[13:44] Sage Hartmann: vs. when you mediate them harming themselves? Causality can be subject to interpretation in many cases imo.
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: I think he provide the limits of the definition of harm
[13:45] Herman Vos: They did their very best to define it...Bentham even went that far that he developed a hedonistic calculus...
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: not saving a child that is drowing is harm due to omission he said
[13:46] Sage Hartmann: yes though if i recall (been ages!) i thought he was a little more tolerant toward harm by omission - preferring to rely more on social pressures than laws in those cases - or do i remember wrong?
[13:47] Herman Vos: Well..to be honest and prevent us from drowing in an endless discussion....
[13:47] arabella Ella: yes but that takes us to those impossible ethical situations in philosophy which are definitely not real life cases ... who do you save first, your child or a group of ten other children for eg
[13:47] Herman Vos: I have no clue at the moment how to solve this problem...
[13:47] Sage Hartmann: :)
[13:47] Osrum Sands: is there a solution ?
[13:48] Osrum Sands: or does situation ethics enter the field here
[13:48] Herman Vos: It requires a lot of reading in detail of how these philosophers thought about these concepts..the examples they give
[13:48] arabella Ella: i think u r right Sage but i too read Mill years ago
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: the golden rule is the solution OS
[13:48] Herman Vos: Yes Osrum..it tends in that direction
[13:48] Osrum Sands: he who has the gold makes the rule
[13:48] Osrum Sands: no sorry
[13:48] Osrum Sands: not that rule
[13:48] Herman Vos: Nice Osrum..:-)
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:49] Herman Vos: But there is a final question
[13:49] Herman Vos: brought up by utilitarianism
[13:49] Herman Vos: can you say pleasure/happinass == right, moral good
[13:49] Sage Hartmann: "Man does not live for pleasure - only the englishman does that"? ;)
[13:50] Osrum Sands: haha
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: I do
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: :-))
[13:50] Herman Vos: Seems so indeed...good sports, Sage
[13:50] Herman Vos: This equation puzzles me a lot....
[13:50] Herman Vos: I have just a feeling something is missing...
[13:51] Osrum Sands: we revert to the question of definition then
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: I think MIll would agree that it does as long as harm to others is not part of the equation
[13:51] arabella Ella: something is definitly missing cos what is pleasurable for some may not cause harm but may have other undesirable consequences for future generations
[13:52] Sage Hartmann: I think the problem comes on the ambiguity of defining pleasure - if you ever argue with objectivisits - their notion is quite different than a notion by, say, postmoderns.
[13:52] Herman Vos: yes...and think of the example I gave in the lecture on Bentham...
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: that would mean that 'we are our brothers keeper' ara
[13:53] Herman Vos: a soldier how covers a grenade with his body to save his comrades
[13:53] Herman Vos: did he do this becaus eof pleasure?
[13:53] arabella Ella: well Ari imagine the indiscriminate destruction of rain forests cos it may give someone pleasure ... or the dumping of waste in oceans
[13:53] Osrum Sands: yes in a strange sense
[13:53] Herman Vos: while knowingly he ended all his personal pleasure
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: I think Herman that therre is a snse of pleasure in know he is sacrificing
[13:54] Osrum Sands: definitely
[13:54] Osrum Sands: we all 'end' some time
[13:54] Osrum Sands: better the burn out then rust ?
[13:54] Herman Vos: Would that explain his motivation?
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: and yes, ara, II think that your examples do cause harm
[13:55] Sage Hartmann: Arabella - but is the reason we consider it harm not because it will deprive those in the future of pleasure? ;)
[13:55] arabella Ella: but Ari they may also give ppl immense pleasure
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: I think so Herman, his nurturing has led him to the decision
[13:55] Herman Vos: Well....in stead of trying to find all answers here I would suggest that you have now enough philosophical gunpowder to blow up your brain..:-)
[13:56] arabella Ella: like building immense villas and private estates on virgin territory in rain orests
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: :) light the fuse Heman
[13:56] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:56] Osrum Sands: theres that golden rule -- he how has the gold makes the rule
[13:56] arabella Ella: lol
[13:57] Herman Vos: It is a good thing to keep these unsolved questions in mind when reading on philosophers and for the philosophers to come in the next lectures
[13:57] Sage Hartmann: hehe at least until we get to the last lecture! ;)
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: sure, we are in search of the truth
[13:58] Herman Vos: Ok...for the last lecture you all may drop me a notecard with philosophical problems and we have the answers by then...(^_^)
[13:58] Osrum Sands: or at least a close enough version of the truth to give us pleasure
[13:58] Sage Hartmann: LOL
[13:58] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, then we will be famous
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: future classes in Third Life will study us
[13:59] Herman Vos: But for the future....study philossophers with these questions in mind..ask yourself what is he/she saying about it...what are the arguments...
[13:59] Osrum Sands: haha love it Aris
[13:59] Herman Vos: Yes Aristotle..:-)
[13:59] arabella Ella: well herman, what is the philosophy of second life could be one question to ask
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: :-0
[14:00] Herman Vos: They will have our blog on their Internet as an archological find..:-)
[14:00] AristotleVon Doobie: :)) yes
[14:00] arabella Ella: lol
[14:01] Herman Vos: Let me thank you then for this very disciplined discussion...it is an example for the fact that it is possible..:-)
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)))
[14:01] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Prof
[14:01] Sage Hartmann: :-) ty herman
[14:01] Ze Novikov: ty
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: organized and not rowdy!
[14:01] Qwark Allen: ty herman
[14:01] Osrum Sands: you're wipping us into line
[14:01] Alarice Beaumont: thanks!
[14:01] Osrum Sands: and that's pleasurable
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: ty Herman]
[14:01] AristotleVon Doobie: BDSM?
[14:02] Sage Hartmann: lol orsum! ;)
[14:02] Herman Vos: My pleasure..:-)
[14:02] Qwark Allen: ehhehe
[14:02] Osrum Sands: cheers folks
[14:02] Sage Hartmann: back to work for me - tc folks :)
[14:02] Osrum Sands: see you next time
[14:02] arabella Ella: thank you so much herman for another interestingclass
[14:02] Ze Novikov: bb
[14:02] Herman Vos: Being Disciplined Saves Me...Aristotle?
[14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: by Os Sage
[14:02] Laila Schuman: must run... baiee all
[14:02] Sage Hartmann: :) byebye
[14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Laila
[14:02] Osrum Sands: must go as my dog is wanting the pleasure of a 'wee' break or I shall have the pain of a poo inside
[14:03] AristotleVon Doobie: sounds good Herman
[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: I will not be here agai on Sunday!!!
[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: have to work!!
[14:03] AristotleVon Doobie: of course you will be missed Gemma
[14:03] Qwark Allen: and i need to go give others the pleasure of my tune
[14:03] Alarice Beaumont: oh gosh .. real busy lately Gemma
[14:03] Herman Vos: We'll miss you Gemma..:-)
[14:03] Gemma Cleanslate: ty Herman
[14:03] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL Q-man
[14:03] Alarice Beaumont: lol by S
[14:03] Qwark Allen: eheheheheh
[14:03] arabella Ella: bye everyone
[14:04] Qwark Allen: cya later´
[14:04] Herman Vos: Nice Landing Alarice
[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: bye ara
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment