John Stuart Mill

[Hegemonicretribution]

J.S.Mill Had a very unique childhood. It enabld him to be a very even, critical and rational thinker. Also a very powerful thinker.

If you are not familliar with him he had little social input except his family and tutor, and his life was learning, with free expression only allowed through music. By age 9 he had the mind of a very learned man of 30. He was exceptionally tallented, and although very rational almost emotionless. He later became depressed, and broke out into the world with his exceptional mind. With his talents e became very well respected with his writing, and although still influenced in part by Bentham, one of the few he was able to read earlier in life, he had his own opinions and ideas.

In summary he had a unique childhood, that led to some problems and later becoming a very unbiased writer, and campaigner for all rights and equality.

Is this a lesson that could be perhaps used by the left to obtain a great thinker. Although there are certain ethical questions to be asked, there are no more that than of letting your child be influenced by the world, surely a truelly unbiased upbringing could allow them to think for themselves.

Maybe we could find a new Marx?

[Ctisphonics]

Ummm, Marx, at least from my impressions, was influenced more from history, western history to be exact. He wasn't a real indepth reader, I hear he had a understanding of Tacitus, and later on Clausewits (I read his civil war in the united states).

His basic theory, no offense, is a little childish in the way it appears to me it was concepted by him. He didn't put a whole lot of thought into it, at least not in the beginning. More or less what fell into his lap, he knew a couple of Utopians + Roman State Structure + Apparent Change in society = Marcxism. The more indepth you get into any of these topics and reflex upon Marx's writtings, the more laughable they become. Did he even read Aeneas Tacitus?; look at western statecraft indepth? Not too impress, nothing more than a common genius who happened to read Hegel; these days there so many of them, we need something really outstanding. At least Lenin did a whole lot of studying up in Switzerland on both warfare and Philosophy, he earns a little credit in my book, even though I'm not thrilled with him.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Marx's PhD dissertation - which he completed in his early 20's - was on ancient Greek philosophy (I can't remeber what exactly, but I think it was a comparison of Epicurean philosophy and another school of thought). From all I've heard and read Marx was extremely well read on history and the classics.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

From what I can tell, Marx indeed did a lot of reading... he was up on economic statistics, he read history, and yes... he read Hegel. Ctisphonics, where have you heard different? What are your sources?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 12:12 AM
Ummm, Marx, at least from my impressions, was influenced more from history, western history to be exact. He wasn't a real indepth reader, I hear he had a understanding of Tacitus, and later on Clausewits (I read his civil war in the united states).

His basic theory, no offense, is a little childish in the way it appears to me it was concepted by him. He didn't put a whole lot of thought into it, at least not in the beginning. More or less what fell into his lap, he knew a couple of Utopians + Roman State Structure + Apparent Change in society = Marcxism. The more indepth you get into any of these topics and reflex upon Marx's writtings, the more laughable they become. Did he even read Aeneas Tacitus?; look at western statecraft indepth? Not too impress, nothing more than a common genius who happened to read Hegel; these days there so many of them, we need something really outstanding. At least Lenin did a whole lot of studying up in Switzerland on both warfare and Philosophy, he earns a little credit in my book, even though I'm not thrilled with him.
Dude, what the hell are you talking about? His "estrangement of labor" theory is the most important and influential economic and political idea of the last two hundred years, bar none.

No one had even really hinted of a theory like his before. To this day, they teach Marx in most economics classes. It is said that no one understood capitalism better than him.

"Common genius"? I'm still trying to understand how anyone who (claims to have) has read Marx could ever say that.

[Ctisphonics]

My sources are pread out in life, many a book who's title I can't remember. But if anyone disagrees with what I said above, isolate it and I'll try to track it down for you.

Most imortant issue here:

I study strategy and Tactics, this is my hobby. I especially like Greek AoW. Had he read Aeneas Tacticus, which deals with the VERY TOPIC MARX WAS THEORIZING IN, he would of changed his toon, or for that matter, Frontinus' Strategemata. He was wwwwaaaaaayyyyyyy to materialistic with his view to warfare, I read his Civil War in the United States and was just absolutely shocked at the primitiveness of his martial thought. How could he possible grasp the complicated nature of statecraft and revolution if he could barely comprehend it's most vital movements- war.

Spent too much time with the French mabey. Napoleon didn't write down a strategy text, so his quotes are often misunderstood since people (the 'experts') don't relize he's just paraphrasing older works. The French have blundered ever since as a result of trying to grasp his simple principles.

(Are you sure he didn't just study Philosphical or Major historical works like on http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cache/perscol...oman.html#text1 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cache/perscoll_Greco-Roman.html#text1),
because a lot of Docs I've talked to are clueless beyond a basic understanding of Vegetius, no grasp of the Byzantine works at all.

[Comrade lex]

I think the two are completely different. Marx's intent was for his reader to be completely moved and ready to fight for communism or socialism, J.S. Mill was more of a philosopher, just tossing out ideas, not really implimenting them

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 16 2003, 02:28 AM
I think the two are completely different. Marx's intent was for his reader to be completely moved and ready to fight for communism or socialism, J.S. Mill was more of a philosopher, just tossing out ideas, not really implimenting them
Are you serious? He was a rights campaigner and active in politics, he was a reformist. not a revolutionary. Bentham, one of his main influences saw government merely as a fact of life, and there is not a lot of dealing with actual government actions, that was later in Hobbes. However I would say it is a very strange statement to say he only theorized.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 04:22 PM
J.S.Mill Had a very unique childhood. It enabld him to be a very even, critical and rational thinker. Also a very powerful thinker.

If you are not familliar with him he had little social input except his family and tutor, and his life was learning, with free expression only allowed through music. By age 9 he had the mind of a very learned man of 30. He was exceptionally tallented, and although very rational almost emotionless. He later became depressed, and broke out into the world with his exceptional mind. With his talents e became very well respected with his writing, and although still influenced in part by Bentham, one of the few he was able to read earlier in life, he had his own opinions and ideas.

In summary he had a unique childhood, that led to some problems and later becoming a very unbiased writer, and campaigner for all rights and equality.

Is this a lesson that could be perhaps used by the left to obtain a great thinker. Although there are certain ethical questions to be asked, there are no more that than of letting your child be influenced by the world, surely a truelly unbiased upbringing could allow them to think for themselves.

Maybe we could find a new Marx?
I have read all the works of Mill, including his autobiography. It is a mistake to say that he was very unbiased. His System of Logic and his On Liberty are full of invalid arguments. Nevertheless, he was a great thinker.

I have been think precisely what you have been thinking after reading Mill's autobiography. By training a child from birth to be great at whatever discipline is desired, we can easily produce a genius. Why not another great political figure who leans to Marxism? I have been thinking this for a long time. Every Communist father and mother should give his or her child an education like Mill, and raise him to be a genius of Marxism. Anyone can do it. There are books which teach you how to teach a baby to read, to solve mathematical problems. By the time he is five he will be a speed reader, and a lightning calculator in mathematics. Give him a philosophic education at around the same age, make sure that he does not interact with anyone his own age (unless the person with whom he is interacting is getting the same education), shield him from propaganda of all kinds, educate him throroughly in the sciences, and make his sole interests reading and studying, and you will have a brilliant thinker, and perhaps even a benefactor of mankind.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Sorry, I was wrong, however I would say his bias is more to further a cause, than it is based on an irrational upbringing. I have formed quite an interest in this over the last few months, is there anyone you would reccommend for background reading? So far I have only James/John Stuart Mill, Bentham, Hobbes and..well a few other obvious liberals?

[Lardlad95]

John's best contribution was Utilitarianism.

The largest problem mil's beliefs face is he that he said that Happiness out weighs Justice, I'm not particularly saying this is wrong, but it faces alot of questions. Not to mention Mil's obvious Snobbery.
00

The gretest philosophers are, in no particular order

Marx
Voltaire
Nietzche
Kant
Hegel
Descartes
Rousseau
Mil
...and Locke to some extent

But for the most part i like Kant, Hegel and Voltair the best

[Anti-Fascist]

Marx
Voltaire
Nietzche
Kant
Hegel
Descartes
Rousseau
Mil
...and Locke to some extent

Voltaire, Rousseau, Mill, Nietzsche and perhaps Locke should not be on that list and you must add Plato and Aristotle, without whom we would have no Kant, no Hegel, no Marx, etc.

[Hegemonicretribution]

What is Karl Popper like? I have been reccommeneded, but I have read little but excerpts.

I think Mill was better on liberalism, then again that is become the idea of utilitarianism doesn't always sit well with me. It seems that by definition it seeks to exclude minorities. By homogenising society it is less well equiped to deal with situations.