Just wrong You haven't read Mill. Mill was all about the state's rtelationship to the individual. All those guys were. R. is a literla moron; the SJW of his day.
Thanks I read Rousseau a long time ago. It was clear to me then he was a moron. The social contract is the study of the relationship between an individual and the state. R didn't invent it or even the name. It was examined by Hobbes and Locke and others. I read them all. I even read Hegel. Mill, Hobbes and Locke got it about right. Rosseau is an outright moron who predicates everything on his blank slate shit, today known as SJW social constructionism". The fact that we know for a fact this is exactly not true doesn't stop these idots because, hey , once you declare shit like evidence and logical reasoning to be white supremecy, well, anything goes.
I don't think you have read Rousseau. You didn't even know he was the author of the text The Social Contract... fairly basic stuff there, dude. Yes, Locke and Hobbes presented their British empirically centered texts about the state, but to call Rousseau a "moron" is daft, and to strawman him as "the SJW of his day" is comical.
Blank slate (tabula rasa) is in no way aligned with "constructionism" - that is absolute disinformation, and laughable. Tabula rasa was largely propagated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theological as he repackaged Aristotle's hylomorphic epistemology (vis a vis Metaphysics, book *Lambda" specifically) with that of Christianity.
I'd be cautious with reductionism (MIT) here - that is the bailiwick of "SJWs" - by negating any metaphysical essences for want of pure mathematical certitude, the thing itself (human nature, in that "forum") is relegated to pure myth. Descartes was the gateway to science, but in so doing, scientism and the notion that we are essentially a compilation of matter, nothing more. i.e. there are no "women" or "men" by extension. We can only know something in "clear and distinct [ideation]" (math). It opened up a can of worms that are really starting to crawl out in the postmodern SJW era.
BTW - that editorial you linked is by a psych prof from Harvard.
You once wrote a paper on Mill. It wasn't on the social contract. Therefore, Mill is not about the social contract?
It was JS Mill who had the idea of blank slate and R who gave us the proto-Marxist " "Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains" which is exactly what that is. R was all about the "noble savage" which itself is a set of assumptions about innate human character just as wrong as the blank slate which is probably why i ran them together in memory since I read them at the same time.
R just does what philosophers of that age do- assume a metric shit ton of stuff then start reasoning. The ultimate referents of their sentences are ideas popular of that time, ill defined and actually corresponding to often to nothing in the real world. Positivism is too dogmatic and leaves real questions not just untouched but untouchable but it was a welcome relief from R's modis operandi.
He wasn't a literal moron, of course. What he did was introduce a bunch of bad ideas into the world which have persisted. Here they are:
"People are born good and do evil because of the influence of a corrupt society" . This led directly to externalizing responsibility for negative individual actions onto society. It's society's fault- that's pure R.
This opens the door to massive numbers of assertions about why people actin negative ways with concomitant prescriptions for changes in society. That's all R.
The perfectability of humans- truthfully, this predates R but he popularized and elaborated on it and it is the most modern antecedent to SJW movements.
Scientific progress is the basis of immorality or at least amplifies it. Now we're in somewhere between the Amish and unibomber territory. This dovetails with his demands for economic equality, because science makes the powerful more powerful and will only be used to disadvantage mankind. It's like he couldn't see that people might help people with science.
(This applies not just to R but to all those guys)- they start with ideas which , uh, sound good to them, reason forward in a logically rigourous way and out the other ends pops truths about people, their nature, how they ought to live and what sort of government they ought to enact.
To modern readers, we just come away feeling like we just know more than they did about humans, largely thanks to science, and their ideas have scant referents in the real world. Their "logical reasoning" is not a way to produce knowledge about any of the issues which concerned them.
I had to jog my memory here on this guy since he did not impress me and it was a long time ago.
Meh, probably not many people are going to make a bragging point of having read R so telling me I didn't when I did, I am just not sure where that is coming from.
The modern (philosophical period of modernity) context of "Tabula rasa" comes largely from Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding - from the modern empiricist thrust of that era. Mill wasn't really known as a large purveyor of tabula rasa tenets or social contract tenets - his most notable work is his eponymous text Utilitarianism - a widely anthologized work on ethics coining an entire subset within ethics.
Rousseau's eponymous Social Contract echoes the sentiments more broadly described in Hobbes' Leviathan - basically we relinquish rights to the state in exchange for security. But the argumentative thread in all those works is such that it is, in fact, a contract. When one party breaks the contract, things get odd.
Social Contract was Jean Jacques Rousseau. Not Mill.
[John Stuart] Mill wrote, perhaps most widely anthologized, Utilitarianism - more of a text on moral and ethical practice.
Rousseau's text is an early modern political work discussing the tacit agreement the freeman has with a body politic (state). I'd suggest reading it.
Cheers.
Just wrong You haven't read Mill. Mill was all about the state's rtelationship to the individual. All those guys were. R. is a literla moron; the SJW of his day.
I wrote a thesis on John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. You, clearly, have not. It is most assuredly a text on ethics, not political philosophy.
Thanks I read Rousseau a long time ago. It was clear to me then he was a moron. The social contract is the study of the relationship between an individual and the state. R didn't invent it or even the name. It was examined by Hobbes and Locke and others. I read them all. I even read Hegel. Mill, Hobbes and Locke got it about right. Rosseau is an outright moron who predicates everything on his blank slate shit, today known as SJW social constructionism". The fact that we know for a fact this is exactly not true doesn't stop these idots because, hey , once you declare shit like evidence and logical reasoning to be white supremecy, well, anything goes.
Which is the point with R and them both.
I don't think you have read Rousseau. You didn't even know he was the author of the text The Social Contract... fairly basic stuff there, dude. Yes, Locke and Hobbes presented their British empirically centered texts about the state, but to call Rousseau a "moron" is daft, and to strawman him as "the SJW of his day" is comical.
Blank slate (tabula rasa) is in no way aligned with "constructionism" - that is absolute disinformation, and laughable. Tabula rasa was largely propagated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theological as he repackaged Aristotle's hylomorphic epistemology (vis a vis Metaphysics, book *Lambda" specifically) with that of Christianity.
More people than myself run blank slate and noble savage together:
http://forum.mit.edu/articles/the-blank-slate-the-modern-denial-of-human-nature/
I'd be cautious with reductionism (MIT) here - that is the bailiwick of "SJWs" - by negating any metaphysical essences for want of pure mathematical certitude, the thing itself (human nature, in that "forum") is relegated to pure myth. Descartes was the gateway to science, but in so doing, scientism and the notion that we are essentially a compilation of matter, nothing more. i.e. there are no "women" or "men" by extension. We can only know something in "clear and distinct [ideation]" (math). It opened up a can of worms that are really starting to crawl out in the postmodern SJW era. BTW - that editorial you linked is by a psych prof from Harvard.
You won't take anything form me so here:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/john-stuart-mill-on-liberty-chapter-4-of-the-limits-to-the-authority-of-society-over-the-individual/
You once wrote a paper on Mill. It wasn't on the social contract. Therefore, Mill is not about the social contract?
It was JS Mill who had the idea of blank slate and R who gave us the proto-Marxist " "Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains" which is exactly what that is. R was all about the "noble savage" which itself is a set of assumptions about innate human character just as wrong as the blank slate which is probably why i ran them together in memory since I read them at the same time.
R just does what philosophers of that age do- assume a metric shit ton of stuff then start reasoning. The ultimate referents of their sentences are ideas popular of that time, ill defined and actually corresponding to often to nothing in the real world. Positivism is too dogmatic and leaves real questions not just untouched but untouchable but it was a welcome relief from R's modis operandi.
He wasn't a literal moron, of course. What he did was introduce a bunch of bad ideas into the world which have persisted. Here they are:
This opens the door to massive numbers of assertions about why people actin negative ways with concomitant prescriptions for changes in society. That's all R.
The perfectability of humans- truthfully, this predates R but he popularized and elaborated on it and it is the most modern antecedent to SJW movements.
Scientific progress is the basis of immorality or at least amplifies it. Now we're in somewhere between the Amish and unibomber territory. This dovetails with his demands for economic equality, because science makes the powerful more powerful and will only be used to disadvantage mankind. It's like he couldn't see that people might help people with science.
(This applies not just to R but to all those guys)- they start with ideas which , uh, sound good to them, reason forward in a logically rigourous way and out the other ends pops truths about people, their nature, how they ought to live and what sort of government they ought to enact.
To modern readers, we just come away feeling like we just know more than they did about humans, largely thanks to science, and their ideas have scant referents in the real world. Their "logical reasoning" is not a way to produce knowledge about any of the issues which concerned them.
I had to jog my memory here on this guy since he did not impress me and it was a long time ago.
Meh, probably not many people are going to make a bragging point of having read R so telling me I didn't when I did, I am just not sure where that is coming from.
The modern (philosophical period of modernity) context of "Tabula rasa" comes largely from Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding - from the modern empiricist thrust of that era. Mill wasn't really known as a large purveyor of tabula rasa tenets or social contract tenets - his most notable work is his eponymous text Utilitarianism - a widely anthologized work on ethics coining an entire subset within ethics.
Rousseau's eponymous Social Contract echoes the sentiments more broadly described in Hobbes' Leviathan - basically we relinquish rights to the state in exchange for security. But the argumentative thread in all those works is such that it is, in fact, a contract. When one party breaks the contract, things get odd.