Just wanted to drop by and say thank you, so so so much. I would have been lost reading this book if it weren't for the visual aids, quotes, and outside references in this video. Thank you so very much. Sincerely, College Student
Wel for someone with ADHD/ADD and someone who struggles with sitting down and reading, it took a lot longer than this video. You must be a skilled reader, congratulations buddy. I'm a skilled skydiver and athlete, wanna talk about that world?
justinheartcarson It took longer than an 4 hours for me. Had to write down stuff so I wouldn't lose his train of thought sometime. And no thanks I'm just a going to the gym type ha
+Academy of Ideas Based on some videos it seems to me, though I may be completely wrong, that you like anarchism. I just can't conclude what type of anarchism. I know that you did the video on Michael Huemers book on freedom and political authority and he is an an-cap. I tend to like left-wing anarchism much more because I can't escape the notion that an-cap is an social-Darwinist ideology which I really don't like.
+Ungrowing It's not social-Darwinist that's a gross misunderstanding of it. It respects the freedom and rights of the individual. Left wing anarchism imposes force and uses coercion against the individual for the benefit of the "collective" (which is only a collection of individuals).
Free markets generate wealth and increase the standard of living of all, even the lower classes. Secondly, if people are unable to support themselves (due to a disability, or whatever) there are philanthropists and charities that would assist them. It seems like competition has a negative connotation for you. Competition within the confines of a free market is beneficial to all.
Thank you for this. I loved "On Liberty" when I was a young college student and am about to read it again. I am looking forward to it because I recall reading passages and thinking "this is just so good."
My favorite philosopher. He fought for liberty, ironically his father raised him as an expirement , he didn't allow him to play with other children and forced him to study Greek , Latin algebra advanced math. His father believed Locke's idea that children are born with blank brains, so he wanted to make his child a genius and test Locke's idea.
@@thelastgreatpoet5219 It's an interesting idea, it's very old also, I recommend reading a novel called Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, by the philosophy Ibn tufayl, this novel inspired John Locke's tabula rasa idea. I personally don't think that we are born that blank, infants still have innate needs and recognize what's safe and what's not ( being with the mother is safe, oh a stranger carried me, I will start crying then.)
@@thelastgreatpoet5219 We are absolutely innately blank. Neurons reconfigure based on a reciprocal process of environmental interactions and reflection. An imbalance in either phase leads to dysfunction. Somebody who spends too much time looking outwards learns much but understands little. Somebody who spends too much time looking inwards understands much about little. I lead a pretty sheltered life so I learned to look inwards early on. Seven different elementary schools and constantly being punished for how I dealt with the bullying left me ruminating a lot as a child. When I became an adult, I interacted directly with the environment more than I was able to before. A little too much. Then I receded again. Now I am re-engaging with the environment again, but this time it is to change it. Consciousness is virtualized reality. It is meant to represent experiences with groups of neurons so those neurons can explore the spaces between ideas and create new ideas. Then you realize those ideas to create a new environment, and you start the cycle over again. And to further highlight this concept of freedom: the prefrontal cortex does not directly tell individual neurons what they should do if their jobs have become obsolete. Those neurons are FREE to find their way around and acquire a new purpose as evidenced in situations like phantom limb syndrome.
It does matter what you watch or read if the filter you use to draw conclusions is clouded with societal conditioning and inherent biases and assumptions. Clear your filter: The 5 Steps to Critical Thinking: What is critical thinking? In general, critical thinking refers to actively questioning statements rather than blindly accepting them. Critical thinking results in radical free will. 1. The critical thinker is flexible yet maintains an attitude of healthy skepticism. Critical thinkers are open to new information, ideas, and claims. They genuinely consider alternative explanations and possibilities. However, this open-mindedness is tempered by a healthy sense of skepticism (Hyman, 2007). The critical thinker consistently asks, “What evidence supports this claim?” 2. The critical thinker scrutinizes the evidence before drawing conclusions. Critical thinkers strive to weigh all the available evidence before arriving at conclusions. And, in evaluating evidence, critical thinkers distinguish between empirical evidence versus opinions based on feelings or personal experience. 3. The critical thinker can assume other perspectives. Critical thinkers are not imprisoned by their own points of view. Nor are they limited in their capacity to imagine life experiences and perspectives that are fundamentally difference from their own. Rather, the critical thinker strives to understand and evaluate issues from many different angles. 4. The critical thinker is aware of biases and assumptions. In evaluating evidence and ideas, critical thinkers strive to identify the biases and assumptions that are inherent in any argument (Riggio & Halpern, 2006). Critical thinkers also try to identify and minimize the influence of their own biases. 5. The critical thinker engages in reflective thinking. Critical thinkers avoid knee-jerk responses. Instead, critical thinkers are reflective. Most complex issues are unlikely to have a simple solution. Therefore, critical thinkers resist the temptation to sidestep complexity by boiling an issue down to an either/or, yes/no kind of proposition. Instead, the critical thinker expects and accepts complexity (Halpern, 2007). Critical thinking is not a single skill, but rather a set of attitudes and thinking skills. As is true with any set of skills, you can get better at these skills with practice. In a nut shell, critical thinking is the active process of minimizing preconceptions and biases while evaluating evidence, determining the conclusions that can be reasonably be drawn from evidence, and considering alternative explanations for research findings or other phenomena. CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS >Why might other people want to discourage you from critical thinking? >In what situations is it probably most difficult or challenging for you to exercise critical thinking skills? Why? > What can you do or say to encourage others to use critical thinking in evaluating questionable claims or assertions?
Was told my critical thinking skills were on point the other day, I'll digress, what a compliment, although I'm not sure of the validity of this compliment.
*If allowed to go his own way he will on the average serve the rest of us better than under any orders we know how to give.* Also an important reminder to trust that I know my path better than any authority even the benevolent ones.
I once heard a brilliant stance on governing along the lines that there should only be one real law: "do as you please so long as you do not impose your will on others". Knowing that mill had the same brilliant notion only amplifies its magnitude
Another great video! thank you, sir. I hope you will provide a lecture about the free will/determinism debate... and rationalism/empiricism/pragmatic knowledge THANK YOU again :))))
what I most too away from reading this 50 years ago was his assertion that there can never be a right not to be offended. Modern society is run by people who are offended by practically everything
The success of the most ambitious tyrannical government depends upon its ability to galvanize and mobilize the tyrannical majorities under its rule. Likewise, the most ambitious tyrannical majority will inevitably seek to create a tyrannical government that reflects its own appetite for power.
Great lecture, well condensed and concise! Congrats on your channel bro:) My 2 cents: It's hard to grasp the benefits of Mill's freedom considering the nihilist majority nowadays. Everyone looks at worst case scenario only, forgetting humans have a great potential for altruism. I suppose it boils down to morals, if society is morally good then individuality, eccentricity etc.. will be safeguarded from harm in the most efficient way, the natural way! But then again, all kinds of "big changes" to thinking paradigms bring drastic results in the short term, some good some bad but normally big, yet tend to yield better ones in the long run because it works itself out freely. Peace!
Here is the hole in explanation that I see: Jsm argues that, if the actions of the individual concern only himself, he should be free to live as he sees fit. On the side of the majority, one would argue that ones actions do not affect only himself, but ones actions (or inactions) affect everyone in society. Cultural norms are norms because they reflect the behavior that will best lead to the survival of all. So if someone decides they will not follow social norms, they are essentially not "doing their part" for the greater good. That inaction DOES affect others, because a culture requires group effort to sustain itself. How does one argue against that? Against the idea that cultural mandates are such because they ensure survival of the whole, and that is why they must be followed?
Respectfully,I think that cultures need individuals that deviate from the norm in order to evolve. I agree with Mill that the deviant opinion has great value because,"If the opinion is right,they (the majority) are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth:if wrong,they lose,what is almost as great a benefit,the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth,produced by its collision with error..." I think this can be applied to individual actions as well as to individual opinions - we need the deviant minority.
I think that the best answer is that your premise, for me, lacks veracity. Cultural mandates are NOT so because they ensure the survival of the whole. Rather, any custom survives in society via its own inherent capacity to insert itself into human minds. (Like the tune of despacito) After it has done that, it is only necessary for its survival that it doesnt destroy its society, but there is no pressure for it to necessarily improve it. In any case, Mill doesnt make a moral argument for excentricity, but instead a pragmatic one. excentricity is the actual mecanism of behavioural development in a culturally-guided species. We need the magellans, columbus and Marco Polos of human Culture.
This is a very important work especially today. Collectivism must be destroyed. The right of the individual can never be trodden upon if society is to survive. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
just like to note: Mill believed that only "illegitimate harm" should be restrained. That is, harm that benefits the economy does not require interference. Take economics for example and the harm done to a business if competition arises. Also, opinion cannot be restricted but expression of opinion can. Somebody may be causing harm by in-sighting violence.
college final: Give John Stuart Mill's arguments for liberty of speech and conscience. Why Does he think that suppressing unpopular - or even wrong - opinions is bad or dangerous?
I don't know about Mill's view on why, but I think I have a reason on why it is good for opinions like that to be vehicled... When a person tends to open their views on a topic, other people who engage with him in the conversation can, by explaining the point of view they have, change his perspective of things and has a chance to have a better grasp of the truth. If opinions that are wrong couldn't be expressed, no one could try to correct the persons who hold the so-called wrong opinions and these persons would have a harder time to change their thoughts for the better. I hope it helped you at least a bit.
Well, it depends on how the principle is used. My argument is that it can't be used non-circularly to define the limits of coercion, because the principle requires that we already know what are the legitimate limits of coercive action. Suppose I promise a women to marry her, and then changed my mind at the last moment. No doubt I hurt her, but it's very implausible to limit my liberty for that reason. So we need an independent criteria to decide what kind of harm can justify coercion.
Amazing in terms that Mill was talking about the most important aspect of our life and that's following our heart! He was extremely positive on that part and that's what's most important. But for me, he missed on a such an obvious point which is the second half of the puzzle. That is that government should put restrictions on people's behavior (according to reason that is) which prevents them of hurting not only other people - BUT THEMSELVES. I have a very tough experience in my life when someone's own continuous behavior affected myself. So in other words to be simple, by us not taking care of ourselves or having that freedom to do whatever we want be it hurt ourselves as long as we don't hurt others - we eventually hurt our environment, especially people very close to us. So the other piece of the puzzle would be that we should have a Government&Society which reasonably gives us the freedom to follow our own path and uses its power to restrict us from hurting both ourselves and our environment. That is the true formula for life I believe. That is as some would say - the perfect world!
On Liberty:- how elusive liberty has been for our species, surely it must take more than just mere legislation born of the love of human freedoms! Word Energy on paper and then rubberstamped is not enough, we must take it even further into our hearts and minds for it to take hold structurally within our combined societies! Globally we all now have but do not all enjoy " liberty " through International Rights! Without governments in compliance to this new concept since theocracy historically was never concerned with our personal freedoms, no... it took democracy to legislate this new existence for us all, as theocracies could have done if they had only chosen to, all long ago... and if only they had cared enough too! Dare one say that without the French Revolution taking place, would we now even have these intrinsic rights at all ! Viva Le Liberty! Namaste
1:00 That is incorrect. The natural evolution of anything is toward decentralization and hierarchical mesh networks to form and provide parallel processing. Whether you examine the brain or a modern computer network, the tendency is for less definition at the top and more variance at the bottom with multiple layers of interaction interceding between the top and bottom layers. 6:45 Acceptance/Rejection is not the only outcome of cognitively dissonant ideas. If it were, things like stereoscopic vision would not occur. Reconciliation and integration within a larger, higher-dimensional framework is almost always an option for opposing ideas. The main point of consideration is “perspective” and “scope” as truth has a different appearance depending on those two factors.
Mill himself admitted (in "On Liberty") that "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one". Sadly, his vanity got in the way when he subsequently assumed that "as soon as mankind have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion (a period long since reached in all nations with whom we need here concern ourselves), compulsion, either in the direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non-compliance, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and justifiable only for the security of others". In doing so, he utterly ignored the nature of the ignorant mob that fills our societies.
I think Mill's harm principle is either vacuous or circular, and it's a pity that a lot of people regard it as their basis for morality/social philosophy. Whether an action should be regarded as imposing someone will's on others depends on the kinds of actions an individual is entitled to in the first place, and for that matter we need an independent and robust notion of liberty that the principle by itself can't provide,i.e. the notion of coercion must assume a certain understanding of freedom.
Good video, but at one point you say that Mill thought society should have a right in certain circumstances to impose on individuals. It is VERY important to understanding Mill to understand that he was a Utilitarian, not a rights thinker. He did not base his philosophy on rights.
In order to even do philosophy, your basic needs must first have been met. Many philosophers never address the real roots of our inequality, our economic systems. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
3:20 John Stuart Mill could not imagine a tyranny of the minority; the smallest minority is I the individual. America has placed Inclusivity as a value above the self evident declaration, that all men and women are created equal by their creator with certain unalienable rights (derived from the Christian worldview where Men and Women have been created in the image of God). Since America has forgotten God in public matters, it makes sense that we have chosen a lesser value above all other.
Oddly enough, religion is one of the great oppressors of liberty, but was not mentioned. One quote from Mill states that he will not apply the epithet of good to god, and if being sent to hell is the punishment for that, Mill states "to hell I will go."
Wally Kaspars that is a gross and unjust simplification of Mill's thoughts. You ought to read this very work of Mill's (On Liberty) to get a better understanding of Mill's thoughts on religion and morality. ( I believe it is in the second chapter that he discusses morality and religion in the greatest detail.)
And liberty oppresses man for man is not capable of effectively traversing the infinite landscape of life without the guidance of something greater. Without guidance he will give into his baser functions which will not lead to his own lasting happiness nor the lasting happiness and betterment of his community.
It is also worth noting that mill was a socialist and called for the abolishment of wage labor just like Marx, so don't believe the people who tell you that capitalism is the only system that is compatible with classical liberalism. On the contrary, it was well understood by the liberal thinkers that private corporate tyranny is as a big threat to liberty as government tyranny (and don't forget that Marx was essentially a classical liberal).
The summary is fine but I take issue with too much added rhetoric within analysis. The whole tangent regarding how Mill would react to today’s society is too speculative and is too argumentative with what should be a summary of text.
(part 2) Similar things can be said about imposing ones will. Suppose I buy land and build a house in front of your window which blocks the nice view. You are dissatisfied because I imposed my will on you. Should the government intervene and demolish my house? Any action can be taken to be harmful to somebody. I buy an apple and harm everybody because they can't have it if they want. We need to know first the scope of legitimate harm that should be permitted to use the principle.
Please elucidate I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps it's a bit oversimplified but vacuous or circular? The way I understand it, the principal itself implies total freedom within its single limitation
The ruling class in South Dakota has evidently not heard this. It still thoughtlessly victimizes good people who smoke weed. Peaceful people minding their own business and hurting no one. It is hard to take.
In modern times, an excess of liberty can cause some to be animalistic... "Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity..." - Baha'i Faith
I think another way of putting it is that other-regarding actions and self-regarding actions are indistinct and not well defined. A public display of an action may effect another individual. In that way a seemingly self-regarding action becomes a other regarding action. This doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad, but one it becomes something in the public sphere it is liable to negatively effect others.
thank you for dumbing down, such great brilliance... Hell If your commenters WANTED to read Mill and understand, than maybe they should start reading and thinking... In subsequent truth and perhaps enlightenment truth, the Individual might have a little responsibility...
I dunno that confuses me.. Wouldn't manipulation be a problem in any given system, be it capitalist, socialist, anarchist etc? I think the modern world is a great example of mass manipulation. If a system, and subsequently individuals were more focused on individual rights and liberties, rather than profit and accumulation I believe manipulation would be far less ubiquitous than it is today. Your looking at it as if the way people behave within our modern society is innately how they behave
I don't think this says anything about being on your hill, acting like a king of a hill, what a context put on Mill's work, any one putting a " this means you want to be king of any hill" has narrow view of liberty.
John Stuart Mill was an imperialist though. Just as an example he supported British imperialism in India to help and "civilise" the "unfortunate Indian people" who he saw as "no better than animals." He's just like Samantha Power - always finding some new liberal excuse to exploit a foreign peoples in the name of liberating and helping them.
R.V. L. You know that at his time Gandhi was a racist and hated ironically black and African people . Not only white people are racist and we shouldn't dismiss his points because he was born at the wrong times .
what i mean is that unless you teach people about their instincts and how they work, they'll act on them. manipulation works because the brain is wired that way. I'm not saying the way we behave now is innate but that it is caused by the way we are. If you want to keep people rational, you need to teach them how to counteract their cognitive biases and distortions caused by their instincts. Yeah, manipulation could be lower, but that doesnt prevent someone from exploiting it.
He received a salary from the East India Company, so his 'happiness' was more important than that of 300 million Indians, who were treated as slaves. So 'thinking' about 'happiness' and 'rights' are useless when you are unable to put yourself in others shoes. His theory may be true, but it was also a way to justify his hypocrisy.
The main issue with Mill is his lack of clarity in his harm principle. He never defines what it means to harm others and thus is left for interpretation. Harm can be either physical or psychological and today 'harm' has expanded in meaning since Mill's time. Absolute freedom is as dangerous as no freedom at all to other individuals and Mill never really focused on that idea...
could someone help me with this question. Using Mill’s refinement of the Harm principle, answer the following question: According to Mill, can the legalization of same-sex marriage cause harm to someone who is opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds?
+Rashid I old comment but I'd guess Mill wouldn't think it caused harm. I would also guess he would say people ought to be considered married as long as they themselves genuinely consider themselves married. Eg they have made some contract or commitment to each other in good faith. I don't think he would say the state, or even society, needed to sanction it. IMO the current debate on gay marriage boils down to whether you want to change, or at least widen, the traditionally accepted definition of marriage. Obviously some people do and some people don't. But there is no rational argument from either side that I have seen to say marriage should mean one thing or another. If the state and/ or society wasn't seen as necessary to sanction a marriage then the definition wouldn't be important. The solution then is to stop sanctioning marriages.
![Rick Roderick on John Stuart Mill on Liberty [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RXZhMbr4qmQ/mqdefault.jpg)
literally just had a breakdown because of this reading, so this really REALLY helped me. thank you so much
Literally same
Just wanted to drop by and say thank you, so so so much. I would have been lost reading this book if it weren't for the visual aids, quotes, and outside references in this video. Thank you so very much.
Sincerely,
College Student
You're very welcome. I'm glad it helped.
How long has it taken you to read and fully comprehend 7 pages?
Wel for someone with ADHD/ADD and someone who struggles with sitting down and reading, it took a lot longer than this video. You must be a skilled reader, congratulations buddy. I'm a skilled skydiver and athlete, wanna talk about that world?
justinheartcarson It took longer than an 4 hours for me. Had to write down stuff so I wouldn't lose his train of thought sometime. And no thanks I'm just a going to the gym type ha
It took me four hours to read 15 pages....
Lala_C Me too !!!
I read on liberty in a few hours. Is that why you’re all torturing us?
Kinda ironic huh? Freedom of individual over the majority.
lol ikr so hard to read this style of writing
you are probably reading it correctly
Same bro , my copy only has 84 pages but it might as well have 800 because it's taking for ever to read,
Get the transcript here: academyofideas.com/2013/08/john-stuart-mill-on-liberty/
+Academy of Ideas Based on some videos it seems to me, though I may be completely wrong, that you like anarchism. I just can't conclude what type of anarchism. I know that you did the video on Michael Huemers book on freedom and political authority and he is an an-cap. I tend to like left-wing anarchism much more because I can't escape the notion that an-cap is an social-Darwinist ideology which I really don't like.
+Ungrowing It's not social-Darwinist that's a gross misunderstanding of it. It respects the freedom and rights of the individual. Left wing anarchism imposes force and uses coercion against the individual for the benefit of the "collective" (which is only a collection of individuals).
I know you all want completely free markets and then promote competition, but what happens with people unable to compete?
Free markets generate wealth and increase the standard of living of all, even the lower classes. Secondly, if people are unable to support themselves (due to a disability, or whatever) there are philanthropists and charities that would assist them. It seems like competition has a negative connotation for you. Competition within the confines of a free market is beneficial to all.
Of all the videos that I watched so far in this channel, this is my favourite. It's my third-time viewing.
Thank you for this. I loved "On Liberty" when I was a young college student and am about to read it again. I am looking forward to it because I recall reading passages and thinking "this is just so good."
My favorite philosopher. He fought for liberty, ironically his father raised him as an expirement , he didn't allow him to play with other children and forced him to study Greek , Latin algebra advanced math. His father believed Locke's idea that children are born with blank brains, so he wanted to make his child a genius and test Locke's idea.
Kinda like Polgar
What's your take on tabula rasa
@@thelastgreatpoet5219 It's an interesting idea, it's very old also, I recommend reading a novel called Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, by the philosophy Ibn tufayl, this novel inspired John Locke's tabula rasa idea.
I personally don't think that we are born that blank, infants still have innate needs and recognize what's safe and what's not ( being with the mother is safe, oh a stranger carried me, I will start crying then.)
@@prammar1951 i feel its true and false we aren't innately blank but socially psychologically and transpersonally dumb so yeah
@@thelastgreatpoet5219 We are absolutely innately blank.
Neurons reconfigure based on a reciprocal process of environmental interactions and reflection. An imbalance in either phase leads to dysfunction.
Somebody who spends too much time looking outwards learns much but understands little.
Somebody who spends too much time looking inwards understands much about little.
I lead a pretty sheltered life so I learned to look inwards early on. Seven different elementary schools and constantly being punished for how I dealt with the bullying left me ruminating a lot as a child.
When I became an adult, I interacted directly with the environment more than I was able to before. A little too much. Then I receded again. Now I am re-engaging with the environment again, but this time it is to change it.
Consciousness is virtualized reality. It is meant to represent experiences with groups of neurons so those neurons can explore the spaces between ideas and create new ideas. Then you realize those ideas to create a new environment, and you start the cycle over again.
And to further highlight this concept of freedom: the prefrontal cortex does not directly tell individual neurons what they should do if their jobs have become obsolete. Those neurons are FREE to find their way around and acquire a new purpose as evidenced in situations like phantom limb syndrome.
It does matter what you watch or read if the filter you use to draw conclusions is clouded with societal conditioning and inherent biases and assumptions.
Clear your filter:
The 5 Steps to Critical Thinking:
What is critical thinking?
In general, critical thinking refers to actively questioning statements rather than blindly accepting them.
Critical thinking results in radical free will.
1. The critical thinker is flexible yet maintains an attitude of healthy skepticism.
Critical thinkers are open to new information, ideas, and claims. They genuinely consider alternative explanations and possibilities. However, this open-mindedness is tempered by a healthy sense of skepticism (Hyman, 2007).
The critical thinker consistently asks, “What evidence supports this claim?”
2. The critical thinker scrutinizes the evidence before drawing conclusions.
Critical thinkers strive to weigh all the available evidence before arriving at conclusions. And, in evaluating evidence, critical thinkers distinguish between empirical evidence versus opinions based on feelings or personal experience.
3. The critical thinker can assume other perspectives.
Critical thinkers are not imprisoned by their own points of view. Nor are they limited in their capacity to imagine life experiences and perspectives that are fundamentally difference from their own. Rather, the critical thinker strives to understand and evaluate issues from many different angles.
4. The critical thinker is aware of biases and assumptions.
In evaluating evidence and ideas, critical thinkers strive to identify the biases and assumptions that are inherent in any argument (Riggio & Halpern, 2006). Critical thinkers also try to identify and minimize the influence of their own biases.
5. The critical thinker engages in reflective thinking.
Critical thinkers avoid knee-jerk responses. Instead, critical thinkers are reflective. Most complex issues are unlikely to have a simple solution. Therefore, critical thinkers resist the temptation to sidestep complexity by boiling an issue down to an either/or, yes/no kind of proposition. Instead, the critical thinker expects and accepts complexity (Halpern, 2007).
Critical thinking is not a single skill, but rather a set of attitudes and thinking skills. As is true with any set of skills, you can get better at these skills with practice.
In a nut shell, critical thinking is the active process of minimizing preconceptions and biases while evaluating evidence, determining the conclusions that can be reasonably be drawn from evidence, and considering alternative explanations for research findings or other phenomena.
CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS
>Why might other people want to discourage you from critical thinking?
>In what situations is it probably most difficult or challenging for you to exercise critical thinking skills? Why?
> What can you do or say to encourage others to use critical thinking in evaluating questionable claims or assertions?
Was told my critical thinking skills were on point the other day, I'll digress, what a compliment, although I'm not sure of the validity of this compliment.
2020... JSM we need you now.
*If allowed to go his own way he will on the average serve the rest of us better than under any orders we know how to give.*
Also an important reminder to trust that I know my path better than any authority even the benevolent ones.
You did a great job on highlighting the important aspects!
This video is such a life saver, thanks so much! I wouldn't have understood the book otherwise!
I like your pic.
The reading actually felt like a different language. Thank you so much.
This speaks from my soul.
I once heard a brilliant stance on governing along the lines that there should only be one real law: "do as you please so long as you do not impose your will on others". Knowing that mill had the same brilliant notion only amplifies its magnitude
omg you explained it so well, and visuals help
Though the video moves a bit fast, it is highly resourceful and thoroughly helpful
Very relevant video for such a time as this and all times.
Thank you for this amazing video and the excellent summary of this monumental work of John Stuart Mill.
Thanks for posting these excellent videos
I hope this document will someday save us.
Another great video! thank you, sir. I hope you will provide a lecture about the free will/determinism debate... and rationalism/empiricism/pragmatic knowledge
THANK YOU again :))))
This was a great help for my Philosophy paper! Thank you
Thank you for making this video, it has helped me greatly with my final assignment for my degree!
This video should be ‘required viewing’ by all those in government:)
Thank you for this videos
what I most too away from reading this 50 years ago was his assertion that there can never be a right not to be offended. Modern society is run by people who are offended by practically everything
The success of the most ambitious tyrannical government depends upon its ability to galvanize and mobilize the tyrannical majorities under its rule. Likewise, the most ambitious tyrannical majority will inevitably seek to create a tyrannical government that reflects its own appetite for power.
Great lecture, well condensed and concise! Congrats on your channel bro:)
My 2 cents: It's hard to grasp the benefits of Mill's freedom considering the nihilist majority nowadays. Everyone looks at worst case scenario only, forgetting humans have a great potential for altruism. I suppose it boils down to morals, if society is morally good then individuality, eccentricity etc.. will be safeguarded from harm in the most efficient way, the natural way! But then again, all kinds of "big changes" to thinking paradigms bring drastic results in the short term, some good some bad but normally big, yet tend to yield better ones in the long run because it works itself out freely.
Peace!
Thank you so much! This was very helpful and informative
thanx man i will use this good info in my political philosophy exam
university student
Great intro! I watched your video after reading a couple pages and it makes the content so much clearer! Thanks 🌺🌺
Good sir, you are legendary
Its soo well demonstrated i am in awe of this video
Here is the hole in explanation that I see:
Jsm argues that, if the actions of the individual concern only himself, he should be free to live as he sees fit.
On the side of the majority, one would argue that ones actions do not affect only himself, but ones actions (or inactions) affect everyone in society. Cultural norms are norms because they reflect the behavior that will best lead to the survival of all. So if someone decides they will not follow social norms, they are essentially not "doing their part" for the greater good. That inaction DOES affect others, because a culture requires group effort to sustain itself.
How does one argue against that? Against the idea that cultural mandates are such because they ensure survival of the whole, and that is why they must be followed?
Respectfully,I think that cultures need individuals that deviate from the norm in order to evolve. I agree with Mill that the deviant opinion has great value because,"If the opinion is right,they (the majority) are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth:if wrong,they lose,what is almost as great a benefit,the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth,produced by its collision with error..." I think this can be applied to individual actions as well as to individual opinions - we need the deviant minority.
I think that the best answer is that your premise, for me, lacks veracity. Cultural mandates are NOT so because they ensure the survival of the whole. Rather, any custom survives in society via its own inherent capacity to insert itself into human minds. (Like the tune of despacito) After it has done that, it is only necessary for its survival that it doesnt destroy its society, but there is no pressure for it to necessarily improve it.
In any case, Mill doesnt make a moral argument for excentricity, but instead a pragmatic one. excentricity is the actual mecanism of behavioural development in a culturally-guided species. We need the magellans, columbus and Marco Polos of human Culture.
This is a very important work especially today. Collectivism must be destroyed. The right of the individual can never be trodden upon if society is to survive. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Interesting
just like to note:
Mill believed that only "illegitimate harm" should be restrained. That is, harm that benefits the economy does not require interference. Take economics for example and the harm done to a business if competition arises.
Also, opinion cannot be restricted but expression of opinion can. Somebody may be causing harm by in-sighting violence.
thank you very much for the video and for the transcrpition
Excellent video! Very well done!
Amazing work man!
Brilliant work mate
Thank you very much I didn't understood everything reding the book but you helped me when I readed it an other time Big like from Switzerland
Super informative and easy to follow, thanks!
Thank you!
Well explained
Feels pretty relevant in the covid society
Lifesaver!
Thanx understanding this question it is very helpful for me.
Excellent, thank you!
Thanks sooo much, this was so helpful!!!
Only the Golden Rule should limit freedom.Also exercising power over others should be outlawed. Anarchy is good for the vast majority of people.
thanks much for the post
Great channel man! Congrats and a million thanks. This is soo helpful and refreshing.
About this clip...this guy kind of influenced Derida...?!?
college final:
Give John Stuart Mill's arguments for liberty of speech and conscience.
Why Does he think that suppressing unpopular - or even wrong - opinions is bad or dangerous?
I don't know about Mill's view on why, but I think I have a reason on why it is good for opinions like that to be vehicled...
When a person tends to open their views on a topic, other people who engage with him in the conversation can, by explaining the point of view they have, change his perspective of things and has a chance to have a better grasp of the truth. If opinions that are wrong couldn't be expressed, no one could try to correct the persons who hold the so-called wrong opinions and these persons would have a harder time to change their thoughts for the better.
I hope it helped you at least a bit.
Well, it depends on how the principle is used. My argument is that it can't be used non-circularly to define the limits of coercion, because the principle requires that we already know what are the legitimate limits of coercive action. Suppose I promise a women to marry her, and then changed my mind at the last moment. No doubt I hurt her, but it's very implausible to limit my liberty for that reason. So we need an independent criteria to decide what kind of harm can justify coercion.
Amazing in terms that Mill was talking about the most important aspect of our life and that's following our heart! He was extremely positive on that part and that's what's most important. But for me, he missed on a such an obvious point which is the second half of the puzzle. That is that government should put restrictions on people's behavior (according to reason that is) which prevents them of hurting not only other people - BUT THEMSELVES. I have a very tough experience in my life when someone's own continuous behavior affected myself. So in other words to be simple, by us not taking care of ourselves or having that freedom to do whatever we want be it hurt ourselves as long as we don't hurt others - we eventually hurt our environment, especially people very close to us. So the other piece of the puzzle would be that we should have a Government&Society which reasonably gives us the freedom to follow our own path and uses its power to restrict us from hurting both ourselves and our environment. That is the true formula for life I believe. That is as some would say - the perfect world!
thank you so much. this was very helpful
!!! Very helpful!!
On Liberty:- how elusive liberty has been for our species, surely it must take more than just mere legislation born of the love of human freedoms!
Word Energy on paper and then rubberstamped is not enough, we must take it even further into our hearts and minds for it to take hold structurally within our combined societies!
Globally we all now have but do not all enjoy " liberty " through International Rights!
Without governments in compliance to this new concept since theocracy historically was never concerned with our personal freedoms, no... it took democracy to legislate this new existence for us all, as theocracies could have done if they had only chosen to, all long ago... and if only they had cared enough too!
Dare one say that without the French Revolution taking place, would we now even have these intrinsic rights at all !
Viva Le Liberty!
Namaste
1:00 That is incorrect. The natural evolution of anything is toward decentralization and hierarchical mesh networks to form and provide parallel processing. Whether you examine the brain or a modern computer network, the tendency is for less definition at the top and more variance at the bottom with multiple layers of interaction interceding between the top and bottom layers.
6:45 Acceptance/Rejection is not the only outcome of cognitively dissonant ideas.
If it were, things like stereoscopic vision would not occur.
Reconciliation and integration within a larger, higher-dimensional framework is almost always an option for opposing ideas. The main point of consideration is “perspective” and “scope” as truth has a different appearance depending on those two factors.
Mill himself admitted (in "On Liberty") that "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one".
Sadly, his vanity got in the way when he subsequently assumed that "as soon as mankind have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion (a period long since reached in all nations with whom we need here concern ourselves), compulsion, either in the direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non-compliance, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and justifiable only for the security of others".
In doing so, he utterly ignored the nature of the ignorant mob that fills our societies.
hi sorry, what software do you use to make your videos? I really like your transitions and all that.
I think Mill's harm principle is either vacuous or circular, and it's a pity that a lot of people regard it as their basis for morality/social philosophy. Whether an action should be regarded as imposing someone will's on others depends on the kinds of actions an individual is entitled to in the first place, and for that matter we need an independent and robust notion of liberty that the principle by itself can't provide,i.e. the notion of coercion must assume a certain understanding of freedom.
I like how you took this a step further to discuss the tyranny of governments. I have read that Mill was a colonialist.
SUPERB!
this guy should have more subscribers than pewdiepie
That's a damn fine question sir
thank you very much it helped my very much
Mills was a spot on
Good video, but at one point you say that Mill thought society should have a right in certain circumstances to impose on individuals. It is VERY important to understanding Mill to understand that he was a Utilitarian, not a rights thinker. He did not base his philosophy on rights.
thank you!!
Well in action
In order to even do philosophy, your basic needs must first have been met. Many philosophers never address the real roots of our inequality, our economic systems. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
3:20 John Stuart Mill could not imagine a tyranny of the minority; the smallest minority is I the individual.
America has placed Inclusivity as a value above the self evident declaration, that all men and women are created equal by their creator with certain unalienable rights (derived from the Christian worldview where Men and Women have been created in the image of God).
Since America has forgotten God in public matters, it makes sense that we have chosen a lesser value above all other.
who is the person reading this lecture?
+erin drake I'm the creator of the video.
Sir please provide all quotes which have been given by John staurt mill..... thanks sir
Oddly enough, religion is one of the great oppressors of liberty, but was not mentioned.
One quote from Mill states that he will not apply the epithet of good to god, and if being sent to hell is the punishment for that, Mill states "to hell I will go."
Wally Kaspars that is a gross and unjust simplification of Mill's thoughts. You ought to read this very work of Mill's (On Liberty) to get a better understanding of Mill's thoughts on religion and morality. ( I believe it is in the second chapter that he discusses morality and religion in the greatest detail.)
How does religion opress liberty if it's voluntary?
@@ЛюбоМанолов-ь9о it is voluntary only nowadays and only in some countries
And liberty oppresses man for man is not capable of effectively traversing the infinite landscape of life without the guidance of something greater. Without guidance he will give into his baser functions which will not lead to his own lasting happiness nor the lasting happiness and betterment of his community.
All religions?
It is also worth noting that mill was a socialist and called for the abolishment of wage labor just like Marx, so don't believe the people who tell you that capitalism is the only system that is compatible with classical liberalism. On the contrary, it was well understood by the liberal thinkers that private corporate tyranny is as a big threat to liberty as government tyranny (and don't forget that Marx was essentially a classical liberal).
this should be learn at school
Very helpful video. May I suggest a pop filter, sir?
+Jake Harrison Thanks, yes I use one in my later videos.
The summary is fine but I take issue with too much added rhetoric within analysis. The whole tangent regarding how Mill would react to today’s society is too speculative and is too argumentative with what should be a summary of text.
nice video
(part 2) Similar things can be said about imposing ones will. Suppose I buy land and build a house in front of your window which blocks the nice view. You are dissatisfied because I imposed my will on you. Should the government intervene and demolish my house? Any action can be taken to be harmful to somebody. I buy an apple and harm everybody because they can't have it if they want. We need to know first the scope of legitimate harm that should be permitted to use the principle.
Please elucidate I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps it's a bit oversimplified but vacuous or circular? The way I understand it, the principal itself implies total freedom within its single limitation
The ruling class in South Dakota has evidently not heard this. It still thoughtlessly victimizes good people who smoke weed. Peaceful people minding their own business and hurting no one. It is hard to take.
Can you please link in the description the prezi you used? @academyofideas
thanks!
In modern times, an excess of liberty can cause some to be animalistic... "Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity..." - Baha'i Faith
I think another way of putting it is that other-regarding actions and self-regarding actions are indistinct and not well defined. A public display of an action may effect another individual. In that way a seemingly self-regarding action becomes a other regarding action. This doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad, but one it becomes something in the public sphere it is liable to negatively effect others.
What about John Stuart Mill’s philosophy for highest and lowest pleasures
thank you for dumbing down, such great brilliance... Hell If your commenters WANTED to read Mill and understand, than maybe they should start reading and thinking... In subsequent truth and perhaps enlightenment truth, the Individual might have a little responsibility...
I dunno that confuses me.. Wouldn't manipulation be a problem in any given system, be it capitalist, socialist, anarchist etc? I think the modern world is a great example of mass manipulation. If a system, and subsequently individuals were more focused on individual rights and liberties, rather than profit and accumulation I believe manipulation would be far less ubiquitous than it is today. Your looking at it as if the way people behave within our modern society is innately how they behave
I don't think this says anything about being on your hill, acting like a king of a hill, what a context put on Mill's work, any one putting a " this means you want to be king of any hill" has narrow view of liberty.
John Stuart Mill was an imperialist though. Just as an example he supported British imperialism in India to help and "civilise" the "unfortunate Indian people" who he saw as "no better than animals."
He's just like Samantha Power - always finding some new liberal excuse to exploit a foreign peoples in the name of liberating and helping them.
R.V. L. You know that at his time Gandhi was a racist and hated ironically black and African people . Not only white people are racist and we shouldn't dismiss his points because he was born at the wrong times .
R.V. L. Argumentum ad hominem.
There we have it folks. Colonialism is justified. Thanks bobby.
How does that disprove the arguments presented in this video mr ad hominem?
what i mean is that unless you teach people about their instincts and how they work, they'll act on them.
manipulation works because the brain is wired that way. I'm not saying the way we behave now is innate but that it is caused by the way we are. If you want to keep people rational, you need to teach them how to counteract their cognitive biases and distortions caused by their instincts. Yeah, manipulation could be lower, but that doesnt prevent someone from exploiting it.
He received a salary from the East India Company, so his 'happiness' was
more important than that of 300 million Indians, who were treated as
slaves. So 'thinking' about 'happiness' and 'rights' are useless when
you are unable to put yourself in others shoes. His theory may be true,
but it was also a way to justify his hypocrisy.
Did you write that on your iPhone?
@@flapjackfred probably haha
The main issue with Mill is his lack of clarity in his harm principle. He never defines what it means to harm others and thus is left for interpretation. Harm can be either physical or psychological and today 'harm' has expanded in meaning since Mill's time. Absolute freedom is as dangerous as no freedom at all to other individuals and Mill never really focused on that idea...
he does define it in the reading. bad= pain good=pleasure
@@officialsprunt great definition that isn’t at all obscure of all meaning lol
I can't stop hearing "liverty"
could someone help me with this question.
Using Mill’s refinement of the Harm principle, answer the following question: According to Mill, can the legalization of same-sex marriage cause harm to someone who is opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds?
+Rashid I old comment but I'd guess Mill wouldn't think it caused harm. I would also guess he would say people ought to be considered married as long as they themselves genuinely consider themselves married. Eg they have made some contract or commitment to each other in good faith. I don't think he would say the state, or even society, needed to sanction it.
IMO the current debate on gay marriage boils down to whether you want to change, or at least widen, the traditionally accepted definition of marriage. Obviously some people do and some people don't. But there is no rational argument from either side that I have seen to say marriage should mean one thing or another. If the state and/ or society wasn't seen as necessary to sanction a marriage then the definition wouldn't be important. The solution then is to stop sanctioning marriages.
Preach
First 8 minutes - first 20% of the book
Last 3 minutes - other 80%
John Stuart Mill of his own free will. On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.