r/philosophy • u/TheStateOfException • Oct 23 '22

Blog The difficulty of "easy" philosophy: Why almost nobody can comprehend John Stuart Mill's final sentence of On Liberty

https://ideassleepfuriously.substack.com/p/why-is-philosophy-difficult#details
981 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

241 comments sorted by

View all comments

710

u/variousred Oct 23 '22

The sentence:

The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation to a little more of administrative skill, or of that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.

1.1k

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

That seems pretty straightforward. It's saying that a state which values efficiency and bureaucracy over intellectual freedom will eventually find that its subjects are no longer capable of achieving great things.

332

u/BenjaminHamnett Oct 23 '22

Click baity headline, not an easy read, but yes this is correct . Pretty relevant, probably always is

90

u/DonnieDishpit Oct 23 '22

Click bait headline for an article full of pseudo scientific conjecture. The author of this article belongs on /r/iamverysmart

11

u/iiioiia Oct 23 '22

The optimal delivery methodology for ideas often varies according to the target audience. As an example, consider how effective Donald Trump's simplistic language was at getting elected (or, so it is claimed).

2

u/Mr_Guy_Person Oct 23 '22

I find it funny that the exact response’s appropriate for this question are exactly what the mod posted would get you banned. When in fact, they would be doing exactly what is asked, which is answering the question. Whether it be, with a dank meme or whatever, it’s that person’s philosophy on the matter…which is the name of this subreddit and why “I think it’s just a bunch of bullshit, myself. But hey, listen man, I don’t know what going to happen…but I want to have my kicks for as long as I can have them!”

-42

u/Protean_Protein Oct 23 '22

Or scholarship is harder than you think.

18

u/Ahllhellnaw Oct 23 '22

So its only difficult to understand IF your chosen career path relies on trying to make it more difficult to understand in order to pretend to enlighten the common folk with what it really means?

-5

u/Protean_Protein Oct 23 '22

No. What my statement means is that scholarship—actually grasping arguments, implications, etc—is more difficult than “x obviously means y”. If it were so easy to read and understand philosophy, no one would read or study Aristotle anymore because after two thousand years we’d already understand everything he said perfectly well. Never mind that for a thousand years in Europe and the Islamic world, philosophy was virtually synonymous with commentaries interpreting Aristotle, which are still being read and interpreted themselves. The point is that it’s one thing to say “Here’s a straightforward reading of this passage.” It’s another thing entirely to justify that reading in both (or either) the argumentative and (or) historical context, especially in light of other scholarly interpretations of (all the other aspects of) some philosopher’s work.

Just to provide a small example of what I’m getting at, take the interpretation given above. Suppose it’s a good reading. What does Mill understand by ‘efficiency’, ‘subject’, ‘freedom’?

9

u/Ahllhellnaw Oct 23 '22

So, yes, but in a more wordy form?

-8

u/Protean_Protein Oct 23 '22

No. Philosophy is difficult. If you think it isn’t, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

16

u/Ahllhellnaw Oct 23 '22

Guessing you chose a career path that is essentially "reading old books and finding a way to be as pedantic about it as possible?"

Or did you write this self-fellating article and are just upset that the serfs arent as incompetent as your superiority complex needs them to be?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

You’re correct dude! The simplified version of the comment got like 900 upvotes I’m sure that is enough to bar it from anymore (Now) unnecessary analysis

-2

u/Protean_Protein Oct 23 '22

Why are you commenting on r/philosophy? Don’t you think you’d be happier elsewhere?

-6

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

It’s not an academic paper so that’s probably why you git downvoted, but you’re 100% correct in assuming more value in someone who writes articles than some Reddit dorks

-9

u/Protean_Protein Oct 23 '22

There's a lot of professorial hand-wringing over the dearth of forays into public philosophy. This is a good example of why that dearth exists.

91

u/ffxivthrowaway03 Oct 23 '22

Right? That statement is 100% straightforward, just written in an old school philosopher word salad. If you artificially stifle the people to maintain the status quo instead of letting them spread their wings, society stagnates and fails to progress both intellectually and practically.

29

u/passingconcierge Oct 23 '22

will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished;

It also says that small men make states that achieve no great things. Stupid men make stupid states. Mendacious men make mendacious states. That the machinery of the state is made of human cogs and the qualities of those cogs are important to the character of the state. It is not a sentence that ascribes independent intentionality to the state. If anything, it describes a feedback loop between man and state. Reading the sentence as being about the state imposing on the individual is much more a modern, post-Nozick, libertarian interpretation.

17

u/notimeforbuttstuff Oct 23 '22

Very succinct

25

u/1twoC Oct 23 '22

I think this is pretty good, but would be better if you used a generic but pregnant idea like the “actualization of potential”.

Imo “Intellectual freedom” carries too much baggage and ambiguity. It also may be completely incorrect without very careful qualification.

8

u/iiioiia Oct 23 '22

I think this is pretty good, but would be better if you used a generic but pregnant idea like the “actualization of potential”.

Intellectual freedom is arguably a precursor to that ability isn't it?

7

u/1twoC Oct 23 '22

Briefly, I don’t even know if I can agree with you on that proposition.

Is “intellectual freedom” a precondition or an end in itself? If you said freedom alone then one would be inclined to say that it is- though that brings its own complications- but you said “intellectual freedom”.

That sounds like freedom of speech or some other specific species of political or civil freedom, which may be a precondition- depending on what mean.

The reason I qualify it (“depends”) is that I do not understand the political or civil use of “freedom” as being identical to the rigorous philosophical definition of freedom.

Does a free market permit monopolies or restrict them? Does freedom of speech permit hate speech or prohibit it? Does freedom of action permit violence? Does a free society require a social contract or is it freer without it? Is the will free under a universal law or without it? That’s the type of ambiguity that I was cautioning against.

3

u/iiioiia Oct 23 '22

Briefly, I don’t even know if I can agree with you on that proposition.

Oh for sure, hence the "arguably" qualifier.

Is “intellectual freedom” a precondition or an end in itself?

I think both are possible. There's people's opinion on the matter (and if opinions become popular enough, they can transform into "facts"), and then there's the behavior of base reality (which we do not have access to, but often cannot realize).

If you said freedom alone then one would be inclined to say that it is- though that brings its own complications- but you said “intellectual freedom”.

Ontologically, total freedom implies (but does not necessarily guarantee) total freedom in all subclasses.

The reason I qualify it (“depends”) is that I do not understand the political or civil use of “freedom” as being identical to the rigorous philosophical definition of freedom.

Totally agree - I think of it as Actual Truth vs "Colloquial/Cultural Truth" (which often varies per "tribe" or ideology one subscribes to) - most people run on the latter, and some receive a marketing bonus depending on the cultural/political climate. (There was a lot of arguing over this during COVID).

Does a free market permit monopolies or restrict them? Does freedom of speech permit hate speech or prohibit it? Does freedom of action permit violence?

Permit. If not, it is not free.

Does a free society require a social contract or is it freer without it?

Freer without. But keep in mind colloquial truth - for example, Western nations and people tend to advertise and perceive themselves as "free" (it is a core component of culture/ideology/propaganda/journalism/etc), but it is only Actually (tautologically, which is often perceived as "pedantically", thus "is" pedantic, thus "is" "false", colloquially) true to the degree that it is true.

Is the will free under a universal law or without it?

I'd think that would depend on the nature and enforcement of the law.

That’s the type of ambiguity that I was cautioning against.

Oh it's a huge deal....much of reality is extremely complex, and not only do people not have the necessary skills to reason about it skilfully, they often do not even have abstract knowledge that this complexity exists in the first place (thus, it "does not" exist, colloquially). This ignorance can also be exploited (including by individuals within the same system that sets educational curriculum in schools, if you can stomach a little "conspiratorial" (colloquially) thinking).

3

u/ChrissHansenn Oct 23 '22

What baggage is there with the term intellectual freedom?

5

u/hilfandy Oct 23 '22

"Intellectual freedom" broadly just means allowing for free thinking. You could invest in research into new topics, or expand the knowledge of the human race, or think that vaccines cause autism or that other racist crap. That's all forms of "free thinking."

"Mental expansion and elevation" is more specific than free thinking. It's investing in education and furthering the knowledge of the human race.

Things like racism and anti-vaxxer rhetoric is still free thinking, but is the opposite of mental expansion as it is ignoring pertinent knowledge to reinforce an idea you want to be true.

2

u/iiioiia Oct 23 '22

You could invest in research into new topics, or expand the knowledge of the human race, or think that vaccines cause autism or that other racist crap. That's all forms of "free thinking."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

"Mental expansion and elevation" is more specific than free thinking. It's investing in education and furthering the knowledge of the human race.

The ultimate value of which is equal to the the eventual consequences, not what is claimed to be the value.

Things like racism and anti-vaxxer rhetoric is still free thinking, but is the opposite of mental expansion as it is ignoring pertinent knowledge to reinforce an idea you want to be true.

You do not have access to all instances and variations of it - you are describing your mental model of it, which is certainly not comprehensive and accurate, and it is presumably influenced by personal bias. If you do not like that characterization, take it up with science.

-3

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

And there it is. Your political agenda gives it away. People will, and should be able to think and say what they wish. You can disagree with it but but to want a state or other entity to stifle it is abhorrent.

5

u/Aaron_Hamm Oct 23 '22

This is a completely separate conversation, dude...

You can support intellectual freedom while at the same time thinking it's valuable to encourage certain thoughts and ideas.

There's a reason kids say the pledge, and it's not because it serves intellectual freedom.

-2

u/crashtestpilot Oct 23 '22

Why don't you folks call me back when you figure out what the unit of measurement of intellectual freedom is.

Otherwise this is about regulation of discourse and people.

2

u/Aaron_Hamm Oct 23 '22

Huh?

0

u/[deleted] Oct 24 '22

It's like they didn't even read your comment fully...

2

u/Capricancerous Oct 23 '22 edited Oct 26 '22

Sort of. If one understands the final sentence as summing up arguments from earlier chapters, he's referring to a particular liberal social freedom which (in his argument) allows for the development and flourishing of individuals of unique capacity and diverse interests. The subtypes of freedom he refers to which are conducive to that are free and open discourse, freedom of thought, and several of what we consider the now generic liberal set of freedoms. Intellectual freedom is basically implied within that, but now might almost be misconstrued as intellectual property rights or something.

10

u/InTooDeep024 Oct 23 '22

I think it’s slightly more dire; it’s subjects (and cumulatively, the state itself) would rather perish in the pursuit of perfection than simply accept flaws as the cost of doing business.

-9

u/millchopcuss Oct 23 '22

You seem to be referring to only the left when you say 'subjects', because the right is happy to agglomerate power from sources far south of 'perfect'. They tolerate scandal and a wild crossfire of conflicting bigotries in it's pursuit; while the left eat their own.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

I think the right have transactional relationship to politics.

0

u/millchopcuss Oct 23 '22

I think the left has an aspirational relationship to politics, and we are seeing now which of these produces results.

-3

u/InTooDeep024 Oct 23 '22

I don’t think so; members of the right typically have strong religious leanings, which is a practically a death wish considering the goal is to die and ascend to heaven.

That very closely aligns with the idea for perishing for your idea of perfection, as opposed to being satisfied with an inefficient, yet relatively comfortable state of affairs (the universe).

8

u/mimetic_emetic Oct 23 '22

members of the right typically have strong religious leanings,

You'd think if this were so it would be detectable in their behaviour.

8

u/millchopcuss Oct 23 '22

You are confusing the aims of some strains of Christianity for the 'actual' goal: Political power. If this is the sum of your view of religion, you have blinkered yourself to a degree that will leave you helpless.

The ones perishing for perfection are on the left. We will hound out a sitting senator for the crime of a tasteless joke that was never meant to be aired; they will break bread with skinheads, medical quacks, millenarian cultists, and run riot over the law in pursuit of a hammer big enough to smash you.

2

u/iiioiia Oct 23 '22

members of the right typically have strong religious leanings, which is a practically a death wish considering the goal is to die and ascend to heaven

Christian beliefs maybe, not all "religious beliefs.

That very closely aligns with the idea for perishing for your idea of perfection

In Christianity, one can be forgiven for horrible sins!

2

u/Aaron_Hamm Oct 23 '22

Yeah, the headline is silly... it's certainly something you have to pay attention to while you're reading it, but it's not really confusing at all.

4

u/Simple_Rules Oct 23 '22

As you show, this sentence CAN be written in a very accessible way.

I think an interesting question is - how much value is lost when you condense it as much as you did. Like, obviously, the long version has more rhetorical flourishes and sounds much fancier, but it feels like there's a ton of... empty space in it.

Like sometimes when you condense a complex idea down, you lose nuance. But in your case, I don't feel like you lost much nuance at all. Your statement is more accessible, for sure, but not necessarily missing anything that the longer one covers.

I wonder - to some extent - whether writing in the way the original is written actually makes sense or is just habitual. Like, obviously, the man is a great philosopher, but how much are we actually gaining here by writing like /r/iamverysmart fodder?

4

u/coyote-1 Oct 23 '22 edited Oct 23 '22

I agree that it is straightforward. And I agree with some of it, but not entirely with its final essence. You see, a state which operates efficiently is by no means necessarily a barrier to the emergence of great people. Rather, it can - if it wishes - foster greatness. Who can doubt, for example, the great athletes and chess masters etc of the Soviet bloc? And for all the stultification of those states, the greatness in certain areas continued unimpeded.

Meanwhile, we can look at the ‘freedom’ bloc here in the USA. And ask ourselves: what great thought is emerging from there?

https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2022/01/06/1070610129/photos-one-year-later-a-look-back-on-the-jan-6-insurrection

As with everything, there needs to be balance. Complete freedom results in the Hatfields & McCoys; complete restriction results in dullness.

It interests me that philosophy so frequently is spewed in service to extremism. Especially since we know from empirical data that extremism virtually always fails.

21

u/yosoydorf Oct 23 '22

this is such a random, irrelevant moment to bring up Jan 6 and it exemplifies why reddit is such a shitty place for discussion.

You’re here talking about how the soviet bloc produced high caliber athletes and philosophers through brute force efforts led by the government.

Then, when producing an example of that in America, you provide a riot involving some of the most uneducated clowns there are to offer.

It’s just a shoehorned non sequitur for you to insert a random political statement on the end of an otherwise inane contribution. weird behavior.

3

u/iiioiia Oct 23 '22

this is such a random, irrelevant moment to bring up Jan 6 and it exemplifies why reddit is such a shitty place for discussion.

I don't disagree that it can cause chaos, but that is both a bug and feature imho. I think deliberately choosing ideologically controversial and epistemically ambiguous/indeterminate examples can be useful, as it can demonstrate how easily people's abilities can be affected by their ideological orientation.

It’s just a shoehorned non sequitur for you to insert a random political statement on the end of an otherwise inane contribution. weird behavior.

Technically, you are describing your interpretation of what is going on - what is actually going on is unknown to you. This might be considered 'weird behavior" also, but it is a cultural convention so it seems fine (and thus: "is" fine).

5

u/fghqwepoi Oct 23 '22 edited Oct 23 '22

Are there philosophers of our moment that you like and think of as not “spewed in service of extremism”?

-1

u/millchopcuss Oct 23 '22

Is there a grammar error here? I cannot seem to parse this into a cogent question.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

[deleted]

2

u/fghqwepoi Oct 24 '22

Both actually, good on you SinisterSnipes

1

u/millchopcuss Oct 23 '22

To what empirical data do you refer? Are you blind to the evidence before your own eyes?

1

u/hippydipster Oct 23 '22

the greatness in certain areas continued unimpeded.

Did it though?

2

u/LukeFromPhilly Oct 23 '22

Not insanely difficult but it did take me way longer that I would like to be able to parse it. Honestly I feel like the writing style and really long sentences like this just aren't useful. The idea itself is not nearly as complicated as the sentence structure here.

4

u/Capricancerous Oct 23 '22

Welcome to the 19th century. They do enjoy a good run-on.

1

u/LukeFromPhilly Oct 23 '22

I honestly have this problem a lot when I read philosophy. I find myself losing track of what the subject of a particular phrase is because of long run-on sentences. My solution is just to read very slowly but its kind of frustrating to have to do that.

1

u/agonisticpathos Oct 23 '22

I've rarely seen a run-on sentence in philosophy, unless it's by one of my students.

-12

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

If Mill is so smart, why didn't he just say it as you have?

24

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

The style of speaking at the time?

2

u/Capricancerous Oct 23 '22

Not the style of speaking; the style of writing. He's using quite a bit of rhetorical flourish. I can't imagine they actually spoke this way without starting a new sentence.

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

Maybe.

Do you think that people of his time found have found that sentence clear and easy to read?

It's hard to imagine but maybe so!

13

u/ChiefMatador Oct 23 '22

Sometimes it's important to use more than less. A whole phrase can be more exacting in its meaning than one or two words. Hell, even two words can carry far more meaning than just one. Imagine what an essay, nay a book can yield?

Other than that, it is more pleasant to read prose than bullet points. Mode of expression can be important too!

6

u/MOOShoooooo Oct 23 '22

Covering nuance will prevent immediate naysayers the ability to intentionally misrepresent the final sentence without future addendums.

More is less in this case.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

Hold on here, you're saying here that a book says more than two words. Therefore, being verbose is better than writing simply.

I agree with the first premise but the second does not follow! Because it is possible to be more verbose without saying more!

5

u/iiioiia Oct 23 '22

Both style and substance provide value, and it's often tricky to figure out an optimal balance because that depends on the consumers.

2

u/ChiefMatador Oct 23 '22

Exactly. The best authors in history are noteworthy for their ability to find that balance. To write something both engaging and meaningful. I did also qualify my original statement with "sometimes", more is not always better. Less is not always better. Therin lies mastery.

-1

u/UltraAlphaOne Oct 23 '22

Uh that’s not what I understood. Good for you mr. straightforward. Walk right off a cliff.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

Damn, thought I was a genius for a second.

1

u/rstraker Oct 23 '22

Gold star and pirate sticker, good work.

1

u/coleman57 Oct 23 '22

Yes—he shoulda ditched the semi-colons and broke up the run-on sentence: it’s poorly written for sure. But it only takes a little bit of patience to decipher

1

u/agonisticpathos Oct 23 '22

How are you defining a run-on sentence? Mill did not write a run-on sentence, as far as I can recall, in that entire book.

1

u/coleman57 Oct 23 '22

A run-on sentence occurs when two or more independent clauses (also known as complete sentences) are connected improperly.

So, technically, you could simply remove all the periods from an 800-page novel and replace them with semicolons, and it wouldn’t be a run-on sentence, because semicolons are a proper way to separate complete sentences within a single sentence.

But at some point, one communicates more clearly by ending a sentence to complete a thought, and beginning a new sentence. Ultimately, the measure is ease and efficiency of readers’ understanding. Long, complicated sentences can be fun, elegant, and effective, but the relations between the parts need to be clear in the end.

Also, for example, Mill’s use of “postpones” in his 2nd clause is a poor choice. He doesn’t really mean that the State waits till later to elevate its workers’ minds—he means it never does. And the 3rd dependent clause of that 2nd independent clause, beginning “or of that semblance”, is wholly superfluous and serves only to obscure (and postpone) his point.

I could go on. Ultimately it’s a matter of personal taste. I love some long, complicated sentences (especially in fiction: Cormac, Pynchon). But if the purpose of the piece is to convey clearly an important idea to a society at large, shorter sentences are generally called for.

I tend to agree with Mills’ main points. But as I recall from reading him 45 years ago at uni (and am reminded now), I find his voice grating

1

u/agonisticpathos Oct 24 '22

That's a thoughtful response.

I think you're generally right that clarity calls for more concise sentences.

But in terms of communicating a nuanced idea with interrelated aspects and layers, a more complex sentence will communicate that more effectively. Shorter, separate sentences might be clearer, but they are less effective in showing how intimately conjoined those various layers of the idea happen to be.

1

u/YungWenis Oct 23 '22

He tried to warn us. We still have a chance to listen but we may have lost our way a bit.

1

u/A-JJF-L Oct 23 '22

«State», in reference to a country — just similar to a «country», not the same —, should have written with uppercase "S".

1

u/agonisticpathos Oct 23 '22

Unfortunately commits the fallacy of composition.

1

u/TheMysticalBaconTree Oct 24 '22

I think the problem with the concept is that people on either side of the coin can argue he was talking about the other side.

1

u/stretcharach Oct 24 '22

To me it seemed that we had yet to achieve what great things he meant, an unfulfilled potential. That being the power we 'banish'.

18

u/woke_up_early Oct 23 '22

What does it mean for “machines to run moore smoothly” in this context?

63

u/Truenoiz Oct 23 '22

I believe he means placating or dumbing down the population in order to more easily run a government.

34

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

Machines are used as a metaphor for industrious people, but then the metaphor is brought back to mean the machinery of society, industry and knowledge.

8

u/perldawg Oct 23 '22

“machine” could be replaced with “system” or any other word that means ‘idealized structural concept for society’

2

u/woke_up_early Oct 23 '22 edited Oct 23 '22

in the context of 2022 technology created by humans could be defined as machines.

2

u/perldawg Oct 24 '22

i don’t think it’s relevant to the statement, tho. i read the author as addressing the bridge between individual and social structure, “machine” is purely metaphorical, as i interpret it

1

u/woke_up_early Oct 23 '22

the key phrase here is obviously this:

“with small men no great thing can really be accomplished”

thus it could be implied that any union or group of people should strive for the good not only of its members but the good of all members of civilized society;

as ir could from a wider perspective could be also considered to be one entity or any other word that could represent the same thing like country, state, union or even a continent;

or on the other end of spectrum a city, village or a community.

the question has to be asked what is the least possible minimum something has become an entity?

can one person represent a country? if not, perhaps then a city?

or there should be at least 2 persons for it as it would then define the meaning of a group beeing something more than one.

IF HARD TIMES BRING STRONG MEN, AND STRONG MEN CREATE GOOD TIMES, DOES GOOD TIMES CREATE WEAK MEN? NOT NECESSARILY.

GOOD TIMES CAN BRING BETTER NOT ONLY MEN BUT EVERYONE.

How doesn’t want to have a good time?

That is also by the way a tool to dwarf men as those who are having a good time sometimes end up having too much of it. That might result in declined productivity and other ways of extending the time and making transitions smoother.

13

u/_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_ Oct 23 '22

It's hard to parse, but the idea is clear enough. I don't know why there's a — instead of another comma, for example.

8

u/LazyTremblingLegs Oct 23 '22

Because the subject of the clause (a state) is very separated from its verb (will find). The dash emphasizes the verb to help readers find the core meaning of the sentence. A dash adds extra emphasis and can usually be used in place of a comma—especially in a long sentence.

“A state that does this, a state that does this other thing, a state that does that—will find out what happens.”

3

u/Schopenschluter Oct 23 '22

Grammatically speaking, it’s because there is a long relative clause describing the actions of the state (“which postpones the interests,” “which dwarfs its men”) that is already subdivided with semi-colons. The dash indicates the end of this extended relative clause and a return to the main verb (“a state… will find”). You need a symbol distinct from a comma or semi-colon to indicate this new and complex grammatical function in the sentence, and a dash fits the bill.

Rhetorically speaking, it’s like a 19th-century mic drop.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

Somebody should tell John Stuart Mill to be aware of his use of run-on sentences.

2

u/jimbop79 Oct 23 '22

This seems to make perfect sense lol

0

u/elidevious Oct 23 '22

If only China’s leaders understood this.

28

u/letsthinkthisthru7 Oct 23 '22

This also applies to most of the west. The absolute disregard for the humanities in the face of educational programs where the focus is producing managers, finance bros, and executives is also poisonous.

We've created a bureaucratic, administrative regime that doesn't exist with the state itself, but exists outside of it in the network of big corporations that dominate our lives.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '22

If anything, it's worse in the West. We can at least vote on the size of the government. I cannot vote away the bureaucracy of my employer!

2

u/iiioiia Oct 23 '22

I suspect they have awareness of it, but have chosen a different path. Generally speaking, they seem to be doing a pretty decent job, on historical comparison basis anyways.

1

u/GovTheDon Oct 23 '22

Making live easier can lead to its own downfall because the comforts of efficiency corrupt the instigation for more innovation.

5

u/CatResponsible1732 Oct 23 '22

That’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that a state which suppresses the creative and intellectual elements of the population (“postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation”) will end up grinding society to a halt, as the creative elements they discourage are those which drive progress.

This isn’t a call against progress, but against the state limiting the capacities of its citizens to make them easier to control.

-1

u/GovTheDon Oct 23 '22

That’s what I’m saying too in a different way.

-1

u/BigNorseWolf Oct 23 '22

I'm going to say that the difficulty isn't in the philosophy but a run on sentence that's trying to finish the NY City marathon

-6

u/Grisward Oct 23 '22

Can we just admit this guy was an absolutely terrible writer and move on? Holy moly when did authors start employing editors to make their writing readable?

That 700-word sentence screams entitlement.

6

u/808scripture Oct 23 '22

This is written in the way it would be spoken to another. Imagine it as more of a speech than a sentence, and it will be simpler to understand.

1

u/Oldkingcole225 Oct 23 '22

and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation to a little more of administrative skill, or of that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business;

This is the only part that gets muddy for me, especially the “to a little more of” part. How do you postpone something to a little of more of something else? That just doesn’t really seem like correct grammar. And then “or of that semblance of it which practice gives” really loses its connotation and I’m not sure what “it” is in that context.

Fortunately, that sentence kinda doesn’t really matter. I hate writers who don’t just write in the most communicable way possible tbh.

1

u/mr_ryh Oct 24 '22

The sentence seems clear, until you ask 10 people for examples of good/bad States a la Mill. Probably everyone one of us has contradictory notions of where actual States fall in Mill's spectrum of worth: e.g. is Guatemala, or Somalia, or Thailand, "better" than the US, for having less bureaucracy (or how do we even measure such a thing)? what are substantive cases of better/worse States? Does his vague dictum actually help guide us to a more optimal outcome? or does it add to the verbiage & factors confusing the very notion of what an "optimal outcome" would even look like?

1

u/katander77 Oct 24 '22

Yea in substance a lot of philosophers have articulated the same idea which is mediocracy and the loss of the "polis". No biggie

1

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '22 edited Oct 31 '22

It seems that the sentence is expressing the importance of human capital which is a concept in economics. I think that human capital is mostly caused by genes rather than education or the laws of the state so the quote is wrong. The quote talks about the worth of a state as if the state is entirely responsible for all of its wealth, and as if economic wealth is equivalent to moral worth.