if herbert spencer had a second life to refine his philosophy, where would it have gone.

and to what extent have you done it for him in your lifetime, and noticed of anyone else (groups too, and culture more generally) doing it.

who gave up religion, thought they did, only to align with herbert (even if independently, or complete accident)

and when attenborough is reading you into an interest of nature, aren’t you absorbing something like herbert

and, is herbert good for capitalism, so good

transition said:

if herbert spencer had a second life to refine his philosophy, where would it have gone.

and to what extent have you done it for him in your lifetime, and noticed of anyone else (groups too, and culture more generally) doing it.

who gave up religion, thought they did, only to align with herbert (even if independently, or complete accident)

and when attenborough is reading you into an interest of nature, aren’t you absorbing something like herbert

and, is herbert good for capitalism, so good

“Who now reads Spencer?” asked Talcott Parsons in 1937.

Not I.

So I’ll have to do a bit of Wikipediaing before I can answer this question.

>“Who now reads Spencer?”

If extreme Thatcherites ever read anything, they probably read Spencer.

I’ve read Marx and Spencer.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ve read Marx and Spencer.

LOL

Peak Warming Man said:

I’ve read Marx and Spencer.

That would account for your extreme centrist political views I suppose.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

if herbert spencer had a second life to refine his philosophy, where would it have gone.

and to what extent have you done it for him in your lifetime, and noticed of anyone else (groups too, and culture more generally) doing it.

who gave up religion, thought they did, only to align with herbert (even if independently, or complete accident)

and when attenborough is reading you into an interest of nature, aren’t you absorbing something like herbert

and, is herbert good for capitalism, so good

“Who now reads Spencer?” asked Talcott Parsons in 1937.

Not I.

So I’ll have to do a bit of Wikipediaing before I can answer this question.

Not familiar with Herbert Spencer. Do know Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and have a small knowledge of John Locke, if those are similar authors.

> who gave up religion, thought they did, only to align with herbert (even if independently, or complete accident)

If by that you mean gave up christianity and took up humanism, then I put my hand up.

Let’s see what “Brainy Quotes” has for Herbert Spencer

Agree with the following:

• The wise man must remember that while he is a descendant of the past, he is a parent of the future.
• What a cage is to the wild beast, law is to the selfish man.
• Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.
• Society exists for the benefit of its members, not the members for the benefit of society.
• The great aim of education is not knowledge but action.
• How often misused words generate misleading thoughts.
• Every cause produces more than one effect.
• We all decry prejudice, yet are all prejudiced.
• In science the important thing is to modify and change one’s ideas as science advances.

Nearly agree with the following:

• Government is essentially immoral.
• A jury is composed of twelve men of average ignorance.

For the first, I’d leave out the word “essentially”.
For the second, not necessarily men, or 12, or average, but I agree with the sentiment.

Disagree with the following:

• The Republican form of government is the highest form of government: but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature, a type nowhere at present existing.
• Marriage: A word which should be pronounced ‘mirage’.
• All socialism involves slavery.
• The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
• Opinion is ultimately determined by the feelings, and not by the intellect.

For the first of those, I’d replace it with:

• The Socialist form of government is the highest form of government: but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature, a type nowhere at present existing.

For the fourth, I’d replace it with

• The world is full of fools, shielding people from folly has no effect on this.

> if herbert spencer had a second life to refine his philosophy, where would it have gone.

Well, for starters, it would have included women and children and not be so gender biased towards men.

> What a cage is to the wild beast, law is to the selfish man.

> Government is essentially immoral.

Need to think more about these.

The first of these implies that one should never allow a selfish man to make laws. And the second implies that one must never allow the government to influence the lawmaking process in any way.

I need to rethink those. Heinlein’s “The moon is a harsh mistress” got me thinking about whether we could survive well without any government, and without any laws. Heinlein’s government does work, while it lasts.

If there were no laws would society be better off or worse off?

I can’t decide without more information.

mollwollfumble said:

> What a cage is to the wild beast, law is to the selfish man.

> Government is essentially immoral.

Need to think more about these.

The first of these implies that one should never allow a selfish man to make laws. And the second implies that one must never allow the government to influence the lawmaking process in any way.

I need to rethink those. Heinlein’s “The moon is a harsh mistress” got me thinking about whether we could survive well without any government, and without any laws. Heinlein’s government does work, while it lasts.

If there were no laws would society be better off or worse off?

I can’t decide without more information.

There’s plenty of countries where laws are very loosely enforced that you can review.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> What a cage is to the wild beast, law is to the selfish man.

> Government is essentially immoral.

Need to think more about these.

The first of these implies that one should never allow a selfish man to make laws. And the second implies that one must never allow the government to influence the lawmaking process in any way.

I need to rethink those. Heinlein’s “The moon is a harsh mistress” got me thinking about whether we could survive well without any government, and without any laws. Heinlein’s government does work, while it lasts.

If there were no laws would society be better off or worse off?

I can’t decide without more information.

There’s plenty of countries where laws are very loosely enforced that you can review.

I was wondering about that. Would that be lax enforcement due to corruption or bribery? No necessary a good start.

Are there any countries without much in the way of laws to start with? I’m thinking sort of little if any tax, no minimum drinking age, etc.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> What a cage is to the wild beast, law is to the selfish man.

> Government is essentially immoral.

Need to think more about these.

The first of these implies that one should never allow a selfish man to make laws. And the second implies that one must never allow the government to influence the lawmaking process in any way.

I need to rethink those. Heinlein’s “The moon is a harsh mistress” got me thinking about whether we could survive well without any government, and without any laws. Heinlein’s government does work, while it lasts.

If there were no laws would society be better off or worse off?

I can’t decide without more information.

There’s plenty of countries where laws are very loosely enforced that you can review.

I was wondering about that. Would that be lax enforcement due to corruption or bribery? No necessary a good start.

Are there any countries without much in the way of laws to start with? I’m thinking sort of little if any tax, no minimum drinking age, etc.

There used to be lots of them.

Now there are none.

Does that tell us something?

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

There’s plenty of countries where laws are very loosely enforced that you can review.

I was wondering about that. Would that be lax enforcement due to corruption or bribery? No necessary a good start.

Are there any countries without much in the way of laws to start with? I’m thinking sort of little if any tax, no minimum drinking age, etc.

There used to be lots of them.

Now there are none.

Does that tell us something?

Yes. It shouts something at maximum volume.

But what?

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I was wondering about that. Would that be lax enforcement due to corruption or bribery? No necessary a good start.

Are there any countries without much in the way of laws to start with? I’m thinking sort of little if any tax, no minimum drinking age, etc.

There used to be lots of them.

Now there are none.

Does that tell us something?

Yes. It shouts something at maximum volume.

But what?

that a few thousand years ago we found that if we wanted to live in large groups then we needed some rules.

it is also a fairly good movie with roddy mcdowell.

ChrispenEvan said:

it is also a fairly good movie with roddy mcdowell.

Not to mention a well known poem:

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,

Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,

And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;

If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

ChrispenEvan said:

it is also a fairly good movie with roddy mcdowell.

*Malcolm

btm said:

ChrispenEvan said:

it is also a fairly good movie with roddy mcdowell.

*Malcolm

yeah, just hit me when i saw the posts come up that i had the wrong one and was most likely being corrected. sibeen will be happy.

fairly much any system meritocratic has something of survival of the fittest about, nothing wrong with that, too there are status limiting mechanisms, both informal and formal.

it’s quite a substantial step to something like social Darwinism, social and political philosophy

there probably was a time intellectuals were special, sought, equivalent the gifted nutcracker of our primate relatives, and ancestors.

then came education, for all, and everyone was a nutcracker, so to speak.

educational entertainment was everywhere and poverty of any sort a thing of the past.

somewhere down the track, whether twelve or twenty billion humans, if most are environmentalists there’s your savior. Not religion or ideology by name.

a soft species dominance, reshaping the surface of the planet, organizing life.

no hint of social Darwinism.