Three Books, And General Updatery · 1:31am Aug 18th, 2020
So I've been gone for a while, huh? Seems par for the course that I should be completely radio silent and then come back all at once. Well, I tell you that you shouldn't expect that for much longer. That stick bug story was the start of a few stories I want to post weekly, that I've made a backlog of to post weekly. This is to be more regular, of course. Though, before you get up in arms, they will not be porn. None of them will, in fact. There's a romance, but that's as close as it comes. My first trek into the nsfw may be my last. Maybe. I'm not sure yet.
Now, moving past that, you're probably wondering if you read these blogs regularly, as to what my readings have looked like. Ideally, I would've finished On Liberty by now, right? Correct. And two other books too: Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism and Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. And if you see these three and go, "Ruby, these are unrelated to each other." You would be right. I select the non-leftist theory at random, even though I should be reading them in some kind of order according to the school of thought. Oh well, the philosophy police won't come after me, they're too busy arguing what justice is in their car.
So to the first one, and the one I read the longest time ago, Mill's On Liberty. There's not much to say about it really. It comes across extremely liberal, go figure, because it's liberal theory. It rests itself that all ideas should be fair game to speak... With a few caveats. And that anyone should be able to say these ideas... With a few caveats. If you're a 'savage' or a child, then you can't speak your piece. Sorry, Greta Thunberg, Mills says to go stand in the corner. And for the ideas themselves, they can't be inflammatory, untrue, or inciting. He gives the example that, "You can't say that the corn farmer is starving poor people in the newspaper. The people who printed the headline and story might not be harmed, but you can bet the corn farmer will." And he gives this example because it's untrue, inflammatory, and incited violence, or at the least, could reliably provoke violence.
Another point of his was that the free expression of ideas would yield not only better ideas, but better people generally, as the only surviving ideas would be the good ones that beat the bad ones. If that sounds like, "Let sunlight be the cure for bad ideas" then you've been paying attention. Getting away from that topic which has been the subject of numerous videos debunking it. Mills says that it is for man's best interest to be built of these ideas, but also, because these are new ideas (as the old ones aren't perfect, and humanity hasn't reached perfection), that tradition must be challenged and abandoned. Pretty cool, right? Anyway, that's all I have to say about it, really. It was all very samey and frankly, pompous and hard to read, and coming from the window of an ivory tower. If only we could 'debate' all ideas fairly and rationally, without people on the right twisting reality to a gnarled and unrecognizable extent to still be correct, and employing various fallacies on top of this. Not to discount outright violence, naturally.
Now for Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism; A very short read about Existentialism, who'd have guessed? The whole point can be said rather briefly: Essence Precedes Existence. And if you don't know what the hell I just said, I'll explain.
So Essence is purpose, and this comes before your existence. Take for instance, uh, I don't know, a cup. A cup was made by us with the intention of holding a liquid to drink. You can use it for other things, like hitting someone with it, growing a plant in it, etc. But the point stands, that it was made to do something. Now this in mind, what the hell are humans here for?
Sartre argues against Christianity, and indeed, all religious authorities who answer that question with, "Whatever the religion says, of course." Sartre says that it is up to mankind to decide for itself what its purpose is, and that we'll be deliberating this for the foreseeable future. What that answer is from me? I don't know, don't ask me lmao.
So the last book then, the one I just finished today: Democracy in America. For context, Tocqueville was sent by France to investigate the prison system of the United States around the 1830's, but he then stayed and wrote about how he loved the American model of Democracy, and how that shaped their society and the people themselves.
In this, Tocqueville notes how that in a Democracy, everything is much more equal than anywhere else, at least compared to an Aristocracy or a Despot. A lot of older writers use that word, despot. One can interchange it with nazi now, and it rings the same, really. Anyway, he says that from this equality that everything about society changes, from the top down. And incidentally, the top isn't very far from the bottom in America (in this time period). He says that in place of nobles and intellectuals, lawyers take their place, and that lawyers are conservative by nature as they uphold the current law, and aren't in the position to change it. That's the legislature's job at the highest level, and the lowest is court precedent. And that because of lawyer's natural presupposition is to conserve the law, that their job interests and class interests intersect, and will fight to keep their influence and power.
Anyway, that's getting sidetracked. So, says Tocqueville and not me typing this out, equality's baller shock collar, but what about gender equality? He then says, that he fucking hopes not. His point is that with gender roles, that he places on 'the difference between sex', having equality between men and women would, "Degrade each sex to a point of androgyny, where men are not manly, and women not feminine." And like uh... No one tell him. He'd fucking scream at the thought of femboys and tomboys while ripping out his hair. Back to the point, he says that despite these roles being observed and obeyed, American men hold American women to be intellectual equals. That a woman's mind is just as capable of thought and reason, and don't try to overcorrect them out of fear or ignorance. He points out that this is a juxtaposition to how European men treat women, as objects to lavish over.
And the last point I wanna touch upon is of what Tocqueville calls, American Vanity. Americans are a very proud people, and seek to remind you of that every instance. He calls it an anxious and insatiable. That they will goad you into praising them, and if you don't, they'll follow you and persist on it. And then if you still don't, then they will start praising themselves. Tocqueville says that in an aristocracy, the people at the top have influence and wealth and power that they were born into, and everything is separated by class lines and castes. That the people in an aristocratic society feel pride in a haughty and individualized way. Contrast this with a democratic society, where the people are proud and everyone around them is nearly their equal. That their life is a pile of scraps that they fiercely defend, but it's their pile of scraps and no one else's, and because of that, have to remind themselves it's really there and really theirs. He says that men in a democracy love their country as they love themselves and that the pride of their nation is the pride in themselves, and vice versa.
Also, a point of reminder, this is more me recalling what I read off the top of my head, and not really any sort of in-depth report. My notes document sits at just under 40k words and is 104 pages. So for me to copy and paste that would be annoying and barely anyone would read it. But if you've gotten this far, thank you for actually reading it, I appreciate you. There's more coming in the near future, and the next fic was extremely well received by my peers in the Quills and Sofas Speedwriting group, and I hope it finds you well too!
I missed you, Ruby!
ruby wtf have you been writing while I've been away
LIBERALS DESTROYED THUNBURGER BTFO
Ruby Ruby Ruby Ruby hey Ruby what's ur answer Ruby
Humans were probably made for no reason, and yet I prioritize the survival of my species. Could I give you an immediate answer why? Nah lmao
That's right bitches you better believe it :flag_us: :flag_us: :flag_us:
Glad to see you're very clearly showing what you agree and disagree with in each of these, while still doing your best to represent their arguments. Keep it up!
5339303
Thank you for commenting! Like I always love reading your response to the blogs, and that you like hearing about what I read too! I'll continue to post my readings and not answering the meaning of life 