3 ms·
The idea is that the reader - briefly acquainted with Bentham and Mill as part of their undergraduate education - has a smug, knowing chuckle when they recogniz
by _iyig 7y ago
The idea is that the reader - briefly acquainted with Bentham and Mill as part of their undergraduate education - has a smug, knowing chuckle when they recognize these references. (Similar to “clapter,” I’d call this a “snuckle” piece.) The quality of the satire itself is irrelevant. Substantive satire is actually impossible: the author briefly recaps Mill and Bentham’s differences for that “oh yeah, I remember now” feel-good reader moment, but can’t get too far into the details as this would alienate the reader, reminding them just how much of their education they’ve forgotten (if they ever did the assigned readings in the first place).
Cynical attitude aside, I’m not sure why this is on HN. It doesn’t seem particularly insightful, interesting, or funny.
- Throw_Away_9812 7y agoNot sure why you were down-voted. That's obviously the main value of the thing. Maybe you've hit a wound spot. >Cynical attitude aside, I’m not sure why this is on HN. It doesn’t seem particularly insightful, interesting, or funny. The average HN reader does probably know enough about philosophy to know the differences between Bentham and Mill but not enough to make that seem trivial.
- tomlock 7y agoAs a smug postgraduate I find it kinda odd I'd be called out as an undergraduate, since I found the article funny. Cheers.
- _iyig 7y agoI’m generalizing based on my own experience here (and taking some polemic license), but that’s all one can do. If I’ve misjudged the HN audience and enough do appreciate this link, I can’t/won’t argue with their upvotes!
- dr_dshiv 7y agoThe article is an enjoyable and novel intro to philosophies regarding the underlying value systems that we optimize for as a society. That is intellectually interesting to me.