3 ms·

I strongly disagree. Many people seem to believe this without any substance. Some people, as evidenced by comments here, only believe this when it aligns to the

I strongly disagree. Many people seem to believe this without any substance. Some people, as evidenced by comments here, only believe this when it aligns to their subjectively self valued concern. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly According to Wikipedia assembly is an example of a civil liberty. The preeminent doctrine on civil liberties is On Liberty. According to John Stuart Mill the greatest destroyer, as addressed near the top of chapter 2, of civil liberties is populism whether from an aggressive majority or angry mob. https://www.bartleby.com/130/ https://www.bartleby.com/130/ Assembly only really means anything, to those observing, if the participants are assembling for a purpose of individually formulated passion opposed to an exertion of social pressure. That, as it would appear, is the difference between a protest versus an angry mob. That said I would say the most fundamental right is freedom of expression which can occur from a group or individual and be every bit as powerful and influential.

jdsully 6y ago
It can certainly go too far, but if a system of government angers a majority of the population one has to consider who exactly it is serving.
- austincheney 6y ago
  In that case consider a historic example. What is more important Common Sense by Thomas Payne or the protest it directly inspired? https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Common_Sense https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Common_Sense
newbie789 6y ago
I think a lot of people strongly believe things without substance, sometimes based on wikipedia and interpreting stuff written by people that died centuries before problems manifested in paradigms that would have been unimaginable to them. I'm a fan of John Stuart Mill's writing, but having a memorable book title does not make a permanently relevant tome that applies to all of history backward and forward. My understanding of assembly (no wikipedia reference here) is that it's a form of expression (which you also kind of said yourself). Are saying that assembly isn't good or necessary for society? Or is this entire post specifically about the OP's word choice? In either case, are you citing J. S. Mill as a form of "proof" for your assertion?
- austincheney 6y ago
  Assembly is important but perhaps not the most important form of dissent. Yes, I am citing Mill as evidence. > having a memorable book title does not make a permanently relevant tome that applies to all of history backward and forward. The definition of liberty has not changed, so yes that essay still equally applies.
  - newbie789 6y ago
    Thank you for your clarification that the post was entirely a critique of a single bit of word choice. Out of curiosity, what other philosophers do you consider to be so absolutely correct (and so clear in their statements that misinterpretation is impossible) that rise to the level of proof or evidence when cited?
    - austincheney 6y ago
      I cannot provide a good answer for this. I do believe that Descartes’ Meditations are perhaps the most misinterpreted. https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philos... This is what people reference when they say: I think, therefore I am. I find that is not at all accurate to the writing. Really it says a thinking machine that can doubt can doubt away all things but doubting itself so then that ability must exist.

jdsully 6y ago

It can certainly go too far, but if a system of government angers a majority of the population one has to consider who exactly it is serving.

austincheney 6y ago
In that case consider a historic example. What is more important Common Sense by Thomas Payne or the protest it directly inspired? https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Common_Sense https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Common_Sense

newbie789 6y ago

I think a lot of people strongly believe things without substance, sometimes based on wikipedia and interpreting stuff written by people that died centuries before problems manifested in paradigms that would have been unimaginable to them. I'm a fan of John Stuart Mill's writing, but having a memorable book title does not make a permanently relevant tome that applies to all of history backward and forward. My understanding of assembly (no wikipedia reference here) is that it's a form of expression (which you also kind of said yourself). Are saying that assembly isn't good or necessary for society? Or is this entire post specifically about the OP's word choice? In either case, are you citing J. S. Mill as a form of "proof" for your assertion?

austincheney 6y ago
Assembly is important but perhaps not the most important form of dissent. Yes, I am citing Mill as evidence. > having a memorable book title does not make a permanently relevant tome that applies to all of history backward and forward. The definition of liberty has not changed, so yes that essay still equally applies.
- newbie789 6y ago
  Thank you for your clarification that the post was entirely a critique of a single bit of word choice. Out of curiosity, what other philosophers do you consider to be so absolutely correct (and so clear in their statements that misinterpretation is impossible) that rise to the level of proof or evidence when cited?
  - austincheney 6y ago
    I cannot provide a good answer for this. I do believe that Descartes’ Meditations are perhaps the most misinterpreted. https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philos... This is what people reference when they say: I think, therefore I am. I find that is not at all accurate to the writing. Really it says a thinking machine that can doubt can doubt away all things but doubting itself so then that ability must exist.