In the end they all want English morality to be considered right, so that then mankind or "general needs" or "the happiness of the majority"—no, England's good fortune—will be best served. They want to prove with all their might that striving for English happiness, I mean for comfort and fashion (and, in the highest positions, a seat in Parliament) is also the right path to virtue, in fact, that all virtue which has existed in the world so far has consisted of just such striving. Not one of all these ponderous herd animals with uneasy consciences (who commit themselves to taking the issue of egotism as an issue of general welfare) wants to know or catch a whiff of the fact that the "general welfare" is no ideal, no goal, not even a concept one can somehow or other grasp, but is only an emetic—that what is right for one man cannot in any way also be right for another man, that the demand of a single morality for everyone is a direct restriction on the higher men, in short, that there is a rank ordering between man and man, and thus, as a result, between morality and morality. This utilitarian Englishman is a modest and thoroughly mediocre kind of man and, as mentioned, insofar as they are boring, we cannot think highly enough of their utility.
Beyond Good and Evil, 228
There's an entry from Lichtenberg's Waste Books about how the English are always inventing feelings, but I can't remember it and the book's not with me.
Don't let that stop you from commenting.
I'm gonna get you after class, ogged.
I'm picturing something like Rock'em Sock'em robots with Nietzche and Mill here. Let me see what I have lying around to throw into the fight.
Pronounce "donut," I meant, not "lame." Do we anything other than your word that it was lame, Ben? Frankly, I liked it.
Oh, well, we just say donut.
Do we anything other than your word that it was lame, Ben?
Translation, please?
Ogged is very subtly ribbing me for my assertion that he had an extra subject in a sentence of some days ago by omitting a verb.
Maybe the question is: Is it "donut" or "doughnut"?
I can't address this on my own blog because an actual linguist hangs out there.
It's "doughnut", unless you have to say it fast; then it's "donut".
The state grants that under some circumstances it is legitimate to punish persons who violate the rights of others, for it itself does so. How then does it arrogate to itself the right to forbid private exaction of justice by other nonaggressive individuals whose rights have been violated? What [italics in original] right does the private exacter of justice violate that is not violated also by the state when it punishes? When a group of persons constitute themselves as the state and begin to punish, and forbid others from doing likewise[same], is there some right these others would violate that they themselves do not?
ASU, Chapter 2
For a second, I thought, what the hell is w/d doing putting that in this thread about donuts?
Why is the Associated Student Union undermining the basis for its own authority?
I thought it was written by one of the frats at Arizona State.
The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad.
If you ever catch a glimpse of my erect common power, you'll know why it's called "leviathan".
I have to admit, I can't find the actual reference in the first ten pages of google hits for that character string.
my erect common power
Hmm, I thought it was nasty, brutish, and short.
Dear John Stuart,
While I've always appreciated your comedy and commentary on current events, I find your recent turn towards political theory quite dismaying. Entertainers should entertain rather than lecture us on morality and justice.
Respectfully yours,
An inobservant viewer
Apo, where it counts, it's just nasty and brutish.