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?
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?
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.
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?