Jesse Lopes's Reviews > On Liberty and Other Essays
On Liberty and Other Essays
by John Stuart Mill, John Gray
by John Stuart Mill, John Gray
How we all know and love our liberal freedoms - freedom of speech (if you have the money to speak!), freedom of association (that is, if your union isn't in a right-to-work state, or your political group isn't being monitored and busted by COINTELPRO), and, the libertarian favorite, freedom to do bodily harm to oneself (i.e. freedom to buy an unhealthy lifestyle on the exhilaratingly free market). In theory, these are the freedoms Mill is particularly concerned with defending in his famous essay On Liberty. Along the way, he throws in a theory of individuality, taken wholesale from the altogether superior philosopher, Wilhelm Von Humboldt, which sits uneasily next to his empiricist/positivist views on morality and social conditioning - he both says that the individual must be elicited to develop in accordance with its innate tendencies (his famous Enlightenment reference to the individual being more like a tree than a vessel), and, at the same time, says that "moral feelings are not innate, but acquired". There are more discrepancies in his defense of utilitarianism, which is a dastardly ugly and almost impossible to understand theory (there are many, for instance, who think that its emphasis on the greater good looks like communism, but this theory is really about making everyone happy through commodities, which is obvious when one looks at the quantitative aspect). The ideal utilitarian looks at results only, which is in blatant opposition to any form of individuality which must rest on principles of knowing thyself; hence, Mill merely superimposes Enlightenment posturing on top of empiricist/positivist ethics, which, since it only takes into account consequences, and one of the most inscrutable at that, happiness, one must insist that Mill did not read his Humboldt, for the latter says somewhere that those who look to make everyone happy desire them to be machines for one's purposes - precisely the predicament of individuals who are branded as consumers, who are, in effect, nothing but machines for corporate execs. Furthermore, it is surely no coincidence that the largest propoganda compaign in human history, consumer advertising, literally began right after Mill's essays collected here were published. All in all, Mill can be seen in these confusing and contradictory essays to be one of the key architects of our incredibly ugly, wonderfully modern, liberal-nightmare (where freedoms exist so long as one doesn't test them), consumer-driven mess of a society.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read On Liberty and Other Essays.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-17 of 17) (17 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Chris
(new)
Sep 18, 2011 07:44am
Notice the entire essay On Liberty never mentions the workplace...
reply
|
flag
*
Yes, On Liberty is an unbelievably deceptive propaganda piece in defense of the bourgeois state, and I believe it is no coincidence that the advertising industry, the largest propaganda force in history, sprung up in the wake of Mill's philosophy.
My professor informed me that Mill actually wrote he was willing to sacrifice his utilitarianism to save Capitalism in relation to poverty as a result of unemployment and finite jobs...
I need to find that quote and cite it! I'm writing a paper on how Mill's work, in toto, consists, even perhaps his book on logic, of class arguments designed to secure his privileges as a member of the imperialist British government and as a shareholder of the East India Company, and not any sort of universal liberal freedom as he wants his readers to believe. Mill also said Hegel made him nauseous - perhaps because it made him unconsciously feel the deep rot of self-deceit in his class warrior soul.
I believe it's this one.http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Poli...
He might not explicitly say "against my Utilitarian philosophy...", but the point is, if you understand his Utilitarian philosophy, you'll find the contradiction to his ethical principles in his political economy.
Only 3? Despite its lack of workplace awareness, I still think he makes an impenetrable argument in favor of freedom of speech against the state.
I hadn't read a similar essay on freedom of speech prior to Mill. That's not to say one doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it.
Would it be fair to say that you're moving in a direction that finds positivistic statements inherently contradictory given the dialectical flow of being?Perhaps old Novack and Hegel have won you over after-all?
The eloquence of Mill on freedom of speech is original, but his tenets were not - e.g. the revolutions of 1688 and 1776. But even his eloquence is, I believe, suspect, for does he not say that society should prevent someone from distributing placards reading "Property is robbery!" to an excited crowd? Pathetic! Does Mill seriously believe all dogmas die through peaceful debate? If so, he is a charlatan.I have found myself abandoning any sort of philosophical realist pretensions I used to have, and instead adopting a rationalist phenomenalist position. I do indeed believe, with Hegel and Novack, that empiricism cannot be maintained without logical contradiction, as, Novack points out, has been evidenced from the very start with Locke. This no empiricist denies. They either try to save it by agreeing with phenomenalism, like Russell, or they say, with the woefully pernicious ghost of Thomas Reid, that minds neither act upon bodies nor vice versa - a common sense reckoning that seems, to me, a zombie-like attempt to justify empiricism. Have you heard of this guy Reid?
Now, given positivistic statements are inherently contradictory, I don't think it necessarily follows that the reason for this is because of the dialectical flow of all being. How can we find out that all of reality is this dialectical flow of being? By seeing the dualisms continuously arise out of the one being? That's going to depend on your intuition, no?
I'm rather swamped at the moment so reply will be brief.I don't recall Mill stating that about property. It's probable, as I read Mill four years ago prior to being a Marxists, so a statement like that wouldn't trigger as heavily then as it would now.
I don't think Mill believes all dogmas die with a peaceful debate, only that open forum is a strong antibiotic to a cursed infection. Of course Mill didn't live to see the stark degree the open forum combined with the corporations media - TV, Radio, etc - access would have. We can't fault him for the failure to predict this: that tv and radio would be occupied by one speaker (a company) who occupies a national megaphone, juxtaposed to the rest of us.
I've never heard of Reid, and given your assessment I'm not inclined to go read up on him either.
You may be interested in the philosophy of embodiment, which is championed by that former UCF professor I often told you about.
http://www.amazon.com/Body-Shapes-Min...
http://www.amazon.com/Phenomenologica...
The description of the former book on amazon is rather tantalizing. I'd pick it up myself if I wasn't already occupied reading for my thesis.
In regards to the last question, perhaps we can start with the particular: historical materialism, and move on to the general: dialectical materialism. If we can be relatively certain of the truth of the former, as a conception of human history, it ought not be too hard to apply roughly the same principles to realities history. Perhaps.
Mill did say that - I'll put the quote up later.It is true that we cannot fault Mill for his ignorance concerning the development of media techonology. But we can curse him for not seeing that market relations, reglardless of material developments, concentrate society's resources, ensuring that open debate is nonsense when openness is predicated upon the amount of money possessed by the speaker/institution. After all, every socialist thinker was aware in Mill's time of the unfair advantage one class always has in relation to others in public debate. Mill was aware of it too probably, but he was a bourgeois lackey, so...
"An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard." - Ch. III of On Liberty"Excited mob", of course, meaning an emotional group of idiots that have no relation to me (Mill) because I was able to read Greek and Latin before I was 10 - they are not my exploited brothers and sisters, or a justly indignant gathering of my fellow citizens - they can't write beautifully worded treatises on political economy, so what can they know about such things?
The best intro to his thought, which is concerned primarily with politics, the Greeks, linguistics, and sociology, as well as personal musings a la Thoreau, would be the book I read. If you're just looking for his politics, his main political text, which Chomsky recommends, The Limits of State Action, should be sufficient.
