Talk:John Stuart Mill/Archive 1

cleanup

It seems to me that before we address the nuances of Mill's philosophy, the main entry needs a considerable amount of filling in. I've tried to clean up the body of the works section, but it needs a lot more work...Ironic that this entry is not in great shape, since Mill's theories of liberty seem closely related to the Wikipedia model of collaborative debate and the progressive combination of partial truths! Anyway, I think if we work towards detailed summaries of the basic writings, we can add an interesting section indicating the primary problems and controversies surrounding Mill's work...I've studied and taught Mill's theories of liberty and utility, but not the other stuff: anybody out there in a position to add to the economic and logical theory? Thanks...Benzocane 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this article does not presently exemplify the virtues of the neutral point of view. --LMS

In order to deal with that, to some degree, there are now clear links to political economy and some attempt to frame Mill's contribution (with Smith and Ricardo) in defining the classic factors of production...

Thus, the controversy can live over in political economy and other links taken from there, but the classical analysis (of nature, human, and tool/capital-equipment contributions to production) is properly credited as an invention of Smith, Ricardo, and Mill.

Which i think it is.

"Mill proved insensitive to the inequalities of capitalism in that he thought the lower classes could be made smaller through [population control]?. His theory of `trickle down' economics did prove to a higher [standard of living]? for all, but as it pushed the GNP? outward, it widened the gap between the working class and the elite. Furthermore, while an idea of [upward mobility]? may have been perceived, the actual problem of inequality never actually went away. This view continues to inspire [capitalist parties]?, who are less sensitive to [outcome inequality]? than [socialist parties]?, and emphasize instead [equal opportunity]?."

That ain't neutral; that stuff is controversial.

agreed. someone has obviously hacked it. only the last sentence was mine - and it refers only to relative sensitivities to outcome vs opportunity issues in general. I don't know who thinks they know anything about economics but they should read capitalism before commenting so generally on it in some biographical page.

Hmmm. This article seems to have been largely written from a Marxist point of view, and places an entirely too economic spin on a philosopher whose ideas have impact far beyond the economic. As I understand it, Mill's major contribution was his codification of the idea that people should be allowed to do what they want unless they are adversely affecting others. This is only peripherally an economic idea - indeed, comparatively little of On Liberty mentions economics. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm really competant to revise the article. --Robert Merkel 05:18 Jan 7, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. It is a competent but almost unreadable account of Mill's contribution to Marxian political economy. With some editing, it would make a decent summary of the critiques of Mill by socilaist thinkers. As an entry describing the whole man and his thought, it needs a top to bottom re-write. Tannin

Socialism and Mill

If i'm not failing, Mill was not anti-socialist and in On Liberty he opposes the view wich sees economic freedom related to civil freedom (and therefore untouchable) (See the last chapter of the book!). He was favourable to the concession of full political rights to the working class.

He saw economic liberty as a different part of the liberty and says that the concept of free trade and commerce rests on equally solid ground as the concept of free speech.

Lol i just did a beginning article on it because I thought there was none :). Here is the article I made from scratch, I think there are a few parts that should be added perhaps.

John Stuart Mill was a very influential philosopher of the 1800's. John Stewart Mill wrote about a variety of topics and issues including liberty and utilitarianism.

Mill was an utopian socialist. This means that he wanted a society organized in cooperations of individuals. He was not at all a modern socialist. Mill was against the institute of the family and the state and wanted all people to be free autonomous individuals and independant entrepreneurs. Without any master-slave relations: man-wife, employer-employee, state-citizen. Education of children should solely be focused at learning the world individually through experiments.--Daanschr 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Background

John Steward Mill was born in London England in 1806. He was a very bright child and son of another famous intellectual of the time, James Mill, who also developed the idea of utilitarianism.

Works by John Stewart Mill

One noteworthy book by John Stewart Mill published was On Liberty, about the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. One argument that John Stewart Mill formed within this book was the harm principal, that is people should be free to engage in what ever behaviors they wish as long as it does not harm others. Adherents of this philosophy are often called libertarians. Although the term libertarian is broad, usually it is inclusive of the idea that behaviors that are non harmful should be legalized (i.e. the harm principal). Some current behaviours that some libertarians are advocating be made legal on this basis are prostitution, and drug use including currently illegal drugs.

John Stewart Mill only speaks of negative freedom in On Liberty, a concept formed and named by Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997). Isaiah Berlin suggests that negative freedom is an absence or lack of impediments, obstacles or coercion. This is in contrast with his other idea of positive freedom, a capacity for behavior, and the presence of conditions for freedom, be they material resources, a level of enlightenment, or the opportunity for political participation.

Thus Mill argued that it is Government's role to only remove the barriers, such as laws, to behaviors that do not harm others. Mill did not put forth an argument of conditions that allow for the actual exercise of freedom, like perhaps the freedom of a poor citizen to have a productive job though government funded of education.

ShaunMacPherson

That is completely wrong. In the "applications" section to "On Liberty", Mill proposed education for all, which can count as "positive liberty".

Harriet Taylor

How disappointing that this page does not even mention Harriet Taylor, acknowledged to be the co-author of many of Mill's works. Her influence on Mill's thought was nearly as profound as Bentham's, perhaps more so. In addition, the Victorian scorn heaped on Mill and Taylor's "relationship" formed the basis for many of the arguments in On Liberty, especially the components on the "tyranny of thought and custom."

You are right. So... Put it in! It's a WIKI! Regebro 17:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not many people are aware of the real John Stuart Mill: a closet homosexual and serial philandederer who derived pleasure from attacking people, whilst dressed as a pantomime dame. He put forward several theroies under the scattered principles of utilitarianism, he wrote discourses on the relationship of utilitarianism with liberty , virtue, rubber fetish gear and justice. Once quoted as saying I am the very embodyment of evil, come suckle thyself at my sinister teet. he was perhaps the greatest role model for children of the age and kids all around England had posters of him with his favourite peantagon tanktop collection bluetacked to there wardrobes. A true champion of the early gay and lesbian rights, his doctrine of the faith, was an adventurous depart in a world coming to terms with the decline of christianism was published early in his 35th year, emensely popular with the down-trodden masses as its value for lighting coal fires and keeping out the draft under doors was unparalelled, the fluffly cloud shaped paper that it was printed on, was the first of its kind in the civilised world and became the staple parchment of choice for all budding future deciples of the antichrist.

erm!?? i certainly never learnt about Mill's rubber fetish -- not sure if this resembles anything slightly true and even if it does... is it really relevant??

Nope. Obvious vandalism.--Regebro 20:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eminent Victorians

"Mill is one of the subjects in Eminent Victorians by Lytton Strachey."

Not according to the Wikipedia article on Lytton Strachey, which lists the subjects of said text as Cardinal Manning, Florence Nightingale, Dr. Arnold, General Gordon. Which is it?

"an advocate of utilitarianism"

JS Mill was brought up in a utilitarian household and greatly influenced by utilitarian thinking. However, most of his work was actually inspired by the problems he saw with the Utilitarian movement. Although his thinking could be described as a modification or offshoot or Utilitarianism, he is generally regarded as being part of a new Liberal movement. Thus, this phrase in the introduction is highly misleading. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure what would be a good sentence to replace this.

Positive and Negative liberty in "On Liberty"

I think there ought perhaps to be some mention of the elements of Positive liberty in Mill's writing. He presented himself as a negative theorist (although of course he didn't use that term, living in the 19th century and all) and so that's the orthodox view, but there's been enough criticism of that self-image (from Isaiah Berlin, the very man who made the distinction, among others) to be worthy of mention here.

Image

This image is distorted, it is too narrow. The real image was significantly wider. Perhaps someone could find the proper dimensions of the image/painting.

of his own free will

Not many people are aware of the real John Stuart Mill: a closet homosexual and serial philandederer who derived pleasure from attacking people, whilst dressed as a pantomime dame. He put forward several theroies under the scattered principles of utilitarianism, he wrote discourses on the relationship of utilitarianism with liberty , virtue, rubber fetish gear and justice. Once quoted as saying I am the very embodyment of evil, come suckle thyself at my sinister teet. he was perhaps the greatest role model for children of the age and kids all around England had posters of him with his favourite peantagon tanktop collection bluetacked to there wardrobes. A true champion of the early gay and lesbian rights, his doctrine of the faith, was an adventurous depart in a world coming to terms with the decline of christianism was published early in his 35th year, emensely popular with the down-trodden masses as its value for lighting coal fires and keeping out the draft under doors was unparalelled, the fluffly cloud shaped paper that it was printed on, was the first of its kind in the civilised world and became the staple parchment of choice for all budding future deciples of the antichrist. (The author of the above passage is ignorant of both spelling and Mill. This trash cheapens Wikipedia.)

LOL! This definitely deserves to make it into Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Did it? If not, is it too late to submit it there? I'm not quite sure how that corner of Wikipedia works. PurplePlatypus 05:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gains of commerce?

Among the "Essays on some unsettled questions of political economy" Mill had an essay called "Of the laws of interchange between nations; and the distribution of the gains of commerce among the countries of the commercial world". What might be the corresponding, modern consept for "gains of commerce"? Is it maybe capital in the sense discribed here: Capital (economics)#Capital in classical economic theory? EnSamulili 6 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

Work at age 21

I'm not a Mill expert, but surely the following is an error: "At the age of 21 he suffered a nervous breakdown, whilst writing his Autobiography, due to the immensity of his studies which had suppressed any opinions or spirituality he may have developed normally in childhood," Since the Autobiography was not published until 1873, this is unlikely. Perhaps what is meant is "At the age of 21 he suffered a nervous breakdown, which as described in his Autobiography, was due to..." Cedders 12:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think characterizing Mill's early twenties depression as a "nervous breakdown" isn't right. The WP page about nervous breakdowns reads "Specific cases are usually described as a "breakdown" only after a person becomes unable to function in day-to-day life due to mental illness." According to the Autobiography, Mill continued to function: "During this time was not incapable of my usual occupations. I went on with them mechanically, by the mere force of habit." Perhaps "a nervous breakdown" should be changed to "a bout of depression" ?

Utilitarianism

There needs to be some mention of how Mill modified Bentham's classical utilitarianism, of which is one of Mill's most contentious areas amongst philosophers (John Rawls has wrote some critiques of Mill albeit with the help of Kantian ethics) --Knucmo2 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

John Stuart Mill was British, not English. Not only was he born after England ceased to exist, but his father was Scottish. Bastin8 13:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is not in dispute. But it is standard Wikipedia practice to use English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Ireland (note: not Northern Irish - long story) on biographical articles. English, Scottish, Welsh, NI biog articles are all subcategories of Category:British people. Just as you should not use a supercat if a subcat exists (or worse, both), you should not use British when English, Welsh, Scottish, NI nationality is known (it is not known for some people). Apart from anything else, it means that the intro and the cats do not match, and it is Wiki policy to make the connection to all cats explicit in the article. If you dislike this system of cats (Category:English people, Category: Northern Ireland people, Category:Scottish people, Category:Welsh people) then please bulk nominate them at Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion. If you did, I am sure that you would not be alone in your dislike of them, but I suspect that they have more supporters than detractors (who will ever know if no-one initiates the debate).

In the absence of such a debate at AfD, please respect the existing Wikipedia policies. In the case of John Stuart Mill, I actually sympathise with your UK/British edit, for the reasons you cite, but although not English by family, surely no reasonable commentator would deny that JSM was most certainly an Englishman, both by birth and culture. Why deny England one of her greatest sons?

I realise that some biog articles still say British, but they are the exception rather than the norm.

I like your "... after England ceased to exist... " argument, but I suspect that if you tried adding an edit to that effect here, then you may find that that opinion is not universally shared. I look forward very much to the day when someone attempts it though!--Mais oui! 14:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Data in sidebar - possible improvements

The "Western Philosophers" sidebar has a couple of entries I question. I see no evidence that Mill was particularly interested in metaphysics or epistemology - no more than a philosopher can help, anyway - but what he was interested (and important) in, which is not currently listed there, is inductive logic. Also, with respect to the "Notable Ideas" list, surely both the aforementioned system of inductive logic and his early liberal feminism belong on the list as much as, or more than, any of the items currently listed there. What do others think? PurplePlatypus 05:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no-one has commented, I just went ahead and made the above changes. I also changed "degrees of Utilitarianism" (what the hell is that supposed to mean?) to reflect what I, at least, consider most distinctive about Mill's utilitarianism as opposed to his father's and Bentham's, though I may have done so too long-windedly; if someone can say the same thing more succinctly, they should. PurplePlatypus 03:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Stephens attack

No one mentioned Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (1829-94) who challenged and attacked Mill's thesis in his own work Liberty, Equality and Fraternity (1873)

So mention it in the article, if you think it's notable. Personally I've never heard of it, and can think of a million other philosophers who disagree with Mill on one point or another. (So your first task would be making it clear what's so special about this particular one.) You might also want to mention exactly what thesis of Mill's he attacked, because he had a lot more than one. PurplePlatypus 04:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JS Mill a Republican?

There seems to be two versions of this page; one with and one without the following, both of which do not appear in the 'edit this page' editing screen, and so cannot be deleted: "John Mill's thoughts, made during the American Civil War, on the propriety, morality and dignity of waging war in certain instances, when added to his association with free market philosophers like Adam Smith and John Ricardo, and his thoughts on the limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual, all confirm that John Mill would be considered a libertarian-conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan in modern America.

John Mill's scathing comment on Conservatives in a Letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March, 1866) must be read in proper context. Conservatives in John Mill's day were mostly from the southern American states, who wanted no change in the status quo pertaining to slavery. It was President Abe Lincoln who initiated and fought a deadly civil war in order the change a situation that was abhorrent and unacceptable to him."

I was not aware that John Stuart Mill was a libertarian-conservative of any kind, let alone "in the mold of Ronald Reagan." "Conservatives in John Mill's day" were not from the "southern American states", because in Mill's day conservativism was chiefly British. And Mill was somewhat on the left as an MP. Comparisons such as these are patently absurd. What that has to do with Abraham Lincoln and the US Civil War is beyond me. I would just prefer if partisans would leave their manipulative characterizations of dead philosopher's to someone else, after all we see how well it went with Neitszche.

Nonetheless I am rather stupified by the characterization. Mill wrote on socialism as well as the steady-state. Certianly, Mill's views on political liberty and freedom of speech especially would make him rather at odds with a great deal of post-Civil War US conservatives (probably with even Lincoln's Civil War revocation of some civil liberties). I think Mill would have gone to great lengths to preserve the rights of communists, socialists, and anarchists to speak out during WWI, WWII, and the 'Red Scare' where the charge was led most assiduously by US 'conservatives.' Of course we can never know what Mill would have thought because he is dead. So let's just leave it at that.

I dissagree with you. Reagan and Mill could be compared since they are both advocates of freedom and virtues and opposed to communism. What was left-wing liberal in Great Britain in the 19th century could be comparable with what is right-wing in the 1980s in America. The conservatives in Great Britain in the late 19th century were cooperating with the English working-class. Freedom was the ideology of the liberals and not of the conservatives in 19th century Britain.--Daanschr 15:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chenin Blanc

Ok, so it may be true that Mill enjoyed Chenin Blanc; but is it really necessary to mention it? if it is true, could we see a bit of proof for it?

I'll check back a bit later when I have an account and if there are no objections delete the relevent chunk, cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.151.210 (talk • contribs)

It is true, I will prove it with facts... It is relevant to remember this kind of stuff... People care, I care. So stop being mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.144.131 (talk • contribs)

If it's true, and you can prove it with facts (which, considering the no original research policy, should mean you can point to reputable sources which support the claim), you should provide this information along with the assertion (which I've removed). Wikipedia is a place for relevant and verifiable facts, and thus far, your claim is neither relevant nor verified. —LrdChaos 15:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

There seems to be an edit conflict on my latest edits. I agree with the one who deleted my edits, that i used some weasel words, however most of my edits were based on factual information and should therefor be included in this article. I insist that the information about John Taylor and sir James Fitzjames Stephen should be included into this article. John taylor was the ex-husband of Harriet Mill. Harriet had two lovers (John Taylor and John Stuart Mill) for 16 years between 1833 and 1849. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen pointed out to Mill that all actions have social consequences, so there are no self-regarding actions. This critical remark reflect the opinions of both conservative and socialist commentators. I put down the example of the Irish famine to give a very clear evidence of social consequences. I don't agree that an article may not contain any negative information as has been put down on my talk page. I prefer that we debate this here, so other people can join in as well.--Daanschr 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Capaldi is not clear about the affair. What is clear is that it was very controversial in the 19th century when it occured. Again i don't think it is appropriate to delete the entire edit, especially when footnotes are used. I would agree with the deletion of weasel words.--Daanschr 21:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already conceded that I erred in deleting the content that included citations. However, you have yet to provide any citations or references for your information concerning the alleged relationship between H.T. and J.S. Mill before their marriage. Unless you can provide documentation, it's best to leave it out. While it's true that the Mills knew each other while Harriet was still married to her first husband, that does not imply that they were having a sexual relationship. -- Merope 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind after reading further into the biography. I was annoyed because the writer of the biography took Mill completely serious. At the end of the biography it became apparent that contemporary British only partly supported Mill. Mill was bashed immediately after his death by several British intellectuals and his views were something of the past after World War I. I don't think it is useful to take Mill seriously. I don't like the complete bashing either. I sympathise with some of the views of Mill. In my personal life i always try to be as independent as possible and i encourage other people to be independent as well, just like Mill wanted. Also, i think that Mills ideas about truth in the social sciences are still very usefull today. I am thinking about a complete rewrite of this article.

Complete rewrite

I am writing my final paper on John Stuart Mill and his influence on British society. I am a history student from Leiden university. Many important facts about the life and thoughts of Mill are not represented in this article. It could be useful for me to try to make a good article of this one. It helps me organizing my thoughts to come to a subject for my research. Important topics could be:

Relationship between John and Harriet

John Stuart Mills affair with Harriet Taylor resulted in Mill bashing after his death. The British parliament decided not to make a monument in his memory, allthough he was the most influencing British philosopher of the 19th century. John was always very agitated about his affair, even to the point of ignoring all people for the rest of their lives, who didn't aprove with his relationship, including good friends and family. This says a lot about the most important theme in his philosophy: the autonomy of the individual.

Mill's philosophy

According to the American Capaldi (Nicholas Capaldi, John Stuart Mill (Cambridge 2004)), Mill used his philosophy politically. Strangely enough, Capaldi is a supporter of the complete philosophy of Mill. He says that Mill's philosophy could be usefull as a basis in the present discussion in the American society. Mill tried to defend the autonomy of the individual using ancient philosophers, the enlightenment, German romantic philosophers and religion. Many contemporaries dissagreed with Mill and Mill was disregarded for this after his death. Mill atacked ideologies defending autocracy, but the moment he reached his goal, the defense of the individual autonomy, Mill didn't continue his thought. He was not interrested in the truth, but in the political use of philosophy. This has partly to do because he had the idea that all ideologies are social constructions. But why would he then hold on so insistently on the individual autonomy? Mill's view on the evolution theory is exemplary. Mill said that it could be true, but the existence of god could be true as well. Mill believed that the world was a battleground between the forces of good and evil. Friends of Mill tried to prevent publication of this view, but it didn't work. Bertrand Russel, the dominant British philosopher of the 20th century said about the philosophy of Mill, that Mill couldn't accept that humans are one among the animals. Capaldi thinks it is useful in the present American society, but he agrees with the inconsistencies in Mill's philosophy.

Mill has been described as a philosophical radical after his death. Philosophical radicals were strong advocaters of the enlightenment. Capaldi doesn't agree with this, but i do. I will read some more books about Mill, to come to some new ideas. This is a complicated topic, so i will be careful in writing about it. Philosophical radicals wanted the most happiness and pleasure for the most of people, something that should be acquired by the market economy and science. Mill discovered the inedequacy of this ideology first hand. Mill had a very harsh education, because what makes people happy was laid upon Mill. Mill thought he was changed into the monster of Frankenstein by his father. He became the strong advocate of the autonomy of the individual and that the intention of the individual should be of most importance. The inconsistency in the ideology of Mill is that he didn't axcept intentions that were against the autonomy of the individual. He wanted to destroy conservative and socialist intentions, even advocating criminal punishment for parents who didn't raised their children in the proper way. This means for me that Mill was a philosophical radical himself, but he didn't wanted to admit it. The flaw in his thinking made him ignore his own family and friends for not accepting his adultery with Harriet, a married woman, who lived in two homes with two different husbands. Mill was against free sex and he was against marriage. He didn't want to except that his act of adultery is not solely individual and that his act had social consequences.

Mill and socialism

Mill wanted to abolish all master-slave relationships: man-wife, employer-employee, state-citizen. Mill regarded himself as a socialist. This didn't mean that he was in favour of a state-controlled economy. In the early 19th century, socialists were in favour of organizing society in small groups. Socialists were in favour of cooperation and corporate business. Corporate business didn't exist yet, since the economy exisited out of family and privete businesses. For Mill, the cooperation could be a method of ending the master-slave relationships. Later on in his life he changed his mind, because existing cooperations were limiting the individual autonomy too much. Mill helped workers and tried to make workers into individual humans with the same rights as other people. As a parliamentarian, Mill had stopped a violent feud between workers and the police. Thanks to Mill, workers were allowed to protest in Hyde Park, which is now a symbol of freedom thanks to him. Live8 was organized there for instance.

I am now reading British literature on Mill instead of American. Now i think that the contradiction between utopian socialism and communism as described by Capaldi is not correct. Mill was a true socialist. He wanted to make an end to inequalities between people and oppression. He thought that his approach was possible, but communism was better then keeping the inequalities as they are (still) today. Mill advocated slow development towards a socialist society by renegotiating divisions of property. Mill favoured David Ricardo above Adam Smith in regards of the working of the economy. Instead of a society focused on economical growth, he was in favour of birth control and politically and culturally tempering of the market economy. He was in favour of a stationary economy, without economic growth, where technological advancement would lead to more leisure.

Mill and social sciences

Sigmund Freud has been heavily influenced by Mill. Mill's ideas of the importance of unconsciousness and human intentions to explain human actions was a major contribution to science.--Daanschr 09:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am having second doubts about this. After reading some philosophical works last halfyear, i discovered how old many ideas are that have been subscribed to someone. I need to read more about the origins of the psychoanalysis of Freud to be sure to make this claim.

In social sciences, human actions can have more then a million causes since humans have knowledge and language. What happened long ago can have an enormous impact on present affairs, since people can remember and discuss it. This means that the chain of causalities to explain an event is much longer when humans are involved, instead of animals or non-living things. This original view of Mill is useful today in our postmodern times when hard truths doesn't exist anymore.--Daanschr 10:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

high importance

This is definitely the most important philosopher of the 19th century, in my opinion.

Sex

Did Mill ever had sex with his wife? I have been wondering about this. After all, he disliked sex so much that it would feel strange if he had practiced it anyway. --128.214.205.4 10:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]