John Stuart Mill and plain, clear Thinking

John Stuart Mill was a bonified oddball. How interesting it is to come across an intelligent, cultured young man who found himself advocating the ideal that could easily dispose of his social status. He was raised in a way that made him seem too smart for his own good--the reading even describes that he eventually found himself immersed in a nervous breakdown in 1826, probably the result of a young mind too bogged down with issue too mature for his consumption. Of course, this was forced upon him by his parents, and it probably produced the opposite effect of what they had intended. I am sure that Mill's mother and father had no real intentions of him submerging himself in issues that were mot of gentlemanly consequence. Instead, he became a true advocate for equality of the sexes and the right to divorce (along with many others.) Perhaps he was every woman's dream husband, but he was overcome by the new standards he wished to impress upon his nation. After realizing that achieving all of his goals of improvement could never really "satisfy" him, he had to find a way to move on with the new ideal that doing all he could was generous enough of a contribution to the welfare of his country.

John Stuart Mill's writing from "On Liberty" are candid and provide a sort of philosophical insight into the human practice of developing and arguing opinions.

"Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if it be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race...(515)."

Mill takes time to draw a simple picture of "opinions" as personal property--stating that thievery of opinions is an unjust as stealing a tangible possession. The way Mill write is extremely unadorned, almost bare. Every section of text is filled with real content, nothing is inserted to fluff the dialogue into something that it is not. He persistently uses semicolons, continuing his thoughts but willing that they not be interjected with the cumbersome presence of proper sentence structure.

His writing style is rebellious against what is expected of his social class. The style is neither beautiful, nor is it easy to read and understand. He makes no apologies in crafting and communicating his ideas and conclusions. He pays the reader a compliment, making the assumption that they are actually intelligent enough to slowly digest his philosophy and rightfully form their own opinions of it. In truth, his lack of effort toward making the text readable almost elevates his rhetoric. It is refreshing to encounter a writer/conversation-analyst who only seeks to give us real facts and observations, rather than dictate the reading with unnecessary accoutrement.

Mill in this selection, goes on to say that man "is capable of rectifying his mistakes, by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion, to show how experience is to be interpreted (516)."

Here again, he simplifies his speech, seeking to please no one, and finds a way to utilize a three prong set up commonly used in philosophy:
1) Discussion and Experience rectify mistakes.
2)Experience it trivial without discussion.
3)Therefore, discussion must exist in order to interpret experience.

Of course, this is a bit of a stretch, but it speaks to the idea that philosophy (in this case "conversational philosophy") makes no effort to adorn its statements.

Perhaps the actual content of Mill's argument is disputable in such a time period as well. We can assume that many people come to such positions of power through the experience of themselves and their families. I feel quite sure that part of the prompt for the above statement was an encounter of John Stuart Mill with a man of "experience" who had gross amounts of trouble communicating the merits that derive from such an endeavor.

We can probably never know what prompted such a clear and concise, almost bitter statement. However, I am sure we can relate to such a recognition of a person of seasoned experience who appears twit-like in the presence of reputable conversation.