To be perfectly honest, having digested the various articles offered by Unherd on Mill’s 150th anniversary, i’ve come to the conclusion that his works are hugely overblown, and whilst they may have seemed revolutionary at the time have no more relevance to the complexities of the 21st century than the principles of steam power.
I feel rather sorry for the poor chap, truth be told; but not quite as sorry as for those who still labour to explain his relevance to today. We can look upon his influence on yesteryear, as we might appreciate the development of steam.locomotives (and i do) but in any other respect, i really couldn’t give a flying scotsman.
Listen/read to someone as eminent as Jonathan Haidht who majors on JS Mills relevance to today. ‘All Minus One’ for a much better perspective and Haidht using to counter cancel culture in his academic institution.
I don’t know why you’d trust a series of articles, often using Mill as little more than a point of departure for their flights of politicized rhetoric, to tell you much of anything about the source material.
Perhaps UnHerd’s most polemical writers can go through the whole Western Canon and help us to dismiss from afar all the thinkers who were insufficiently prescient about the complexities of today.
Some of Mill’s work remains relevant and worth reflecting on, some doesn’t. That’s true of Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, David Hume, Edmund Burke, George Orwell, GB Shaw, and GK Chesterton too. “Vintage” authors are not chucked out because some consider them quaint and insignificant, or because some of their work doesn’t hold up.
Do you imagine his Mill’s far-flung influence and enduring reputation is some concocted romanticism–a desperate, irrelevant labor? Many people, not all of them specialists and weirdos, are still reading his often insightful work. The fact that he was a strange fellow who had to be in-some-measure humanized by his wife shouldn’t make him a mere laughing stock. And the fact that he can’t log on to refute his detractors doesn’t negate his legacy or importance.
I’ve enjoyed all the articles about Mill this week, but I have no idea which view of his true meaning and motivations is (are?) correct. I’d have to become a serious student of the man, his writings and his period in history to figure that out.
The reality, I suspect, is the world changes due to forces beyond the control of human beings (technology being the major catalyst), the old political/social system no longer works and a new one is needed. Perhaps a welfare state becomes sclerotic, such as the UK in the 70s, and a renewed emphasis on personal responsibility, ambition, and a market-driven economy is required.
The economic and social facts drive the change, but politicians require a justifying ideology, so they rummage history for a thinker who provided a coherent analysis to support the desired change, and find Mill or Marx or whoever. And those thinkers are lauded for their foresight and wisdom until the world changes again, and then they’re toppled like so many statues and a new hero takes their place, for now.
Thanks for replying to AJ Mac; your response mirrors what i’d have written.
Just to add, there’s been nothing in any of the articles which might’ve induced me to undertake a proper study of Mill, although Paddy Taylor (Comments) quoted a good Mill passage about taking note of the arguments of those who disagree with oneself, which is perfectly sensible but hardly groundbreaking.
I agree with all of that. I just don’t think it invalidates Mill or makes him redundant. I’m not a serious student of his work but I’ve read his autobiography and maybe 200 more pages of his work. While not every page is a vibrant, living marvel, much of it remains instructive, and provides instances of worthwhile challenge.
To those with time and nascent inclination to try, I’d recommend the Introductory and Thought and Discussion sections that begin On Liberty, as well as passages (skim it, see what you find) from The Subjection of Women, co-written with his wife Harriet.
Of course everyone is permitted to ignore or refuse to read any book or author, which I’ve done with many historical bigwigs, wrongly or not. Here’s one humdinger of a sentence from On Liberty that seems to have present-day relevance:
The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or fellow citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feeling incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything; and as the power is not declining, but growing, unless a strong barrier of moral conviction can be raised against the mischief, we must expect, in the present circumstances of the world, to see it increase.
This is not a unique insight, but I think it is well-expressed and worth remembering. His particular contribution is singular and forceful, even though much of what was innovative of it is now taken granted, and much of what he wrote had been said by others before him, in one way or another. Or in Mill’s words:
Those to whom nothing which I am about to say will be new, may therefore, I hope excuse me, if on a subject [liberty] which for three centuries has been so often discussed, I venture one discussion more.
Thanks for replying to AJ Mac; your response mirrors what i’d have written.
Just to add, there’s been nothing in any of the articles which might’ve induced me to undertake a proper study of Mill, although Paddy Taylor (Comments) quoted a good Mill passage about taking note of the arguments of those who disagree with oneself, which is perfectly sensible but hardly groundbreaking.
I agree with all of that. I just don’t think it invalidates Mill or makes him redundant. I’m not a serious student of his work but I’ve read his autobiography and maybe 200 more pages of his work. While not every page is a vibrant, living marvel, much of it remains instructive, and provides instances of worthwhile challenge.
To those with time and nascent inclination to try, I’d recommend the Introductory and Thought and Discussion sections that begin On Liberty, as well as passages (skim it, see what you find) from The Subjection of Women, co-written with his wife Harriet.
Of course everyone is permitted to ignore or refuse to read any book or author, which I’ve done with many historical bigwigs, wrongly or not. Here’s one humdinger of a sentence from On Liberty that seems to have present-day relevance:
The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or fellow citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feeling incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything; and as the power is not declining, but growing, unless a strong barrier of moral conviction can be raised against the mischief, we must expect, in the present circumstances of the world, to see it increase.
This is not a unique insight, but I think it is well-expressed and worth remembering. His particular contribution is singular and forceful, even though much of what was innovative of it is now taken granted, and much of what he wrote had been said by others before him, in one way or another. Or in Mill’s words:
Those to whom nothing which I am about to say will be new, may therefore, I hope excuse me, if on a subject [liberty] which for three centuries has been so often discussed, I venture one discussion more.
I’ve enjoyed all the articles about Mill this week, but I have no idea which view of his true meaning and motivations is (are?) correct. I’d have to become a serious student of the man, his writings and his period in history to figure that out.
The reality, I suspect, is the world changes due to forces beyond the control of human beings (technology being the major catalyst), the old political/social system no longer works and a new one is needed. Perhaps a welfare state becomes sclerotic, such as the UK in the 70s, and a renewed emphasis on personal responsibility, ambition, and a market-driven economy is required.
The economic and social facts drive the change, but politicians require a justifying ideology, so they rummage history for a thinker who provided a coherent analysis to support the desired change, and find Mill or Marx or whoever. And those thinkers are lauded for their foresight and wisdom until the world changes again, and then they’re toppled like so many statues and a new hero takes their place, for now.
Things that are groundbreaking can become commonplace. The source, context, and delivery are still valuable, and of interest to some. And as usual there’s a Pope couplet on the subject (not applicable to Mill in particular): “True wit is nature to advantage drest / What oft was thought but ne’er so well exprest”
Things that are groundbreaking can become commonplace. The source, context, and delivery are still valuable, and of interest to some. And as usual there’s a Pope couplet on the subject (not applicable to Mill in particular): “True wit is nature to advantage drest / What oft was thought but ne’er so well exprest”
You should really try reading Mill’s own writings. They’re in English and not that hard to understand. Unherd is providing you with the Cliff Notes here—not especially definitive and probably not intended that way. Mill had a huge impact on society. His personal life was curious, but not relevant to the import of his writings.
I’ve always thought we should eliminate inheritance altogether, rather than burdening the actual producers of social value with ridiculous taxes that get wasted on mediocre government.
I imagine that some of us are pretty burnt-out by all the Mill hoopla in UnHerd this week.
That said, having read him (long ago) and been given a multi-faceted UnHerd refresher course (eg he is less democratic than Marx, he is as “progressive” as “Pocahontas” – aka Elizabeth Warren – and now somewhat p____y-whipped into being as progressive as Elizabeth Warren), I understand better why he is understood to be the representative “progressive”/Liberal just as Burke is the rep of conservatives [So Sprach Harvey Mansfield].
It really boils down to Mill’s desire to goof around with Mrs. Taylor (possibly Platonically) without being interrupted or looked down upon in the opinion of the common hoard.
The Free Speech stuff together with the chastisement of puritanical Americans for outlawing polygamy meant that the elite should be left alone to follow their impulses – just like today.
Listen/read to someone as eminent as Jonathan Haidht who majors on JS Mills relevance to today. ‘All Minus One’ for a much better perspective and Haidht using to counter cancel culture in his academic institution.
I don’t know why you’d trust a series of articles, often using Mill as little more than a point of departure for their flights of politicized rhetoric, to tell you much of anything about the source material.
Perhaps UnHerd’s most polemical writers can go through the whole Western Canon and help us to dismiss from afar all the thinkers who were insufficiently prescient about the complexities of today.
Some of Mill’s work remains relevant and worth reflecting on, some doesn’t. That’s true of Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, David Hume, Edmund Burke, George Orwell, GB Shaw, and GK Chesterton too. “Vintage” authors are not chucked out because some consider them quaint and insignificant, or because some of their work doesn’t hold up.
Do you imagine his Mill’s far-flung influence and enduring reputation is some concocted romanticism–a desperate, irrelevant labor? Many people, not all of them specialists and weirdos, are still reading his often insightful work. The fact that he was a strange fellow who had to be in-some-measure humanized by his wife shouldn’t make him a mere laughing stock. And the fact that he can’t log on to refute his detractors doesn’t negate his legacy or importance.
You should really try reading Mill’s own writings. They’re in English and not that hard to understand. Unherd is providing you with the Cliff Notes here—not especially definitive and probably not intended that way. Mill had a huge impact on society. His personal life was curious, but not relevant to the import of his writings.
I’ve always thought we should eliminate inheritance altogether, rather than burdening the actual producers of social value with ridiculous taxes that get wasted on mediocre government.
I imagine that some of us are pretty burnt-out by all the Mill hoopla in UnHerd this week.
That said, having read him (long ago) and been given a multi-faceted UnHerd refresher course (eg he is less democratic than Marx, he is as “progressive” as “Pocahontas” – aka Elizabeth Warren – and now somewhat p____y-whipped into being as progressive as Elizabeth Warren), I understand better why he is understood to be the representative “progressive”/Liberal just as Burke is the rep of conservatives [So Sprach Harvey Mansfield].
It really boils down to Mill’s desire to goof around with Mrs. Taylor (possibly Platonically) without being interrupted or looked down upon in the opinion of the common hoard.
The Free Speech stuff together with the chastisement of puritanical Americans for outlawing polygamy meant that the elite should be left alone to follow their impulses – just like today.
Steve Murray
1 year ago
To be perfectly honest, having digested the various articles offered by Unherd on Mill’s 150th anniversary, i’ve come to the conclusion that his works are hugely overblown, and whilst they may have seemed revolutionary at the time have no more relevance to the complexities of the 21st century than the principles of steam power.
I feel rather sorry for the poor chap, truth be told; but not quite as sorry as for those who still labour to explain his relevance to today. We can look upon his influence on yesteryear, as we might appreciate the development of steam.locomotives (and i do) but in any other respect, i really couldn’t give a flying scotsman.
Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Caradog Wiliams
1 year ago
The only reason we are talking about JS Mill is that he wasn’t German or Dutch. If I remember, Nietzsche got some of his best jokes from Mill’s works.
Because he remains influential and widely-read for an author of his “oldness” and lack of easy readability (partly due to the near-humorlessness that others have mentioned). But mainly because May 8th marks the 150th anniversary of his death.
To be perfectly honest, having digested the various articles offered by Unherd on Mill’s 150th anniversary, i’ve come to the conclusion that his works are hugely overblown, and whilst they may have seemed revolutionary at the time have no more relevance to the complexities of the 21st century than the principles of steam power.
I feel rather sorry for the poor chap, truth be told; but not quite as sorry as for those who still labour to explain his relevance to today. We can look upon his influence on yesteryear, as we might appreciate the development of steam.locomotives (and i do) but in any other respect, i really couldn’t give a flying scotsman.
Listen/read to someone as eminent as Jonathan Haidht who majors on JS Mills relevance to today. ‘All Minus One’ for a much better perspective and Haidht using to counter cancel culture in his academic institution.
Haidht is yet another of these New York ‘Cassandras’ who so bedevil this planet at present.
Haidht is yet another of these New York ‘Cassandras’ who so bedevil this planet at present.
Or indeed a ‘Mallard.’
I don’t know why you’d trust a series of articles, often using Mill as little more than a point of departure for their flights of politicized rhetoric, to tell you much of anything about the source material.
Perhaps UnHerd’s most polemical writers can go through the whole Western Canon and help us to dismiss from afar all the thinkers who were insufficiently prescient about the complexities of today.
Some of Mill’s work remains relevant and worth reflecting on, some doesn’t. That’s true of Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, David Hume, Edmund Burke, George Orwell, GB Shaw, and GK Chesterton too. “Vintage” authors are not chucked out because some consider them quaint and insignificant, or because some of their work doesn’t hold up.
Do you imagine his Mill’s far-flung influence and enduring reputation is some concocted romanticism–a desperate, irrelevant labor? Many people, not all of them specialists and weirdos, are still reading his often insightful work. The fact that he was a strange fellow who had to be in-some-measure humanized by his wife shouldn’t make him a mere laughing stock. And the fact that he can’t log on to refute his detractors doesn’t negate his legacy or importance.
I’ve enjoyed all the articles about Mill this week, but I have no idea which view of his true meaning and motivations is (are?) correct. I’d have to become a serious student of the man, his writings and his period in history to figure that out.
The reality, I suspect, is the world changes due to forces beyond the control of human beings (technology being the major catalyst), the old political/social system no longer works and a new one is needed. Perhaps a welfare state becomes sclerotic, such as the UK in the 70s, and a renewed emphasis on personal responsibility, ambition, and a market-driven economy is required.
The economic and social facts drive the change, but politicians require a justifying ideology, so they rummage history for a thinker who provided a coherent analysis to support the desired change, and find Mill or Marx or whoever. And those thinkers are lauded for their foresight and wisdom until the world changes again, and then they’re toppled like so many statues and a new hero takes their place, for now.
Thanks for replying to AJ Mac; your response mirrors what i’d have written.
Just to add, there’s been nothing in any of the articles which might’ve induced me to undertake a proper study of Mill, although Paddy Taylor (Comments) quoted a good Mill passage about taking note of the arguments of those who disagree with oneself, which is perfectly sensible but hardly groundbreaking.
I agree with all of that. I just don’t think it invalidates Mill or makes him redundant. I’m not a serious student of his work but I’ve read his autobiography and maybe 200 more pages of his work. While not every page is a vibrant, living marvel, much of it remains instructive, and provides instances of worthwhile challenge.
To those with time and nascent inclination to try, I’d recommend the Introductory and Thought and Discussion sections that begin On Liberty, as well as passages (skim it, see what you find) from The Subjection of Women, co-written with his wife Harriet.
Of course everyone is permitted to ignore or refuse to read any book or author, which I’ve done with many historical bigwigs, wrongly or not. Here’s one humdinger of a sentence from On Liberty that seems to have present-day relevance:
This is not a unique insight, but I think it is well-expressed and worth remembering. His particular contribution is singular and forceful, even though much of what was innovative of it is now taken granted, and much of what he wrote had been said by others before him, in one way or another. Or in Mill’s words:
Thanks for replying to AJ Mac; your response mirrors what i’d have written.
Just to add, there’s been nothing in any of the articles which might’ve induced me to undertake a proper study of Mill, although Paddy Taylor (Comments) quoted a good Mill passage about taking note of the arguments of those who disagree with oneself, which is perfectly sensible but hardly groundbreaking.
I agree with all of that. I just don’t think it invalidates Mill or makes him redundant. I’m not a serious student of his work but I’ve read his autobiography and maybe 200 more pages of his work. While not every page is a vibrant, living marvel, much of it remains instructive, and provides instances of worthwhile challenge.
To those with time and nascent inclination to try, I’d recommend the Introductory and Thought and Discussion sections that begin On Liberty, as well as passages (skim it, see what you find) from The Subjection of Women, co-written with his wife Harriet.
Of course everyone is permitted to ignore or refuse to read any book or author, which I’ve done with many historical bigwigs, wrongly or not. Here’s one humdinger of a sentence from On Liberty that seems to have present-day relevance:
This is not a unique insight, but I think it is well-expressed and worth remembering. His particular contribution is singular and forceful, even though much of what was innovative of it is now taken granted, and much of what he wrote had been said by others before him, in one way or another. Or in Mill’s words:
I’ve enjoyed all the articles about Mill this week, but I have no idea which view of his true meaning and motivations is (are?) correct. I’d have to become a serious student of the man, his writings and his period in history to figure that out.
The reality, I suspect, is the world changes due to forces beyond the control of human beings (technology being the major catalyst), the old political/social system no longer works and a new one is needed. Perhaps a welfare state becomes sclerotic, such as the UK in the 70s, and a renewed emphasis on personal responsibility, ambition, and a market-driven economy is required.
The economic and social facts drive the change, but politicians require a justifying ideology, so they rummage history for a thinker who provided a coherent analysis to support the desired change, and find Mill or Marx or whoever. And those thinkers are lauded for their foresight and wisdom until the world changes again, and then they’re toppled like so many statues and a new hero takes their place, for now.
Thats pretty humourous, steam power is still pretty important, the irony is fairly perfect.
Of course it’s important, but it won’t break the internet….
Things that are groundbreaking can become commonplace. The source, context, and delivery are still valuable, and of interest to some. And as usual there’s a Pope couplet on the subject (not applicable to Mill in particular): “True wit is nature to advantage drest / What oft was thought but ne’er so well exprest”
Things that are groundbreaking can become commonplace. The source, context, and delivery are still valuable, and of interest to some. And as usual there’s a Pope couplet on the subject (not applicable to Mill in particular): “True wit is nature to advantage drest / What oft was thought but ne’er so well exprest”
Of course it’s important, but it won’t break the internet….
You should really try reading Mill’s own writings. They’re in English and not that hard to understand. Unherd is providing you with the Cliff Notes here—not especially definitive and probably not intended that way. Mill had a huge impact on society. His personal life was curious, but not relevant to the import of his writings.
I’ve always thought we should eliminate inheritance altogether, rather than burdening the actual producers of social value with ridiculous taxes that get wasted on mediocre government.
Well said.
Well said.
I imagine that some of us are pretty burnt-out by all the Mill hoopla in UnHerd this week.
That said, having read him (long ago) and been given a multi-faceted UnHerd refresher course (eg he is less democratic than Marx, he is as “progressive” as “Pocahontas” – aka Elizabeth Warren – and now somewhat p____y-whipped into being as progressive as Elizabeth Warren), I understand better why he is understood to be the representative “progressive”/Liberal just as Burke is the rep of conservatives [So Sprach Harvey Mansfield].
It really boils down to Mill’s desire to goof around with Mrs. Taylor (possibly Platonically) without being interrupted or looked down upon in the opinion of the common hoard.
The Free Speech stuff together with the chastisement of puritanical Americans for outlawing polygamy meant that the elite should be left alone to follow their impulses – just like today.
Fine comment.
Fine comment.
Listen/read to someone as eminent as Jonathan Haidht who majors on JS Mills relevance to today. ‘All Minus One’ for a much better perspective and Haidht using to counter cancel culture in his academic institution.
Or indeed a ‘Mallard.’
I don’t know why you’d trust a series of articles, often using Mill as little more than a point of departure for their flights of politicized rhetoric, to tell you much of anything about the source material.
Perhaps UnHerd’s most polemical writers can go through the whole Western Canon and help us to dismiss from afar all the thinkers who were insufficiently prescient about the complexities of today.
Some of Mill’s work remains relevant and worth reflecting on, some doesn’t. That’s true of Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, David Hume, Edmund Burke, George Orwell, GB Shaw, and GK Chesterton too. “Vintage” authors are not chucked out because some consider them quaint and insignificant, or because some of their work doesn’t hold up.
Do you imagine his Mill’s far-flung influence and enduring reputation is some concocted romanticism–a desperate, irrelevant labor? Many people, not all of them specialists and weirdos, are still reading his often insightful work. The fact that he was a strange fellow who had to be in-some-measure humanized by his wife shouldn’t make him a mere laughing stock. And the fact that he can’t log on to refute his detractors doesn’t negate his legacy or importance.
Thats pretty humourous, steam power is still pretty important, the irony is fairly perfect.
You should really try reading Mill’s own writings. They’re in English and not that hard to understand. Unherd is providing you with the Cliff Notes here—not especially definitive and probably not intended that way. Mill had a huge impact on society. His personal life was curious, but not relevant to the import of his writings.
I’ve always thought we should eliminate inheritance altogether, rather than burdening the actual producers of social value with ridiculous taxes that get wasted on mediocre government.
I imagine that some of us are pretty burnt-out by all the Mill hoopla in UnHerd this week.
That said, having read him (long ago) and been given a multi-faceted UnHerd refresher course (eg he is less democratic than Marx, he is as “progressive” as “Pocahontas” – aka Elizabeth Warren – and now somewhat p____y-whipped into being as progressive as Elizabeth Warren), I understand better why he is understood to be the representative “progressive”/Liberal just as Burke is the rep of conservatives [So Sprach Harvey Mansfield].
It really boils down to Mill’s desire to goof around with Mrs. Taylor (possibly Platonically) without being interrupted or looked down upon in the opinion of the common hoard.
The Free Speech stuff together with the chastisement of puritanical Americans for outlawing polygamy meant that the elite should be left alone to follow their impulses – just like today.
To be perfectly honest, having digested the various articles offered by Unherd on Mill’s 150th anniversary, i’ve come to the conclusion that his works are hugely overblown, and whilst they may have seemed revolutionary at the time have no more relevance to the complexities of the 21st century than the principles of steam power.
I feel rather sorry for the poor chap, truth be told; but not quite as sorry as for those who still labour to explain his relevance to today. We can look upon his influence on yesteryear, as we might appreciate the development of steam.locomotives (and i do) but in any other respect, i really couldn’t give a flying scotsman.
The only reason we are talking about JS Mill is that he wasn’t German or Dutch. If I remember, Nietzsche got some of his best jokes from Mill’s works.
Nietzsche’s best jokes?? For example?
Nietzsche’s best jokes?? For example?
The only reason we are talking about JS Mill is that he wasn’t German or Dutch. If I remember, Nietzsche got some of his best jokes from Mill’s works.
Was it Mills who coined the phrase, ‘Happy wife. Happy life.’ ?
why are we so obsessed with mill, now?
Because he remains influential and widely-read for an author of his “oldness” and lack of easy readability (partly due to the near-humorlessness that others have mentioned). But mainly because May 8th marks the 150th anniversary of his death.