Which mill

Previous Post Cutter Mill. Next Post Fluidized Energy Mill. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. All Rights Reserved. Designed by PML. It might be argued, he observes, that certain true beliefs should be suppressed because, although true, they are thought to be harmful. But to argue that we should suppress a view because it is harmful would either be to assume infallibility on its status as harmful, or to allow debate on that question—which in turn must involve debate on the substantive issue itself.

Opinions belonging to case i therefore ought to not to be suppressed. Even when a belief is false, Mill holds, its assertion may still be conducive to securing the truth—and as such, opinions belonging to case ii should not be suppressed. The assertion of false opinions leads to debate—which in turn leads to greater understanding. It is therefore just as important to hear counterarguments to the truth as its re-articulation.

However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.

Such situations make up case iii. Most well-thought-out views—whether conservative or liberal—on such matters contain part of the truth. Though there may be arguments establishing that forms of communication which do not have truth as their goal—poetry, art, music—should be free from interference, these are not to be found in chapter 2, but later in On Liberty. On the one hand, he argues that it is best for individuals that they are given freedom and space to develop their own character.

On the other, he argues that it best for society , too. Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develope itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing. The basic diversity of human beings means it is not productive for there to exist an expectation that all individuals will live in a similar manner.

In this sense, the argument is a pragmatic one: that one mode of life is unlikely to fit all individual tastes. But Mill also suggests that it is a central feature of the good life that it be a life chosen for oneself.

It is possible that he might be guided in some good path […] But what will be his comparative worth as a human being? It really is of importance, not only what men do, but also what manner of men they are that do it.

Along with other thinkers of the period—Arnold, Nietzsche, and Schiller are all useful points of comparison—Mill believes that the great danger of mass-society is self-repression and conformism, leading to the sapping of human energy and creativity. It is individuals that are well-rounded, authentic and spontaneous, he believes, that are most truly happy. It is also important for society more broadly that individuals be free to develop their own ways of living.

And the variety that exists within such a context, Mill thinks, key to maintaining social progress. The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement, being in unceasing antagonism to that disposition to aim at something better than customary, which is called, according to circumstances, the spirit of liberty, or that of progress or improvement.

Of course, it may not be prudent to intervene in all cases in which it be legitimate to do so. In this sense, the principle merely states the conditions under which interference is permissible—not the conditions under which it is desirable. The interference of society to overrule his judgment and purposes in what only regards himself, must be grounded on general presumptions; which may be altogether wrong, and even if right, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual cases.

Mill readily admits that no conduct is self-regarding in the sense that it affects only the agent themselves. In the sense Mill intends, then, we harm an individual only when we violate an obligation to that individual. The damage done by the bad example set to others by a drunkard provides no legitimate reason for interference with his conduct; if his drunkenness causes him to violate the obligation to support his family, then that action constitutes a harm and is subject to interference.

And yet, of course, Mill holds that individuals are themselves free to form unfavorable opinions about the character of others. We are free to remonstrate with an individual, to avoid him, and to encourage others to avoid him—that is our right. The dividing line between the legitimate and illegitimate use of our freedom, however, is surely difficult to draw. As we have seen, Mill believes that we can have no genuine knowledge a priori. One important result of this general claim, Mill holds, is that knowledge—on political and ethical matters, as well as within the physical sciences—is more difficult to acquire than those who appeal directly to intuition or common sense might wish.

I yield to no one in the degree of intelligence of which I believe [the people] to be capable. But I do not believe that, along with this intelligence, they will ever have sufficient opportunities of study and experience, to become themselves familiarly conversant with all the inquiries which lead to the truths by which it is good that they should regulate their conduct, and to receive into their own minds the whole of the evidence from which those truths have been collected, and which is necessary for their establishment.

In previous ages, the existence of a leisured and spiritual class meant that it was relatively easy to establish who possessed the intellectual authority to function as leaders in thought and action Spirit of the Age , XXII: —5. Liberty , VIII: Ultimately, Mill remains optimistic about the prospects of the modern individual to successfully autonomously navigate that crowd and identify voices worthy of respect.

No government by a democracy or a numerous aristocracy […] ever did or could rise above mediocrity, except in so far as the sovereign Many have let themselves be guided which in their best times they always have done by the counsels and influence of a more highly gifted and instructed One or Few.

But Mill also looks to the institution of democracy itself to help solidify the influence of elites. Mill held, as was noted above section 4. Active participation in collective decision making was, Mill held, part of the good and happy life Urbinati He was in favor, therefore, of extending the vote to all those who were not reliant on public support and possessed a basic competency in reading, writing, and arithmetic. A system of plural voting would not only counteract the tendency of democracy to descend into rule by the mob, but would embody and signal the general principle that some opinions are more worthy of attention than others.

It is not useful, but hurtful, that the constitution of the country should declare ignorance to be entitled to as much political power as knowledge. The national institutions should place all things that they are concerned with, before the mind of the citizen in the light in which it is for his good that he should regard them: and as it is for his good that he should think that every one is entitled to some influence, but the better and wiser to more than others.

Considerations , XIX: Neither is it an attempt to impose the will of experts on an unwilling majority. At all points, Mill remains committed to the freedom of individuals to hold and express their own opinions, and to the sovereignty of the majority will on public matters. His sensitivity towards the very real dangers of populism in modern societies is, that is to say, never allowed to overshadow his basic commitment to liberal democracy as the political system most suited to the cultivation of a free, active, and happy citizenry.

As can be seen from the Bibliography above, I have learnt much about Mill during the process of co-editing A Companion to Mill —I therefore owe thanks to the contributors to that volume, as well as my co-editor, Dale Miller.

Life 2. Mill inscribed on her grave that [s]he was the sole earthly delight of those who had the happiness to belong to her. Examination , IX: 68 As logically independent matters of fact, Mill thought there could be no seamless inference from the composition of our mind to how the rest of the world is, or must be. Whewell on Moral Philosophy , X: All genuine knowledge, then, whether theoretical or ethical, must be obtained by observation and experience.

Apparently a priori beliefs are subject to a similar undermining analysis. Examination , IX: 82 From this process, we come to form the belief that space is infinite.

But, an association, however close, between two ideas, is not a sufficient ground of belief; it is not evidence that the corresponding facts are united in external nature.

Secondary Sources Bain, C. Balaguer, M. Ball, T. Brink, D. Brook, R. Capaldi, N. Clark, S. Cobb, A. Devigne, R. Donner, W. Ducheyne, S. Eggleston, B. Findlay, G. Fletcher, G. Fumerton, R. Godden, D. Jacobs, S. Jacobson, D. Kinzer, B. Robson, and J. Kitcher, P. Skorupski ed. Kroon, F. Kuhn, T. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Levin, M. Mill on Civilization and Barbarism. London: Routledge. Loizides, A. Plymouth: Lexington Books. Losonsky, M.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Magnus, P. Macleod, C. Miller eds. Mandelbaum, M. Matz, L. Miller, D. Mill , Cambridge: Polity Press. Moore, G. Mueller, I. Nussbaum, M. Reeves, R. Riley, J. Ryan, A. Saunders, B. Scarre, G. Schwartz, S. Shapiro, S.

Skorupski, J. Snyder, L. Turner, P. Urbinati, N. Varouxakis, G. Wilson, F. Zastoupil, L. Academic Tools How to cite this entry. Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Zalta ed. Robson, from the Liberty Fund. Fieser ed. The machine has no moving parts and thus the tendency of contamination due to wear of parts is minimized. Thermolabile materials can be milled with little degradation since the heat produced by the process is nullified by the cooling effect of the expansion of the compressed gas. July 5, February 14, Your email address will not be published. John Stuart — son of James Mill English philosopher and economist. Synonyms for mill Synonyms: Verb atomize , beat , bray , comminute , crush , disintegrate , grind , mull , pound , powder , pulverize Visit the Thesaurus for More.

Examples of mill in a Sentence Verb The crowd was milling outside the exit. First Known Use of mill Noun 1 before the 12th century, in the meaning defined at sense 1 Verb , in the meaning defined at transitive sense 1 Noun 3 , in the meaning defined above. History and Etymology for mill Noun 1 Middle English mille , from Old English mylen , from Late Latin molina, molinum , from feminine and neuter of molinus of a mill, of a millstone, from Latin mola mill, millstone; akin to Latin molere to grind — more at meal Noun 3 Latin mille thousand.

Learn More About mill. Time Traveler for mill The first known use of mill was before the 12th century See more words from the same century. Statistics for mill Look-up Popularity. Style: MLA. More Definitions for mill.

English Language Learners Definition of mill.