John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)

A pleasingly readable philosophical pamphlet (using the Victorian definition of a 4-hour read). Mill is very English in his philosophy, arguing through example and refusing to follow his arguments _ad absurdium_. This has the effect of keeping the pace trotting along, but with the risk of raising many unanswered questions.

I was surprised to find the final chapter a treatise on small government. Knowing Mill as one of the authors of Utilitaniarism, and carrying my post 1970s tribal show more assumptions of Left/Right, I'd naturally expected an argument for liberty requiring the constraint of business. Mill, however, argues the opposite. I wonder if in the 21st Century with _de facto_ businesses as governments, he'd thread a more subtle needle. His suspicion of the National Curriculum get more positive support from me. show less

Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained.

It would be pretentious to suggest I dedicated my reading to Ahmed Merabet, yet it would be untrue to exclaim otherwise. We've drowned in debate about liberty this last week. Somehow I regard that as most encouraging. I found Mill’s treatise riveting and show more incisive along a number of axes which inform our means of government and private life. Mill was a shrewd historian and a brilliant writer. I gasped audibly at his conclusions and deft references. Too often Utilitarianism is wedged into confined spaces for politically conservative purposes. I have no problem with that. I suspect J.S. Mill wouldn't either. His moral remains, we should all disagree, question custom and exercise our faculties at every turn. show less

In a rather accessible extended essay, Mill argues for the emancipation of women both for the betterment of society and the personal benefit of women. What struck me most about Mill's essay is his clarity and conciseness. He lays out his thesis: "The principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes - the legal subordination of one sex to the other - is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and...it ought to be replaced by a show more principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other." And what follows this direct - and entirely supportable - opinion is an organized, clear, and interesting look at the subjugation of women to men and the limits it places on progress.

This essay is extremely accessible because of its clarity, important because of its subject matter, and entertaining because of the bits of snark. In other words, buy it. show less

Livro simpático do século XIX sobre a liberdade, defendendo os direitos do indivíduo, e um individualismo esclarecido - focado na acessibilidade de informação, multiplicidade de costumes, necessidade de um ambiente acolhedor da diferença para o florescimento da criatividade. Acima de tudo, é preciso que os regimes sociais admitam liberdade de expressão, permitindo argumentos diversos que, confrontados uns com os outros, promovem a instituição da verdade, na circulação pública do show more conhecimento aliada ao incentivo a expor opiniões eventualmente contrárias à massa do comum ou dos costumes. Pois a verdade é fruto da constante revisão das posições, frente aos argumentos e fatos. Mill nisso não diz que não há costumes sociais culturais que moldam, mas já adianta a posição multiculturalista cosmopolita, em que, se não se pratica, nem por isso deixamos de tolerar os costumes dos outros. O livro combate portanto os moralistas de plantão, que se acham por direito interferir no que é próprio da vida individual dos outros, enquanto não se preocupam com a liberdade que possuem para cuidar de suas próprias e viver bem. Daí, discute que a liberdade só existe na prática, e essa envolve não impedir a liberdade dos outros, sendo essa primeira cláusula, do compartilhamento igual das liberdades, justamente primeira, no sentido de que é um contrasenso manter uma liberdade de oprimir o outro, ainda mais quando justificada por argumentos do tipo "pq se não oprimo então eu me considero oprimido por não poder oprimir". Então, não é um individualismo bobo, embora simples: o estado e as instituições devem garantir e trabalhar para esse estado social em que o indivíduo floresce e ideias variadas circulam. show less