Certainty of Opinion

Certainty of Opinion

"Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side" (26).

I like Mill's claim that nothing should be held certain; it allows for a skeptical culture that can unveil falsity. The question it raises, however, is the following: what are the criteria for a correct claim? What of different claims that have their basis on different modes? For example, would empirical and affective truths be incompatible?

How do we know it's right?

How do we know it's right?

"...the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinions, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner." (p 25)

I thought that Mill's discussion about how one comes to right opinion through discussion with others was very interesting. For example, there is the stubborn or the prideful man who will not admit he is wrong even when faced with irreconcilable facts. Do people think that this is a sufficient method for validating opinion? It reminds me of something that one of my roommates told me: statistically, certainty is not a predictor for accuracy. So does it matter how often a person's belief has been tested?

Mill's Patriot Act

Mill's Patriot Act

In addressing the object of his essay, Mill states that the “sole end for which mankind are warranted individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (p 12). Mill, in his thoughts towards the likings and disliking of a society, or more so towards the government or leaders by which control that society, has come across a very important idea especially in today’s society. Being one who likes to compare our classic author’s with our modern day society, the passage above made me think of one thing in particular: the Patriot Act. We are all entitled to liberty, Mill states that we, or society have this sense of social liberty where, “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercises by society over the individual.” (P 3). Now, in our modern times, we are constantly reminded of the fear and danger that lurks around the corner. We live in a country of three hundred million, and it seems as though we do have that sense of liberty, to a certain extent. On September 11, 2001, we gave up some of that liberty. The patriot act was introduced into action on October 26^th, 2001. The act has had the description of “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.” At this time, Mill sense of liberty was interrupted. The purpose for which this power was obtained was to protect other Americans from any sort of danger, and in Mill’s words “is to prevent harm to others”. I wonder then, at what point does this end? At what point can we state that all of our Liberty is being attacked? The patriot act allows access to bank accounts, voice mail records, personal files. The act has the right to deport, and arrest at any given point. I wonder though, what Mill would think of this? We read, “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting the end”(13). Does this statement give the right to a government or leader, in today’s America, to act in a repressive way in order to protect the citizens from a modern day barbarian (terrorist)? Mill finds it important to note the fact that peoples inactions are a cause to evil, and that the idea of pursuing and doing as we wish and like is key for the success of this country. With looming threats everyday, and the ability to relinquish our freedom, does the patriot act, and any other government program that limits the rights of it’s citizens still keep that liberty sacred? At what point can we say that our rights are being unjustly tampered with? Finally, what would Mill say of this act?

Word count (507)

Would Mill Approve of America's intellectual culture? of ND's?

Would Mill Approve of America's intellectual culture? of ND's?

In America today, we like to think we have freedom of thought and speech. But Mill is speaking in terms of not only what is allowed by law but also by society. With all of today's partisanship, on the left and on the right, from theists and atheists alike, can we say that we as a society are open to dialectic with other modes of thought? sorry for the short post- I hope this extratextual question will bring us into the text.

Mill and Absolute Truth

Mill and Absolute Truth

I find Mill's writing style and ideas compelling. While I do not agree with much of what he says, I constantly find myself nodding my head and agreeing with him. The biggest sticking points for me are 1) his claim that there is no absolute truth and 2) his description of Christianity (much less his description for Roman Catholicism!). I wonder if we could still admit his stance on the liberty of thought while affirming that there is an absolute truth?

How do we arrive at a working consensus?

How do we arrive at a working consensus?

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful, is the cause of half their errors" (Mill 50).

Mill often emphasizes that "teachers and learners go to sleep at their post, as soon as there is no enemy in the field" (49). However, even he seems to acknowledge that some kind of consensus, while certainly not final or definitive, must often be arrived at in order for any significant progress to be made. Where does one draw the line as far as when to decide that a valid or useful working consensus is possible?

H2O

H2O

"A lake is the landscape's most beautiful and expressive feature. It is earth's eye, looking into which the beholder measures the depth of his own nature." (p 125)

I found Thoreau's discussion of bodies of water to be very interesting, especially in contrast with the picture of the sea that we just read in Moby Dick. Though both authors are inspired to write and meditate by these waters, Melville's ocean was mysterious and fear-inspiring, while Thoreau's lakes are peaceful and in a very Baconian way he gives us a great deal of information about the lake and creatures living in and around it. How do these two views of water reflect the author's philosophies or themes? Are the two reconcilable (obviously one is an ocean and one is a lake, but beyond that)?

One for all?

One for all?

I know that last class we talked about whether Thoreau was a separatist or a reformer. Does our opinion change at all after the Baker Farm Chapter or the following chapter on Higher Laws? It seems that these chapters follow each other for a reason and that he wants them to apply to everyone. Is this true?