Stuart Books

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Francis Garforth writes that, based on the totality of Mill's writings about his love of the Greek and Roman classics, one could easily interpret from them that he was an elitist. However, Garforth finds, and I agree, that Mill's elitism is more nuanced then that of the "run of the mill" elitist. Today elitism has become a politically charged word, and it would be disingenuous in my opinion to paint Mill as an elitist in the present day context that it is so often used in. Mill throughout his life judged peoples ability to learn and become part of an intellectual class based on their mental capacities and not on any biological or religious characteristics. He passionately wrote against and in many instances actively acted against various forms of discrimination, particularly against women, people of color, and Jews. In addition, Mill wrote an essay in 1869 for the Fortnightly Review entitled Endowments, wherein he proposed that members of the lower class or laboring class as he would put it who showed a capacity to develop their intellect be given the financial assistance necessary to do so through endowments. "But the superior education which it" the government "does not owe to the whole of the poorer population, it owes to the élite of them. I believe there is no single thing which would go so far to heal class differences." Thus, Garforth astutely deduced from Mill's writings that his elitism was intellectually based. "Sometimes he means by it a source of authority, whether intellectual, moral, or cultural, which is vested in the few whose education and experience...have given them a knowledge and wisdom superior to those of the majority." One can defend Mill's elitism as his search to educate and nurture a cadre of intellectuals, regardless of their creed, color, sex, or class, who would provide the leadership necessary to improve society for all of its citizens.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Francis Garforth writes that, based on the totality of Mill's writings about his love of the Greek and Roman classics, one could easily interpret from them that he was an elitist. However, Garforth finds, and I agree, that Mill's elitism is more nuanced then that of the "run of the mill" elitist. Today elitism has become a politically charged word, and it would be disingenuous in my opinion to paint Mill as an elitist in the present day context that it is so often used in. Mill throughout his life judged peoples ability to learn and become part of an intellectual class based on their mental capacities and not on any biological or religious characteristics. He passionately wrote against and in many instances actively acted against various forms of discrimination, particularly against women, people of color, and Jews. In addition, Mill wrote an essay in 1869 for the Fortnightly Review entitled Endowments, wherein he proposed that members of the lower class or laboring class as he would put it who showed a capacity to develop their intellect be given the financial assistance necessary to do so through endowments. "But the superior education which it" the government "does not owe to the whole of the poorer population, it owes to the élite of them. I believe there is no single thing which would go so far to heal class differences." Thus, Garforth astutely deduced from Mill's writings that his elitism was intellectually based. "Sometimes he means by it a source of authority, whether intellectual, moral, or cultural, which is vested in the few whose education and experience...have given them a knowledge and wisdom superior to those of the majority." One can defend Mill's elitism as his search to educate and nurture a cadre of intellectuals, regardless of their creed, color, sex, or class, who would provide the leadership necessary to improve society for all of its citizens.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term. Maiden speech was a disaster his second was great success. He was first MP to propose that women should be given the vote on equal footing with the men who could vote. He got 1/3 support, England gives franchise to women after U.S. He was a great Feminist, his essay "Subjection of Women" is written with great passion and prose. It was a brave position for him to take he was ridiculed for it. He favored democracy, and letting more men from lower classes the right to vote, but believed that people that are more educated should have more votes then less educated because they would make better decisions about what government should do. He would have wanted to extend education to the masses, so that all may have gotten 2-3 votes and so on. He didn't think it should be extended to where a small elite could carry the day on votes. The idea was that if the working class, and middle class, where divided on an issue, the people with more intelligence would have the power to tip the balance. Mill thought that people with more education would probably not only be better able to make political decisions, especially in terms of intellectually being able to see what would be best for the government to do, but that they would also be more concerned about the common good publicly then people in general. He was intensely educated by his father James. John could read Greek, and Latin at 6 yrs.; his Dad tutored him at home. Dad thought environment was everything. He was treated like an adult, never played games with kids; he had a very cerebral upbringing. He had a period of depression in his twenties, it changed his philosophy, and he recognized the importance of developing feelings along with the intellect, this is something that he stressed in his work. He read poetry to get out of depression; he became devoted to poetry and became a romantic. He fell in love with a married woman Harriet Taylor, was a platonic relationship, after her husband's death they married 3 years later and probably never consummated the marriage maybe due to his having syphilis. His dedication to "On Liberty" is to her, very devoted to each other. Both buried together in Avignon France where they used to vacation.

Mill as a moral theorist subscribed to a theory we call Utilitarianism. It means---In some way morality is about the maximization of happiness. Whether actions are right or wrong depends on how happiness can be most effectively maximized. I say in some way, because there are allot of different kinds of Utilitarians. Allot of different ways of saying exactly how it is the maximization of happiness comes into morality. Therefore, happiness is clearly an important idea for Utilitarians. Mill has a hedonistic view of happiness, he thinks that happiness can be defined in terms of "pleasure in the absence of pain." What is distinctive about Mill in this area is that he believes that some kinds of pleasure are better than others are, and add more to a person's happiness than other kinds of pleasures. He believes in what he calls, "higher quality pleasures." These are pleasures, he says, that we get from the exercise of faculties that only human beings happen to have. So the intellect, imagination, the moral feelings, these are the sources of higher quality pleasures people use. His view seems to be that a certain quantity of intellectual pleasure just adds more to your happiness, and a given quantity of some lower pleasure like a kind we would share with the animals such as sensation, taste, sexual pleasure, etc. His "higher quality pleasures" in a way echo Aristotle's ethics. The idea of those things that make us distinctly human that are the real key to our happiness, that is in Mill also. It is not as limited to reason and intellect as Aristotle thinks. Mill recognizes the importance of the appreciation of beauty, aesthetic pleasure, and moral pleasure. He frankly owes a debt to Aristotle that he never properly acknowledges, never gives him proper credit.

"On Liberty" is Mill's is his most widely read and enduring work. It is an indispensable essay on political thought, which strenuously argues for individual liberty. He is defending what he calls the "liberty principle." It is a principle that guarantees individuals quite a bit of personal freedom. "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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." These quoted sentences in John Stuart Mill's book, "On Liberty," embody the crux of his argument; that the power of the state must intrude as little as possible on the liberty of its citizenry. In essence, Mill was against using the power of the state through its lawmaking apparatus to compel citizens to conduct themselves in ways that society deems moral or appropriate. Mill thought that people had not only a right, but also a duty to develop their intellectual faculties, which is indispensable to maximize their happiness. He believed that society improved for all its citizens when they where left unfettered to the maximum extent possible, allowing them to use their imagination and intellect to improve themselves. Mill postulates a theory that societies usually institute laws based primarily on "personal preference" of its citizenry instead of established principles. This lack of clarity of opinion often leads to the government frequently interfering in the lives of its citizens unnecessarily. For Mill, there are very few times when the state can infringe on the personal liberty of others. Firstly, the state has the right to promulgate laws that prevent a person's actions from harming others. Secondly, the state must protect those citizens who are not mature enough to protect themselves, such as children. Thirdly, he exempts, "... backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage." In Mill's view, immature societies need a benevolent leader to rule them until they have developed to a point where they, "... have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion ..." Mill said this third exemption did not apply to any of the countries in Europe. Mill believed that forced morality by the state on its citizen's liberties was destructive to their inward development, and could even lead to a violent reaction by them against the government.


There are different parts of his defense of this, different arguments that he gives. He has a long chapter on freedom of speech and press. He has some very specific reasons why he thinks those freedoms are important. Always in the background for Mill is the idea of development, and making it possible for more people to enjoy these higher quality pleasures. How do we help people develop their distinctly human faculties, in ways that will help them enjoy their higher quality pleasures? Because for him that is the way, we maximize the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed in the world, and that is the object of morality as far as he is concerned. Utilitarianists believe that maximizing happiness is ultimately, what morality is all about. That does not mean maximizing your own happiness that means maximizing the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed, not only by yourself but also by everybody else as well.

Roger Kimball, in his book "Experiments Against Reality" wrote, "On Liberty" was published in 1859, coincidentally the same year as "On the Origin of Species." Darwin's book has been credited--and blamed--for all manner of moral and religious mischief. But in the long run "On Liberty" may have effected an even greater revolution in sentiment.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, feminism and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In The Subjection of Women Mill first and foremost advocated the need for all humans to improve their characters. He was a firm believer, that all people regardless of their race or sex, had the capacity to learn and improve their characters. In light of this belief, Mill sets the tone for his argument in his opening paragraph of his essay wherein he wrote that the legal means by which the female sex was subordinated to the male sex hindered the character development of all members of society. He was the first male in Britain to champion the cause of women to the extent that he did, and he suffered plenty of criticism and insults for doing so. He was also the first Member of Parliament to introduce a bill in the Commons to enfranchise women. He worked tirelessly throughout his life supporting women's rights with both his pen and his purse.
I find that his essay really turned a spotlight on the many horrors that women endured throughout the history of mankind at the hands of their brutish husbands. No other person's writings illuminated the deprivations that women had endured the way Mill's essay did. No doubt, Victorian sensibilities were shocked when he wrote about the brutality that many women in marriage suffered at the whim of their tyrannical husbands--rape and beatings were at the top of his list.
One of the ideas that Mill gave his fervent support to, and that I greatly admire him for, is the concept that freedom of choice for people is a crucial ingredient in character formation and in improving society and civilization for everyone. This belief led him to argue that marriage as it existed in his time was nothing better than legal and state sponsored slavery. Women had few options in life. If they were married to a tyrant who beat them it was almost impossible to obtain a divorce. Divorce was rare in his day and actually had to be approved by an act of parliament. In addition, if a wife did obtain a divorce, not only would she most likely lose custody of her children, she would also be denied any visitation privileges as well. Mill correctly complained that outside of the home women were left with few options in life. Professional education and career paths were closed to them. Men were fearful of the competition in the workplace women would present if they were allowed employment in professions or trade guilds. Therefore, when it came to workplace opportunities, society left women with few options-- prostitution, or menial domestic work. Thus, Mill saw that the lesser of all evils that women could choose was marriage. Their life in the home was reduced to serving as scullery maids and raising children. Thus, he wrote women treated this way were turned into shrews, which not only made their lives miserable, but also the lives of those around them. For all these reasons Mill believed that the institution of marriage was an impediment; not just to women, but to the progress of civilization as well. Considering that marriage laws had the force of several millennia of religious and societal mores behind it, one can certainly understand why his description of its depravity on humankind won him few friends in "polite" Victorian society.
During his time, a married woman's property automatically devolved to her husband, and Mill correctly saw this as one more inequity against women placed on them by society. Therefore, when he married Harriett Taylor in 1851, a financially secure widow, he remained true to his convictions and wrote a formal renunciation to all of her property in protest against the current law. In addition, while a Member of Parliament he cosponsored the Married Women's Property bill in 1868 to try to change the law. Finally, he sternly rebuked this abomination in his essay by rightly concluding that marriage left the vast majority of women in the unenviable position of "the personal body-servant of a despot" (CW XXI: 285).

In reading John the Baptist with the subtitle of As His Soul Remembers by Dr. Stuart Ledwith, I found this biography of one of my favorite Bible characters to be mesmerizing. Some readers will consider the book to be non-fiction but greatly embellished by the author's creativity; others will consider it to be fiction influenced by Biblical truths. Regardless of these opinions, I believe that most individuals will recognize that the author's main message of "unconditional love" reflects the true meaning of Christianity. Traditional Christians may protest because some of the content goes against their beliefs; however, even they may find the book to be a fascinating read. As a Christian who knows the Bible very well, it is obvious to me that Dr. Ledwith is a Biblical scholar and a man with a mission. There are many truths revealed throughout the pages, including the fact that significant changes need to be made in our religious institutions. When you begin reading the book, be prepared to do so in one setting as it holds one's interest from the first page to the last.

The title of the book makes it clear that Dr. Stuart is sincere in his belief that he is writing this biography with the help of Edouard, the soul which the body of John the Baptist hosted during his time on earth. The writing is excellent and the author vividly describes John, Jesus, and other Bible characters in their ordained roles as well as in their earthly humanness. John learns about a special kind of love and equality with women from a woman named Mischa; it is a lesson that he shares with others. He and Jesus are cousins; however, readers will soon learn that their relationship goes far beyond this earthly family link.

The personalities of Jesus and John come through as uniquely different and yet their love for one another is evident. They each have a mission to fulfill, but before this happens, readers are given a great deal of background information, including a unique presentation of what happened in regard to Adam in Eden's garden, the beliefs of the Essenes, the rebellious Zealots, and the three souls who form a tripartite. Readers will see Jesus, John, Mischa and others experience some lighter moments; however, they also see ministry in action via teaching, baptisms and healings. When John and Jesus complete their earthly work, there is much sadness and yet this represents prophecy fulfilled and ultimate victory. The author relates who was directly responsible for the earthquake and splitting of the Temple sanctuary curtain after Jesus was crucified on the cross. There are so many intimate details that readers will find intriguing, causing them to murmur, "Could it have happened this way?"

Regardless of their religious beliefs, I am convinced that readers will come away with many positive thoughts and be enlightened as to how far we have strayed from the equality and unconditional love that we read about in this book. Hopefully, it will bring about much-needed change.

An Independent Professional Book Reviewer, former publisher and radio talk show host.

You cannot go wrong with Mr. Stuart Wilde's teachings. Each book he writes or tapes/CD he produces is a jewel. He's a great teacher and these tapes will really help the one who seeks knowledge in living courageously with awareness.

I feel that this is a very helpful book of reference on Todays Topic of Juveniles.

I'm surprised with the fact that nobody wrote the review on this book.
As far as I've read on structuralism, this is the best, easy, succinct overview of structuralism. yep. the part 2 of this book is on the formalism. but my major is not literature. so I have no sufficient knowledge to assess the quality of that part. but as far as I 've read Jameson's books, it won't be the second to none. It's amazing how he could manage to write in such short volume to be understandable to layman. Jamesons's theoretical position is not that sympathetic to the tenet of structuralism. his orientation is Marxist. His assessment of structuralism betrays the title, 'The prison-house of langauge. his point is not that simple or vulgar as Terry Eagleton's. Jameson tried to syntehsize the point of Marxism's political approach, hermeneutics, and formalist approach of structuralism in his master piece, 'Political Unconsciuousness'. and his evaluation of structuralism does not lose intellectual fairness.