Talk:John Stuart Mill/Archive 1

message: If i'm not failing, Mill was not anti-socialist and in On Liberty he opposes the view wich sees economic freedom related to civil freedom (and therefore untouchable) (See the last chapter of the book!). He was favourable to the concession of full political rights to the working class. 
He saw economic liberty as a different part of the liberty and says that the concept of free trade and commerce rests on equally solid ground as the concept of free speech.
----
Lol i just did a beginning article on it because I thought there was none :).  Here is the article I made from scratch, I think there are a few parts that should be added perhaps.
John Stuart Mill was a very influential philosopher of the 1800's.  John Stewart Mill wrote about a variety of topics and issues including liberty and utilitarianism.
:Mill was an utopian socialist. This means that he wanted a society organized in cooperations of individuals. He was not at all a modern socialist. Mill was against the institute of the family and the state and wanted all people to be free autonomous individuals and independant entrepreneurs. Without any master-slave relations: man-wife, employer-employee, state-citizen. Education of children should solely be focused at learning the world individually through experiments.--Daanschr 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialism and Mill

message: How disappointing that this page does not even mention Harriet Taylor, acknowledged to be the co-author of many of Mill's works.  Her influence on Mill's thought was nearly as profound as Bentham's, perhaps more so.  In addition, the Victorian scorn heaped on Mill and Taylor's "relationship" formed the basis for many of the arguments in On Liberty, especially the components on the "tyranny of thought and custom."
: You are right. So... Put it in! It's a WIKI! Regebro 17:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Obvious vandalism.--Regebro 20:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harriet Taylor 

message: Not many people are aware of the real John Stuart Mill: a closet homosexual and serial philandederer who derived pleasure from attacking people, whilst dressed as a pantomime dame. He put forward several theroies under the scattered principles of utilitarianism, he wrote discourses on the relationship of utilitarianism with liberty , virtue, rubber fetish gear and justice. Once quoted as saying I am the very embodyment of evil, come suckle thyself at my sinister teet. he was perhaps the greatest role model for children of the age and kids all around England had posters of him with his favourite peantagon tanktop collection bluetacked to there wardrobes. A true champion of the early gay and lesbian rights, his doctrine of the faith, was an adventurous depart in a world coming to terms with the decline of christianism was published early in his 35th year, emensely popular with the down-trodden masses as its value for lighting coal fires and keeping out the draft under doors was unparalelled, the fluffly cloud shaped paper that it was printed on, was the first of its kind in the civilised world and became the staple parchment of choice for all budding future deciples of the antichrist.
(The author of the above passage is ignorant of both spelling and Mill. This trash cheapens Wikipedia.)
:LOL! This definitely deserves to make it into Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. Did it? If not, is it too late to submit it there? I'm not quite sure how that corner of Wikipedia works. PurplePlatypus 05:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  of his own free will 

message: I'm not a Mill expert, but surely the following is an error:
"At the age of 21 he suffered a nervous breakdown, whilst writing his Autobiography, due to the immensity of his studies which had suppressed any opinions or spirituality he may have developed normally in childhood,"
Since the Autobiography was not published until 1873, this is unlikely.  Perhaps what is meant is "At the age of 21 he suffered a nervous breakdown, which as described in his Autobiography, was due to..."
Cedders 12:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work at age 21 

message: There needs to be some mention of how Mill modified Bentham's classical utilitarianism, of which is one of Mill's most contentious areas amongst philosophers (John Rawls has wrote some critiques of Mill albeit with the help of Kantian ethics) --Knucmo2 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utilitarianism 

message: The "Western Philosophers" sidebar has a couple of entries I question. I see no evidence that Mill was particularly interested in metaphysics or epistemology - no more than a philosopher can help, anyway - but what he was interested (and important) in, which is not currently listed there, is inductive logic. Also, with respect to the "Notable Ideas" list, surely both the aforementioned system of inductive logic and his early liberal feminism belong on the list as much as, or more than, any of the items currently listed there. What do others think? PurplePlatypus 05:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one has commented, I just went ahead and made the above changes. I also changed "degrees of Utilitarianism" (what the hell is that supposed to mean?) to reflect what I, at least, consider most distinctive about Mill's utilitarianism as opposed to his father's and Bentham's, though I may have done so too long-windedly; if someone can say the same thing more succinctly, they should. PurplePlatypus 03:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data in sidebar - possible improvements 

message: No one mentioned Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (1829-94) who challenged and attacked Mill's thesis in his own work Liberty, Equality and Fraternity (1873)
:So mention it in the article, if you think it's notable. Personally I've never heard of it, and can think of a million other philosophers who disagree with Mill on one point or another. (So your first task would be making it clear what's so special about this particular one.) You might also want to mention exactly what thesis of Mill's he attacked, because he had a lot more than one. PurplePlatypus 04:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Stephens attack 

message: There seems to be two versions of this page; one with and one without the following, both of which do not appear in the 'edit this page' editing screen, and so cannot be deleted:
''
"John Mill's thoughts, made during the American Civil War, on the propriety, morality and dignity of waging war in certain instances, when added to his association with free market philosophers like Adam Smith and John Ricardo, and his thoughts on the limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual, all confirm that John Mill would be considered a libertarian-conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan in modern America.
John Mill's scathing comment on Conservatives in a Letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March, 1866) must be read in proper context. Conservatives in John Mill's day were mostly from the southern American states, who wanted no change in the status quo pertaining to slavery. It was President Abe Lincoln who initiated and fought a deadly civil war in order the change a situation that was abhorrent and unacceptable to him."''
I was not aware that John Stuart Mill was a libertarian-conservative of any kind, let alone "in the mold of Ronald Reagan."   "Conservatives in John Mill's day" were not from the "southern American states", because in Mill's day conservativism was chiefly British.  And Mill was somewhat on the left as an MP.  Comparisons such as these are patently absurd.  What that has to do with Abraham Lincoln and the US Civil War is beyond me.  I would just prefer if partisans would leave their manipulative characterizations of dead philosopher's to someone else, after all we see how well it went with Neitszche.
Nonetheless I am rather stupified by the characterization.  Mill wrote on socialism as well as the steady-state.  Certianly, Mill's views on political liberty and freedom of speech especially would make him rather at odds with a great deal of post-Civil War US conservatives (probably with even Lincoln's Civil War revocation of some civil liberties). I think Mill would have gone to great lengths to preserve the rights of communists, socialists, and anarchists to speak out during WWI, WWII, and the 'Red Scare' where the charge was led most assiduously by US 'conservatives.'  Of course we can never know what Mill would have thought because he is dead.  So let's just leave it at that.
:I dissagree with you. Reagan and Mill could be compared since they are both advocates of freedom and virtues and opposed to communism. What was left-wing liberal in Great Britain in the 19th century could be comparable with what is right-wing in the 1980s in America. The conservatives in Great Britain in the late 19th century were cooperating with the English working-class. Freedom was the ideology of the liberals and not of the conservatives in 19th century Britain.--Daanschr 15:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JS Mill a Republican? 

message: Ok, so it may be true that Mill enjoyed Chenin Blanc; but is it really necessary to mention it? if it is true, could we see a bit of proof for it?
I'll check back a bit later when I have an account and if there are no objections delete the relevent chunk, cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.151.210 (talk • contribs) 
: It is true, I will prove it with facts... It is relevant to remember this kind of stuff... People care, I care. So stop being mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.144.131 (talk • contribs) 
:: If it's true, and you can prove it with facts (which, considering the no original research policy, should mean you can point to reputable sources which support the claim), you should provide this information along with the assertion (which I've removed). Wikipedia is a place for relevant and verifiable facts, and thus far, your claim is neither relevant nor verified. —LrdChaos 15:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chenin Blanc 

message: There seems to be an edit conflict on my latest edits. I agree with the one who deleted my edits, that i used some weasel words, however most of my edits were based on factual information and should therefor be included in this article. I insist that the information about John Taylor and sir James Fitzjames Stephen should be included into this article. John taylor was the ex-husband of Harriet Mill. Harriet had two lovers (John Taylor and John Stuart Mill) for 16 years between 1833 and 1849. Sir James Fitzjames Stephen pointed out to Mill that all actions have social consequences, so there are no self-regarding actions. This critical remark reflect the opinions of both conservative and socialist commentators. I put down the example of the Irish famine to give a very clear evidence of social consequences. I don't agree that an article may not contain any negative information as has been put down on my talk page. I prefer that we debate this here, so other people can join in as well.--Daanschr 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already conceded that I erred in deleting the content that included citations.  However, you have yet to provide any citations or references for your information concerning the alleged relationship between H.T. and J.S. Mill before their marriage.  Unless you can provide documentation, it's best to leave it out.  While it's true that the Mills knew each other while Harriet was still married to her first husband, that does not imply that they were having a sexual relationship.  -- Merope 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit conflict 

message: Did Mill ever had sex with his wife? I have been wondering about this. After all, he disliked sex so much that it would feel strange if he had practiced it anyway. --128.214.205.4 10:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex