These first two chapters are relatively straightforward. The idea that every opinion no matter who brings it forth should be allowed to be heard. I really liked the comparison on page 18: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justifies in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." This analogy speaks on what the essential point of chapter two was and is a fundamental characteristic of freedom of thought.
It difficult to come up with a question worthy of this work, but one that strikes me is: is there ever a reason that this idea of freedom of thought should be abolished?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was also struck by the passage on pg. 18 and the idea of the "tyranny of the majority" (6) that Mill presents. It is an interesting argument that every thought and every belief deserves equal attention. Later on, however, Mill discusses the similarities between man's conviction with truth and error. He claims, "Men are not more zealous for truth than they often are for error, and a sufficient application of legal or even social penalties will generally succeed in stopping the propagation of either" (30). He goes on to claim that the difference is that truth, while maybe not always at first, will eventually prevail. My question is then, is it actually advisable to allow give all ideas attention because it is persecution that weeds out truth from error. Though Mill addresses this claim and suggests that while this is true, it takes a very long time for the truth to finally succeed. Which is the better option then, persecution that delays the acceptance of truth, but can never actually dismiss it, or an openness that allows error to be propagated and possibly mistakenly accepted?
ReplyDelete