I just started it, and was struck by his opinion that the prodigious learning he acquired in childhood was not something to be proud of, because from his perspective, he always fell short of his father's exacting standards. And yet it was interesting that he recalled that many adults he encountered in his childhood thought he was very self-conceited, because he chose to argue points with them that he disagreed with.
I just finished Chapter 5, and one thing struck me particularly. It was difficult to read about his period of clinical depression, since that is so clearly what it was, and realize that he didn't live in a time where he had access to antidepressant medications or even psychotherapy as we know it now. It also struck me that when he explained how his newfound love of Wordsworth and appreciation of nature and a decision to appreciate his inner feelings were the things that helped him climb out of depression, it was probably more the case that the depression just resolved itself on its own, and he then rationalized the reasons why that had happened. I think as the depression lifted, he probably was able to appreciate lifeu and its beauties and the feelings that went with it in a way he couldn't when he was in the midst of it, and he believed those things were the cause of climbing out of depression rather than the effect of it.
I also have one trivial question. In most of his adult photos it's clear that he has two noticeable bumps on his face. Does anyone know where those came from?
I read On Liberty recently and thought it was really great, but parts of it were barely comprehensible. And it’s written in such an antiquated style. It would be nice if a prominent modern writer were to write a contemporary English version. I know that’s been done, but if it were done by someone noteworthy it might get attention and have some influence.
The part that I found the most powerful in that book was the part about how people are censored by their peers more than they are censored by the state.
I think that’s much more the message of the book than the gvt stuff even though he’s often quoted as a gvt theorist, esp on free speech. I find it all clear and very well written but it takes time to get used to his style.
Nov 26, 2023·edited Nov 27, 2023Liked by Henry Oliver
As I work my way through this, one thing that strikes me is that because of his intense relationship with his father, he could only go one of two ways. Either he would have ended up hating him and probably rejecting all of his opinions, or, as seems to be the case, he idolized him and thought there was no one else in his existence so impressive. I'm not sure he's in any position to actually be an objective judge of his father, because his whole education and sense of being was shaped by that singular personality.
Remember he did critique his father, by not being a Benthamite in the same way. Many oblique criticisms including of his education. But he also agreed with him on many issues. Hard for anyone to be objective about their parents, and Mill was trying to be kind, but overall I think he’s pretty balanced.
Absolutely agree with each point! Also recommend to any astute teenager as a first time read through. Also meaningful for the newbie radical, so they don’t go off the rails.
Unfortunately, I don’t think I will be able to make Sunday book club because I will be on the road driving (USA is a big place). 😒
Good recommendation. I've always been interested in J.S. Mill, although I've imagined him as a bit of a milquetoast, especially in his land reform advocacy relative to someone like Charles Bradlaugh. But the combination of Henry's suggestion and the ebook and audio links provided by his readers David and Martin is hard to resist.
Some people thought that at the time, notably Harriet Martineau, but the more you know Mill, the more you see just how deep and determined he was. Incredible breadth and depth, and huge accomplishments.
Can't remember if this was On Liberty or Autobiography but Mill describes critical thinking as the reconciliation of what he termed 'standing antagonisms', property/equality, sociality/individuality, liberty/discipline, cooperation/competition...these are evergreen concerns
2 observations:
-these types of things are generally tough to reconcile! but that is his point, I think
-it also reminds me of the passage in Autobiography where Mill talks about what he loved about his father, namely that he formed strong opinions about things and put his whole heart and soul into defending those opinions
To your last point—the book embodies why the humanities aren’t just important, but *absolutely necessary* as a counterbalance to our age of science, measurement, and calculation.
Yes, you're absolutely right. Mill sees this as initially a counterbalance—or escape, really—then it helps him realize he's been missing that integrated view of the whole all along.
Mill has a very personable, relatable story. He suffered from depression and sadness, but he was inspired by beauty to keep pushing forward. Great man and a brilliant thinker!
There’s a free, nicely formatted ebook of this work here: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/the-autobiography-of-john-stuart-mill .
free audio book over at LibriVox https://librivox.org/autobiography-by-john-stuart-mill/
Holy crap I did not know this existed thank you
I just started it, and was struck by his opinion that the prodigious learning he acquired in childhood was not something to be proud of, because from his perspective, he always fell short of his father's exacting standards. And yet it was interesting that he recalled that many adults he encountered in his childhood thought he was very self-conceited, because he chose to argue points with them that he disagreed with.
There's a nice section later on where his father teaches him to be humble. Mill was a very, very nice person.
I just finished Chapter 5, and one thing struck me particularly. It was difficult to read about his period of clinical depression, since that is so clearly what it was, and realize that he didn't live in a time where he had access to antidepressant medications or even psychotherapy as we know it now. It also struck me that when he explained how his newfound love of Wordsworth and appreciation of nature and a decision to appreciate his inner feelings were the things that helped him climb out of depression, it was probably more the case that the depression just resolved itself on its own, and he then rationalized the reasons why that had happened. I think as the depression lifted, he probably was able to appreciate lifeu and its beauties and the feelings that went with it in a way he couldn't when he was in the midst of it, and he believed those things were the cause of climbing out of depression rather than the effect of it.
I also have one trivial question. In most of his adult photos it's clear that he has two noticeable bumps on his face. Does anyone know where those came from?
Agree about how sad it that his depression was before treatment but he was good at a managing it I think esp with his long walks
He had various phases of illness that may have given him the bumps?
I definitely agree that that is the larger message of the book. Absolutely.
Overally I think it is beautifully written, but I remember some passages I read again and again and thought: "I just don't what this says."
Ask ChatGPT!
I read On Liberty recently and thought it was really great, but parts of it were barely comprehensible. And it’s written in such an antiquated style. It would be nice if a prominent modern writer were to write a contemporary English version. I know that’s been done, but if it were done by someone noteworthy it might get attention and have some influence.
The part that I found the most powerful in that book was the part about how people are censored by their peers more than they are censored by the state.
Very relevant today
I think that’s much more the message of the book than the gvt stuff even though he’s often quoted as a gvt theorist, esp on free speech. I find it all clear and very well written but it takes time to get used to his style.
As I work my way through this, one thing that strikes me is that because of his intense relationship with his father, he could only go one of two ways. Either he would have ended up hating him and probably rejecting all of his opinions, or, as seems to be the case, he idolized him and thought there was no one else in his existence so impressive. I'm not sure he's in any position to actually be an objective judge of his father, because his whole education and sense of being was shaped by that singular personality.
Remember he did critique his father, by not being a Benthamite in the same way. Many oblique criticisms including of his education. But he also agreed with him on many issues. Hard for anyone to be objective about their parents, and Mill was trying to be kind, but overall I think he’s pretty balanced.
Yes, I may not have read far enough into the autobiography yet
Absolutely agree with each point! Also recommend to any astute teenager as a first time read through. Also meaningful for the newbie radical, so they don’t go off the rails.
Unfortunately, I don’t think I will be able to make Sunday book club because I will be on the road driving (USA is a big place). 😒
ah shame! we'll miss you
Good recommendation. I've always been interested in J.S. Mill, although I've imagined him as a bit of a milquetoast, especially in his land reform advocacy relative to someone like Charles Bradlaugh. But the combination of Henry's suggestion and the ebook and audio links provided by his readers David and Martin is hard to resist.
Some people thought that at the time, notably Harriet Martineau, but the more you know Mill, the more you see just how deep and determined he was. Incredible breadth and depth, and huge accomplishments.
Can't remember if this was On Liberty or Autobiography but Mill describes critical thinking as the reconciliation of what he termed 'standing antagonisms', property/equality, sociality/individuality, liberty/discipline, cooperation/competition...these are evergreen concerns
2 observations:
-these types of things are generally tough to reconcile! but that is his point, I think
-it also reminds me of the passage in Autobiography where Mill talks about what he loved about his father, namely that he formed strong opinions about things and put his whole heart and soul into defending those opinions
A very nice defence of his father than Mill obviously doesn't agree with!
To your last point—the book embodies why the humanities aren’t just important, but *absolutely necessary* as a counterbalance to our age of science, measurement, and calculation.
counterbalance or integrated view of the whole?
Yes, you're absolutely right. Mill sees this as initially a counterbalance—or escape, really—then it helps him realize he's been missing that integrated view of the whole all along.
Mill has a very personable, relatable story. He suffered from depression and sadness, but he was inspired by beauty to keep pushing forward. Great man and a brilliant thinker!