Reconstruction: On Liberty (Chapter II)

    In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that an individual must be granted the liberty of thought and discussion even if their opinion is true. He claims that those who deny the freedom of thought and discussion assume opinions are capable of infallibility. This is wrong because no opinion is absolute and universal. As such, no opinion should be considered infallible because that denies the public a capacity to exchange errors for truths. Hence, the development of truth is a consequence of open discussion between people who hold different beliefs.

    Mill claims that by denying the freedom of thought and discussion, one assumes opinions are capable of infallibility. The silencing of an opinion assumes another opinion is unmistakeably absolute and universal (19). However, assuming infallibility is wrong because nobody is infallible. The only way in which a human gains truth is by being receptive to changing their beliefs and by engaging with the beliefs of others, not by experience alone (22). Truth is facilitated by the removal of mistaken beliefs from our beliefs, as such, one cannot state his opinions are true and universal without any external input (20). Individuals are limited to a set of opinions; therefore, they cannot argue the opinion they are silencing to be an absolute falsehood or the opinion they are promoting to be an absolute truth. For instance, Socrates was silenced because his fate was decided by a small, private and homogenous jury (26). A person who suppresses an opinion mistakes their certainty for the absolute certainty of mankind. Thus, assuming infallibility is wrong because no opinion is absolute and universal.

    Nobody is infallible because humans acquire truth by removing errors from our beliefs. Mill argues that an opinion is validated by engaging in clash of opposing beliefs. For an opinion to reach the assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life, it must first invite the whole world to polish away errors and reveal its truths (21). Newtonian physics is only true because all of mankind is capable of questioning, discussing and disputing it (23). The errors of an opinion will yield to fact and argument, but the truths will not. The core ideas of the Protestant Reformation existed prior to Martin Luther and were put down, but the truths continued to be rediscovered. Eventually, due to the favourable circumstances of the period, Luther was successful in spreading those ideas without prosecution (29). Many of the opinions we consider absurd today were previously regarded as true (21). The virtuous Socrates of today died as a blasphemer because his opinions were deemed dangerous (26). A constant trial of diverse opinions is necessary to refine our beliefs and yield judgements deserving of confidence. In turn, the removal errors and discovery of truth depends on the existence of conversations that oppose our beliefs with a diverse group of people.

    Freedom of discussion is necessary for people to obtain knowledge. According to Mill, humans are fallible because they gain knowledge only through the purification of opinions. To acquire the purest truth, humans must remove errors from their beliefs by engaging in a diverse series of trials; the larger the variety of opinion, the purer the truth will become. The capacity to disprove an opinion allows us to assume it is true and subsequently engage with it as a truth (21).

    Thus, one should not limit an individual’s liberty of thought and discussion even when it does so in accordance with public opinion. The public must have the right to assert unrestrained opinions, as the silencing of a potentially true opinions robs those who dissent from correcting their own beliefs (19). Therefore, for truth to exist the freedom of thought and discussion must exist even if the opinion is true. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

“Something destabilizing”: Fidelity and Joseph in Emerald Fennell’s Adaptation of Wuthering Heights

As in a theater the eyes of men After a well-graced actor leaves the stage Are idly bent on him that enters next Thinking his prattle to be tedious — Richard II, Shakespeare  Known for her Oscar-winning debut feature, Promising Young Woman (2020), and the seductive, surrealist spectacle of Saltburn (2023), director Emerald Fennell returns to the screen with a bang: a fresh adaption of Emily Brontë’s 19th-century novel, Wuthering Heights . As the press peeled back the curtain in the months leading up to February 14th, 2026—revealing the casting of “Barbie” Margot Robbie as Catherine Earnshaw and the pale Jacob Elordi as “gipsy” Heathcliff—the audience turned anxious then cynical about Fennell’s take on the beloved classic. “Emily Brontë is rolling in her grave,” users’ commented under the trailer for the provocative, deconstructive, and orally fixated feature film. Fennell should stick to the original, they said; she’s ruining the Brontë image. “There’s an enormous amount of sadom...
Read more

BookTok is Commercializing my Hobby, and I am Sick of it

“Popular, successful, widely appealing and spicy” – that was the definition popular BookTuber Jack Edwards used to explain the characteristics of a standard BookTok novel. The first book club was founded in 1634 by Anne Hutchinson. A dozen women would gather aboard a ship on its way to the Massachusetts Bay Colony with the goal of understanding the world and experiencing Biblical literature collectively. Nowadays, BookTok is the biggest book club Earth has ever seen. I wonder what Hutchinson would think of the 200 billion views #booktok has reached on TikTok – would she be proud, or apprehensive and insecure? The distillation of a lifelong experience into a palatable 300-page novel for the common person is a modern phenomenon. Low literacy rates, low wages and low levels of production rates made books, and the act of reading, inaccessible. The UK hit a record high of 669 million physical copies sold in 2022, a number inconceivable to a pressman a mere century ago. In an article for The...
Read more

Never trust a pupil with a bomb.

I remember the first missile, glowing bright on my screen. Incapable of thought, the sight sent a frenzy down my spine.   Sprinting into the desolate kitchen, I watch my mother’s eyes as they stare down, etch themselves into the abyss and glare in awe. I can barely make out her whisper.   “Doomsday,” she utters through the chagrin.   February 24 th , the leading cause of death, and destruction, and demolition. Soon the country will confirm a nationwide irreversible diagnosis and mark the dead as a destruction of property.   A bittersweet reunion, a caffeinated rendezvous, slices tension in the espresso. The oppressor and the oppressed sit across the bar, in stillness and in woe.   A heartbreaking attack, a full-scale invasion, of the country I used to call home.   My blood boils, a prohibited mélange of DNA. Equally aggressor and victim, a fault of transgression, oddly hidden in plain sight. I tear myself to shreds, hurl a fist down my throat and gobble up ...
Read more