"Mill defended freedom of thought on several grounds. First, we should accept the fact that none of us can claim an infallibility of knowledge or a final and definite insight into ultimate truth. Thus, we should value and defend liberty of thought and argument because a dissenter or a critic of conventional and generally accepted views may offer reasons for disagreeing that correct our own errors of knowledge and mistakes in judgement."
I was fired from my job at a UK university, for writing a book criticising Islam. It was written in my own time, and published at my own expense.
During my enforced unemployment I have written numerous additional books, criticising Islam!
It is quite tough trying to subsist without a salary, after being cancelled. But I would not have been able to live with my conscience if I had caved in to their demands. We must uphold our freedoms, even if it comes with personal sacrifice. This is not theoretical, it is the stark reality that we face.
Since "On Liberty" is no longer copyrighted, I have produced it as a paperback book. Available here, scroll down the article, about three quarters the way down:
Mill is interesting of course. But his insistence on intellectual liberty does not fit with the way human societies actually work. The best defence against the permanent tendency to tyranny in the 3 modes he outlines, in all societies at all times is in fact the existence of robust, widely accepted customs and traditions affecting many areas of life.
All animal groups must have adequately coherent common objectives and values to remain operationally competent. Achieving this in the increasingly complex societies of the last 2 or 3 millennia has been increasingly difficult - which is why they have a permanent default tendency to the enforced cohesion provided by dictatorship.
Every generation needs to be reminded of Mill. The present one, it seems, is not listening.
This is so true:
"Mill defended freedom of thought on several grounds. First, we should accept the fact that none of us can claim an infallibility of knowledge or a final and definite insight into ultimate truth. Thus, we should value and defend liberty of thought and argument because a dissenter or a critic of conventional and generally accepted views may offer reasons for disagreeing that correct our own errors of knowledge and mistakes in judgement."
I was fired from my job at a UK university, for writing a book criticising Islam. It was written in my own time, and published at my own expense.
During my enforced unemployment I have written numerous additional books, criticising Islam!
https://hellish2050.substack.com/about
It is quite tough trying to subsist without a salary, after being cancelled. But I would not have been able to live with my conscience if I had caved in to their demands. We must uphold our freedoms, even if it comes with personal sacrifice. This is not theoretical, it is the stark reality that we face.
Thank you, a very helpful article.
Since "On Liberty" is no longer copyrighted, I have produced it as a paperback book. Available here, scroll down the article, about three quarters the way down:
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/book-catalogue
Mill is interesting of course. But his insistence on intellectual liberty does not fit with the way human societies actually work. The best defence against the permanent tendency to tyranny in the 3 modes he outlines, in all societies at all times is in fact the existence of robust, widely accepted customs and traditions affecting many areas of life.
All animal groups must have adequately coherent common objectives and values to remain operationally competent. Achieving this in the increasingly complex societies of the last 2 or 3 millennia has been increasingly difficult - which is why they have a permanent default tendency to the enforced cohesion provided by dictatorship.