Note: This was a first-draft paper written for entry into a MA in Philosophy graduate program which I was admitted to at the University of Cape Town in 2005.
A multitude of books, papers and lectures have been created concerning John Stuart Mill and his conception of freedom of opinion and expression as written in Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion in On Liberty. The classical interpretation of Mill’s outline for freedom of expression can be clearly stated in the following three points: 1) One may have a truth but due to the fact that society is not yet willing to listen to that truth, it may be suppressed as a falsity (Mill 77); 2) Truth, once grasped, runs the chance of becoming hard, cold and meaningless (‘dead dogma’, Mill 97) if not reconsidered, rejuvenated, rethought or “freely and openly canvassed” within a society (Mill 96); and 3) Truth can find itself in a precarious situation whereby the “conflicting doctrines…share the truth between them” and as yin and yang when placed together, the two parts make a more complete truth (Mill 108). After a brief discussion of the aforementioned points, an understanding of Mill’s classical interpretation shall be illustrated. Thereafter, qualms concerning Mill’s aforementioned points will be elucidated upon.
Let us take the first instance whereby a person may have a truth (such as Copernicus’ notion that the world is round) and that truth is suppressed as a falsity. It has been all too often that intelligent men and women have come to discover trying and revolutionary truths. One need only to think of the following examples: Newton’s concept of gravity, Darwin’s theory of evolution, Frantz Fanon’s depiction of Algerian resistance to French colonists and his overwhelming accounts of colonial atrocities, Martin Luther King Jr.’s push for racial equality, Nelson Mandela’s conception of a new South Africa, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, and Isabelle Allende. The list could continue ad infinitum of people that have helped burst through the walls that societies tend to build up to ensure order, stability, and comfort for its people. And as each man or woman has come forward, a revolutionary truth tucked neatly under the brim of their hat, each has met a resistance unparalleled and fierce. An explanation for perhaps why this resistance comes can be found in the fact that governments and individuals must not “allow doctrines which they honestly think dangerous to the welfare of mankind, either in this life or in another, to be scattered abroad without restraint” (Mill 78). This societal and individual resistance therefore may act as a sieve, sifting out falsities and eventually, through trial and tribulation, will allow the truth to live. It is exactly this resistance which eventually gives credence to the truth that is attempting to surface. In the case of racial equality, resistance was immense and many times violent and the resistance continues even to this day, violent eruptions occurring on the streets of America, the suburbs of Johannesburg, and elsewhere. And the resistance will continue unabated until one day, at a momentous time in history, we allow ourselves to understand our racial differences and begin building a common, socio-economically fair foundation from which to build.
Truths such as those encased in the push for racial equality will eventually arise from the ashes of conflictual discussion and will be stronger to the onslaughts of others. Even though Mill states, “the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another,” (Mill 89) he goes on to state that if a truth is in fact true, it will be suppressed, stepped on, tucked away and hidden time and time again but will, when the time is right, arise from the ashes like a Phoenix, finding fertile minds in which to grow (Mill 90).
Let us consider Mill’s second point: that of a truth that becomes cold, hard and meaningless if not reconsidered, rejuvenated or rethought. It is a common occurrence for teachers, when having taught something for many years, to find themselves one day mouthing words they no longer consciously decide upon saying. Hearkening back to the experience of many in the 60’s, the teacher feels somehow a third person spectator of his/her own lesson and the words have lost all the meaning, vitality, and truth they once held. Bu the best teachers, those teachers that continue to inspire and feed the hungry minds of children, are the teachers that reevaluate and reconsider what they are teaching yearly, if not monthly, weekly, or even daily. The truths they utter are not third person recordings but come from the heart, the approach to the teaching of the truth continually changing, but the underlying truth staying fixed. Christians and Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, all denominations are sure to experience the same thing. Those that simply absorb the teachings of Christ or Muhammad (perhaps forced to at an early age) have no real corporeal sense of what they are absorbing. The truths uttered in the Bible or Koran lose their meaning, becoming mere dogma. And many times, those very same passive followers are the ones that most avidly pronounce their ideas as Truth, all others being false or somehow inferior in mind. Tending to think that “no good and some harm, comes of it [their ideas] being allowed to be questioned,” (Mill 97) they continue believing and shut out discussion. But when an inkling of question enters their mind, their beliefs crumble as castles made of sand (Mill 97). It is to those that reevaluate, reconsider, and rethink the words of the Bible and Koran for themselves that the real meaning and truth is felt and for many, it forever changes their lives.
Contestations to any belief system or truth must, in fairness to open and free discussion, come from those who truly and wholeheartedly believe in what they are saying (Mill 99). A man who proclaims his atheism and yet, has unanswered questions in his mind as to whether or not he is right, should not be the man to have a discussion concerning the existence or non-existence of a God with an avid and through and through Christian. It is an injustice to the side of atheism and it is unjust to leave the Christian feeling as though he/she holds the only truth in existence due to the fact that the faux atheist was unable to present a full-bodied argument (Mill 100). It is an injustice to the Christian precisely because, in thinking they have the only truth, their truth becomes fossilized and loses meaning. It is in the presence of disagreement and discussion that the truths we consider to be true are rejuvenated and in a way, reborn and perhaps more fully understood. Moreover, let us look to actions before words. As in the teachings of Christ, a Christian is expected to follow a number of rules such as “they should judge not, lest they be judged” and “they should swear not at all” (Mill 103). If a discussion is to be had between a Christian and an atheist, let us look not only for a true atheist but also a Christian who follows what he/she preaches. For it is elementary that if a Christian preaches love for thy neighbor and yet erects walls and electrified fences around his/her house, never talking to his neighbors due to the color of their skin, he/she is not the person to be holding an open and free discussion concerning the tenets of Christianity (Mill 105). The Christian teachings have become mere dogma to this unfortunate person.
Mill’s third point concerns the situation wherein two sides, carrying partial truths, are found placed together and in the process, form a more complete truth. Sitting in a café drinking cappuccinos, a Christian and a Muslim are freely discussing their beliefs, their Truths. After many hours of pointing out differences, they come to the realization that the differences they have been pointing out are mere trifles and that the overwhelming truth which can bridge both sides is this: they both believe in a higher being. There is a teacher who sincerely believes in teaching by the Rote method, she is absolutely passionate in class and she believes her truth is the most effective method of teaching. There is another colleague of hers that employs modern techniques of using as many mediums as possible (music, movies, cards, painting, etc.) in the classroom and believes that others should follow her truth. They one day enter into a discussion concerning teaching methods and after a free and heated discussion, they realize they share a more complete truth which is: they love teaching and they love children.
It is clear from the above two examples that seemingly opposing approaches can be made under the guidance of a more complete truth and that when reconciled, the two opposing sides combine to bring out a more universal truth that both sides can happily subscribe to. It is at times a violent struggle, this dialogue between opposing sides, but as Mill states, “Truth, in the great practical concerns of life, is so much a question of the reconciling and combining of opposites that very few have minds sufficiently capacious and impartial to make the adjustment with an approach to correctness, and it has been made by the rough process of a struggle between combatants fighting under hostile banners” (Mill 110-111). So it is, through at times violent combinations of seemingly opposing truths that both sides reconcile their differences and accept a larger truth. This is perhaps the argument of those who state that we should forget our differences and realize that we are all human. It is unquestionably true that we are all human, but is it not the devious nature of mankind to subconsciously nurture differences so as to make life interesting? A question left unanswered.
It is through considerations of Mills’ three main points concerning freedom of thought and discussion that one may imagine that Mr. Mill would have been a very happy man had he lived to see the creation of the United Nations, Parent Teacher Association Meetings, or debating institutions, all venues for an open and free discussion between multitudes of differing opinions. And it is my hope that through my frequent illustrations, it has been shown that I agree wholeheartedly with the notions presented by John Stuart Mill. In hippie-tones of peace, love, and understanding, I state that the world would be a better place were we, as the human race, to listen to one another, earnestly contest one another’s beliefs, and reconcile our differences in pursuit of a greater, unifying truth. Sadly, it is perhaps easier said than done.
It is my goal now to elucidate upon each of Mill’s three aforementioned points concerning the necessity of liberty of thought and discussion in what may be deemed a perverted manner. Concerning Mill’s first point which states a person may possess truth which is suppressed as a falsity, I bring up a case whereby someone possesses a false opinion and through an open and free discussion with others, is shown the falseness of their opinion. With Mill’s second point that truth once grasped, runs the chance of becoming hard, cold, and meaningless if not reconsidered, rejuvenated or rethought, an attempt is made to show that even speaking of truth is absurd; that there is no such thing as a universal truth. To Mill’s third point concerning the situation whereby two truths of seemingly opposite sides combine to make a more complete or universal truth, it is pointed out that a more complete or universal truth may not necessarily result from an open and free discussion. Instead, a more complete and individual truth may result, wholly unconcerned with the collective well-being of a society.
To the first case: Billy Bob and his adamant longing to spread the false opinion that butter is made of shampoo. A brief introduction: Billy Bob grew up in a small town that was known for its quietness and its stability. White picket fences lined the streets and at the city center sat the mayor, a man representing government in this scenario and a man who ruled over Billy Bob’s town with an iron fist. Newspapers were edited by the mayor himself, radio stations screened and all the teachers of the town were called together annually to discuss the upcoming year’s curriculum. Strong opinions not concerning Christianity were few and far between and even those who held strong Christian beliefs didn’t discuss them due to the fact that they thought them to be self-evident truths. The mayor’s main concern was to keep order, stability and especially quiet. And all the while, Billy Bob kept his opinion that butter is made of shampoo to himself, thinking that the world was not quite ready to hear his mind-blowing opinion and knowing that if he did air it, he would be considered a heretic. So he kept it and knew that it was true. But one day in November, a new mayor came to power named Jimmy Mill. The change was immediate. Street corners were filled with crazed homeless people selling fantastic stories about children born with scaled wings. Life, love, morality, religion, and sports teams were being discussed openly in cafes and buses and all the while, Billy Bob sat in the confines of his square blue room, afraid to go out and face the new town and air his opinion which had for so long been bottled up inside. But the time soon came when Billy Bob had to eat and so, with anxiety ringing in his ears, he stepped outside for the first time since the mayoral change. Streets that had once been sparkling clean and white now had bits of grime and chewing gum on them but somehow, it made those streets seem all the more real and they smelled of humanness, lively issues and opinions. Billy Bob became so saturated with the overwhelming creative energy surrounding him that he turned into the nearest shop and began a discussion with an Indian clerk. He soon aired his opinion that butter is made of shampoo only to have the clerk return his words with a quizzical gaze. ‘It is not made of shampoo but rather milk my friend,’ the clerk began, thereafter describing in detail the process involved in making butter. The initial shock of having his long held-to-be-true opinion shattered soon subsided and soon Billy Bob was learning things he never would have known had he not stopped and talked openly to this man. The townspeople continued to discuss openly, falsehoods were weeded out and replaced with part or complete truths, and a new community sense of truth began to emerge.
The above is, I hope, a useful illustration of the importance of open and free discussion to the creative vitality and well-being of a community or society. It is increasingly important that societies nurture open and free discussion in an orderly manner. With population pressures increasing and natural resources dwindling, it is essential that avenues are opened up for people to air their opinions. Billy Bob had within himself a rather harmless false opinion concerning butter but imagine if he nursed the opinion that blacks or Indians or any other non-white race was somehow not worthy of living. The obvious repercussions of not allowing that man to air his opinions, to stifle his guttural feelings and tell him that what he thinks is wrong without entering into a serious, open dialogue with him, are that that man would very likely keep his feelings and opinions to himself and would one day simply snap. Innocent people could very well be hurt when instead through open and free discussion, an understanding could have been reached, humanity somehow furthered. False opinions have the greatest potential for damage in a society for they are most often based on fear, ignorance, hatred, or a combination of all three. They must be aired freely and if not rectified, at least understood to the greatest degree possible.
Case two: a situation whereby somebody possesses a part truth but lacks other information to reach the complete truth. Through open and free discussions, the partial truth is more completely formed into a whole truth, but not necessarily a truth which can be shared by two opposing parties. Daily examples abound whereby a person has an opinion backed by half-truths. As Mill states, ‘it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied’ (Mill 111/116). Our second character, Greta Chernov, shall further illustrate this point.
Great Chernov was a recent Czechoslovakian immigrant to the United States. Aged 42, she already had largely formed her ideas and opinions of how the world works and how it should work. But upon arriving in the States, she was amazed by a plethora of things, particularly the fact that many Americans were ignorant of their political system and the shadows it had cast over the world. Greta worked an 8 to 5 job as a dishwasher and so met very few Americans as she was always working. But those Americans she did meet enforced her opinion that Americans are ignorant peoples and so, to make her life easier, she decided to instead believe that all Americans were beyond hope of recovering any semblance of consciousness. And so, our dear Greta Chernov held captive this truism of hers in her heart and washed dishes furiously, cursing the day she decided to immigrate to the nation of morons. An unfortunate time came (as sometimes they do) and Greta was cast out on to the cold streets of America, unemployed due to budget cuts and declining income. Greta felt herself immersed in a Stanley Kubrick film, reality somehow twisted to fit an evil scheme, and pounded the pavement grudgingly amongst those she believed to be ignoramuses. At the third corner of the third block she was traversing, Greta saw a ‘Help Wanted’ sign and decided to enter. It was a small café with dark wood seats and upon entering, she found herself within a chicken coop of people bantering left and right about the recent political frauds of the United States government and the horrific happenings in their names abroad. They were not only talking but formulating days and times for protests, marches, and workshops. She found the manager, explained to him her situation, and in a matter of minutes, found herself serving up espressos and lattes to her newly found comrades.
Over the course of the week, she came to know many of the customers and was able to dispel her half-truth notion that all Americans are ignorant of their political system. She did not give it up lightly however and her customers would bring in friends of theirs, quite active politically, to help her dispel the false aspects of her opinion. She was thereafter content with the truth that the majority (but not all) of Americans are ignorant of their political system and began to understand the socioeconomic and political situations which has led to such ignorance. A better citizen indeed and a happy immigrant.
And so it is that a half-truth was reformed, rethought, and renovated to represent a fuller truth to the individual, all occurring through the existence of a café full of open and free discussions. But, unlike the cases concerning Christians and Muslims and teachers of differing methods, no greater universal truth was reached. Instead, the individual’s sense of truth had been reformulated and strengthened. In a sense, there occurred no give and take between Greta Chernov and the café’s patrons. Instead, things were taken and used to better her individual sense of the world. Half-truth opinions many-a-times are left untouched and accepted as Truth. The majority of human beings are more comfortable with acceptance than they are with the massive amounts of energy and time it takes to discuss and reform one’s opinions. It is on this point that I perhaps disagree with Mill due to realistic callings. Reality (which I realize is an opinion) in a society is composed of those who lead and those who follow. Those who lead generally decide what Truth and Falsity and Right and Wrong are and generally speaking, those who follow (henceforth referred to as the masses) accept what they are given as truth or at least (for the more debonair) half-truths. The masses have lives to lead, jobs to attend to, children to care for, ailing old mothers to chide, dogs to clean up after and cats to keep from eating the goldfish. Life is a busy occupation. It leaves very little time for the pleasure of open and free discussion. One must simply choose one’s opinions from the impressions floating about in newspapers, radio stations or billboards and continue living, continue fighting to survive. I agree wholeheartedly that a society would be led towards the greater good of happiness if it endorsed open and free discussion but from what observations I have made, those countries which most affect the world financially and militarily are the very same countries that endorse this divided society of leaders and followers, the leaders living privileged lives as they decide upon truisms while the rest of the followers work towards distant goals. Upon these observations I state merely a question left unanswered: What is the motivation for a man or woman to worry about whether the opinions they harbor are true, half true, or false when they must work 8-10 hour days, five to six days a week, simply to feed their children and keep some semblance of a life?
It is then perhaps the duty of the government, as Mill may suggest, to make sure there is time allotted for free discussion to its citizens for a better society would result. And although I agree, I somehow must cynically ask as to what motivation men in power have to let a degree of their power of control over the masses’ opinions be given back to the masses. From experience in America, I can state that the masses must fight for their opinions against an overbearing government which breeds falsities and half-truths through its education system and media outlets but unfortunately, when constantly fighting for one’s opinions, one is left little time to reassess what one is fighting for. Truths are therefore left aside and half-truths and falsities breed in people’s minds like mosquitoes left unchallenged in monsoon season. A realistic assessment must be made as to whether or not Mill’s notions of free expression are applicable to today’s most developed nations. In perhaps finding that they are not, serious questions must be asked concerning whether his notions are most applicable to developing nations or developed nations attempting to consolidate power and maintain supremacy.
Mill’s third and final case is that of someone who possesses a true opinion yet lacks the corporeal and spiritual experience to fully grasp that truth. Many problems arise for me when Platonic devices such as Truth, Good, or Justice are used for it seems that when taken to the test, all are subjective notions built upon foundations of differing experiences. However, let us choose a test case: that of Tommy Reaper.
Tommy Reaper was a shadowy someone who since the age of four, focused his energies upon the ‘truth’ that we all die. At age 13, he lacked the physical and spiritual experience to give credence and understanding to his truth. At the age of 14, Tommy’s grandmother died in his arms after a successive heart attack and at the age of 15, Tommy’s turtle got eaten by his dog, his dog soon after perishing due to a sliver of turtle shell lodged in its throat. His grandmother’s death made Tommy realize that death was not just a word. His turtle’s passing was the first real pang of death he could feel and his dog’s death was his first experience of the excessive nature of death, that when it rains it pours. But it was with the death of his good friend Christoph that the full weight of his mortality fell in upon him and he knew, physically as well as spiritually, that his time was limited. His perception of those around him changed and he no longer fretted over petty instances but instead, enjoyed to the fullest every moment with every being he came into contact with. At the age of 20 he was said to be a wise somebody but in fact, simply carried with him daily the notion of his mortality. At 21, Tommy met a Hindu and at 22, met a Buddhist. Both men shook up his notion of death and instilled a sense of continuity in his mind, a life after death or a changing of energetic forms. At 22, Tommy traveled to Latin America and was imbued with the mysticism and morphation of life after death of the Nicaraguan peoples. And so it was that the more people Tommy met, the more he realized that a truth as self-evident as ‘we all die’ was in fact, just another half-truth impossible of ever fully being known due to the fact that very few have the luxury of dying and coming back to life to tell the tale.
It is with Mill’s last point for freedom of opinion and expression that I take opposition to. He states, “even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds” (Mill 116).
It is true that in the above test case of Tommy Reaper, his opinion that ‘we all die’ is contested by the Hindu, the Buddhist, and the mystics of Nicaragua. These contestations, however, do not lead Tommy to comprehend further the fact that we all die. Instead, the contestations lead Tommy to reevaluate his concept of death as half truth. Death, a universal condition of mankind, was a truth chosen for the opinion that ‘we all die’ seems to be widely accepted as true. However, hard-pressed and scrutinized, a truth as solid in our minds as ‘we all die’ crumbles at the feet of others who do not believe we die but instead live cyclical lives. The same contestations would be true if they were aimed at Hindu, Buddhist, or mystic beliefs. After all is said and done and an open and free discussion has taken place between contesting opinions, both parties are left knowing one thing: they know nothing. And truly, any given opinion when fully contested in the arena of worldly ideas will crumble if properly contested. The void is what is left, an unanswered space where all opinions falter and dissolve and Truths no longer exist. To even write ‘the void’ opens the idea up to contestation but what is a writer to do when he is chained to pen and paper? For ages, prophets and mystics have spoken of the void, the nothingness which cannot be put into words but must, for purposes of communication. This void that they have spoken of for millennia is the very void which swallows and dissects Mill’s notion of the existence of Truth. It is not possible to know a Truth applicable to all but perhaps only to know a Truth applicable to the many which in my mind, strips it of the title Truth with a capital ‘T’. However, as we live day to day we must try our best to attain Truth and as Mill states, ‘we [must neglect] nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us; if the lists are kept open, we may hope that, if there be a better truth, it will be found when the human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the meantime we may rely on having attained such approach to truth as is possible in our own day” (Mill 81). It is true that we must do our best to attain the truths that exist for mankind today but let us never fool ourselves into thinking we have achieved Truth for as stated earlier, Truths change and dissolve when pitted against the correct contesters.
There exists yet one more thing to consider in this paper and that is Mill’s idea that truths, if honestly true, will continue to pop up in the history of mankind and will eventually find a favorable time in which it can hold its own against the onslaughts of others (Mill 90). Take for instance the opinion that women are equal to men. Bitterly contested throughout the ages and lauded occasionally by a few brave women and men (John Stuart Mill included), the equality of women has, it seems, found its time to blossom and societies are now seeing the financial benefits surrounding the equality of women. Even so, is it true that women should be equal to men? Playing the devil’s advocate, I can think of innumerable geographical areas (Africa and Latin America being areas of personal experience) where women are not equal to men but instead hold different functions in the household and society. There is a level of respect allotted to both the tasks that men and women carry out. The women rule the households and play a key role in caring for the children and the men (occasionally) supply financial assistance. Now, a woman may find such tasks daunting and stifling to her personal growth and instances abound where such women fight an uphill battle to enter into politics or the workplace. But there are a plethora of men and women who do not believe men and women should be doing the same things. The question must then be asked: Is the opinion that women should be equal to men a Western Truth or is it a truth that can successfully be applied to all the world’s people? The mere fact that a recurring opinion finally finds breeding grounds in the minds of people does not alter the fact that it can also find itself in a time in which it will be supplanted by a ‘truer’ opinion. To then call anything Truth seems to be an absurdity.
It is with the aforementioned test cases and points that I close by saying that although Mill is quite correct in stating that freedom of opinion and expression leads to the “mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends)” (Mill 115), he is incorrect in assuming that there are true opinions. Even if we may “assume our opinion to be true for the guidance of our own conduct,” (Mill 79) we must never assume that there is a truth towards which all human beings are moving towards but instead, must realize that what is true today may be false tomorrow and that the notion of relativity of time may allow us to appreciate that truth as encapsulated in milliseconds, seconds, minutes, or days but never to appreciate it as TRUTH for infinity and beyond. Imbued with the search for truth, humans embrace their humanness in opening their minds and ears to the opinions of others and in doing so, expand their consciousness into an all-encompassing inclusiveness of this human experience.
Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Penguin Classics, 1974.
Discussion
No comments yet.