I think Mill’s “genius” does not compare to Cicero’s good man skilled in speaking because the genius’ primary skill is to break free of the molds which society forces on people. Mill defines genuis as “more individual than any other people” who are not capable of fitting themselves into the standard boxes which society uses to subvert the masses. (p.62). I fail to see how this is beneficial, but Mill asserts that this type of person is absolutely necessary in society. I think Mill is so focused on finding a reason why it is detrimental for people to conform to society’s will, that he creates arguments for the preservation of this small minority but can’t give hard evidence as to why he is right. I realize Mill is all about people living with as few moral obligations as possible, but can we replace order with originality and expect to yield the same cohesive society? Mill says the genuis’ are sometimes considered “wild and erratic” for their relentless pursuit of nonconformity; this is fine, but while they are not conforming to the ties of getting a job, becoming parents, or making tough decisions to help guide the people, someone else is going it. To me the genius just sounds reckless and irresponsible. One day the genius must grow up.

Progression. I like the idea of progression. I also greatly value the idea of individuality, but I almost feel that progression and individuality are inevitable. The Genius has always existed, the progressive thinker has always existed, and the individual (even if he greatly values tradition) has always existed. Even if they haven't been valued in their own lifetime, they none the less existed. I think placing emphaisis on these qualities is even a great thing, but don't ignore the fact that society needs some conformity in order to function in a non-chaotic way. We also gain a sense of place, I think, from being like other people. A thing I also feel is of great value. I'm rambling... its early.
amy_lee

For all his absolutist views on freedom of expression, Mill draws a rather arbitrary line concerning the education of youth: "people should be so taught and trained in youth as to know and benefit by the ascertained results of human experience. But it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of his faculties, to use and interpret experience in his own way." (55)
Is this not blatantly inconsistent? The reason I dislike it is that he does not go into what is different about children/adolescents (in terms of character) that requires an outside authority to partially restrict their freedom of thought. Although we all probably grant that children need a good education, what about if some "childish" behavioral characteristics stick in some degree with people if they do not grow up into the rationalists Mill hopes? Who is to determine when one has reached full use of his faculties? This seems like a flaw, because it could be a loophole used by society to more restrictively regulate behavior but stay within the confines of Mill's philosophy. The other problem, of course, lies in who is to decide on the educational system. Mill spends so much time attacking the majority's complacent dogmatic understanding of tradition that for him to turn around and endorse it as the best vehicle for child-raising would require some explanation. But leaving kids to their own thoughts and explorations is not only potentially risky if unregulated, but could have significant nonconformist consequences on the next generation.

Have you heard that Cake song that goes something along the line of "sheep go to heaven and goats go to hell"? I think it's called "Sheep Go to Heaven and Goats Go To Hell" actually. At any rate, the video is this cartoon showing this guy that just doesn't seem to have a niche - is not like anyone else, and in the end he actually kills all the cheerleaders and conformists landing him in a miserable hell. I think Mill, although not advocating retaliatory mass murder, is rooting for the goats.

I think Mill would not see ADHD or OCD as a disorder but perhaps a gift. I don't know if you know anyone that has a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder, but if you do you realize that it's not that they can't pay attention to anything. They are not deficient in attention, rather they only pay attention to the things that interest them - usually things other people don't value. They are impulsive as all get out. Generally speaking, they have a lot of gusto. Add a sprinkle of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and voila: a savant. Okay, perhaps a bit simplistic or else an exaggeration. I know plenty of unremarkable people with both supposed disorders, but you get the idea: energy, passion, coloring outside the lines.

I wonder what Mill would have to say about technology and globalization. If he was bitching about the French losing their Frenchness or the English their Englishness back then, what would he say now where all the images and ads are basically American.

I think there's still a hint of "common good" in that Mill thinks it's in everyone's best interest to give these iconoclasts the freedom to promote new, original ideas. Likewise, he never maintains that individuals should ignore experience (traditions/customs). What's missing? Perhaps moral responsibility for the actions that result from original thought is missing, although he does touch on that a bit when he talks about impulses not just leading to bad but possibly leading to good instead. Is the idea of equity missing? I think it may be. I hope not, though, because I'm a bit attached to that idea at the moment.

This frustrates me. I am not likely to be 'influenced' so easily... but I love Isocrates...and I love this section of Mills. In my civic humanist ideology, can not I choose to accept this verbal throwup, even though it sort of wavers from a lot of my other beliefs? Is a virtuous genius possible? I think this can support that it is possible: "He must use observation to see, reasoning and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided, firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision." (56) To be an individualist, pursue the good, gain experience, explore new thoughts and challenge everything is just what I want in life.... well and an island. Good night!

On pages 62&63 Mill says that 'The first service which originality has he render them (the unoriginal masses) is that of opening their eyes. Ghandi said it this way-by being brave enough to be only that which I am, I will give others the courage to be that which they really are. I have to agree with Mill here because when society is all doing one thing (good or bad) it takes a huge amount of courage to be different. I also liked the part about how If no hook ppl's feet are alike why should we act as if their souls are alike? There is good in learning from the wiser and more experienced, but no one else will ever be you. So take it upon yourself to be yourself with All that is in you:)

It seems Mill's rhetor would be a near opposite of Cicero's. While the civic humanists thought that a rhetor could argue best by drawing on tradition, Mill prefers a nonconformist who can acknowledge tradition but also recognize why certain traditions exist and when to act against them.

He says, of tradition, "Where not the person's own character but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the chief principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress" (54). He feels there should be some value placed in individual sponteneity, which society summarily crushes. But he does acknowledge tradition as a bank of "evidence of what [people's] experience has taught them," perhaps a shared bank of knowledge from which the individual can draw selectively (55). Simply, the same body of tradition will not apply to all, and we saw this happen in our civic humanist discussions when you could argue from two opposing traditions.

So the good liberal rhetor must acknowledge tradition but break from it when appropriate, and he must certainly not let "the world...choose his plan of life for him," lest he be "ape-like" (56).

It's ok for the good rhetor to act on desires and impulses, Mill says, as long as they don't infringe upon other's rights, because a person acting of their own volition displays strong character. He talks about this for a while and bashes the Calvinists, which is always fun, but that doesn't have much to do with the model rhetor. The point is individuality--Mill's model rhetor must have it and act upon it.

The people he claims will "discover new truths" or "commence new practices and set the example of more enlightened conduct and better taste and sense"--the visionaries--are the people who dare to act as original individuals. They also "keep the life in those [good things] which already existed" (61). Mill claims that these people prevent societies from degenerating into the mechanical.

And a society must cultivate its geniuses--"Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom"--so it seems that Mill would rather rely upon the select salt of the earth than the civic humanists, who would have their rhetors represent society, not challenge it (62).

Since Mill spends the whole of Chapter 3 fighting the scourge of conformity, it seems his main contention with the civic humanists would be the notion of consensus. In Mill's system, the society loses its autonomy in a way--it is no longer able to decide what it wants to be, as a society. But individuals are granted freedom to think and the foundations for possibly becoming a genius and doing all the progressive things that geniuses do.