Mill on Truth

How does John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty suggest we arrive at truth?

Mill encourages a diversity of opinions, which he believes brings individuals closer to discovering truth. By first establishing that to be fallible is to be human and that truth is often in shades of grey than in black and white, Mill makes the argument to thoughtfully consider all opinions, as they may never be known to hold any truth at all if silenced. This later becomes the basis of his stance on individuality and its relationship to progress; figures like Socrates and Jesus were condemned during their time for “impiety and immorality” in Socrates’ case and as a “blasphemer” in Jesus’ case (36). Persecution for the ideas they held threw their truths into the shadows, as the world around them was not yet poised to embrace them; by subjecting them to death - the ultimate suppression of opinion - those responsible for killing Socrates and Jesus acted in place of an infallible authority, which Mill argues does not exist in mankind. This is a point in which Mill writes of the limitations of truth, which does not have “any inherent power denied to error, of prevailing against the dungeon and the stake” (40).

In order to prevent truths from becoming “dead dogma” - that is, left unquestioned - Mill believes we must keep truth open to further scrutiny, even the well-established principles of Newtonian philosophy (33, 45). Truths and opinions are kept alive through argumentation; whether these opposing views are false is irrelevant, as that would only promote truth to spread and be better understood. One strategy Mill espouses is a focus on studying and answering the opposition, whether in reality or imagination, if arguing against those who sincerely hold opposing beliefs is not feasible. This is accomplished through studying the case of one’s adversary with as much detail as one’s argument, similar to Cicero’s strategy in reaching the truth (46). He believes the implementation of this strategy to be rare, even among the educated, which increases the risk of many ideas to merely be “retained by rote” (49). Through these continued efforts of refutation and rejoinder, an opinion may be strengthened and kept alive by its proponents. If it is true by nature, it assists opponents who may hold partial truths themselves to discover truth, and those who hold falsehoods to gravitate towards making arguments founded on facts and sound reasoning. Like an unfettered flow of water, truth can effectively spread out to people that engage in such argumentation, which Mill believes is beneficial for developed societies. This becomes part of his reasoning in allowing ideas to be spread freely, so long as they do not incite violence or, in practice, infringe on others’ rights (66). Mill encourages a diversity of opinions, which he believes brings individuals closer to discovering truth. By first establishing that to be fallible is to be human and that truth is often in shades of grey than in black and white, Mill makes the argument to thoughtfully consider all opinions, as they may never be known to hold any truth at all if silenced. This later becomes the basis of his stance on individuality and its relationship to progress; figures like Socrates and Jesus were condemned during their time for “impiety and immorality” in Socrates’ case and as a “blasphemer” in Jesus’ case (36). Persecution for the ideas they held threw their truths into the shadows, as the world around them was not yet poised to embrace them; by subjecting them to death - the ultimate suppression of opinion - those responsible for killing Socrates and Jesus acted in place of an infallible authority, which Mill argues does not exist in mankind. This is a point in which Mill writes of the limitations of truth, which does not have “any inherent power denied to error, of prevailing against the dungeon and the stake” (40).

In order to prevent truths from becoming “dead dogma” - that is, left unquestioned - Mill believes we must keep truth open to further scrutiny, even the well-established principles of Newtonian philosophy (33, 45). Truths and opinions are kept alive through argumentation; whether these opposing views are false is irrelevant, as that would only promote truth to spread and be better understood. One strategy Mill espouses is a focus on studying and answering the opposition, whether in reality or imagination, if arguing against those who sincerely hold opposing beliefs is not feasible. This is accomplished through studying the case of one’s adversary with as much detail as one’s argument, similar to Cicero’s strategy in reaching the truth (46). He believes the implementation of this strategy to be rare, even among the educated, which increases the risk of many ideas to merely be “retained by rote” (49). Through these continued efforts of refutation and rejoinder, an opinion may be strengthened and kept alive by its proponents. If it is true by nature, it assists opponents who may hold partial truths themselves to discover truth, and those who hold falsehoods to gravitate towards making arguments founded on facts and sound reasoning. Like an unfettered flow of water, truth can effectively spread out to people that engage in such argumentation, which Mill believes is beneficial for developed societies. This becomes part of his reasoning in allowing ideas to be spread freely, so long as they do not incite violence or, in practice, infringe on others’ rights (66).