MILL, FATHER OF MILL

This is yet another entry stub for someone who requires a separate entry and did not have one before. James Mill (1773-1836) definitely needs one, and his appearance in a supporting role in his son’s entry, later on in this section is not a good excuse to deny him his own place under the sun of the Significant Others. After all, Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy, mentions him numerous times, not all of them on account of John Stuart. And also, James’s personal entry in my Webster’s Biographical Dictionary is so respectably large, dwarfing many such entries of the original denizens of the present section, that one need argue no further about the absolute necessity of James Mill’s inclusion here.

Having called it a “stub” already, I am following the stub rules in the writing of this entry. First comes the entry from the above-mentioned Webster’s, then a few quotes from Russell, all amassed her for reference and as a base material for the future proper rewriting of this entry. Here is the Webster’s entry:

“Mill, James. 1773-1836. Scottish philosopher, historian, and economist in England; father of John Stuart Mill. Son of a shoemaker; to London (1802) with Sir John Stuart, M.P.; became editor of St. James Chronicle (1805), and wrote for Edinburgh Review (1808-1813) and other reviews to support his family; he spent twelve years on his History of India (1818); appointed official in East India Company (1819), rose to examiner and head of office (1830). Met Jeremy Bentham (1808), adopted his principles, became his companion and chief promulgator of Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy in England; contributed utilitarian articles to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1816-23) and to Westminster Review, Benthamite organ (from 1824). As head of association for setting up ‘chrestomathic’ school for higher education, took leading part in the founding of London University (1825). Known as founder of philosophic radicalism, author of Elements of Political Economy, intended for the education of his eldest son and based on Ricardo (1821), Analysis of the Mind, his magnum opus, providing in associationism psychological basis for utilitarianism (1829), and Fragment on Mackintosh, supporting doctrine that morality is based on utility (1835).”

The following are some excerpts from Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, devoted to James Mill:

“…James Mill took Helvétius as his guide in the education of his son John Stuart…” (From Chapter XXI: Currents of Thought in the Nineteenth Century; page 722.)

“…Bentham was at first almost exclusively interested in law; gradually, as he grew older, his interests widened and his opinions became more subversive. After 1808, he was a republican, a believer in the equality of women, an enemy of imperialism, and an uncompromising democrat. Some of these opinions he owed to James Mill. Both believed in the omnipotence of education…” (Ibid. page 723.)

“…Tendencies to enthusiasm… existed in Bentham and John Stuart Mill, but not in Malthus or James Mill …” (Ibid. page 724.)

“…Somebody seems to have once mentioned Kant to James Mill, who after a cursory inspection remarked: ‘I see well enough what poor Kant would be at.’ But this degree of recognition is exceptional [among the British philosophers throughout the period from Kant to Nietzsche]; in general, there is a complete silence about the Germans…” (From Chapter XXVI: The Utilitarians; page 773.)

“…It was through the influence of James Mill that Bentham was induced to take sides in practical politics. James Mill was twenty-five years younger than Bentham and an ardent disciple of his doctrines, but he was also an active Radical. Bentham gave Mill a house (which had belonged to Milton), and assisted him financially while he wrote a history of India. When this history was finished the East India Company gave James Mill a post as they would do afterwards to his son until their abolition as a sequel to the Mutiny. James Mill greatly admired Condorcet and Helvétius. Like all Radicals of that period, he believed in the omnipotence of education. He practiced his theories on his son John Stuart Mill, with results partly good, partly bad. The most important bad result was that John Stuart could never quite shake off his influence, even when he perceived that his father’s outlook had been narrow.

James Mill, like Bentham, considered pleasure the only good, and pain the only evil. But, like Epicurus, he valued moderate pleasure the most. He thought intellectual enjoyments the best, and temperance the chief virtue. ‘The intense was with him a bye-word of scornful disapprobation,’ says his son, who then adds that he objected to the modern stress laid upon feeling. Like the whole utilitarian school, he was utterly opposed to every form of romanticism. He thought politics could be governed by reason, and he  expected men’s opinions to be determined by the weight of evidence. If opposing sides in a controversy are presented with an equal skill, there is a moral certainty-- so he held-- that the greater number will judge right. His outlook was limited by the poverty of his emotional nature, but within his limitations he had the merits of industry, disinterestedness, and rationality.” (Ibid. page 776-777.)

“Although Owen was a friend of Bentham, who had invested a considerable sum in Owen’s business, the Philosophical Radicals did not like his new doctrines, in fact, the advent of Socialism made them less Radical and less philosophical than they had been. Hodgskin secured a certain following in London, and James Mill was horrified. He wrote:

‘Their notions of property look ugly; … they seem to think that it should not exist, and that the existence of it is an evil to them. … The fools, not to see that what they madly desire would be such a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring upon them.’

This letter, written in 1831, may be taken as the beginning of the long war between Capitalism and Socialism. In a later letter, James Mill attributes the doctrine to the ‘mad nonsense’ of Hodgskin, and adds: ‘These opinions, if they were to spread, would be the subversion of civilized society; worse than the overwhelming deluge of Huns and Tartars.’” (Ibid. page 781-782.)

…Well, ecce James Mill…