An Analysis Of John Stuart Mill's 'Not A Living Truth'

The truth can also be attained through discrediting a false opinion. There is value in being disproved for the person whose opinion is false. To explain, to believe with one hundred percent certainty that one is right is to believe that one is “infallible”, or, incapable of being wrong and this notion may lead to the halt of growth for a society ( Mill 53). Without having the ability to individually form opinions one might be inclined to simply follow the ideas and opinions of others and therefore no growth can be made individually and collectively as a society since the same (possibly incorrect) opinion is being propagated to the nations. This being said, when one can form opinions themselves instead of blindly conforming to those of others, entire groups of people can be corrected and that which is right can eventually become ubiquitous This argument brings forth the compelling notion that allowing individuals to speak freely could lead to the widespread acknowledgment of …show more content…
In the instance where the wrong opinion is refuted and the correct theory or idea is discovered, Mills still holds firm to the necessity of individual opinions. He states that, “however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as dead dogma, not a living truth” (Mills 34). In my interpretation of this statement, Mill is implying that beliefs need to be actively discussed in order to be seen as alive and if it ideas stops being debated simply because one is collectively recognized to be the right or truthful then it will never be discussed again and its meaning and the passion that comes from discussion will be forever lost. In reference to the argument of dead dogma and passively accepting what is told of one, Mill looks onward to Christianity. In essence, Mill illustrates that there are certain moral principles that Christians believe should be upheld such as generousity, humility, and not to pass