If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Philosophy: In reaction to Mill. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Philosophy: In reaction to Mill paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Philosophy: In reaction to Mill, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Philosophy: In reaction to Mill paper at affordable prices!
Throughout human history philosophy, religion and critical thinking has attempted to answer the question What about humanity makes us different to lesser beings? Mill argues, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."
To agree with Mill's statement one can argue that with dissatisfaction in human beings, one has the awareness and the faculties to realise that one is dissatisfied and then to perhaps do something to bring about a change so as to change the state of satisfaction. This awareness of dissatisfaction of a state of existence is an essential human characteristic and is very much along the same lines of "I think, therefore I am."
This higher consciousness or awareness, having human qualities or characteristics has many positives, which give us the ability to both individually and collectively advance the human race.
Custom Essays on Philosophy: In reaction to Mill
Dissatisfied humans are also preferable to contented pigs because dissatisfaction can be the motivation, the spur, and the drive to advance and prosper. Without this motivating factor, much of human innovation and invention would not have been achieved.
Furthermore along lines of dissatisfied humans being a better state than content pigs, Mill attributes this characteristic to being most likely stemming from a sense of human dignity, which according to Mill is also most likely in proportion to higher faculties. Thus using the above logic, it would also thus be preferable to be a dissatisfied human because it is symbolic of the dignity and humility of a conscientised human being.
One can maintain that it is better to be a human who is of advanced faculties and dissatisfied than a fool who is happy because the fool may not be aware of all the issues that may pertain to his existence, while the philosopher who is unhappy might have full awareness. Consequently, the fool may believe he is happy, when he really is not. It could just be that the fool does not have the full knowledge, consciousness and mental faculty to realise why he is happy, when in fact he really should not be the happiness or satisfaction could just be an illusion, a false knowledge of how the world is. But because the fool is a lower being, he does not realise this. Thus it is better to be a philosopher who is fully aware and not be happy because he has full awareness and the skill to realise that the world as it is. It is better to be dissatisfied because at least then any emotion is not illusionary or false and therefore the philosopher is not duped into false emotion, whether self-imposed or not.
The dissatisfied with an unhappy existence (versus satisfaction with an unhappy existence) will also be a drawing mechanism to generate solutions to change the situation so as to bring satisfaction, and so advance human knowledge.
However, when changes are brought, the philosopher would then have to guard against contentedness, as the new shape of existence could bring it and more people would be dissatisfied as satisfied.
Furthermore, if it is better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool (or pig) when one considers mental and intellectual enslavement attempts, co-option by authorization regimes, globalisation, rapid consumerism and the increasing loss of the spiritual and the intellectual in modern society. It is better to be the dissatisfied Socrates and possess the accompanying higher mental faculties. Thus possessing the ability to see through the attempts (when they are made) by modern dominant States to pull the wool over their citizen's eyes, or keep people satisfied through the consumer society, preventing civil society from functioning and questioning decisions made by government and State.
The dissatisfied Socrates in this instance has the ability to realise what the State would be attempting to do, or what the State is doing. He would be able to formulate counter measures, discuss issues, raise awareness, etc. In effect, the dissatisfied Socrates has the ability to raise awareness and generate critical thought (Habermas in MacIsaac, 16) which could bring other dissatisfied Socrates' into the equation, creating an activist movement and challenging the status quo, also providing a counter measure to the State which is vital to a healthy, intellectual, questioning modern society.
Besides political and civil society advantages to having dissatisfied Socrates in society, a dissatisfied Socrates with a questioning mind and non-contentedness is vital to the advancement of science, philosophy and the sum of human knowledge.
On the flip side when one considers why it is not better to be a dissatisfied Socrates one can argue that the lower being, with less need to question and with the disposition of being content and satisfied, is happy with where s/he is at, and is content with having all needs cared for. Thus, a question can be posed What is wrong with being content, even though you are not a dissatisfied Socrates?
Even if one is not fully aware of all the issues at stake, what would make one happy is different from what would make a dissatisfied Socrates happy (and easier to achieve), is there something wrong with being satisfied, even in this situation?
Is it not easier, and in a way more freeing to not be bogged down by issues, concerns and worries, and just be content with what ones life has to offer?
The best pop culture reference would be from the movie The Matix where the human beings of the earth are enslaved and controlled by machines. The humans that live in this "Matrix" are satisfied even though they are unaware that they are actually being controlled. Further using this example, one member of a small group of humans who have escaped this robot controlled life, actually wants to be happy and satisfied and chooses ignorance and thus makes a deal with the machines to be placed back into the false world and to not know the truth about the 'matrix'.
From this example one leads to ignorance is bliss. Choosing to not know the machine system is controlling him and that modern society is better for him as he is happier, even though he is fully aware that the 'matrix' is a human enslaver.
This is similar to the theme is George Orwell's 184, where one of the party in Oceania's slogan is IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. In this thinking, not knowing, not being aware of the issues and not being bogged down by issues and decisions is a freedom in its own way. The ignorance of these issues is a strength, so the ignorance provides a comfort of its own. Thus some people may choose (albeit unconsciously perhaps) to be the satisfied pig, which provides a liberty and freedom of its own kind.
The dissatisfied Socrates may be intellectually superior and Mill's statement certainly attests to that. Also, there is an implicit value judgement also being made that it is far better to be the Socrates than the fool/pig, and the former is what we would strive for. However, this may not be so. Advancement of human thought and intellectual capacity is what society teaches us, and thus positive attributes are attached to being a dissatisfied Socrates. There is though a converse perspective to this that does not have the positive judgements attached (of being a happy fool/pig). Because it does not have these positive attributes, it is not valued by society and is therefore seen as 'less good'. But why should we value one system above the other just because society has taught us so?
Why should there be a hierarchy of values in being one or the other? Can it not just be two different sets of values, which people choose?
One understands that Mill's research and views are informed by his personal subjectivity, philosophy and experiences and the way it impacted on his writing. Mill could have come from a background of affluence and protestant work ethic, which must have in some way had an effect on his views. The majority of society in the time of Mill (which still applies to modern day) was a poverty stricken one. An important question to ask of this type of society is if they had the capacity, opportunity, skills and above all the luxury to become the dissatisfied Socrates. The obvious answer is that they do not. According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Zimbardo, 1) a society in this situation would mostly be worried about their need for food and water and once that that need has been fulfilled they would move up to being worried about their safety and protection. And once that this was fulfilled they would move higher up the hierarchy and so on. But there needs would never be fulfilled enough for them to go very high up the order and they would never reach 'self-actualisation' and become the dissatisfied Socrates as they would have greater needs more important to them.
Finally in conclusion and in answer to Mill's statement I agree that the 'ideal' state for human endeavour is to operate on the side of the dissatisfied Socrates because that is how humanity advances, progresses and develops as well as what separates us from lesser beings and animals. But this conclusion is drawn with the qualifiers that when being a dissatisfied Socrates it does not affect one in a negative manner so that it leads to becoming something bad so as to be satisfied with ones situation such, for example, as in the case of Hitler who caused so much destruction so that he could be satisfied, and also not all of society has the luxury and capability to become the dissatisfied Socrates because they have other more important needs in their view.
References
Humphries, B. (17) From Critical thought to Emancipatory Action Contradictory Research Goals? Sociology Research Online. Available http//socresonline.organisation.uk/socresonline//1/.html [8/0/001]
MacIsaac. (16). The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Sorce Unknown. Available http//physics.nau.edu/~danmac [8/0/001]
Mill, JS. 18-Century. Utilitarianism Publishers Unknown
Orwell, G. 14. Nineteen Eight-Four. Secker and Warburg Publishers.
Zimbardo, P.G. 1. Psychology and Life. New York Harper Collins
Please note that this sample paper on Philosophy: In reaction to Mill is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Philosophy: In reaction to Mill, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on Philosophy: In reaction to Mill will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment from and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
