In Defense of John Stuart Mill

It is an unfortunate result of the quasi-monopoly of the major organs of discussion held by the collectivist Liberals for the past generation, that those who hold to the great tradition of Western civilization have been deprived of the means to carry on the dialectic between the different strands of that tradition. Inhibited by the lack of a forum, and also by an understandable reluctance to divert energy from the primary endeavor of resisting the marshalled hosts of error, we have tended to gloss over differences, the clarification of which can only strengthen our common purpose and enrich, the tradition for which we stand.

For that tradition is not a monolithic “party line.” Its very existence takes the form, in large part, of a long discourse between man and man and between God and man. The maintenance of that tradition requires a continuation of discourse, pursued with respect for the accumulated wisdom of the past and with responsibility toward the dictates of reason. Such discourse strives toward Truth with the humility to realize that while Truth is objective and eternal, the quest for it by man’s finite understanding is unending; that while Truth is not available anew to each generation and each man, independent of the support of tradition, neither has it been at some point in the past given once and for all, so that there is nothing left to do but pass it on from generation to generation.

FS

About the Author

Frank S. Meyer

Frank S. Meyer was a senior editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

It is an unfortunate result of the quasi-monopoly of the major organs of discussion held by the collectivist Liberals for the past generation, that those who hold to the great tradition of Western civilization have been deprived of the means to carry on the dialectic between the different strands of that tradition. Inhibited by the lack of a forum, and also by an understandable reluctance to divert energy from the primary endeavor of resisting the marshalled hosts of error, we have tended to gloss over differences, the clarification of which can only strengthen our common purpose and enrich, the tradition for which we stand.

For that tradition is not a monolithic “party line.” Its very existence takes the form, in large part, of a long discourse between man and man and between God and man. The maintenance of that tradition requires a continuation of discourse, pursued with respect for the accumulated wisdom of the past and with responsibility toward the dictates of reason. Such discourse strives toward Truth with the humility to realize that while Truth is objective and eternal, the quest for it by man’s finite understanding is unending; that while Truth is not available anew to each generation and each man, independent of the support of tradition, neither has it been at some point in the past given once and for all, so that there is nothing left to do but pass it on from generation to generation.