THE LANGUAGE OF MILL AND CARLYLE

(the metaphor...)

by Francine R. Hall, UIC

J. S. Mill begins his discourse on utilitarianism with a passing glance at the controversy surrounding ethics and is predictably followed by general remarks on the necessity for establishing first principles, whether they are formed intuitively (*a priori*) or from observation and experience (Mill's preference). The first chapter of *Utilitarianism* is appropriately titled "General Remarks," and its deductive form is reflected in the language used, which is general and abstract. The few illustrations used to clarify scientific induction and the lack of direct proof when considering ultimate ends are, for example, mathematics and music respectively. Such abstract examples (because the form of mathematics and music is abstract) coincide with Mill's discussion of the method of ethical discourse: "Our moral faculty, according to all those of its interpreters who are entitled to the name of thinkers, supplies us only with the general principles of moral judgments; it is a branch of our reason, not of our sensitive faculty, and must be looked to for the abstract doctrines of morality, not for perception of it in the concrete." (*Utilitarianism*, pp. 4-5)

The first emphasis, then, is placed on the necessity for a methodology which, as Mill points out, is lacking in ethical philosophy in general. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, finds its source in the principle of utility, or the "greatest happiness principle," this universal first principle playing an indispensable part in its existence and continuing success.

However, as the next chapter, "What Utilitarianism Is," suggests, Mill no longer describes, in general terms, his ordering principle but instead focuses, in the scientific, inductive manner on his terms, in this instance, "utilitarianism." Once it is correctly defined, utilitarianism can then be "sanctioned" and put to the test (Chapters III and IV respectively). That Mill attempts to define utility is a strong indication that Mill is an empiricist--and the process used in arriving at a definition is one of clearing away its erroneous connotations. In scientific terms, the data must be filtered and organized until the word and its meaning (reality) exist in a one-to-one correspondence. Mill remarks on the general misconceptions about utility: "having caught up the word 'utilitarian,' while knowing nothing whatever about it but its sound, [the common herd] habitually express by it the rejection or the neglect of pleasure in some of its forms: of beauty, of ornament, or of amusement." (*Utilitarianism*, p. 9)

Generally speaking, this emphasis on order, first principles, and precise terms is, therefore, a reflection not only of Mill's faith in accurately perceiving an objective reality "out there" but of his static form as well. Words (such as utility and justice) have definite boundaries and one precise meaning, and the examples serving as illustrations of the terms under discussion are either abstract or general. For example, Mill's concrete illustration of equating legal rights with justice is fairly typical of his prose style: "...it is mostly considered unjust to deprive anyone of his personal liberty, his property, or any other thing which belongs to him by laws. Here, therefore, is one instance of the application of the terms 'just' and 'unjust' in a perfectly definite sense, namely, that it is just to respect, unjust to violate the *legal rights* of anyone." (*Utilitarianism*, p. 54) Note that Mill, the empiricist, emphasizes the "perfectly definite sense" of legal rights in relation to justice.

That Mill, for the most part, avoids specific, "poetical" images in such an essay as "Utilitarianism" finally suggests what his views toward art and his own writings are; namely, his works are a means to create action by appealing to the reader's reason, whereas art is an inward inducement to "cultivate the feelings." During his mental crisis, for example, Mill reflects in the *Autobiography*: "I had now learnt by experience that the passive susceptibilities needed to be cultivated as well as the active capacities, and required to be nourished and enriched as well as guided." (*Autobiography*, p. 86) Mill then turns to the poetry of Wordsworth. Wordsworth's belief that art is created first in emotional excitement and given final shape in "tranquil contemplation" is in keeping with Mill's own belief that poetry is an inwardly directed medium. And Wordsworth himself shifts toward a poetic language which mirrors general nature by "sensible," concrete images. He writes in the preface to the "Second Edition of Lyrical Ballads": "The reader will find that personifications of abstract ideas rarely occur in these volumes, and are utterly rejected, as an ordinary device to elevate the style and raise it above prose. My purpose was to imitate, and, as far as possible, to adopt the very language of men; and assuredly such personifications do not make any natural or regular part of that language." (*Critical Theory Since Plato*, p. 435) But, as Wordsworth points out later, precision of language is necessary to mirror the world-at-large *and* "to excite rational sympathy." Perhaps Mill's "cultivation of the feelings" can be interpreted as the "cultivation of rational sympathy," and if this is the case, then art, for Mill, is ultimately capable of inducing the "passive susceptibilities" into action also--though, of course, Mill favors art which is largely anti-metaphorical.

Thus, "poetical figures" such as metaphors are carefully avoided in Mill's own writings because they detract the reader from practical action. and as Wordsworth implies and Mill endorses, metaphors are too specific and imprecise to reflect general nature accurately; Mill does not want such attributes in his logical arguments and essays. Interestingly enough, however, the one "journey" metaphor Mill does use in *Utilitarianism* (pp. 31-32) is merely a means of illustrating the common experience of extracting general principles from every-day occurrences so that the importance of secondary principles can be verified in general. In this case, metaphor illustrates the *process* of induction, which is *not* very "poetical."

Mill is the scientist; Carlyle is the prophet. And prophets do not derive their knowledge of the world through reason alone. Like poets, or artists in general, the prophet intuits his knowledge and conveys it to the world by creating a unique, i.e., individualized, form. Carlyle does this in *Characteristics* by his use of metaphor. Of course, his use of "poetical images" does not mean the artist is passive and contemplative. Rather, the artist becomes a prophet-figure who warns the reader away from the "disease" of self-contemplation in philosophy and the "self-devouring" analytical habit in "tasters" and reviewers of literature. Carlyle clearly emphasizes the need for action: "In Action alone can we have certainty. Nay properly Doubt is the indispensable inexhaustible material whereon Action works, which Action has to fashion into Certainty and Reality; only on a canvas of Darkness, such is man's way of being, could the many-coloured picture of our Life paint itself and shine." (*Characteristics*, pp. 17-18)

Carlyle's use of a canvas as the concrete image of the medium for Action is an important poetic 'figure' because it provides us with an insight into how the metaphor functions for Carlyle. In short, the metaphor is a precise, controlled poetic tool used to stir the reader's perceptions and to initiate action. Like the canvas, the metaphor is a creation, although it is in well-defined boundaries. Such limits help to fashion action into "Certainty and Reality." Carlyle, for example, observes that although the English Philosopher Thomas Hope was a "Dogmatic" or "Constructive" philosopher, his prose style was chaotic, thus indicating the need for precision in language. Carlyle writes of Hope: "[His works are a] monstrous Anomaly, where all sciences are heaped and huddled together, and the principles of all are, with a child-like innocence, plied hither and thither, or wholly abolished in case of need." (*Characteristics*, p. 23)

Carlyle's own organizing principle, on the other hand, is well-defined. He begins his discourse with the specific "disease" metaphor which serves as the controlling image, the *leit-motif*, for the essay--and the *motif* becomes the means for creating order and establishing an organic, not static, form. Carlyle reflects on the preciseness of the image of Society as a "collective individual': "To figure Society as endowed with life is scarcely a metaphor; but rather the statement of a fact by such imperfect methods as language affords." (*Characteristics*, p. 9) Later, the "statement of a fact" becomes the "great Truth" discoverable only through "figures" (metaphors): "Under such figures [Night and Day; Silence and Harmony; Death and Life], since except in figures there is no speaking of the invisible, have men endeavoured to express a great Truth;--a Truth, in our Times, as nearly as is perhaps possible, forgotten by the most; which nevertheless continues forever true, forever all-important, and will one day, under new figures, be again brought home to the bosoms of all." (*Characteristics*, p. 12) It is here that the basic difference between Carlyle and Mill becomes clear: the first principles of any theory best communicated, for Mill, through precise, though general terms, become, for Carlyle, "Invisible Truths" conveyed best through the metaphor.

Because *Characteristics* relies so heavily on metaphor, especially the "disease" figure, to express what could not according to Carlyle, otherwise be accurately conveyed, the metaphor ceases merely to illustrate his ideas and therefore ceases to be metaphor. Instead, the health-disease metaphor becomes a symbol because it embodies his ideas. In fact, the recurring "sick-society" *motif* almost designates *Characteristics* as Allegory since it is so inherent a part of the organic structure of the essay--although, since Carlyle's ideas could not exist without the symbol, *Characteristics* cannot be accurately labeled as allegory.

Both Mill and Carlyle ridicule the "destructive" speculative philosophers of the nineteenth century. Mill would readily agree to Carlyle's statement: "Profitable Speculation were this: What is to be done; and How is it to be done? But with us not so much of the What can be got sight of." (*Characteristics*, p. 18) Both assent whole-heartedly to the need for action. In this sense, the "What is to be done?" question is asked by them simultaneously. However, the "How is it to be done?" question certainly causes a split between the two men, especially when it is aimed at their very different forms of expression: Mill, the logician, believes language should be general and imitative, accurately mirroring general nature / society; Carlyle, the prophet, has faith in the metaphor which, he feels, just as accurately reflects "Truth" and the "Invisible."

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Hazard, editor. *Critical Theory Since Plato*.
    New York:  Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971.

Carlyle, Thomas.  *Sartor Resartus*.  New
    York:  Odyssey Press, Inc., 1937.

Mill, John Stuart.  *Autobiography*.  Boston:
    Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969.

____________.  *Utilitarianism*.  New York:
    Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1957.

 

 

 

some afterthoughts:

the metaphor-- in a nutshell -- It really shouldn't come as a surprise that John Stuart Mill, as an empiricist, would largely shun metaphors while Thomas Carlyle embraced them. They are obviously opposing figures both in terms of language and ideas. In the latter case, Carlyle's neo-Fascism is well known. However, both men had one thing in common. They suffered from "disease" in one form or another. It is common knowledge that Mill's overbearing father contributed to his famous "nervous breakdown" when as a child Mill studied advanced adult-level academics. He was obviously a genius. Carlyle complained incessantly of stomach ailments, and his writings became more erratic as he got older. Psychologists have had a field day with both of them!

copyright F R Hall

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

John Stuart Mill, public domain, courtesy of Ramon Alcoberro

_________

Thomas Carlyle, public domain, courtesy of answers.com



Copyright Steve Dale 2008-2009  All rights reserved.