Analyze the Quote?

Question

“The principle itself of dogmatic religion, dogmatic morality, dogmatic philosophy, is what requires to be rooted out; not any particular manifestation of that principle” John Stuart Mill

Answer 1

The very corner-stone of an education intended to form great minds, must be the recognition of the principle, that the object is to call forth the greatest possible quantity of intellectual power, and to inspire the intensest love of truth: and this without a particle of regard to the results to which the exercise of that power may lead, even though it should conduct the pupil to opinions diametrically opposite to those of his teachers. We say this, not because we think opinions unimportant, but because of the immense importance which we attach to them; for in proportion to the degree of intellectual power and love of truth which we succeed in creating, is the certainty that (whatever may happen in any one particular instance) in the aggregate of instances true opinions will be the result; and intellectual power and practical love of truth are alike impossible where the reasoner is shown his conclusions, and informed beforehand that he is expected to arrive at them.

Answer 2

Since John Mill was a 19th century philosopher, political economist, & member of Parliament and a " Liberal Thinker, and an advocate of " Utilitarianism", it stands to reason that he would not in any way be supportive of anything based on a system of beliefs which cannot be proven, like the existence of God. I mean proven in some scientific manner. Keep in mind he is a liberal thinker, which explains a lot. Most liberals are against everything to do with the Church, and all in favor of the theory that whatever feels good, do it ! Utilitarianism means getting satifaction from preferences or interests. Mill was also an advocate of Empiricism, which is a theory of knowledge, not accounting for innate ideas, which are things people are born with rather than learned through experience.
This Quote is denouncing any principle or system of beliefs not based on something that is provable, in other words, he wanted to "root" out religion, because it's unprovable rantings or, dogma.

Answer 3

I'll answer with another quote.
"..in any given situation there is always more than one way to view a problem. What's true for the group is also true for the individual-overspecialize and you breed in weakness."
-Motoko Kusanagi "Ghost in the Shell"
When people and groups adhere around dogmas, they become rigid. They can't think for themselves or look at and question their own actions when they should. People can rationalize any brutal action in the name of their dogma. The gleefully follow their leader over a cliff or drink poison Kool-Aid because someone in authority told them do do it.
Mills is applying this to any dogma and I think he's very correct.
I've read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" side by side with Karl Marx's "Das Capital". Both were taken and turned into dogmatic orthodoxies at the expense of many populations. Free market Laissez-fair capitalism is a good idea that has indeed "lifted many boats" with it's rising tide. But that doesn't mean that Smith got his idea right first time out. Keynes adjusted it and the Keynesian record is one of decades of success in stabilizing economies.
It's those that insist on capitalism as a dogma, (Enron, Ayn Rand, Haliburton, Wall Street Journal Opinion section), that have a history of failure.
JS Mill was right and you don't have to look any further than todays economic news for proof of that!

Answer 4

Nice one! I LIKE it... :)

I feel like Mill is saying that the "WHY" of any DOGMA (any prescribed rule, or axiomatic moral prescription, that is, a rule which is followed ONLY because it is a rule, but followed not for any other real reason...) is itself something which needs to be considered and analyzed...

For catholics: "WHY" do catholics strive to follow christ's example (since it is a prescribed moral order for them to follow Him)

or for Americans: "WHY" is it ok for Americans to think that black people are essentially "different" from white people (Since the difference between the races is a dogmatic principle in America, for example...)

Answer 5

And he who, having a sense of beautiful things has no sense of absolute beauty, or who, if another lead him to a knowledge of that beauty is unable to follow — of such an one I ask, Is he awake or in a dream only? Reflect: is not the dreamer, sleeping or waking, one who likens dissimilar things, who puts the copy in the place of the real object?

I should certainly say that such an one was dreaming.

But take the case of the other, who recognises the existence of absolute beauty and is able to distinguish the idea from the objects which participate in the idea, neither putting the objects in the place of the idea nor the idea in the place of the objects — is he a dreamer, or is he awake?

He is wide awake.

And may we not say that the mind of the one who knows has knowledge, and that the mind of the other, who opines only, has opinion.

Certainly.

Answer 6

It means that the inflexible intolerance of one religion is not the main problem. The underlying philosophy of all these faiths that sanctions such intolerance and dogmatism (IE, we're completely right and they are completely wrong) is and that is what needs to be dispensed with.