Oh, if only Milton knew what his name was used for now. He's always been a symbol of freedom (see Wordsworth's poem to him, Oscar Wilde's prison poem to Milton, too--although I'm not sure Milton would be thrilled to have his name used to defend homosexuals). If only Milton knew that this little pamphlet were to be used to defend atheism, pornography, and all other nonsense, all under the heading of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_en...But Milton favored no such BS. I don't think Christopher Hitchens and his ilk have actually READ Milton (they just name-drop smugly). Milton approved of banning Catholic writings, "popery," as he puts it, "that also which is impious or evil absolutely either against faith or maners no law can possibly permit, that intends not to unlaw it self." So, Hitchens and his legion are stupid. I'll side with Milton on this--there are things you can allow ("those neighboring differences, or rather indifferences, are what I speak of, whether in some point of doctrine or of discipline, which though they may be many, yet need not interrupt the unity of Spirit, if we could but find among us the bond of peace.") but some things you cannot.In fact, most of Milton's arguments are not arguments at all but are appeals to national pride, flying the flag of Wycliffe, and spitting on Catholics--referring to censorship as "Dominican," "Spanish," "papist," and any other names, referring explicitly to the Council of Trent. In other words, Milton says, you don't wanna be like THOSE guys, do you?Milton's most famous passage is also rife with fallacy: "He that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits and seeming pleasures, and yet abstain, and yet distinguish, and yet prefer that which is truly better, he is the true wayfaring Christian. I cannot praise a fugitive and cloister'd vertue, unexercis'd & unbreath'd, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortall garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat."He doesn't seem to take seriously the very reasonable concerns of the Presbyterians he's criticizing--he scoffs as if it were a simple matter. "But on the other side that infection which is from books of controversie in Religion, is more doubtfull and dangerous to the learned, then to the ignorant; and yet those books must be permitted untoucht by the licencer. It will be hard to instance where any ignorant man hath bin ever seduc't by Papisticall book in English, unlesse it were commended and expounded to him by some of that Clergy: and indeed all such tractats whether false or true are as the Prophesie of Isaiah was to the Eunuch, not to be understood without a guide. But of our Priests and Doctors how many have bin corrupted by studying the comments of Jesuits and Sorbonists, and how fast they could transfuse that corruption into the people, our experience is both late and sad."More to the point, "a wise man like a good refiner can gather gold out of the drossiest volume, and that a fool will be a fool with the best book." Is it really that simple, Milton? What is Milton's solution to this problem, to the spread of idiocy by idiocy (I'm thinking of that boor, Hitchens, again)? Simple, again! "And if the men be erroneous who appear to be the leading schismaticks, what witholds us but our sloth, our self-will, and distrust in the right cause, that we doe not give them gentle meeting and gentle dismissions, that we debate not and examin the matter throughly with liberall and frequent audience; if not for their sakes, yet for our own? "So that's it? We just have to persuade them? How likely are they to be open-minded? I'm in favor of something much like Milton favored--limited freedom of the press, no libel, etc.--but that doesn't mean you can just go saying how "brilliant" Areopagitica is. It's a speech, and much of its persuasion simply does not make sense to the people who most trumpet its merit today. Why? Because Milton argues from a Biblical perspective that the best way to become virtuous is to be exposed to everything, to be ready for everything, to be aware of what you are up against. But even here he says stupid things in "Reason's garb" (Paradise Lost, Book II, line 226), such as "Good and evill we know in the field of this World grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so involv'd and interwoven with the knowledge of evill, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discern'd, that those confused seeds which were impos'd on Psyche as an incessant labour to cull out, and sort asunder, were not more intermixt. It was from out the rinde of one apple tasted, that the knowledge of good and evill as two twins cleaving together leapt forth into the World. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evill, that is to say of knowing good by evill. As therefore the state of man now is; what wisdome can there be to choose, what continence to forbeare without the knowledge of evill?" So if we can't get rid of evil, Milton, why bother writing a speech like Areopagitica? Why do anything, for that matter?Milton is not one of us, not a 21st century North Atlantic snob, believing in nothing but freedom, in freedom as an end rather than a means. He attacks the established Church, of course, but this guy read the Bible in the original languages for fun. As a huge Milton fan, it bothers me to see him misused for causes which he hated. Milton has no sympathy for the atheist, who has no excuse (Romans 1-2). Milton is not interested in that; he is interested in finding the fastest road to virtue.You can read it here: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/read...
Justly famous for its most eloquent and learned defense of a free press, and liberalism in general (absolutely all of Mill's "On Liberty" is contained here), before the arrival of capitalism rendered such a defense morally bankrupt in the extreme, this pamphlet also contains, more curiously, the key to the meaning of Paradise Lost. Undoubtedly, ignorant Christians will always take Milton at his word when he says that the meaning of Paradise Lost is to "justify God's ways to man", but as soon as one has read a single history of the time period, one realizes that this declaration is a bit more profound than saying, "God is da best." Milton lashes out in anger, of a sudden seemingly, at those who would render God culpable, on account of omniscience, for Adam's trespass; but, as Milton correctly points out, had God not given Adam free-will, with which either to stand or fall, Adam might as well have been a puppet in the shows, nothing really endowed with a rational faculty. Politically translated, Milton's defense of the Commonwealth, and, after the Restoration, the "Good Old Cause", which is to say, the existence of a revolutionary society of equals, based on active freedom rather than passive obedience, has a peculiarly Biblical origin. Milton understood Adam's fall to be the failure of freedom - but to rectify that failure, it is not passivity that is called for (as much as Jesus might incline you to believe so), but rather, in accordance with Reformation principles, more public freedom. The greater the freedom that exists in the public sphere, and therefore the more active we are in it, says Milton, the sooner everyone, and not just an exclusive class of intellectuals, will become a "prophet" and a "sage"! Hence, Paradise Lost, which constantly harps on the idea that rationality and freedom are "twinned", as he says there, is less about understanding God external as much as about God internal, for the "image" of God is reason, and books being perfect distillations of such reason, good books can possibly be accounted more valuable than certain individual lives; and so the securing of a free press, if we value human life, is our first moral duty, out of which the rest of morality follows. In sum, come for the liberalism, and stay for the philosophy of Paradise Lost lecture.
What do You think about Areopagitica (2000)?
"Who kills a man kills a resonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye. Many a man lives a burden to the earth; but a good book is the precious life-blood of the master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life. 'Tis true, no age can restore a life, where of perhaps there is no great loss; and revolutions of ages do not oft recover the loss of a rejected truth, for the want of which whole nations fare the worse."
—Steve
As a book lover, it’s difficult not to have a warm regard for Milton after reading this. His defense of free speech is both eloquent and persuasive. Drawing on history, philosophy, and religion, he puts forward multiple arguments for the free printing of books, all of which build upon one another, and almost all of which are still relevant today.And, in addition to Milton’s compelling argument, we get his masterful prose. To many modern readers, I suspect this will be dense and hard to follow at first. Nonetheless, Milton’s writing style is more accessible than some of his contemporaries—like Defoe, Swift, Bunyan, Hobbes, and Locke—and far more lyrical. He uses his towering poetic abilities to good effect here, and many quotes are worth committing to memory.To all lovers of books and the free circulation of knowledge and opinion, let us take our hats off to John Milton.
—Lotz
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.”I had a more coherent statement available earlier but it was deleted by accident. So I'm going to spew this out and try and fix it later after I deal with other obligations. Forgive my wandering and ungrammatical thoughts.Now I'm sure you've all heard by now about the new Goodreads policy changes and all the controversy surrounding them.Goodreads has now officially apologized for deleting content without notification, and has stated a new policy in which they would grant advance notice before removal of content. If they keep to it, this would be a good step. If they had done this in the first place, there would have been a lot less anguish on anyone's part.However, I suspect that there is another reason for this new push in specifically removing negative content about authors, and it is only partially related to the "Stop the Goodreads Bullies" groups and those like them. It is possible that some authors have raised the threat of libel suits. Now, I'm not entirely familiar with internet law on defamation, but I could make a few vague gestures towards the present situation. We do know that some authors (I will not name names) have been especially picky with reviews of their work, and would attempt to silence any criticism of the books in general. This will not work.Any book (or online product) with only identical vague positive reviews would be suspicious. No book, not even our favorites, is universally praised. A marketing group might have gotten to the reviews page first. Forbes claims that Amazon has been plagued with this for a while. The continuation of a process of censoring reviews would reduce the value of Amazon as a review site for all of us - customers and business owners alike. Negative reviews on the book should stay.Now again, I'm making another guess here - but the majority of traditionally published authors have not engaged in this questionable conduct,although some have. It is largely self-published authors, who have written, published, and attempted to sell books outside of the traditional publishing apparatus. It is a tremendous effort to write, package, edit and sell books on your own, and some books which would not normally be published in their present state are being pushed onto the market before they're ready, and in some cases, the confident author thinks that they could do no wrong. When some authors receive any negative feedback, they will lash out and try and counteract it. As the recent kerfluffle over the "Stop the Goodreads Bullies" website demonstrates, this will not end well for anyone: readers, authors, nor Goodreads.Now I am against censorship in all forms, and the very rare exceptions could be things like libel suits or threats of violence. If an author or a reviewer misbehaves, compile evidence and report it. Make screenshots. What we can and should do is to be civil and try and fight back against bad behavior by authors and 'reviewers' alike.
—Hadrian
