John Stuart Mill: The Amoral Status of Nature

          The piece written by Mill proves to be a work that poses as many questions as it answers. It contradicts thoughts proposed by Aristotle, Bacon and at times Mill seems to either contradict himself or leave questions open ended. Mill approaches the same questions proposed by these previous philosophers, seeking answers for the driving forces behind nature. While Aristotle proposed the four causes, the most important being the end; Mill does not see nature moving in order to do something as Aristotle does. Mill's thinking has an underlying idea that nature feeds off necessity, which stem from his conceived "laws of particular phenomenon, and also, more generally, Laws of Nature"(74). It is interesting to note that Mill incorporates the use of induction, moving from the particular to the general. Mill however, gives nature a more encompassing power, stating that all phenomena are aspects of nature. Nature seems to be, according to Mill, a much more general term than that proposed by Aristotle or Bacon.

          Mill's writing becomes very convoluted, giving two seemingly contradictory notions for understanding and defining nature. He begins by downplaying the role of man in man made things. Since man is punitive in comparison to man, and as Mill later say "Man necessarily obeys the laws of nature, or in other words the properties of things", Mill surmises that nature is still the ultimate driving force behind mechanical devices and constructions.(75) Man simply is there to move things from place to place and put them where they belong. Aristotle would say that Man creates the form. This argument, though a very interesting and unique, even rogue interpretation, Mill doesn't really leave much room for anything to not be classified as nature. In a possible attempt to draw back and remedy that, Mill proposes that there are two possible definitions of nature. The first, in accordance with his previously mentioned theory, is that nature "means all the powers existing in either the outer or the inner world and everything which takes place by means of those powers"(74). His second presentation of nature, is similar with the distinction that nature is "only what takes place without the agency, or without the voluntary and intentional agency, of man"(74). Is Mill proposing a question with two solutions because he is indecisive? Is he simply contradicting himself?
          So Mill does accurately see the greater amount of power which nature holds. We have seen many examples of how man has tried to thwart nature, and only produced more consequences. Mill's writing serves more as a word of advice to his audience, stressing that we must use nature, by obeying it. He says that "though we can do nothing except through laws of nature, we can use on law to counteract another"(75). Though I appreciate his respect for nature's immovable power, I find the Mill doesn't really give much insight into how someone would truly make a difference through this abstract strategy. I also have a problem with his use of the idea that by obeying nature we seek to control it. This again seems like a contradiction of ideas, and I truly feel like Mill has skipped analyzing the particulars, and jumped straight the the vague and general solutions. Mill is with no doubt a higher level thinking than myself at this point in my life... though my future is still unknown. Nevertheless, I find this piece riddled with contradictions and open ended questions. I also feel that he categorizes too much under the umbrellas of nature, phenomena, and laws of Nature. I do however find his idea that even man made structures can be viewed as nature, because in certain ways man is only the mover in the process.... Yet I am still not completely sold on that notion either. Either way, I believe this piece will especially offer itself well to class discussion due to its inconsistencies, open ended ideas, and debatable concepts. -Nick