My Old Friend John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) believed in a social transformation in which everyone would have the same opportunities of enjoying what he called 'high quality pleasure'. To understand high quality pleasure you first have to acknowledge that Mill followed Bentham's moral science in which he claimed “We are chained to the throne of two sovereign masters- pleasure and pain.” This meant that as human beings we made choices based on what gave us more pleasure and less pain.

Is this true? Do we function so simplistically that we go for whatever 'feels' better and avoid facing any form of pain? Even those who self-inflict pain do so because it brings them a form of pleasure.


Back to my old friend Mill. He took Bentham's concept of pleasure and pain further, incorporating it into high and low quality of pleasure and pain, but mostly relating to pleasure. High quality pleasure involved mental/ spiritual feelings and efforts, while lower quality pleasure involved only bodily feelings and efforts.

So why am I babbling about 19th century philosophies in my blog in this day and age? Well, because I think Mill's idea about high and low pleasure can give us insight about culture. And what is my favorite aspect of culture-> well music of course=)

If you apply his concept to music, then high quality musical pleasure is music that is more complex; music that touches you on a mental and spiritual basis. Jazz perhaps? Experimental? Alternative Indie? (I'd like to think so...)

Low quality musical pleasure is one that touches your bodily senses(huh?) or music that makes you move and doesn't involve mental activity. Catchy Pop?

Does this explain musical tastes? Does it explain how in every music scene there is a mainstream and an alternative subculture? What about music that tries to be high quality but is unsuccessful? How do we evaluate high from low? Is it all subjective? I have to think more about this...