Mill warns his readers to be weary/questioning/vigilante in regards to the opinions the majority. In contrast to this, Mill also unapologetically celebrates the uniqueness of the individual. Mill comments that, "originality is a valuable element in human affairs" (74). Mill is concerned that the tyranny of the majority will stifle the originality of the individual. Without the originality of the individual, societal progress will come to a standstill, since originality fuels progress.
Side note: We mentioned Ayn Rand during our discussion of Thoreau, but Mill's conception of society suffocating the potential of the individual sounds much more in line with the ideas surrounding "John Galt stopping the motor of the world" than anything Thoreau had to say...for those who might care
But I wonder how Mill conceives of his individual coming into existence. He says that individuals have character, and that this character distinguishes the individual from those around him. But without allowing for an individual to define himself by foundational principles, how is characters supposed to be formed? Isn't character, after all, the result of repeated reactions to similar situations guided by governing principles/morals? If we should always be reevaluating our governing principles and morals, must we also always be reevaluating our character i.e can character ever form?
