This is response to part of Prabhu Guptara's extensive post

Guptara: "The fact is that the Puritans hated SOME arts they considered
dissolute (e.g. the theatre - a position which, by the way, has become
valid again today, as some theatre is now as corrupt and corrupting once
again in our own day as it was in theirs)"

That is a sweeping statement! I don't know in what way theater is
corrupt and corrupting today. It is thriving on all levels all over the
world and adding to the global cultural milieu. Theatre lovers are happy
with revivals of Shakespeare as well as modern plays, thank you.  

Guptara: "Above, I have extensive (and nearly exhaustive) references to
such matters, in JSM's autobiography relating to most of his life.
Readers will find no trace of parental "tyranny", "puritanical hatred of
the arts" (or indeed of Scotch or Presbyterian hatred of the arts).  The
autobiography specifically rebuts the "popular notion (that) Benthamites
... are enemies of poetry" and documents in massive detail JSM's
knowledge of poetry and liking for poetry (BTW, JSM continued to esteem
the essays he had himself penned on the theory of poetry)."

A nuanced reading of the Autobiography leaves a distinct impression of a
father-son relationship which was at the very least oppressive for the
son. In the post-depression period, Mill can be said to have
successfully managed his illness (without Freudian psychotherapy!). But
his mental crisis was very real. In the chapter on his mental state, he
writes:

"My father's tone of thought and feeling, I now felt myself at a great
distance from: greater, indeed, than a full and calm explanation and
reconsideration on both sides, might have shewn to exist in reality. But
my father was not one with whom calm and full explanation on fundamental
points of doctrine could be expected, at least with one whom he might
consider as, in some sort, a deserter from his standard....He knew that
the habit of thinking for myself, which his mode of education had
fostered, sometimes led me to opinions different from his and he
perceived from time to time that I did not always tell him how different
(emphasis in the original).  I expected no good, but only pain to both
of us, from discussing our differences: and I never expressed them but
when he gave utterance to some opinion or feeling repugnant to mine,
which would have made it disingenuousness on my p[art to remain silent."

I would also like to quote from John M. Robson's Introduction to the
Autobiography:

"Mill's account has focused comment on the causes of this depression and
on its alleviation. His own explanation of its inception has generally
seemed inadequate, as concentrating too exhaustively on his analytic
habit of mind; however, he himself does not underplay emotional causes,
but makes clear to the attentive reader that his father's devaluation of
'feeling' had left him unequipped to deal with non-rational personal
motivation. The explanation also has value as pointing to a constant
problem in Benthamite utilitarianism, the difficulty of connecting the
goal (general happiness) with the motive (individual happiness)."

In passing, referring to Scottish Presbyterians, Guptara writes: "...and
many such groups are growing again in our post-secular times". If the
post-secular times have already arrived and are here to stay, what are
we in for in this century?

Cheers,

Sumitra Shah