Madness, Art, Value - By Eliza Veretilo and Samuel Mack-Poole

Madness, Art, Value

And now, a videogram!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c80oaaDz4ZY

Eliza Veretilo and Samuel Mack-Poole

Art - By Cathy Preston / Loreleila

This weeks artist was Cathy Preston / Loreleila: http://www.immortalart.co.uk/

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'

What is the Philosophy Takeaway?

For me the Philosophy Takeaway is a little utopian space...

It is a humble market stall, the decorative colours faded with age, the 'Talk to a Philosopher' sign tattered and bent, supported by masking tape and a box. Sometimes we have stock of second-hand philosophy books, sometimes not.  Sometimes our lights are working, other times the extension cable has been foolishly left at home. But the Philosophy Takeaway doesn't need to enchant market visitors with any pristine presentation to succeed, because it is all about conversation, thought and eager human beings.

To put it simply, what we do at the Philosophy Takeaway is ask anyone passing by a philosophical question from our hat. It is as simple as that! Three recent example questions have been: What is order? What is more important: consequences or intentions? and Is universal justice possible?  We then engage in a discussion, varying between a few minutes to an hour. We actually get more answers than you would think from such open-ended philosophy questions.

If people dig our groove, and want to receive regular philosophy literature and links, they can then sign up to our e-newsletter. We send out articles written by our team and guest contributors to continue the never-ending philosophical journey. Some people also donate money to help us cover our stall costs, and they get a printed Journal in return.

How we fit into society -

Trade can actually be quite 'humanizing', bringing people together, creating a sense of community and giving us a reason to communicate on a regular basis. When speaking of trade I refer to actual market places, the polar opposite of generic consumer malls, cookie-cutter big brands and plastic chain stores. I found Greenwich market to confirm this. Markets are a swirl of activity and conversation, where anyone can set up a stall and try a good idea, and anyone can afford to buy what is on offer. They tend to have more locally sourced and recyclable goods, which make them more environmentally aware, and the lesser emphasis on hierarchy means more cooperatives and mutuals are likely to pop up. Markets are face-to-face, they all have their own unique character, and above all they are places of independence and respect, the traders pitch being something of a sacred space. It is an experience no corporation can come close to replicating, and one which they would actively destroy if their growth and power is not checked. The Philosophy Takeaway, and any humanities stall like it, will fit into most markets perfectly. Greenwich, Camden Lock and the Merton Abbey Mills have already been visited by us!

It might be tempting to lump the Philosophy Takeaway in with instant-gratification or consumer culture: people come along to fill the gaps in their lives with monetary transactions, quick and easy answers packaged and devoured, just another fleeting experience. It might even sound like the latest trend among people whose lives of desire fulfilment aren't quite producing the goods! But nothing could be further from the truth. We are totally free of charge, and always will be. We may introduce people to the world of philosophy, but we are not the be all and end all of this mighty discipline. We do not guarantee answers, and we are not happiness vendors. In fact, a lot of the talking at the stall comes from the real philosophers, the people!

A place like the Philosophy Takeaway fits perfectly into any democratic, free-thinking society. It is a place of self-discovery, the equivalent of talking to a friend about the big questions, but with the advantage of having someone very interested in philosophy to guide it. As for answers, I have given them at times, and believe that having strong convictions is positive - provided they rest upon solid foundations and are willing to change and face criticism. Whilst we do not spread any one philosophy, this does not mean that our output is 'content free'. I have seen my friends vigorously defending their positions in the spontaneous debates which sometimes arise.

We have a massive range of political-philosophies in our group; from socialists to classical liberals, secularists and religious moderates, the typical 'realist' and 'idealist' divide, feminists, centrists and an anarchist or two. It does create some interesting, if not arduous, ethical debates! Where we do all agree, and what we all advocate, is that Philosophy must survive in universities and should be introduced into schools. Through projects like the Philosophy Takeaway, we can convince the public that this is also in their interests. Not only that - it is also massively fun!

How was Phil Tak born and where is it going??

The Philosophy Takeaway was ultimately born out of protest. We occupied our university in response to their cutting single-honours philosophy, an act which not only went against logic, but also threatened the jobs of our tutors. Although we were unable to prevent management from reducing the scope of their university by axing one of their best courses, we were bonded as a team and keen to popularize philosophy as much as possible. The consequence of those protests seems to have been the Philosophy Takeaway, although there is no way to know for sure.

In many ways it was also an accident. Two years ago I could never have imagined, dragging the one-wheeled 'Philosopher's Mule' through south-east London at 6am in the morning, that it would still be going and thriving more than ever! No one predicted that the Philosophy Takeaway would achieve what it has done. I think we have all surprised ourselves - especially our philoso-artist Eliza whose artwork not only made the actual, physical stall possible but also decorates publications. At the moment we are working on a bigger Journal to help us become self-sufficient with funding. We also have a website and forum (which will be tied in to a real life meet-up group) on the way, and regularly attend arts festivals whenever possible.

Most importantly the Philosophy Takeaway confirmed for me a very valuable lesson - that there is more to life than profitability alone, and that only a fool weighs success in gold coins.

Selim 'Selim' Talat, Coordinator of the Philosophy Takeaway stall
 email: thephilosophytakeaway@gmail.com for enquiries, or just to philosophize about, well, anything!

Clouds of Truth (A Comedy) - By St.Zagarus

Clouds of Truth (A Comedy)

I speculate once more after the truth. What is truth? What it is is what there is. What it isn't is what there isn't! Yet before we can begin to understand truth, I see three great clouds or barriers.

One, the crystal ball each of us hold inside. It remains cloudy, we cannot see into the centre. This is the appeal, it tells of the past and future in such a vague way. Comprehending it is always just at the edge of the mind. The ball is safe, locked away in a vault, tucked away in its farthest corner. It is not to be revealed to any stranger (though friends are sometimes welcome). It is never exposed for what it is. The decision has already been made, the ball is true and profound. It will look only where it wants to look. It is frail, the cold of the outside world will freeze it to death; the claws of democracy will tear it asunder. It remains hidden.

This crystal ball we all use to discern our own subjective truth lies within us all. If we revealed it to the cosmos, it would reflect the darkness of the cosmos. It would say nothing. It can only survive in the womb-water of the skull! Why do I say this? Anything can be questioned to the point that it crumbles to pieces in our hands. A child is scolded for asking 'Why?' incessantly, for that child will bore a hole through any wall of truth and expose it for what it actually is - an educated guess. We must pretend that we know, for to admit that we do not know is to let the void be filled with any number of horrors worse than our gentler ignorance! For instance, it is better to believe that the light of science will eventually explain all-things, than to allow cynicism to snuff out its optimism, perhaps allowing fundamentalist religion to take root. Action follows belief! And belief is the glorification of an educated guess. And no belief can survive the sceptics scrutiny, so hide it half away in your crystal ball.

Two, the weight of emotional attachments. They can crush the impulse to seek for truth. They do not replace searching for a meaningful existence, and they cannot fill the longing for transcendence from our mortality. Instead, they displace. When the emotions are good, and sweet, they are a consolation at our inability to ever know much of anything. They carry us forward, creating small wells of gravity to keep us from floating off into the aether, dragging us their short distance.

Even the 'wrong' emotions can be 'right'. For instance, rage and hatred can grant us a narrative. A narrative can grant us meaning. Each story will wrap around the subject like a cloak. Some kind of self-importance follows. Emotion is a kind of gravity, binding us all together. It cannot produce truth, for the passions are little more than chaotic shapes in a bubbling cauldron. The meaning we ascribe to them, the primacy of the L-word (love!) and so on, is all just an attempt to keep the universe fluffy. They can keep the 'normals' entertained whilst they flounder upon the sparse beach of nihilism. A cold-hearted philosopher on the other hand, should have nought to do with emotional impulses. They are alone, even in the embrace of a lover, alone.

Three, the fabric created by large numbers of human beings. Conformity and stability create this social fabric - without it we are left with chaos. Doing the same thing, monotony, dullardy, the grey paste that is culture, forever disappointing and mediocre, is nonetheless essential. Like the passionate emotions, winning the esteem of many-human-beings is a plaster upon the open void of meaninglessness. It is an instinctual and pleasant path to self-importance. And even if the herd scolds us and attacks us, still it is some reaction, and still we maintain some relation to our fellows, and thus relevance.

Is being hated for no reason whatsoever preferable to absolute atomised isolation? I think we think so. For freedom and individual liberty, whilst espoused by the greater many, is just a means of surviving drudgery and servitude. People speak of freedom to account for their lack of it; just as the turkey at the edge of its farmyard cage imagines the land on the other side is its domain. Only the bravest souls want any true freedoms, for to create ones own values and motivations is the real test of strength, and it is far easier to be buried in the great mass swarm. Safer too.

And how many hurl their wrath against the herd from within its safe boundaries! The ones with the loudest voices are often just that, voices; words without deeds. How many revolutionaries truly understand that revolution means the end of a social order, bringing in a period of time when there is no right and no wrong - a limbo between States? Violence is inevitable under such conditions. And it is not only political minds who are drawn to such destructive change. The hungry psyche of the human animal, lurking just beneath the polite and conscious individuals striding through life, is satiated by perpetual virtual violence and sex. They hunt animals and fight battles and climb ranks, all without a semblance of risk. They are natural humans who forever live at arms-length; embracing their darkness through such safe means. They want safety, but they also desire freedom from safety, an escape valve through which to channel their guilty impulses.

However disgusting the Leviathan (State) whose belly we rot within, could it be any worse than no Leviathan at all? The masters know full well that a thinking citizen is a dangerous citizen (for if all citizens were Socrates there should be no Athens!) Thus, the greyest of all Stately orders, the dull plodding mediocre bisonette, the cords of human flesh and idea which knit together our inane sphere, are favourable to their absence – the State will always glorify its mediocre foundation! Our dross utopia! Fluff to line the harsh edges of cold reality. In mediocrity we trust, and may we live in uninteresting times.

And so, here are demonstrated three clouds, preventing us from discovering what we might discover. Yet what we might discover is precisely nothing but mindless, moving matter. Here is where the light of science has led us, deeper and deeper into the nature of Nature, leaving us with a resounding 'Ok, now what?' when the last scientist observes the last unit of physical reality through the last lens.

We are left with a wholly material universe, and when looked upon in such a way, it becomes wholly banal. What the difference between a nebula and a human being? They are composed of similar elements, only one has the ability to move of its own accord, and incites certain chemical reactions in the brain (you know - emotions), and the other does not, and that is it. Everything is thus everything, and everything is futile - one sometimes feels that this universe was made for stones and dust particles, far less sentient creatures! It is a universe of appearances, and such appearances are fleeting. There is nothing Eternal.

The great light of Reason (with a capital 'R', meaning Reason the ability to discover objective truths, as sure as mathematical truths) has been snuffed out. Apparently, telescopes and neuroscientists have replaced the Rationalist philosopher in understanding the universe around us, and ourselves. We can safely bid farewell to moral absolutes and a higher order discoverable through Reason. Instead we are confronted with floaty, flaky moralities, which ask only what to eat, what to drink, who to f***, and where to shit.

The actual truth is a void, a solid, fundamentally unchanging void (if all parts of the void are equally meaningless, any alterations in the void are just meaningless components switching places). No amount of conscious searching for transcendence (something outside of humanity, beyond humanity) will get us anywhere. We shall always be disappointed, we inheritors of the West who have been given our legacy of individuality and intellect. We will always need that unexplored something beyond the horizon. We have nothing left but dissatisfaction and empty promise, and this is the fuel that stokes the mindless consumption engine.

Our 'truth' (the false truth) has no foundation of its own, for Reason is dead. There is no longer a yardstick against which to measure truth and falsehood – all we have left is our surface world, with its surface level of reasoning. Upon such a paltry plane, anything goes!

Our truth rests atop a steam, rising from a fire; the fuel of this fire is ignorance itself. We do not look to the ignorant flame! Ignorance is our heat. Without it we are frozen.

We observe truth from the corner of our eyes. To stare into it directly is to gaze into an abyss.

The last write of St.Zagarus

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'

Pragmatic Metaphoric Philosophy - By Cathy Preston / Loreleila

Pragmatic Metaphoric Philosophy

It's a curious thing

That never ending argument

Over what is right and what is wrong

And what is you and what is not

Where words lie end to end and yet do not

Appear to describe anything;

That dichotomous myth

Seeming so enduring.

Mirage me you, mirage me me

Then will we all be free?

Pontifications on the thoughts of others

As though they aren't our sisters and brothers

Or part of us, or what is right

Where God might be or rather not

So often do we lose the plot;

And who is what and where and why,

I'd really rather eat some pie

(Actually that's poetic since I'm not a fan

Of pastry so that leaves out flan)

But you get my gist

If I have to squirm and twist

To find agreement, or if you insist

I see another as my foe

How can any of us grow

Or even see reality?

I'd really rather kiss or be kissed

Pragmatically metaphorically

Or love yourself as if you're me

Or me be you and you be me

It matters not for where we lie

We cannot lie, for in truth we be

Reflections in the others I.

Cathy Preston / Loreleila

Editors Glossary Note: Dichotomous - Division into two parts, often mutually opposed, the one not containing the other.

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'

Correctness, Intuition and Logic - By Martin Prior

Correctness, Intuition and Logic

About a week ago I commented on a newspaper report from North Lanarkshire, one of the Labour-controlled councils in Scotland where STV is used, a form of proportional representation.

The council had axed an annual taxi outing for children with special needs.  The Monklands Taxi Drivers’ Outing had been running for almost 40 years – but North Lanarkshire Council halted the yearly fancy dress road trip.  According to them, such outings didn’t “fit in with current thinking on inclusion and equality and that parading children with additional support needs is inappropriate.”

To my mind, thinking is merely thinking, and that formulating such hypotheses is an initial stage.  Indeed one can say that inclusion and separate activities are not mutually exclusive. I have written before about the importance of the intuitions of the people for whom political correctness is supposed to benefit.  People who speak an accent, say Indian, have an intuitive judgement as to whether an attempt at an Indian accent is racist.  I for example have no objection to the metaphor ‘short-sighted’, for example our government’s short-sighted attitude toward climate change.  If somebody who was not short-sighted tried to tell me how I should react to such a metaphor, my intuition would be that they were bloody patronising and the only reason I didn’t thump them was because my glasses might get broken.

When such people try to be logical, they often use emotive and subjective terms, often in situations where it is not ‘either... or’.  Using the term short-sighted in a derogatory context supposedly tells short-sighted people they are inferior.  Not when we have glasses and choose to use them, which the metaphorical short-sighted do not.

Attempting to be politically correct can only be meaningful if you listen to those you are trying to help, and are ready to learn from their intuitions.  And indeed inclusion does not exclude separateness, when of course neither is imposed.

Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'

Conformity as Control - By Cathy Preston / Loreleila

Conformity as Control

There are some who like to think of themselves as different, indeed pride themselves on being so. It may or may not be the case. Often it appears those who perceive themselves as 'whacky' or 'crazy' seem just to be a bit silly, but will generally conform to societal norms. Those who truly do seem to have a level of perspective on 'normal' are much rarer, and even those will be unable to see every last piece of their own conformity. Of course we're all (theoretically) constrained by the laws of the land, so to be a non conformist requires the ability not only to have that perspective but also to know how and where it would be unwise to step beyond those lines. It's funny how some of us seek to fit in, to be seen as normal, part of the crowd, while others would be appalled to be considered such.

Big business, politics and the media impose enormous social pressure for all to be biddable conformists, to spend spend spend on items and modifications not needed, to be puppets to the spurious belief that to be different you have to be the same. Most buy into the belief that those who wield some sort of power are beyond such things, and can lie and cheat with impunity. The one law for them and another for us mentality is quite an extraordinary aspect of human psychology. Policing one anothers behaviour is often considered responsible and to maintain good order, while in reality it is more often borne out of a desire for the world to be forced into a personal view of what is and isn't 'right'. Moaning and complaining helplessly seem to assuage frustrations while keeping everything resolutely in place.

Those considered non conformist may be demonised, assumed to be insane or dangerous. Rigid control is imposed in terms of what is and isn't acceptable, though hypocrisy rife. Acceptable behaviour is measured in inverse proportions. Drunkenness, debt, pharmaceutical addictions, body dysmorphia (with all the attendant requirements for cosmetic surgery), insecurity and self hatred, materialist desires unsatisfiable and dishonesty are all staples of our society. Conversely, creativity, individuality (which we're sold as desirable yet steered clear of), honesty, intelligent examination of the facts, observation, responsible living and behaviour, care and concern for others and advocating for the vulnerable presently all seem to be non conformist activities. While not actually and specifically illegal they're no longer (if indeed they ever really were) part of societal norms.

Of course there are a small minority of genuinely dangerous people. Those who are pathologically unable to empathise with others and will do whatever it takes to get what they want (though as I write this I realise this sounds exactly like a lot of the elite). They are paraded before us with an exhortation to be good, to conform, to not stand out and to fear stepping beyond the bounds of acceptability, as if all that exists are drones and madmen. Yet we all know this is not the case.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, yet it's hard to escape the fact that in one form or another, throughout history, conformity and crowd control have been utilised for the minority to gain control of the majority. We may look back to the past and chuckle indulgently at the stupidity of our ancestors, wonder how they could have been so gullible as to allow themselves to be duped so easily. We might be better served in wondering what our future relatives will think of us.

Cathy Preston / Loreleila

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'

Art - By Rachael Berry

This weeks artist was Rachael Berry: http://rachaelberry.wordpress.com/

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'

On Decadence -The Microwaveable Kebab - By St.Zagarus

On Decadence -The Microwaveable Kebab

The great elephant in the room of our times - Elitism! How mixed up the masses of our land have become over this word. It is as if they went in discovery of an attitude toward it, discovered a reason, and then turned their conclusion upon its head!

Our culture is infused (or should that be poisoned with) equalitarian values in all areas of life, turning our collective experience into one long grey mush. Democracy has intruded its nose where it is not welcome, and has failed to overthrow the tyranny it was actually supposed to!

To be clear: ownership of machines and parliaments is left to the last people we should leave them to - aristocrats. And the creation and appreciation of artistic culture is left to the last people we should leave them to - plebeians!  And the result is dire. For so long as the cultural world is poisoned by equalitarian values, the cultural human has nothing to aspire towards. If every artist is equal, then there is no self-improvement, no growth, no cause to strive after. The lowest, basest mass-artist is as valid as the soulful musician. How appalling it would be if we had no tools to differentiate between the two. We would be left with no critique to attack the microwaveable doner kebabs of art and culture.

What are we so afraid of?

Nature's Meritocracy -

Let us now examine what it is that makes creation and culture 'genuine' (a word much overused indeed). My argument is simple: genius comes from an uncomfortable place, and often leads to an uncomfortable place. Genius is miserable, thrust into greatness. She throws away her double-edged sword, as Elric would disgard Stormbringer. Yet it follows, and will do so til the end. It is a curse as much as it is a blessing. It is self-indulgent, yet universal, selfish, yet possessed with a tortured love for humanity. It is not learnt (though it can be improved with practice), but comes from somewhere far more profound.

It is empty and void, forever disatisfied - yes! This is genius, nothingness. This is the cosmos speaking to you through its silence, asking 'What you have done?' This is the raw power of creativity, unable to be pinned down or defined, yet still recognisable. We cannot define creativity because it should be equivalent to defining the nothingness from whence it emerges. Nor can we set a blueprint to repeat it, however much we should enjoy doing so. Genius tramples barriers, it loathes chains. Genius tears apart its diploma, and curses the academy. Her art is painful passion, a mirror held up against nature, and it ignites the same in the viewer.

The true 'creative nothing' is a natural nothing, and it cannot fill itself up from without. No warm embrace can comfort the genius. Nor can they fill themself at all. For there is nothing but constant movement toward-the-unreachable for this genius, and constant sorrow at their constant failure to transcend themselves. Still, they must create, or wither and die. This is the driving engine of progress! It shuns the false paradise offered by the bulk, bloated mass. What a sad day it is when the plebeians aspire to nothing more than plebeian decadence.

For religion has gone nowhere. The religion of old and the 'materialism' of new empties-out each subject and then offers them redemption through their particular means. Religion, 'materialism', they each hold their worshippers in warm embrace, and they are easy with such love. One need only submit to them. This is the emptiness-fullness dichotomy for the masses; a watered-down void! the emptiness of the lowest common denominator! Democracy has been applied to culture, art has become associated with easily available pleasures or talentless provocation - talentless provocation for all! The bar has not so much been lowered as it has been buried under ground - plunged under magma! The 'organic' nature of creative art has been captured, distilled, put through a refinery, and rolled out the other end, infinitely reproduceable and imitable. The culture is democratic in that the 'creatives' know what the people want and give it to them, a paternalistic and patronising affair. Challenge is not 'accessible', and risks are not to be taken.

It is everywhere, and it is all pervasive. It can invade any space and colonise any land. When it's banners appear on the horizon, the people welcome it, even calling it over, seduced by plastic promise. Such a world impresses itself upon me, it's loud, rude culture too foolish to know how grotesque it truly is. The healing light of true genius, which also pervades, is nonetheless drowned out by banality. Woe is I, the bedraggled St.Zagarus, the besieged one, pulled down into such an abyss of purility! Only the dull, lowing roar of a castrated bull can utter from my pained, heaving lungs, a desperate rallying cry for the righting of the world.

Yet when we each of us aspire to become deities of our own boundless selves, then I shall fall silent.

The state of affairs -

Civilization is not under threat of annihilation. There is no looming Dark Age and there is no danger. Let no doomspeaker coil you into a fearful serpent, and charm you with their lies. It is under threat of something perhaps worse - it is on the brink of being defined by a microwaveable doner kebab. It is plebeianism, low conformity, congealed mediocrity, what-went-before, repetition, recurrence, routine, banality, habit, stupidity, lowered standards, appeasement of the easily appeased, trivia, false hope, emotional manipulation, a river of herd mammals, ignorance, denial of instinct, backwards-looking, downwards-gazing, trough-feeding, collectivistic, microwaveable mass cultural death, a grey stain to mark the already shoddy history of our shoddy species.

Dissent has always been the changing force of civilization, and dissent has always followed great individuals. The philosophers almost universally had one message to the Establishment, directly or indirectly. That message was 'Fuck you!' (complete with an exclamation mark). Kant declared himself a 'Copernican revolutionary!' after all! Yet the so-called rebels of our decadent civilization are as wretched as the forces of Order they suppose to attack - they are just a bit worse at hiding their tracks. Most of them are concerned with 'entertainment' to fill the void of meaning created by meaningless labour; they are an essential part of the soulless engin. Where are our heroes! Why are our artists not dissenting?

Answer: They are, they are just drowned out by the white noise of herd-culture.

St.Zagarus

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'

Liberalism III: liberal versus conservative practicioners - By Martin Prior

Liberalism III: liberal versus conservative practicioners

In my last article on liberalism, Liberalism: from Philosophers to Society? I surveyed a number of philosophers, with the view of seeing how far they could be a new concept, social liberalism. Adam Smith basically added the social – and economic - dimension with his Wealth of Nations, and his formalisation of a laissez-faire economics.  But he urged the abolition of slavery.  

John Stuart Mill is seen as the father of Social Liberalism, and is noted for his marriage of utilitarianism and this concept of social liberalism.  But his predecessor Jeremy Bentham (England, 1748-1832) set the path.  It should be noted that Bentham [according to Wikipedia] “demanded economic and individual freedom, including the separation of the state and church, freedom of expression, completely equal rights for women, the end of slavery and colonialism, uniform democracy, the abolition of physical punishment, also on children, the right for divorce, free prices, free trade and no restrictions on interest.”  But nevertheless he was not an economic liberal or libertarian, urging government intervention in the form of restrictions on monopoly power, pensions, health insurance and other social security.

Now here we have a liberal who is unlike the self-styled liberals who followed him: he rejected colonialism and laissez-faire, whereas among modern politicians, liberalism differs from conservatism in the way these are implemented, even if they are now called the market economy and neo-colonialism.  Here we come back to socialism, which as I argued, sometimes equated to non-economic liberalism, and sometimes to an economic liberalism termed the ‘social market economy’, which I rejected.

I stated:

When we move from philosophies to politics, we move into an area where I believe we must look into the political adherents’ motivations in terms of their part in patterns of exploitation.  And in the developed countries, this really means thieves squabbling over the booty from exploitation of the Third World.  This issue is in no way addressed by social marketers and mainstream social democrats.

So, as I argued, regardless of the self-image of liberals and conservatives, we must consider their behaviour in practice among leading world powers.  The liberals, or in former days the Whigs, were smart at advancing power and making tactical retreats.  A notable example of their callousness when in a position of advance is in 1846, when Lord Russell succeeded Sir Robert Peel.  Peel, originally a Tory, repealed the Corn Laws which protected British agriculture in good times, but in times of food shortages exacerbated them.  In 1846, Lord Russell took over, heading a free trade government with Peelite support, but now extended free trade to outright laissez-faire, and refused to intervene in the market to ease the Great Potato Famine (roughly 1845-52).

Here the Tories appeared more humane than the laissez-faire Whigs, not least in the writings of Benjamin Disraeli (PM 1868 and 1874-1880).  However a generation after the Famine, when the Irish were becoming more militant, William Ewart Gladstone  (PM 1868-1874,1880-5, 1886, 1892-4) realised that Home Rule was inevitable.  This realisation came in 1886, and triggered the critical divide between Liberals and ‘Unionists’ (Conservatives and Liberal Unionists): the Liberals believed in strategic advance and withdrawal, whereas the Conservatives were slow to advance, but under Disraeli and his successors, staunchly adhered to a policy of ‘what we have we hold’.  Disraeli strongly celebrated Imperialism, making Victoria Empress of India, and his successors, notably Salisbury, resisted any loosening of the British hold on Ireland.  They felt that concessions led to a slippery slope which would to the dissolution of Empire.  They could not find a flexible approach, drawing on the fact that Irish , both Catholic and protestant, had no objection to being part of Empire.

This leads me to an analysis of liberals and conservatives behaviour, regardless of their self-image.  Basically we see an interaction of culture and power:

LIBERALS, the flexible exploiters	TORIES, hanging on to what they’ve got
(i)             Centre: culture of exploiters, (ii)            Skills and technology of exploiters(pink) (iii)           Superior power (blue), (iv)          Ignorance and fear of the exploited (grey), (v)           Culture of exploited (vi)          Wi(l)der environment.	(i)             Centre: culture of exploiters, (ii)            Ignorance and fear among exploiters(grey) (iii)           Superior power of exploiters(blue), (iv)          Skills and technology (e.g. military) used against the exploited(pink), (v)           Culture of exploited (vi)          Wi(l)der environment.

Note the contrast: the liberals value and develop their skills, and are quite ready to create empires and ‘neo-colonies’, which take advantage of their targets’ ignorance and often fear.  The approach of the Tories, with whom conservatism is an asset, is to frighten would-be supporters into loyalty, playing on ignorance and fear.  This rather than technology is their power base, but despite its shaky nature, they will resort to force against their opponents rather than persuasion.

So in the two diagrams, the pink and the grey are switched round.

Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'

A Mind for Philosophy - By Eliza Veretilo

A Mind for Philosophy

A mind for philosophy, or a philosophical mind, is a mind ready to discover and is a mind ready to enquire. It needs to be empty, so to speak, of preconceptions. When Socrates said ‘All I know is that  I know nothing’, he was talking about the incredibly massive and wide universe of experience which is life. When we compare our knowledge to the whole of that experience, then we really know nothing. And to experience anything, to learn anything, to know anything in this universe, we must look at it fresh, as it is. Why? Because if we come to an experience with a preconception, we are going to shape the experience in such a way that it fits our previous knowledge. If you want to experience something new, you have to empty your mind of your projected ideas first.

Philosophy, in principle, is an opportunity to look at the world fresh. With the eyes of a child, but with intelligence; but not the intelligence that is bred with reading books and studying subjects, although that is good technical knowledge. In order to really discover, to really investigate and to really see, we need a type of intelligence which is free and unafraid. This would be an intelligence of awareness, not an intelligence of limitation. Think Leonardo Da Vinci, a well known and recognised genius. It is a known fact that Leonardo did most of his research and discovery by himself. How? By observing the world with eyes of wonder.

I am not saying that we should reject all the knowledge that we have historically accumulated. Well, I am saying that in a way, yet I am not, I am speaking in a more fundamental way. Each human being has the capacity and right to experience the world for itself and thus, find his or her own truth. My point is that a real curious mind, a philosophical mind, looks at life without the frame. It is a fallacy of modern philosophy to conceptualise experience and to build on blocks of complex confused language and claim that knowledge lays there, in the high land of the ‘specialist’. If we are to look at the past, let it be as an example, not as a cage. Think of Descartes, thinking the world all anew, all by himself, inventing mathematical methods and philosophies.

We know the world through ideas, it’s true, but some ideas are the product of tradition, prejudice and habit. That is why it’s important to question them, truly. To ‘know’ can be very isolating; when you think that you know, sometimes that makes you unwilling to investigate and listen and learn from others. The more you know, the more complex it becomes.

Philosophy can be a great opportunity to step back and really have a good look at what is going on. For that we need a simple mind.  To have a simple mind, a true philosophical mind, is to break your ‘I’m convinced’ state and let your mind be truly observant and truly creative.

So, observe but don’t judge. Observe, but don’t condemn. Observe, but don’t believe. Don’t believe anything that is not soundly true to your most inner being (the one you ultimately can’t lie to). A real philosophical mind does not deceive itself. But don’t get me wrong, I know why we sometimes do it; for comfort, for security, or simply in order to make sense. Truth cannot come from lies. That is why I say, we need to keep our minds simple, in order to observe the world as it is and not through the lens of our prejudices, because at the end of the day, Socrates was right and all I know is that I know nothing either, so why pretend we know it all?

Eliza Veretilo

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 51 'Open Topic'

Philosophy Stall - Camden Market

A philosophy stall in Camden Lock market? What a positively smashing idea!

How useful are the senses to the knowledge seeker? - By St.Zagarus

How useful are the senses to the knowledge seeker?

We all have to start somewhere on our quest for knowledge. It is absolutely unavoidable. How can I write the second sentence without the first? I cannot. Likewise, how can I build an idea without a foundation which I take to be true, even though I have no evidence for this foundation? I cannot. To make this more solid and less of an abstract, floaty idea, let me put this (and my neck!) on the line.

The beginning of knowledge, the first instrument of truth, is sensory experience. This would be some form of 'Empiricism' in philosophy-terms. What can be touched, tasted, seen, heard or smelt is our foundation for knowledge. We can narrow this list down a bit, and put 'sight' on a pedestal, as it is the most useful sense in discovering knowledge.

At any rate we have our foundation. We can gain knowledge through the accumulation of sensory data. By experiencing things we can piece together general rules: when X happens, Y will follow. We can provide observable, testable evidence to convince people that our theories have a certain probability of being correct. We can take an unromantic view of the world, unobscured by mythologies and beliefs. We are born as blank slates, created equally to develop ourselves however we might. Nothing is set in stone, and everything is reversible. The old can be overwhelmed by the new. Nature can be drowned beneath a deluge of experiences. What comes out, is what goes in. That is it.

'Is that it?'

No, for the senses are useless... -

There I said it! Of course I do not mean it, I am just stirring up a bit of beef. But what I mean to say is that they are useless on their own. Reducing reality to sensory experience is like observing a frozen lake and thinking it only an icy surface. In trying to understand human beings, we cannot rely purely on the 'output' of peoples behaviours. Nor can we understand ourselves from a purely empirical position, as so much of what we are is not even truly experienced by our senses.

Our senses do the job they were designed to do. However, they are not sufficient to tell us anything universally true - objective knowledge - because on top of them lies a personality. This subjective personality has the ability to prioritise, it has emotional weights attached to it, which drive and pull it. For instance, it can focus on rushing to the bakery, and as a result miss the forlorn snail innocently crossing the pave.

Scrunch! - one dead snail. For what - an iced bun?

Our personalities can be dominated by group psychosis (being made to ignore facts of reality because everyone else around us is ignoring it). The rules and norms of society can be counter to the acquisition of knowledge, and our own sensory information can be ignored, or perverted, because of it.

Taken into a broader context, no amount of sensory awareness can guarantee that personalities will prioritise what is important over what is trivial. No amount of sense data placed upon the scale will produce an ounce of meaning - placing a heap of pieces on a board does not create a chess set - and without meaning, or subjective purpose, we cannot seek knowledge. For knowledge is whatever is useful to our interests and biases as individuals, or masses. Anything that is not useful, is not knowledge. Therefore, we cannot rely on a purely 'earthly' concept of using experiences of the real-world to find knowledge. There is no knowledge out there, even if there is a real world beyond us. Knowledge needs a subject to find it – you!

Let us look at an example to further this: we have two sides of the same coin - enchantment and disenchantment. You and I could walk through the same shopping mall. You bedazzled by the colours and squeaky clean shops, me disgusted by the lack of spontaneity and the artificial-ness of the environment. You excited about the shiny surface of a curvaceous mobile telecommunications device, me sickened that anyone could ignore the horrid conditions of the asian serf-worker whose blistered hands made it. We would both be sensing the same combinations of molecules and atoms, the same colours and smells, the same outer world. Our senses would be roughly equal in their capacity to detect physical matter. Our different positions are therefore not caused by sensing something different, but our reaction to experiencing the same thing. A massively complex reaction that is part emotional, part rational, part natural-animal,  part chosen by our will, and so on. At any rate, something within us is choosing to come to a different conclusion. All whilst using the same sensory experiences.

Yet if the first instrument of knowledge is sensory experience, how is it possible for us to come to such radically differing viewpoints when experiencing the same things? There is one answer to this. The foundation of knowledge is not the senses, however useful they are.

Sense information becomes important only after we have decided what is important.

Knowledge, with a big K, is impossible -

If we accept the above train of thought we lead to the inevitable conclusion. Knowledge seeking does not begin with a pure desire to sense the world, to capture it on the 'blank slates' of the mind. What the end product of empiricism's grand project - the scientist - studies and develops is decided by factors which are almost always political, economic, or personal (just ask - how many noble men and women of science engineer the weapons of tomorrow, or waste time developing anti-hair loss products?)

There is no such thing as pure sensation; all senses are wreathed in subjectivity, emotion, prejudice, thoughts of past and future, concepts created by language, and so on. If we could use our senses in a pure sense, unobscured by personality, everything would become inseparable.

Without the power of words to divide and highlight things, without the concept of time to predict things, and without the weight of emotion to move us into action and create our preferences we are incapable of seeking any knowledge at all. The ability to do these things is innate - we are born with them. We, as individuals or masses, merely choose how to use our innate faculties.

The first instrument of knowledge is what-is-important to us. Yet what is important to us?

St.Zagarus

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 51 'Open Topic'

Silence is louder then words - By T.C.R.Moon

Silence is louder then words

In this short essay I wish to show that silence can express meaning infinitely more than a word or sentence, and goes beyond understanding. 

Firstly we need to look at meaning in language, something which Wittgenstein gives a very good account of.  In the Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein discusses how language actually works, when he shows that words are not labels but ultimately indicate a use.  To say "slab" to a worker on a construction site, doesn't necessarily entail 'bring me the', it could be a command or a statement of fact like 'this is a' and so is a knowledge claim.  What gives the use of a word is the context and how the word is used. Ultimately the meaning of what is being said is not fully given when we say a definition, but how we use that definition. Wittgenstein spends a great deal of effort in this area and in arguing against a private language. 

So what happens when we talk of pain or emotions, or colour and touch? As Wittgenstein has removed the notion of ostensive pointing in language, when we say that is red or I am in pain, we cannot be referring to a private sensation we experience. This is because a fundamental mechanism in language that allows meaning to be understood is a agreement on what something is. This is why the label theory of words seems like common sense, because these agreements are already in place and so  the theory appears after the fact.  So, with the meaning of 'tree', it is not the definition that is meaningful but that others can understand that you are referring to that class of object.

But this common sense picture language theory really falls into question when we ask what are we pointing to with private, internalized sensations of colour and pain. The community of understanding is an 'image' of what is pictured in the mind, not the private sensation that is expressed.  For instance, when we talk of the colour red, we are talking about an agreement of what it is based on, an agreed understanding that this object is actually red. Likewise with pain, we come to an agreement that this behavioural sequence of pain is pain, and this begins to take on a universality. A purely subjective experience in this account is meaningless in a language, especially if it is of a kind where only one person has had it. There would be no sequence or agreement that would allow understanding, or any behaviour that could allow another to say 'I recognize that' and so it cannot enter the language in a meaningful way.

A subjective experience has no meaning because it is not referred to in language. How could we know we mean the same thing, if it is even a thing at all?

It is here I am going to introduce Kierkegaard and the concept of a knight of faith from his book Fear and Trembling.  The knight of faith is a person who acts in a manner that is beyond the sphere of understanding, due to a personal telos  (purpose) that 'over steps' the ethical considerations of others because of 'an absolute duty to god'. In this case Abraham receives a subjective vision from God, to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac in the lands of Moriah, in three days time.

Firstly, it is be noted that this telos was given to Abraham subjectively, no one could have seen it or have been a part of it. Abraham received a picture (a purely mentalistic/subjective process) from an infinite source, but unlike the picture of colour or pain (which can be translated into an image and thus allow for an agreement in the community, and so be rendered meaningful by a repeated sequence of behaviour or coherence of agreement), this truly religious experience cannot be agreed upon and cannot be understood, for it existed within Abraham alone. 

When Kierkegaard says 'ethical' Wittgenstein says 'language', for language is definitive of our reality. Our form of life describes our understanding and all ethical considerations fall into the universal of language. This being the case, how could Abraham speak, how could he explain that he had to sacrifice 'that which he loved most', foregoing the duty a father has to his son? Anyone would think him mad from an outside perspective.

"Humanly speaking he is insane and cannot make himself understood to anyone" (Fear and Trembling, Problema II, 'pg 91)  This necessity for salience required by Wittgenstein’s language theory is utterly understood by Kierkegaard. In an attempt to explain to others he would simply give rise to temptation, and be drawn back to the universal, into the finite language and he would not have made the infinite step over to the ethical. Which is what, as Kierkegaard claims many times, made him great.  It is the subjectivity that removes Abraham from the language and so removes him from the universal. Yet paradoxically his body is still with the finite, the universal, which is what gives the insane quality to his actions. His physical actions can be understood, but make no sense and this limits us from truly understanding; for we understand actions within the ethical, with the language, but his actions are based on a duty to the infinite.

Abraham stayed silent for three days, which is important for Wittgenstein. Faith in this case is the "beetle" that Wittgenstein spoke of that could never enter the language.  But does his silence mean nothing? Can we say this in good heart? Surely, even if Abraham imagined the vision and it never actually happened, we cannot say that he was insane, for he knew that his actions would be seen as insane and understood the ethical implications. The duty of a father to his son was not alien to him. This element of understanding is what creates the fear and trembling, the tension of standing in 'absolute relation to the infinite' whilst inside the universal. All this could be understood, but he chose to suspend the duty for what could have simply been a hallucination of conviction.

It was the fear and trembling that made Abraham a knight, the bravery and fortitude of acting on a conviction no one can understand. In this he finds isolation and a very human terror. Considering this, his silence expressed bravery in the actions he takes, and whilst Kierkegaard demands God as a justification that is infinitely above all ethics and language, by removing this religious aspect does that remove the bravery of a sane man doing an insane thing.? It is not so different from bungee jumping. People say 'why would you want to jump off a bridge?' and it is not uncommon for them to say 'you're insane' (though it is meant tongue in cheek).  When you stand at the edge, you stand silently, a similar place to Abraham, between sanity and insanity, between understandable and intelligible action and choice and if you have the courage, you fall and you suspend your ethical duty to yourself, and leave everything up to faith.

But moreover, the absolute meaning of the silence is a humanism. You overcome yourself, all others, and the world itself and this is not always found in reason but insanity, like charging into battle. Everything pulls us back, the ethical duty to yourself screams at you, the insanity of this choice echoes, but in the end we roar and pull a war face and the fear twists. It is not fear of spilling your blood that fills you but the fear of not spilling the enemies and in doing so you go beyond yourself, and become the ideal of a warrior.  I do not intend to say that violence is humanism, but to truly grow is to push the boundaries of what you fear until fear is lost and honour of oneself is claimed.  Abraham in the religious account did this infinitely, whereas the warrior, on his death dies a tragic hero, going beyond himself, but still being understood.

Abraham's silence speaks infinitely louder than any word could, and in speaking he would have done a violence to faith.  So whilst the silence is not a part of the language, for his silence express the infinite, it is a gesture, which Wittgenstein describes as 'the gesture--we should like to say--tries to portray, but cannot do' (Philosophical investigations, para 434). If this were not so then Kierkegaard could not have written about faith, and he never claims to know, but only wonders about Abraham's mental life, like a detective trying to understand a criminal mind. But Wittgenstein misses the irony in his all consuming logic.  The gesture of going to church or celebrating Christmas tries to portray faith. Yet this is not a humanism, for it is faith within boundaries of tradition. It is an insincere gesture, not a honest one, an agreement in the language of what faith is, which misses the point of faith. To show faith would not be to attend church on a Sunday, but to do the opposite of what is within the universal. That is faith, and that is irony.

At first the scenes of Abraham's tale are filled with drama. We find sympathy for Sarah, woe for Isaac and anger at Abraham, but all of a sudden we question ourselves for once we understand how much a father loves his son, we ask 'why is he doing this, have we missed something' and this intriguing revelation sends on the first steps towards humanism.  Wittgenstein is so set on making sense he has missed the fact that some experiences are nonsensical and he demands that they mean nothing, yet it seems that the nonsense means everything, which is why it cannot be said.

Anyone who has asked another who has tried a euphoric drug will ask,  'what is it like?' They will struggle to describe it and say 'bliss'. Yet during the actual experience of the euphoria, if they were asked the same, only silence would fall, accompanied by a smile. The sober one walks into a room of people rolling around and sees only insanity and stupidity, yet the ones who are euphoric feel infinity and so are silent. This is why chemical experiences have to be had to be understand them. They cannot be described, just like the faith of Abraham.

So Wittgenstein’s thesis that the subjective, private experience of emotion or colour cannot enter the language, even Kierkegaard would agree. But in the irony of faith, this thesis cannot say it means nothing, for it is a gesture, an honest gesture breathed in irony that causes introspection and so does portray faith, in irony by looking at our subject, not a language, for ultimately language is inadequate to account for the infinite subjective experience.

It is this irony that makes the silence of Abraham louder than words and what Wittgenstein misses in his philosophy, for he presents reason and boundaries, instead of nonsense and humanism.  When I read Kierkegaard I do not read a tale that has any religious significance to me, I am not religious.  What I read is a story of self-belief in the eyes of judgement, of one who steps beyond boundaries and becomes something more than himself. The experience means everything to those who know it and nothing to those who do not and clearly Wittgenstein knows not, for he sacrifices his heart for armour but Kierkegaard sacrifices armour for his heart and this I think is the difference in their philosophy, the presence of love and humanism, and this is why Abraham's silence is infinitely louder then Wittgenstein’s words.

T.C.R.Moon

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 51 'Open Topic'