Friendship and Aloneness

I hold this to be the highest task for a bond between two people: that each protects the solitude of the other. - Rainer Maria Rilke

Only those who savour solitude are capable of true friendship. Only when two people do not need one another can they become friends in the deep meaning of the word. In this intimate dance of souls, the self becomes the other and the other becomes the self. And yet, it is the separateness of the two that propels the movement. At the heart of friendship lies the Gelassenheit, the letting go of the other. Inevitably this is followed by the expectation of their return, when it happens, if it happens. Whilst solitude is essential for cultivating a state of not needing the other, paradoxically it is precisely the other that enables us not to need. The word ‘alone’ derives from ‘all one’ and a friend is someone with whom we can be all one, with whom we can be alone. Whilst “we live as we dream — alone” (Conrad, Heart of Darkness), we delight in sharing our aloneness.

One might think of friendship as a camaraderie of ‘free spirits’, who, at every moment, make a conscious choice to be close to each other without the need to possess, to enslave or to serve. While slaves cannot be friends, tyrants cannot have friends. “What we commonly call friends and friendships”, says Montaigne, “are no more than acquaintanceships and familiarities, contracted either by chance or for advantage, which have brought our minds together. In the friendship I speak of, they mix and blend into one another in so perfect a union that the seam which has joined them is effaced and disappears.” Such union can only take place between individuals, between undivided selves.

Friendship was greatly valued by the ancient Greeks. Yet, according to Aristotle, no friend is to be preferred to truth, which is greater than any finite human being can be. He stated of his friendship with Plato: “Plato is my friend, but truth is a greater friend”. A true friend is not some incarnation of the nymph Echo that only tells us what we want to hear; a friend tells us what we daren’t see in ourselves. When a self-induced disaster befalls us, we can invoke his soft yet persistent probing: “Could you have done it differently?”

Nietzsche, like the ancients, held friendship above erotic love and considered agon (a contest) to be an indispensable ingredient of it: “in your friend you should have your best enemy”! In this he echoed W.R. Emerson: “let him be to thee a sort of beautiful enemy, untameable, devoutly revered and not a trivial convenience to be soon outgrown and cast aside” (from his essay Friendship). Hence, beware of those who echo you in a flattering fashion, and also of those who reduce you to an echo!

Friendship is about sharing an ideal, sometimes more precious than life itself. Such was the camaraderie of those who were facing death in the desolate trenches of the Great War. Saving a friend from extinction sometimes required the sacrifice of one’s own life; serving one’s country in peril was a higher ideal still. Every heroic endeavour implies readiness to die for the ideal that stands above the earthly existence of the individual. It dispenses with utility and transports us into the realm of the transcendental. Nietzsche extolled the ideal of friendship thus: “There is, to be sure, here and there on earth a kind of continuation of love in which the greedy desire of two persons for one another has given way to a new desire and a new greed, a common higher thirst for an ideal that stands above them: but who knows this love? Who has experienced it? Its rightful name is friendship” (The Gay Science; I:14). A sense of uniqueness is implied here, uniqueness of the ideal and uniqueness of the friend who shares this ideal with us.

A friend makes us feel fully ourselves without the fear of being judged or rejected; he is like a mirror that helps us to become ourselves. In his presence, we can discard the mask. A friend sees the good in us when the rest of the world doubts it, when we ourselves doubt it; a friend is someone who walks in when others walk out. For Hamlet, it was the loyal, unwavering Horatio who quietly gave him courage to face the hostile, treacherous world. He was also someone to whom Hamlet was not afraid to show the vulnerable, anguished and also loving side of himself. It was in Horatio’s arms that Hamlet died, and it was Horatio who was left to mourn the ‘sweet Prince’ and tell his story to the world. Perhaps “to become what one is”, even the great ones must have a ‘Horatio’ by their side? Especially the great. And this is what Nietzsche, the advocate of hardness, solitude and self-sufficiency, wrote to his ‘Horatio’: “My dear friend; what is this – our life? A boat that swims in the sea, and all one knows for certain about it is that one day it will capsize. Here we are, two good old boats that have been faithful neighbours, and above all your hand has done its best to keep me from capsizing!” (in a letter to Franz Overbeck, November, 1881).

When we are in deep suffering and despair, no words can bring solace. The silent, compassionate presence of the other is all that is needed. This can be brief, but it must be sincere. A moment of shared, wordless stillness becomes a moment of friendship; it is also the moment when healing begins. We treasure the memories of these ‘spots of time’ in our hearts and return to them when despair returns to overwhelm us. To use the metaphor from Bergman’s unforgettable film of the same name, they become our “wild strawberries”.

Dr. Eva Cybulska

A Marxist Critique of Doctor Who (with a little Goethe thrown in, obviously)

Doctor Who: an incredibly popular, British science fiction TV show, with a cult following. The protagonist is a humanoid alien time traveller, who is an ardent Anglophile. He saves the world via his intellect, rather than with brute power.

Marxism: a political theory, mainly drawn from Karl Marx’s , but also Friedrich Engel’s political philosophy. Marxism, as well as an ideology, is also a method socio-economic analysis of class struggle in world society.

Whovian: anyone who is an ardent fan of Doctor Who.

Marxist literary criticism is something which is usually applied to the Bard’s work. However, why can’t a Marxist critique be applied to something more current? Whilst as Marxism per se is no longer in vogue, the Marxist critique certainly is. However, if Marxism is a credible method of analysing society, can’t one analyse the current dominant form of creative entertainment, that is to say television, utilising such a viewpoint? I think so, for if Marxism truly is dead, then it can only assess the past, rather than the now.

And Doctor Who is very, very now. Actually, it is timeless. Okay, okay, I apologise for the Whovian jokes. However, as it has been on television for over fifty years, and as the Christmas special will air on BBC1 on December 25^th, doesn’t it warrant a philosophical analysis? The answer, of course, is self-evident.

Now, my dear reader, please allow me to analyse the protagonist first. He, like Karl Marx, is Anglo-centric and an Anglophile (The similarities are quite interesting, both were exiled from their home, and both chose London as their base to change, and save, the world). Doctor Who is a very British piece of science fiction. Most of the plots revolve around Britain, and most alien invasions occur in London (Why the writers think that aliens want to spearhead their invasion from a small island in the north of the northern hemisphere is beyond me). Thus, it is quite obvious that the Doctor himself has many peculiar British traits.

He really, really does. However, these peculiarities are confined in class. The Doctor is representative, in all of his incarnations, of an eccentric, upper class, British public school educated chap. Not only is he representative of this, he is also a polymath, adept at problem solving. Well versed in literature, the classics, astrophysics and philosophy, he quotes Shakespeare better than Patrick Stewart at the Globe, and his understanding of time makes Stephen Hawking look like Joey Essex.

Dedicated Whovians will argue that Christopher Ecclestone has a northern accent; however, they are merely southern accent Chauvanists with no understanding that said actor is a well spoken Yorkshireman. Also, they may argue that a Time Lord would have such knowledge: I would argue that Doctor Who is a construct – he is merely a character! His speech, knowledge and mannerisms are imbued with that of a British aristocrat, and very few, if any, references are made by him about the working classes.

Furthermore, Doctor Who is stridently patriarchal. If you forgive the pun, time and time again, it is a man who solves the science, it is the man who dominates the relationship with his companions, it is the man who, almost always saves the day. Conversely, his companions (almost always female) seem to be resolved to screaming, seemingly as high pitched as possible, for his help. Why wouldn’t a humanoid alien be a woman – or even genderless? Is it that hard to imagine? It seems quite obvious that Doctor Who merely reflects the society’s values of its time.

However, and there is almost always a ‘however’, Doctor Who has changed with the times. It is best to view Doctor Who within two different time frames: pre 1989 and post 2005 (we shall forget the 1996 film, for sake of argument). Russel T Davies, though Oxford educated and British, is openly homosexual. Given the changing attitude towards homosexuality during this period in British society, it was almost natural that a gay writer would reflect this in his writing.

Thus, Doctor Who became gay friendly! This fact is epitomised with the advent of the character Captain Jack Harkness: the first non-heterosexual character in the whole of Doctor Who (interestingly, British society, which is far less religious than its American cousin gave birth to a gay friendly Sci-Fi, whilst Star Trek is sorely lagging behind). Jack Harkness is a very interesting character; though white, good looking and an atypical alpha male, he is openly bisexual, and proud of it. This would have been unthinkable in 1963, with William Hartnell, an elderly avuncular, asexual Doctor in the role.

Furthermore, the post 2005 series has an interesting class difference with the pre 1989 shows; the companions are far more working class, especially Rose Tyler. She is representative of an honest, down to earth, exploited proletarian. Without the Doctor’s Gallifreyan first galaxy privilege, she wouldn’t be able to self-actualise as a human. As her life would have been bogged down with work, her ill-educated proletarian boyfriend, and poverty, she wouldn’t have been able to display her better qualities.

However, she does get to show them – she has the tenacity and foresight to defeat the (rather phallic) Daleks and the Cybermen, as well as saving the Doctor’s life – not to mention the rest of the multiverse. In essence, she is elevated to the level of a Goddess, laying clues to save the Doctor’s life throughout the infinite universe he protects. This is a metaphor for the working class; work is intellectual bondage, and as Marx stated, “Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex.”

This quote is further realised in the case of Martha Jones, who is both black and female. Despite this, she is a medical doctor – and, therefore a member of a higher social class than Rose. She, like the groundbreaking Uhura before her, breaks the mould. From a Marxist perspective, she can be viewed as either: a member of the bourgeois, using her class position to develop further, or someone from a non-traditional power base in the western world, fighting for equality.

As this essay has a limit, I am afraid it must end: out, out, brief candle! Nonetheless, dear reader, let me finish with the iota of Goethe promised in the title. Goethe (a German polymath) once stated, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." This was hinted upon in “The Long Game”, in a future Orwellian Earth:

The Editor: Create a climate of fear and it's easy to keep the borders closed. It's just a matter of emphasis. The right word in the right broadcast repeated often enough can destabilize an economy, invent an enemy, change a vote.

Rose: So all the people on Earth are, like, slaves.

The Editor: Well, now. There's an interesting point. Is a slave a slave if he doesn't know he's enslaved?

The Doctor: Yes.

The Editor: Oh. I was hoping for a philosophical debate. Is that all I'm going to get? "Yes."?

The Doctor: Yes.

Samuel Mack-Poole

Are the ’isms now wasms?

A note on Soo Tian Lee’s article on –isms.

At the time of the Molotov-Rippentrop Pact in 1939 (no I wasn’t there!), between the Nazis and Stalin, a sadly unnamed wit in the British Foreign Office observed “All the Isms are now Wasms”. If we feel this today, we might well feel like saying that “I am an Ism-free Zone.” But perhaps they are merely pragmatic... or perhaps they are not even that.

Now, some time before Issue 34, before we indicated the issue articles belonged, Soo Tian Lee wrote On the Claim of Not Being an ‘-ist’ of Any Sort. In this he stated:

My view on this is quite simple: to claim that one is not an ‘-ist’ (or an ‘-ian’, an ‘-ive’, or whatever suffix one uses) is to hide from oneself and (some) others the views that one really does hold. And the danger with this is that quite often, these views will just be rather mainstream and, quite possibly, rather centrist. In other words, the dominant strands of political thought that are the building blocks of one’s political viewpoint will be the ones that are widely accepted and transmitted through newspapers, popular film and music, random conversations on the bus, and so on. For example, I have never met a post-political person who did not think that capitalism is the least objectionable (if not the best) way to organise society. Neither have I met a post-political person who objected to society being organised according to hierarchical structures. In both these cases, there were political beliefs behind these opinions, namely supporting capitalism and believing in formalised leadership. But these political beliefs were hidden by claims which rejected ‘politics of the old sort’, claims which acted as a fig leaf that covered the nakedness of the post-political position.

In fact my very first article in this Newsletter, way back in 2011, was to be a reply to this perception, but I was told to write about ‘Love’ instead. Which I did, but I wasn’t to be outdid: my article was entitled Love: the ultimate -ism!

In fact I think we can turn to the prevailing analyses of modern logic, which deals in strong and weak operators. I gave a hit of this in Love: the ultimate -ism, when I contrasted

with

this latter being an example of a weak modal operator.

What is the difference between a strong and weak operator: if X is possible, this means that non-X is not necessary. Like if Y is permissible, then not doing Y is not obligatory.

So when people say they don’t have any –isms, they should mean they don’t believe in anti-capitalism. This does not in fact strictly mean they believe in capitalism, but if capitalists are going to abuse the trust-by-default of these people, it is sufficient that they have a weak belief in capitalism.

So if I do not believe in the activities of Iain Duncan Smith, if I have no strong belief they are wrong, then in effect I weakly believe that his actions are right.

Surely you don’t believe in scroungers? Or DO you?

Martin Prior

Philosophy Takeaway Newsletter 64

Meditations on Virtue

'We do not discover purpose through virtue, we discover virtue through purpose.'

The purpose of a sword is to cut through resistant materials. A 'virtuous' sword is one with a sharp edge. The purpose of a cup of green tea is to fill the body with intoxicants, stabilize metabolism and act as a stimulant. A 'virtuous' cup of green tea is one with the appropriate minerals. The purpose of a tap is to allow water to be drawn whenever one needs it. A 'virtuous' tap is one which does not leak and allows the free flow of water.

The purpose of a human being...is much trickier. In the above examples we can identify 'virtues', or qualities, which enable a thing to fulfil it's purpose. This is largely because we - human beings - have designed these things for specific purposes. Sometimes they can have alternative purposes - a broken sink painted green with pink spots would probably be considered virtuous in a modern art gallery - but generally speaking we know the primary use of a tool or technology.

But what is the purpose for we human beings? Our origins, the dreams of our ancestors, our place in nature , where we are going, is far more complex than the destiny of a tap! It may seem like it is hard for philosophers to come up with answers. Nonetheless, we must not yield the question of what purpose is to politicians, to scientists, to theologians or psychologists. The question of the good life was asked in great detail by ancient philosophers, and with philosophers it had best remain.

I believe human purpose to be related to more than just our own personal flourishing and emotional well-being. To place too much emphasis on personal emotion and our immediate surroundings is to lose out on principles which can be universalized. To live the good life for oneself is part of our purpose, but the same conditions which allow us to flourish ought to be available to all. Why shouldn't they be? If we have benefited from living in certain conditions, and it is possible to share such conditions elsewhere, it only makes sense that we should be as fair as possible. Thus, the perfect 'soil' for human flourishing lies not only in individual character building, but also in the way we order society, and the world at large.

The ultimate society which allows us to fulfil our creative purpose is a meritocracy. Under such circumstances a person may succeed or fail based on their own efforts and not on their place in an unequal society (as in our current false-meritocracy). But never should anyone be doomed to failure, or locked into stagnant success. It must remain a fluid meritocracy - for ideas grow old, and systems grow obsolete. Everything must be held up to scrutiny and change. The foundation of such a meritocracy is, perhaps paradoxically, egalitarianism. We cannot have fair and honourable meritocracy without equality preceding it, and in a too-competitive environment we risk permanently stratifying people into classes, thus destroying the notion of society, and therefore meritocracy. Of course, this ideal 'soil' for us to flourish is far from realization; we live in a world of hierarchical politics, entrenched obsolete institutions and growing inequality. Against this tide I present seven virtues I consider the most important in our struggle to fulfil our purpose - the flourishing of an individual's creativity to make the world a better place.

- Self-Awareness: The ability to realize one's own consciousness is the first virtue. This I believe is the key to wisdom, and thus the discoverer of human purpose. Through self-awareness we can know what it is we want for ourselves. Without such direction, we can be easily manipulated. Without such direction, we are void. Such a void can be filled by any authority, or remain empty and be glossed over by rampant desire-fulfilment. Self-awareness must fill the void through its perpetual searching, it must find direction within ourselves, and ready us for the inevitable changes we will need to make. Only through such daring reflection can we distinguish where our ideas have come from: did we accept them ourselves after conscious deliberation or were they imposed upon us from the outside? How much of our personality traits have we chosen, and how much have we absorbed through habit and soaking in our environment? What do we want to keep, and what 'demons' do we want to exorcise?

By examining our actions we become sceptical. Once we habituate to this scepticism, we have an automatic shield which can filter out falsehood. Self-awareness is thus the first step into wisdom. It is also important for self-control, and can provide us with recognition of what we are capable of. It is the most important virtue, but not the cardinal virtue; self-awareness is like the necessary soil in which the ultimate virtue may take seed.

- Humility: One who has humility is not competitive in a win-at-all costs way. Whilst competition can be a good driving force, without humility it is bound to become destructive and create a world of egotists and show-offs; as per our own consumerist dystopia. As so many problems of unequal wealth distribution and competition for status pervade our age, humility may well be one of the most powerful virtues which bring about a fairer situation - if only the powerful and boisterous could be convinced to embrace it!

Humility can be the source of a great sense of humour. Laughing at ourselves makes life bearable, and prevents us from taking everything too seriously. The 'seriousness' and pretense of society is the veil hiding many evils which lurk beneath. A sneering maxim against this pretentious evil could be: Polite lies trump vulgar truths. Laughter must wash away this arrogance, exposing the flesh of our hypocrisy to scrutiny.

- Courage: The first two virtues of self-awareness and humility must come before courage. Courage can be a vice if one is courageous for the wrong reasons. Yet without courage, we cannot defend that which we hold dear. As we must fight to create any form of change in ourselves, and in society, we need courage. We can discover the best of all possible options through wisdom, but courage is to put ideas into action. Daring to speak out and be wrong is also a massively courageous act. To this end, the following maxim can be useful: Action without thought is stupidity. Thought without action is cowardice. Cleverness is not enough - we must be daring!

- Compassion: We have to concern ourselves with the journeys of others, as others will concern themselves with us. It is a simple, mutual exchange at the heart of it. We should recognise that compassion for others is compassion for ourselves, for it is impossible to be truly satisfied in a world of inequality and suffering. As the virtues should be qualities leading us to create the ideal society, we recognise that our character is influenced by the culture which created us. Without compassion, we can love only those who are immediately around us, and this is a form of 'loving tyranny', where anyone outside of our immediate sphere ceases to exist.

Compassion, blossoming out of our natural connection to all things, is to be spread as far as the mind might reach. The true test of the heart lies as much in caring for a stranger than it does a loved one. If we need a more direct stimulus to be compassionate, let our own suffering lead us to empathy, and it need not be an abstract idea.

However, we cannot always be compassionate, especially not to those who would destroy us. Nor can we allow it to be the sole, blanket response to whatever problem may arise. Compassion could be insulting, and threaten our virtue of humility. An easy maxim to remember this can be as thus: Respecting others is as important as loving them, as we shall see in the next virtue.

- Dignity: We must tread softly with compassion. To be too willing to help can be patronising. Worse yet, to be compassionate to someone can accustom them to dependency, especially if we do not recognise their ability to be self-aware. Creating such dependency is not a virtue.

Dignity is the ability to decide for oneself what one will do, or not do. It is freedom; especially freedom from harm or coercion. Dignity is the virtue which arises from the sum total of all our individuality; it is the sacred pride which rests around an individual's character like an aura, protecting them from any injustice. It promises us our own space to grow and develop, and prevents people from dominating our lives and trampling our individual privacy.

The dignity of the individual relates to the actual physical and mental person: who they are, not what they possess. A person's private property, therefore, is not their dignity, though it may be their means toward it - I am not defined by the house I happen to live in, but without it I have a much harder struggle to find any dignity, privacy, safety, and so forth. Dignity, rediscovered in what we do and not what we have, is the anchor of virtuous character; if we are dignified then we might treat others with the respect they deserve. When we place the dignity of private property over the dignity of individuals, we end up with absurd acts of waste, such as having more vacant houses than homeless persons.

- Patience: All things good take time. There is nothing of value that is instant, and little of value that is given. We must be able to wait. So many 'evils' come not from malice, but impatience. At great speed it becomes hard to consider those in our way. Patience is not a virtue in the consumerist value system. Far from it, it is an obstacle which needs to be torn down! Patience is eroded away by convenience and withered to nothing by instant gratification.

Willingness to suffer through bad periods is essential in our struggle as individuals and world-savers! Knowing when to strike is more important than the strike itself. We must have nerve. We must be prepared to wait generations. Revolution is impatience taken to extremes. At the same time, we must not allow patience to give us an excuse to do nothing. Nor must we hide from the world and allow ourselves to become lax.

- Creativity is the 'cardinal' virtue. It is creativity that makes life bearable and presents us with progress, in creating new technologies, works of art, great philosophy, and so forth. The self-generative principle inside each of us must be given the opportunity to flourish, for the incredible results it will produce.

Creativity gives us a form of purpose, but certainly not a linear one; for we never know what will emerge from us. Rather than aiming for a horizon, which, when reached leaves us feeling disappointed, creativity is spontaneous, and perhaps a little more unpredictable. It could almost be called a divine gift, if only there was such a celestial realm.  Yet there need not be any transcendent planes of existence to explain human creativity; it is what it is, a gift of Nature, and it is all that we need to be bathed in eternal wonder. It is we who created the gods, not the gods who created us. Creativity is all the magic and divinity a humanist needs.

With creativity as the primary virtue, there is less need for temperance and moderation. For it is not restraint and harsh discipline that leads to blessedness, but blessedness that leads to restraint. And the way we become blessed is by harnessing our own individual creativity. Frugality also follows creativity, as the creator-artist is more concerned with their project than any hoard of wealth.

Through creativity we can complete ourselves, and rarely grow bored. To overcome soul-dampening consumerism (a lack of creativity, an unsatisfying void-filler) we need this virtue. It enables us to do much with little. Resourcefulness is also a virtue enshrined within creativity. Doing something new with what is already there is the pinnacle of human ingenuity - we don't always need to create something new! It is creative use of our resources that will enable us to to be environmental world-savers, not more resources.

So much hinges on this virtue becoming cardinal, though never an end in and of itself. Art for art's sake is creativity as an end in itself, and is as contrived as it is pretentious. One last dangerously catchy maxim for the road!: Creativity without justice is trivia.

I do think that creativity is massively political. What will tear down the grey walls of inhuman bureaucracy and flatten the towering pyramids of unequal class and status? My answer is simply to transcend these things and imagine something better. And this 'transcendence' follows from the recognition of oneself as the pinnacle of human evolution - an artist – and to be an artist one must possess the cardinal virtue of creativity.

Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Irrational Motives of Irrational Man

I was profoundly struck, in a manner most philosophical and existential, upon reading an article criticising the people who looted London in 2011. The criticism attacked them for not having a clear motive for their actions. Although the destructive event was a few years ago, the impact of it only truly occurred to me years later...

Irrational Creatures All -

The foundation of Man is, sadly, irrational. The days of the rational self, who through mighty philosophy could access Reason to guide himself to truth, are well and truly over. The rationalist philosopher no longer has the final word on what truth is. The objective eye of science is likewise proven to be inadequate; no eye can perceive independently of it's personal, cultural and political biases. The observations of science are made by subjective consciousness, and can only be tested and observed by other subjective consciousnesses. It can only produce subjective outcomes; a part of the picture. Science is great at producing reliable technologies, and reliable theories about what nature is made up of, but this is still not truth with a capital 'T'; this is not meaning. To put it bluntly, no one has the ability to grasp the non-existent absolute truth, and so no one can claim to be absolutely correct in their motives to act. This leaves us in an uncomfortable place.

Human beings are irrational, empty vessels, in an irrational, empty cosmos. We have only one thing binding us together, filling us up with meaning, and that is society. Our notions of progress and worth are dictated to us by this society, this natural gathering of individuals. The Individual (with a capital 'I') is a rare creature, and more often than not is forced into isolated individuality for being too strange for normality. The rest are not truly individual, relying on society a little bit more than society relies on them.

As we are primarily creatures of society, we must look to it as the producer of our values and motives to act. And the most important value of all, is progress. The irrational creature that is Man desires progress and purpose more than anything. These are the two things which cast us into motion, and give us strength. All life is a flight from boredom! The means by which we make progress is generated for us by our society. In our particular part of the world this is discovered in bourgeois ideas of self-worth and an abstract individualism. In short; accumulating property and earning status whilst having more fun than your next door neighbour! Whilst these values are superior to the feudal and religious nonsense which preceded them, they are nonetheless antiquated. Yet I will not waste article space in idle dreaming! The bourgeois values are here, in the now, and we are all affected by them.

Here then is the question: are these values rational? Are these values the product of rational thought? The answer is a resounding nay. The desire to accumulate is just that - a desire; a driving force encouraged by capitalist indoctrination. This is not rationality with a capital 'R'. In our world, rationality is reduced to a means to acquire the things we are told we need to be purposeful, successful people. Accumulation and status are the idols we have moulded from the natural clay of purpose and progress. The moulding was not carried out in the name of rationality, but the simple, base drives of natural desire.

The motive of Man is the advancement of his self and kin, dictated to him by the authoratative commands of his society. He is a wind-up toy set to 'leech', and the great hand winding him up is the hand of custom. He is, in short, a parasite who will happily feed on his fellow man for the warmth of blood in his belly. However, in our polite and civilized society, this parasitism is subject to certain rules; and it most certainly is not discussed at the dinner table! We are more advanced than societies elsewhere in the world insofar as we do not resort to violence to destroy those different to us. We tolerate alternating viewpoints, and find other more democratic means to screw each other over.

So we can but imagine the shock to the system when energetic, violent youths in sportswear start to tear down the boundaries and accumulate outside of the accepted boundaries of social etiquette. The obvious, physical violence of the London riots and the temporary collapse of order was far more emotionally frightening than the slow creeping rise of energy bills or a loss of hours at the Tesco garage. The irrational consumerism of the people who looted London did not involve cueing up, wasting hours of time in unsatisfying, mechanical labour whilst making amoral, undemocratic, internationally-reaching corporations rich in the process. This made the people who rioted different from the average leech, and as such, liable to be sneered down at with all the more ferocity. In short, their violence and parasitism was of the socially-unacceptible variety and that is the only reason why they were held in contempt.

Looting one's environment -

We have to be careful in lumping all 'London looters' into one category, as I may have unwillingly done so earlier in this article. The initial motive was sensible enough; a protest against police mistreatment against a community, summarized by the police illegally and illicit shooting a man, and later trying to cover it up. Once the rioting kicked off, the message was drowned in a deluge of frustration and opportunism. Yet we cannot blame the average, directionless person for looting - anymore than we can blame anyone else for being who they are.

From the interests of a hopeless, under-educated, bored teenager, to cause a bit of mayhem is the 'right' thing to do under such circumstances. This 'right' has been given to them by their environmental surroundings and circumstances: namely the inability to fulfil the natural command to progress and find purpose. The 'right' thing to do from the dogmatic ideology of a conservative government is to punish such 'chaotic' behaviour as severely as possible, to prove that they are on the side of Order and the people. Either way, the motives for both sides are the result of their environment, and not some higher-order of logic or rationality (with a capital 'R'). The individual actors within their environments are given their motives by their surroundings - what we might call 'soft determinism'. Whether they choose to act on those motives is up to them, but the motive itself is not the product of free-choice, and we have to remember that the motive feels right to them.

The difference between environment and person is far closer than we may feel comfortable admitting to ourselves. Our personalities are moulded over time by our environment and our character can be shaken by traumatic experiences which effect us suddenly. But character can also be moulded slowly, as dust might gather upon a mantle top, or limescale collect on the filament of a kettle. If anything, the slow absorption of one's environment is the more subtle of the two, and harder to pin down. How am I to tell you what my motive is when it has been building up slowly inside me for so long?

The true motive for the London riots was a feeling of worthlessness and inability. These feelings were not chosen by each individual actor. How can an actor choose to thrust himself into emotional and existential turmoil of his own will? How can such self-doubt and hatred originate from inside an actor's character? Whether there is a will to deal with one's unfavourable surroundings is immaterial - the emotional state of being downtrodden should not exist in the first place. The way to prevent people from looting and rioting is not to punish them, but to extend a hand and allow them to become fully fledged parasites in the bosom of our 'democratic' society. Then they might get their fill of blood and power in a socially acceptible, and suitably polite, manner. Alternatively, our value system needs to change.

But the next time you think about criticising the lack of a motives in a person, or even an 'uprising', ask yourself: where did my motive come from? You may find that it came from the same place.

St. Zagarus

Philosophy Takeaway Newsletter 63

To Have One's Cake or to Eat It

The Paradoxes of Social Democracy, Neoliberalism and other Systems of Government

I recently had the opportunity of accompanying a house-mate to the hospital where he is being treated for a fairly serious ailment (which he is thankfully recovering well from). I found myself in a consulting room with him and the kindest, most helpful nurse I've ever met. Sitting there, I felt my suspicion of the state and public services drain away even as I thought, “Isn't it wonderful that the NHS exists to take care of all, regardless of means?” A few moments later, however, this illusion of an idyllic welfare state dissipated as my memory catapulted me back to the experience of being in the Accident and Emergency unit of another hospital with the same house-mate, where he was treated horribly by a rude, unsympathetic and completely unhelpful doctor.

As I am writing this, a couple of hundred students are dashing around the streets and sidewalks of Bloomsbury, pursued by 11 riot vans-worth of police officers, including some from the infamous Territorial Support Group (TSG). These students have committed the collective crime of gathering outside Senate House, the headquarters of the University of London to protest against the increasing use of force by the police – in some cases instigated by university authorities – to quell student dissent on campus. In one case, a student was arrested for challenging a stop-and-search being imposed on a fellow student of black ethnicity – one of the countless cases of racial profiling that occur all throughout the country. In another case, the President of the University of London (Student) Union was apprehended for ostensibly failing to comply with laws regarding public processions after an initially static demonstration by students turned into a march. Most shocking, however, were the events of last night at Senate House itself, where the police smashed an occupation by students of the Vice-Chancellor's office and the main management corridor to raise issues such as discriminatory policies in the terms and conditions of outsourced cleaners and the planned privatisation of student accommodation. This ruthless crackdown appears to have been performed despite there being no injunction or warrants issued. Students who had gathered outside to support the occupiers were also subjected to punches, truncheons and other acts of 'responsible policing' by the Met.

At first glance, these two stories may seem quite unconnected. What does a benevolent arm of the welfare state like the National Health Service have to do with heavy-handed policing? In reality, however, they are intimately bound to each other. The wonderful public services and national insurance that operate under the ideals of social democracy cannot exist without the other side of the coin, namely the force of the state. The Japanese philosopher Kojin Karatani describes the state as operating under a 'mode of exchange' which he calls plunder-redistribution. In the same way that medieval princes protected the cities and regions in the sphere of their influence with their standing armies in return for taxes and tribute, so does the modern capitalist state provide welfare and protection to its obedient, tax-paying citizens.

Hence, one cannot enjoy state-backed public services and reject the brutal force of the police and army which are the state's boots on the ground. To do so would be akin to the proverbial desire of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. Some might say that in a properly functioning liberal democracy, the police and army are governed by just laws and systems of scrutiny. This is, however, to ignore the fact pointed out years ago by Max Weber, who characterised the state as that which has the monopoly over the use of force. This force normally operates as rather subtly veiled threat – do not all laws essentially carry the message, “Do (or don't do) this, or else”? Nevertheless, in any situation in which the authority of the state is seriously questioned, there can be no doubt that the threat will be made real, as we have indeed witnessed time and time again.

There is more, however, to the welfare state than simply the paradox of the state giving healthcare and benefits with one hand and taking away freedom and liberty with the other. To explore this, let's consider the position of many 'reasonable', 'pragmatic' and 'moderate' people who often argue that public order is necessary for the flourishing of humankind. There are two flaws to this rather appealing argument. First of all, the only sort of flourishing which is permitted under the political and economic system of today is a capitalistic one. The might of the state is, in essence, the guarantor of an economic system in which the accumulation of capital is the central principle – indeed, almost always the only one. Secondly, wherever one goes throughout the world, the police and army do not work for all humankind, but rather the illusory idea of the nation to which they have pledged their allegiance.

This way of organising life on earth is based on what Karatani calls the 'unholy trinity' of Capital-Nation-State. All these three elements are intimately linked in various ways. For example, capitalist enterprise is made possible by the state guaranteeing the enforcement of contracts and the maintenance of markets under the profit principle. Also, the ideology of the nation, an imagined community of people who share a common 'culture' and goals in life, legitimates the might of the state, in which the sovereignty of the people is deemed to rest as a result of marking an 'X' on a piece of paper every four or five years. The redistributive powers of the state help soften the unjust effects of capitalist wealth-creation – in other words, Peter having been robbed by Paul is thrown a little bag of coins, taxed from Paul's substantial income. And so on. Each time one of these three elements appears to be challenged, the other two are ready to rebalance the system. To cite just a few examples: social democratic governments temper the enthusiasm of capital but give the state increasing power; Thatcherism weakened the state in certain respects but strengthened the power of capital; and under fascism the discourse of nation takes over. But at the end of the day, the Trinity lives on.

Some may cry, “But what can be done? You've cut us off from all the usual solutions, such as reducing the size of government to empower private enterprise, or regulating the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism with state authority!”

It is not my intention to provide a completely worked-out blueprint, or a detailed step-by-step guide for us to reach a Promised Land. Nevertheless, I believe that we can work towards better forms of living together. To cite Karatani once again, what we need, in Kantian terms, is a regulative idea and not a constitutive idea. The latter, like 20th century Really Existing Socialism, believes that we can build the New Jerusalem by imposing a clear plan. The former, on the other hand, acts as a horizon that we journey towards. What is this horizon? It is one in which mutual aid, co-operation and self-organisation are watchwords. It is one in which the exploitation of capital, the coercion of the state, and the inward-looking myths of nation are discarded in favour of commonality even in the midst of diversity, free association, and a recognition that there is only one world in which we all share. These ideals may never be realised 'in full', but they are already present today in the many radical projects, initiatives and shared lives throughout the world, such as worker-owned co-operatives, Local Exchange Trading Systems, time banks, social centres and free universities.

The task is thus, to quote the Constitution of the Industrial Workers of the World, to 'build the new society in the shell of the old'. This will not be easy, and will have to be done alongside forms of resistance to and confrontation with the forces of Capital-Nation-State, but given the ongoing ecological and economic crises, the choice is indeed, as some have said, to 'co-operate or die'. As the narrator in the film HOME says, “It is too late to be a pessimist.” So let's hold on to, and venture forward with, the 'Will to Believe' (William James).

Soo Tian Lee

Homophobia, Intuition and Logic II

I was pleasantly surprised when 'Homophobia, Intuition and Logic' got into the Philosophy Takeaway magazine, and I was interested in the comments. I did indeed speculate as to how and why societies might turn to homophobia. In the article I started by looking at what ethics might say:

1. Social liberalism: gays are OK, they should be free to do as they wish provided nobody else suffers, and who else suffers apart from homophobes, who are really suffering from their own prejudices rather than homosexuality?
2. Universalisation: what would happen if everybody ‘did it’? The human race would not survive.
3. The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Naturally… if I were gay I would expect them to bash me. [really?]
4. The ethics is nought, homosexuality is a sin… like abortion is murder, and some say corporal punishment is violence and pornography is violence.

And much of what I discussed looked partly at why innate homosexuality might evolve and how homophobia could be linked in with constraints on heterosexual relationships. We must now have a number (v) argument:

5. The frying-pan argument: the relevant physical organs are not made for homosexual activity – likewise you don’t use a frying-pan to boil water.

Maybe you could call this the utility argument: I prefer the ‘frying-pan’ term, and one of my readers agreed, perhaps with undue prompting, that it was really the universalisation argument.

Well in fact if I am using my pot to slow-cook my kleftiko, I am not going to rush out and buy, borrow or steal another pot for a quick cuppa because using a pan disobeys a utility rule – let alone the frying-pan rule. Although if I have servants, getting such an implement is what they are for.

There are two issues I would like to raise, one is whether gay or bi is nature or nurture, and secondly, how to uphold monogamy you may well try and stigmatize the ‘left-overs’.

Is gay/bi nature or nurture? I would say both, and the nature addresses long-term considerations. If over a long period of time, there is a surplus of women, a society will be more harmonious if there is a significant proportion of gay women. Likewise for men. But to address short-term variation, there will be nurture. And probably this will depend on the gender ratio of the people surrounding a child in its early years. And bisexuality also helps to address short-term variation in the gender or sex balance.

But coming to another issue: how far do stigmatising, phobia and the like help society counteract nature and nurture in a harmful way? Clearly when missionaries introduce monogamy to societies where there is a surplus of women, this is likely to cause pressure against men to not prefer their own, and also creates a lot of lonely women, possibly mothers, unless there is bisexuality among women, which missionaries are not that likely to encourage.

And similar distorting effects occur with female infanticide in places like India, where the resulting surplus of men almost certainly leads to New Delhi being described by some as the ‘rape capital of the world’.

So perhaps, ethical intervention should only occur for consent and against deception.

And in our own society, the monogamous heterosexual – and fully clothed – model is upheld. But it is mathematically impossible for everyone to achieve this ideal, not least if there is also an imbalance in homosexuality. So we stigmatise prostitution and pornography as well as adultery. To my mind it is the sexual imbalance, rather a male desire to exert power over women, that drives pursuits such as prostitution and pornography, and neither in themselves involves deception and lack of consent, except to counter-act the stigmatization.

And we can only address problems by recognising causes: ban Page Three maybe, but regulate activity and don’t thrust it on other people.

Martin Prior

Philosophy Takeaway Newsletter 62

Perspectives

1.

Of being placed within being

of existence within existence

the point of reference is self-referential.

(A hall of mirrors in which our observations return only what we observe:

a kind of sense of ourselves observing from which we assume meaning.)

Of being conscious of being

our situation necessitates structure

in order to navigate the possibilities.

(If we see ourselves as prisoners then our endeavours to understand

are merely the yearnings to become the prison in order to establish why we are prisoners.)

2.

In our lazy wealth we chatter,

drowning in vacuous gossip.

Our infinite technological horizons

invite us to stand still and gawp.

Our potential to dream

is routed down optic cables.

Others wait outside

but they do not partake:

they see nothing worth sharing.

They wait – visions are fleeting.

3.

Sometimes the frame through which we look

is more interesting than the picture framed.

Simon Leake

Maxims for Meritocracy

I) The question is not whether a group of people (a tribe, a city, a world) will strive to become the best they can be. The question is which criteria they will use to determine what is best.

II) As it should always be the democratic group who decides what is the criteria of merit, these criteria should always be in the interests of the entire group. Individual interests cannot be separated from the group.

III) Great minds stand on the shoulders of giants. Giants stand on the shoulders of a great many labourers.

Earning Merit -

I) Whatever is unearned is worth little.

II) Whatever is earned by wealth alone is worthless.

III) Improving oneself is not a direct, diagonal line leading upwards. With every great chance of improvement, one must face one's own inferiority. It is an endless, jagged, struggle.

IV) One cannot choose to be skilled at something at a moments notice. It is only by endless (and sometimes accidental) effort, that we can get anywhere. Therefore greatness is not a question of strong will, but patience, endurance and perseverance – these things are more like habits.

V) Confidence is just taking the knowledge that you can do something for granted.

VI) A person's title rarely connects with their ability. Let all certificates be recycled into milk cartons and put to good use.

Merit and Power -

I) If people choose to act outside of their interests they are choosing poorly, or are being mislead.

II) No body would willingly choose to harm itself, unless it hated itself. No body could hate itself unless it were taught to do so.

III) Most people are equally skilled, though their skills create different things., which may be differently valued. When a great many people are unable to fulfil their skills, there is some condition preventing their growth.

IV) If someone illegitimately seizes the reins (a tyrant, a dictator, a capitalist) they are opposed to meritocracy. Authority, also, is the enemy of meritocracy. Such predators care only for flesh.

V) No power ever valued meritocracy, only it's own stability and hegemony. No power ever exposed itself to fair competition; those harsh winds of meritocracy!

VI) Modern power is subtle; cloaked in shadow. It is the parasite which drains its host only slowly, and whispers in the ear, promising to serve.

VII) Modern power wins not by playing well, but by writing the rules.

VIII) Power and opportunity is never shared; thus it must be taken. The battle for that power justifies its taking; the struggler has earned her share by virtue of struggling. Only the one who seeks to restore true and equal meritocracy can call on this just righteousness.

Selim 'Selim' Talat

Why Live? (Let us speculate)

The question "why should we continue living", cannot be seen as a purely philosophical question. There are interests at stake which lie on top of it, and smother it's purity. We could talk about it, but the words would have to compete with ingrained habits; the necessary connections that are created by our expectations. To truly ask the question “Why Live”' means a terrifying leap into the abyss of existential nihilism - to start again, from yourself, with nothing taken for granted.

This is why we cannot get honest answers from power. Power has at its heart only its own interests, and not your own as an individual (there is no such thing as a power which respects individuals). The question of why one should live does not even occur to one swept away by power. It knows why it should live, and that is to compete and win, to triumph, against other powers (be they natural or artificial). All other reasons to live - if indeed there are any - are subordinated to the ambitions of power. Dissidents will be tolerated so long as they do not pose a perceived threat to power. Indeed, dissidents can be part of power, themselves being defined through struggle with it. They become obsessed with it, hating it as they fight it. Dissidents may also give those within the bosom of power purpose and belonging. The people will choose a familiar dictator before they embrace the unfamiliar liberator.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Perhaps corrupt is the wrong word - power is an expression of human purity. And that purity is the purity of an answer, which strife and contest provides. Nothing provides purpose like war. The question is not whether men will war, but only by what means. Castles and fiefdoms have today become replaced with ASDAs but the tigers on the train to Canary Wharf have all been reading A Game of Thrones the last time I checked.

But do we not have a natural drive toward happiness, peace, equality? No. How can self-hatred survive in so many people and how can so many deny their own interests for others if this were the case. Why do some people have unhealable wounds? The answer is that we human beings do not have a drive toward life and happiness, we have a drive toward purpose and meaning, even if that means maintaining our own suffering and stunting ourselves. We are context machines, and we will destroy ourselves, literally our own bodies, in the name of meaning and belonging. Nowhere more will we find our answers than in the bosom of power.

Mind / Body and Life -

If we take the above seriously, then we are posed with a simple criticism. It sounds as if I am saying that there are drives and forces beyond our control; as much within us as they are without us. How can this be justified? Are we two people?

An effective argument for mind/body dualism (the type I refer to states that a human being is made up of two 'components', and that the mind is not identical to the brain) lies out there, in the real world. It is also evident in our own bodies. Mind/Body dualism can explain human hypocrisy, or paradox, more than anything. The 'physiological morality' - that is, the morality of the body, consists in drives. We are not separate from them, but nonetheless do not know where they come from, when they will come, and we cannot turn them off. If we could turn them off by force of our own will, how could we turn them back on?

Greed, war, tribalism, these things are not the result of 'moral evil' nor individual selfishness. They are the product of physiology, and the playing out of natural drives; they are often, if anything, done for the sake of love. There is such thing as a human being, a human essence, that can be discovered. It is forever changing, it is not always the same, but it is still fairly predictable.

The awakened mind rests inside this irresponsible animal. I was once criticised, rightly so, for suggesting that the human body works like machine. So we know it does not, it is a forever changing, and subject to irregularity. This does not take away the fact that it is a creature of appetite. Just because something is not set in stone, that does not mean it is completely fresh and new with every passing moment; human nature will change with evolution, but it will bring with it patterns of behaviour which indicate what it is.

If you have accepted this, then you agree that we cannot hold human beings responsible for their actions precisely because of their unchosen natural imperatives. Our natural urge is to become powerful (in relation to a weaker body), or at least reach a basic level of power (ownership of space, resources and so forth). We may not consciously do these things at the expense of those immediately around us, but when one power rises, another will often fall.

The natural imperatives for power and belonging are encouraged by customs. We are social animals, and we are never alone - individualism is impossible, and desirable only for genii and philosophers. The masses are social animals, their internal, innate drives provoked by the outside world, for even at the smallest level of biology, genes require an environment to stimulate them. And the people cannot be held responsible for wanting to be part of power, for that is how they will hoard wealth, how they will find a sense of purpose, how they will fornicate and create children - in short, how they will become a human being. As each person is not responsible for their nature, nor are they then responsible for allowing it to actualize them. This will to life is separate from the conscious will! The drive to life is not you - as in, you the entity who is reading now.

It is only Inhuman Beings who we may hold responsible, those who are aware enough and willing to shut out the drive for life and outer-power. They have existed throughout history, in the form of monks and holy people (self-denying ascetics). However, the Inhuman Beings of the past had something we do not have - the ignorance of obsessive religiosity. We are left with no such escape route from ourselves, and this is why human civilization has not progressed beyond that of a bee seeking a colourful flower, or the enchantment of a politician's lie.

To advocate a world less wretched than our own, is to be inhuman. And as an (In)Humanist, I can only welcome the destruction of natural values - which allow a man to say one thing and then do another, and get away with it so easily. Which allow such a vast disconnect between idea (mind) and action (body). Whose Justice is so utterly, blatantly non-existent. Who permits evil so long as it is evil done within a custom. Where natural instincts to protect one's own lead to favouritism and inefficiency. And where every two steps forward have been accompanied by one backwards.

So why live?

In light of this, why live? If you are of nature it will be to execute your imperatives - to breed, to play, to cling, to gather, to power, and to fulfill your appetite. If you are not, then there is no reason to live. This does not make death any more of an inviting prospect - one does not need a reason to live to continue living. It simply means that there is no actual reason for it beyond what is dreamed up, or argued for. Certainly there is no appeal to nature; the easier answer!

The reasons to live given by institutions or power are just reflections of their own goals. This is obvious insofar as they provide a final answer which falls into the boundaries of their great plans. No institution will ever entertain the notion that life is goalless - their very power lies in the ability to get people to put themselves, body and soul (as it were) into their projects.

I am apart from the human sea, and my head is above water, so it is impossible to return to the flow. Out here, there is only the stark beauty of a fleeting, decaying, imperfect world to live for, and the 'romance' of solitude. That, and the warm glow of philosophy which may be a better guide to surviving the void than any religious belief or hiding hole. Who knows.

St. Zagarus

Not all constructs are invalid

Construct: (1) To build or form by putting together parts; devise. 

                      (2) An image, idea, or theory, esp a complex one formed of

                      simpler elements.

Many times, when I have been in an intellectual discussion with another Homo Sapien, they have said, “Ah, but Samuel, that is merely a human construct.” After saying this, they seem to nod wisely – as if they are forged, from the top of their head to the soles of their feet, of sage wisdom. I’ve begun to feel aghast at such a comment. In itself, it only achieves a modicum of awareness: that of spotting. Anyone can spot; it doesn’t require a genius-level intellect to do so.

Intellectual spotting has its place – please, don’t get me wrong – yet, it can be used incorrectly by popinjays who are out to look smart, despite their fallacious reasoning. For instance, when I once debated the notion of infinite regress (the idea that the universe has no “start”, as the idea of a first cause would always require a cause to come before it), I was greeted with a curious reply. In this conversation, I stated that either the universe has a prime mover or no prime mover. His reply was that neither was possible: his reasoning was based upon the notion that both ideas were merely human constructs.

When I have discussed theology with agnostics and atheists, I am often told – yes, told – that religion has no value, as it is based upon false constructs. I concede that the thought has crossed my mind many times. Nevertheless, as British society has a Judeo-Christian intellectual heritage, and as so many minds were influenced by “mere” Christianity. It really is the philosopher's duty to see things as a whole, and to be Janus-faced.

Yes, the philosopher must look backwards as well as forwards; the philosopher must live in the now, the yesterday and the future. We must climb the ladder and kick it away afterwards. Yet we must recognise that the ladder allowed us to gain ground, and that ladder had its uses. The Bible may or may not be true – the evidence is, I’m sad to say, lacking – but there are some magnificently wise passages in there (as well as some very foolish ones, too). I wouldn’t, however, reject it per se, and I wouldn’t reject it because it is, in all probability, a human construct.

However, if there is no God, then the world truly is comprised of human constructs. Mathematics, poetry, art...all the beauty, all of the world is viewed through the prism of human thought; as such, without the ability to create such constructs, such models of thought, there would be nothing of any intellectual consequence. Don’t misunderstand me, please. The physical reality would be there, but the very words we give to our physical reality wouldn’t. Without humanity, and without the ability to create such constructs, the universe ceases to exist. The abstract world cannot exist without the concrete world, but the concrete world can exist without the abstract.

Moreover, if we apply David Hume’s sense-centric Bundle Theory – which I'll explain in a moment - to humanity, we learn that humans are in fact, a human construct. When humans use the pronoun, “I”, what is this “I” they refer to? In essence, this “I” is physical; the human physique has features – better known as properties. In turn, the eyes, ears, voice, hair (or lack of it) constitute the physical appearance of an “I”. If we try to imagine a human without properties, they are no longer human; it is impossible to have a human without properties. Nevertheless, It is quite ironic that humans are constructed by themselves.

Furthermore, it requires us - as sentient beings - to recognise the fact humans have (probably) created all modes of thought. As such, the only value these modes of thought, or, more succinctly, constructs have are twofold: firstly, to the individual; secondly, to the society.

Thus, we should come to at least one conclusion, or possibly two. And what are they? Well, it is only useful to recognise an idea is a human construct if you are arguing against a dogmatic theist, who claims that everything is a gift from a barbaric, sadistic deity, obsessed with having mere humans prostrate to His every whim; secondly, given that we should recognise the notion that all ideas are human constructs, it doesn’t cheapen one’s argument one iota when a smug, pseudo-intellectual attempts to appear clever when spotting something which, to be honest, is perfectly obvious.

Samuel Mack-Poole

ECOLOGY: THE SHADOW OF REASON

The destruction of our environment is not intelligent, it is short-sighted and self-destructive. It is demeaning to our common sense and humanity. It is the monstrous dark shadow of our modern materialistic, consuming society; our great 'evil' or whatever name anyone cares to call it. An unstoppable and destructive force, forever desiring more and more, never filling its bottomless abyss. It is a black hole that is devouring the whole earth with all it's creatures, including the human race, who have risen to become the most self-destructive species on the planet.

How can environmental issues be approached in a rational and logical sense? “If you think, you are” said Rene Descartes, meaning that things only exist if you are aware of them, or you exist as a person if you are aware of yourself as a thinking being. This philosophical statement is in opposition to the scientific reality that the universe and the world with it's elements, with the kingdom of flora and fauna, exist and live independently of us as the thinking species of nature.

Has Mankind, in it's own process of evolution and development, cut itself from nature to such a degree that it lost it's place in the world? Since when did humans, as the rational species of the earth, start to over consume and destroy the very environment it needs to survive? It was from the moment humans saw nature's resources as commodity goods to exploit, and not as the earthly components that sustains the delicate balance of life in it's many forms, including ourselves.

Earlier communities had a mystic relationship with their surroundings, following seasonal changes in nature and the annual cycles of sun, moon and stars. As a matter of fact, their view of life was universal, whilst retaining the vital perception that their world and its elements were vulnerable and needed harmony, respect and care. Humans had to fit into this vision of nature, treading carefully so as not to disturb the delicate balance that generates life.

Humans felt that they could balance or unbalance nature through their actions. Their superiority as a rational species was focused on this almost supernatural power that enabled them to establish a connection with the forces of nature, who they saw as Gods. The earth and it's elements were seen as sacred and invested with divine qualities, powerful, mysterious and ever changing. Life was celebrated constantly to help in its continuation. The earth was seen as bountiful, generous, nourishing and sometimes inclement in its dramatic changes.

If life for primitive Man was uncertain as a creature of nature, our lives and the future of our race is already stepping into very uncertain ground. Our mass-consuming society is failing to see the vulnerability of our environment, and life on earth as we know it is threatened with irreversible damage to the oceans, rain forests, water sources and ecosystems that sustain life.

How did humans change from being part of nature, to feeling like masters of nature? A crucial change began when the matriarchal worship of natural deities, changed to patriarchal worship of the God/s of heaven. Humans changed from being the only rational species on earth, to becoming its god-like masters, dominating this “creation” given to them. It's richness became a slave to his own comfort and ever-increasing needs. Gaia changed from being a Mother Goddess that sustained all life over earth, to the dirty soil that heavenly man steps in.

Early Christian philosophy saw earthly things and instinctive nature as the source of evil, eternally in opposition with the heavenly God. The original intuitive wonder of early humans about the mysteries of life, turned into superstition and mistrust of everything in nature, including women, who were seen as mirrors of the earth.

It was not only patriarchal religion which cut humanity from nature in its quest for immortality in heaven. Thinking man also cut himself from nature, when he realised that he didn’t need to worship the earth Goddesses, nor the Gods of heaven. Science, with its pure observational method, free from superstition, found itself the real master of nature. The Earth's secrets and footprints of life became codes to crack and possess. We are astonished daily by its inventions and findings.

Philosophy, as the roots to all science that changed the world and the evolution of human consciousness, is still searching for the true meaning of life. Truth and consciousness are heavy words that cannot be used lightly in connection to the destruction of our environment. If consciousness made humans superior as the rational species of nature, then intentionally and totally in control of its actions, mankind is arrogantly and greedily destroying the irrational world; it's own habitat. Why? Simply, because it has the power to do so and nothing is stopping it's way to self-destruction.

Seen from this perspective, the human race as the superior species appears more mad than rational. Mad and cowardly because we feel incapable to do anything effective to protect our earth, our world with all it's beautiful irrational species, each animal, each plant, each flower.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: to speak the truth, we need a mask or a jester's hat. In the old court of kings, jesters were the only ones who could lampoon their kings without losing their heads. What has gone wrong? Are we all silent witnesses and willing or unwilling participants in the demise of our earthly paradise?

It is the responsibility of rational man to bring a new and humble view of ourselves; to place us in this bountiful world as part of it, and not as its consumers and destroyers. If this is not done, the ethics and moral values that we have always cherished as human beings, necessary for a better society would cease to mean anything and have no purpose.

We don’t need to return to pagan worship to care for our planet. Intelligence and clarity should provide the wisdom necessary to review society’s values. If the vital elements needed to sustain life, like water or air are damaged, making our wonderful planet hostile to life, then everything else becomes irrelevant. Humanity as the rational and thinking species of the planet would have failed itself.

There are still places on the earth that appear like paradises, a habitat to unique species of animals, trees and plants. Beautiful breath-taking places on the summit of the high Andes, full of lakes, sun light and rainbows, sources of water for millions of people. By common sense these places should be protected as world heritage. Together with the rain forest they are the remaining lungs of the world. They are not protected and right now they are at the point of being destroyed in the latest gold rush for El Dorado in Colombia. Here we can see an example of irrational, environmental devastation.

The modern-day conquistadores are multinational gold mining companies, whose sole motivation is pure economic greed. Colombian people are just waking up to the fact that they must protect their patrimony and their right to the basic elements that sustain life. During the next few months, the Colombian government will decide the fate of Santurban Paramus.

Whatever happens in Santurban will determine the fate of nearly half the world's delicate ecosystems. Gold mining opens the mountains apart and contaminates the waters with cyanide, destroying all forms of life around it. The idea that gold mining is at the point of destroying this unique ecosystem is mind shattering. Do we need gold to eat or to live? Why aren't these modern Midas kings being stopped? If we continue, the next wars to come will be fought over clean water and clean air, fertile earth and land to grow crops.

If recycling bottles and cardboard packaging makes people in the first world complacent about our duties to our planet, then we must think again. Africa and Latin America is being torn apart by first world mining companies in their endless search for resources to satisfy the markets. We don’t need to be poets or have brilliant minds just to appreciate the wonder of life itself. What will become of our future, or the future of our children?

Carolina Spellman

 

Photograph by Ruby Morales, ambient journalist of Santurban lagoon systems.