This weeks artist was Eliza Veretilo - http://neonsuitcase.blogspot.co.uk/
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27
Art by Eliza Veretilo
This weeks artist was Eliza Veretilo - http://neonsuitcase.blogspot.co.uk/
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27
Ethical Consistency - By Selim 'Selim' Talat
Ethical
Consistency
The
time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which
breathes... ' - Jeremy Bentham
By what means do we apply natural inalienable
rights, or an ethics that counts the greatest happiness for the greatest
number, or an ethics that says we must not treat people as means but as ends,
and so on, to human beings?
Do we
consider human life to be valueable because it is the most intelligent and
capable of reason. If we do, then this must mean we attribute more value to the
more intelligent among us (by whatever criteria we choose to measure it). Where
does this leave children, or those mentally handicapped, or those disadvantaged
- beneath consideration?
No, it seems that intelligence alone is not enough
to grant something 'rights', or the measure to be considered valueable.
Do we then
consider human life to be valueable because of the magic of revealed religious
teachings. Again, we have to say no, as not all of us hold such religious views
and the cause of human rights is championed by secular (non-religious)
philosophy.
Do we then
consider human life to be valueable because it is sentient (consciously aware),
and thus has the capacity to be free, but only when it is not in a state of
suffering.
This
generalization seems to have more potency than the others, and leaves very few
people outside of its mantle (only those who threaten the freedom and well
being of others are themselves at risk).
It would be a fair generalization to suggest that
most human beings in a stable and peaceful environment, looking in from the
outside at a massacre, or a distant war, would be sickened by the images and
eye witness reports. Further, regarding the more directly observable violence
we find inside our own familiar boundaries, who would not be disgusted by such
atrocity?
Evidently, most of us!
For if I may be so provocative, whilst it is
reassuring that we do not tolerate mass suffering of our fellow humans, we seem
all too willing to turn a blind eye to the suffering of animals; we incorporate
their slaughter into the most pleasant and polite of our routines: 'Would
you care for another slice of animal Lionel?' is not something you are
likely to hear at a dinner table, instead 'meat' shall be used as the
appropriate euphemism, but as you can see, the violent acquisition of food is
engrained in our everyday lives.
If we do subscribe to the ethics of 'That which can
suffer, should not suffer needlessly' and 'Do as you will, so long as you harm
none', then this should be an ethical position consistently held. Why should an
animal be made exempt from our consideration? If anything, the amount of animal
suffering, if measured numerically, is now greater than ever before, to the
factor of millions of animals raised in ever-worsening conditions, for the
whole of their short and brutish lives.
We could separate ourselves from the world of
animals, or place ourselves at the peak of some vast food chain. This is
normally the knee-jerk reaction of the religious; that some divine entity has
given us dominion of the earth and created the beasts that we might devour
their succulent flesh.
On a more
philosophical note, Descartes is often criticised for reducing the animal to
little more than a flesh-machine, incapable of reason, or possessing any form
of 'soul'; primarily on account of its lack of language. This is another means
of dispossessing the animal of any ethical considerations.
Yet surely if we admit but one animal into our
sphere of consideration; if we call but one animal conscious (in a way at least
somewhat similar to our own human consciousness) then suddenly a large swathe
of creatures in the animal kingdom gain at least some measure of worth; for no
longer are we strictly dividing life into human and non-human.
The
elephant's brain has as many neurons in its cortex as does a human brain.
Whatever we have that makes our suffering 'real', must surely also be in the
elephant. And if in the elephant, why not the chicken, the cat, the dog, or
anything which we can actively recognise as having similar components to
ourselves? How can we dismiss the entire life of an animal as being a simple
case of reacting to stimulus, when there is at least some capacity for an
animal to learn, to recognise individuality, to recognise itself, and most
compellingly to suffer.
If we rose out of nature ourselves, then by the
basest logic, are we not simply the furthest reach of consciousness thus
created by nature, trailed by our ape cousins and all others? How is the human
body transcendent (beyond the mundane) if it is related to, and at one time had
ancestors no more complex than the great ape!
What we do
have is the advantage of intelligence and creativity, that allows us to create
technologies, ethical values, and so on. If these values hold that violence in
nature is something beneath us; the province of starving predators or a last
resort to survive, then why not dispense
with the behaviour altogether. Energy can more efficiently be grown and
absorbed from plant life, and all without treading on anyone's hooves.
It would be a foolish person indeed to place all
life on an equal footing, doubly so if we allocate our hearts love to smallpox
bacteria, common garden weeds, fleas and such like. Human beings are the
greatest of all life thus discovered, and perhaps the most powerful entity in
the universe itself. Yet considering the fact that we can now slowly adjust our
means to survive and thrive without causing unnecessary harm what arguments can
be presented against the animal ethics position?
By Selim 'Selim' Talat
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27
Peter Singer: - By Samuel Mack-Poole
Would
you like (relative) infanticide with (relative) bestiality? An insight into the
morality of Peter Singer:
Since Peter Singer’s controversial interview with Richard
Dawkins, his prominence amongst the global intelligentsia is on the rise. He
has been lauded by Dawkins as the “most moral man” he knows. This, obviously,
is quite an endorsement from one of the world’s most publicity hungry
scientists. But, as philosophers, we should question Singer’s arguments. It is
our duty to do so. For if we don’t, the dogmatists will. And we all know how
easy it is to argue with a dogmatist…
One of Peter Singer’s more controversial arguments
(to the non-scientifically minded) is that we are not special just through the
virtue of belonging to the species Homo
sapien sapien (please note that we are a species of a common ancestor Homo sapien within two sub-species; our
evolutionary cousin being Homo sapien
neanderthalensis).
It is a scientific fact that we are animals. That
is not in doubt. However, what we should question is: how are we unique or
‘special’? Singer has said in an interview, which is on YouTube, that humans
have an ability to see their lives in a “biographical sense”. Humans can
remember the past and plan for the future to a greater extent than any other
species. He also states that humans “admittedly have capacities to reason and
use language that exceeds any non-human animal.”
Despite this, Singer argues, quite truthfully, that
not all humans have this ability. New-born infants don’t, and whilst I don’t
want to broaden this debate too much, an embryo certainly doesn’t. Personally,
I think Singer’s arguments regarding new-born infants are flawed. According to
a Kant’s Doctrine of Right:
“Due to the congenital nature of life per se, every parent is morally
obligated to care for their child until they are able to care for themselves.
As a child has no ability to consent to be born, it is the moral duty and
obligation to provide care and sustenance for their child.”
This, to me, highlights a moral case for every, and
any, parent taking responsibly for their child – even in the case of
disability. Singer rejects this argument, quite simply, because he does not
think all human life is worth saving. He peremptorily rejects traditional and
conservative moral values -- which isn’t necessarily a bad thing -- by claiming
only life that is fully aware, sentient and has consciousness worthy of being
regarded as a person.
In his own words, Singer has stated:
“I use the term "person" to refer to a
being who (sic) is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and
desires for the future.”
Not only is this grammatically incorrect, but this
is a very narrow way of valuing human species.
Furthermore, this acute argument leaves Singer wide open to a very
slippery slope – almost a forty-five degree glacier. If a new born baby, which
can survive independent of its biological mother, doesn’t meet Singer’s highly
subjective criteria, does a one year old child? What about a toddler that is
not capable of speech, but who can think of plans? How “new” is new-born? It
would be unfair, however, not to mention biased, of me to misrepresent Singer.
He only advocates infanticide when the parents and
doctors have agreed it is in the best interests of the child – in the case of
extremely severe disability. He is very careful to be relative – for morality
can only be applied to special circumstances. He, in no way, shape or form,
advocates the, dare I say it, bestial
butchering of hundreds of healthy new-borns.
However, a biblical approach to life is not
(actively) followed by most in modern Britain. The majority of men are
Onanists; we are, for the most, a liberal and accepting society. Sodomy,
homosexuality -- amongst both genders -- can be practiced openly. As this is
the case, why is sex with animals deemed “immoral” and illegal?
Singer has written an article called Heavy Petting in which he outlines his
views on Zoophilia – after all, bestiality
has such a bad name. It is implied
that Singer is a consequentialist (someone who believes the consequence(s) of
one's action determines its moral value) and that he does not take a strictly
rights-based approach to ethical issues.
The following quote will illustrate Singer’s
position:
“Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty.”
If both parties experience “mutually satisfying
activities” of a sexual nature, Singer does not think the act is inherently
immoral. However, Singer conveniently ignores the glaringly obvious, almost
neon white, elephant in the room: consent! Tom Regan, a fellow philosopher,
correctly states that the same argument can be used to validate a paedophile’s
lust for children. If the logic is not sound in all contexts, the argument is
invalid – isn’t it?
For some reason, my moral compass is not offended
by the thought of a woman riding naked on a horse, and reaching orgasm as a
result – but I am offended by the thought of a man fucking a sheep. I have to
be honest, and admit to my moral hypocrisy; I have to work on my
contradictions. In the end, I guess, I have to admit that I’m only (a) human
(animal).
By Samuel Mack-Poole
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27
Animals cannot be capitalist, but can they be socialist? - By Martin Prior
Animals cannot be capitalist, but can they be
socialist?
Before
starting up this discussion, I must say that my factual awareness about animal
behaviour is strictly limited. We know
about Washoe, the chimpanzee that learnt American Sign Language: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/my-life-as-a-turkey/joe-hutto-answers-your-questions/7389/, and about Joe Hutto, who learnt wild turkey language: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/my-life-as-a-turkey/joe-hutto-answers-your-questions/7389/ .
Once, when I was visiting a friend in a country
which was then in the Soviet bloc, we saw some ants, and I said that ants were
communist, but had solved the supply problem.
But if we
consider socialism to be about ownership and property, then we might say that
territorial animals are not socialist.
But what about cats? Their
instinct tells them that if you are their ‘master’ (though probably vice
versa), part of their instinct tells them to share their mouse with you. So that in terms of their immobile property
they are capitalist, but in terms of mobile property they are socialist.
Or perhaps
among some animals, the leader of the pack effectively owns the females: a form
of state capitalism?
But perhaps
socialism, when expressed in terms of property, is not a final definition. Perhaps property can be used in a socialistic
way. My own view of socialism is that of
“sharing equally the burdens imposed by the limitations of the natural
environment”, illustrated in the diagram shown below on the left. Then ownership comes in when it is a means by
which the rich get richer and the poor poorer.
But then I
have argued in these issues that this process of creating equality must be
broken down, part integrated with custom, and part by processes of
investigation that transcend custom. This
is illustrated on the right, from an article I wrote for Issue 22. Skills
become critical here.
“share equally the burdens imposed by the limitations of the natural environment”
(i.e. equal wind pressure on each square inch of sail)
processes in equality
I
once heard that experiments on rats in overcrowded conditions were viable
provided the space was shared fairly.
From a brief google I find the work of John B. Calhoun (1917-95), who
found that up to a point the rats would organise themselves into packs of
around twelve, but then serious behavioural problems occurred when crowding was
further intensified, leading to diminished birth-rates which could lead to the
extinction of the community even when numbers were sufficiently reduced.
So
rats and probably other species cannot be explicitly socialist: nor do they
invent the concept for themselves. But
if capitalism leads to a kind of cancer which gets out of control, then it
cannot necessarily be repaired of its own accord.
By Martin
Prior
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27
For Mary: 15-50 - By Siobhon Wilson
For Mary: 15-50
15.
Grown. Taut.
Started but not yet begun.
Buds of sexuality pucker,
Unknowing what they held inside.
Eyes down, bitten lip.
An unfurnished room.
20.
Ibiza. Him.
Begun but not yet created.
Sex.
Known but not owned.
She is for sale.
Eye contact. Wide smile.
Playing at Four becomes foreplay.
He.
Shiny and new.
Owned but not known.
30.
Baby. Nothing But.
Created but not yet realised.
Sexuality is replaced with Mothercare.
She is owned and she has produced.
Tired eyes, sighing mouth.
Her = Child.
Le
petit mort.
A shrunken room
Littered with debris of
the past
Home to the little cot.
40.
Ten years un-needed.
Discarded but not fully released.
Sexuality is reconstructed in old, betraying
photographs.
Flowers wilt in dry soil, only half-opened.
Eyes worn, time-wrinkled frown.
Identity is unknown to all who occupy.
50.
Grown. Sagged.
Started but not yet begun.
The stretching of time leaves marks on her body.
The perennials turn to seed,
Desaturated, the negative of colour.
Eyes down, bitten lip.
She leaves.
An unfurnished room:
She opens a window and
Breathes in air.
Points of light and the Androgyne - By Selim 'Selim' Talat
Points
of light and the Androgyne
i) More voices means more power to the group
- The patriarchy is not an alliance, more a code
of battle that respects his rivals right to fight. It is composed of
'points of light' in great number. Although each point is individual, it is
granted freedom (to flourish or perish) by belonging to the whole. Thus, every
action of an individual within the fully composed 'face' is more powerful than
it would be individually.
- Without a collective face, without a voice, an
individual entity can rarely be heard, or understood.
- The lack of a large number of women in philosophy
is why her face is only half-formed. This lack of number disempowers all of
the points of light that make up this face.
ii) Our romantic imagination is oppressing the
'female'
- How powerful the human imagination is! It can add
so much romance to the world, yet often at the cost of missing the real
picture.
- A value system is always formed, sometimes
outside the ordinary dictation of nature (for instance, what is considered
'beautiful' can be completely removed from any natural instincts - for better
or for worse).
- Appeals to 'human nature' are often made by those
who cannot fully define what they actually mean by the cliché.
- The new reality created by the mind is easily
reinforced by the self-obsessed creature. The romance of illusion replaces
reality when it becomes second-nature.
- The warped view of the 'female'-other is more
appealing than the human-she (at least, to this perverse mindset). She is
mysticized as something simultaneously greater and less than human - she is one
day admired, another day feared. On no day is she an equal. And in
reality, the power of mystical femininity is no real power at all.
- A different value system emerges for woman and
man, man and woman. This becomes habit, then tradition. Traditions have the
habit of being accepted unquestioning and being enforced by mass dis/approval –
the power of brute mental force!
- The true egalitarian starting point of different
genders, linked, equal, in an intimate alliance, is polarized by that most
horrid of things - platonic perfection. Unrealistic ideals create unreachable
goals and beautiful phantoms that nullify the magic of this 'dull' world - we
stand now in the shadow of false gods.
- The face of the Patriarch is full, his voice a
resounding echo of power. The Matriarch is not yet complete. She is still
dancing to his tune, playing his game, powerful only within its confines.
iii) With equal respect for the outcomes, we
discover an equal choice
- So long as 'female' is seen as a romanticised
entity, more so than her 'male' counterpart, the true nature of her cannot be
seen. Nor can she be truly understood, or respected, whilst we maintain these
delusions.
- Soon (when?) Matriarch shall be complete, beside
Patriarch. She can match him and both will dissolve into an Androgyne. Between
the binary extremes of gender can fully emerge near-infinite possibility.
- From this point the individual will be free to
design itself between the broad barriers and guidelines of the many genders
that inhabit our sphere of experience.
- Such is the nature of our inevitable progress.
By Selim 'Selim' Talat
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26
Sexism, Logic and Intuition - By Martin Prior
Sexism,
Logic and Intuition
In the period 1974-6, I was active in the National
Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL now ‘Liberty’). At the beginning of this period, banning
pornography and prostitution were seen as reactionary in the same way perhaps
as any other form of censorship. Over
that short period attitudes changed and differing feminist views became more prominent.
I felt that a number of their arguments were
logically flawed and unhelpful. Before
going into detail I am going to consider two points, the first to do with
racism. The late Jade Goody from Big
Brother was once accused of being racist for doing an Indian accent, and her
response was ‘but people imitate my accent’.
But recently I heard an Indian say – I think on the Wright Show (Channel
5) – that he often heard people doing Indian accents, but he knew intuitively
when it was offensive. Being an
immigrant myself, I would say my reaction is similar. As a linguist I have on occasion done this
Indian accent – with best Sanskrit consonants - but I am in fact making a
linguistic point, as might an accent trainer in the theatre. But I have never formally studied Indian
intonation which I can improvise without any difficulty, and this bothers me
since I am not sure it comes out as respectful.
The second point can be made with a Venn diagram I
produced two issues ago, about negative reference. It is shown opposite:
Note that this is a mathematical statement: in
language, depending on intonation and context, we might be conceding that two
or three blondes might not be stupid (especially with a rising tone).
No, not all blondes are stupid, and some know
intuitively when they are being offensively treated as stupid. But I wonder if such attitudes have an
‘adverse environmental effect’: by being treated as stupid, they use their
intelligence less.
Let us know get to the substance of the issue:
certain activities are regarded as ‘treating women as objects’. Well firstly, an argument condemning activity
between consenting adults on the basis of a simile is a very questionable
ethical argument. Many things have a
resemblance to something else: if I lift somebody up from the floor, in a sense
I am treating somebody as an object, so one must go directly to the basis of
the similarity that causes concern.
But even if we accept this description of the
activity: treating some adults as objects with their consent does not imply we
should treat all such adults as objects regardless of their consent.
So we cannot condemn say beauty contests for
treating people as objects, but I believe we can go back to intuition: if our
intuition is that the people present at such activities ‘treat blondes as
stupid’ and the like, then we may feel that even if the event is not
intrinsically sexist, in practice that is precisely what it is. But we must also avoid making
generalisations.
I talked at the beginning about consenting adults,
and if we don’t respect intuitions we may well not gain such consent.
What set me on the path of questioning feminist
arguments was that of gender rôles, mainly condemned because different
societies had different rôle systems, and all tended to justify them on an
innate basis: so women were innately better cooks etc etc. Since this is wrong, gender rôles must be
wrong. But the flaw in this is that even
if societies don’t all have the same rôle systems, all societies have some rôles. My view is that gender rôles are chosen according
to what can be conveniently combined,
and even though one might feel this was not an optimal mix in terms of
aptitude, this is compensated for by early learning.
But this combination principle mainly applies
within households, so that in terms of careers, aptitude has to be relevant,
and studying this should certainly not critically depend on intuition: there is
no way that a combination principle can be invoked to say that ballet dancers
must be either female or gay! And
feminism is certainly not ‘post-’, so anyone thinking of being the father of
post-feminism need not apply. Nor
post-anti-racism. Nor (even in Tony
Blair’s wildest dreams) post-Trades-Unionism.
Philosophers may well be wary of resorting to
intuition, but in fact it is the basis of modern linguistics. Linguists these days do not accept something
as grammatical in a particular language unless it accords with the intuitions
of a native speaker. That is a starting
point: and philosophy cannot directly use intuitions, but it will have
something to say about any scientific method that draws upon it.
Such intuitions to my mind explain why for some
ethnic and other groups a neutral term soon becomes derogatory, so that another
neutral term has to be found. Thus the
term Polak is derogatory in the States, even though it is the Polish for
Pole. And ‘hussy’ originally meant
housewife, and ‘bird’ is derived from a dialect word – I believe Northern -
related to bride.
Just one more thing: aren’t beauty contests
reinforcing one particular idea of beauty, one particular ‘eye of the
beholder’? So who is what is
disrespectful to?
Postscript on post-feminism...
In the last issue we talked about magic, and about
madness in the issue before that, so now I can adapt my diagrams of those
issues to post-feminism:
The analysis is very similar to that of Magic. But the bubble should really straddle :) and :].
The very serious point relates to observations and
variables: any progressive movement will deal with a situation there are more
variables than observations, and must proceed by trial and error, picking out
the strands in a situation. As in
language-learning, which might be characterised by
imitation(!)
-> deduction -> correction,
error has to be constructive. In that process, where the parallel of
imitation is problematic but possibly still valid (perhaps rôle-models but this
needs further examination), deductions will often take the form of
over-generalisations. We will add to our
understanding if we allow for intuition, and allow for gender rôle within the
household and outside, but of course that creates problems as well as attempted
solutions.
By Martin Prior
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26
The Feminist Reaction To Evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary psychology is a theory that states
psychological mechanisms evolve casually as a survival skill to over come the
'hostile forces of nature'. The theory
can make predictions based on what would be advantageous to survival, thus
describing the teleology of human nature, with physical and psychological
mechanisms that help to achieve this goal for the longest time possible. Evolutionary psychology gives a description
of human nature, with strong results. For example fear and snakes. By developing the psychological state of
fear, we greatly enhance our survival chances; we feel fear when we believe our
life is under threat and this causes us to develop reactions and intentionality
that guide us to avoid these situations or at least focus in order to avoid
fatalities. Once we developed fear and
experienced poisonous snakes, we inductively learnt to react with fear in the
presence of snakes, thus we have a natural fear of snakes even though this
danger is far more reduced today, with anti-venoms and such, it is still a part
of our nature to fear snakes.
Psychological mechanisms develop by maximising what
will optimise our survival, which will be definitive of our future natural
dispositions, but something has changed in our environment which has caused
defiance to certain developed psychological mechanisms. This defiance took manifest in feminism (for
example).
One psychological mechanism which both male and
females have developed is attraction. In the largest survey of its day, looking
into the habits of what males and females find attractive in the other sex, (buss,
D.M. (1994a). the strategies of human mating, American scientist, 82, 238-249),
this survey was done over six continents, over 10,000 subjects, from Nigeria to
Japan and showed that women rank financial resources 150% more important then
males in finding a long term partner attractive. This would make sense as a male who can
provide an abundance of food for this female and possible child will increase
their survival prospects. Women who
attracted good hunters would have been more successful in surviving and
breeding then women who didn't and thus the psychological state of attraction
is mechanically joined with a successful male. In short resource access causes
attraction in women.
But given our now advanced science and
agriculture, do women still rely on males to provide in the same way? For
example the sex disqualification act of 1919 allowed women to work and divorce men
and as we have grown, women now have a strong presence in the work place and
gain highly powerful and respected jobs.
It seems analogous to the fear of snakes, a evolutionary lag in
attraction is still present but is changing.
The natural environment hasn't changed but the
social environment has and not necessarily in a evolutionary beneficial form,
the idea of a women earning more then the male, at least 50 years ago and
before, may have been off-putting to other possible mates as they would be
emasculated, yet the feminist force has continued pushing against evolutionary
mechanisms.
Feminism can be seen as a reaction to evolutionary
psychological mechanisms in the sense that the dependence on the males is
caused by out-dated social structures, and in this sense feminism is
progressive, but a more profound transition has occurred in this defiance to
psychology. Evolutionary influences give
rise to automaton women or, as Simone de Beauvoir would have said,
psychological mechanisms are responsible for women's state of immanence, and so
there is an existential shift, affirming being and not automaton instinct,
allowing choice instead of doing what is required to survive and as women
becomes more successful it seems reasonable that attraction to wealth, will be
displaced to other factors, perhaps creating a turn towards intelligence, wit
and honesty.
But in summary, our sociability is moving to point
that is causing a choice based on being and not reflex survival mechanisms, re-defining psychological states that will affect change in human nature. It is interesting that the more independent we
are of mother nature, the more independent humans are, becoming existentially
authentic in choice, allowing decisions to be made by self reflection and
not mere mechanisms. It shows we are moving
away from what Darwinian evolution distilled in our physiological and psychological make up and entering a
phase which is unknown to us.
T.C.R.Moon
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26
Do you believe in magic? - By Patrick Ainley
Do you believe in magic?
‘Who does not know Turner’s picture of the Golden Bough?’ begins one of the hoariest old explanations of the origins and progressive development of magic, religion and science – in that order, traced through 12 volumes of evidence from anthropology and history collected into a great scheme of things. Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough is the type of meta-narrative no longer approved of in these postmodern times. It is speculative and, in its own way, magical but it offers a simple and coherent explanation of magic – or, rather, magical thinking. What would baffle Sir James is the return of so much magic today. To do that needs resort to another hoary old Victorian denizen of London – Karl Marx and his concept of ‘commodity fetishism’ which he advanced in his grand and historical scheme.
According to Frazer, magic works on the principle of homology: if one thing resembles another, they are thought by people who do not know better to have some connection and influence on each other. The winter mistletoe on the Druid oak is sacred because evergreen like summer. If your liver troubles you, the remedy lies in the liverwort which looks like a liver, rather than perhaps stopping drinking so much alcohol. Indeed, ancient and indigenous medical systems typically present parallels between parts of the body and the natural world. This is the way homeopathy supposedly affects its magic – you take more of the same that is causing your allergy or illness in order, magically, to cure it.
Magical re-enactments of uncontrollable events can also seemingly bring them under control. So sports players often perform personal rituals – touch left foot with right hand, right foot with left hand – before beginning play. Students carry the same ‘lucky mascots’ into exams, hoping their presence on the desk or in their pockets will bring them the luck that got them through the last exam. Or they go through irrational actions – cramming all night before the exam, for instance, even though this reduces their chances of even staying awake the next day!
While such rituals may have psychological benefits – putting you ‘in the zone’ so you can concentrate – they are plainly not the basis for a coherent explanation of events. To find this, Frazer thought that as evidence accumulated humanity moved from magic to religion, typically reducing the many influences, spirits and gods of – for example – the oldest surviving religion, Hinduism, to concentrate on placating a reduced number of deities in ‘more advanced’ religions, such as the pantheons of Egyptian or Greek gods, usually families ruled over by a guiding king or sun-god, like Ra or Zeus. In monotheisms, this presiding deity became the sole remaining God – even if Christianity complicated things by giving him a son! Islam is therefore simpler and more advanced/ progressive than Christianity in Frazer’s view but, of course, simplest of all would be to have no gods at all and move on to science which ‘has no need of that hypothesis’ for its predictions, as the French scientist Laplace supposedly told Napoleon.
Despite the pragmatic scientific world view supporting so much of our lives and thought today, in situations of uncertainty people tend to revert to religious or even magical thinking; like the Irish playwright Brendan Behan who said that he was ‘a daylight atheist’ but when it got dark he fell down on his knees! ‘Do you believe in magic/ In a young girl’s heart?’ as the Loving Spoonful asked, relating to the apparent uncertainties of pair-bonding – though most people in fact find their partners within their own social class, however defined. The song also illustrates how commercial popular culture keeps such beliefs alive so that Marx argued that human relations under capitalism were ‘fetishized’. Like the example that Frazer gives of West African fetish kings, the masked ruler or his (occasionally her – as in the UK today!) effigy/ totem is credited with ‘control of the weather and so forth’ (not in the UK!).
So, in the ‘immense accumulation of commodities’ that Marx says makes up the wealth of capitalist societies and which the economy must go on producing and selling to maintain itself, ‘the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life’ and, invertedly, ‘relations between people assume the fantastic form of relations between things’. The use of the commodity produced for sale becomes less important that its price, so that ‘priceless’ and really incomparable art works, for example, are fetishized in an imaginary hierarchy of quantity over quality. As indeed, everything and everyone has their price which can be rated on a monetary scale. Money, the symbol of value and exchange, thus becomes more real than the things it buys.
This has a psychological underpinning in Freud’s notion of fetishists replacing the real object of their desires with a substitute – like women’s shoes, notoriously (though the Chinese did the same by binding feet)! The fetish is endowed with magical powers that we can see in advertisements where the commodity assumes a life of its own, like cars that speak and are presented as somehow ‘sexy’ or ‘powerful’. This tendency towards fetishism is heightened in the postmodern simulacrum that presents itself as more real (‘hyper-real’) than reality because, although depending upon science for their production, the inner workings of the fetishized commodities that fill our world become more arcane and unknown to most people. And so as we work them and they work themselves by so-called ‘artificial intelligence’, they assume magical properties and the world spirals out of human control or even understanding.
We cannot therefore be so confident that, as Frazer concluded his voluminous study, the ‘clouds and thick darkness’ of magic that envelop ‘the backward portion of the web… which the Fates are now weaving on the humming loom of time’ will be irradiated by the rationality of science. Especially as the productions of science are fetishized as the commodities of an unsustainable hyper-reality, our species must disenchant the world we have created in order to survive.
By Patrick Ainley
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Magic' Issue 25
Magic, Magick, Manipulation and Materialism
Let me set the scene, we live in an era of materialism, where wealth is worshipped above knowledge, more than that, knowledge is acquired in order to attain wealth (you educate yourself in order to get a better job) Our appearance and external features seem more important and our inner life has moved to second place. People turn up their noses to praying and wishful thinking and have placed science in a semi-religious pedestal as holder (or potential holder) of all answers. This sounds well and good, we are all rational beings who claim to have moved away from superstition and even the number of ‘atheists’ is ever increasing. Yet, in this era which claims to be free of witch hunting, I call for the witches and the wizards!
+Veretilo.JPG) |
| The author prepares for some magic of her own! |
Let me explain, magick is the intervention of a will into the workings of the Universe. Students of magick concentrate their learning on exerting an influence in the world (which is why some people think magic is about making things fly, because that is a sort of action in the world). Magick is a sort of miracle, in the same way that a genius technician makes a computer going through a quasi-artistic state of creation. It is founded on a series of natural and psychological principles which now inhabit the backdrop of the scene; along with humanity’s mental well-being (our minds get fed so much crap on a daily basis).
For example, people nowadays would find it absurd if a person wore a protective talisman, or that some people hear advice from an 'other-worldly being'; yet science keeps telling us that there are more dimensions (eleven have been confirmed so far) than the one we inhabit, and that elements have more properties than the ones we perceive with the naked eye. The 3D world of the five senses is perhaps only a part of a greater knowledge, a deeper understanding of the universe. We tend to condemn before we understand, and let’s face it, we do not understand a lot.
Magick, with this strange spelling, is an ancient domain of knowledge which seeks to understand the universe and humanity’s connection to it, with sympathy, with respect. Magick respects nature, it has rules, in the same way that science has laws. People who really have studied magick (I recommend to consult Manly P. Hall) will reveal to your consciousness how magick is not child’s play, it is a powerful art, a study, that is as active in human history now as it ever was. It is not in popular culture for several reasons, to name a few: the influence of religion, the industrial revolution and subsequent move to materialism, the fear of teachers of this knowledge to be spread and misused and of course, the mis-users of it prefer it to stay in their hands. Magick is no easy topic, it is very contested ground.
We live in a world were knowledge runs in many many different rivers, some people see the world as completely spiritual and ‘magical’; some understand a purely material and pragmatic world; some only care about the brain and some consider mathematics to be a sort of magic. Some people believe in creation, some in evolution, some in the creation of evolution, the one thing we haven’t learnt yet is to connect the dots, to see all the elements as part of a greater truth. We insist in others being wrong and obsess about our own views, and at that rate, who is going to open their minds? Who is going to believe in magick? Of course not when everything seems so confusing and magic seems like the irrational answer; we have become impressionable beings who gets wowed at the cinema but believe nothing and unfortunately, think of nothing.
There are few kinds of a people more speculated, stigmatised and ridiculed than ‘wizards’, ‘magicians’ and ‘witches’, or students of magick, (think of Harry Potter which is actually claimed to have many accuracies between its fantasy world and the real study of magick). Yet we all have an element of respect there, and a certain fear of their bizarre occupation, because in this day and age its more normal to stare at a glowing screen for twelve hours rather than try to listen to the ‘spirit’ of a forest. I’m not talking about ghosts, but I’m talking about a real and powerful connection to our different elements. For example, there are people who have a natural ability to heal, which means that even their sheer presence can make a sick person feel better, or their touch can accelerate healing; some of these people even do pursue the medical profession. Some people claim to have an ability to see into the future. Some would say that’s magic, others see it as a deeper understanding of our nature, perhaps that’s what it is, science has not explained it yet but the phenomena have been occurring since forever.
I had doubts whether to start this article by linking magick and philosophy or to explain my views on magic. I found the best way is to tell you now that the very educated men (yes, mainly men) who are the most representing figures of philosophy were in fact, occultists (another name for magician) in their time. Francis Bacon, is a notorious example. The reason why I use this example to illustrate my point is because magick is not a matter of ignorance and superstition, no, it is a deep, real knowledge of nature and other forces in order to exert YOUR will in the world but mainly, for growth. At the end of the day, for most of us, magick cannot be fully explained, but admittedly, it cannot be fully denied either.
Eliza Veretilo
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Magic' Issue 25
Magic: A Test - By Martin Prior
Magic: A Test
Let us consider the following two diagrams:
This is of course the diagram from the Issue on Madness, and may be compared with Magic, since in particular, madness involves people who make invalid logical deductions, whereas Magic, in any form, involves events which defy logical deductions.
But when we look at Magic, we may consider
(i) conjurors,
(ii) practitioners who believe in magic and may or may not cheat,
(iii) no cheating: psychosomatic studies and indeed hypnotism.
Note that unlike madness, we do not have the concept of harming both society and oneself, but like madness we have the phenomenon of more variables (or emes?) than observations, not least among those who cheat (e.g. witch-doctors and conjurors).
So to my mind, the parallels may be captured in the following table (where for prophets we may also read ‘which-doctors’ or even statisticians):
So why don’t we have a little test?
1. Black magic has been associated with a smiley, albeit with red eyes…is this exactly what you would think as well?
2. Unlike madness, greed is not shown as an alternative, demonstrate that this is surely true.
3. Where do you think the bubbles are going?
By Martin Prior
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
