Art By Angela Gooderson

This weeks artist was Angela Gooderson: http://es/Angela-Gooderson-Portrait-Artist/212749708758739?fref=ts

es/Angela-Gooderson-Portrait-Artist/212749708758739?fref=ts

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 40

'Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.'

- Hypatia

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 40

A narration of the philosophical process inside a person as seen from the outside - By Eliza Veretilo

He walked alone, again. Birds flew up above in the sky, away. They were flying in circles, yet he couldn’t tell. For the circle was too large for his human eyes.

             
We are so unable to see the bigger picture. But everything moves in circles, don’t you know? The birds, the events, the planets. He stopped walking, just to think, leaning one hand on a humid wall. The energetic work of the mind had liberated him and drained him and filled him up again, with questions. A city always wet with rain. He bowed his head as if to cry, but laughter came out instead. How he laughed! How he cackled! How he filled his mouth with sound so loud! Oh yes, again, but this time it was life changing and funny. You cannot live a life of tricks without being tricked yourself, they say. Escaping the pointless chit-chat to find meaning can be a comical process. Some dance their life to a music that changes its tune from a comedy to a tragedy, without even giving us a warning.

            
 He was finally there, right in the place he dreaded all along. Nothing left. Nothing of the old... mind. Yet it didn’t feel empty, it felt free. Like an open path that has been cleared from all debris by a cold, strong wind. This is what life looked like right now. Empty. No compromises, no possessions, no ties, no drama. In believing, in thinking, in feeling, in living, you can lose it all and yet somehow, carry on. Always ahead, always on. He distrusted the liars, the church, the school, the government, the framework pre-packed and given to him, from early, innocent childhood. No more. With a reason, some reasonable people might say. He grew an allergy to pointlessness, and it showed in his face. Time becomes precious once you find something... something, something, something with meaning. That’s the shade he would use to paint it all from now on. Meaning.

            
Everyone’s meeting with philosophy is different, but when its life changing, it truly is. A read of a certain book, a pure philosophical work, or a novel, or a film even (why not...) can make you despise society, or understand it, or understand yourself further, you in your loneliness, it can make you breathe harder, love harder, it can disillusion you from the world, it can open your eyes to the world, it enriches your experience, and experience is what we are after. Our character finds himself in the middle of a nihilistic storm. The pointlessness of it all has been unmasked, but not everything is lost, you always have yourself, you always have love. Not a partner, but love, just love. The love of knowledge is one aspect of this. He laughed, he cried, he was so alone in his truly self-owned mind, and that was delicious. He could be anywhere, now he was in the middle of the road, but he could be anywhere. Have you heard that even in the darkest jail you can be free? That he was now. Free.

Eliza Veretilo

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 40

Human ‘Nature’?

It is almost with great reluctance that I write about this topic. So, why am I so unwilling? Those at the stall know me to be sociable – but is that due to my nature, or the nurture I have received? This is where we come to the rub of the situation. I think it is extremely hard to decide between the two options. Humans are extremely complex and diverse in their social etiquette, for example. Any anthropologist will tell you that. However, when we analyse the human body, we see that due to natural selection we have developed certain characteristics. Our eyes, placed at the front of our faces, would suggest that we are predators. If this is the case, why do we find that individuals, and entire societies, eat a diet that doesn’t contain meat? I mean, surely this goes against human nature, right?

Well, perhaps we should think again. When dealing with the world in a scientific sense, we have to accept that there are a lot of variables within any given situation. It seems that ‘human nature’, a term which is taken for granted, is not as simple as we would like to think. What does the phrase human nature mean, anyway? A ‘human’, scientifically, is an animal that belongs to the genus Homo Sapiens – meaning wise man. Does that mean, by definition, that it is in our nature to be wise? And what of the term ‘nature’? Well, as Wittgenstein will tell us, words mean different things in different contexts. However, in the context of the phrase, the word ‘nature’ can be defined as follows: “as a result of inborn or inherent qualities; innate.”

Peter Singer – a famous Australian philosopher, lauded by Dawkins as “the most moral man” he knows -- however, wouldn’t say that this makes someone human. It’s certainly an interesting question, isn’t it? What qualifies someone as a human? A lot of the people at our market stall say the ability to communicate, which, as far as we know, is the most developed amongst any species, makes us human. Also, our ability to think is more pronounced than any other species, too.

Nevertheless, Singer says it is our ability to think in an autobiographical sense that differentiates us from non-human animals. However, I think other examples are more interesting; literature, for instance, is unique to humans.  And Chekhov, a famous Russian dramatist once declared, “Man will become better when you show him what he is like.” But how can man know what he is like, until he knows what he is?

Of course, when examining humanity, we have to remark about human diversity. A narrow way of looking at this is to examine the differences between men and women, for instance. Men have more testosterone than women. That is a scientific fact. As we know, this sex hormone leads to behavioural differences between men and women, in general.  Though this is not analogous, we see horses with higher levels of testosterone to be more muscular, faster, and even more aggressive. However, and there always seems to be a however, why do we see societies, even male-dominated ones such as the Amish, that don’t have a single recorded murder amongst them?

The reason is due to what evolutionary psychology’s great thinker, Henri Tafjel, would call social identify theory (this is better known as in group out group psychology). It is important to note, and please don’t think I’m trying to get you fantastic intellectuals to suck eggs here,  that psychological experiments study many humans to validate their claims. Thus, it can come as no surprise that psychology analyses trends, rather than absolutes. This makes my claim, the main theme of this humble piece of philosophy, relative, rather than absolute.

I believe that the nurture/nature debate is a little tired. Personally, I think we see differences in different countries/ societies due to human nature, rather than nurture. Nurture, for me, is a bubble within human nature, and please let me explain why, before rolling your eyes. Social identify theory proposes the idea that humans do the following:

“Tajfel proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world...

...to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. For example, England is the best country in the world!  We can also increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudiced views against the out group (the group we don’t belong to). For example, the Americans, French etc. are a bunch of losers!”

Different tribes have different social conventions, or invent them, to differentiate themselves from other tribes. That iss why we have different etiquette, that’s why we have such a variety of different customs, cultures, values, and languages throughout the world. As humans, we are obsessed with our identity; whether you like it not, that is the one common feature of humanity. As this longing for identity transcends nurture, and is true of all societies, this conclusion, ultimately, must be true.

I’m not going to apologise for being so forthright. It’s in my nature, after all – and Nietzsche would say that my nature is determined by my “innate order of rank” due to my lineage. So, who would I be, as humble as I am, to argue with him?

Samuel Mack-Poole

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 40

A Giant Spiny Insect - By Selim 'Selim' Talat

I -

When she came here she was an art-maker. She inspired people, she was innocence, a bright fountain. When she came here she was moral, self-disciplined, wise and, very importantly, herself.

She made one fatal mistake, and that was to be different. To push people forward and create a foundation for others to join her. A fatal mistake indeed. She expanded boundaries, and that was unacceptable to them. There was no space for forward movement. That took too much courage. That would mean trying and daring. That would mean being modest enough to look into oneself and be truly prepared to change what one found.

It was much easier to pull her in, for her vulnerabilities were more obvious than most. No longer would the fittest adapt the environment to them, the environment would make the fit adapt to it. Change her values, wind up the toy soldier and let it play out till the unavoidable conclusion.

Soon she walked like them, laughed with them, and was one of them, her self-destruction became self-generating too. They had succeeded when she stopped reminding them of what they could have been if they had any courage at all..

At the same time they hated themselves, for unlike the Vandals who once sacked Rome, they knew they were ruining a work of art.

II -

An innocent open field stretched across the horizon. Upon it were two thronging armies made up of many pikemen - one red, one black. They moved like giant insects, and when they met at the centre their long spears jabbed back and forth like the spines of some deep-sea creature. In those massive hosts was it possible for there to be individual minds?

Or was it too late. Had all of the individuals been turned into red, or black, and nothing more. House, Country, King. It was a shame that this was the only way we knew how to survive. Yet what if one split off and ran? She would not last long without those other people.

Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 40

Experience - By Ellese Elliott

Experience could experience Experience. Yet, there was only Experience. There was nothing in it, outside of it, in front of it, or behind it.  Experience was very lonely, and bored, so experience created Time.

Now Time was okay, it seemed to give Experience something to look forward to, but it also gave Experience a sense of loss. Experience could only experience Time passing or in anticipation as Time seemed to always leave Experience behind, or not yet arrive. Time never stopped. So upon Experience’s reflection, Experience thought that it was because Time had nowhere to stop; literally nowhere. So Experience created Space.

Vast and always yonder, Space gave something for Experience to explore and a place for Time to stop. Yet Time still did not stop, but now Experience could experience the flux of Time and the freedom of Space. Yet when Experience reflected, on Time and Space, Experience found that it could not distinguish one place from another. All was empty. So, Experience created Energy.

More so in some parts and less so in others, objects and shapes and currents and waves Energy gave difference and variation. Now Experience was able to distinguish things and where it was in relation to Time and Space.  But Experience suddenly realized, in the face of difference, and in the flux of Time, that Experience no longer could experience everything. Experience experienced a loss, as Experience no longer had a complete picture, but loads of different pictures in a long succession which you only get to ever see one at a time. So, Experience cut itself up, into tiny pieces and scattered these pieces all about, placing some pieces in some objects and other bits into other objects. Experience did this so Experience could experience everything. Experience was no longer one, but many

But what Experience did not expect, as Experience had not yet understood how Space and Time worked, was that Experience could only be in one place and not many places at the one time. Experiences were then forever separated and seemed never again to conjoin creating different worlds each time anew. This meant that, unless Time ran out and Space collapsed, Experience would always remain incomplete.

The more Time passed by the more Experience seemed to lose but also gain. Experience tried to put itself back together, but experiences were always being swept away.  ‘Oh no experience, what have you done?’

Ellese Elliott

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 40

Socialism and Syllogisms - By Martin Prior

The other day I suggested that economic liberal would say...

(I) socialism is theft,

(ii) socialism goes totally against human nature,

(iii) theft is every bit part of human nature.

How scurrilous of me. In fact (iii) should read (iii) therefore [if socialism exists] some theft goes totally against human nature. Then we would have been consistent with the spirit of Aristotle's system of syllogisms, preceding predicate calculus and quantifiers by some millennia. But then maybe I was thinking politically, not logically. Maybe I should have said (i) capitalism is theft, (iii) theft is every bit part of human nature. (ii) therefore capitalism is every bit part of human nature.

Maybe we should look a little bit more closely at what syllogisms are about. There are basically two key models, ‘Barbara’ and ‘Dimatis/Disamis’:

(I, Barbara)
(i) All X is Y,
(ii) All Y is Z,
(iii) Therefore all X is Z.

Note that if we say that no capitalist has a heart, we mean that all capitalists are heartless, or more strictly ‘non-having a heart’. Note also the formulaic convention of using ‘is’ when it will often be replaced by ‘are’. The Wikipedia syllogisms article might well be read after this article, giving details of all forms as well as, ‘Barbara’ and ‘Dimatis/Disamis’, including ‘no X is Y’, etc.

Modern logician will say that X need not exist, and if so, Y need not exist, and if the latter, Z need not exist.
This brings us to our second format, where we change (i):

(II, Dimatis/Disamis)
(i) Some X is Y (Dimatis), or some Y is X (Disamis)
(ii) All Y is Z,
(iii) Therefore some X is Z.

Clearly all of X,Y,Z have to exist in the above. Now as I said, modern-day logicians say that ‘all X is Y’ does not imply that X (and therefore Y) exists, but the ancients regarded a universal assertion as implying an existential assertion as well, so:

(III, Barbari) (i) All X is Y, (ii) All Y is Z, (iii) Therefore some X is Z.

Since if our conclusion is that all X is Z, then surely some X is Z.
(Also conclusions such that if no X are Z, then some Z are not X!),

But another form is:

(IV, Daraptis)
(iv) All Y is X,
(v) All Y is Z,
(vi) Therefore some X is Z.

And this fits in with the initial corrected model, where we draw the conclusion that “therefore [if socialism exists] some theft goes totally against human nature”. But of course what we have failed to do is specify capitalism and socialism in terms of the point of view of the thief and the victim. Now we see that we must be precise about what we are talking about. The analysis of events is something I might talk about on some other occasion.

And I wasn't that scurrilous was I!

                                                                                                                    
Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 40

Philosophical Tangents with Ashdotman & Socrates La Funkbadger - Part Deux

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3aJMQQxA34&list=PL1A2657A4879618C5&index=5

Art - By Rachael Berry

This weeks artist was Rachael Berry: http://www.facebook.com/RachaelBerryArt? fref=ts

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 39

Hip Hop and Philosophy: A Poetic Alliance

 
            “There she fell in with Sleep, twin brother of Death.” – Homer, The Iliad             (XIV, 277)

            “To die: to sleep… To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay,             there’s the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come.” –             Shakespeare, Hamlet (Act III, Scene I, 60-66)

            “I never sleep, ‘cause sleep is the cousin of death.” – Nas, Illmatic

Hip hop emcee KRS-One, part of the legendary group Boogie Down Productions, is also known as ‘The Philosopher’. His moniker is an acronym for ‘Knowledge Reigns Supreme Over Nearly Everyone’. This should come as no surprise to hip hop aficionados; for almost a quarter of a century KRS-One has been one of the most intelligent and authentic representatives of this now global cultural movement.

In his 1995 song ‘Squash All Beef’, a cry for peace amongst warring rappers, KRS-One refutes René Descartes’ dualism when he asserts, “There is no separation between the mind and the environment.” Instead he attempts to show that we are all one and part of a collective consciousness when he adds, “Me and you go into the universe once.” There may be some parallels here to seventeenth-century Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza, who posited that all things were a part of God, which for him was synonymous with nature (i.e. the universe).

Later in the song, KRS-One gives his own thoughts on how education could be better utilised in order to create a better society:

            “If I ruled the schools, from pole to pole
            The entire judicial system would fold
            I would get rid of the books ‘cause they bogus
            And in school, knowledge of self would be the focus
            Kids would flock to the schools like locusts
            ‘Cause school now relates to them, and you would notice
            Violence in society would be a minimal
            ‘Cause the education yeah, would now be metaphysical
            Not living by laws, but living by principle.”

KRS-One frowns upon the conservatism of state-based education; instead he believes that education should be the kindling of a fire, rather than the traditional ‘filling of a vessel’ - similar to what John Dewey and Bertrand Russell advocated before him. He is pessimistic towards indoctrinating man-made laws while believing in the innate goodness of humans by insinuating that only a society of free and self-conscious minds can truly flourish ethically, echoing Taoist philosophy.

Of course, when one speaks of philosophy, one cannot speak without at least mentioning Socrates, who was famously given the death penalty by the state for refusing to give up philosophical enquiry. He had been put on trial for questioning the gods of the day and ‘corrupting the minds of the youth’.

While he discovered that the rich and powerful men he so often questioned on the most basic moral and political questions appeared to have little or no knowledge of what they were purporting to be experts on, Socrates was himself at least aware of his own limitations. In other words, he believed in a notion of self-knowledge as opposed to absolute knowledge, meaning that he was only wise to the extent that he knew that he knew nothing.

Talib Kweli, who is part of the duo Black Star, has some interesting perspectives on the importance of self-knowledge and the spiritual and intellectual freedom it can give in the 1998 song, ‘K.O.S. (Determination)’:

“At exactly which point do you start to realize
That life without knowledge is, death in disguise?
That's why, knowledge of self is like life after death
Apply it, to your life, let destiny manifest.”

Socrates, it should be noted, chose to give up his life when offered a reprieve of a mere financial penalty.  This was because he could not bring it upon himself to contemplate a life devoid of philosophy when ordered to give up his constant questioning of everything and everyone around him. Like Talib Kweli’s notion of “death in disguise”, Socrates also regarded that such an unexamined life “is not worth living.”

Closer to home, British-Iraqi emcee Lowkey expresses his existential angst in his 2009 song ‘In My Lifetime’:

“In my lifetime I learnt life is suffering
And happiness is one thing that money doesn't bring
In my lifetime, our birth right is struggling,
It must have been, but no matter what I keep the love within.”

This immediately draws parallels to Arthur Schopenhauer, who was undoubtedly the most famous of all pessimists in Western philosophical thought. Schopenhauer famously asserted:

“If the immediate and direct purpose of our life is not suffering than our existence is the most ill-adapted to its purpose in the world.”

However by acknowledging the role that love can offer, in a sense the last line brings Lowkey’s thinking closer to that of the Buddhist tradition than that of Schopenhauer’s rigid and negative deterministic philosophy. The Buddhist notion of suffering, which is the first of the Four Noble Truths, outlines that the realisation of the inevitability of suffering in life is the first stage towards overcoming it and achieving enlightenment, or Nirvana.

It could be argued that Lowkey also echoes French philosopher Albert Camus by asserting that “Our birth right is struggling.” Camus famously referred to the story of Sisyphus to give credence to his philosophy that life is absurd. Sisyphus is a character in Greek mythology who was condemned by the gods to roll a heavy boulder up to the top of a mountain, where having completed this arduous task, the boulder would fall back the earth, forcing him to begin this process again and again ad infinitum. Camus may have argued that since Lowkey - like Sisyphus - is conscious of his eternal fate in struggling, he cannot escape the fact that life is inherently absurd, despite any attempts to create meaning through its chaos.

But it may possibly be this struggling against our fate that gives some meaning to our lives. Immortal Technique attempts to provide his own answers to life in his 2011 song ‘The Martyr’ by postulating:

“The purpose of life is a life with a purpose
So I'd rather die for a cause than live a life that is worthless.”

Perhaps paradoxically, Immortal Technique sees finding a purpose as the answer to one of the biggest existential questions facing humans - the meaning of life. Camus may have disagreed, claiming that this form of ‘revolt’ was merely a way of denying the reality of the absurdity or meaninglessness of life. Another French philosopher named Jean-Paul Sartre, who was a contemporary of Camus, also dealt with questions of our existence, famously stating that ‘existence precedes essence’. By this he meant that we are not born with any pre-defined values, but maintains the opposite; namely that we are born into this world as free beings and instead we must create our own meanings.

While many people these days are turned off by the often pretentious or unintelligible poems of the past, it would be misguided to maintain that people - particularly the younger generations - do not enjoy contemplating philosophical rhymes. There are plenty of philosophers residing in the minds of ordinary people, particularly highly creative artists such as hip hop emcees – the modern day poets of today. When Nobel Prize winning poet Seumas Heaney was asked by a journalist whether there was anyone in modern culture who echoed the popular artists of the past, he replied, “Eminem. He has created a sense of what is possible.”

By V. Srilangarajah 

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 39

[ed] 15 hip hop albums with philosophical themes you may wish to explore:

1.     Nas – Illmatic (1994)

2.     2Pac – Me Against the World (1995)

3.     GZA – Liquid Swords (1995)

4.     Wu-Tang Clan – Wu-Tang Forever (1997)

5.     Gang Starr – Moment of Truth (1998)

6.     Black Star - Mos Def & Talib Kweli Are Black Star (1998)

7.     Afu-Ra – Body of the Life Force (2000)

8.     Binary Star – Masters of the Universe (2000)

9.     Eyedea & Abilities – First Born (2001)

10.  Eyedeas - The Many Faces of Oliver Hart or How Eye One the Write Too Think (2001)

11.  CunninLynguists – Will Rap For Food (2001)

12.  Nas – God’s Son (2002)

13.  Canibus – Rip The Jacker (2003)

14.  Foreign Beggars – Asylum Speakers (2003)

15. CunninLynguists - A Piece of Strange (2006)

Mr Poole forever in the kitchen - By Lloyd Duddridge

This is a response to an article published on the 13/6/13 titled 'Is Lloyd Duddridge arguing the inarguable?'

Mr Poole forever in the kitchen

How can one argue against arguing? Is that not a paradox? What I will aim to do within this article is this. To show that argument in and of itself is vacuous. That one does not have to step into the ‘trap’ that Mr Poole has outlined. That one can examine the role of argument. If we examine it we see that argument is a tool and not an end in itself. Mr Poole’s evocation of argument for argument sake fails in the light of enquiry. In fact the real paradox is this, that arguing for argument sakes actually works against arguments primary function. 

Mr Poole in his article showed us five definitions of argument. I will refresh the reader’s minds of just what these were:

 1. An oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: 

2. A discussion involving differing points of view; debate
3. A process of reasoning; series of reasons:

4. A statement, reason, or fact for or against a point:

5. An address or composition intended to convince or persuade

Now none of these five definitions indicate why we argue in the first place. Do we just argue for the sake of it? If we do does that not make argument pointless? Also does this understanding of argument not seem to suggest that it comes full formed from nowhere? Mr Poole seems to conceive of argument as an end in itself. Yet this can simply not be the case.  Argument rests on responding to real problems. That without problems in experience there would be no need for argumentation. Thus in a perfect world where we are fully enlightened we would have no need for argument. Argument comes about when we meet a problem and seek to overcome it. Mr Poole puts the cart before the horse. I conceive debate and argument as a necessary tool to overcome problems. However I do not celebrate argument for argument sake. For argument to have meaning it must encounter problems. Thus Mr Poole must thus be a defender of human suffering and the problems we encounter in our lifetime. Now it has been argued by many thinkers that we in life need problems to overcome. However to overcome a problem requires an end or a stop, Mr Poole suggests no such end point. Thus in arguing for argument for arguments sake, he is arguing against the goal of argument in the first place. Mr Poole’s understanding of argument strikes me as the idea that it is the ingredients that matter and not the meal. In fact we can go further than that, Mr Poole conceives as argument as constantly cooking without ever eating the meal. Now you can cook all you want, however without eating you will die.
       

Mr Poole then goes onto outline a number of logical fallacies. Fine. I have no problem that there are better and worse ways in order to argue. Just as there are better and worse ways to cook. Mr Poole has seemed to misunderstand the distinction between celebrating argument for arguments sake, and understanding its role or function. I understand the role and function of argument. However I see argument as it should be seen, not as an end in itself but as a tool. I choose to understand the spade, but to

prioritise the end result, the garden.
    

In fact Mr Poole’s choice of topic proves my point. He was seeking to argue for the sake of it. He saw no end after this debate took place. His understanding and appreciation for argument for arguments sake is no closer than a man who is writing for writing sake. Both could show a love for language and for writing. However what is the point in it? Argument is powerful and necessary because it has a greater and more powerful purpose behind it. The easing of human suffering is something that should always be celebrated. To achieve this goal, argument is needed as a tool. Mr Poole may say that I am creating a straw man, and of course he was not talking of argument for argument sake. However I ask the readership to read through his article and tell me if at any point he speaks of the purpose behind argument that makes it meaningful?  The only point he comes close is when he links argument to persuasion. However he never says what ends we are persuading people towards and thus we

meet with the same problem I have outlined before.
  

Mr Poole’s ideal of eternal argument thus fails. Argument for its own sake has no more meaning than a book without words. Mr Poole seemingly accepted this challenge in order to attempt to make me look foolish. However I will leave the readership with this. Who is more foolish,the man who walks and never stops, or the man that walks but stops at a place that he finds beautiful? Keep on walking Mr Poole, keep on walking.           

By Lloyd Duddridge

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 39

Is Lloyd Duddridge arguing the inarguable? - By Samuel Mack-Poole

Is Lloyd Duddridge arguing the inarguable?

Please click here to view the mentioned YouTube video.
and to see Samuels video response, please click this link

The infamous Mr. Duddridge made a bold claim on Youtube. I’m quite sure you’ve seen it. One would assume that you  also saw my reply? If not, I will educate you: Mr.Duddridge, wrapped in a metaphorical cloak of hubris, said he would out argue anyone philosophically – on any topic.

Naturally, I thought of making Lloyd argue the inarguable, not to mention the absurd. I requested him to argue why he shouldn’t argue. This is, quite obviously, a trap. It is a finely spun web, a liar paradox, to be exact. A liar paradox can be defined as, “a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.” How Lloyd can manage to justify through argument that we shouldn’t argue is impossible. I wait with glee to see his reply. He is famed for breaking the mould, after all.

However, what does the word “argue” mean? It seems, at least to me, philosophy is confined by language. Words are tricky, like Wittgenstein’s ladder, which you must throw away after ascending. They never seem to be what they are, because, quite often, they are not.  Context is what it comes down to. Context is vital.

So, if we have an argument with someone, we usually think of an emotional dysfunction within a social context, be it between two friends, or family members – or even a philosophical group. However, this is only one layer of the onion-like word that is “argument”.   According to the authority that is www.dictionary.com, there are five main different ways of using the word “argument”:-

1. An oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention;

2. A discussion involving differing points of view; debate:

3. A process of reasoning; series of reasons:

4. A statement, reason, or fact for or against a point:

5. An address or composition intended to convince or persuade;

I hope, Lloyd, that you’ve seen that persuading is arguing, at least in a sense. Nevertheless, the almost infinite onion layers that comprise the word “argument” continue. There are delicious spirals, an eternity of grey, when it comes to this special, philosophical word.  This is due to the fact that not all arguments are equally valid. If they were all equally valid, all humans would have to be equally intelligent, and educated to the same standard. It’s an interesting concept to think about.

I’m sure we’ve all seen an experienced rhetorician wipe the floor with, and please forgive the colloquial language, a noob? But, we have to ask ourselves, is it all smoke and mirrors? Just because someone is convincing to the public, it doesn’t make their argument valid, or sound. Of course, there are many, many argumentative fallacies one can commit. As we all know, nothing makes one more of a smug, self-satisfied smart ass than pointing out when someone else has employed such a fallacy. To metaphorically grate their ego, as if it was comprised of idiotic cheese, in front a group of your intellectual peers is so satisfying.

I don’t have enough scope within this humble article to delve fully into the many, many fallacies that exist, or even the many types of argument there are. So, I will just list my favourite argumentative fallacies, which you can point out in a group of your peers, and thereby enhance you sense of smugness:

1.     The ad hominem. My favourite way of defining this is as the great ‘Gorgeous’ George Galloway termed it, when he was attacked by Andrew O’Neill on The Politics show. He called it, “Playing the man, and not the ball.” And he was right, too. When someone uses an ad hominem, they attack the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself.

2.     Ignoratio elenchi – I discovered this due to none other than the sexiest albino in politics (please note the ironic ad hominem), Boris Johnson.  It literally means that you’re missing the main point of the debate in question.

3.     The infamous straw man.  This is when someone’s argument is misrepresented by someone else. I think that sometimes, however, the person accused of making a straw man is merely trying to clarify the other’s position; nevertheless, quite often the person making the straw man is mocking.

4.     Last, but by no means least, is Godwin’s Law. A slightly different, but more Harry Potter friendly, version of this fallacy is called reducto ad Hitlerum. Many people compare that which they do not like to Hitler or the Nazis – the comparisons are dull, due to their lack of originality, and by continually comparing ‘x’ to Hitler’s atrocities,  we are devaluing the seriousness of what actually happened . Furthermore, one may say that due to the fact Hitler liked animals, that animals are ‘bad’.  This is, quite clearly, a fallacious argument.

It may have surprised you all that rather than argue why it is right to argue, that I have opted to analyse what arguing perhaps is. We do know that it can take many forms, that’s for sure. However, Lloyd’s position is impossible, and that’s why I feel confident enough not to provide many arguments against his position. How can you argue that we shouldn’t argue? It is impossible to avoid a liar paradox.  That, I am afraid, is all there is to the matter.

By Samuel Mack-Poole

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 39

Sacred Life? - By St.Zagarus

Sacred Life?

I -

In nature there are moons, stars, planets, comets, meteors, gas clouds, black holes, great expanses of empty space. When we observe this vast cosmos, separated from us by distance beyond our imagination, what can we infer from it, what can we draw out of it? Nothing!

 

'Order', you may say, yet what do stones and suns know of order? Our mortal reality: A life, brief in the scope of this immense cosmic theatre, then death - and that is that. Once you are dead you are gone, vanishing out of existence. Your personality crumbles, you are broken down, you do not awaken. We are dragged into this world whether we like it or not, we act, and then we perish. A good life, a bad life, all is equal in death and all is forgotten, eventually. You leave with nothing, there is no chance of another go, there is no path to eternity, you will not continue on in some other form. You may desire permanence, eternal order and the security of some sacred soul - no such thing is available to us. We are fleeting and slight, our capacities are limited, we know things only through the filter of our fleshy bodies.

II -

The sacredness of life is the result of one thing - personal preference. There is no logical reason for life to resume. Logic is, after all, supposed to exist before and after humanity, to be true in all possible worlds, above and beyond the preferences of individuals. What could such a cold master care for warmly-beating hearts!

 

Rationality, the ability to make choices free from emotional impulse, how does this grant value to life? For some are more rational than others; the scientist more so than your dear old nana; the civilized scholar more so than a tribesmen, someone with a more powerful brain over one with a less powerful - yet still would you call the one more deserving of life than the other. The ability to make such rational choices, from where does it give value to life, and how do we measure rationality outside of human beings, with human tools and measures.

 

This raises a question: 'If there is no meaning to discover outside of human creation then all choices are equally futile, and the ability to make very good choices through rational thinking is of no greater value than to be purely driven by some other force. Everything will eventually crumble away, and anything you do is of no significance to the cold universe.'

Not quite so, our personal preferences can always grant rational choice meaning. We do not discover the meaning of rationality inside of rationality, we discover it through our own feeling, belief, or trust in it. To put it another way, you can convince someone through rational argument of something, and maybe discover something along the way, but this will only work if the other person has chosen or is able to think rationally.

III -

We all suffer, some very much more so than others. There is no one who does not suffer; be it boredom, physical pain, lovelessness, whatever. This suffering has been explained in many ways. Sometimes it is sacred and has at the end of it a reward. Then there are those who frame it in some different kind of meaning, turning to fate for comfort (it could not have been any other way and it was not just a random act of chaos - thus my suffering is eased by understanding it).

At the opposite end of the spectrum is pleasure. Pleasure is preferable to suffering, yet neither state provides meaning, and thus sanctity, to life. A more materially rich life of higher sensory pleasure does not automatically make the meaning-seeker that much wiser. The absence of suffering is no foundation to the discovery of 'hidden truths', or meaningful lives. If it was, the level of 'profoundness' would increase the richer a civilization became. We have the greatest eye for physical nature in our scientific culture, but does the ability to make precise discoveries tell us anything about life, the universe and everything, or are we just imposing our own views upon it after the discovery.

And how do we ever know for sure, for absolutely certain? What does it feel like to have absolute knowledge of something, for I know not.

IV -

The imagery of a path, leading to enlightenment or a furthering of our lives is to me a horrible piece of imagery, and poorly constructed. A path runs from one point to another. All the way along the path, on either side of it, is ground. Wherever the path eventually leads to, it is surrounded by ground, ordinary, dull, ground. It just serves to highlight the absurd nature of our thinking: We have to go somewhere, we have to ascend somewhere, we have to evolve toward something. No, we are on a geoid called Earth, and all paths lead round in a circle.

Lines move directly forward. They appeal so much to us, being quite straight forward to navigate (walk along it - it is as simple as that). If the path leads directly forward, it must begin somewhere, and end somewhere. Where else can it end but infinite perfection, beyond mere humanity. Forwardness within time, progress and advance, seems to be a universal amongst the civlized. It creates goals and objectives, and these create truimphs and prizes. What suffering is caused by this focus on something direct and rewarding. Imagine if we just were.

V -

Here I will now make a positive argument for the sanctity of all life - the rot is no pleasant sight to the eyes. The casualties, the suffering, the maimed, these are not beautiful. It is the shallowest impulses within that make us turn away from death in disgust, the appearance of it that effects us more than anything. This very same vanity wants us to see life flourish, be vibrant and attractive. Appearances are more important than we give them credit for and we cannot brush the realities of death and suffering away by raising a plastic facade around our environment. The stink of death and decay will always waft through any shield we hold up against it.

VI -

If the human being is sacred only because of our whims, the personal preferences of individuals, then whether or not we grant these same dignities to anything - be it a stone, a plant, or an animal - is equally valid, and dependent on nothing more than our vanity. It is to this that I appeal to you then, reader. In vanity consider your fellow life forms, for it is not even in our self-interest to be selfish, cruel and murderous. When more people agree that life is sacred then do not, we shall have sanctity of life, and the only philosophy we need to wield to uphold these principles is an absence of any higher principles to give us meaning.

We can aim lower and make our world better on the back of shallow whims.

By St.Zagarus

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Open topic' Issue 39

Art - By Harry Wareham

This weeks artist was Harry Wareham


The Philosophy Takeaway 'Identity' Issue 37

To be is to identify - By Selim 'Selim' Talat

To be is to identify -

I -

The only way we know ourselves is by being ourselves. We can perceive other things, cups, tables, computers, but only get certain types of data out of it (how hard/soft it is, how it appears, and so on). Our own selves we can know to an infinitely greater extent, even without any scientific knowledge of the inner workings of the body, by existing inside our bodies. We know what it is to be ourselves and this is beyond the understanding of anyone but ourselves.

II -

If I am all that I experience, then everything that I experience (the wall, the sensation of air against the skin) is part of my identity. I am still individualized, separate from all of these things (as I have the ability to close my eyes for instance), but without this external world, what is left inside me? Imagine a child who spends her entire life in a dark abyss, what will she know, and what will she be? That child would only be darkness itself. She would not know what it meant to be alive, or dead, having no way to distinguish anything. She would not have an understanding of anything, with no means to think of anything, but would only feel raw experience itself. To my mind, this means that by nature we are only provided with the means to deal with the world as we sense it, as opposed to our nature having any kind of meaning or significance on its own.

III -

In terms of understanding other people, we know only so much about them: We cannot always fully interpret ourselves, let alone another person! Other people have secrets and memories unavailible to us - it is this that differentiates them from yourself, or any other person (it sounds obvious enough, but sometimes philosophy is here to restate the obvious). And to push things further, let us imagine being in a state where we know all that there was to know: To know all things, we would have to constantly observe them from every distance and direction simultaneously. This is equivalent to being part of everything.

IV -

Our identities are built then on human limitations. It becomes harder to understand the further we move away from this humanity (what is it like being a jellyfish - is it anything at all or just a natural process?). We cannot begin to conceive how immortality, or extending the human being to massive far-reaching proportions will alter what the individual identity means. Imagine existing in two places at once, or at every point in the cosmos at once! It would be quite a significant change (again, with the obviousness).

V -

To be is to identify. All of our experiences are part of this identity, and it is only by our limitations that we are able to have an identity at all.

By Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Identity' Issue 37

CBT, psychiatry and identity - By Ellese Elliott

                                          CBT, psychiatry and identity

A sense of autonomy? Ha?  I thought as George Szmukler, a Professor of Psychiatry, stipulated informally that Psychiatry promotes autonomy.  I was reviled by such a comment as he went on to suggest that he aided a patients autonomy when he paid a patient their own money that the psychiatrists had withheld in order that the patient would take the prescribed medication for their ‘mental illness’.  I don’t know the details of this patient’s case, except that the patient was frivolous with money, and that the patient was in debt- according to Szmuckler.  Exploiting the patient, however, to take medication is not the part I want to address here. The point I am addressing asks how is psychiatry aiding a sense of autonomy, or self actualisation? Unless Szmuckler has a completely different meaning of the word ‘autonomy’ I would argue that psychiatry does not aid self actualisation:- involuntary treatment, reprogramming therapies and being labelled ill for behaving outside of the box is insanely oppressive.

  It’s the brain, it’s the chemicals, and it’s the neurons. What about all the shit people go through, heart break, hostility, poverty, etc... the daily nuances that make life that little bit more unbearable, which we bear and bear until cracks appear, our glands begin to secrete sweat, our heart races, and we tremor with anger; but oppressed by the force of watching eyes, always watching, we act in strange, seemingly inexplicable ways and we are burdened with the blame which should lie with the many flaws that pervade and permeate the organised crowd. How dare you react outside of the appropriate list of reactions!

And what of CBT, the new revolutionary treatment which is but a stone throw away of the philosophy of the stoics? CBT is not challenging the arseholes on the train that won’t let other passengers on, or TFL who increase rail fairs more than the rate of inflation, or the pricks at work who talk to you in manner that suggests they are less lowly then you, or the cunts at the bank who smugly tell you they are charging you for being overdrawn, when you never told them to give money that you don’t have. No, they teach how to cope better with it, so you crack less. To help you cope with the cesspool of a society where people get off on screwing over other people, ride their ego trip over the moon and pass the pain and suffering of the so called innocents. Programmed to withstand - even now I am reduced to writing my thoughts on scrap, not because I fear that people will judge me if I shout aloud, but as it isn’t even in my nature anymore.

From the periphery of my blood shot vision, bloodshot from the toxic caffeine ritualistically consumed  and the deprivation of respite, I see a parent commanding their child into subordinance, to sit, to hush, to not disturb the empty whims of this tube carriage. Do not disrupt them, lest they may be stirred and let the zombifying rhythm ensue.

Learning is an awful practice, at first it may be met with some repellence, then neutrality, then it is sucked in like a black hole into an abyss of detritus; all the teachings of others, or rather of the other. We are all bombarded.  Its not a plethora of ideas, but one gargantuan, repugnant, enforced idea. Enforced with violence on a mass scale.

Man, woman child, but an EROM – An erasable read only memory with structures that are fixed and units to be filled. Oh where is the will? Beaten into passivity? Disgusting. And even as my thoughts seem to challenge this oneness, I cannot escape. Clichés wish to pour from my pen. I won’t. Every thought is a thought transpired, as is every sentence, every word, every meaning; already in the mind of a machine.  Imprisoned in language, how I wish to have never received it, infecting every bit of my being.  Leaking into me and mutating the ineffable qualities of the ’I’.  The ‘I’ that perhaps once was, before.
I wish to see again, without the perceptions of the master race of men, and hear unswayed; to smell the scents without civilization; and taste the blood drawn from my own touch.

Don’t give me this idea and tell me it is right. Don’t tell me your reasoning of the origin of a sound. Could it not be the sky that hums every time I board the train, or the moon that howls when full?  Don’t give me that plate of meat from a being that was perhaps more sentient than I.

I want my will, my way. And I am not ill, I am not ill; in the mind or the body.  And the agents of psychiatry will not inject me with the will of the master race, as they did from birth.  I am too far gone.  Psychiatry will not let me realise myself, psychiatry does not aid the realisation of the self. Psychiatry is a tranquiliser of the will, and CBT is a Red Herring. Ha.

By Ellese Elliott

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Identity' Issue 37