Why We Need Philosophy Kings - By Lloyd Duddridge

Why We Need Philosophy Kings 

Is the study of philosophy useful in our modern society? In a time of centre-politics and flimsy coalitions, it could be argued that it has never been more relevant than it is now. Plato thought that, in much the same way the empirical world was open to change, so was majority opinion, and posited an alternative system; that of the ‘philosophy kings’,  raising the question, should philosophers be allowed the chance to rule, instead of the politicians?

In the west, many just take it for granted that democracy is the system that best guards the well-being of the people. Plato, however, saw quite the opposite; that democracy leaves them open to manipulation and flattery. As an elected representative the politician must listen to the people’s opinions but job is to make you feel emotionally linked to the ideas that he is arguing for. Plato stated that the politician does not care for truth but simply swaying the opinion of the general public towards his agenda. 

In his book The Republic, where he outlines his blueprint for an ideal society, Plato states that he philosopher would not be democratically selected for if he was, then he too may be swayed by the whims of the people. The people would have no vote but would have to place their trust in the system that Plato’s Philosopher Kings would do what is best for the populace. So why should we trust the philosopher over the politician? 

The philosopher is the opposite of the politician. Just as he would aim to understand the realm of ideas that make up reality, the philosopher would also seek to understand the underlying laws of politics, those that go beyond mere opinion. The philosopher would not aim to win, for he would never have to put himself forward for popular election. The philosopher would care only for truth, and would look for the underlying laws that would improve the populace’s lives in the long run. 

Where the politician is a being of emotion, the philosopher is a being of reason. Plato stated that reason is independent of emotion, and used the analogy of the soul as a chariot. The talented driver would be able to keep the wild horse of emotion in check and, for Plato, the driver who would control his soul the best would be the philosopher; he who is closest to the forms of reason. 

It is the rational philosopher, not the flattering politician, who would best be able to keep their emotions in check. They would not commit to rash decisions, but make choices that were in line with reason, even if they differ from public opinion. 

Plato believed that the Philosophy King would need to be selected by other philosophers. Free of the restrictions of election by popular vote, a continuous chain would emerge. Philosopher Kings could then rule entirely of principles of reason, aspiring towards perfection. 

Plato thought that this system would bring about a greater sense of justice than any democratic system ever could. But can reason ever be pure and free from emotion? Can, and should, philosophers rule? 

Lloyd Duddridge

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 50 'Open Topic'

The Yeti Under the bed - By Lloyd Duddridge

The Yeti Under the bed

I am going to outline in this article the problems that I have with conspiracy theories. Here is why is think that most of them are based around stupid reasoning processes.

I) Most conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable. By this I mean that a conspiracy has no mechanism by which it can be proved wrong. At first glance this may seem like a positive thing. What could be stronger than a theory that cannot be proved wrong? However, is it not the case that every theory should have a mechanism by which we can decide if a theory is incorrect? Conspiracy theories do not conform to this way of reasoning. This is because it doesn’t matter what evidence you place before the conspiracy theory; it can be dismissed. It is dismissed not because the evidence is weak, but because the conspiracy relies on hidden groups or evidence. Consequently, whatever evidence produced against it will not be seen as sufficient. This means whatever evidence one has against the truthfulness of a conspiracy theory is not seen as significant -- the conspiracy will continue. Thus the conspiracy theory is not open to being proved incorrect.

II) The conspiracy theorist, especially the holocaust denier, will often argue like this: Sadie and Bob embellished their testimonies.They exaggerated in all that they said. How can we now take seriously the thousands of other eye witnesses? Now, of course people often exaggerate when retelling a story. Imagine a night out you go on; it is a great evening and a lot of fun was had. Often the story becomes greater than what went on. Or when people are involved a fight it often becomes more violent that it was in reality. Now do these exaggerations mean that the fight or the night out did not take place? The conspiracy theorist is prone to dwell on those testimonies that are exaggerated rather than those that are not.

III) The conspiracy theorist argues in a way that has become known as the God of the gaps argument. Just as people seem to argue that any hole in our understanding can be filled with God, the conspiracy theorist does the same with the validity of an argument. For example, if you can’t tell us what socks Napoleon was wearing during the battle of Waterloo, then the battle cannot really have taken place. The conspiracy theorist is happy to disregard huge swathes of documented evidence because a historian does not yet know the answer to a specific often small question.

IV) The conspiracy theorist seemingly overvalues the human ability to keep a secret. Sometimes the conspiracy theory involves thousands of people involved in them. Does this really seem plausible? It is often argued that ‘the Jews’ set up the holocaust in order to receive the state of Israel. This would mean that millions of people were able to keep their mouths shut. It would also mean that a whole racial group was able to keep what must surely be huge levels of documentation secret. Try keeping a secret within a group of ten, let alone groups of up to millions of people.

V) The conspiracy theorist argues the wrong way round. They start with a conclusion, all banks are evil. They then proceed to find any evidence that supports this conclusion. We see the same line with Biblical archaeology. Their Bible is true, and therefore we will find evidence for it. The evidence should, in clear and rational thought, come prior to the conclusion. That is just the way decent thought is conducted.

This article is not intended to say we as people are never lied to. There are many cases throughout history where a conspiracy has been found. However, these did not rest upon conspiracy lines of thinking. They relied upon positive evidence being presented. Next time you come across a conspiracy theory, see how many of them tick the boxes of the five points I have outlined in this article. If they do, it is probably safe to say the Yeti is not under the bed.  

Lloyd Duddridge

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Truth' Issue 42

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

The Myth of Psychological Creationism - By Lloyd Duddridge

A rebuttal from Lloyd Duddridge to an article from Mark Tannett

The Myth of Psychological Creationism

Followers of Philosophy takeaway around the world, it has fallen to me to attempt to refute Mr Tannett’s contentions on human nature. So let’s begin, for a start for something to be considered innate and thus part of a ‘human nature’, it must meet two criteria. The first is this, that any behaviour or ability must have been with us from birth, that this ability is not reliant on exposure to culture or societal forces. In essence we are saying that which is natural requires no shaping from external forces. Basically the behaviour is in the ‘genes’. The second is this, for something to be considered innate in human nature, the behaviour or talent needs to be found universally. If behaviours are found only in certain cultures and environments and not in others, than it can be argued that this ability or behaviour is not an innate human ability but is the product of a specific environment. I will argue that  all of Mr Tannett’s arguments fail to meet one of these criterion and often both.

            Let’s look at the argument about responding to stimuli. The major word here is stimuli. A stimulus seems to suggest something outside of ourselves. This is exactly the point that we who doubt an in-built nature want to make. Everything requires a response to stimuli. Stimuli are a product of environment. Thus responding to stimuli is being shaped by your environment. Mr Tannett argues that we respond to these stimuli in such a seemingly conditioned way, that we must have been innately conditioned to respond in this way.  However regularity is not enough to prove innateness. Let’s saying I am trying to get to my massage appointment in the morning, I am walking along the road to get a bus, I see the bus already pulling into the stop, and I know if I miss it, I will be late for that massage I desperately need. Now most people in this situation of missing the bus would feel either angry or frustrated. Do we then have to argue that the body is innately conditioned to be frustrated when missing buses? No we respond to these stimuli is certain ways, as a response to environmental and cultural pressures. After all it is unlikely that a three year old feels frustrated missing a bus in the same way, as a seventeen year old. This is because for one set, the three year old, the pressures are not the same as the seventeen year old.Mr Tannett argues that babies born with big eyes we innately respond to with empathy. This seemingly universal innate function has not stopped infant neglect. It would appear that a better technique is needed. Mr Tannett quotes babies crying in a pitch that gains a response from a mother. This is hardly surprising; any sane being will act in a way that elicits the response that they want. When a player shoots at goal,he shoots in a way that will elicit the response he desires, namely a goal. What we consider innate in the baby, we do not consider innate in the teenager shouting ‘mum, get the dinner on. ‘These are exactly the same actions. Plus if this supposed innate capacity was so useful in babies, why is it that parents can often not decipher what the baby wants when they are crying?
            I think we have seen that Mr Tannetts’s first line of rationale fails. Responding to a stimulus is just that. Responding to an environment. Also the attributes of the body can be explained in a non-innate framework. Mr Tannett has provided us with physical regularities, but has not shown us how they must be innate.
            Mr Tannett then mentions language but never really talks about it. This is a shame. However he does mention the seeming will for survival as innate. In addition to the obvious rejoinder that if this was the case, there would be no suicide or people marching into battle. There is no reason to think that the need in the majority for survival is innate. Again it is a choice made in light of the environment we find ourselves in. Thus in the main the obvious desire is to continue with life. However we only have to look back to the attack on the Twin Towers in New York to see how quickly this desire for survival at all costs can be lost. Met with a choice between a few hours of life or a less painful death, many chose the latter option. Now how under Mr Tannett’s innateness argument would this make any sense? Makes far more sense to think that in a positive environment that more people will want to continue with their life than end it. In a horribly negative environment the decision can often be reversed. 
            Then we are met with a genetic argument for talented people. Now if this was the case that creative talent is genetic, and that we accept that genes are passed on, then would it not make sense to see more and more familiar names crop up in say Nobel Prize winners, or World Cup winning footballers? Out of 555 Nobel Prizes awarded only 9 have been given to genetic members of the same family. The % is even smaller when we look at World Cup winners. At another point, Mr Tannett argues that innate talent is nothing on its own, that it requires nurture. Again evidence that innateness is a hindsight theory. That we see someone talented and then work backwards. Thus good genes become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mr Tannett seems to be arguing that a piece of wool is innately conditioned to become a jumper. Or to use Voltaire’s famous example that the nose was innately designed to hold spectacles. Mr Tannett then launches into argument by anecdote. He selects an extremely small sample size on which to argue toward generalities. As far as I know Mr Tannett has only taught in this country as well, and thus his anecdotal evidence is wishy washy at best. It does not meet the criterion that innateness must be universal. Some anthropological examples would have been useful here. Mr Tannett then argues that personality is innate. Now this would seem to ignore the obvious fact that personalities seem to change over time and in differing environments. One does not behave in the same way in a football crowd as at a funeral. This is not an innate trait, but a response to cultural and societal pressure. After all no baby is innately aware how to behave at a funeral. They pick this up through tone or through their parents telling them how to behave. Thus personality is here brought about through nurture not nature.
            Mr Tannett then suggests that sexuality is innate. Now Mr Tannett takes the safe option of simply comparing hetro/homo sexuality*. However this is a tiny example of the spectrum of sexualities. Are we then to say that a paedophile or a zoophile desires are also innate. If so the stigma we attach to paedophilia is unfair. We would have to say that paedophilia is as legitimate as hetro/homosexuality. This is seemingly not something that we do. Is this because we view sexuality as a choice in response to our environment? Mr Tannett’s claim that we need innateness for love is folly. His innateness is the love of the magic potion. The love without choice. His love is a love that a computer could feel.If anything it must make more sense, that love is a rejection of innateness, a rejection of the given. Love begins with the ability to choose your own path, your own partners.  
            I hope I have managed to convince you that Mr Tannett’s arguments fail upon inspection. That most of his arguments about innateness are responses to environment and culture. That just as culture changes so will the way we act. This is why we value education as we feel that talent and knowledge is not something given, but something gained. That the human story has been one of experiment and change. As Darwin shows it is not those that are the strongest or fittest or even most intelligent that survives, it is those most adaptable to change.  Innateness is the opposite of change, it is solid and it is fixed. Thus not only is innateness unpalatable to us ethically, it is also anti evolutionary.  Mr Tannett’s arguments failed to meet either of the criterion needed to classify something as innate. We now laugh and sneer at those that hold forth to physical creationism. I hope that one day we can say the same to those supporters of psychological creationism, those that seek to defend human nature, and those that defend innate abilities.    

By Lloyd Duddridge

*Editors note:  This point was actually removed from Mr.Tannett's point for space restrictions, but as it is an interesting point of debate it was left in Mr.Duddridge's reply.

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Human Nature' Issue 36

What do we mean by life? - By Lloyd Duddridge

What do we mean by life?

We have all often asked what the meaning of life is. We have all heard the stock answers: God truth love. However, does the question not begin with a question of definition?  What do we mean by life? The word is not often examined.
      Could it be as simple as existence? Is life the act of breathing? There is something in this idea that unsettles us. Life is more than existence. When we see someone terminally ill, we say that person has no life. Yet they are still alive. It appears that we see life as something bigger than existence. However this can be a dangerous move to make. For if life is more than existence, who gets to decide what a real life is? If we decided that someone is not really living is it permissible to exterminate that person? Is the basis of all totalitarian regimes, the idea that only a few people are actually living?  However the thought persists in us. Life is more than breathing.
       So just what is this life that is more than existence? It appears that if we argue that it is more than existence,then it must be more than physical. It seems that we view life as something we cannot measure or quantify, but can recognise when we see it. You will often hear people described as full of life. So life seems to have some spiritual component to it. Yet this spiritual understanding of life seems to be based around a conception of freedom. We seem to think those that are full of life are also full of freedom.
      Could this be the difference between existence and life? Existence is given to use. Some believe it is given by God,others by our parents. Either way it is given to us. We have no choice at all to exist. We either do or we don’t. In fact both ends of existence are in the main outside of our control. We do not choose when we are born or when we die, in the obvious exception of suicide.
      However it appears that we do choose to live. In fact life seeks to be conditioned around participation. It requires an active spirit. Does this mean then, that the passive are not really living? The answer may be to split the passive in two. Those that see being passive as superior lifestyle choice, and those that are simply lethargic. The first group is passive through action, the second is not.  The first group it could be argued still retain the spirit of life, and that the second do not.
    The second component of what we mean by life is also spiritual. That being memory. We believe that a person has had a life,if they are able to remember it. We are interested in a person’s history. Once they lose memory of who they are, we start to say things such as ‘what kind of life is this? ’ This is because we regard life as a process. Something that does not just happen but the requires experience and time. We believe that one that has many choices and has both won and lost,has lived a ‘real life’. This is also why the insult, ‘get a life’ has meaning. If life depended on existence alone the insult would have no meaning. What it means is that one needs to gain experiences. That the person they are aiming the insult has done nothing.
       It must thus follow that the core of what we mean by life lies in action. That when a person is no longer to act,they are no longer really living. It could be argued that breathing itself is an action, and that just surviving then also involves action. However as argued earlier, this is not the sort of action that we mean. We mean action as choice, action that has come from us. This is why we view life as something subjective. It is why we can see things like get out of my life. It can only be our life, and not a collective form of being, because we judge life to be our choices and our ideas. Thus I define life as the ability to at least want to act, and the ability to remember these actions or at least remember why we desired to act.  To live is to act.        

By Lloyd Duddridge

The Philosophy Takeaway 'The Meaning of Life' Issue 29

Magic as elitism - By Lloyd Duddridge

Magic as elitism

Magic is basically the ability to perform a task that others cannot understand. I see no basis for it being any more than this. Take the example of the magician pulling a rabbit from a hat. We only consider it magic because we do not understand how the magician is performing this feat. This is why it fascinates us. Not many in the age we find ourselves in would think that the magician has some kind of supernatural power. However the magician is able to perform a task that goes against that which we are used to. If we were to understand how he was able to complete this task then the magic is lost. Magic relies on us not being able to understand, or spot the method that the magician is using.
Thus magic relies on a form of elitism. The famous a magician reveals his tricks, is a form of control. Magic relies on a form of anti-education. For once a magic trick, or miraculous event is explained then it is no longer magic. This means that magic can only survive if some people can do it and others can’t. For magic cannot flourish in equality, in fact the mere thought of it makes it wither and die. Let’s look at two examples that may help to illustrate my point. Say we took a television to a remote tribe in the Amazonian rain forest. At first they would think that this box showing moving images is magic. However this thought of the Amazonians is laughable to us. This is because we understand just how a television works. We may not be able to understand all the complex science that goes into making a television, but we understand that Televisions are now common,and that there is a method in making them. For the Amazonians they have neither of these intellectual concessions; first of all they have never seen a television before, it is unique to them. Also they have never been shown that there is a method in making a television. This is why what we view as magic may be relative but the regulating factor is always a lack of understanding.
The second example is this. We have all heard how in the bible Jesus is supposed to have walked on water. Now this is only considered a miraculous event, because only Jesus himself could do it. Now if Jesus was able to educate the people around him to also be able to walk on water, would it still be considered magic? The answer is seemingly no. Once people in great numbers are able to perform a task, it is no longer seen as magic. Magic, just like a good tabloid newspaper, relies on exclusivity.
There is a move in recent times to try and defend magic. Those who seek understand are viewed as cold vacuous people, they are seen as vampires sucking beauty from life. However underneath this seemingly woolly rhetoric is a dangerous message. For magic will by its very nature only be available to the very few. If we want understanding to be distributed to as many people as possible then we must encourage the search for method. For if we don’t we are saying that we think understanding in the hands of the few is where beauty resides. Not everybody will be interested in method, however at least it should be open to all. Magic is selfish, it seeks to throw a veil over method. Magic is the greedy child who will not share it’s food. It is for this reason that our recent infatuation with magic sends out a real dangerous and challenging message.

By Lloyd Duddridge

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Magic' Issue 25

A ruse by any otha nme. - By Lloyd Duddridge

A ruse by any otha nme.

Their not there. Don’t not dont. Capital letters. Full stops. Endless English textbooks are full of them. They tell us how to write. They tell us what is correct. However this article wants to explore the idea that there is a right way to use the written word.
Now language has many functions, to entertain us, to make us smile, to make us cry. However these are all linked by one overall function of language. That it is used to communicate. Now communication relies on a level of understanding. Hence if I wrote this sentence it would not be understood and is this not language. Gkdalf dosncf inglereted dwasd. This sentence has no meaning. It fails the function test. However try this sentence. I can run, wouthit a porbelm. Now two words are conventionally misspelt in this sentence. However this sentence can be understood. Now in this case what is the difference between the conventional spelling and the supposed mistake? The both pass the function test. In fact if you can spot a mistake in a sentence, it must mean that it passes the function test. This is because you can understand what the writer really meant. Thus you understand. A word need not be spelt the same way by everyone if it can be understood. The only test for language is if it is able to be understood. It need not be understood by everyone. For example I cannot understand Dutch, that does not mean it cannot be understood by others. Language is a tool for communication, thus it is necessary social. If someone can correct you, they can understand you. Hence correcting someone’s language is unnecessary. It is simply a snobbish and conservative construct.
The same argument can be used for Internet language or ‘text chat’. ‘2 b, r nt 2 b dat iz d Q wthr ts noblr n d mnd 2 sufr d slngs & arowz of outrAjs fortn r 2 tAk armz agnst a C f trblz, & by oposn nd em?’ Now many young people will be able to understand this quotation from Shakespeare. I ask the reader if you can read the text and understand the words does the passage lose any meaning. Does the passage lose any beauty? Is it now not able to move you ? The answer if you can understand the texts speak used is that no change is noticeable at all. It is wrote in a differing way, however the meaning is the same. We must remember of course that it was the bard himself that used and manipulated words into the forms we use today. He was by no means conventional.
What I am trying to say is this. Convention is just a mould that has set. Pour water on it and it can be made in a different way. If there was a right or wrong way to write, then it would be able to have a league table for languages. The only rule for language is that you must be able to be understood. This sometimes means that context and digression should sometimes be used. However next time you try and correct someone on their grammar or spelling remember that you have understood, thus the language that you are trying to correct has completed

By Lloyd Duddridge

All is well that ends well. - By Lloyd Duddridge

All is well that ends well.

You will die one day. You really really will. One day they will lower you into the ground,or as I would prefer, burn you to ashes. Existence will be ended. No Heaven, no everlasting happiness,no reunions with loved ones lost. Why should there be? Imagine an endless life,no form,no definition no meaning. Just a blob of life. A piece of plasticine. 

The fact that you have one shot at the thing they call life is its greatest gift and tragedy. The fact that you live once forces you to choose. It is a rationing process and some will get more than others. Life does not respect equality. It shouts at us and says one word. Pick. Many will deny life its voice and say can't one love everyone equally. These people are the deniers of life. These are the people who have the conceit they will live for ever. These are the foolish. 

Intelligence is the ability to choose well. It is nothing more and nothing less. You choose well you are an intelligent person. The meaning of life starts in the recognition that you will not be eternal. Life begins when one understands what Shakespeare means by ‘’All’s well the end well’ even the most beautiful song would deafen us it if never ended. Why should we be any more beautiful than a song? 

A good life is one that has more happy days than sad ones. There is no law more powerful than that. Have faith without being crippled by it. Pick your friends carefully. A good friend is an elixir. Trust a sentimental mind. They will remember the things you love. Remember that every spark is extinguished. True commitment is what you rebuild in the ensuing power cut.  

Life is a kiss, too short and it feels rushed and unloved ,too long and its becomes nothing more than froth. Surround yourself with beautiful people, but love them even more when they become old, which they will. 

Justice does not exist in nature, it is humanities thing, be proud of that. Do not respect reputations, apart from your own. Shout at the pompous or even better laugh at them. Throw at least one punch in your life. Tell God, you got this one. Desire only freedom. Don’t love only that which you don’t have. Look around once a day at what you do have. Never allow excuses for suffering. There is no defence for it. Never trust a person who uses phrases like ‘not in the real world or ‘ in reality’.  If you see a way to make things better choose that path. 

Some things you will never get over. Don’t fear though, these things define you. Go to at least one wedding, and fight for him or her. Take a sad song and make it better. Create patterns. Do not let patterns create you. Rules are great if they enrich, terrible if they suffocate. There are no guilty pleasures. Ask questions, even when you think they are stupid. After all they thought every genius was stupid at the start. Write down your dreams. Words after all are a net. Miss people, really miss them. Then when they least suspect it call them, and watch them smile. 

At least once in your life make a person laugh and cry at the same time. Try and sleep well, there is no greater pleasure. Sing in the shower,and sing in the street. Make noise, make your presence felt. Leave a tattoo on the world. As with one on your skin it often takes pain to get you there. If you can, because its not always possible spend your last evening with the one who knows you best. Every other evening as well if you can. 

Listen to a piano, God does not exist but if he did that would be his voice. The Camera can lie. In fact so can everything. Be sceptical it will give you strength. However innocent till proven guilty. Don’t jump, slide it is much cooler. Rant and rave, love and crave. Remember how powerful your words are. Remember that your touch is even stronger than that. 

Hell is regret. It is easy to get to hell, but hard to get out of it. They only way is to say what you feel. To go out into the jungle the world and capture that which is precious. Man is far closer to a magpie than an ape. Select people. Trust people. Love is always a choice. 

Make the most out of your portion,season it how you want. The really smart need hardly any sauce at all. They only use that which gets rid of the bitter. Build your own ark. Please read one more book than you think you can. Let your only addiction be life,and even then quit.

Lloyd Duddridge

Can and should Science be neutral? - By Lloyd Duddridge

Can and should Science be neutral?

We are all taught in our classrooms that science is free from bias. This is mainly because we view a scientist as a sort of superman. The scientist is the modern day monk, free from desire. The scientist is not a human anymore, the scientist once he dons the white coat becomes a camera. It is only thanks to the scientist’s unique ability to shed his skin, that we are able to get objective, unbiased, value free science. This view of science is of course hogwash. I will outline the reasons I feel this below.

The process of selection is in itself biased. A scientist cannot study all observable phenomena. The scientist has to choose what he wants to study. This involves a selection process, a selection process that will inevitably involve value judgements and desires. A simple example of the truth is this can be found in the scientist’s ability to justify his research. When asked why the scientist is studying a certain area rather than another. The camera scientist must merely shrug his shoulders; a camera takes no choice over what it captures. However the majority of scientists could defend their reasoning for a specific area of research, thus their selection contains bias. Given an infinite amount of time, the scientist could indeed become a camera. However the scientist is also finite and thus has to choose what he wants to study.

Now if science is not completely neutral or free of bias. Should that limit the respect we hold for science? I would argue that it should not. First of all it allows us to view the scientist as a human being. He loses his quasi mystical status, but he gains the ability to be a fully realised human being again. Should we be fearful of the selection process? Again I would argue that the answer has to be no. In fact the selection process makes science far more efficient. For the scientist who we view as intelligent people are able to choose the problems that they think is most important. The selection process actually exposes a greater truth that the camera theory of science. It exposes the truth of what the scientist really thinks matters. If we trust scientists then we as human beings also become aware of those problems that we should care about. We gain far more from a selective science than by a neutral science.

I am arguing for a more humane understanding of science. It is one however that requires faith. The faith lies in how we view the scientists. In my understanding of science, trust in the scientist is needed even more. He is no longer a quasi-God or a machine. He is just an intelligent human being trying his best to understand and conquer problems. We must trust that his interests are useful. That his interests help us understand the world and universe we live in with greater clarity. Our faith so far has been justified. The scientists have given us gifts and knowledge that previous ages would have considered miraculous. The scientist however is just a person, but we must trust in people.

By Lloyd Duddridge

Love as memory - By Lloyd Duddridge

Love as memory

“He suddenly recalled from Plato's Symposium: People were hermaphrodites until God split then in two, and now all the halves wander the world over seeking one another. Love is the longing for the half of ourselves we have lost.”- Milan Kundera

I am no expert when it comes to love. Who is? There are those that claim that love is ‘nothing more’ than a chemical reaction that can be explained away. However if this were the case, then some bright individual would have thought to bottle it by now. I would hazard a guess that it would be a big seller. As far as we know love potions exist solely in the imagination.

Then what is this love that baffles and confuses us? First of all I would say that it is rarer then we like to admit. Not everybody finds love. Just like anything we value it is rare and hard to come by. It is above all a process, it takes time. This is because love is the art of getting to know somebody. This is not to be confused with other things that are similar. This is not a spying exercise. The line between loving and spying is very thin, however there is a difference. The difference is this: When you spy, you are spying with another end apart from simply knowing that person. When you love, knowing that person is an end it itself. This is why the greatest loves are based on understanding. Understanding is the building blocks of a shared history. Love and history are very much related. It is when both your personal historical narratives merge that we call it love. For history is the art of remembering, or of making memories, as is love. That is why love really starts when you have things that remind you of the one you love. That is why we find love and music so interrelated, it is because music often evokes memories of those we love. It is a simple truism, that those that we forget, we can never love. Thus the strongest love, I would argue, is based around the strongest set of collective memories. That is why it is so important for a couple to do things together.

They may be a simple test for love, and in many ways it is similar to Nietzsche’s idea of eternal recurrence. Nietzsche posited the thought experiment that if an demon was to come to you and say you would have to live your life in its entirety over and over for eternity,how would you handle it? Nietzsche said those that could embrace the demons challenge had lived the ideal life. Now to my test for love. Imagine you are on your deathbed, and you want to continue living. An angel comes to your bedside, and whispers in your ear, that he can make you young and healthy again. Now it is at this point that love is tested. For I argue that it is only love is you turn to that angel and say “ On one condition. That I get to live this new life with my love also” That is the test, that however strong a pull life may be, it is not as strong as that shared bond. That is because you have shared so many memories with that person, that you hardly consider life being understandable without them. That is why the real love goes beyond passion, beyond beauty. Love can last, because the great love becomes life itself. For those couples that last, life and love can become interchangeable terms. That is why the man or woman that does not want to know your favourite film, or colour or restaurant, or will not come to the supermarket just to spend time with you, or go to the dentists just to hold your hand is not worth it. You live but once, if you lived hundred times you have time to experiment. Grab that person that wants to become history with you. Grab that person that wants to know what is both good at bad about you. Grab the person that is there for you without even having to say thanks. The one that knows what every look on your face means. Grab the one you understand, and the one that wants to understand you.

By Lloyd Duddridge

Sophist’s World

It is commonly considered that knowledge is power. The argument goes something like this. The more you know the more you are able to control and predict events. The more you are able to control events the more power you must have. Now I will not disagree completely with this line of thought. It is obvious that knowledge does give you some power. However I am going to argue that there is another skill that can give you even more power than knowledge, and that is the power to persuade.

In the film Training day we find that famous quote, that’s its not “what you know, it’s what you can prove.” The reason why knowledge alone is not enough is because we are social beings. It was argued all the way back in Ancient Greece by Socrates that power is increased in number, that even the strongest man, can not defeat fifty average ones. This view can also been seen in Marx's call for solidarity. Now if we accept that man is stronger in a group than on his own, individual knowledge is not enough. You need the skill in order to persuade and convince others of your knowledge. Let me give you an example, a scientist discovers a way to cure pancreatic cancer. He discovers the cure on his own in the laboratory. The next day he is struck dumb and blind. He has no way to convince anyone else that he discovered that cure. He has the knowledge still, however it is useless. This example should show you that the power comes not from knowledge itself but from being able to show and convince others of this knowledge.

Now ever since Plato the act of persuasion has had a bad reputation. It has been seen as something sinister. However persuasion is basically communication. We often judge things for the way they are able to communicate things to us. Another example may be this. A woman discovers a code that can tell us the origin of the Universe. Now this code is so complex that only she can understand it. She has no previous reputation in the scientific world, and can only be judged by this code. If nobody else can understand it, then it has failed. She will not be taken seriously and thus her power will be diminished.

We need not see rhetoric as something scary. It is not a form of magic. Even the most trained sophist cannot convince you of just anything. Persuasion relies on plausibility. The greatest way to gain this plausibility is through using tools that people can understand. The most used tools are things such as logic and empirical data. If an idea does not have support from these tools then it will lack plausibility and will thus not be able to convince.

So my argument is thus. Real power rests in the ability to convince others of what you know. It’s about what you can prove. Prove up to the level that others are satisfied. This is because with persuasion, you are able to convey knowledge on a practical level. In fact, only knowledge that can be socially proven do we consider knowledge. Thus if we are to consider knowledge to be power, we must have the ability to persuade others of our knowledge. Thus persuasion must give us more power. Thus real power lies in persuading others that you have knowledge, not simply in the knowledge itself.

Lloyd Duddridge

In defence of Utilitarianism - By Lloyd Duddridge

In defence of Utilitarianism

Perfect the Will, the Mind, Feeling, their corporeal organs and their material tools; be useful to yourselves, to your own ones, and to others; and Happiness, insofar as it exists on this earth, will come of itself.
- Bolesław Prus


The greatest happiness for the greatest number. On a instinctual level this appears to make sense. However Utilitarianism has faced many challenges from the philosophical community. They say that it undermines the idea of individual justice. That the idea would seemingly condemn an innocent individual if it suited the whims of the mob. That also seems instinctively correct, justice is not a numbers game, its not a mathematical equation. They also say that one persons conception of happiness, is not the same as another's,so how could happiness be seen in such general terms? They also say that it is bloody hard to spell. This final objection I concede to the prosecution. However it is the previous two objections that I wish to defend Utilitarianism against.
The first objection is usually formed by using an example such as this: Imagine a single man that holds views that are not dangerous,but make the mob angry. Now under simple Utilitarian argument the mob are entitled to do what they want with the man who makes them unhappy. The reason they are able to do this is their collective happiness,seemingly outweighs the happiness of the individual. Thus things such as gang rape,would be permissible. So how could Utilitarianism respond to such a damning objection?
I would argue that it could say this in response. Justice is a bedrock upon which most peoples happiness lies. Now the mob may seem the larger group in the example outlined. However the even greater number is the group that believe in justice. Thus in committing an unjust action, you are committing an action, that in the longer term would bring about greater unhappiness. The question of justice can be thrown back at the critics of utilitarianism. Does justice bring about the greatest happiness in the greatest number? The answer is seemingly yes. Thus it appears that even concepts go through the process of utilitarian judgement. We disregard injustice for the simple reason that it fails the utilitarian test. This is the simple answer to those who say that utilitarianism will always lead to unjust situations. The evidence is that all concepts we hold in either positive or negative go through a process of utilitarian testing. So if justice is utilitarian,how can utilitarianism be unjust?
The second objection is that utilitarianism is too general. One persons happiness is not another's. This is a point that I concede, but it is one that I feel can be overcome. This is because I feel that we must approach ethics and morality in a different way. We must see morals as useful myths. They may not hold in all possible universes,they may not be god given. However they are still vital to human life. They are myths given to us,in order to give us rules for action. They are bed time stories but no less important for that. Now if we see ethics as an individual call for action, what could be a better lessons for action than, you should act in a way you think will bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number?
How can you understand other peoples happiness they will ask. I would answer that we should not view action as something that happens blind,and arbitrarily. We act after experiment, after seeing what works for people. We can do things such as ask others what makes them happy. Action does not happen in a vacuum. Or rather it should not happen in a vacuum. This is the difference between intelligent action, and unintelligent action. So how can we understand other peoples happiness? A good start may be by asking them what makes them happy. Communication and language make utilitarianism possible. Thankfully these are two tools that human beings possess.
So in summary. Happiness is increased by concepts such as justice. Thus utilitarianism rather than being the ethical school of the unjust, becomes the province where justice is taken most seriously. We do not value justice because it is our duty to value justice, we value justice because it makes us happy. Thus gang rape is not permitted under utilitarian logic, for it undermines justice and thus undermines happiness. Additionally we must see ethics as rules of action. Man made rules, rules that can be questioned, but vital rules none the less. Now can there be a rule that can be improved upon than this: When you act, act to increase the greatest happiness for the greatest number? I would argue there is not. However all ethical rules will only work if we do not make ourselves into islands. We must communicate with each other. We must ask other questions on just what they value,for we value that which makes us happy. It on this remark that I rest my defence for utilitarianism.

By Lloyd Duddridge

Bravery

"Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe that your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires courage.”- Ralph Waldo Emerson

When we hear the word bravery an automatic image enters our head. We think of the soldier, who battles through missiles, or the fireman who runs into a burning building to save a life. These both require a form of bravery, no one would argue against that. However this form of bravery I argue falls under the banner of Heroism. Heroism I contend is the condition in which certain individuals are naturally brave. By this I mean a hero will not fear the things that the majority fear. This strand of people are almost addicted to bravery; it is what they do.

     
I however want to talk about another form of bravery, and that is intellectual, or emotional bravery. This at first may appear an anathema, for the intellectual is not seen by society as brave. He is seen as geeky, other-worldly, abstract. Yet it is these people that I will argue are the real heroes within society. Now this is not to say that all intellectuals are brave, that could not be further from the truth. The intellectuals that I am talking about are those that dare to challenge the majority. These thinkers meet with no applause, unlike the soldier returning from war, no thanks when they rescue people. In fact what they often meet is derision. They are laughed at, they are mocked, seen as weak. Yet I ask you reader, which is braver: to fight and gain applause, when you are loved by the many, or to fight for truth, with only yourself as an army ?

    
We only have to look at recent events to see how this bravery can be mocked. In light of the recent 'riots', we have seen that 'human rights' has become a dirty phrase. Now the human rights act may not be heroic, it does not have the extreme edge to support it, but it is brave. It argues that in any circumstance, we as animals if we are to claim civility, deserve certain rights. Now almost  everyone agrees that this is a great idea, when things are going well. However whenever times become hard, civility and human rights become a burden. You will find that when times are tough, people seem to become experts. How many times in the last few weeks have you heard people slagging off 'human rights'? Are these people slagging off human rights experts in the law, are they philosophers ? The great majority are not, they are the herd, jumping on yet another bandwagon. In little to no time, after the bandwagon has been hopped upon, comes the time of 'common sense'. This is the time where things are accepted without reflection. It becomes common knowledge, that the human rights act is holding us back. This conclusion is reached, not by the head, but by the ear.

      
Now this is where the intellectually brave enter, to do a job as unpopular as that of the gravedigger. They stand out from the majority, not because they want to be cool and counter cultural, but because they have by thinking, reached a different conclusion from the herd. They stand in a position where the wind is always beating at their back. These people are truly lonely. Yet they are also brave. They are brave because they are often afraid and yet come through it. They do not choose to be heroes, yet where would we be without them? We would be stuck at the behest of the man with the loudest mouth, or the strongest arms. It is often risky to reach conclusions through thinking. Thinking is often unpopular, just open the nearest history book and you will see Socrates killed, Hypatia Murdered, Galileo imprisoned.  In the sermon on the mount Jesus praises many people, the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (5.3)

• they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (5:4)
• the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (5:5)
• they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (5:6)
• the merciful : for they shall obtain mercy. (5:7)
• the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (5:8)
• the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (5:9)
• they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:10).

Yet nowhere does Jesus praise the most ridiculed of all groups, the thinkers. The person who wants to reason things out. The man who stands out from the crowd, and says things that are not always comfortable. Ideas should not be separated from practice. A person is not other worldly because he disagrees with you. A person is not acting against common sense, because he actually thinks about a problem. A person is not geeky, because he has dedicated time to learn before he speaks.  So I say blessed be those innovators in thought, for it is they who are truly brave.

We live in an age where we are both attracted and repulsed by aggression. Women are taught to love the bad boy, men are taught to be strong and powerful. Yet when a person follows these lessons we condemn them. We must practice what we preach. If we want people to be intelligent, we should promote it as a value. Yet all too often we make people hide their ideas and intelligence, as if it is something to be ashamed of. No one wants more pedants. However we should not think of a person as a pedant, because he disagrees with you. If an idea is of value to us, we protect it when times are hard as well as smooth.

   
So I ask you reader, next time you read your Darwin, remember how brave he was to have his work published. When you read your Hume, remember he was looked upon as an Infidel. These people were not naturally heroic. Yet they had a courage and a belief, that their ideas mattered, and that in the long run their ideas would help us understand the world around us. We owe these people a debt of gratitude. Perhaps the best way to start paying it back is this. When you hear an idea you disagree with, be it at work, in the pub, in the hairdressers, or from a cab drive, you will turn around, look that person straight in the face,and say 'I do not agree'.

Lloyd Duddridge