Madness, Art, Value
And now, a videogram!
Eliza Veretilo and Samuel
Mack-Poole
Showing posts with label Samuel Poole. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samuel Poole. Show all posts
Freedom
Only “God” is free - By Samuel Mack-Poole
“None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free.” -- Johann Wolfgang Goethe.
What a topic! Freedom is something that I’ve thought about in quite a lot of detail. I’ve really considered it; the implications it has, its definition, whether humans can be truly free. However, I think it is my duty to define what freedom is:
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
Patriotism
In Defence of patriotism - By Samuel “The People’s Poet” Mack-Poole
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” – James Boswell.
“Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.” – Adlai Stevenson.
April the 23rd. Does that date mean anything to you? Or, my dear philosophers, is it just another day? For your information, just to keep you in the know, it is Saint George’s day. This, for me, is a day of vital significance; it is one I will celebrate with vigour. I will aim to explain why in this piece of philosophy. Whilst in conversation with Mark Tannett and Eliza Verethilo (but not at the same time), both members of The Philosophy Takeaway were quite hostile to patriotism. So, let’s define our terms: patriotism is defined as, “devoted love, support, and defence of one's country; national loyalty.”
A philosophy of the moving image - Samuel Mack-Poole
A philosophy of the moving image
“A self-destructive man feels completely alienated, utterly alone. He's an outsider to the human community. He thinks to himself, ‘I must be insane.’ What he fails to realize is that society has, just as he does, a vested interest in considerable losses and catastrophes. These wars, famines, floods and quakes meet well-defined needs. Man wants chaos.” – A Waking Life.
I have noticed, when looking back over my brief, brief existence that many an intellectual likes to proclaim they have read many books. Oh yes, my friends, dropping a cheeky quote here and a clever reference there is impressive when one is attempting to be a raconteur. Nevertheless, the same regard doesn’t seem to exist for film. Why is this the case?
It is fair to say that the classic medium of communication for philosophy, aside from talking, has been through the written word; or, in other words, a book. Thus, one can be a tad romantic when referring to a work of philosophy. Furthermore, books are less passive in a sense. When one reads a book, be it a work of philosophy or not, it is up to the reader to connect ideas, deduce, analyse, discover and imagine. With a film, these elements are controlled by the director.
Nevertheless, my friends, can you imagine what Aristotle, Nietzsche, Mill, or a plethora of other dead philosophers, could have done with a moving image? In the end, we can only imagine.
Film is incredibly crucial to philosophy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that philosophy’s accessibility is dependent on the moving image. Also, I think watching philosophical films should be studied side by side written works of philosophy. I cannot think of a single reason why not.
Are the debates between Lennox and Dawkins not of a high quality? If one would rather refer to a film, is A Waking Life not provocative enough? Its contributors analyse the very essence of reality – amongst educating its viewers about history, literature and dreams. And there are many, many little gems out there, too. The Three Minute Philosophy shorts by the YouTube user CollegeBinary are absolutely brilliant; I really couldn’t commend them enough. If you haven’t seen them, watch them. The videos are, quite simply, must see philosophy.
Now, I would like to discuss a film which inspired me to think of the moving image: Cloud Atlas. I really enjoyed the film, despite the prejudices I had, and maybe still have, regarding reincarnation. The film, directed by the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer, is a philosophical masterpiece. There are, quite literally, many delicious onion-like layers to this film. It’s based upon the novel by the same, written by David Mitchell, which I have just read (see, I’m clever ‘cos I reads booksies). The film is largely true to the novel.
A huge theme of the film is reincarnation. Now, I must admit that I have no sympathies with the theological/ spiritual notion of reincarnation. It’s completely illogical from my perspective – that of a scientific materialist. However, in spite of my theological prejudice, I thought the exploration of the idea of reincarnation, being the main theme over three hours of film, was very extensive. And although I came out of the cinema with my thoughts on spiritual reincarnation unchanged, my thoughts on nurture and consequentialism had been refined. One line which inspired me to think is as follows:
“Our lives are not our own, we are bound to others, past and present. And by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future.”
Whether you agree or disagree with this comment is of no consequence. From my perspective, an opinion succeeds if it is loved or hated with equal measure. However, I do think the above quote really touches on something. Genealogy is a subject which I find to be of incredible interest.
Our identities are not solely created by ourselves. We have no say as to which culture we are born in; we have no say as to who our genetic creators are. When I researched my family tree, I found that a correlation exists: many of my ancestors were highly educated. Is it then, merely a coincidence that I am a teacher? If a positive ethos towards learning has been prevalent within my family for six generations, was it almost inevitable that I would be a teacher?
And, what of me? I am only a part of the massive jigsaw that is me: the causes of me, and the consequences of me, are not entirely known to me. How very interesting! If I own my house and give it to my daughter upon my death, she will be more affluent. If she is more affluent, her children are more likely to be affluent. Conversely, I could have a descendent who is an alcoholic, and by coming into property, their habit could be funded to horrid extremes.
The truth is, I had been very much focused on the now. Yes: getting tattoos, writing poetry, trying to stand out and hoping that by creating something of potential beauty, my life would have some value in the eyes of my peers. Cloud Atlas has changed that, at least to an extent. Although I feel pathetic at such an admission, and rightly so, I now view my life as a link in a long, long chain. Whilst this is nothing new per se, it is a new experience for me – to take a step outside of myself, and realise I am a consequence of many forces over which I have had no control. In addition to this, I know my decisions have many consequences, not just for the present, but for future generations I will never meet.
I am worried that this seems so very obvious: but that’s what excellent philosophy does! It takes what should be obvious, and presents it in a simple way. I love quotes, so let me end with a quote from Cloud Atlas, one which I will leave to you, the reader, to muse upon.
“Fear, belief, love. Yesterday my life was headed in one direction; today it is headed in another. Fear, belief, love: phenomena which dictate the course of our lives. These forces begin long before we are born and continue after we perish. Yesterday I believe I would have never had done what I did today. I feel like something important has happened to me. Is this possible? I just met her, and yet I have fallen in love.”
Samuel Mack-Poole
The limits of logic: By the philosophical Prometheus, Samuel Mack-Poole
The limits of logic:
The purpose of this piece, though explicit in the title, and implicit throughout, is to argue that logic is rather limited. As such, it makes little logical sense to view the world within a narrow logical sphere.
Once, when engaged in conversation at The Philosophy Takeaway’s stall with none other than the mathematical genius that is Dmitry Dereshev, I was drawn into a debate regarding how useful emotions are. The conversation -- as far is my fallible memory can recall – went a little like this:
DD: I do not see how emotions are useful. They are, to be honest, a waste of time.
SMP: Yet, if we are forced to experience emotions, doesn’t it make sense to understand them?
Having thought about this, I have to say that the latter statement can only be true. There are a couple of trite archetypes that come to mind: firstly, we have the autistic genius. He or she can understand particle physics, but when it comes to maintaining friendships, is proved to be woefully inadequate. Conversely, we have the overly emotional artist who is so dominated by their emotion that they are blinded by it. However, if they were given something highly logical to do, they would be flummoxed.
Therefore, it is clear that when it comes to the human condition, balance is essential.
Thus, when it comes to philosophy, should we be obsessed with logic? Isn’t philosophy, by definition, about wisdom, rather than logic? If we are obsessed with logic, are we in fact illogical?
A notable example of the limitations of logic is the liar paradox. I’ve written about this before, but it is applicable in the context of this article. A liar paradox is a sentence that carries a contradictory binary truth. An example of this is as follows: All men are liars. St Jerome elaborated upon this:
“I said in my alarm, 'Every man is a liar!' "(Psalm. 116:10) Is David telling the truth or is he lying? If it is true that every man is a liar, and David's statement, "Every man is a liar" is true, then David also is lying; he, too, is a man. But if he, too, is lying, his statement: "Every man is a liar," consequently is not true. Whatever way you turn the proposition, the conclusion is a contradiction. Since David himself is a man, it follows that he also is lying; but if he is lying because every man is a liar, his lying is of a different sort.”
Moving away from the liar paradox, I’m sure we’ve all met a very persuasive sophist in our lives. I use the word in the modern, sense. A sophist can be defined as: a person who uses a specious argument for deceiving someone. In a truly modern context, one may call such a person a rhetorician. Such a person may be very skilled at making arguments. Despite the fact that the arguments are linguistically sound, they can often fly in the face of the truth.
A modern example of sophistry has been committed by Jeremy Hunt, the secretary for health. He is, of course, a member of the current Conservative-dominated government. Although the term of sophist is applicable to many politicians, Hunt’s words on the closure of Lewisham Hospital really are a shining example of sophistry. He stated that his plans will deliver “better clinical services”. This is, quite obviously, a dubious statement to make in the light of the facts. Closing a hospital in Lewisham, and then telling people to go to Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich is in no way an improvement of local services. Moreover, it seems like a harrowing example of Orwellian doublethink.
Another notable example of logic being limited is through its perfection against itself. If two opposing arguments are equally logical, what are we to think? If two of The Philosophy Takeaway’s finest philosophers wrote an essay about the ethics of advertising, with one pro-advertising and the other anti, I’m sure both could include equally logical, non-contradictory and sound arguments.
So, if we are, as philosophers, confronted with arguments that are equally logical, how do we proceed in making our decisions? It seems that life experience, intuition and emotion all play a part. Or, more concisely, we use wisdom.
A quote from Pascal -- yes the very same Pascal who (sorry for the pun) coined Pascal’s wager -- is of extreme salience in the context of this article. Pascal once stated, “The heart has reasons of which reason is ignorant.” I do wonder if emotions and logic have to be at odds. Can they not be used to aid each other, instead?
Please don’t think I have been attacking logic, as that has not been my goal. The purpose of this article has been to demonstrate the limits that logic has. If logic, however beautiful and profound, is so limited, should it be put on such a pedestal? To do so, it seems, would be unwise, and, ultimately, against the very essence of philosophy.
By the philosophical Prometheus, Samuel Mack-Poole
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Logic' Issue 45
Utopia: the route of all evil? - By the one and only Samuel Mack-Poole
Utopia:
the route of all evil?
“The lack of money is
the root of all evil.”
George Bernard Shaw.
“But no perfection is
so absolute, that some impurity doth not pollute.” William Shakespeare.
Utopia is commonly
defined as: “An imagined place or state of things in which everything is
perfect. The word was first used in the book Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More.” For me, this is such a redundant
definition. I would go so far as to say that I intellectually loathe it. I
cannot fathom how a society can be perfect by any objective criteria. My
contention -- or beef – with utopia is that it is, by its very nature,
subjective. As a consequence, utopia,
even as an ideal, cannot exist in an objective sense. I have used this phrase
many times, but it really applies: the only utopia that can exist is one which
is determined by mass shared subjectivity. As a consequence, only a utilitarian
utopia can exist as an ideal, let alone in reality.
If
we think about it, one man’s utopia is another’s hell. An Islamist would love
to see a one-world government with sharia law implemented. A neo-Nazi would
detest such a world, and would want a racial divide instead. I could go on ad nauseam, but I won’t. The point is abundantly clear, isn’t it?
As humans are diverse, their conflicting utopias can only result, ultimately,
in an extreme. That extreme is war.
Many
people are willing to fight, and to die for their utopia. Marxists, Nazis,
Christians, Hindus, Jews and many other groups have done so, all too gladly. “War,”
as Trotsky said, “is the locomotive of history.” As a result, utopia is probably only going to
self-actualise through mass bloodshed, as revolutions are seldom peaceful. That
said, Ghandi’s strategy of passive resistance obviously contradicts this, but
this is very much the exception to the rule.
Consequently,
we have to ask ourselves: is utopia is the route of all evil? I think that is
for you to think about, rather than for me to say.
I
would prefer it if Ghandi’s strategy would allow my utopia to become a reality, but I doubt the world’s nations will
destroy fiat currency, and throw away their nuclear arsenals any time soon.
But, Samuel, I hear you cry, what is your utopia?
As
depressed as I am with the current situation -- perhaps I have been staring
into Nietzsche’s abyss for too long -- I still have hope. My hope for humanity is that it embraces the
ideas of Jacques Fresco. Personally, I think philosophy is at its best when it
actively tries to change the world, rather than merely analysing it. I am quite
aware that I have paraphrased a Marxist quote, but in this case the quote
serves the purpose of going beyond Marxism. I’m referring to The Venus Project, which has been
criticised as utopian.
It
is easy to see how sick mainstream society is when utopia is now a pejorative
term. Surely, we should think of utopia as something to strive towards, rather
than an ideal to mock and scoff at?
The Venus Project is extremely
provocative to any philosopher, as it is filled with egalitarian and revolutionary
values. The reason The Venus Project is so revolutionary is due to the fact that it
wishes to replace the current situation with an economic system in which goods,
services, and information are free. But,
Samuel, isn’t that communism? No, it’s not. Communist countries still
employ state capitalism. In a RBE (resource based economy) there are no nuclear
weapons, no banks, no money, no military, no suppression of technology, and no
‘charismatic’ personality cults. It’s also supremely technological, utilising
bleeding edge technology that would make fossil fuels redundant, and
advertising wouldn’t occur as there wouldn’t be any competing products. It’s
rather odd, I concede. However, it’s only odd because we’ve been indoctrinated
to believe no society can function without money, and that greed and
‘competition’ are the only true motivators.
I
can’t do The Venus Project justice in
a mere couple of pages. All I can say is that according to my thought
processes, it is worthy of merit, and, therefore, further investigation. If you
value life more widely than the paradigm of money, working 9-5, and package
holiday deals, then have a genuine look at what a RBE can offer you. For me,
its tenets are altruistic, and nothing can be more profound than the love you bear
your fellow man or woman.
If
you whole-heartedly reject the ideas of Nietzsche’s (not so) Ubermensch, Ayn Rand’s love of selfishness, the basic corrupt global lottery
of quality of life, and think that
capitalism is inherently evil, I suggest you get acquainted with Jacques
Fresco.
What
can you conclude, if anything, from reading this article? I would say the
lessons which can be learnt are threefold; utopia doesn’t exist in an objective
sense; competing utopias may lead to misery; my utopia, based on Fresco’s
ideas, is extremely meritorious. I do
feel, however, that this article shouldn’t end with my words. We started with
Shaw, so we should end with Wilde, who was a philosopher, amongst other things.
“A map of the world
that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out
the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands
there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the
realisation of Utopias.”
―
Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under
Socialism.
By the one and only
Samuel Mack-Poole
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Utopia' Issue 44
Let’s engender a debate about gender - Samuel Mack-Poole
Let’s
engender a debate about gender
“Frailty, thy name is woman!” – Hamlet, Act one Scene Two, by
William Shakespeare.
“In a
patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a
group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon.
"Nobody will ever win the Battle of the
Sexes. There's just too much fraternizing with the enemy." - Henry Kissinger.
I
want to waste no time, as I have no time to waste – I shall define my terms immediately:
Sex: either the male or
female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to
the reproductive functions.
Gender: Gender is a range of
characteristics of femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, the
term may refer to the sex (i.e. the state of being male or female), social
roles (as in gender roles) or gender identity.
At long last, we at the The Philosophy Takeaway are going to
converse about the mundane, in the true sense of the word – the worldy, the
earthly. If one approached a
humble plebeian on the street, and asked them to define truth, reality, or what
a thought is, one may find them a little reserved. However, if one asks a woman or a man about gender, one
might, I dare say, get a stronger reaction from said humble plebeian.This
is due to the fact that many people think about this topic, regardless of
intellectual ability, gender, race, or class. The interaction between men and
women, male and female, those who are masculine or feminine, is crucial to the
survival of the species that is Homo Sapien Sapien.
Consequently, we have
been bombarded with social constructs as to how to interact with those who have
a penis, and those who have a vagina. The facts are a simple as such: women and
men have different genitalia. Women have the ability to gestate the humans of
the future, and men have the ability to supply the ingredients to impregnate
women. All this is by the by; the
point is to note that there are physical differences. What isn’t by the by,
however, is the fact we – that is to say our species – have created constructs
which determines how we should act with regard to social etiquette. Please
forgive the anthropological slant, but if one examines humanity in a holistic
sense (I.e, a sense of the whole and how its parts are related and dependent),
it is more than easy to state that there are an abundance of different cultures
across the world. And these cultures have different sets of rules as to how a
man or woman should act.
That last word really
interests me, because I think we do act in ways which are deemed to be
positive or negative, when it comes to gender. A man may pay attention to
football, not because he really enjoys it, but due to the fact it is deemed
masculine. Conversely, a woman may wear pink, not because she wants to, but
because she wants to have a socially acceptable identity; in short, because it
is deemed feminine.
Should we be such slaves
to constructs? I have stated it many times before, but our minds – and I use
that word in a purely metaphorical, rather than metaphysical sense – imprison
us. As Yoda said, “You must unlearn what you have learned.” But why must we? It
is because the past is based, most tragically, upon false dogma.
We think within a
paradigm of an angry, simplistic theology. Our very culture is rich with the
past; we are, unfortunately, fettered to it. Yet, quite absurdly, the rules of the past are broken with
hypocrisy. Let me give a very current example, that of Page 3. As a young father, trying to understand the absurdity of
this world, I am faced with living in a post-Enlightenment culture which
promotes sexual objectification. Although the most edifying philosophical quote
is found on this page, this does little to mitigate the messages which will be
bombarded at my daughter: success is gained through “sexual beauty”; thinking is
not important for women.
I am not as dishonest to
pretend that I am not sexually excited by these photos. Nevertheless, I am
sincerely worried as to the harmful affect they will have my upon daughter’s
thinking. Another generation will
witness a culture which disproportionately objectifies women, no matter how
prevalent Diet Coke adverts may be.
We live in an age of
reason, where philosophical investigation and scientific endeavour should
dominate intellectual thought. Nietzsche stated, “Great things are for the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and
delicacies for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare.”
Although he was an
habitual misogynist – although some philosophers would argue he was mocking his
ridiculousness – Nietzsche was so close to the truth of the matter. A very
select class of intellectuals, the true philosophers and scientists, are able
to take a step back from the barbaric past, and view the world with a truly
modern philosophical zeitgeist.
And, to quote Lloyd Duddridge,
we shouldn’t reject the past per se, that
would be foolish. However, to take a pack of illiterate fairy tales seriously
is a crime. Furthermore, to accept the status quo with regard to gender in the
United Kingdom would be a moral crime. We owe it to ourselves, and wider
society, to release ourselves from those shackles and redefine what masculinity
and femininity are.
We have lost out on some
truly brilliant female minds due to our historical idiocy. Think how many great
thinkers were castigated and repressed. The female equivalents of Mozart,
Shakespeare, Washington, Descartes, and Da Vinci existed; quite cruelly,
however, they just weren’t given the opportunity to self-actualise.
In conclusion, I must
state that it is the duty of all humans to embrace the excitement of the
present! Let’s be lovers of wisdom, too. For wisdom never resided within the
confines of a male paradigm.
Samuel Mack-Poole
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 38
Let’s engender a debate about gender - By Samuel Mack-Poole
Let’s
engender a debate about gender
“Frailty, thy name is woman!” – Hamlet, Act one Scene Two, by
William Shakespeare.
“In a
patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a
group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon.
"Nobody will ever win the Battle of the
Sexes. There's just too much fraternizing with the enemy." - Henry Kissinger.
I
want to waste no time, as I have no time to waste – I shall define my terms immediately:
Sex: either the male or
female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to
the reproductive functions.
Gender: Gender is a range of
characteristics of femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, the
term may refer to the sex (i.e. the state of being male or female), social
roles (as in gender roles) or gender identity.
At long last, we at the The Philosophy Takeaway are going to
converse about the mundane, in the true sense of the word – the worldy, the
earthly. If one approached a
humble plebeian on the street, and asked them to define truth, reality, or what
a thought is, one may find them a little reserved. However, if one asks a woman or a man about gender, one
might, I dare say, get a stronger reaction from said humble plebeian.This
is due to the fact that many people think about this topic, regardless of
intellectual ability, gender, race, or class. The interaction between men and
women, male and female, those who are masculine or feminine, is crucial to the
survival of the species that is Homo Sapien Sapien.
Consequently, we have
been bombarded with social constructs as to how to interact with those who have
a penis, and those who have a vagina. The facts are a simple as such: women and
men have different genitalia. Women have the ability to gestate the humans of
the future, and men have the ability to supply the ingredients to impregnate
women. All this is by the by; the
point is to note that there are physical differences. What isn’t by the by,
however, is the fact we – that is to say our species – have created constructs
which determines how we should act with regard to social etiquette. Please
forgive the anthropological slant, but if one examines humanity in a holistic
sense (I.e, a sense of the whole and how its parts are related and dependent),
it is more than easy to state that there are an abundance of different cultures
across the world. And these cultures have different sets of rules as to how a
man or woman should act.
That last word really
interests me, because I think we do act in ways which are deemed to be
positive or negative, when it comes to gender. A man may pay attention to
football, not because he really enjoys it, but due to the fact it is deemed
masculine. Conversely, a woman may wear pink, not because she wants to, but
because she wants to have a socially acceptable identity; in short, because it
is deemed feminine.
Should we be such slaves
to constructs? I have stated it many times before, but our minds – and I use
that word in a purely metaphorical, rather than metaphysical sense – imprison
us. As Yoda said, “You must unlearn what you have learned.” But why must we? It
is because the past is based, most tragically, upon false dogma.
We think within a
paradigm of an angry, simplistic theology. Our very culture is rich with the
past; we are, unfortunately, fettered to it. Yet, quite absurdly, the rules of the past are broken with
hypocrisy. Let me give a very current example, that of Page 3. As a young father, trying to understand the absurdity of
this world, I am faced with living in a post-Enlightenment culture which
promotes sexual objectification. Although the most edifying philosophical quote
is found on this page, this does little to mitigate the messages which will be
bombarded at my daughter: success is gained through “sexual beauty”; thinking is
not important for women.
I am not as dishonest to
pretend that I am not sexually excited by these photos. Nevertheless, I am
sincerely worried as to the harmful affect they will have my upon daughter’s
thinking. Another generation will
witness a culture which disproportionately objectifies women, no matter how
prevalent Diet Coke adverts may be.
We live in an age of
reason, where philosophical investigation and scientific endeavour should
dominate intellectual thought. Nietzsche stated, “Great things are for the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and
delicacies for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare.”
Although he was an
habitual misogynist – although some philosophers would argue he was mocking his
ridiculousness – Nietzsche was so close to the truth of the matter. A very
select class of intellectuals, the true philosophers and scientists, are able
to take a step back from the barbaric past, and view the world with a truly
modern philosophical zeitgeist.
And, to quote Lloyd Duddridge,
we shouldn’t reject the past per se, that
would be foolish. However, to take a pack of illiterate fairy tales seriously
is a crime. Furthermore, to accept the status quo with regard to gender in the
United Kingdom would be a moral crime. We owe it to ourselves, and wider
society, to release ourselves from those shackles and redefine what masculinity
and femininity are.
We have lost out on some
truly brilliant female minds due to our historical idiocy. Think how many great
thinkers were castigated and repressed. The female equivalents of Mozart,
Shakespeare, Washington, Descartes, and Da Vinci existed; quite cruelly,
however, they just weren’t given the opportunity to self-actualise.
In conclusion, I must
state that it is the duty of all humans to embrace the excitement of the
present! Let’s be lovers of wisdom, too. For wisdom never resided within the
confines of a male paradigm.
Samuel Mack-Poole
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 38
Truth is a lie
“Truth is truth, to the end of reckoning.” Measure for Measure -- Act V, Scene I
However beautiful my eyes may be, those windows to my soul will never be as important as that simple mathematical truth. Children all the world over will know the truth of that mathematical statement; in comparison, very few humans will know of my existence – even fewer, quite sadly, will observe the quaint beauty of my eyes.
I started the article with the title truth is a lie. Why? Well, it wasn’t just to be provocative. I always think of religious fundamentalists when confronted with the question of truth, as I am inclined to think their truth is very subjective. An ardent Christian will believe the Bible is true. They are, for the most part, sincere. They live their lives according to what they deem to be the truth.
Yet, to an atheist, their truth is a lie. And, of course, this applies when we invert the accusation. To a Christian, an atheist’s truth is a lie, too. When we mull over the most potent truths there are, such as the trite ‘Is there a God?’ debate, it seems that truth is hard to come by.
I don’t know if I can come to a conclusion, as King David stated in Psalm 116:11, “All men are liars.” But was he lying?
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Democracy' Issue 41
Whenever a philosopher hears the word “truth” used in a conversation, their ears prick up like a meerkat. It is, after all, such a loaded term. It is the ultimate authority, and it is usually wielded in debate so that the arguers point cannot be denied: it is as if the truth wielder is a Nazgûl ; never come between a Nazgûl and its prey. However, truth can be used in different contexts, and not all truths are equally valuable. Yet, my friends, I should define the word! Truth can be defined as:
1) The true or actual state of a matter: he tried to find out the truth.
2) Conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3) A verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4) The state or character of being true.
5) Actuality or actual existence.
What is disappointing with these definitions is that it doesn’t differentiate between objective and subjective truths. Nevertheless, the definitions do suggest a context: context, as we all know, is vital. The mathematical definition inspires my synapses to fire! Stirred into reflection whilst sitting in my middle class pyjamas, drinking my middle class tea, even a squire of pride such as myself has to concede that the mathematical truth 2+2 = 4 is more important than the truth that I have greeny-blue eyes.
However beautiful my eyes may be, those windows to my soul will never be as important as that simple mathematical truth. Children all the world over will know the truth of that mathematical statement; in comparison, very few humans will know of my existence – even fewer, quite sadly, will observe the quaint beauty of my eyes.
I started the article with the title truth is a lie. Why? Well, it wasn’t just to be provocative. I always think of religious fundamentalists when confronted with the question of truth, as I am inclined to think their truth is very subjective. An ardent Christian will believe the Bible is true. They are, for the most part, sincere. They live their lives according to what they deem to be the truth.
Yet, to an atheist, their truth is a lie. And, of course, this applies when we invert the accusation. To a Christian, an atheist’s truth is a lie, too. When we mull over the most potent truths there are, such as the trite ‘Is there a God?’ debate, it seems that truth is hard to come by.
Please let me get to the daddy of the truths: absolute truths. The term is a philosophical nightmare, as it creates a liar paradox if it doesn’t exist. An absolute truth can be defined as an universal truth which is true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction. Here is an example of a potential absolute truth: God exists, has always existed, and will always exist. However, let’s invert this argument: God doesn’t exist, has never existed, and will always never exist. If you’re intelligent, you will notice that even though the first outcome is directly opposed to the second, it’s just as absolute. Now, look what happens when we deny the accuracy of absolute truths: There are no absolute truths. If this statement is true, then it is true absolutely, in all contexts. Yet it creates a liar paradox, as the words carry a classic binary truth, creating a contradiction. Thus my friends, you can see the truth is true, or the truth is a lie – or both, simultaneously.
I don’t know if I can come to a conclusion, as King David stated in Psalm 116:11, “All men are liars.” But was he lying?
Samuel Mack-Poole
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
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:
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
