Peter Singer: - By Samuel Mack-Poole

Would you like (relative) infanticide with (relative) bestiality? An insight into the morality of Peter Singer:

Since Peter Singer’s controversial interview with Richard Dawkins, his prominence amongst the global intelligentsia is on the rise. He has been lauded by Dawkins as the “most moral man” he knows. This, obviously, is quite an endorsement from one of the world’s most publicity hungry scientists. But, as philosophers, we should question Singer’s arguments. It is our duty to do so. For if we don’t, the dogmatists will. And we all know how easy it is to argue with a dogmatist…

One of Peter Singer’s more controversial arguments (to the non-scientifically minded) is that we are not special just through the virtue of belonging to the species Homo sapien sapien (please note that we are a species of a common ancestor Homo sapien within two sub-species; our evolutionary cousin being Homo sapien neanderthalensis).

It is a scientific fact that we are animals. That is not in doubt. However, what we should question is: how are we unique or ‘special’? Singer has said in an interview, which is on YouTube, that humans have an ability to see their lives in a “biographical sense”. Humans can remember the past and plan for the future to a greater extent than any other species. He also states that humans “admittedly have capacities to reason and use language that exceeds any non-human animal.”

Despite this, Singer argues, quite truthfully, that not all humans have this ability. New-born infants don’t, and whilst I don’t want to broaden this debate too much, an embryo certainly doesn’t. Personally, I think Singer’s arguments regarding new-born infants are flawed. According to a Kant’s Doctrine of Right:

“Due to the congenital nature of life per se, every parent is morally obligated to care for their child until they are able to care for themselves. As a child has no ability to consent to be born, it is the moral duty and obligation to provide care and sustenance for their child.”

This, to me, highlights a moral case for every, and any, parent taking responsibly for their child – even in the case of disability. Singer rejects this argument, quite simply, because he does not think all human life is worth saving. He peremptorily rejects traditional and conservative moral values -- which isn’t necessarily a bad thing -- by claiming only life that is fully aware, sentient and has consciousness worthy of being regarded as a person.

In his own words, Singer has stated:

“I use the term "person" to refer to a being who (sic) is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future.”

Not only is this grammatically incorrect, but this is a very narrow way of valuing human species.  Furthermore, this acute argument leaves Singer wide open to a very slippery slope – almost a forty-five degree glacier. If a new born baby, which can survive independent of its biological mother, doesn’t meet Singer’s highly subjective criteria, does a one year old child? What about a toddler that is not capable of speech, but who can think of plans? How “new” is new-born? It would be unfair, however, not to mention biased, of me to misrepresent Singer.

He only advocates infanticide when the parents and doctors have agreed it is in the best interests of the child – in the case of extremely severe disability. He is very careful to be relative – for morality can only be applied to special circumstances. He, in no way, shape or form, advocates the, dare I say it, bestial butchering of hundreds of healthy new-borns.

 This, naturally, leads very nicely onto Singer’s views on bestiality. He doesn’t blindly believe that any sexual activity with an animal is “wrong” per se. In no way is sexual behaviour with animals a social norm – unless you are a young male from a rural area (you can look at Kinsey’s statistics for yourself) -- yet it is true that since the dawn of man, members of our species have chosen to interact sexually with non-human animals. As there are biblical statutes on the matter, it is quite clear a law was created to stop humans doing something that the majority did not.

However, a biblical approach to life is not (actively) followed by most in modern Britain. The majority of men are Onanists; we are, for the most, a liberal and accepting society. Sodomy, homosexuality -- amongst both genders -- can be practiced openly. As this is the case, why is sex with animals deemed “immoral” and illegal?

Singer has written an article called Heavy Petting in which he outlines his views on Zoophilia – after all, bestiality has such a bad name.  It is implied that Singer is a consequentialist (someone who believes the consequence(s) of one's action determines its moral value) and that he does not take a strictly rights-based approach to ethical issues. 

The following quote will illustrate Singer’s position:

“Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty.”

If both parties experience “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature, Singer does not think the act is inherently immoral. However, Singer conveniently ignores the glaringly obvious, almost neon white, elephant in the room: consent! Tom Regan, a fellow philosopher, correctly states that the same argument can be used to validate a paedophile’s lust for children. If the logic is not sound in all contexts, the argument is invalid – isn’t it?

For some reason, my moral compass is not offended by the thought of a woman riding naked on a horse, and reaching orgasm as a result – but I am offended by the thought of a man fucking a sheep. I have to be honest, and admit to my moral hypocrisy; I have to work on my contradictions. In the end, I guess, I have to admit that I’m only (a) human (animal).

By Samuel Mack-Poole

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27

Animals cannot be capitalist, but can they be socialist? - By Martin Prior

Animals cannot be capitalist, but can they be socialist?

 

 

Before starting up this discussion, I must say that my factual awareness about animal behaviour is strictly limited.  We know about Washoe, the chimpanzee that learnt American Sign Language: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/my-life-as-a-turkey/joe-hutto-answers-your-questions/7389/, and about Joe Hutto, who learnt wild turkey language: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/my-life-as-a-turkey/joe-hutto-answers-your-questions/7389/ .

Once, when I was visiting a friend in a country which was then in the Soviet bloc, we saw some ants, and I said that ants were communist, but had solved the supply problem.

 

But if we consider socialism to be about ownership and property, then we might say that territorial animals are not socialist.  But what about cats?  Their instinct tells them that if you are their ‘master’ (though probably vice versa), part of their instinct tells them to share their mouse with you.  So that in terms of their immobile property they are capitalist, but in terms of mobile property they are socialist.

 

Or perhaps among some animals, the leader of the pack effectively owns the females: a form of state capitalism?

 

But perhaps socialism, when expressed in terms of property, is not a final definition.  Perhaps property can be used in a socialistic way.  My own view of socialism is that of “sharing equally the burdens imposed by the limitations of the natural environment”, illustrated in the diagram shown below on the left.  Then ownership comes in when it is a means by which the rich get richer and the poor poorer.

But then I have argued in these issues that this process of creating equality must be broken down, part integrated with custom, and part by processes of investigation that transcend custom.  This is illustrated on the right, from an article I wrote for Issue 22. Skills become critical here.

 

 

“share equally the burdens imposed by the limitations of the natural environment”

(i.e. equal wind pressure on each square inch of sail)

processes in equality

The two areas of maroon represent the effects of customs and culture, but the intervening pink represents skills and ideas which may actively evolve.  Now this active intervention is something we might find difficult to identify in animals, where for non-creationists at least, the evolution is not directed..
 

I once heard that experiments on rats in overcrowded conditions were viable provided the space was shared fairly.   From a brief google I find the work of John B. Calhoun (1917-95), who found that up to a point the rats would organise themselves into packs of around twelve, but then serious behavioural problems occurred when crowding was further intensified, leading to diminished birth-rates which could lead to the extinction of the community even when numbers were sufficiently reduced.

So rats and probably other species cannot be explicitly socialist: nor do they invent the concept for themselves.  But if capitalism leads to a kind of cancer which gets out of control, then it cannot necessarily be repaired of its own accord.                                       

By Martin Prior

 
The Philosophy Takeaway 'Animals' Issue 27

Art - By Harry Wareham

By - Harry Wareham

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26

For Mary: 15-50 - By Siobhon Wilson

For Mary: 15-50

15.

Grown. Taut.

Started but not yet begun.

Buds of sexuality pucker,

Unknowing what they held inside.

Eyes down, bitten lip.

An unfurnished room.

20.

Ibiza. Him.

Begun but not yet created.

Sex.

Known but not owned.

She is for sale.

Eye contact. Wide smile.

Playing at Four becomes foreplay.

He.

Shiny and new.

Owned but not known.

30.

Baby. Nothing But.

Created but not yet realised.

Sexuality is replaced with Mothercare.

She is owned and she has produced.

Tired eyes, sighing mouth.

Her = Child.

Le petit mort.

A shrunken room

Littered with debris of the past

Home to the little cot.

40.

Ten years un-needed.

Discarded but not fully released.

Sexuality is reconstructed in old, betraying photographs.

Flowers wilt in dry soil, only half-opened.

Eyes worn, time-wrinkled frown.

Identity is unknown to all who occupy.

50.

Grown. Sagged.

Started but not yet begun.

The stretching of time leaves marks on her body.

The perennials turn to seed,

Desaturated, the negative of colour.

Eyes down, bitten lip.

She leaves.

An unfurnished room:

She opens a window and

Breathes in air.

 

By Siobhon WilsonThe Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26

Points of light and the Androgyne - By Selim 'Selim' Talat

Points of light and the Androgyne

 

i) More voices means more power to the group

- The patriarchy is not an alliance, more a code of battle that respects his rivals right to fight. It is composed of 'points of light' in great number. Although each point is individual, it is granted freedom (to flourish or perish) by belonging to the whole. Thus, every action of an individual within the fully composed 'face' is more powerful than it would be individually.

- Without a collective face, without a voice, an individual entity can rarely be heard, or understood.

- The lack of a large number of women in philosophy is why her face is only half-formed. This lack of number disempowers all of the points of light that make up this face.

ii) Our romantic imagination is oppressing the 'female'

- How powerful the human imagination is! It can add so much romance to the world, yet often at the cost of missing the real picture.

- A value system is always formed, sometimes outside the ordinary dictation of nature (for instance, what is considered 'beautiful' can be completely removed from any natural instincts - for better or for worse).

- Appeals to 'human nature' are often made by those who cannot fully define what they actually mean by the cliché.

- The new reality created by the mind is easily reinforced by the self-obsessed creature. The romance of illusion replaces reality when it becomes second-nature.

- The warped view of the 'female'-other is more appealing than the human-she (at least, to this perverse mindset). She is mysticized as something simultaneously greater and less than human - she is one day admired, another day feared. On no day is she an equal. And in reality, the power of mystical femininity is no real power at all.

- A different value system emerges for woman and man, man and woman. This becomes habit, then tradition. Traditions have the habit of being accepted unquestioning and being enforced by mass dis/approval – the power of brute mental force!

- The true egalitarian starting point of different genders, linked, equal, in an intimate alliance, is polarized by that most horrid of things - platonic perfection. Unrealistic ideals create unreachable goals and beautiful phantoms that nullify the magic of this 'dull' world - we stand now in the shadow of false gods.

- The face of the Patriarch is full, his voice a resounding echo of power. The Matriarch is not yet complete. She is still dancing to his tune, playing his game, powerful only within its confines.

iii) With equal respect for the outcomes, we discover an equal choice

- So long as 'female' is seen as a romanticised entity, more so than her 'male' counterpart, the true nature of her cannot be seen. Nor can she be truly understood, or respected, whilst we maintain these delusions.

- Soon (when?) Matriarch shall be complete, beside Patriarch. She can match him and both will dissolve into an Androgyne. Between the binary extremes of gender can fully emerge near-infinite possibility.

- From this point the individual will be free to design itself between the broad barriers and guidelines of the many genders that inhabit our sphere of experience.

- Such is the nature of our inevitable progress.

By Selim 'Selim' Talat

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26

Sexism, Logic and Intuition - By Martin Prior

Sexism, Logic and Intuition

In the period 1974-6, I was active in the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL now ‘Liberty’).  At the beginning of this period, banning pornography and prostitution were seen as reactionary in the same way perhaps as any other form of censorship.  Over that short period attitudes changed and differing feminist views became more prominent.

I felt that a number of their arguments were logically flawed and unhelpful.  Before going into detail I am going to consider two points, the first to do with racism.  The late Jade Goody from Big Brother was once accused of being racist for doing an Indian accent, and her response was ‘but people imitate my accent’.  But recently I heard an Indian say – I think on the Wright Show (Channel 5) – that he often heard people doing Indian accents, but he knew intuitively when it was offensive.  Being an immigrant myself, I would say my reaction is similar.  As a linguist I have on occasion done this Indian accent – with best Sanskrit consonants - but I am in fact making a linguistic point, as might an accent trainer in the theatre.  But I have never formally studied Indian intonation which I can improvise without any difficulty, and this bothers me since I am not sure it comes out as respectful.

 

The second point can be made with a Venn diagram I produced two issues ago, about negative reference.  It is shown opposite:

Note that this is a mathematical statement: in language, depending on intonation and context, we might be conceding that two or three blondes might not be stupid (especially with a rising tone).

No, not all blondes are stupid, and some know intuitively when they are being offensively treated as stupid.  But I wonder if such attitudes have an ‘adverse environmental effect’: by being treated as stupid, they use their intelligence less.

Let us know get to the substance of the issue: certain activities are regarded as ‘treating women as objects’.  Well firstly, an argument condemning activity between consenting adults on the basis of a simile is a very questionable ethical argument.  Many things have a resemblance to something else: if I lift somebody up from the floor, in a sense I am treating somebody as an object, so one must go directly to the basis of the similarity that causes concern.

But even if we accept this description of the activity: treating some adults as objects with their consent does not imply we should treat all such adults as objects regardless of their consent.

So we cannot condemn say beauty contests for treating people as objects, but I believe we can go back to intuition: if our intuition is that the people present at such activities ‘treat blondes as stupid’ and the like, then we may feel that even if the event is not intrinsically sexist, in practice that is precisely what it is.  But we must also avoid making generalisations.

I talked at the beginning about consenting adults, and if we don’t respect intuitions we may well not gain such consent.

What set me on the path of questioning feminist arguments was that of gender rôles, mainly condemned because different societies had different rôle systems, and all tended to justify them on an innate basis: so women were innately better cooks etc etc.  Since this is wrong, gender rôles must be wrong.  But the flaw in this is that even if societies don’t all have the same rôle systems, all societies have some rôles.  My view is that gender rôles are chosen according to what can be conveniently combined, and even though one might feel this was not an optimal mix in terms of aptitude, this is compensated for by early learning.

But this combination principle mainly applies within households, so that in terms of careers, aptitude has to be relevant, and studying this should certainly not critically depend on intuition: there is no way that a combination principle can be invoked to say that ballet dancers must be either female or gay!  And feminism is certainly not ‘post-’, so anyone thinking of being the father of post-feminism need not apply.  Nor post-anti-racism.  Nor (even in Tony Blair’s wildest dreams) post-Trades-Unionism.

Philosophers may well be wary of resorting to intuition, but in fact it is the basis of modern linguistics.  Linguists these days do not accept something as grammatical in a particular language unless it accords with the intuitions of a native speaker.  That is a starting point: and philosophy cannot directly use intuitions, but it will have something to say about any scientific method that draws upon it.

Such intuitions to my mind explain why for some ethnic and other groups a neutral term soon becomes derogatory, so that another neutral term has to be found.  Thus the term Polak is derogatory in the States, even though it is the Polish for Pole.  And ‘hussy’ originally meant housewife, and ‘bird’ is derived from a dialect word – I believe Northern - related to bride.

Just one more thing: aren’t beauty contests reinforcing one particular idea of beauty, one particular ‘eye of the beholder’?  So who is what is disrespectful to?

Postscript on post-feminism...

In the last issue we talked about magic, and about madness in the issue before that, so now I can adapt my diagrams of those issues to post-feminism:

 

The analysis is very similar to that of Magic.  But the bubble should really straddle :)  and :].

The very serious point relates to observations and variables: any progressive movement will deal with a situation there are more variables than observations, and must proceed by trial and error, picking out the strands in a situation.  As in language-learning, which might be characterised by

imitation(!) -> deduction -> correction,

error has to be constructive.  In that process, where the parallel of imitation is problematic but possibly still valid (perhaps rôle-models but this needs further examination), deductions will often take the form of over-generalisations.  We will add to our understanding if we allow for intuition, and allow for gender rôle within the household and outside, but of course that creates problems as well as attempted solutions.

By Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26

The Feminist Reaction To Evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary psychology is a theory that states psychological mechanisms evolve casually as a survival skill to over come the 'hostile forces of nature'.  The theory can make predictions based on what would be advantageous to survival, thus describing the teleology of human nature, with physical and psychological mechanisms that help to achieve this goal for the longest time possible.  Evolutionary psychology gives a description of human nature, with strong results. For example fear and snakes.  By developing the psychological state of fear, we greatly enhance our survival chances; we feel fear when we believe our life is under threat and this causes us to develop reactions and intentionality that guide us to avoid these situations or at least focus in order to avoid fatalities.  Once we developed fear and experienced poisonous snakes, we inductively learnt to react with fear in the presence of snakes, thus we have a natural fear of snakes even though this danger is far more reduced today, with anti-venoms and such, it is still a part of our nature to fear snakes.

Psychological mechanisms develop by maximising what will optimise our survival, which will be definitive of our future natural dispositions, but something has changed in our environment which has caused defiance to certain developed psychological mechanisms.  This defiance took manifest in feminism (for example).

One psychological mechanism which both male and females have developed is attraction. In the largest survey of its day, looking into the habits of what males and females find attractive in the other sex, (buss, D.M. (1994a). the strategies of human mating, American scientist, 82, 238-249), this survey was done over six continents, over 10,000 subjects, from Nigeria to Japan and showed that women rank financial resources 150% more important then males in finding a long term partner attractive.  This would make sense as a male who can provide an abundance of food for this female and possible child will increase their survival prospects.  Women who attracted good hunters would have been more successful in surviving and breeding then women who didn't and thus the psychological state of attraction is mechanically joined with a successful male. In short resource access causes attraction in women.

But given our now advanced science and agriculture, do women still rely on males to provide in the same way? For example the sex disqualification act of 1919 allowed women to work and divorce  men and as we have grown, women now have a strong presence in the work place and gain highly powerful and respected jobs.  It seems analogous to the fear of snakes, a evolutionary lag in attraction is still present but is changing.

The natural environment hasn't changed but the social environment has and not necessarily in a evolutionary beneficial form, the idea of a women earning more then the male, at least 50 years ago and before, may have been off-putting to other possible mates as they would be emasculated, yet the feminist force has continued pushing against evolutionary mechanisms. 

Feminism can be seen as a reaction to evolutionary psychological mechanisms in the sense that the dependence on the males is caused by out-dated social structures, and in this sense feminism is progressive, but a more profound transition has occurred in this defiance to psychology.  Evolutionary influences give rise to automaton women or, as Simone de Beauvoir would have said, psychological mechanisms are responsible for women's state of immanence, and so there is an existential shift, affirming being and not automaton instinct, allowing choice instead of doing what is required to survive and as women becomes more successful it seems reasonable that attraction to wealth, will be displaced to other factors, perhaps creating a turn towards intelligence, wit and honesty.

But in summary, our sociability is moving to point that is causing a choice based on being and not reflex survival mechanisms, re-defining psychological states that will affect change in human nature.  It is interesting that the more independent we are of mother nature, the more independent humans are, becoming existentially authentic in choice, allowing decisions to be made by self reflection and not mere mechanisms. It shows we are moving away from what Darwinian evolution distilled in our physiological and psychological make up and entering a phase which is unknown to us.

T.C.R.Moon

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 26 

Do you believe in magic? - By Patrick Ainley

Do you believe in magic?

‘Who does not know Turner’s picture of the Golden Bough?’ begins one of the hoariest old explanations of the origins and progressive development of magic, religion and science – in that order, traced through 12 volumes of evidence from anthropology and history collected into a great scheme of things. Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough is the type of meta-narrative no longer approved of in these postmodern times. It is speculative and, in its own way, magical but it offers a simple and coherent explanation of magic – or, rather, magical thinking. What would baffle Sir James is the return of so much magic today. To do that needs resort to another hoary old Victorian denizen of London – Karl Marx and his concept of ‘commodity fetishism’ which he advanced in his grand and historical scheme.

According to Frazer, magic works on the principle of homology: if one thing resembles another, they are thought by people who do not know better to have some connection and influence on each other. The winter mistletoe on the Druid oak is sacred because evergreen like summer. If your liver troubles you, the remedy lies in the liverwort which looks like a liver, rather than perhaps stopping drinking so much alcohol. Indeed, ancient and indigenous medical systems typically present parallels between parts of the body and the natural world. This is the way homeopathy supposedly affects its magic – you take more of the same that is causing your allergy or illness in order, magically, to cure it.

Magical re-enactments of uncontrollable events can also seemingly bring them under control. So sports players often perform personal rituals – touch left foot with right hand, right foot with left hand – before beginning play. Students carry the same ‘lucky mascots’ into exams, hoping their presence on the desk or in their pockets will bring them the luck that got them through the last exam. Or they go through irrational actions – cramming all night before the exam, for instance, even though this reduces their chances of even staying awake the next day!

While such rituals may have psychological benefits – putting you ‘in the zone’ so you can concentrate – they are plainly not the basis for a coherent explanation of events. To find this, Frazer thought that as evidence accumulated humanity moved from magic to religion, typically reducing the many influences, spirits and gods of – for example – the oldest surviving religion, Hinduism, to concentrate on placating a reduced number of deities in ‘more advanced’ religions, such as the pantheons of Egyptian or Greek gods, usually families ruled over by a guiding king or sun-god, like Ra or Zeus. In monotheisms, this presiding deity became the sole remaining God – even if Christianity complicated things by giving him a son! Islam is therefore simpler and more advanced/ progressive than Christianity in Frazer’s view but, of course, simplest of all would be to have no gods at all and move on to science which ‘has no need of that hypothesis’ for its predictions, as the French scientist Laplace supposedly told Napoleon.

Despite the pragmatic scientific world view supporting so much of our lives and thought today, in situations of uncertainty people tend to revert to religious or even magical thinking; like the Irish playwright Brendan Behan who said that he was ‘a daylight atheist’ but when it got dark he fell down on his knees! ‘Do you believe in magic/ In a young girl’s heart?’ as the Loving Spoonful asked, relating to the apparent uncertainties of pair-bonding – though most people in fact find their partners within their own social class, however defined. The song also illustrates how commercial popular culture keeps such beliefs alive so that Marx argued that human relations under capitalism were ‘fetishized’. Like the example that Frazer gives of West African fetish kings, the masked ruler or his (occasionally her – as in the UK today!) effigy/ totem is credited with ‘control of the weather and so forth’ (not in the UK!).

So, in the ‘immense accumulation of commodities’ that Marx says makes up the wealth of capitalist societies and which the economy must go on producing and selling to maintain itself, ‘the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life’ and, invertedly, ‘relations between people assume the fantastic form of relations between things’. The use of the commodity produced for sale becomes less important that its price, so that ‘priceless’ and really incomparable art works, for example, are fetishized in an imaginary hierarchy of quantity over quality. As indeed, everything and everyone has their price which can be rated on a monetary scale. Money, the symbol of value and exchange, thus becomes more real than the things it buys.

This has a psychological underpinning in Freud’s notion of fetishists replacing the real object of their desires with a substitute – like women’s shoes, notoriously (though the Chinese did the same by binding feet)! The fetish is endowed with magical powers that we can see in advertisements where the commodity assumes a life of its own, like cars that speak and are presented as somehow ‘sexy’ or ‘powerful’. This tendency towards fetishism is heightened in the postmodern simulacrum that presents itself as more real (‘hyper-real’) than reality because, although depending upon science for their production, the inner workings of the fetishized commodities that fill our world become more arcane and unknown to most people. And so as we work them and they work themselves by so-called ‘artificial intelligence’, they assume magical properties and the world spirals out of human control or even understanding.

We cannot therefore be so confident that, as Frazer concluded his voluminous study, the ‘clouds and thick darkness’ of magic that envelop ‘the backward portion of the web… which the Fates are now weaving on the humming loom of time’ will be irradiated by the rationality of science. Especially as the productions of science are fetishized as the commodities of an unsustainable hyper-reality, our species must disenchant the world we have created in order to survive.

By Patrick Ainley

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Magic' Issue 25

Magic, Magick, Manipulation and Materialism

Let me set the scene, we live in an era of materialism, where wealth is worshipped above knowledge, more than that, knowledge is acquired in order to attain wealth (you educate yourself in order to get a better job) Our appearance and external features seem more important and our inner life has moved to second place. People turn up their noses to praying and wishful thinking and have placed science in a semi-religious pedestal as holder (or potential holder) of all answers. This sounds well and good, we are all rational beings who claim to have moved away from superstition and even the number of ‘atheists’ is ever increasing. Yet, in this era which claims to be free of witch hunting, I call for the witches and the wizards! 

Why? I just spoke about praying and wishful thinking, the most basic primitive forms of ‘magic’ known to your average modern man, besides ‘magicians’ who cut people in half and wear top hats. 'You think god is gonna come down and buy you a TV?' seems like a good argument against Christianity. No, magick, is much deeper than that, much more scientific in its basis (think of alchemy for example), and it should go hand in hand with our technological modern world. For some people it does.

The author prepares for some magic of her own!

Let me explain, magick is the intervention of a will into the workings of the Universe. Students of magick concentrate their learning on exerting an influence in the world (which is why some people think magic is about making things fly, because that is a sort of action in the world). Magick is a sort of miracle, in the same way that a genius technician makes a computer going through a quasi-artistic state of creation. It is founded on a series of natural and psychological principles which now inhabit the backdrop of the scene; along with humanity’s mental well-being (our minds get fed so much crap on a daily basis). 

For example, people nowadays would find it absurd if a person wore a protective talisman, or that some people hear advice from an 'other-worldly being'; yet science keeps telling us that there are more dimensions (eleven have been confirmed so far) than the one we inhabit, and that elements have more properties than the ones we perceive with the naked eye. The 3D world of the five senses is perhaps only a part of a greater knowledge, a deeper understanding of the universe. We tend to condemn before we understand, and let’s face it, we do not understand a lot.

Magick, with this strange spelling, is an ancient domain of knowledge which seeks to understand the universe and humanity’s connection to it, with sympathy, with respect. Magick respects nature, it has rules, in the same way that science has laws. People who really have studied magick (I recommend to consult Manly P. Hall) will reveal to your consciousness how magick is not child’s play, it is a powerful art, a study, that is as active in human history now as it ever was. It is not in popular culture for several reasons, to name a few: the influence of religion, the industrial revolution and subsequent move to materialism, the fear of teachers of this knowledge to be spread and misused and of course, the mis-users of it prefer it to stay in their hands.  Magick is no easy topic, it is very contested ground.

We live in a world were knowledge runs in many many different rivers, some people see the world as completely spiritual and ‘magical’; some understand a purely material and pragmatic world; some only care about the brain and some consider mathematics to be a sort of magic. Some people believe in creation, some in evolution, some in the creation of evolution, the one thing we haven’t learnt yet is to connect the dots, to see all the elements as part of a greater truth. We insist in others being wrong and obsess about our own views, and at that rate, who is going to open their minds? Who is going to believe in magick? Of course not when everything seems so confusing and magic seems like the irrational answer; we have become impressionable beings who gets wowed at the cinema but believe nothing and unfortunately, think of nothing.

There are few kinds of a people more speculated, stigmatised and ridiculed than ‘wizards’, ‘magicians’ and ‘witches’, or students of magick, (think of Harry Potter which is actually claimed to have many accuracies between its fantasy world and the real study of magick). Yet we all have an element of respect there, and a certain fear of their bizarre occupation, because in this day and age its more normal to stare at a glowing screen for twelve hours rather than try to listen to the ‘spirit’ of a forest. I’m not talking about ghosts, but I’m talking about a real and powerful connection to our different elements.  For example, there are people who have a natural ability to heal, which means that even their sheer presence can make a sick person feel better, or their touch can accelerate healing; some of these people even do pursue the medical profession. Some people claim to have an ability to see into the future. Some would say that’s magic, others see it as a deeper understanding of our nature, perhaps that’s what it is, science has not explained it yet but the phenomena have been occurring since forever.

I had doubts whether to start this article by linking magick and philosophy or to explain my views on magic. I found the best way is to tell you now that the very educated men (yes, mainly men) who are the most representing figures of philosophy were in fact, occultists (another name for magician) in their time. Francis Bacon, is a notorious example. The reason why I use this example to illustrate my point is because magick is not a matter of ignorance and superstition, no, it is a deep, real knowledge of nature and other forces in order to exert YOUR will in the world but mainly, for growth. At the end of the day, for most of us, magick cannot be fully explained, but admittedly, it cannot be fully denied either.

Eliza Veretilo

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Magic' Issue 25

Magic: A Test - By Martin Prior

Magic: A Test

Let us consider the following two diagrams:

This is of course the diagram from the Issue on Madness, and may be compared with Magic, since in particular, madness involves people who make invalid logical deductions, whereas Magic, in any form, involves events which defy logical deductions.

But when we look at Magic, we may consider

(i)                 conjurors,

(ii)               practitioners who believe in magic and may or may not cheat,

(iii)             no cheating: psychosomatic studies and indeed hypnotism.

Note  that unlike madness, we do not have the concept of harming both society and oneself, but like madness we have the phenomenon of more variables (or emes?) than observations, not least among those who cheat (e.g. witch-doctors and conjurors).

So to my mind, the parallels may be captured in the following table (where for prophets we may also read ‘which-doctors’ or even statisticians):

So why don’t we have a little test?

1.      Black magic has been associated with a smiley, albeit with red eyes…is this exactly what you would think as well?

2.      Unlike madness, greed is not shown as an alternative, demonstrate that this is surely true.

3.      Where do you think the bubbles are going?

By Martin Prior



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

Abracadabra! - By Ellese Elliott

 Abracadabra!

This article does not explicitly address magic as an art, or as the usage of various techniques and practices to control the natural using the supernatural; but rather magic in the broader sense of the term. When we talk of miracles, when we talk of the inexplicable, we tend to speak of magic -that which is beyond our cognitive grasp. This will be the the sense of the term which will be considered in the matters ahead.

Abracadabra – according to Wikipedia - means, 'created as I say'. It is possible with a bit of logic, and a few premises to then create magic using a syllogism. Firstly, a syllogism is merely a conclusion that is arrived at by following the logic (or rules) of argumentation through from two premises (or statements). So, using the rules of argument, I am going to prove that everything is Magic! Ready.......

Magic is that which cannot be sufficiently explained.
Nothing can be sufficiently explained.
Therefore, everything is magic!

Wow! Unbelievable! The crowd cheers and with stars in their eyes they go out and buy the latest consumer goods. “But hey!” some brave soul left standing in the room cries. “That can't be right.” “Oh no?” the magician argues. “Why?”

“Firstly,” the brave soul argues- lets call this soul Sam, “I do not accept the first premise, 'Magic is that which cannot be sufficiently explained'”.
“And why is that?” the magician smiles.
“Well, what do you mean by insufficiently explained? I have never heard anyone refer to magic as that which cannot be sufficiently explained?”
“Good point!” says the cunning magician. “However, that is precisely how we use the term. For instance, when the children sit around my feet, and see me pull a white rabbit out of a hat, do they not call this magic? But why so? I will tell you why. Because it is incomprehensible to them how I can do such things. They cannot understand it, or conceive any possible worldly explanation how it can be so. Yet, as soon as they see how this is done and it is explained to them, revealed for all it's trickery and deceit, do they still call it magic? No, they don't.
“Or let's give an example in science. Mr Newton, the great man of moves, attempted to explain all those mysteries of our universe and could not explain for instance, why the moon and the earth have an effect on each other without them actually touching each other. So how did he explain this? He said, it was magic! Well he called that magic god, or a miracle, but all the same he could not explain without appealing to something we cannot grasp.” Sam was quite surprised at these answers and said, “I will give this some thought clever magician, but I am not convinced by your argument as I am sure there are counter examples that would not fit into your definition of magic.” Go ahead the Magician teased.

“Let's move on to the second premise – 'Nothing can be sufficiently explained.' Have we not done this. Did the big bang not explain all the wonders of the universe, or evolutionary theory not explain man?”
“Ha!” the magician laughed. “And what or who created the big bang? And what came first the chicken or the egg? Did these things come out of thin air? As long as we do not know the answers to these questions it cannot be there are any sufficient explanations or explanations that explain everything including the explanation. Are you with me?

Sam was not convinced and yet he had run out of ways to challenge him. The logic, or the way he connected his premises seemed to be valid, and for now the premises stood without a good enough attack. But wait a fool hardy minute. The magician said magic is that which cannot be sufficiently explained and that nothing can be sufficiently explained. Not one thing. And yet everything is magic he concluded. So everything can be explained by magic - ha! That is a sufficient explanation. My friend, you have walked straight into a contradiction! The second premise contradicts the conclusion as on the one hand you have said there is no way everything can be explained fully, and yet you have said everything can be explained by positing magic.

Abracadabra – you are wrong.“

And then the Philosopher went out to play.

By Ellese Elliott

The Philosophy Takeaway 'Magic' Issue 25