A note on why one should not necessarily like 'like'

Normally one puts a title in capitals, but no, I’m not talking about Liking, like in Facebook, but the adverb. And I am partly prompted by a petition that came to my Inbox, saying ‘Keep Page Three’. Basically sex workers fighting to keep their jobs. As I said in the Philosophy Takeaway 'Gender' Issue 38, on “Sexism, Logic and Intuition II”:

“I don’t believe in banning Page Three: if in our idealistic monogamous society the numbers don’t match, let the remainder of dividing by two pursue their needs privately and unobtrusively, perhaps towards the end of the paper.”

Now why should one not necessarily like ‘like’? Basically it is ambiguous between ‘like in some respects’ and ‘like in all respects’. I shall give some examples, the first from the above mentioned article:

“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 you are only treating people as objects in some respects, and as I say further in this paper and in Part I, it is the manner in which it is done and the disrespect with which it is done, not the fact of doing it. So if we express it proportionally, we might have something like

contests:women :: people:objects

this is a useful way of expressing many instances of ‘like’, but it is not necessary, for example, if John looks like his mother. However the remainder of the examples can be fitted into this form, and I shall use these as sub-headings.

Chancellor:economy :: housewife:household

Another important ‘like’: our economy is like a household, you always have to balance the books, and if they don’t balance, you must cut your cloth. Well aggregates are always like their components... in certain respects. Thus flocks of sheep are like sheep, in certain respects. Sheep undoubtedly say “maa’aa’aaa”, but do flocks?

Well, both economies and households must pursue their goals in an efficient manner. But is an ‘efficient manner’ the same for the whole and its parts. Now both must make ends meet in the long run. And a household may well have to cut its cloth in the long-term. But a national economy can print money!!!

Now if you feel that an economy and a household are alike in all respects, then clearly Mr Osborne should go to jail. Indeed so should Gordon Brown a long time ago. But in certain situations it is more efficient than austerity to clear a deficit by printing money. So when two things are alike in some respects, they may be unlike in other respects, for example their efficient functioning.

Vice-chancellor:university :: manager:business

Professors have of late an additional burden to their already over-worked commitments: vice-chancellors sailing in/parachuted in from the business world. Now of course nobody should use two paper-clips when one suffices. But the idea is very vague, and I would wish to have a chat with the professor of business studies: in all likelihood the new Vice-Chancellor wants us to worship at the altar of business.

This means paying VCs an exorbitant salary to ‘attract them from industry’ and suspending left-wing students and/or lecturers on the pretext of some sort of ‘inefficiency’. And closing down departments whose subject business doesn’t understand: or merge them, for example fine arts with paint and dye technology. Obviously painting pictures is like painting doors, so let us open doors to the real world.

So we treat ‘like’ like we want. Finally, some rather controversial current affairs:

Jews:Palestinians :: Nazis:Jews

Another example is the frequent comparison of Israeli treatment of Palestinian with Nazi activities. This causes considerable indignation: the Israelis have never sent people to gas chambers. Again they are not alike in all respects, but in enough respects for it to be unacceptable. – so the argument goes.

Israelis:Palestinians :: Apartheid:nie-blankes

And many former victims of Apartheid say that Palestine makes the Apartheid system look like a Sunday picnic. Be that as it may, but it is not like a Sunday picnic in all respects.

Martin Prior

From the Philosophy Takeaway Newsletter 56

Don't Fear The Reaper

Art by Tom Moon

Up On Nob Hill

No Values
just statues of accountants who could never learn to count
and mounted on the spikes, where business is displayed and laid out for the world to see in naked abject poverty
are chief executives and heads of lesser known departments who never meant to cook the books
but fell for fortune and her looks and took that chance to spread their wings
and now the wind that whistles sings
and passes through their empty eyes, and flapping flesh drips off dry bones of arms that never meant to harm.

No charmed lives left in Holborn or in Chancery lane, where solicitors were in on the game of taking risks
and risks they took
another spike and one more hook for the fallen wig, who still seems regal but not as big as what he thought legal.

They bought but never owned the sky or stole it from the smaller fry who swam around the edges and the shadows in society
and we,
the ripped off, stripped off, sing dirges to their loss but me, I couldn't give a toss
let them burn and turn slowly on the spit
we'll roast and toast them,
let them boast then of fancy women, fancy cars and fancy meals in fancy bars.
These czars have gone the way of old
where bold men, bad men always fold in two
and the wind blew tears that fell to splash on piles of once extorted cash and though accountants cannot count
judges learn to mount the steps and put their heads in hangman's ropes and any hopes they entertain of clemency go down the drain along with
any gains they ever made.

Those who laid beside the wide boys of this world and opened eyes into another where they couldn't even bother to see just who they hurt
have lost their shirts, ripped off their backs, attacked by those that they attacked and now the axe is on the other foot where once a boot was kicked into my arse.

so good luck you shits
I hope your bodies fall to bits
and you end up burning in the pits
alongside the others that have sinned
in the end
no one wins
the voodoo dolls of life are stuck with pins
and the devil grins and hums his tune.

John Smallshaw

Reflections on Free Will

This article is motivated by some comments I read on a philosophy post. It seems everybody believes in free will. Has nobody ever read Schopenhauer’s essay on free will? It is a very important question because the belief in free will does have some very perverse effects. But how can the belief in free will have any perverse consequences?

First of all what is it we call free will? Basically, the capacity for one individual to make decisions freely, so that each decision, lets say: “Should I turn left, or right?”, could have been equally one or the other. I decided to turn left freely, but could have decided also to turn right, there is nothing that has made me turn left. The belief in free will is the unbelief of any kind of destiny that you wouldn’t be able to escape from. And because we are so fond of freedom, most of us believe free will exists.

Maybe free will got so popular because it was the negation of the inevitable destiny that many religions exposed as the only truth, leaving man with no hope to escape a difficult life, it was your destiny, you could just accept it. Christianity developed a crumb of comfort: the hope of a better existence in death… But even within the Christian church the question of free will was present because if it didn’t exist it meant that man couldn’t be taken responsible for his bad actions. And the religions of the book quite like to make you feel guilty, it is their best stock-in-trade.

So, apart from having read Schopenhauer’s essay, in which he demonstrates that free will isn’t free, I experienced life, and for as much as I look into it there hasn’t been anything close to free will. I find particularly representative of his essay (and of my experience) a short sentence he wrote: “Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants”.

But after all who cares? Everybody should believe what they want! How can that particular belief in free will have a negative effect?

So now let’s just consider what precisely motivates this article: the example of domestic violence. Haven’t you ever heard someone say that they didn’t understand why a person stayed in a visibly toxic relationship? Because there is no reason a human would freely choose to live in hell, is there? Would you?

In the most recent researches on trauma consequences, namely PTSD and Complex PTSD, what comes to light is that it conditions one’s future choices in life, one’s reaction to different life stimuli. Even neuroscience seems to point out against any possible free will as Donald Hebb theorised in his book: The Organisation of Behaviour: a Neuropsychological Theory.

So here is one of the perverse effects of believing in free will: free will implies that a person living in a toxic relationship chooses to do so, and they do, but was that choice free? Or was it a choice conditioned by past experiences?

And when people judge another based on this belief in free will, they turn a victim into a willing accomplice, when that person was just following the path that their past created. Sometimes a conjecture of events makes it possible for someone to untie the bonds that kept them in the hell they were. And sometimes there is no such conjecture. Does that make one better than the other?

Free will is just another of those nice ideas that people who have had an easier path like to sustain, because it flatters their ego to believe that they made good choices in life. It is perverse because it compromises the idea that we were all born equal, because it prevents a more empathic society. We are what our life made us, and we should be at least empathic with the people that have had a different path.

Alice S. Dransfield

Further reading – A Schopenhauer essay: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/human/chapter3.html

Loyalty, Patriotism and Nationalism

From New Zealand thru Scotland to South-East London

Dr Johnson once argued that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel, and we march into tricky territory immediately, because meanings of words subtly change. In his address of 1774, entitled "The Patriot", Johnson stated:

"It is the quality of patriotism to be jealous and watchful, to observe all secret machinations, and to see publick dangers at a distance. The true lover of his country is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief. But he sounds no alarm, when there is no enemy; he never terrifies his countrymen till he is terrified himself. The patriotism, therefore, may be justly doubted of him, who professes to be disturbed by incredibilities; who tells, that the last peace was obtained by bribing the princess of Wales; that the king is grasping at arbitrary power; and, that because the French, in the new conquests, enjoy their own laws, there is a design at court of abolishing, in England, the trial by juries."

Well, let us start by means of example: I am a New Zealander. Am I a New Zealand patriot? If anyone asked me this, I would be inclined to you 'Do you mind? Such a question is beneath my dignity.' I would automatically ask myself whether such a person was a scoundrel, who wanted to pursue some activity I did not approve of, and wanted to accuse me of lack of patriotism if I opposed or expressed disagreement with it. But if I were asked if I were "jealous and watchful, to observe all secret machinations, and to see publick dangers at a distance" Well, I am a tad lazy, but I would say I am 'jealous and watchful' not of enemies, but the NZ government itself, which would often happily sell the family silver (i.e. privatize it) to overseas interests. But I wonder if this is the modern sense of patriotism: I would rather say loyalty, but I would certainly accuse any government that sold the family silver to overseas interests of being unpatriotic.

Any NZ government that allowed Mr Ruipert Murdoch to buy NZ Newspapers - even a certain weekly paper called 'Truth' - would certainly count as unpatriotic in my eyes. In fact any politician of any country that puts the interest of a wealthy international élite before the soundness of his/er country's economy is certainly unpatriotic.

But I also have Scots blood in me. Loyalty is a tricky word, since I don't live there, I live in England, in London in fact, though I regard myself as living in Britain not England, and see London as the capital of Britain. When you include the 60k kiwis, quarter of a million Australians, Scots, Irish and Welsh, London is surely the capital of Britain for most Londoners.

So loyalty to Scotland is a tricky word. Loyalty does not require you to be either pro- or anti-independence. But I am still enraged at some of the silly things that some of the English say about Scotland. Am I jealous and watchful, to observe all secret machinations [against Scotland], and to see publick dangers at a distance? Absolutely! Am I one who is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief. Again absolutely, not least the March of the Mars Bars in Batter, sadly so dear to many a Scottish heart. And what about Nationalists: I have every loyalty to the idea that if independence is the right thing, the SNP (Scottish National Party) will be right for the wrong reasons.

But why do I not take the next step? After living briefly living in Scotland, I came to South-East London. Am I a Londoner? I do live in London. But my loyalty is really to South-East London. Would I follow the behest of Mr Norman Tebbit and cheer for a North London team? Where's that? Anything north of Waterloo Bridge does not exist. And do Bromley and Bexley belong to South-East London? Of course they do, and if they don't, we should jolly well take them over, after all we could do with their council taxes.

* * * * * * * * * * 

But normally the British don’t do nationalism: neither the English nor other British nations would associate themselves with this term. Probably those who says that the term is to be reserved for foreigners (at least non-English) are in fact nationalists, though I think the Conservatives see themselves see themselves as loyalists rather than nationalists. And perhaps it’s Gordon Brown rather than the Tories who would talk about patriotism.

In fact there was a clearly Europhile Belgian correspondent who described the Tories as the nationalists par excellence. Not at all, they were merely Eurosceptic, and of course’ jealous and watchful, to observe all secret machinations [against Britain], and to see publick dangers at a distance”. And this brings us to one of the most insidious phrases: a ‘Good European’. To my mind being a Good European is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Martin Prior

Philosophy Takeaway Newsletter 55

Madness, Art, Value - By Eliza Veretilo and Samuel Mack-Poole

Madness, Art, Value

And now, a videogram!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c80oaaDz4ZY

Eliza Veretilo and Samuel Mack-Poole

Art - By Cathy Preston / Loreleila

This weeks artist was Cathy Preston / Loreleila: http://www.immortalart.co.uk/

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'

What is the Philosophy Takeaway?

For me the Philosophy Takeaway is a little utopian space...

It is a humble market stall, the decorative colours faded with age, the 'Talk to a Philosopher' sign tattered and bent, supported by masking tape and a box. Sometimes we have stock of second-hand philosophy books, sometimes not.  Sometimes our lights are working, other times the extension cable has been foolishly left at home. But the Philosophy Takeaway doesn't need to enchant market visitors with any pristine presentation to succeed, because it is all about conversation, thought and eager human beings.

To put it simply, what we do at the Philosophy Takeaway is ask anyone passing by a philosophical question from our hat. It is as simple as that! Three recent example questions have been: What is order? What is more important: consequences or intentions? and Is universal justice possible?  We then engage in a discussion, varying between a few minutes to an hour. We actually get more answers than you would think from such open-ended philosophy questions.

If people dig our groove, and want to receive regular philosophy literature and links, they can then sign up to our e-newsletter. We send out articles written by our team and guest contributors to continue the never-ending philosophical journey. Some people also donate money to help us cover our stall costs, and they get a printed Journal in return.

How we fit into society -

Trade can actually be quite 'humanizing', bringing people together, creating a sense of community and giving us a reason to communicate on a regular basis. When speaking of trade I refer to actual market places, the polar opposite of generic consumer malls, cookie-cutter big brands and plastic chain stores. I found Greenwich market to confirm this. Markets are a swirl of activity and conversation, where anyone can set up a stall and try a good idea, and anyone can afford to buy what is on offer. They tend to have more locally sourced and recyclable goods, which make them more environmentally aware, and the lesser emphasis on hierarchy means more cooperatives and mutuals are likely to pop up. Markets are face-to-face, they all have their own unique character, and above all they are places of independence and respect, the traders pitch being something of a sacred space. It is an experience no corporation can come close to replicating, and one which they would actively destroy if their growth and power is not checked. The Philosophy Takeaway, and any humanities stall like it, will fit into most markets perfectly. Greenwich, Camden Lock and the Merton Abbey Mills have already been visited by us!

It might be tempting to lump the Philosophy Takeaway in with instant-gratification or consumer culture: people come along to fill the gaps in their lives with monetary transactions, quick and easy answers packaged and devoured, just another fleeting experience. It might even sound like the latest trend among people whose lives of desire fulfilment aren't quite producing the goods! But nothing could be further from the truth. We are totally free of charge, and always will be. We may introduce people to the world of philosophy, but we are not the be all and end all of this mighty discipline. We do not guarantee answers, and we are not happiness vendors. In fact, a lot of the talking at the stall comes from the real philosophers, the people!

A place like the Philosophy Takeaway fits perfectly into any democratic, free-thinking society. It is a place of self-discovery, the equivalent of talking to a friend about the big questions, but with the advantage of having someone very interested in philosophy to guide it. As for answers, I have given them at times, and believe that having strong convictions is positive - provided they rest upon solid foundations and are willing to change and face criticism. Whilst we do not spread any one philosophy, this does not mean that our output is 'content free'. I have seen my friends vigorously defending their positions in the spontaneous debates which sometimes arise.

We have a massive range of political-philosophies in our group; from socialists to classical liberals, secularists and religious moderates, the typical 'realist' and 'idealist' divide, feminists, centrists and an anarchist or two. It does create some interesting, if not arduous, ethical debates! Where we do all agree, and what we all advocate, is that Philosophy must survive in universities and should be introduced into schools. Through projects like the Philosophy Takeaway, we can convince the public that this is also in their interests. Not only that - it is also massively fun!

How was Phil Tak born and where is it going??

The Philosophy Takeaway was ultimately born out of protest. We occupied our university in response to their cutting single-honours philosophy, an act which not only went against logic, but also threatened the jobs of our tutors. Although we were unable to prevent management from reducing the scope of their university by axing one of their best courses, we were bonded as a team and keen to popularize philosophy as much as possible. The consequence of those protests seems to have been the Philosophy Takeaway, although there is no way to know for sure.

In many ways it was also an accident. Two years ago I could never have imagined, dragging the one-wheeled 'Philosopher's Mule' through south-east London at 6am in the morning, that it would still be going and thriving more than ever! No one predicted that the Philosophy Takeaway would achieve what it has done. I think we have all surprised ourselves - especially our philoso-artist Eliza whose artwork not only made the actual, physical stall possible but also decorates publications. At the moment we are working on a bigger Journal to help us become self-sufficient with funding. We also have a website and forum (which will be tied in to a real life meet-up group) on the way, and regularly attend arts festivals whenever possible.

Most importantly the Philosophy Takeaway confirmed for me a very valuable lesson - that there is more to life than profitability alone, and that only a fool weighs success in gold coins.

Selim 'Selim' Talat, Coordinator of the Philosophy Takeaway stall
 email: thephilosophytakeaway@gmail.com for enquiries, or just to philosophize about, well, anything!

Clouds of Truth (A Comedy) - By St.Zagarus

Clouds of Truth (A Comedy)

I speculate once more after the truth. What is truth? What it is is what there is. What it isn't is what there isn't! Yet before we can begin to understand truth, I see three great clouds or barriers.

One, the crystal ball each of us hold inside. It remains cloudy, we cannot see into the centre. This is the appeal, it tells of the past and future in such a vague way. Comprehending it is always just at the edge of the mind. The ball is safe, locked away in a vault, tucked away in its farthest corner. It is not to be revealed to any stranger (though friends are sometimes welcome). It is never exposed for what it is. The decision has already been made, the ball is true and profound. It will look only where it wants to look. It is frail, the cold of the outside world will freeze it to death; the claws of democracy will tear it asunder. It remains hidden.

This crystal ball we all use to discern our own subjective truth lies within us all. If we revealed it to the cosmos, it would reflect the darkness of the cosmos. It would say nothing. It can only survive in the womb-water of the skull! Why do I say this? Anything can be questioned to the point that it crumbles to pieces in our hands. A child is scolded for asking 'Why?' incessantly, for that child will bore a hole through any wall of truth and expose it for what it actually is - an educated guess. We must pretend that we know, for to admit that we do not know is to let the void be filled with any number of horrors worse than our gentler ignorance! For instance, it is better to believe that the light of science will eventually explain all-things, than to allow cynicism to snuff out its optimism, perhaps allowing fundamentalist religion to take root. Action follows belief! And belief is the glorification of an educated guess. And no belief can survive the sceptics scrutiny, so hide it half away in your crystal ball.

Two, the weight of emotional attachments. They can crush the impulse to seek for truth. They do not replace searching for a meaningful existence, and they cannot fill the longing for transcendence from our mortality. Instead, they displace. When the emotions are good, and sweet, they are a consolation at our inability to ever know much of anything. They carry us forward, creating small wells of gravity to keep us from floating off into the aether, dragging us their short distance.

Even the 'wrong' emotions can be 'right'. For instance, rage and hatred can grant us a narrative. A narrative can grant us meaning. Each story will wrap around the subject like a cloak. Some kind of self-importance follows. Emotion is a kind of gravity, binding us all together. It cannot produce truth, for the passions are little more than chaotic shapes in a bubbling cauldron. The meaning we ascribe to them, the primacy of the L-word (love!) and so on, is all just an attempt to keep the universe fluffy. They can keep the 'normals' entertained whilst they flounder upon the sparse beach of nihilism. A cold-hearted philosopher on the other hand, should have nought to do with emotional impulses. They are alone, even in the embrace of a lover, alone.

Three, the fabric created by large numbers of human beings. Conformity and stability create this social fabric - without it we are left with chaos. Doing the same thing, monotony, dullardy, the grey paste that is culture, forever disappointing and mediocre, is nonetheless essential. Like the passionate emotions, winning the esteem of many-human-beings is a plaster upon the open void of meaninglessness. It is an instinctual and pleasant path to self-importance. And even if the herd scolds us and attacks us, still it is some reaction, and still we maintain some relation to our fellows, and thus relevance.

Is being hated for no reason whatsoever preferable to absolute atomised isolation? I think we think so. For freedom and individual liberty, whilst espoused by the greater many, is just a means of surviving drudgery and servitude. People speak of freedom to account for their lack of it; just as the turkey at the edge of its farmyard cage imagines the land on the other side is its domain. Only the bravest souls want any true freedoms, for to create ones own values and motivations is the real test of strength, and it is far easier to be buried in the great mass swarm. Safer too.

And how many hurl their wrath against the herd from within its safe boundaries! The ones with the loudest voices are often just that, voices; words without deeds. How many revolutionaries truly understand that revolution means the end of a social order, bringing in a period of time when there is no right and no wrong - a limbo between States? Violence is inevitable under such conditions. And it is not only political minds who are drawn to such destructive change. The hungry psyche of the human animal, lurking just beneath the polite and conscious individuals striding through life, is satiated by perpetual virtual violence and sex. They hunt animals and fight battles and climb ranks, all without a semblance of risk. They are natural humans who forever live at arms-length; embracing their darkness through such safe means. They want safety, but they also desire freedom from safety, an escape valve through which to channel their guilty impulses.

However disgusting the Leviathan (State) whose belly we rot within, could it be any worse than no Leviathan at all? The masters know full well that a thinking citizen is a dangerous citizen (for if all citizens were Socrates there should be no Athens!) Thus, the greyest of all Stately orders, the dull plodding mediocre bisonette, the cords of human flesh and idea which knit together our inane sphere, are favourable to their absence – the State will always glorify its mediocre foundation! Our dross utopia! Fluff to line the harsh edges of cold reality. In mediocrity we trust, and may we live in uninteresting times.

And so, here are demonstrated three clouds, preventing us from discovering what we might discover. Yet what we might discover is precisely nothing but mindless, moving matter. Here is where the light of science has led us, deeper and deeper into the nature of Nature, leaving us with a resounding 'Ok, now what?' when the last scientist observes the last unit of physical reality through the last lens.

We are left with a wholly material universe, and when looked upon in such a way, it becomes wholly banal. What the difference between a nebula and a human being? They are composed of similar elements, only one has the ability to move of its own accord, and incites certain chemical reactions in the brain (you know - emotions), and the other does not, and that is it. Everything is thus everything, and everything is futile - one sometimes feels that this universe was made for stones and dust particles, far less sentient creatures! It is a universe of appearances, and such appearances are fleeting. There is nothing Eternal.

The great light of Reason (with a capital 'R', meaning Reason the ability to discover objective truths, as sure as mathematical truths) has been snuffed out. Apparently, telescopes and neuroscientists have replaced the Rationalist philosopher in understanding the universe around us, and ourselves. We can safely bid farewell to moral absolutes and a higher order discoverable through Reason. Instead we are confronted with floaty, flaky moralities, which ask only what to eat, what to drink, who to f***, and where to shit.

The actual truth is a void, a solid, fundamentally unchanging void (if all parts of the void are equally meaningless, any alterations in the void are just meaningless components switching places). No amount of conscious searching for transcendence (something outside of humanity, beyond humanity) will get us anywhere. We shall always be disappointed, we inheritors of the West who have been given our legacy of individuality and intellect. We will always need that unexplored something beyond the horizon. We have nothing left but dissatisfaction and empty promise, and this is the fuel that stokes the mindless consumption engine.

Our 'truth' (the false truth) has no foundation of its own, for Reason is dead. There is no longer a yardstick against which to measure truth and falsehood – all we have left is our surface world, with its surface level of reasoning. Upon such a paltry plane, anything goes!

Our truth rests atop a steam, rising from a fire; the fuel of this fire is ignorance itself. We do not look to the ignorant flame! Ignorance is our heat. Without it we are frozen.

We observe truth from the corner of our eyes. To stare into it directly is to gaze into an abyss.

The last write of St.Zagarus

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'

Pragmatic Metaphoric Philosophy - By Cathy Preston / Loreleila

Pragmatic Metaphoric Philosophy

It's a curious thing

That never ending argument

Over what is right and what is wrong

And what is you and what is not

Where words lie end to end and yet do not

Appear to describe anything;

That dichotomous myth

Seeming so enduring.

Mirage me you, mirage me me

Then will we all be free?

Pontifications on the thoughts of others

As though they aren't our sisters and brothers

Or part of us, or what is right

Where God might be or rather not

So often do we lose the plot;

And who is what and where and why,

I'd really rather eat some pie

(Actually that's poetic since I'm not a fan

Of pastry so that leaves out flan)

But you get my gist

If I have to squirm and twist

To find agreement, or if you insist

I see another as my foe

How can any of us grow

Or even see reality?

I'd really rather kiss or be kissed

Pragmatically metaphorically

Or love yourself as if you're me

Or me be you and you be me

It matters not for where we lie

We cannot lie, for in truth we be

Reflections in the others I.

Cathy Preston / Loreleila

Editors Glossary Note: Dichotomous - Division into two parts, often mutually opposed, the one not containing the other.

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'

Correctness, Intuition and Logic - By Martin Prior

Correctness, Intuition and Logic

About a week ago I commented on a newspaper report from North Lanarkshire, one of the Labour-controlled councils in Scotland where STV is used, a form of proportional representation.

The council had axed an annual taxi outing for children with special needs.  The Monklands Taxi Drivers’ Outing had been running for almost 40 years – but North Lanarkshire Council halted the yearly fancy dress road trip.  According to them, such outings didn’t “fit in with current thinking on inclusion and equality and that parading children with additional support needs is inappropriate.”

To my mind, thinking is merely thinking, and that formulating such hypotheses is an initial stage.  Indeed one can say that inclusion and separate activities are not mutually exclusive. I have written before about the importance of the intuitions of the people for whom political correctness is supposed to benefit.  People who speak an accent, say Indian, have an intuitive judgement as to whether an attempt at an Indian accent is racist.  I for example have no objection to the metaphor ‘short-sighted’, for example our government’s short-sighted attitude toward climate change.  If somebody who was not short-sighted tried to tell me how I should react to such a metaphor, my intuition would be that they were bloody patronising and the only reason I didn’t thump them was because my glasses might get broken.

When such people try to be logical, they often use emotive and subjective terms, often in situations where it is not ‘either... or’.  Using the term short-sighted in a derogatory context supposedly tells short-sighted people they are inferior.  Not when we have glasses and choose to use them, which the metaphorical short-sighted do not.

Attempting to be politically correct can only be meaningful if you listen to those you are trying to help, and are ready to learn from their intuitions.  And indeed inclusion does not exclude separateness, when of course neither is imposed.

Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'

Conformity as Control - By Cathy Preston / Loreleila

Conformity as Control

There are some who like to think of themselves as different, indeed pride themselves on being so. It may or may not be the case. Often it appears those who perceive themselves as 'whacky' or 'crazy' seem just to be a bit silly, but will generally conform to societal norms. Those who truly do seem to have a level of perspective on 'normal' are much rarer, and even those will be unable to see every last piece of their own conformity. Of course we're all (theoretically) constrained by the laws of the land, so to be a non conformist requires the ability not only to have that perspective but also to know how and where it would be unwise to step beyond those lines. It's funny how some of us seek to fit in, to be seen as normal, part of the crowd, while others would be appalled to be considered such.

Big business, politics and the media impose enormous social pressure for all to be biddable conformists, to spend spend spend on items and modifications not needed, to be puppets to the spurious belief that to be different you have to be the same. Most buy into the belief that those who wield some sort of power are beyond such things, and can lie and cheat with impunity. The one law for them and another for us mentality is quite an extraordinary aspect of human psychology. Policing one anothers behaviour is often considered responsible and to maintain good order, while in reality it is more often borne out of a desire for the world to be forced into a personal view of what is and isn't 'right'. Moaning and complaining helplessly seem to assuage frustrations while keeping everything resolutely in place.

Those considered non conformist may be demonised, assumed to be insane or dangerous. Rigid control is imposed in terms of what is and isn't acceptable, though hypocrisy rife. Acceptable behaviour is measured in inverse proportions. Drunkenness, debt, pharmaceutical addictions, body dysmorphia (with all the attendant requirements for cosmetic surgery), insecurity and self hatred, materialist desires unsatisfiable and dishonesty are all staples of our society. Conversely, creativity, individuality (which we're sold as desirable yet steered clear of), honesty, intelligent examination of the facts, observation, responsible living and behaviour, care and concern for others and advocating for the vulnerable presently all seem to be non conformist activities. While not actually and specifically illegal they're no longer (if indeed they ever really were) part of societal norms.

Of course there are a small minority of genuinely dangerous people. Those who are pathologically unable to empathise with others and will do whatever it takes to get what they want (though as I write this I realise this sounds exactly like a lot of the elite). They are paraded before us with an exhortation to be good, to conform, to not stand out and to fear stepping beyond the bounds of acceptability, as if all that exists are drones and madmen. Yet we all know this is not the case.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, yet it's hard to escape the fact that in one form or another, throughout history, conformity and crowd control have been utilised for the minority to gain control of the majority. We may look back to the past and chuckle indulgently at the stupidity of our ancestors, wonder how they could have been so gullible as to allow themselves to be duped so easily. We might be better served in wondering what our future relatives will think of us.

Cathy Preston / Loreleila

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'

Art - By Rachael Berry

This weeks artist was Rachael Berry: http://rachaelberry.wordpress.com/

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'

On Decadence -The Microwaveable Kebab - By St.Zagarus

On Decadence -The Microwaveable Kebab

The great elephant in the room of our times - Elitism! How mixed up the masses of our land have become over this word. It is as if they went in discovery of an attitude toward it, discovered a reason, and then turned their conclusion upon its head!

Our culture is infused (or should that be poisoned with) equalitarian values in all areas of life, turning our collective experience into one long grey mush. Democracy has intruded its nose where it is not welcome, and has failed to overthrow the tyranny it was actually supposed to!

To be clear: ownership of machines and parliaments is left to the last people we should leave them to - aristocrats. And the creation and appreciation of artistic culture is left to the last people we should leave them to - plebeians!  And the result is dire. For so long as the cultural world is poisoned by equalitarian values, the cultural human has nothing to aspire towards. If every artist is equal, then there is no self-improvement, no growth, no cause to strive after. The lowest, basest mass-artist is as valid as the soulful musician. How appalling it would be if we had no tools to differentiate between the two. We would be left with no critique to attack the microwaveable doner kebabs of art and culture.

What are we so afraid of?

Nature's Meritocracy -

Let us now examine what it is that makes creation and culture 'genuine' (a word much overused indeed). My argument is simple: genius comes from an uncomfortable place, and often leads to an uncomfortable place. Genius is miserable, thrust into greatness. She throws away her double-edged sword, as Elric would disgard Stormbringer. Yet it follows, and will do so til the end. It is a curse as much as it is a blessing. It is self-indulgent, yet universal, selfish, yet possessed with a tortured love for humanity. It is not learnt (though it can be improved with practice), but comes from somewhere far more profound.

It is empty and void, forever disatisfied - yes! This is genius, nothingness. This is the cosmos speaking to you through its silence, asking 'What you have done?' This is the raw power of creativity, unable to be pinned down or defined, yet still recognisable. We cannot define creativity because it should be equivalent to defining the nothingness from whence it emerges. Nor can we set a blueprint to repeat it, however much we should enjoy doing so. Genius tramples barriers, it loathes chains. Genius tears apart its diploma, and curses the academy. Her art is painful passion, a mirror held up against nature, and it ignites the same in the viewer.

The true 'creative nothing' is a natural nothing, and it cannot fill itself up from without. No warm embrace can comfort the genius. Nor can they fill themself at all. For there is nothing but constant movement toward-the-unreachable for this genius, and constant sorrow at their constant failure to transcend themselves. Still, they must create, or wither and die. This is the driving engine of progress! It shuns the false paradise offered by the bulk, bloated mass. What a sad day it is when the plebeians aspire to nothing more than plebeian decadence.

For religion has gone nowhere. The religion of old and the 'materialism' of new empties-out each subject and then offers them redemption through their particular means. Religion, 'materialism', they each hold their worshippers in warm embrace, and they are easy with such love. One need only submit to them. This is the emptiness-fullness dichotomy for the masses; a watered-down void! the emptiness of the lowest common denominator! Democracy has been applied to culture, art has become associated with easily available pleasures or talentless provocation - talentless provocation for all! The bar has not so much been lowered as it has been buried under ground - plunged under magma! The 'organic' nature of creative art has been captured, distilled, put through a refinery, and rolled out the other end, infinitely reproduceable and imitable. The culture is democratic in that the 'creatives' know what the people want and give it to them, a paternalistic and patronising affair. Challenge is not 'accessible', and risks are not to be taken.

It is everywhere, and it is all pervasive. It can invade any space and colonise any land. When it's banners appear on the horizon, the people welcome it, even calling it over, seduced by plastic promise. Such a world impresses itself upon me, it's loud, rude culture too foolish to know how grotesque it truly is. The healing light of true genius, which also pervades, is nonetheless drowned out by banality. Woe is I, the bedraggled St.Zagarus, the besieged one, pulled down into such an abyss of purility! Only the dull, lowing roar of a castrated bull can utter from my pained, heaving lungs, a desperate rallying cry for the righting of the world.

Yet when we each of us aspire to become deities of our own boundless selves, then I shall fall silent.

The state of affairs -

Civilization is not under threat of annihilation. There is no looming Dark Age and there is no danger. Let no doomspeaker coil you into a fearful serpent, and charm you with their lies. It is under threat of something perhaps worse - it is on the brink of being defined by a microwaveable doner kebab. It is plebeianism, low conformity, congealed mediocrity, what-went-before, repetition, recurrence, routine, banality, habit, stupidity, lowered standards, appeasement of the easily appeased, trivia, false hope, emotional manipulation, a river of herd mammals, ignorance, denial of instinct, backwards-looking, downwards-gazing, trough-feeding, collectivistic, microwaveable mass cultural death, a grey stain to mark the already shoddy history of our shoddy species.

Dissent has always been the changing force of civilization, and dissent has always followed great individuals. The philosophers almost universally had one message to the Establishment, directly or indirectly. That message was 'Fuck you!' (complete with an exclamation mark). Kant declared himself a 'Copernican revolutionary!' after all! Yet the so-called rebels of our decadent civilization are as wretched as the forces of Order they suppose to attack - they are just a bit worse at hiding their tracks. Most of them are concerned with 'entertainment' to fill the void of meaning created by meaningless labour; they are an essential part of the soulless engin. Where are our heroes! Why are our artists not dissenting?

Answer: They are, they are just drowned out by the white noise of herd-culture.

St.Zagarus

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'

Liberalism III: liberal versus conservative practicioners - By Martin Prior

Liberalism III: liberal versus conservative practicioners

In my last article on liberalism, Liberalism: from Philosophers to Society? I surveyed a number of philosophers, with the view of seeing how far they could be a new concept, social liberalism. Adam Smith basically added the social – and economic - dimension with his Wealth of Nations, and his formalisation of a laissez-faire economics.  But he urged the abolition of slavery.  

John Stuart Mill is seen as the father of Social Liberalism, and is noted for his marriage of utilitarianism and this concept of social liberalism.  But his predecessor Jeremy Bentham (England, 1748-1832) set the path.  It should be noted that Bentham [according to Wikipedia] “demanded economic and individual freedom, including the separation of the state and church, freedom of expression, completely equal rights for women, the end of slavery and colonialism, uniform democracy, the abolition of physical punishment, also on children, the right for divorce, free prices, free trade and no restrictions on interest.”  But nevertheless he was not an economic liberal or libertarian, urging government intervention in the form of restrictions on monopoly power, pensions, health insurance and other social security.

Now here we have a liberal who is unlike the self-styled liberals who followed him: he rejected colonialism and laissez-faire, whereas among modern politicians, liberalism differs from conservatism in the way these are implemented, even if they are now called the market economy and neo-colonialism.  Here we come back to socialism, which as I argued, sometimes equated to non-economic liberalism, and sometimes to an economic liberalism termed the ‘social market economy’, which I rejected.

I stated:

When we move from philosophies to politics, we move into an area where I believe we must look into the political adherents’ motivations in terms of their part in patterns of exploitation.  And in the developed countries, this really means thieves squabbling over the booty from exploitation of the Third World.  This issue is in no way addressed by social marketers and mainstream social democrats.

So, as I argued, regardless of the self-image of liberals and conservatives, we must consider their behaviour in practice among leading world powers.  The liberals, or in former days the Whigs, were smart at advancing power and making tactical retreats.  A notable example of their callousness when in a position of advance is in 1846, when Lord Russell succeeded Sir Robert Peel.  Peel, originally a Tory, repealed the Corn Laws which protected British agriculture in good times, but in times of food shortages exacerbated them.  In 1846, Lord Russell took over, heading a free trade government with Peelite support, but now extended free trade to outright laissez-faire, and refused to intervene in the market to ease the Great Potato Famine (roughly 1845-52).

Here the Tories appeared more humane than the laissez-faire Whigs, not least in the writings of Benjamin Disraeli (PM 1868 and 1874-1880).  However a generation after the Famine, when the Irish were becoming more militant, William Ewart Gladstone  (PM 1868-1874,1880-5, 1886, 1892-4) realised that Home Rule was inevitable.  This realisation came in 1886, and triggered the critical divide between Liberals and ‘Unionists’ (Conservatives and Liberal Unionists): the Liberals believed in strategic advance and withdrawal, whereas the Conservatives were slow to advance, but under Disraeli and his successors, staunchly adhered to a policy of ‘what we have we hold’.  Disraeli strongly celebrated Imperialism, making Victoria Empress of India, and his successors, notably Salisbury, resisted any loosening of the British hold on Ireland.  They felt that concessions led to a slippery slope which would to the dissolution of Empire.  They could not find a flexible approach, drawing on the fact that Irish , both Catholic and protestant, had no objection to being part of Empire.

This leads me to an analysis of liberals and conservatives behaviour, regardless of their self-image.  Basically we see an interaction of culture and power:

LIBERALS, the flexible exploiters	TORIES, hanging on to what they’ve got
(i)             Centre: culture of exploiters, (ii)            Skills and technology of exploiters(pink) (iii)           Superior power (blue), (iv)          Ignorance and fear of the exploited (grey), (v)           Culture of exploited (vi)          Wi(l)der environment.	(i)             Centre: culture of exploiters, (ii)            Ignorance and fear among exploiters(grey) (iii)           Superior power of exploiters(blue), (iv)          Skills and technology (e.g. military) used against the exploited(pink), (v)           Culture of exploited (vi)          Wi(l)der environment.

Note the contrast: the liberals value and develop their skills, and are quite ready to create empires and ‘neo-colonies’, which take advantage of their targets’ ignorance and often fear.  The approach of the Tories, with whom conservatism is an asset, is to frighten would-be supporters into loyalty, playing on ignorance and fear.  This rather than technology is their power base, but despite its shaky nature, they will resort to force against their opponents rather than persuasion.

So in the two diagrams, the pink and the grey are switched round.

Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 52 'Open Topic'