Anthropomorphism and Nature - Part II

In the first part of this article I argued against the sentiments of anthropomorphism - that is, applying human characteristics to natural elements. Now I would like to continue by arguing that we do not need to make something human in order to be concerned with it, and that we should not harm the 'sacred' phenomena that is life.

Animals do not need to be changed into human shape to qualify as 'moral agents'. If we accept the typically scientific world view that things exist outside of our perception, that the world exists independent of being observed by us, then the implications for all life on the planet should be astounding: if a dog barks in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does the dog still bark? We answer yes. It means that independent of your valuation of life, that life exists and is very real; that life is a valid moral agent. It is not anthropomorphic to suggest that all life shares some kind of perception, and inner driving force; the internal process that goes on inside of you, also exists in that other life. It exists in all life as a universal.

We seem to forget all too often that things exist independently of us. We can only see the world from one perspective, and it is understandable that we cannot see it from all angles and create a total theory of how it works. However, to 'imagine' a universal code of ethics we do not need anything other than our one perspective. It is the work of our powerful minds, not the work of some natural principle, that can lift human beings above nature, and allow us to view the world from a loftier perspective.

The rational mind - which our western tradition has separated from nature for better or worse - can work out how to change this world, but it cannot tell us why we ought to in the first place. For the why, we have feeling. We have the principle of pain and pleasure; to avoid one and to seek the other. With this principle, we can infer that others are capable of feeling some kind of physical pleasure or pain, joy or anguish. Even if those feelings are different to ours in degree, they are not different in kind - a jellyfish may experience pain in a way different to you, but nonetheless it is still some kind of pain. (Whether it is possible for scientific research to contradict this is unknown to me at this point. However, the appeal of a universal driving force within all living entities seems more intuitive). Even if a creature is incapable of emotional suffering (whatever that means), it's actual body can still be hurt.

Weighing it up -

The question remains as to how much we value pleasure and pain, and how much more we consider human beings over other entities. I do believe we should consider human beings as most valuable (perhaps due to nothing more than a species bias). This 'humans first' attitude does not give us the right to do as we please. Whilst human suffering should be averted over animal suffering, human pleasure should not be placed above animal suffering. In effect, I do not feel that one 'unit' of human pleasure is worth causing one 'unit' of animal pain, and we can therefore only accept pleasure provided it causes no, or minimal, pain.

Which immediately leads to the following question. What is this grounded in?

You might be asking how an entity being able to perceive gives it the right to live. It doesn't. It just means that it's existence is as real as yours, even though it exists differently to you. However, just because something does not have a magically-generated, "god given" right to live free from pain, nor then do you have the right to inflict it, unless you have a good reason to.

Both of these 'rights' are based on mischief - the right to live is just random sentiment, based on nothing more than ones own displeasure at suffering. But equally the right to kill something is based on being able to kill it, and enacting upon that urge; effectively, it is the right of the intelligent and strong to overcome a weaker adversary. This is nothing if not the basest and lowest means to determine who should have what in life. It is an appeal to force, and humanity should be long past such a poor weighing up of the value by this stage in our evolution.

The safest bet in this instance must be to assume that nothing has rights to protect it, yet no one has rights to harm it, outside of necessity. Which means we are agnostics, and can but leave it alone. Except to avert catastrophe, or harm to humans, and to study it, I do not believe nature should be interfered with, nor romanticised. It is a complex system, and it may well be beyond our reach altogether.

Animals in our societies -

To my mind, once we come to the conclusion that personifying nature is a distortion of reality, we lose the notion that nature is specifically designed for us, and we become more cautious about tampering with nature, and we change the way we perceive animals in nature, and we then lose the 'right' to harm animals in our own societies. This is because we are no longer a part of nature, and it is in fact we who shape nature with our minds, and then profess to learn from it! As such, any appeals to nature are null and void. Whatever 'natural laws' may or may not exist out there are irrelevant to our profoundly unnatural species.

Worse than our treatment of animals outside of our societies are those distorted by romantic sentiments and comfortable lies - those creatures directly under our control. By anthropomorphizing 'culturally relevant' animals as happy dairy cows, as jolly sheep, as singing and dancing hens, we are hiding the truth behind industries that are a blight on our ethical record. Iron shackles, killings gone wrong, a world without sunlight, warehouses full of blood and shit and suffering; this is the price people are willing to pay for their pleasures.

To see the scale of this reality requires a clear and rational mind, to understand the full ethical implications of our cultural practices and our personal choices. It then requires an emotional commitment to wish no-harm upon creatures quite radically different from us, but nonetheless sharing one of the universal principles of all life; to avoid suffering.

We must first dispel the myths, and confine the romance of anthropomorphism to where it belongs. Such romantic perceptions are the most innocent form of tyranny, but they allow mass-violence to triumph, and drain reality of its urgency, trivializing the massive, unnecessary suffering we cause on a daily basis.

Selim 'Selim' Talat

Anthropomorphism and Nature

The vast and wonderful Greek word in the title is a combination of 'anthropo' meaning human, and 'morphe' or shape. Anthropomorphizing something is to give it human attributes or appearances. For instance, if I was to say that the volcano had something like Elise's temper when it erupted last week, I would be giving this natural phenomena an emotional motive; the fury of Elise. The biggest 'culprits' for this kind of thing can be found in the creatives who dreamed-up their gods, who often just so happened to be shaped like attractive people or cool animal-human hybrids in so many different mythos and religions.

Though I can only speak for the modern mind, I think the following motive explains why anthropomorphism still exists. It comes down to a deep wish that nature was designed for us, filled with hidden meaning for us to discover. This gives nature a mystique, or an extra layer of meaning. As we can never reach or understand this mystique, we never have to see reality in all of it's coldness.

Anthropomorphism makes nature seem like a created order to be enjoyed by us, and used by us. This is problematic because this idea of 'created for' does not imply a sense of the permanent flux we exist in. If something is designed, it implies permanence. If the order of nature is therefore permanent and 'for us', then those who reflect these 'natural values' are of a similar unchanging and entitled mindset. The greatest example of this indirect anthropomorphism can be found in fundamentalist religion's argument from design. It is just ever so slightly silly that Man has created a creator God, and then had Him create nature for Man!

In reality Man is recreating nature in his own image. We have always looked to nature for the correct way to live, or appealed to the word 'natural' as a justifier: the Cynics of ancient Greece spoke of living the way of nature, venerating the loyalty and resourcefulness of the dog; the Taoist sage was said to live the way of nature in a more easy-going sense;

Social 'Darwinists' pick and choose the violent aspects of (our) nature to justify all sorts of capitalist nonsense. Yet now, with the fall of religious belief for so many of us, believing in mother nature is more appealing than it ever has been. As a result, we still anthropomorphize nature, to give it a shape we can identify with. Then we profess to learn from it, taking from it what was never there in the first place.

We also have to quite cynically remember that crafting something into a human shape means it has no value outside of us. If it did have value, why would we need to craft it into human shape in the first place? Why couldn't we stretch our minds to accept or scrutinise something as it actually is, or just feel what is there without the intrusion of prejudice? Anthropomorphism makes things 'human', and of course, only that which reflects humanity can have value. This is nowhere more obvious than the word 'humanity' being used as a positive term: 'Put some flowers up and give the place some humanity' or 'That cow is being treated in an inhumane fashion'. We may use these terms innocently, but their meaning is clear enough. It is the simplest form of prejudice, only reacting positively to something which is similar to yourself. I am not saying that we should be ashamed of our humanity, far from it! Only that we do not need to consider something human, or 'humanized' for it to possess value. This makes any scientific or psychological examination of animals for behaviours similar to us unnecessary for us to consider those animals as valuable. To summarize: animals and plants and natural phenomena do not need to be humanized for us to consider them.

What is there by nature?

I do not know what the actual 'values' in nature are, I must admit it. It seems like a bit of a jungle where animals attract, repel, cooperate, compete, fight, fuck and feed (all-in-one where the praying mantis is concerned). But whatever those 'values', if they exist at all, they do not change with our re-valuation of them. They exist beyond us. We cannot transplant our values upon nature. Even the animals we take into our direct concern, or enslave for use in our archaic industries, are apart from us in that we can never communicate with them in the same way as we can another human being. 

This is not to say that we share nothing with the animal - we do. Animal kinship is extremely important and enriching. It is sharing with an animal something deeply internal in ourselves. We have similar components, and can recognise one another as alive – the most profound recognition possible. A cat for instance can feel a sense of attachment, and so can we. A large spider can recognise you as a threat and duel with you, feeling something similar to you. We 'risen primates' have evolved out of nature after all. The problem is we have also diverged greatly from all other animal life, such that outside of instinct and an understanding of physical pain / pleasure principles, we share nothing with the animal. If we assume that Mr.Cat can 'human love' us back, we are wrong. A cat can only 'cat love', and nothing will alter this fact.

Another problem with anthropomorphism is that it is greatly prejudiced. As children we were all forced to endure humanoid turtles attending to various banal adventures, and we are all familiar with the ubiquitous teddy bear wearing some kind of human pyjamas. But where were the Teenage Mutant Ninja Nematodes? Is the microscopic worm not also worthy of care and consideration - it is after all the main prey of flesh-eating fungi. What about the passion and grief of the sea sponge? It is only recently that we have come close to appreciate such a creature in our artistic output. Anthropomorphism does not give us any universal principle with which we can create a system of ethics. It is only the large-eyed fawn, and the cuddly kitty, and the awe-inspiring bird, and so forth, who we wish to accept into our bosom as being worthy of consideration. Even then we often 'misinterpret' an animal's attributes, and create a false view of it.

The symbolism of animal and plant has soaked itself into our culture. Birds and predators make great mascots or patriotic symbols, representing the values of a nation in all its glory (presumably the lion for its pride and the unicorn for its stiff-upper lip in the case of Britons!) This is the same kind of pick-and-choose attitude toward nature that limits our understanding of it. Whilst it may be artistically and visually impressive, it does not bode well for our minds, or our environmentalists. We need to take nature seriously, and to do this, we need to take a step back from our human prejudices. Besides, which will be the first nation to sport an armadillo in it's colours; is her stern shell and defiant heart not also worthy of patriotic grandeur?

Our strange duality toward animals can be summed up in a single image; the impressive head of a stag upon the wall of a hunter's cabin. Simultaneously the animal is admired, and yet was killed for no real reason at all. A DVD copy of 'Bambi' lies under its lifeless eyes. The hunter's children love animals. Apparently.

As for the animal ethics which may arise in our societies once when we de-anthropomorphize nature, I will save that for my next article on this topic. To summarize: it will concern the way our attitudes change toward plants and animals once we stop seeing them purely in relation to how useful they are to us, but what they are worth in and of themselves.

Selim 'Selim' Talat (the vegetarian anti-anthropomorphism advocate who nevertheless loves the owls and kitties in the Phil Tak newsletter!)

Jean Monnet and the ethics of ratcheting

It is now the season for the UK’s Party Conferences, and a couple of days I briefly attended the Labour conference, to a fringe meeting on Europe. The name Jean Monnet was mentioned, along with his ratcheting tactics, so I felt this was an interesting ethical issue to discuss.

Now the EU would say that it is committed to (a) democracy, (b) ending wars, (c) the market economy. But some would say that the priorities are the reverse of the above. Whatever we may think, all paths to Euro-federalism seem to originate with Jen Monnet (1888-1979), and Prof. Tim Congdon, in his review of Leach, Rodney (2004) A Concise Encyclopedia of the European Union. 4th edition, states:

"Leach favours the cooperative and democratic vision of Europe, but he believes that - at present - he is on the losing side. In his words, the federalists and bureaucrats have "won the upper hand", not because of the merits of their case than because of "the forethought and subtlety of the Common Market's architects". In particular, Jean Monnet is credited with the clever tactic of incrementalism, of never going backwards but always adding small, ratchet-like steps on the path to union."

Now this concept of ratcheting reminds me of the diagram in my last article on “Survival Society, Self-fulfilment Society and Quixotic Society” (Issue No 57):

The flow chart does in fact depict the interaction of survival society and self-fulfilment society: as with rock-climbing you ensure that each move across the rock-face is reversible. You only move to a new position if you are in a safe position already, and you only stay in the new position if it is safe. And this is clearly the opposite in principle to ratcheting: you make sure that when people advance there is no going back. Now the ‘ratcheteers’ would reply that we have a totally different situation: we are trying to move from a Quixotic Society to a Survival Society, where in the example of the EEC/EU, our first priority is that we wish to avoid wars.

Now this is to some extent understandable: Jean Monnet’s career dates back to 1916, when at the ‘ripe’ age of 26 he pressed on the French PM a scheme of war-time co-operation. Nowadays we think of the Nazis as the archetype warmongers, but in those days the French wanted a war – partly to avenge the 1871-2 Franco-Prussian War – as long as they didn’t start it. And in August 1943 Monnet declared to the French National Liberation Committee:

There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty... The countries of Europe are too small to guarantee their peoples the necessary prosperity and social development. The European states must constitute themselves into a federation...

But what becomes apparent is that in the early days, when France was much stronger than the defeated Germany, France wanted access to German resources. France initially wanted to detach the coal-rich Ruhr region, and in the face of American opposition to this, only consented to the establishment of the Federal Republic (West Germany) when they agreed to placing the Ruhr under allied control. And then they only stopped dismantling German industry when Germany agreed to the European Coal and Steel Industry.So when we view all this we realise that the Survival Society being created was very much French Survival Society before German ascendancy took effect.

But we now see that the quest for Survival Society, be it French, German, EEC or EU was in effect Quixotic Society: the measures to bypass or manipulate democracy meant that a bureaucracy was being built up which could impose its own agenda, and we certainly see this in the imposition of the prevailing neo-liberal policies: a philosophy of institutionalised Quixotry that fuelled Nazism during the depression, and now fuels neo-Nazism in Greece. In effect the attempts to bring in measures to avoid wars may well be counter-productive, and maybe Leach’s vision of a co-operative and democratic Europe is the right one after all. Indeed it is said that the only time two democratic countries have been at war was Britain and Finland.

Martin Prior

Philosophy - how is it relevant?

“Philosophers aren’t in the real world. They don’t get on with it.” – Beverly Moss

“Ignorance is everywhere. How much more relevant could philosophy be?” – J.A. Licon.

Quite often, I have been asked by a member of the public, “What is the point of philosophy?” Usually, I give an answer which states that philosophy is about the love of wisdom, and how practising philosophy assists one in the rational investigation of truth in the universe. However, I am then told, “But you can’t make much money from philosophy, can you?”

At this point, I feel inclined to tell them that Ricky Gervais is exceptionally rich, and that he studied philosophy. Furthermore, I could tell them that the UK’s current Prime Minister, David Cameron, studied philosophy, politics and economics (PPE) at Oxford University. However, anyone who knows anything about philosophy knows history is abundant with philosophers who were fettered to debt; Marx is a notable example. We can also go further. There are philosophers who have rejected their wealth: Wittgenstein, born to one of the richest families in Vienna, gave away his entire inheritance.

Socrates, the profound Greek interrogator, sacrificed his very life for his philosophy. This is quite extreme, but he refused to bow to religious censorship. Although this isn’t the same as giving away one’s wealth, the fact he died for a non-religious cause in favour of philosophical logic and reason should motivate people to reflect about the relevance of philosophy.

Whilst it would be unfair to claim all philosophers were as frugal as St Francis of Assisi, or as self-sacrificing as Socrates, it can be suggested that many philosophers do not view their lives within the narrow paradigm of accumulating coins and paper. As such, when asked whether you can make money from philosophy, you can reply, “Yes, but would that add any value to my life?”

If philosophy isn’t incredibly crucial to human economic potential, what is the point of studying it? After all, we live in a capitalist system. Capitalism requires its citizens to become skilled so that they can perpetuate its existence. Philosophy, it seems, is something of an anomaly. It is almost as if humans can live their lives in a more holistic way (holistic meaning that we should look at life as a whole, not in narrow compartmentalised boxes such as work, family, friends and the like). Who would have thought that so many people could dedicate their lives towards studying a subject with no assured economic dividends? It is simply fascinating.

One obvious answer is that philosophy is damned entertaining. It is intellectual popcorn, isn’t it? Philosophy challenges you – yes, the very you reading this – to think. Let’s go through a few big questions, shall we?

- What is truth? Do we have the ability to grasp it?

- Is God relevant? Can his existence be proven?

- What is a thought? Does everyone think?

- What is the meaning of life? Is there one?

- What does it mean to be human? Are we just animals?

These questions are provocative. Humans think about such things every day. I, for one, am attacked by my brain with such questions at the most inconvenient of times. Philosophy is relevant, because humans make it so. Many people think of such things, without considering themselves philosophers, when in fact they are. Many of the best philosophers never call themselves so; many of the worst always do.

However, I will add a caveat. I don’t think that philosophy is as relevant as religion – yet. The Catholic Church outnumbers the members of philosophical societies, and humanity is much the worse for it. The Catholic Church has 1.2 billion members, and a chequered history, to say the least. On Facebook, the Philosophy page has 293'207 likes: type the word “Catholic” in, and one million likes are registered, (whilst “Jesus Loves you”, has 5'764'625 members). Though far from scientific, I think you get the point of the supporting evidence to my claim.

No one is baptised into a particular philosophy, but it would be most antithetical to philosophy if this were allowed to happen. However, the reason I don’t think philosophy to be as relevant as religion is due to people labelling themselves through religion. No-one states, “I am a Nietzschean, so I can’t marry a Hypatian.” People don’t label, or define, themselves in philosophical terms in the same way they would do if they were religious.

It is arguable that there is an overlap between philosophy and religion. I, for one, would not deny it. However, theology and philosophy are two distinct disciplines. Theology, after all, focuses purely on the study of God, God’s attributes and his relation to the universe. Philosophy is – in my opinion -- broader than this.

Philosophy has many definitions. Yes, as we all know, it can be defined as the love of wisdom. To me, that definition is stale. I think that it is best defined as the rational investigation of truth(s). This is opposed to an irrational investigation of truth, in which such investigations are predicated upon Abrahamic fairy tales – or any other fairy tales, for that matter.

The beautiful thing about philosophy, however, is that unlike religion, no one is compelled to agree with each other. This leads to some excellent arguments. Wittgenstein infamously wielded a hot poker at Karl Popper; his mentor, Bertrand Russell had to intervene to calm him. It was the only time the three great men were in the same room as each other.

I digress, I digress. I hate to tell people, but most people are philosophers, whether they like it or not. Every one of us has internal conflicts regarding certain values we have – what meaning our lives will have, how we define love; the list is almost endless. We have a world of philosophers who are asleep to the truth: if they looked inside of themselves, they may see a robed ancient Greek with beard asleep. I’ll leave you, the philosopher, to work out that not so subtle metaphor.

Samuel Mack-Poole

Survival Society, Self-Fulfilment Society and Quixotic Society

Well, I have just returned from a Linguistics Colloquium in Spain, where I gave a paper on Description Logic, at the University of Alcalà de Henares, the place of birth of Miguel Cervantes, author of Don Quixote. So why not talk about Quixotism or Quixoticism or perhaps Quixotry for this week’s Issue? Not least when I have only just come back, so having little time to prepare this paper.

Well, in my articles on Liberalism, I was working up to the issue of the freedom to do as one wishes, so long as nobody else suffers. This differs from economic liberalism, which in its extreme form justifies suffering at the altar of the market. In fact a society has to balance the interests of survival and self-fulfilment in an environment where one doesn’t necessarily know how much activities freely pursued causes suffering for others.

We might capture this uncertainty by a risk pyramid: here we show safe risks at the bottom and the more speculative at the top. Some people say that men are expected to take risks while women provide a more secure environment, perhaps a source of role differentiation, for better or worse:

Here we can see that survival will relate to a lower level of risk than self-fulfilment. A right-winger may look at this and say “doesn’t this prove that survival is more important than self-fulfilment?” Well, we might also say that we need security for the weak and vulnerable, not just for major investors.

But along with Tony Blair, we know that there can be a Third Way: and that is of course The Quixotic Society. This is the immediate reaction to events as you choose to see them. And of course this is what the market economy is all about: you are focused on the immediate equation of supply and demand, and for each of these you are free to act according to your whim, whether this is sound or not.

And by satisfying the immediate need to equate supply and demand, one can ignore how much one exhaust resources to extinction. In this regard, windmills need not be at all risky, since they use a renewable source.

Well, to balance all these factors, I shall post here a flow chart which I designed recently, which sort of marries all three considerations. At least, sticking to the flow-chart balances survival and self-fulfilment. And the Third Way tends to break the rule: represented mainly by the amber, it is not a happy medium: it is OUT!

The third choice also leads to the amber light: perhaps it is for those who tilt at windmills knowing they are windmills. They may or may not be Sancho Panzas.

But it is the essence of modern conservatism (and others) to create scapegoats. Tilting at windmills! As the great man himself said to Sancho Panza:

“Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”

My bold: in effect, Quixotic Society claims to be opposed to its enemies and what they stand for, but perhaps it is the contrary - it nevertheless needs them.

Martin Prior


From Philosophy Takeaway Newsletter - 57

Stewed - A poem

You never saw the inequality, or the folly of chasing a rainbow,

woe,

while you were eating bread and cheese and lusting after mammon

the fat cats in their white maybachs

were chewing on lean gammon, topped with creme la more

and the more you chased, the less time they wasted on you,

boo

how do you feel when you've been down at heel, and they're wearing shoes by choo, skin cared for by la roche,

did you ever feel that posh?

Well it's just a waste of feckin time, I'll only ever get what's mine by kicking down the built up shells wherein the rich man sits and dwells while counting out his ill got gains,

and me,poor me wrapped in the chains of misery and have not got,

I'd have all rich men shot,

but who would take their place

who'd be poor in my master race? not I

but then I'd die as well

I'd be locked inside the shell counting gelt

opening one more notch upon my belt, I'd be fat, a cat, another rich man, rat man, take what the man can

I can imagine it

drowning in shit and surrounded by money.

Ain't life funny when you've got it all, you've got sod all and in some big hall,you hold small balls

and that ain't a laughing matter.

John E. Smallshaw

Desire and Individualism

“If thou wilt make a man happy, add not unto his riches but take away from his desires.” - Epicurus

How better to start an article on desire than with a quote by Epicurus - called by many the happiest man who ever lived. And before we continue, let us not equate the 'man' in his quote with an actual, male man. Epicurus was one of the few ancient Greek philosophers to teach women and slaves. Now, to deploy some counter-intuition!

The culture of desire we find ourselves in is often labelled 'individualistic'. This seems intuitive - a desire fulfilled means someone is getting what they want. Yet desire is not an individualism. Desire comes from outside of the self, and depends on an intrusive external object to manifest itself. It is not a creative flourishing or self-expression; desiring something and getting it does not make you a unique individual. We do not choose to desire things, we merely choose between desires. This means that desire can, and is, engineered from without.

If the ability to desire something were determined from within me, I could look at, say, a tissue and desire it! Yet the tissue is already mine, it is not separate from me. In the shaky language of property, I 'own' the tissue. Where is its mystique, its appeal? The tissue has none. I desire only the superior tissue - the iTissue 5G, with its multivarious (but ultimately futile) gadgets. This new, special tissue lies beyond my grasp, and that is precisely its appeal. Once something is claimed, tasted, possessed, it loses appeal, revealed as the charlatan it is. So, it cannot be said that my desire is individualistic, because once obtained the desire creates no inner-fulfillment. It is only when a desire is unclaimed that it can promise fulfillment.

By comparison, if I wanted a lute I could get one, but I would need to work on playing it. The lute would be the beginning of an endless journey of self-discovery and creation. My desire to become better at the lute is vague, an adventure through mist. It is a journey that can be entirely unique to myself as an individual. My creative urges on the lute would be spontaneous, seemingly emerging out of nothing; out of my self? Only I can fulfill this want to become a master-lutist! Whereas the desire for the iTissue 5G is direct, highlighted and colourful like the petals of a flower. Like a bee I would have to buzz along a certain prescribed path to then obtain the snazzy tissue of my dreams. Most people can fulfil this desire, ending up in the same place as everyone else, and so it does not differentiate them from other desirers.

To continue on from the previous point, the word 'individualist' is bandied about and hurled at those who are possessive of material objects. Yet to participate in rampant desiring (i.e. consumerism) is not 'greed', it is artificial 'need'. It is the lack of individuality, rather than an expression of it. It demonstrates the individuals inability to complete themselves. It is the most obvious form of conformity available to us today! It may be disguised as an individualism - promising uniqueness or identity for example - but this is a mere deception. Desire operates at the level of 'Man the herd-beast'. Desire is encouraged by our environment, it is generated by masses (if I had to simplify the history of Man into a single sentence, I would proclaim: 'He has one. Therefore I want one!')

This herd mentality obscures the true quality of the things we desire. Desire obscures quality, it does not indicate it. Things that are desired are desirable because they are desired. A thing will be talked about because it is talked about. This is herd, not an individualism. Furthermore, things can become ultra-desirable by virtue of being exclusive, to make one feel special for obtaining them. This is an equally spurious reason to desire something. To bring these general claims into reality, let us consider the following.

Advertising in the previous era would emphasize that by obtaining a product, this would raise one above all competition; towering over the meagre herd, offering a step-up into this dream-world of glamour and envy. Today's advertising tends to be different. It promises to share an experience with our herd (such as a party-inducing bucket of factory-farmed chicken) and to demonstrate just how much one is enjoying oneself among said herd. Both are deceptive ploys, and both are overly concerned with the herd. Again, it does not sound terribly individualistic to me.

This demonstrates how desire is dependent on what others think and feel. It is thus further removed from 'individualistic greed'. Intuitively, it is much easier to explain rampant material possession as an individual not considering what everyone else thinks. This I believe to be the wrong way round; it is someone all too conscious of what others think and feel who wants more than everyone else. Yet there is another reason why desire cannot exist within a healthy individualism: self-control.

For desire is not 'used up'. The faster one fulfills desires, the more one wants. For instance, suppose I desired a pair of new socks once every week. I would become accustomed to obtaining one new pair of socks a week. Without that one pair of socks, I would feel frustration, and emptiness. Yet suppose that one pair was not enough and I lost my discipline. I now purchase two pairs of socks a week. I now need more socks, and more, and more. When the novelty of two pairs falls away, I will need three, then four. Eventually, I am obtaining five new pairs of socks a week, and I become accustomed to this. Obtaining more socks hasn't made me want less socks, it has made me want more. Desire operates in cycles of wanting, followed by acquiring, followed by brief fulfillment, before returning to 'want'. Paradoxically, being able to get what one wants faster, simply leaves one desiring more, as the cycle of 'want' and 'acquire' is shortened.

These cycles of desire cannot be overcome in their entirety - we are desiring machines. For this reason, I do not call desire an individualism; desire does not represent our individuality (and to paraphrase Max Stirner somewhat, they hardly belong to us at all). An understanding of ourselves as creatures of 'yesterday-today-tomorrow' could help us understand where our desires come from, and such an understanding provides us with greater self-control. Yet nothing can extinguish desire itself, no matter how much we wish to. The pursuit of relinquishing desire is itself a painful task. The biblical saints used to go out into the desert to escape material temptation - something even I would balk at! Desire in and of itself is no evil, no guilt, nor shame. As imperfect beings we are bound to have a few vices. It is merely the means of obtaining our desires - namely how much harm they cause on the way - that should provoke ethical alarm.

My conclusion is simple. Being surrounded by desire is not an indicator of individualism. To be put-upon and judged is not the breeding ground of self-development and a healthy individualism. Freedom to be a self-mastered individual is freedom from rampant desiring. We should not measure happiness in how often we obtain what we desire; whoever dies with the most toys dies the emptiest.

How soon once one has possessed something, is one possessed by it?

Selim 'Selim' Talat

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!