Accesos directos del teclado

December 2018/January 2019Philosophy Now 41

that compulsively and unconsciously  denies awareness of its true state of  being. I was motivated to research this because as a nonviolent activist I was constantly confronted with self-destruc- tive behaviour (and not just by the  Trumps of the world) without any ade-

quate explanation for it. Like any good philosopher, I took my time (see Siob- han Lyons’ article in the same issue); but  I was finally able to apply what I had learned in studying the individual and social self to the universe as a whole in a  way that felt genuinely insightful.

It was only when I thought to explain the universe in terms of insanity that  everything finally began to make sense. Shocking though it may seem to both atheists and theists, the physical universe  was created by an insane mind. This

mind exists ‘without reason’ and there- fore has no genuine cause, but blindly  follows its own internal logic of compul- sive self-contradiction.

If you’d like to read more about my  theory you can do so at:

anitamckone.wordpress.com/articles- 2/the-unbelievable-truth. I’d love to hear from anyone who would like to comment on it.

 A NITA  MCK ONE

D AYLESFORD, V ICTORIA , A USTRALIA 

Shades of Gray

DEAR EDITOR : In his column in Philoso-

 phy Now 127, Raymond Tallis exquisitely  skewers John Gray’s Straw Dogs . I con- sider both works to be polemics; but   Tallis’s is the better one, due to the con-

straints of writing a column. His argu- mentation has to be tighter, whereas Gray’s is comparatively thin because he had to fill a whole book. Nevertheless, I cannot agree with Tallis in the end.

Gray’s central contention is that  humanism, in the sense of a belief in the special nature of humanity, is both false and dangerous, or at least futile. Tallis refutes this logically and empirically. First he points out that Gray is contra- dicting himself by basing his assertions on human scientific accomplishments  which, by Gray’s own reasoning, must 

be a hill of beans. Then Tallis seals the deal by reference to a new book by Hans Rosling which details the undeniably  impressive progress humanity has made on so many fronts in recent times.

One problem I see with Tallis’s brief  is that it relies on quantifiable measures

to make the latter case. I see two liabili- ties here. Firstly, this ignores the relative relevance of various quantities, and it  may amount to cherry-picking. For example, where are the statistics about  any improvement in happiness or the perceived value of life? Maybe far fewer humans die in childbirth or infancy, and average life expectancy has increased dramatically: but has human misery  thereby been reduced? Perhaps more people are more miserable than ever, and for longer than ever. Secondly, the numbers themselves can be misleading. For example, Tallis cites the statistic that  “In the last twenty years, the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has dropped from 29% to 9%.” But that is 9% of a substantially 

increased population, so the comparison isn’t quite as favorable as at first glance. Even more telling is that the number of  people in extreme poverty is still 687 million souls, which is equivalent to the entire human population when Voltaire  wrote Candide back in 1759. Do we now 

live in a better real world? Numbers alone will not answer this.

 My main gripe with Tallis, however, is one he and I have grappled over before: his belief that non-human ani- mals do not measure up to human beings in the cosmic scheme of things. If one  wants to talk about humanistic progress

in the contemporary era, how can the exponential increase in animal suffering and death at human hands during this period be ignored? Sentient life as a  whole is much worse off since the ascen-

dancy of humanity, and it’s a trend that  shows no sign of changing for the better.

Nevertheless, I agree with Tallis that   we should not therefore succumb to pes-

simistic quietism. I rather favor the advice of the Bhagavad Gita, which (on a benign interpretation) counsels carrying on with conscientious action without  regard to the prospects. There are even good instrumental grounds for doing so, since sometimes efforts do pay off  against seemingly insurmountable odds. But this ethics can be pursued even in the face of genuine hopelessness.

 JOEL M ARKS

PROFESSOR E MERITUS OFPHILOSOPHY ,

U NIVERSITY OFNEW H AVEN

DEAR EDITOR : I found Raymond Tallis’s

item on Hans Rosling and John Gray in Issue 127 thought-provoking and engag-

ing. But having worked for several years in researching, producing, and publiciz- ing statistics, my response is cautious, because I am aware how easy it is to use them to bend them to one’s own mes- sage. For example, free-marketeers use such figures as Rosling used to assert  how well capitalism benefits humanity to  justify unfettered capitalism, markets and

economic growth, and reject interven- tion to improve the lot of the many who remain in poverty. Reality is always more complex than statistics can ever fully  encompass, and it is the real people behind the statistics, their lives and rela- tionships, that matter. I suspect that  Rosling was aware of this and not a naïve believer in automatic progress, his work  showing that there is room for both optimism and pessimism, and therefore much for humanity to play for.

I read John Gray’s Straw Dogs (2007) some years ago. Rather than ‘malign’, Gray seemed to me to be arguing that,  without the Jewish/Christian assumption

that human beings are created in God’s image, there is no reason to give Homo  sapiens a privileged position amongst ani-

mals, or expect any particular behaviour from them as a species. Like all animals, they simply behave as they have evolved to behave. One could also conclude that  this supports a broadly Nietzschean view  that there can be no privileged position for any morality, intellectual system, or  worldview (including secular humanism).

It is also not self-evident why we must  give a preferential place to human beings, care about others and further the com- mon good of humanity. All of this

requires reasoned consideration. In Straw Dogs, Gray claimed that there is no point  in trying to do so, and he recommended particularly the ancient work of 

Zhuangzi, focussing on wu wei – a life of  unattached, natural spontaneity within the natural flow of life. I do not believe that this is enough to enable us to pro-  vide a cogent and convincing response to

meet the significant challenges that now  face us. However, I have great respect for the long tradition of Chinese thought, including that of Zhuangzi, and it is sig- nificant that the Chinese have always used several philosophical approaches in tension, balancing the Daoist with the Confucian, Legalist, Mohist, various strands of Buddhist, and latterly, West- ern, thought. It is desirable, and possible, similarly to develop a humanistic consen-

sus which can unite all committed to the progress of humanity, whether they be secular humanist, theistic, Buddhist, etc., and from varied philosophical traditions.  This is increasingly urgent.

 TOMBERRIE

LEICESTERSHIRE

DEAR EDITOR : It seems to me that Ray-

mond Tallis fails to appreciate the true root of John Gray’s work. Yes, much good has been realized in the last two hundred years or so, particularly in medicine, poverty alleviation, and the general provision of the necessities of  life, much of which is due to technologi- cal development. What Tallis fails to mention is that these things have come at considerable cost to the natural envi- ronment. He says population trends are ‘reassuring’; but we cannot be happy that  the mass of humanity together with the animals we have domesticated far out-  weigh the mass of the wild animal king-

dom – completely overturning the posi- tion ten thousand years ago.

 This state of affairs is at the root of   John Gray’s worldview. Moreover, Gray 

believes (as do many environmentally  concerned people) that we are not doing anything like enough to turn the tide: even worse,we are unlikely to do so until it is too late. We have sown the seeds of  our own destruction and are too con- cerned with ‘making life better’ by eco- nomic growth and technological advance to do anything about it. The end result  of this neglect will be enormous loss of  human life by starvation, disease, and conflict. Gray may have gone too far by  referring to humanity as ‘slime’; but if it  helps to awaken our will to do some- thing, his pessimism will not be in vain.

 JOHNG AMLIN

COLCHESTER 

Taking the Moral High Ground

DEAR EDITOR : Does anyone own the

moral high ground now? Gerald Jones’ article ‘Moral Blind Spots’ in Issue 128 nails everyone’s self-justified ‘moral fab- ric’ as hypocritical: the centuries of sacri- fices and slavery, murders for circus ‘entertainment’, torture of prisoners, genocide of ‘witches’, animal slaughter, unfettered consumerism, child labour, environmental destruction, and the smug minority of the very rich. But is our problem really our moral myopia, complacency, cognitive dissonance or

ignorance; or is it the shattering truth that humans committed the Holocaust, and, as a murderous species, we exist  knowing of smaller genocides all the time? As Arthur Koestler commented, “If the past were admitted to weigh on its conscience, every nation would be compelled to commit hara-kiri.”

 MIKEBOR 

LONDON

Derrida True Reader 

DEAR EDITOR : It is flattering to be

quoted. So I was gratified when Mike Sut- ton, in his article on Derrida in Issue 127, referred back to my essay in Issue 100. Nevertheless, I can’t agree with every- thing Sutton says about Derrida. In par- ticular, his claim that Derrida thinks (this time quoting Hilary Lawson) that “there is no single meaning of the sentence ‘the chair is black’... And we will each conceive the meaning of the statement differently.”  This leaves me wondering how human

communication and collaboration would ever be possible. But I don’t accept that  Derrida ever made such an assertion. If he did, I would need to know where and  when; and I would require a quotation

from Derrida, not Lawson. Derrida’s Of  Grammatology uncovers the limitations of   various theories about language, rather

than showing any supposed limitations inherent to language itself. The book  deconstructs the theories of Rousseau and Saussure; but one cannot ‘deconstruct’ a simple statement like ‘the chair is black’, nor has Derrida ever sought to do so.

 Margaret White in Letters, PN 128, asks for “a demonstration of deconstruc- tion as Derrida would do it, with philo- sophical texts.” Happily, this request is easy to satisfy. Nearly all of Derrida’s essays are exactly that: analyses of partic- ular philosophical texts through a decon- structive approach. So there are literally  dozens to choose from. Good examples include: Plato’s Pharmacy which deals  with Plato’s Phaedrus ; the discussion of 

Rousseau’s Essay on the Origin of Lan-  guage in Of Grammatology; the discussion

of J.L. Austin’s theories in Signature,  Event, Context ; and there are many more.  You should always prepare yourself by 

first reading the texts he is talking about; and then hours of fascination await you! Derrida’s work is always engrossing, and is never as difficult as people pretend.

PETER BENSON

LONDON

On Celebrity

DEAR EDITOR : This was inspired by the

article about Heidegger on Celebrity in Philosophy Now Issue 125:

 Look at me! I’m on TV, Plain to view, for all to see. What you get is what you want. Paint by numbers, fill the gaps. Go to worship on an app.

Buttons pushed. Adulation. Endorphin rush.

Discernment, logic, truth, good taste;  All crushed.

Suspended critique floats in the air, Out the window, down the stairs.  Insect queen she draws you in.

Pheremone mediated, anything goes,  Nothing’s a sin.

 Adored and adoring manacled, shackled.  It’s the tally that counts, as the game

becomes tactical.

 Numbers, degrees of being, equate to  fame.

Clicks, likes, tweets,  Magazines, booked seats.  It’s all the same.

While the river of fame and celebrity  gently seeps 

 Into a God-shaped empty hollow within.  Media fans the flames of fame,

Dispensing glowing cinders of contagious   fallacy.

The question is, and we ask you now, Will you ever return to reality? Who can resist the Medusa’s call 

That holds all who see her tight in thrall? The poor, the sick, the dispossessed,

Give not a rat for Selena’s dress.  As for the rest, we fear them thus.

With nothing to lose, next stop it’s us.  Hyperactive, self obsessed.

Tap dancing. Eighteen. Got long legs and sexy hips,

 Her name is formed by a thousand lips. But they know me not,

 Not who I am.

Celebrity is such a sham. DR  MIKEBUCK 

C ARDIFF

42Philosophy Now December 2018/January 2019

December 2018/January 2019Philosophy Now 43