Multiculturalism vs Monoculturalism




The School of Athens by Raphael includes the philosopher/scientist Averroës from Andalusia. 

 I was surprised when our friend Ramon announced at the end of the debate (5 Feb 2011) that the answer to his question is « No, multiculturalism will not work in our society. » Surely, he should have noticed that our café-philo itself is a microcosm of a multicultural society where people from different corners of the planet come and join the debate every Saturday forming a friendly social network in a convivial atmosphere. What’s more surprising is that Ramon, as a Spaniard, seemed to have forgotten the colourful past of his native country where multiculturalism was a unique feature unknown elsewhere in Medieval Europe.


Forest of columns of Patio de los Leones, Alhambra, Granada



The Islamic Spain from the 8th century to the 15th century is a quintessence of a culturally rich, diverse, and thriving civilization, and a melting pot of ethnic allegiances. The arrival of Muslims in Iberia in 711 CE created an enlightened culture in which three Abrahamic traditions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- co-existed, interacted, and flourished. By 732, the Islamic Empire united most of the peninsula, calling it Al-Andalus. During this time, Al-Andalus witnessed the emergence of major figures, the birth of vital cities, the rise and demise of ruling dynasties, decisive battles, and an important role for women.



Cordoba



Jews and Christians worshipped freely without fear of persecution. The native Christian population governed according to the Germanic customs of the Visigoths. Meanwhile, small Jewish communities inhabited such key cities as Toledo and Córdoba.



Spiritual beauty of Alhambra



The Arabs were fewer in number but after the establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate of Cordoba, new Muslim immigrants including bureaucrats, scholars, merchants, and artists from Egypt, Syria, Persia, and other eastern lands made their way to Al-Andalus to seek their fortunes in a distant land that had quickly acquired a reputation for beauty and abundance. As they began adapting to settled life, they established trades, raised crops, and interacted with the local populace with increasing frequency. They sought familial alliances and marriage with Hispani-Roman women. 


Conversely, Christians retained their faith but increasingly adopted Arabic language and Muslim customs. They came to be called Mozarabs. Their daughters often bridged the social worlds of the rulers and the ruled.

This coherent multicultural society lasted over four centuries until the Reconquista by the Christian resurgence from the North in late 11th century. Since then, the fertile land of the south was overshadowed by religious repression and persecution known as Papal Inquisition, later as “Spanish Inquisition” ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave, throughout the period from the 15th to the 19th century.

The former Mosque in Cordoba (the 3rd largest mosque in the world), known by its Spanish name, Mezquita. After the conquest, the Christians built a cathedral in the middle of this large complex, so it is now two sacred sites in one.

道 - Introduction to Taoism

Topic of yesterday: “ce qui est le philosophe” – what is philosopher.  First, we have to ask what is philosophy? According to its Greek origin, the word is a combination of philo (love) and sophy (knowledge) “Love of knowledge”. Therefore a philosopher is a "lover of knowledge."
Blandine, one of our café-philosophers who has studied Chinese for some years, made the observation that some philosophical concepts could be more easily expressed picturesquely in written Chinese. It took me some time to understand this remark and make sense of her comment. After some contemplation, I came to the conclusion that the concept of Chinese philosophy differs from what you would normally classify as the “love of knowledge”. Philosophy in ancient China could be more accurately associated with the German phrase die Weltanschauung or “world view”.

Take Taoism for example, as a branch of philosophy, it represents a view of nature and recommends a life style in harmony with nature rather than seeking the truth or knowledge.

In most philosophical schools, we ask ourselves three questions:

To be, to have, or to do? - Who are we? Why do we exist? What is the purpose? Descartes’ famous line: “je pense donc je suis” – “I think therefore I am” stresses the question of “to be” and “to do”.

In Taoism, we can examine the following words:

道 (Dao, or Tao) – path, way, nature

氣 (Qi, or Chi) – breathing, air, to be alive, to be

無 (Wu) – to have not; without

爲 (Wei) – action, to do

One of the most important concepts of Taoism is expressed as: 無爲 Wu Wei. The literal meaning of Wu Wei is “have no action” – in other words, “Do nothing!” The aim of Wu Wei is to achieve a state of perfect equilibrium, or alignment with the 道 Dao (or Tao) – in harmony with the path of nature, and, as a result, obtain an irresistible form of "soft and invisible" power.

The Taoist sage Laozi (ca.400 BC), who lived a non-material existence like Siddhartha, demonstrated the concept of Wu Wei by introducing 氣功 Qi Gong (or Chi kong) – breathing exercises - meditative training increasing longevity and as means of accessing higher realms of existence.

In Western society, some people justify their existence by accumulating unbridled wealth (investment banker’s philosophy). Some people aim to make their life meaningful by seeking fame (“Reality Show” contestant’s philosophy). Some people seek to “make history” by waging wars in the world (politician’s philosophy). Interestingly, there are also people in the West who are sick of a modern society which advocates blind pursuit of money and power. They prefer to live as hermits enjoying their own company. By detaching from society with its demands for conformity, they seek to achieve an inner peace. This kind of life-style is not very far from the Taoist concept of Wu Wei.

Notes:
子 - Zi or Tsu - archaic meaning: "Master", or "Sir". (modern meaning: “son”, “child”)

孔子 - Kongzi – founder of Confucianism (551-479 BC)

老子 - Laozi - Taoist sage (c.400 BC)

孫子 – Sunzi - Military strategist and philosopher (c.544-496 BC)

老子 Laozi

Some thoughts on Democracy

Topic of the day: Can we reject Majority rule?
Majority rules – the basic principle of democracy. But are the majority always right? Does the government voted by majority represent the true interests of the majority? That’s the fundamental question. The majority arrive at their voting decision based on the information available given by the party campaigners even if that information is as absurd as the three slogans of the Ministry of Truth in the Orwellian world:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Every political party of whatever persuasion has to have a gimmick or slogan to sell their soap powder to the great unwashed.

For those who still hold firm to the belief that the Party is always right and the War on Terror is fully justified (despite any unintended consequences), perhaps they should spare a thought to the words of Norman Mailer:
“Fighting a war to fix something works about as good as going to a whore-house to get rid of the clap” (The Naked and the Dead, 1948)

May I also remind you, the motto of our beloved politicians:
“Don’t treat people like Idiots. But never forget that they are Idiots!”

(Ne prenez pas les gens pour des cons, mais n’oubliez jamais qu’ils le sont. – F.Beigbeder, 99 francs, 2000)

Dilemme...

Que faire s’il on vous offre un travail bien payé dans un pays étranger, mais que vous ne pouvez pas emmener avec vous la personne que vous aimez ? Choisissez-vous l’argent ou l’amour? Ecoutez-vous votre tête ou votre cœur ?


Lequel des deux médecins que vous consultez croire s’ils vous donnent deux diagnostiques et deux traitements différents?

Qui, de sa femme ou de sa maîtresse, un homme devrait-il emmener en vacances?

On parle de dilemme quand on trouve difficile de prendre une décision entre 2 ou plusieurs choix, mais qu’aucun n’est défendable. Que faire face à un dilemme ? Peser le pour et le contre de la situation. Habituellement, on choisit la meilleure option, mais le résultat peut être regrettable.

D’une part, on peut penser que le processus de prise de décision dépend de nos origines culturelles et de nos valeurs, elles-mêmes composées également de nos préjugés. Ceux qui ont été élevés dans un environnement chrétien prennent souvent des décisions basées sur le jugement moral. « Faire ce qui est juste », ainsi on trouve l’harmonie en soi, sans recriminations. Beaucoup de décisions sont influencées par les origines sociales de la personne concernée, et des livres que cette même personne a lus : la culture apportera la solution.

« Si les décisions que l’on a prises sont influencées par la culture, est-ce qu’on peut trouver la solution dans les livres qu’on a lu ? » Ceux qui ont lu des œuvres classiques sont-ils capables de résoudre les dilemmes dans leur vie quotidienne en utilisant ce qu’ils ont appris dans les livres ? Dans la tragédie « Hamlet », le prince du Danemark faisait face à l’énorme dilemme qui consistait à tuer son oncle et sa mère pour venger son père. Comment ce type de tragédie peut-il nous offrir une solution applicable dans notre vie quotidienne?

D’autre part, on peut penser que la définition d’un dilemme n’est pas seulement un choix difficile voire impossible à faire, mais qu’il s’agit également de ce dont on a foi. L’ancien philosophe Grec parlait souvent du dilemme entre le corps et l’esprit. Croit-on en nos corps ou en nos cœurs ? Autre exemple : une mère préfère un de ses fils à l’autre, mais le second lui dit que son préféré a planifié de la tuer. Qui doit-elle croire entre lui et son préféré ?

Cependant, quelqu’un a souligné qu’un « dilemme » n’est pas seulement un problème qui peut être résolu en prenant simplement une décision. Un dilemme représente un problème difficile, qu’il est pratiquement impossible de résoudre. Quelques fois, une bonne décision peut aboutir sur un mauvais résultat, et vice versa (une mauvaise décision peut avoir de bons résultats). Par exemple, que l’Ouest commence une guerre avec l’Iran peut être vu comme un dilemme pour les gens qui ont leurs doigts posés sur les détonateurs. Il y a toujours un élément de prise de risque dans toute décision cruciale du fait que le futur est imprévisible. Les conséquences de nos décisions peuvent être inconcevables. Le projet du CERN sur l’expérimentation de la théorie du “Big Bang” est vue comme un dilemme, car si elle s’avère vraie, l’Humanité résoudrait le mystère le plus grand: les origines de l’univers. Si c'est un échec, ça n’engage pas seulement la perte financière et scientifique de ressources humaines colossales, mais de manière plus importante, il court le risque de détruire la planète entière (si les critiques sont justes).

L’idéogramme chinois pour le mot « dilemme » est composé de 2 lettres, l’un qui est le symbole de la lance, l’autre qui représente le bouclier : la lance attaque, le bouclier défend, aucuns des deux ne gagne : c'est ce qu’on appelle un « dilemme » 矛盾

 

Related article by Peter: Dilemmas (in English)

Marriage Vs Love

Looking into the subject of marriage in the attempt to write something, I was amazed that most thoughts on this matter were rather humoristic and satirical. Indeed, what to think, just as examples, of George Bernard Shaw's "Marriage is the story of a young man and a young woman whom by picking a flower receive an avalanche on the head", or even of Montenoy's "People say that marriage is the grave of love"?

In the other quotes, it seems that the difference between marriage and love is very often brought forward. Isn't it important to differentiate the "idea" of marriage and its institution? And if so, can we think that, on the opposite of the ideal of marriage, which changes with the society and time, its institution is the only man-made creation which tries to give the notion of marriage some kind of consistency?

--------------------------
En essayant d’écrire quelques lignes sur le sujet de conversation de Samedi 20 Novembre, j’ai été surprise de voir que la majorité des dictons sur le mariage était humoristiques, voir amers. En effet, que penser de la citation de Georges Shaw « Le mariage, c'est l'histoire d'un jeune homme et d'une jeune fille qui cueillent une fleur et reçoivent une avalanche sur la tête », ou encore de Montenoy qui affirme que « le mariage est le tombeau de l’amour » ?

Dans les autres citations, le discernement entre l’amour est le mariage est souvent mit en avant. En effet, n’est-il pas important de séparer « l’idée » du mariage de son institution ? Dans ce cas, peut-on penser qu’au contraire de « l’idéal » du mariage qui change en fonction de la société et du temps dans laquelle nous vivons, son institution est la seule fabrication humaine qui tente d’apporter à la notion du mariage une certaine consistance ?

“Good” vs “Bad”



Last judgement

The adjectives “good” or “bad” used frequently in our Café often sound rather puerile to start with. We remember how our parents used to lecture us on how to be “good”: “Be a good girl/boy. Do what your teacher says. Stay with the group. Don’t talk to strangers...” What does it mean to “be good”? When our parents taught us to be good, it often implies that we ought to follow the rules, to be obedient to authority.  If the object of “being good” is to maintain social order, then perhaps a communist society, or a police state would be a good place to live because there no rebellious behaviour or criticism of the government would be tolerated. A totalitarian society is built upon conformism where individualism and original ideas are not encouraged.

Perhaps religion (no matter which faith or belief) is a more effective disciplinary tool than state policing, as religion under the guise of spiritual teaching, often uses the promises and punishment in the afterlife to regulate the behaviour of its followers. Can we say that religious doctrine is our yardstick of “goodness”?

How do you judge who is good who is bad? To be “good” do we have to be a saint? A person who sacrifices all earthly desires and devotes his life to helping others is generally praised as a “good person”. How do you describe a person who steals a loaf of bread in order to save some starving children? Or a person that kills an aggressor to help a victim? How do you qualify a "good thing" or a "bad thing"? If we define that an action that benefits majority of people but only harms a minority of people is a “good thing”; can we also classify an act of gang rape which satisfies a group of rapists but damages only one woman as a “good thing”?



If we say that all killing, rape, theft are “bad things” because they are morally wrong, why then there are such distinctions as “just war”, or “unjust war” where in both instances great numbers of innocent people were killed, raped, plundered? Why some historical instances were described as “crime against humanity”, “genocide”, but some others were described as “war on terror”, “war against tyranny”? The flip side of “bad” thing is considered a “good” thing depending on which side you are on.  If what Nazi did in the WWII was an act of genocide, why then the bombing of Dresden and dropping Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not also acts of genocide? Does it mean that punitive action, no matter how barbaric, can be justified as “good thing”? This proves the point that history is only written by the winners. 

Le souvenir appartient-il au monde spirituel ou réel ?

La mémoire est l’une des caractéristiques qui lie les êtres vivants. En effet, il a été prouvé que les animaux sont dotés de cette capacité cognitive de rétention de souvenirs au même titre que les êtres humains. L’exemple le plus flagrant et bien sûr l’éléphant dont la mémoire est réputée très importante et dont un specimen a prouvé sa capacité à se souvenir des visages de personnes ayant fait souffrir son troupeau dans le passé. Mais qu’est-ce que la mémoire? Les souvenirs sont-ils inaltérables ? Quelle est la relation de la mémoire avec les autres fonctions psychologiques ?

N’étant ni neurologues ou scientifiques, nous autres, « Café-philosophes » avons essayé de définir la mémoire en tant que fonction neurologique qui sert a stocker, retenir et récupérer des souvenirs de notre vie quotidienne. Techniquement, comme l’a fait remarquer Kamel, tout ce qui se passe a chaque minute devient un souvenir, donc nous vivons constamment dans la mémoire, le passé.
Le model modal formulé par Atkinson et Schiffrin en 1968 va plus loin en établissant 3 sous-systèmes principaux à la mémoire : le registre sensoriel (qui peut retenir une grande quantité d’information sous forme visuelle), la mémoire à court terme (qui stocke des informations verbales pendant quelques secondes), et la mémoire à long terme (conception intuitive de notre mémoire qui retient des informations sémantiques , et dont la durée de rétention ne connaît pas de limites dans la durée ou la capacité). En effet, le rôle des sens dans la mémoire est important. On peut d’ailleurs reconnaître différents types de mémoires liées au sens : la mémoire photographique, auditive, gustative, tactile ou encore olfactive. Certaines personnes possèdent d’ailleurs d’exceptionnelles mémoires : n’est-ce pas sa mémoire photographique du détail et sa capacité d’observation qui ont fait la célébrité de Sherlock Holmes à travers le monde ?

La relation entre les sens et la mémoire a déjà été débattue par Descartes qui, dans ces Règles pour la Direction de l’Esprit, déclare dans sa 8e règle « qu’en nous, l’intelligence seule est capable de connaître, et qu’elle peut être ou empêchée ou aidée par 3 autres facultés, c’est à savoir l’imagination, les sens et la mémoire. Il faut donc voir successivement en quoi ces facultes peuvent nous nuire pour éviter [l’intuition], ou nous servir pour en profiter ». Freud quant a lui apporte la notion de « refoulement », processus de blocage de certains souvenirs traumatisants enterrés dans l’inconscient, et qui parfois peuvent donner naissance à de faux souvenirs, des fantasmes. Dans ces 2 cas, il est néanmoins suggéré que la mémoire ne stocke pas seulement les souvenirs, mais que ceux-ci portent l’empreinte de nos perceptions et de nos émotions.
Dans sa semi-autobiographie « A la recherche du temps perdu », Marcel Proust se souvient de son passé en utilisant la « mémoire involontaire », définie par Wikipedia comme un processus par lequel des souvenirs reviennent à la mémoire sans efforts volontaires de la part du sujet par le moyen d’indices rencontrés dans la vie de tous les jours. D’autres écrivains tels que Lord Byron ou encore Huysmans se sont inspirés de phénomènes de société, n’ayant pas vécu d’aventures extra ordinaires : cloîtrés dans leurs demeures bourgeoises, ils ont passé la majorité de leurs temps à « fantasmer » et a analyser le sens de leurs vies banales et ennuyeuses. C’est leur imagination liée à leur mémoire et leur créativité artistique qui ont rendu leurs œuvres uniques, alors que d’autres personnes ont peut-être vécu des aventures hors du commun, mais leur manque de créativité ne leur permet pas « d’enregistrer » leurs expériences ou souvenirs.
Bien sûr, l’inclusion de notre perception dans le processus de la mémoire s’avère un atout incontestable, et la preuve en a été donnée a maintes reprises, notamment dans le milieu criminel ou les témoins doivent faire appel a leurs souvenirs. Cependant, l’inclusion de nos sens et sensibilités dans ce contexte ne revient-il pas à introduire la notion de manque de fiabilité ou d’impartialité de notre mémoire ?
Peut-être est-ce la raison pour laquelle notre mémoire est de moins en moins sollicitée ? La technologie nous permet de stocker des informations à l’infini et de les retrouver a convenance : depuis l’invention de la calculatrice, les enfants n’ont plus besoin de se souvenir de formules mathématiques ; l’ordinateur, l’invention la plus acclamée du 20e siècle n’a pas seulement révolutionné nos méthodes de communication, mais il a également remplacé les efforts humains considérables engagés dans l’archivage de données ; les enregistrements vidéos sont maintenant utilisés dans les tribunaux. Certains pensent que le futur de l’humanité est menacé d’être remplacé par des machines, comme Stanley Kubrick le met en scène dans sont film 2001, concept qui désolerai Charles Péguy qui considère que « […] la mémoire fait toute la profondeur de l’homme » (Clio, 1931).
Il est également permis de se demander jusqu’ou l’histoire, supposée être la mémoire officielle de notre collectivité, peut-être crue, et quelle proportion de vérité elle contient. Est-il possible que tout ce que nous avons appris, tout ce que nous avons lu n’était rien d’autre que mensonges ? Comme Napoléon l’a déclaré, « qu’est l’histoire sinon une fable sur laquelle tout le monde est d’accord » ?

Fairness vs Justice

Everybody knows: Life is unfair. Some were born rich, some poor; some intelligent, some not; some beautiful, some plain; some healthy and strong, some weak and sickly. It’s the luck of the draw. What can we do about it? If everybody was born equal, then the world would lack any diversity or variety as we know it. Life is unpredictable. You win some and you lose some. We need to be philosophical. That’s the raison d’être for our café-philo.

Nevertheless, inequality has always been the main culprit of turmoil and conflicts. Gross social injustice causes havoc in the world, uprisings, riots, revolutions, wars… No earth-shattering revelations here.

In an attempt to prevent social upheavals, governments adopted a series of measures to deliver “fairness” and minimise “inequality” among different classes so as to alleviate these growing social tensions between the very rich and the very poor. We are impressed by these slogans or promises: “democracy”, “meritocracy”, “equal opportunity”, “political correctness”, “multiculturalism”, “racial and gender equality”, “gay lesbian rights”.

Result: the tip of the balance has tilted towards the other end. Democracy has not given any real power to people but only make the power more concentrated on the top. Jurisprudence has been all but lost as lawyers act in favour of special interest groups. Social welfare systems created opportunities for fraudsters to rob society. Employment policy over-corrected itself by turning the formerly advantageous into disadvantageous. Tax system is controlled by accountants who favour the rich and rip off the salary-earning class.

During the recent two years, we have witnessed the decline and fall of many investment banks and high-street banks found lacking in any self-restraint by speculating in high-risk “investment” futures options. Massive funds have been usurped by hedge fund managers who design new vehicles for their instant gratification. Their bonuses redirected to offshore accounts in Cayman Island and the British Virgin Islands. Government has to rely on the taxpayers’ contribution to rescue banks to maintain their profligacy.

We ask is it “unfair” to pay illegal immigrants social welfare on arrival? Or is it “fairer” to pay bankers unrestricted bonuses by using the tax-payer?

Etiquette

Interesting to find how many synonyms people have used for “Etiquette” during our last session of Café-philo: faux-pas, mannerism, code of conduct, protocol, rules of the game, formality, ritual, ceremony, decorum, politeness, and finally a ticket or a label.  

Hunting etiquette in Book of Hours (Livre d'Heures), 1442

 Etymology: originated in France meaning “ticket” which defines the prerogatives of the nobilities. The 17th century European court education consists of the learning of code of etiquette, which includes sensitivity to language and demeanours, deference and pomposity, ceremonial behaviour and festive disorder, fostering the “natural” superiority appropriate to hereditary aristocracy. Such education was the aristocracy’s response to the absolutism in the French monarchy.

Etiquette differs from “good manners”. Etiquette is artificial set of rules imposed on society where good manners can be part of the natural instinct of being polite.

Exclusivity: Etiquette may reflect a person’s fashion and status. It often serves as a “ticket of admission” to a special club. In pre-Revolution Russia, speaking French was the decorum of the “polite society".  In other words, a prerequisite for the status of an aristocrat in Tzarist Russia.  Being of French origin arising from the practices in Louis XIV’s court, the notion of etiquette and decorum is frowned upon in the United States – a country without a history of monarchy and aristocracy. From the 20th century, the notion of etiquette in Europe has gradually been eroded by the notion of equality, along with the diminition of aristocracy. Conventional etiquette is only practiced in special ceremonies.

We may see distinct differences in social mores in different countries. Some etiquette serves no particular purpose except showing pure aesthetic values such as flower arranging. Some etiquette just seems so pointless that it verges on the ridiculous with its pomposity and ceremonies. The most commonly quoted Japanese etiquette is the Tea Ceremony. The tea serving in Japan has been so ritualised that it fascinates and mystifies outsiders with its theatricality which defies reasoning. Japan may not be the only country with tea ceremony. In Middle-Eastern countries, where the weather is arid and hot, mint tea is often served in a special manner to relieve the fatigue and thirst of Muslim brethren. Some rules of etiquette are similar in different cultures, such as the removal of shoes in sacred places as a common practice in both Buddhist temple and Islamic Mosque.

Culture clash: Some rules of etiquette in one country can often be seen as offence by another culture. Take table manners for example, the Orientals eat with chopsticks and they have a habit of slurping while eating noodles. This would be construed as revolting table manners in the West. Vice versa, where in America a guest is supposed to eat all he has been offered while this would be seen as greedy and gluttony behaviour in Oriental culture.

Rules of etiquette may reflect the underlying ethical code. Every society has its own code of conduct incorporated into the local legal system for the purpose of disciplining people’s behaviour and reinforcing the conformity of certain social convention. Certain code of social convention might be obstructive to the economic growth, for example, fasting on Ramadan or closing of business on Holy Friday can seriously reduce business output in the society. Because of different family values, Nepotism, which is illegal in the West, is considered quite normal in the East. Business dealings can be tricky when there is cultural clash. In China, the most important concept in business dealing is “face”, which loosely translates as honour, reputation, and reliability. Any breach of etiquette that causes embarrassment to oneself means loss of “face”. In America, to say “yes” means “yes”, “no” means “no” this kind of direct no-nonsense answer would be considered a “Faux-pas” in Asia. The stereotyped Oriental businessmen often give the impression of being non-confrontational, as they rarely give a straight answer as “no”. The usual answer is “they will think about it”, or they “will see”. Even the British use the expression “in due course” can be interpreted as a convenient way of avoiding a specific time or date.

As a consequence of the globalisation, many cultural differences are on the verge of disappearing. With the rapid economic growth and the emphasis on “time is money”, some codes of etiquette are construed as obstacles or impediment of effective business dealings. Consequently, many conventional protocols have been dispensed with in the face of social demographic progress of the late 20th and early 21st century. The call for efficiency and effectiveness of management style requires that the modern men and women use plain language and direct answers in business world, effectively abolishing the nuances and subtlety of languages. How much does it say for the future of our civilisation?

A practical guide to business etiquette in different countries can be found here:

Kwintessential

“The French are often impressed with good debating skills that demonstrate an intellectual grasp of the situation and all the ramifications.” - from above website

L'Art, est-il la représentation de la folie?

Posted on behalf of Céline :



La Grotte de Lascaux, France, ca.15,000 BC

Depuis au moins l’antiquité, la philosophie s‘interroge sur l’art: il est donc bien naturel que notre Café Philo de Samedi dernier débatte sur l’une des innombrables questions qui se pose: l’art est-il la représentation de la folie?  

L’art a effectivement évolué depuis ses premières expressions sur les murs des grottes habitées par les hommes préhistoriques. En effet, jusqu'au siècle des Lumières, il n’y a pas de véritable différence entre l’artiste et l’artisan : le travail est basé sur la notion de beau en tant que représentation de la réalité, ainsi que les connaissances techniques démontrées. Alors que l’art servait essentiellement aux représentations religieuses, (une arme intemporelle pour défier la mort, même s’il avait occasionnellement une fonction publique ou sociale illustrée par la commande de livres d’heures ou de portraits), la renaissance place l’homme au centre des préoccupations artistiques et fait ainsi appel a nos sens et nos émotions : c’est la séparation rationnel (« logos ») et du sensible. Au XXe siécle, l’artiste remet en cause le rapport entre beauté et art, et n’hésite pas à désacraliser ce dernier en lui donnant une fonction de «révélation libératrice », comme le déclare René Magritte. 

Livre d'Heures, 1442

Il est vrai qu’il est difficile de définir l’art : est-t-il contextuel et ne se révèle en tant qu’art dans une galerie dûment exposée (Shéhérazade nous donnait l’exemple de la Joconde, exposée au Louvre, et qui serait peut-être méconnue internationalement si elle était exposée au fin fond le la campagne italienne), ou bien est-ce qu’il « n’a que faire des proclamations et s’accompli dans le silence » (Marcel Proust) ? L’art doit-il avoir une fonction autre que celle d’exprimer ses émotions personnelles, et créer un lien entre l’auteur et le spectateur ? N’a-t-on pas néanmoins vu certains artistes repousser les frontières du réel à travers leurs arts jusqu'à en sombrer dans la folie, tels Schuman ou encore Van Gogh ? 



Van Gogh 1889





Les formes les plus contemporaines de l’art explorent différentes théories, en se servant de l’art comme moyen de thérapie : écriture, peinture, composition musicale, ou encore création de concepts, la « définition» de l’art est ainsi très diversifiée. Mais la plus grande folie a laquelle succomber ne demeure t-elle pas le risque d’exagérer l’utilisation de art, et de l’exploiter commercialement au point de voir s’établir comme le déclare Andy Warhol « l’art des affaires qui succède a l’art. […] »

See also:
Bosch and Freud - on Art and Madness

Shyness and introversion

Good news for those who suffer from "shyness":
'hormone of love' cure for shyness

Palpitation, raised blood pressure, hot blushing face, sweaty skin, clammy hands, fidgety feet, uncontrollable tremors. We have all experienced such fears. But this is a particular brand of fear, namely the fear of being seen, fear of making a fool of oneself, fear of being ridiculed. It’s like a fever, a disease. One feels ill and helpless when such fear strikes.

But it is such a strange topic for Café-philo: Shyness. Does an awkward personal trait merit a serious philosophical debate?  To my surprise, our fellow café philosophers have proved fairly flexible about the range of topics that might be admitted into our discussion, as one can argue that “philosophy” is also about questioning anything under the sun. So be it, we can talk about “shyness” just as we can babble on about the foul British weather, no doubt which is largely responsible for the making of the British characters: moodiness, shyness, introversion, stiff-upper-lip, and so on. 

Shy Politicians




Normally we would attribute a person’s shyness to a deep inferiority complex about one’s appearance, hence such a word as self-consciousness. Some café philosophers, however, tried to use Reverse Psychology to analyse the situation. They think that “shyness” could be interpreted as a manifestation of Superiority Complex – it describes certain persons who rate themselves higher than others and their inhibition and reticence can therefore be seen as a way of showing their contempt for others. I am not sure if I would agree with this theory. To my mind, it is one thing to be shy and bashful and it is another to be inhibited and reticent. Some former “Spin Doctors” in the previous government had a reputation of being secretive and not forthcoming. Can we say that the “Prince of Darkness” of the previous Cabinet suffered from “shyness”? Or, shall we assume that they felt “self-conscious” of their secrecy so that they had to borrow some fig-leaves to cover up their shame, like our biblical ancestors did?

In Asiatic feudal society, women were required to behave in accordance with certain social protocols, in which shyness was regarded as a virtue, and modesty and humility the quality of a well-educated woman. Even in old Europe, this kind of social protocol was not uncommon. Before French Revolution, people from lower social strata had to show diffidence in front of nobles. Assertiveness in the old days was considered bad manners, equivalent to the behaviour of drunkenness.

As Jean-Christophe pointed out, those who like to speak out in the public are usually those who try to impress, to show off their eloquence. Of course, there is nothing wrong with show-offs. Neither is there anything wrong with introverts. Some like to be in the limelight, some like to be on the sidelines. Some are loud; some are quiet. Some like crowds, some like solitude. Chacun a son goût. This is the beauty of living in a multi-cultural society, if we allow diversity of cultures to co-exist, why can’t we allow diversity of personalities to co-exist?

Why then in this day and age are there so much negative connotations attached to the words vaguely connected with “shyness”, such as introversion, inhibition? I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about the trait of introversion in general perception. If you are interested in popular psychology, there is an article worth reading:

Introverts should be left by themselves

The Beauty of Fig Leaves

The theme last Saturday focused on “Religion” as a follow-up of the previous topic of “Suffering”. Since the majority of the café-philosophers are self-proclaimed Atheists, the topic of religion seemed to be an easy target of ridicule.  The God, our all mighty divine Providence received a fair dose of thrashing… The quotes of the day:

“The only difference between Religion and Cults is the amount of real estate they own.”

“God is triangular.”

“God is our absentee landlord.”

“God is a dog spelt backwards.”

“Christian art is full of fig leaves.”

Let’s have a look at some more Fig Leaves:

For this topic, I would recommend this website: Atheism & Agnosticism.

I would also recommend the four articles written by our co-author Peter on philosophical theories, critical thinking, and philosophy of religion (see articles below).

Our next session will be in French.  I hope our Francophone friends can make some contributions to this blog in the language of Descartes or in the language of Shakespeare.

Au plaisir de vous lire...

Suffering...

After our last session of café-philo in the V&A, I went for a tour of the Museum. Loitering in the Italian court for hours lost in thought. The topic of the day was still lingering in my mind: Is it justifiable to alleviate one’s perception of “suffering” by breaking one’s moral principles or values?

1. What is suffering?

Bound slave

I stopped in front of the statue of a bound slave by Michelangelo, the master of profound empathy for human suffering. The bound slave’s anguished facial expression and contorted torso struck a deep cord in my mind: “Man was born free. But everywhere, I see him in chains.” We suffer because we can never find the ultimate freedom that we desire. A few steps away, I saw the statue of a dying slave. The serene calm expression of the dying slave contrasts sharply with the pained grimace of the rebelling slave. Is death the ultimate alleviation of our suffering? I had that impression that the notion of “suffering” is an exclusive concept in Catholicism. Catholic art views human suffering as a redemption of our sins. Take the image of the Crucifixion of the Christ for example: a manifestation of a martyr who endured excruciating physical sufferings for his spiritual belief, preaching his flock to sacrifice their earthly pleasure for a happy after-life in Heaven, to avoid punishment in Hell.

Dying slave

Religion is a spiritual refuge for sufferers.  Religion is the Opium of the masses, the Prozac for the poor, the Soma for the Epsilon. It is interesting to know how the Oriental Buddhist view differs from the Occidental Christian view on the way of alleviation of sufferings. (I hope Peter can elaborate on this point.)

2. What are the causes of suffering?

Is physical suffering caused by poverty and illness mainly in the “Third World” given their deprived economic situation? Whereas mental suffering, depression and suicide a particular phenomenon of the post-industrial Revolution West, judging by the statistics of Prozac usage? asks Grace.

Not true, replies Christian.  Depression as a mental suffering was recorded long before Industrial Revolution in classical time as “melancholia,” a manifestation of one of the four "humours" in human body: black bile. (three other "humours" with corresponding temperaments: blood - sanguine, yellow bile - choleric, phlegm - phlegmatic). According to some 17th century writer, Melancholia is mainly caused by an unfulfilled desire, in other words, a longing for something lacking, it could be the lack of money, or lack of good health, or lack of love...

Depression has now been classified by medical profession as a physical “illness”, in other words, it is no longer a “mental suffering.” It is now in the same category as flu, headache, stomachache, toothache, gum infection, gastroenteritis, or any other infections which can be cured by popping a few antibiotics and Paracetamol.

3. To what extent can one alleviate one’s perception of “suffering”?

Gerry is more interested in finding answers to moral dilemmas in specific social context. Can one go against one’s moral principle even break the law in order to alleviate one’s suffering?

Christine thinks that those who had broken their moral principles to relieve their temporary suffering often live to regret their action afterwards. She offered an interesting example to illustrate her point: A group of air-crash survivors in the snow-bound mountains of Andes, owing to a moment of insanity triggered by starvation, succumbed to cannibalism to relieve their hunger pain. At the time, it seemed to them justifiable to eat another fellow human in order to save their own lives. Years later when they reflected on that episode, they could not resolve to ease their conscience and they lived the rest of their life in remorse.

Gerry’s question is more specific: Is it justifiable for an illegal immigrant, a penniless single mother with two starving children, to resort to prostitution? Is it lawful for a battered wife to kill her abusive husband in order to end her misery?

There is a distinction between a person who harms or destroys him/herself in order to alleviate his/her suffering, and a person who seeks to blame others for his own suffering, and tried to alleviate his pain at the expenses of others, says Malcolm.

Christine, full of anecdotes, picks out another example: the current NHS system offering to pay for Obesity sufferers to have elective operations such as liposuction and stomach binding at the expenses of other seriously ill patients who urgently needed life-saving operations. That is an example of transferring one’s own suffering to others.

The final question is: does prostitution actually alleviate or aggravate the suffering of the woman (or the man)? This is an entirely different kettle of fish. One can write a whole book on the subject: the battle of the sexes.
...

Fear of Death...

I must thank Judith for the updates. This is last week's topic.  I hope David can write a summary of the meeting at some point.

In search of the Meaning of Life...

Life - what does it mean? Is it just a “bad dream between two awakenings” (Eugine O’Neill), or is it a “funny thing that occurs on the way to the grave” (Quentin Crisp)? Such was the theme of our last Saturday’s meeting:

- Our daily life in a material world is governed by rational thought and basic instinct of survival. Our inner life is enriched by the non-rational part of our psyche - emotions as expressed in poetry, music, art – something sublime, beyond our normal experience, within or without the religious context.

I will leave this space for other members to compose essays at their leisure.

I would also like to suggest our erudite friends to make some recommendations for:

- Books
- Films
- Websites

Forum: Question of tolerance in society

Strands of discussion:

• Should morality be separate from politics?
• Evolution of tolerance: homosexuality was not acceptable in the past but is widely recognised as equal to heterosexuality now. Would Paedophilia be accepted in the future?
• Morally unacceptable ideas or conduct can be drummed into people’s mind as acceptable – politicians often use marketing techniques to dress up a “bad” policy as a “good” policy.
• Part of political oppression is to persuade or coerce people to accept or reject certain concepts which are morally "wrong".

See also: Speaking ill of the dead

Forum: does altruism exist?

Strands of discussion:

• Selfishness inherent in human nature?
• Love, compassion, give and take a human instinct or moral sense?
• Is altruism a form of hypocrisy? e.g. gifts/presents are often seen as bribery or humiliation to the recipient. The donor of gift can be perceived as manipulator of power by using gift to control the behaviour of the receiver.
• Egoism v reciprocity

See also: Is human nature essentially egotistic or altruistic?

Forum: Reasons to be cheerful

Strands of discussion:

• What is happiness?
• Is happiness an inborn disposition?
• In Life of Brian, he sang “Always look on the bright side” when he was nailed to the cross, is this example of “cheerful disposition”? Or plain denial, admitting defeat?
• Can everyone be as happy as the other?
• Are we by nature Schadenfreude – only happy at other’s misfortune?
• Pursuit of happiness conforms to the American way of life, equivalent of the pursuit of material possessions?
• Is it an insidious way of dumbing-down?

Forum: Can human beings live without conscience and consciousness?

Strands of discussion

• difference between consciousness and conscience
• instinct v conscience
• what is conscience – an inversion of guilt?
• what is instinct – sexual, maternal, survival, killing.
• were we born with conscience?
• moral sense – conscience – guilt is indoctrinated into our mind during our adult life.
• moral question: different countries have different standards of right and wrong