Speaking ill of the dead: Dreyfus, Guildford Four Maguire Seven, and Jimmy Saville

Amy writes:

Some time after WWII my grand-mother said to my sister: "That Dreyfus man, really, he was guilty.  Wasn't he?" I would not say that my grand-mother was anti-Semitic or racist.  But I would say that the fact that the great-grand-son-in-law who lives in her house is Malagashi, and two of her descendants' families are half-Jewish feels like some kind of divine retribution.  My grand-father was a career officer. His wife must have thought something like this: "There is no way this little Alsatian Jew, of no consequence whatsoever, can be right and the French army wrong." 

But at least the Dreyfus Affair provoked a hurricane in France.

For a long time a dull mist hanged over the 1977 conviction of the Guildford four and Maguire seven. They were only little Irish people of no consequence and everybody needed badly to find culprits 3 years after the Guildford pub bombings.  The way their convictions were obtained and sustained does not make for pleasant reading.  They were acquitted only in 1989 in the case of the Guildford four, and 1991 in that of the Maguires.  I do not know how long it took before the Irish establishment listened to and was convinced by the evidence given by children abused by their priests.  It was more important for the bishops to protect the reputation of the Church than to protect the children and they were good at it. 

We know how long it took for the abuses of Jimmy Saville to come to light.  But it seems to me that, in every case, the greatest guilt belongs not so much to the French army, the English police, the forcibly celibate priests, the addicted Saville as to the establishment, and possibly ourselves, always prepared to give more credence to the mighty and powerful than to the little people.

Let us not renew this error.  Let us leave the police and judiciary to do their job in peace (and hope for the best!) while looking out for any sign of a witch-hunt incited by the powerful and mighty media.

Bosch and Freud - on Art and Madness

The rise of Renaissance started in the Low Countries – called Flanders.  Great artists appeared as the representatives of the late medieval new thinkers.  The status of artist rose from those considered as craftsman – “Mechanic artist” to a respectable free thinker, imaginative creator – “liberal Artist”.

The first of such representative was Hieronymus Bosch whose paintings of demonic figures in the guise of religious themes displayed his unbridled fantasies of the bestiality and humanity, the corruption of both human and animals, in the chaos of the world – reflecting the period in history where clashes between various continents and ideology seemed to have come to the central stage of civilization in the 15th century.  The Turkish Ottoman Empire took over the Byzantine in the 11th century and occupied S.E.Europe, the Black Death wiped out half of the European population…

Bosch, artist of the 15th century, marked a point of departure from the Dark Ages to the Age of Enlightenment.  As a northerner, with his typical dark imagination, enhanced by witch’s oil (a type of drug) he found his unique style of Gothic art – grotesque but realistic figures fornicating, gorging, binge drinking, defecating at the same time… The symbolism mingled with realistic figures created an exotic background evoking nightmarish scenes, which exist neither in “Paradise” nor in “hell”.

Freud said that man who is unhappy with reality tends to go on the path of “Regression” – hoping to reverse back to the childhood dreams in order to escape the reality and such a man becomes a neurotic individual… If he possesses artistic flair, he can transform this negative force into an ability of a genius to create great art works… 

Many people in the “Dark Ages” unhappy with the way of life resorted to heresy or hermitage or in silent self-reflection to seek answers in religious meditation.  Driven by fear or guilt, or feeling of insecurity, those who would be misfits in normal social life went on pilgrimage or retreated to deep forest in remote mountains.  Those who took refuge in austere monasteries on the top of Montserrat (Franco-Spanish border), away from the rest of the world, found solace in a life of poverty, and self-punishment.  But did they find “Redemption”?

Related post:

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

More about 'proper philosophy', human nature and egoism

Amy writes:

Of course I do not want anything changed in our lovely meetings at the cafe-philo. But having heard on three occasions different people commenting that these were not 'proper' philosophical discussions, I was curious to know what such a discussion would be. My proposal was for a unique experiment just as we have had philosophy students talking to us once a year.

Is curiosity a specific feature of human nature? No, my cat was curious. Same with egoism (which we discussed at the last session). Like apes nowadays some prehistoric men did happily lend their nut-crushing stone, some not. But only man could use words to tell his friend whether it was worth or not asking for the loan. As language got refined an abstract concept of selfishness /generosity emerged which became more and more complex and imprecise as time passed. Sometimes, we discuss our various ethical topics as if there existed up there, where God resides, a big dictionary in which there is the definite definition of these various concepts and as if the only reason we cannot consult this dictioinary is that we are human, with very limited faculties. I believe that the only dictionaries in existence are the little ones handed to us by our parents, masters and friends which are slightly amended by each generation and each of us to suit our needs. Though the dictionaries of a given culture are very similar there are no two identical ones. Hence our lively discussions.

Of course it may be said that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was such universal dictionary. But all Adam and Eve learned from eating its fruit was that it was shameful to be seen gallivanting in the nude in the Garden of Eden (a piece of information for which they payed an outrageous price and anyhow how is it that it was OK before they ate the fruit?). As for the ten commandments, they are exactly that: commandments: thou shall, thou shall not. The only commandment worth discussing at the cafe-philo is honouring father and mother. What does honouring consist of?

I wonder what Moses would think of our discussions on the percentage of selfishness entering the motives of a man jumping in the water to save a stranger's life. But then was Moses a philosopher?

Is human nature essentially Egoistic or Altruistic?

Debate on 8/9/2012: what is Egoism?

Example 1: if you are climbing a mountain with a friend and a huge rock is falling towards you.  Do you expose yourself in order to shield your friend or do you run for your life and leave your friend in danger?  Suppose you are with your children in a similar situation, do you protect your children first or yourself first?

Example 2: Making blood donation, is it as an altruistic act or an egotistical act?  On the face of it, as blood donor does not gain anything from his action, so it is an act of pure charity. On the other hand, one may say that giving blood is to protect one’s own interest because one never knows that one day he may need blood transfusion himself when he is ill.

Example 3: Artists, writers and other personalities with great achievements often ignore their family or friends, so that they can concentrate on their creative works.  Their glory and fame often come later and compensate for the suffering they have caused to their friends and family.  Are they selfish people?

Example 4: Philosopher Kant is a passionate advocate of altruism. He asserts that a good will is the only intrinsically good thing and that an action is only good if performed out of duty, rather than out of personal need or pleasure.  Suppose if you are sick and one of your friends comes to see you, he says to you, ‘I come to see you out of my duty, it’s not for my pleasure.’  Do you regard him as your real friend?

Example 5: Ayn Rand’s novel ‘Atlas Shrugged’ has provoked huge reaction in the US and became one of the most popular novels in America.  The novel paints a dystopia where citizens refused to be exploited by over taxation and government regulations.  The story is to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where every person is a slave to society and government.  The book has become a bible for the western model of individualism and libertarianism. So what does it prove? Triumph of Egoism?  However one must not confuse Egoism with Individualism.  Individualism does not denote utter selfishness while the former does.

(The discussion was in French.  Apologies to Francophone readers.) 

Related post:
Forum: does Altruism exist?

What are 'proper' philosophical questions?

Amy has a proposition to make:

I have heard it said a number of times that our discussions at the cafe-philo are not proper philosophical discussions. So I ask myself what is a proper philosophical discussion. And I get an idea:

• First you would need to find out who are the 'proper' philosophers among the attendants of the cafe.  Would they have to declare themselves or be declared by Christian?
• The 'proper' philosophers would propose the topics in the ordinary way, the whole assembly choosing the one they prefer.
• The discussion would then be restricted to the 'proper' philosophers, except for the end of the session when the rest of us would discuss the propriety of the word 'proper' applied to philosophy as well as the topic itself.

That's my idea.

Amy

related posts:
Sommes-nous tous des philosophes?
Is philosophy dead?
What good is philosophy for?
Philosophy overview

Does is make sense to talk about human nature?

(Debate on 1/9/2012) What do we know about human nature behind its mask? We often say it’s ‘human nature’ to be selfish, to be greedy, to be jealous, to be cruel, to be competitive, to be ambitious…  But is there any scientific base to prove that these are unique attributes of humanoid?

Human nature is incredibly complex.  The purpose of the discussion is to differentiate the nature of humanoid from the nature of other animals.  We can then determine whether we were created by God, or whether we were descendants of monkeys.

In contrast to the debate on religions and morality, several of our scientifically minded philosophers gave fascinating answers branching out to the studies of neurology, stem-cell research, and brain scans.  We discovered the shocking truth that Human Nature, in the age of genetic engineering, is edging towards a new stage on the evolution ladder of primates.  I wonder if we are heading towards a Brave New World as prophesied by Aldous Huxley, in which only Alpha and Beta the Super-human will still be natural born humanoid, while the rest, especially Epsilons will be reproduced as millions of duplicates spawn from one single egg, deliberately created with limited cognitive and physical abilities, so that they can be easily conditioned to perform simple and repetitive tasks. We have heard of the horror of Dolly the cloned sheep.  Brace ourselves for the invasion of Epsilon clones.

Film Club: BLADE RUNNER

Obscure / Experimental kicks off! The world consists of two kinds of people: those who have not seen Blade Runner, and those who have seen it more than once. Whichever category you belong to, join us to watch the Final Cut, the only version over...


18th September, 18.00 -22.00
By invitation only.

Economics Courses

Are we doomed? Economics course in CityLit running for 12 weeks, starting Wednesday 19 September, 10 to 12 noon. It’s all about the economic crisis. The causes will be revealed: consumer societies drowning in debt, blinkered economists, an unviable fractional reserve banking system, greed and corruption. The consequences will be examined, misery and the “1%”. And we will confront various theories to discern which one promises plausibly to pull us out of the doldrums. Absolutely no prior knowledge of economics required (but the course is a good introduction to the whole subject). Do enrol. We owe it to ourselves, as voters and taxpayers, to consider what’s happening in our economy.

Two other related courses, at the Mary Ward Centre, Literature & Economics, and History of Economic Thought.

War, sport and childbirth‏

Amy writes:

What do they have in common? The adrenaline of course.

That many years ago, baby in my arms, I pondered on the circumstances in which a man could experience such overwhelming emotion. I could only think of a dog fight, when the enemy aircraft has been hit and nose-dives. I had not yet seen an Olympics champion. Now I recognize in the tears and the smiles, male and female, the overflow of adrenaline and the unique thought: 'I have done it'. The 'it' not being so much properly defined (I am alive. I am the best in the world. I have produced a perfect baby) as a vague 'I have done what my adrenaline wanted me to do' We can reason all we want after but there is as little room for reasoning during the contest as for analysis during a dream. And this is good. Let us give our no doubt remarkable intelligence a little rest now and then.

About violence: childbirth is as violent, for the baby as well as the mother, as a dog fight. About the reward: the female Olympic champions smiled at their medal the same way as a mother at her baby. ( I would rather have a baby though it will already have lost some of its shine after the first night).

I feel I have to declare my interests in sport: null. Hence the lamentable state of my muscles, hence my difficulties in walking, hence my numerous absences from the cafe philo, hence my brooding at home, hence my numerous contributions to the blog. Which, by the way, is sadly neglected by all of you.

Amy Gibson

On 'Social Darwinism'

Christian writes:

Are you not hearing pundits associating a liberal society, free trade, and generally ‘the market’ to Social Darwinism? The latest example comes from no less than the President of the United States. In a speech to a gathering of newspaper editors last week, President Obama accused his opponents of “thinly veiled Social Darwinism”. The theory teaches that evolution is a cosmic struggle in which the strong overcome the weak. As human generations unfold, the unfit among us get no chance to reproduce, whilst the strong survive, have progeny, and ensure our species’ gradual progress. To aid the poor, the weak and the disabled, distorts that healthy and natural selection. What claptrap! As David Gordon, the author of An Introduction to Economic Reasoning, notes (after Kropotkin and others): “Darwin did not teach that human evolution depends on ruthless struggle. To the contrary, he emphasized the importance of social unity and collaboration. ‘Selfish and contentious people will not cohere,’ Darwin declared, and without coherence, what could be effected?”

You won’t find a more radical herald of free markets than Murray Rothbard. “If the Social Darwinists’ idea,” wrote this outspoken libertarian economist and philosopher, “is that the unfit are being protected by modern medicine and philanthropy, and are debilitating the race by being permitted to live and have children… the mere statement of it exposes it as obvious bilge.”

Let’s push the reasoning further. Even if all that discourse about survival of the fittest and rugged individualism accurately described evolution, and it doesn’t, why should it guide our behaviour? Even if we knew the aim of biological evolution, and we don’t (assuming it exists), what is the value in attaining it? Sheer luck played the biggest part in determining who survived since the beginning of life; and mere survival is hardly evidence of high moral qualities.

Darwin held Malthus’s views on the struggle for existence in high regard. Not so Malthus’s friend and critic, David Ricardo. The law of comparative advantage, which Ricardo identified, one of the few valid ones in economics, confirms not only the benefits of the division of labour, but adds a twist Adam Smith had missed: Even those who are the most productive in every field (the ‘fittest’ and ‘strongest’) have interest in an association with the less able. A baker takes an assistant; a dentist hires a secretary; a company outsources its textile manufacturing in a poor country. The baker, the dentist, the company, could perform the less skilled work themselves, obviously. But they want to concentrate on high-value tasks. The market’s incentive is not to seek a profit, but the maximum profit. And for that reason, everyone is needed and invited to cooperate.
Christian
12 july