Yet There Is Method In It

Over on the “Only a Game” blog there is an interesting series of reviews on Charles “Chuck” Taylor’s latest book “A Secular Age”.

Charles Taylor is considered possibly the greatest living philosopher in the english speaking world. I must admit rather shamefully to not having heard of him until recently. He is an interesting guy and is in many respects an intellectual descendent of Wittgenstein.

A practising Catholic he nonetheless holds views that are a very unconventional fit to what most people expect a Catholic to be. He is clearly an original thinker. His latest book “A Secular Age” charts the historical development of religion in the west leading up to and including secularism. His study focuses on how society has undergone the transition from a time when it was virtually impossible not to believe in God to a time where even  those of the strongest and most determined faith accept that their is but one of many options available to them.

Rather than post a copy of somebody elses review (I haven’t read the book yet) I thought i’d just link to them. It makes interesting reading and the book is top of my wishlist. It is a serial review - here are the first three in the series:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

On the same blog an excellent (though sarcastic) post on the horrors of a “science pope” (warning may contain Feyerabend).

Compared to the other Nietzsche books I have read - Will to Power (fragmentary and repetitious) and Birth of Tragedy (obscure but rather conventional), the Gay Science is a refreshing blast of fresh mountain air. As part of the middle period of the authors works, it is written in Nietzsche’s iconoclastic and aphoristic style. What is unusual about the book is the lightheartedness and humour with is contained in the prose and poetry.

This book contains ideas and many turns of phrase that recur in his next book Thus Spake Zarathustra. In some ways the key ideas of Zarathustra are already expressed in The Gay Science but I don’t feel it is repetitive because, although Nietzsche distrusts systemization of philosophy, the narrative story is a weak system. Some ideas are again restated in Twilight of the Idols but that book seems to be intended as an overview and written in a highly condensed style to the point of the ideas being crush under their own weight. Things are expressed more expansively in The Gay Science and is as good a starting point as I know into Nietzsche.

As usual, it is impossible to summarize the content of the book since it contains many disparate lines of thought. But that perhaps is the message? He claims it is untruthful to rob existence of its ambiguous nature. To provide a final immovable answer, as most ancient philosophy and theology attempts to do, is a flat denial of the ambiguous world. Nietzsche quickly points out that the ambiguous and apparent world is the only world. His explains why he is often misunderstood by others (including Bertrand Russell). I have heard it asked that if he can be misinterpreted, does he share the responsibility of how is works are misused? Interestingly, this argument is also leveled at the Bible, Koran and other holy books as a way of disparaging religion. This argument can be rebutted by considering any and all language can be misinterpreted to support any action, so to assign guilt to an author would be to potentially condemn all writing and speaking (reductio ad absurdum).

“All philosophical idealism has hitherto been something like a disease…” 372

‘One not only wants to be understood when one writes, but also - quite certainly - not to be understood. It is by no means an objection to a book when someone finds it unintelligible: perhaps this might just have been the intention of its author, - perhaps he did not want to be understood by “anyone”.’ 379

The mind boggles.

This book is the most pro-science I have read of Nietzsche. He is, as always, an acute observer and discusses the bounds that science may address. He is again skeptical about Darwin’s theory of evolution. Nietzsche’s idea of power and the abundance of power does not seem compatible with his perception of evolution and its “struggle for life”. I think this is Nietzsche’s misinterpretation and he perhaps would have accepted the gene centric view of evolution which was popularized in the book “The Selfish Gene” by Dawkins.

The most famous section is the “God is dead” speech. I won’t reproduce it again since it is already easy to find on the internet. The speech is put into the mouth of a madman - probably Nietzsche’s concept of his own public image or perhaps a foreshadow of himself considering his mental collapse in 1889. Obviously, “God is dead” is not meant literally. One interpretation might be “the concept of God has come to an end”. The madman speaks to the onlookers who were already atheist. Why is it necessary to proclaim the death of God to atheists? The speech is a statement of existential removal of the foundations of civilization and a call for their reestablishment on new footings. When he finishes the speech, the crowd look at him in amazement. The madman realizes the news of God’s death has not yet reached them but is still on its ways to the ears of men. This is probably in reference to the assumptions and ideals that were taken from Christianity were carried into the secular societies of the modern world without being closely examined. The news of the death of God would call them into question as not being timeless and objective.

I love the end of book 4 of The Gay Science (aphorisms 340-342). It is rare that just two pages can contain so many ideas and written in such a vibrant manner.

340 Discusses the death of Socrates and its implication for his philosophy. This has huge significance for the modern world as much of this as been intellectually passed down through St. Augustine and the Catholic Church. Socrates, at his trial for corrupting the youth of Athens, goaded the court into sentencing him to death. Socrates’s last words (according to Plato) were “Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius. Please, don’t forget to pay the debt.”

“For him who has ears, this ludicrous and terrible “last word” implies: “O Crito, life is a long sickness!” “Socrates, Socrates had suffered from life! And he also took his revenge for it…” “We must surpass even the Greeks!” 340

Nietzsche attempts to connect Socrates’s denial and hatred of life to idealism and to equate the two. This connects with the idea of the ambiguous world being the only world. To claim a thing exists “in itself” is to value a non-existent thing above an existent thing. Hence, Nietzsche’s fondness for accusing idealism of nihilism.

Aphorism 341 is the first statement in his writings of the thought of the Eternal Return. This circular view of time again emphasizes the apparent existence on earth as the only existence. It perhaps is simply an inversion of the thought of an afterlife. This ideal is the core idea of Zarathustra and also a theme in the Unbearable Lightness of Being. The “lightness” is perhaps the terror and uncertainty at the lack of external significance of life - considering eventually the universe will suffer heat death and also from the death of God. The novel also discusses the “weight” provided by the Eternal Return (”It must be so! It must be so!”). If each of our actions are to be repeated for eternity, we are almost forced to place a massive but subjective significance on every action we perform. Nietzsche seems to regard the thought of the Eternal Return as a thought experiment and a requirement for the Superman. In the Will to Power his seems to have the intention of arguing for the physical reality of the concept. Eternal Return is a form of Eternalism and Hard Determinism. I hardly need add that Nietzsche argued against “free will”.

Aphorism 342 is simply the first section of Zarathustra’s prologue. I suppose I find self quotation and interconnections of ideas amusing. The Gay Science’s close connection is again confirmed when Zarathustra “quotes” Nietzsche:

When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: “Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that GOD IS DEAD!” Prologue, Z

Since I was too busy enjoying The Gay Science, I forgot to record interesting quotations. I also lack an electronic copy of the book. I normally would have included more quotations but I hope you can overlook their absence.

Anti Citizen One

An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals by David Hume

After reading his work “Concerning Human Understanding”, I was eager to see if Hume had any insight into morality. He previously pointed out the is-ought problem and I did wonder how Hume could overcome this limitation to say anything useful on morality. His primary argument is to avoid the question of the basis of morality and describe everyday morality and how might might have arisen. Hume argues people judge morality based on public utility (utilitarianism as far as I can tell) and sentiment.

Usefulness is agreeable, and engages our approbation. This is a matter of fact, confirmed by daily observation. But, USEFUL? For what? For somebody’s interest, surely. Whose interest then? Not our own only: For our approbation frequently extends farther. It must, therefore, be the interest of those, who are served by the character or action approved of… (Par 177)

This descriptive ethical approach is partly true but also partly false. To some extent, people held in high regard have provided some service to the public. Typical is the award of titles to those providing public service. But other public figures are rewarded for being a social parasite - this applies to celebrity culture. Also not all people who make moral judgments fit into Hume’s model. One man is called a freedom fighter and also a terrorist. Hume does not seem to address diversity of opinion.

Hume observes the praise given to acts of public benefit, both for their intended outcome and also for their actual outcome.

For a like reason, the tendencies of actions and characters, not their real accidental consequences, are alone regarded in our more determinations or general judgements; though in our real feeling or sentiment, we cannot help paying greater regard to one whose station, joined to virtue, renders him really useful to society [...] In morals too, is not the tree known by the fruit? (Par 185 Footnote)

But any great enterprise requires a degree of risk. It is said “the distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success”. So an unsuccessful pioneer is bad, a successful pioneer is good? It seems so arbitrary - but Hume is attempting to describe how morality works in the majority of people.

This point on the majority of people’s morality is not far from the truth. Epicurus claimed the purpose of life was the pursuit of happiness. Nietzsche also claimed most people made moral judgments by condemning threatening forces (ressentiment).

Hume repeatedly claims his argument is true because it is a “reasonable presumption”. His assumptions and over-generalisations did begin to wear me down. A key example is this:

All men, it is allowed, are equally desirous of happiness; but few are successful in the pursuit… (Par 196)

How can he, of all people, claim that all a group have a particular property without observing them ALL? The statement is also untrue. Many humans seem to want unhappiness by their choices that will tend to bring them pain and misery.

All men are equally liable to pain and disease and sickness; and may again recover health and ease. (Par 200 Footnote 3)

Again, we only have to look around us to see not all men are equally liable to sickness. Someone who is at death’s door cannot be said to be equally liable to recover than someone who merely stubs his toe!

Although Hume resists making statements on what ought to be good and evil, he finally succumbs in the conclusion.

And though the philosophical truth of any proposition by no means depends on its tendency to promote the interests of society; yet a man has but a bad grace, who delivers a theory, however true, which, he must confess, leads to a practice dangerous and pernicious. Why rake into those corners of nature which spread a nuisance all around? Why dig up the pestilence from the pit in which it is buried? (Par 228)

He admits himself that a theory - even a “true” theory - should be disregarded if it is “dangerous and pernicious”! And, even though he denies it on the first line, he implies that a theory is good if it promotes the interests of society…

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. But at least Hume is direct in his arguments.

It is trivial to observe that to condemn an act because it is “pernicious”, he is saying either “you should do X because Y is true” (and violate his own is-ought principle) or even the tautological “you should not do X because X is evil (i.e. X is something you should not do)”!

Amusingly, he goes on to say anyone who disagrees with him is obviously a bit weird.

I must confess that, if a man think that this reasoning much requires an answer, it would be a little difficult to find any which will to him appear satisfactory and convincing. If his heart rebel not against such pernicious maxims, if he feel no reluctance to the thoughts of villainy or baseness, he has indeed lost a considerable motive to virtue; and we may expect that this practice will be answerable to his speculation. (Par 233)

He here condemns someone’s disagreement because it is “villainy or baseness” BUT what “villainy” and “baseness” are is currently the subject under discussion!

This book predates existentialism by about a century. I think Hume would have been a great existential philosopher but he did not make the conceptual leap. To that branch of philosophy, this book does not qualify as philosophy at all. I think it is more a work of anthropology since, as a description, it has some merits.

I can think of several more objections but it is almost too depressing for me to attack Hume. I will just leave it to the debunker-king Nietzsche to spell out his objection:

The most general formula on which every religion and morality is founded is: “Do this and that, refrain from this and that — and then you will be happy! And if you don’t…” Every morality, every religion, is based on this imperative; I call it the original sin of reason, the immortal unreason. In my mouth, this formula is changed into its opposite — the first example of my “revaluation of all values.” An admirable human being, a “happy one,” instinctively must perform certain actions and avoid other actions… (Twilight of the Idols)

I needed this as an antidote after that book!

Anti Citizen One

Unspeak by Steven Poole

Another insightful book on the power of words and how they can be used to control how a debate is conducted - and ultimately the outcome of a debate.

[Unspeak] represents an attempt to say something without saying it, without getting into an argument and os having to justify itself. At the same time, it tries to unspeak - in the sense of erasing, or silencing - any possible opposing point of view…

So called “Unspeak” uses ideas we associate with words to control how we think about other idea. I suppose this is a standard technique in rhetoric. Once something is labeled with a word, that word brings associated value judgments to the bear. So to control vocabulary is to control thought. This is well known in politics and public relations.

Wolfowitz acknowledged that, according to international law, the US was in fact engaged in ‘occupation’, but still argued that they shouldn’t have ‘accepted that label’. In other words, he seemed to think that if they had simply called it something else - perhaps a mass sleepover - then no one would have noticed that the occupation was actually an occupation.

You may notice that the US and UK parliments do not have “wars” any more - at least they are not declared. We now are told we have peace keeping operations, liberation operations, etc. And the author points out the word “operation” has medical and beneficial connotations. How easy it is to accept another’s language!

The case of the ‘insurgents’ was a small triumph of journalistic resistance to propagandistic terminology.

… we should at the very least expect, and demand, that our newspapers, radio and television refuse to replicate and spread the Unspeak virus.

The book claims a small triumph against Unspeak was the media (or a subsection of it) rejecting the word terrorist - which instantly condemns the subject - and substituting the word “insurgent”. This word supposedly had no prior meaning so had no previous value judgments. This is a compromise between calling them “freedom fighters” or “terrorists”. The catch is the word “insurgents” previously had no meaning at all and so conveys no information. Is it the job of the media to invent neutral vocabulary? In the extreme they might invent a new word for everything to make everything “objective” - but this would make the media void of meaning.

Naturally, in such a book, it is impossible that I will not myself have committed barbarous acts of Unspeak. I leave it as an exercise for the interested reader to identify them.

I take it as a gauntlet thrown down! The very concept “Unspeak”, subtitled “Words are Weapons” implies it is a bad thing and should be avoided. But the book does not say why “Unspeak” is bad! It also avoids the point that all words contain value judgments. “Unspeak” implies that some ideal “Speech” exists. It does not exist, as has been outlined many times on this blog. Invent a word and apply it to a set of “stuff” requires someone to do some valuation (see the Will to Power). What is needed is not a rejection of Unspeak but more critical thinking.

Anti Citizen One

PS “Do not all words lie to the light ones?” FN

Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig is a book that I found to be highly interesting and thought provoking. It is very well researched and prefers illustration by example rather than abstract arguments. The author’s position is pro-law but anti-lawyer which provides interesting fusion.

The book addresses the cultural impact of the internet and its relationship with copyright law - particularly American law. His conclusion is we need reform of the copyright system, not to remove rights from profitable works, but to free the culture of all non-profitable works to allow them to be preserved or reused in new creative work. This is in obvious contradiction to current law makers who continually attempt to extend the copyright term:

“A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face when they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in their 20s would lose protection” Charlie McCreevy

I think McCreevy has forgotten the purpose of copyright law. But what is that exactly?

The first copyright law was the Statute of Anne, passed by the British parliament in 1710. (Patent law is a slightly longer history). Before that time, book publishers had claimed a perpetual exclusive right to books under their control - a perpetual monopoly. Parliament limited that right by establishing copyright and after the term for the work to pass into the public domain (which did not previously exist). Note that the purpose of the first copyright law limited the publishers right to a finite time.

The limitation on terms was an indirect way to assure competition among publishers, and thus the construction and spread of culture.

This intention was explicitly expressed in the US Constitution. Americans must be complimented for being organised!

Congress has the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

Note again the word “limited” and the purpose “to promote [...] Science and [...] Art“. Why should copyright holders insist on their rights being perpetual? What purpose does it serve? Only self interest at the expense of public good! (and making “20 percent of America into criminals” by music downloading)

Lessig is very clear in distancing himself from copyright anarchists and unambiguously condemns copyright violations. He claims that ideas are “property”.

A free culture supports and protects creators and innovators. It does this directly by granting intellectual property rights.

I consider this a misused of the word “property” since property is, to my mind, a physical object that I possess. I might cautiously allow intellectual “rights” because it does not imply all the associations that “common sense” associates with “property”. If we think of an item as property, it becomes too easy to assign it to the owner (and heirs) for eternity. (I will touch on this again in a review of “Unspeak”.) This flies in the face of all creativity which relies on:

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas. George Bernard Shaw

and this idea has been adopted by the free culture movement as the slogan “Information wants to be free”. I agree with this view even if, according to Lessig, I might be an anarchist.

Lessig will remain correct when he states:

However convincing the claim that “it’s my property, and I should have it forever,” try sounding convincing when uttering, “It’s my monopoly, and I should have it forever.”

Right on. And an illustration on the power of the choice of words.

The book covers may more topics than these small points. A fascinating chapter describes his day in the US Supreme Court, in which he faced his nemesis of copyright extension. I don’t want to spoil the ending but it is a matter of record for those interested.

Anti Citizen One

PS This blog’s content is licensed under a Creative Commons license, written by a group that was co-founded by Lessig. And Lessig’s book is also freely available for legal download.

I have returned from holiday and I have been busy reading.

Yes Man by Danny Wallace

After enjoying his previous book “Join Me”, I was looking forward to a new series of adventures of Danny. He vows to say YES to every opportunity or suggestion that presents itself. This temporarily leads to his new appreciation of life and to enjoy embracing opportunities. After a time this reverses to a weariness of this irresponsible life style.

‘…I don’t want to be like I was, but I’m so sick of saying Yes. All it does is tire me. It was supposed to help. It was supposed to be exciting.’
Ian put his pool cue down, and nodded, sadly.
‘What Yes giveth,’ he said, ‘Yes also taketh away.’

Danny begins to question the value of Yes and the existential value of his project.

What was I doing with my life? I mean, really? What was the point in all this? To waste six hours of my day on a train? To wake up confused and bewildered in a Dutch hotel room? To severely annoy my ex-girlfriend? What was I gaining from this, really? Apart from a car and some mild abuse?

He does find new energy to persist saying Yes to life. It begins to become instinctual and effortless.

…I wasn’t saying Yes because I was playing the Yes game. I’d all but forgotten about that. I wasn’t saying Yes to prove anything to myself any more, or to Ian, or to anyone else. I was saying Yes because I wanted to. I was saying Yes because all of a sudden it was coming naturally.

The book ends with a transition away from “Yes” to a more settled and mature way of life. To gratuitously quote Nietzsche, he would have approved of Danny’s embrace of life:

“Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life” Zarathustra

but probably would not have agreed with saying Yes to all opportunities. Sometimes No is necessary.

“All-satisfiedness, which knoweth how to taste everything, that is not the best taste! I honour the refractory, fastidious tongues and stomachs, which have learned to say “I” and “Yea” and “Nay.” To chew and digest everything, however- that is the genuine swine-nature! Ever to say YEA that hath only the ass learned, and those like it!” Zarathustra

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson

The Gospel is a parody and reductio ad absurdum against the Intelligent Design movement. The core argument is if religion can be taught in schools and given legal protection, then this spoof religion, featuring the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) as God, is equally deserving of the same benefits.

I think we can all look forward to a time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one-third for Intelligent Design, one-third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one-third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

The book takes several of the classical arguments (First Cause, Ontological, Design, Logical arguments) and adapts them to suit the FSM. The fact that their logic is flawed is presumably intended as a criticism of the original arguments. There is also an amusing spoof of Genesis featuring the FMS as a very incompetent, slightly insane, ego-maniacal creator God. One or two sections are intended as an improvement of Christian values. The Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts” basically reduce to “be tolerant of others”, “have a good time” and “don’t be religiously pretentious”.

All in all a good read for people interested in the Intelligent Design movement.

I will write a review of Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig when I have a chance.

Anti Citizen One

Many scholars upon reading the Zhuangzi describe it as promoting philosophical relatvism. Although it is true that the work contains a relativistic element it is not totally relatvistic and on occasion gives a priveleged position to certain attitudes and behaviours. Thus to dismiss it as purely relatvistic would be a poor analsysis.

The text promotes two particular modes of experience. The first one in the field of cognitive mental states is that of “ming” or clarity. In this text it appears that “clarity” involves the ability to discern subtle distinctions without necessarily evaluating experience in terms of a preferred alternative.

In the field of behaviour the text promotes “wu wei” which translates as “effortless action”. This kind of behaviour is characterized by the minimization of conflict with that which is inevitable and unavoidable in the realm of experiences, thus reducing the “friction and drag” caused by dogmatic commitment to a single preffered outcome.

The text leads us to conclude that the “ideal person” who is variously described in the text as “genuine” (zhenren), “fully realized” (zhiren), or “spiritual” (shenren), is one who is perfectly well-adjusted. In other words such a person is balanced and is at ease in all situations, and as a consequence do not find themselves thrown off course by novelty or unexpected circumstances.

Zhuangzi uses the idiom of the hinge (what he calls the “hinge of Dao” daoshu) to illustrate this sort of cognitive/experiential flexibility.

A state in which ‘this’ and ‘that’ no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted in the socket, it can respond endlessly.  - Basic Writings Ch2.

So although we are concerned not to describe the Zhuangzi as purely relativistic - on account of its priveleging certain attitudes and behaviours - it is still the case that “all truth and valuation are necessarily contextually situated”. Put simply this means that the “good” for one person may not be the same for another, and likewise the case with beauty, truth, usefulness etc.

Fascinatingly though Zhuangzi does not restrict this experiential relativism to different individuals, he also relates this idea to the same individual at different moments and places in time and space. Rather than clashing with the flux that is the world by maintaining a dogmatic adherence to a certain set of standards or attitudes, Zhuangzi proposes that it is more beneficial to the individual to adjust ones standards and attitudes in accordance with the needs of the current situation. One consequence of this attitude of least resistance (wei wu wei) is that one’s resources and overall well-being are best preserved through reducing the friction we experience with the world.

This pragmatic individualism has certain echoes with modern existentialism - and one may suggest has similar faults too (depending on ones perspective i.e. social inaction in the face of intolerable injustice for self-preservation).

implications

This resource preservation philosophy plays an influential role in Chinese medicine and in Daoist alchemical longevity movements.

But for me the concept of the “hinge of Dao” (or as I would simply put it the hinge of being) is interesting because it is the underlying philosophical attitude that informs other areas of the Zhuangzi text and which (in subsequent posts I will explore) informs a seemingly proto-Wittgensteinian philosophy of language, an unresolved Cartesian scepticism, an ontological pluralism akin to Nietzche, and an anarchic political theory.

All quotes lifted from the source attributed at the end of the first post in this series (here).

It is an unfortunate case that often that which is termed Eastern Philosophy is largely ignored, or underrated by its Western counterpart. Why this should be the case is probably explainable with references to postmodern cultural theory, imperialistic and colonial attitudes, and the relationship between Western Philosophy and its productive cousin Western Science.

Without entering into a deconstruction of western attitudes and the general donning of sackcloth and ashes I thought it would be a nice idea to explore some Eastern Philosophy, particular those texts which hold remarkable parallels with certain “classics” of our western paradigm.

In this series of posts I am going to have a look at some of the ideas found in the “Zhuangzi.”

The Book

The Zhuangzi, which translates as Master Zhuang (after its attributed author) is considered the second foundational text of the Daoist philosophical and religous traditions. Second only to the teachings of Lao Tzu. It is roughly dated between 350 - 250 BC.

The first seven chapters of the text, called the “inner chapters” are directly attributed to Zhuang Zhou (the Master) who according to legend lived in Honan approximately 370-286 BC. The remaining chapters are sometimes attributed as fragments from the author of the inner chapters, and sometimes attributed to other authors who are considered to be representatives of the Yangzhu tradition.

The book is composed of stories, allegories, essays and fragments of probably mythological material. It refers to dozens of chinese folk stories (some of which are lost today) comments on them, reworks them and elicits different meanings from them.

It influenced a large amount of subsequent Chinese philosophical thought, particular Chan (Zen) Buddhism and late Daoism.

Zhuang Zhou

Practically nothing is known of the author, other than that which is given in the text, which owing to its literary and philosophical intent not to mention the different stages in its authorship makes its historicity less than valuable. The Chinese historian Sima Qian (who lived several hundred years later) provided an account of his rough dates of birth and death, and the information that he came from the district of Meng in the province of Honan. He was a minor official, who resigned his position in order to return to private life, and it is claimed was offered the role of Prime Minister to King Wei of Chu (339-329BC), a job he declined.

The Text

The Zhuangzi was largely subordinate to the Laozi until the end of the Han Dynasty (c. 200 AD) when a radical breakdown of political and social values resulted in a resurgent interest in Zhuangzi’s rejection of conventional values.

The present form of the text is largely the result of its most influential editor and commentator Guixiang (300 AD), who is likely to have integrated material from other sources, divided it into its present chapter configuation and assigned titles to the chapters. Some scholars consider the influence so strong that it is difficult to distinguish between Zhuangzi and Guixiang.

It spoofs and satirizes other more reputable and established philosophical traditions of its time (such as Confucianism and the Mohists). Zhuangzi’s basic attitute to philosophical disputation is that it is pointless and hairsplitting at best, solves no problems conclusively and leads merely to more conflict and disagreement!

Zhuangzi’s philosophical approach can be described as perspectival, i.e. the truth value of any claim is related to context or perspective, and must always be carefully qualified to have any validity at all.

Common Ancestors

As I will explore in later posts much of the Zhuangzi has themes and ideas found in contemporary western philosophy. Much modern scholarship lends itself to comparitive studies between Zhuangzi and Nietzsche who share a similar aphoristic style, not to mention a predisiposition to being quoted out of context (I’ll try to avoid this), and a strong subjectivism. Zhuangzi and Wittgenstein whose attitudes towards philosophy and language are closely mirrored. And Zhuangzi and Descartes who both present similar ideas about radical scepticism.

Major Ideas

• Our experience of the world is relative to our perspective.
• The world of our experience is constantly transforming.
• Therefore we must be wary of our tendency to adopt fixed or dogmatic judgements, evaluations, and standards based on a narrow viewpoint, since this leads to conflict and frustration.
• Optimal experience involves freeing ourselves from slavish commitment to convention. This enables is to see clearly (ming) and act spontaneously and unobtrusively (wuwei).
• The ideal person is one who is perfectly well-adjusted in this way.
• The “genuine person” precedes “genuine knowledge”
• Language functions to convey meaning, and meaning is relative to context.
• Philosophical disputation though sometimes stimulating is a futile enterprise as “right” and “wrong” cannot be determined through argument.
• Death is a natural part of life, one of its infinite transformations.

Over a few posts I will explore some interesting themes such as relativism, anarchism, and scepticism.

(Background information thanks to Alan Fox and his article on Zhuangzi in “Great Thinkers of the Eastern World”, edited by Ian McGreal and published by Harper Collins 1995)

The Birth of Tragedy discusses the world view and theatre of the ancient Greeks and how it applies to the culture of his day. Nietzsche borrows several ideas from contemporaries, notably Hegelian dialectic and applies it to Dionysus (thesis), Apollo (antithesis) and Greek Tragedy(synthesis). The Dionysian and Apollonian tendencies were both said to be an answer to the “wisdom of Silenus”.

…King Midas hunted in the forest a long time for the wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, without capturing him. When Silenus at last fell into his hands, the king asked what was the best and most desirable of all things for man. Fixed and immovable, the demigod said not a word; till at last, urged by the king, he gave a shrill laugh and broke out into these words: ‘Oh, wretched ephemeral race, children of change and misery, why do ye compel me to tell you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is beyond your reach forever: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But second best for you - is quickly to die.’

This idea was echoed more recently by Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus - is a pointless task (or pointless life) better abandoned?

Nietzsche says there are three traditions that answer this question:

1) Dionysus, god of Wine and bringer of ritual ecstasy. His followers rejoice in life as it actually is including all tragedy and discord. Nietzsche closely identifies Dionysus with music, without words, as a mirror of the world in a similar way as Schopenhauer’s concept of music as pure will. In theater, Dionysus is linked with all tragic heroes caught in epic downfalls and myths. Reality is a subjective and is intuitively and instinctively understood.

The truly Dionysian music presents itself as such a general mirror of the universal will: the conspicuous event refracted in this mirror expands at once for our consciousness to the copy of an external truth. Section 17

Here the most profound instinct of life, that directed toward the future of life, the eternity of life, is experienced religiously — and the way to life, procreation, as the holy way. Twilight of the Idols

2) Apollo, god of the Sun and bringer of knowledge, reason, wisdom and plastic (visual) beauty. This movement flatly rejects Silenus and instead holds that man’s goal is to pursue knowledge which in turn leads to beauty, virtue and happiness. The lyricist takes precedence over the musician and the music only supports the words of the writer. The theater, characters become more like the audience and given realistic emotions. The protagonists are now intelligent slaves and cunning men and women while the classic heroes are parodied. This use of realistic characters often makes the story impossible to fit with the expected Apollonian outcome (intelligence/beauty is rewarded) so deus ex machina is used to resolve the story. This shift in style is attributed to Euripides and ultimately to Socrates. Mythology and subjectivity are destroyed and replaced by the theoretic, the objective and history.

“…hence the picture of the dying Socrates, as the man raised above the fear of death by knowledge and reason, is the sign about the entrance-gate of science reminding every one of its mission, namely, to make existence seem intelligible, and therefore justified.” Section 15

If we could conceive of an incarnation of dissonance -and what else is man? - then, that it might live, this dissonance would need a glorious illusion to cover its features with a veil of beauty. This is the true artistic function of Apollo… Section 25″

3) Buddhist tradition which, according to Nietzsche, agrees with Silenus’s nihilism.

Since it is impossible to reach either ideal completely, life and theater is said to be best understood as a synthesis of both the Apollonian and Dionysian tendencies.

For the more clearly I perceive in Nature those omnipotent art impulses [...] the more I feel myself impelled to the metaphysical assumption that the Truly-Existent [Dionysus?] and Primal Unity [Apollo?], eternal suffering and divided against itself [...] are compelled to apprehend as [...] empiric reality. Section 4.

After Socrates, Greek taste shifts towards the Apollonian and Socraties (and his cronies Plato and Aristotle) and culture is still operating under the same system today. People are still considered as rational individuals who can detach themselves from the world they are observing. The problem with the Apollonian ideal is that it is fatally flawed - as any post modernist will tell you!

And as thou hast forsaken Dionysus, Apollo hath also forsaken thee; rouse up all the passions from their haunts and conjure them into thy circle, sharpen and whet thy sophistical dialectic for the speeches of thy heroes - thy very heroes have but counterfeit, masked passions, and utter but counterfeit, masked words. Section 10

As we reach the limits of philosophic reason and consider the boundaries of science, we realize that much of the world is not yet intelligible - and most likely will never be. This fundamentally undermines the claim of Apollonian view.

“If ancient tragedy was diverted from its course by the dialectical desire for knowledge and the optimism of science, this fact might lead us to believe that there is an eternal conflict between the theoretic and the tragic world-view; and only after the spirit of science has been pursued to its limits, and its claim to universal validity destroyed by the evidence of these limits may we hope for a rebirth of tragedy…” Section 17

By emphasizing the objective viewpoint of individual members of the public (rather than subjective view of heroes), Euripides thought the “public” on stage could be a better judge of the play.

But “public,” after all, is only a word. In no sense is it a homogeneous and constant quantity. Why should the artist be bound to accommodate himself to a power whose strength lies merely in numbers? Section 11.

This instantly reintroduces the subjective back into what is intended to be objective. We are instantly drawn back to the Dionysian.

There is a great amount I did not understand in the book as Greek culture is fairly obscure. The style of Nietzsche is more restrained as he mentions other philosophers without pouring scorn on them - particularly notably are Kant and Schopenhauer - who he later rejected utterly. He does identify Socrates as a target at this early stage in his writing.

Anti Citizen One

The Castle, by Franz Kafka, is the novel describing K.’s arrival at a village and his struggle to contact the officials who reside in an inaccessible Castle. The Castle is held in awe by the villagers but The Castle’s motives are illusive, as are the official’s identities, physical appearance and their communication skills. This is a world away from todays world of political propaganda and suspicion of authority.

K.’s engagement as the Land Surveyor is thrown into doubt when it is revealed as a rare mistake of the system. There is apparently no need of a land surveyor. His is offered the role of school caretaker but there is also no need of a caretaker. Incidentally there is an interesting piece on the BBC about finding meaning (or lack of meaning) in the workplace.

One of the only elements that keeps the readers sanity is K’s epic efforts to make sense of his situation. He is apparently very observant but still prone to occasional mistakes without complete information. There are lengthy monologues of the villagers explaining the ways of the village but sometimes I wish K. would just ignore them, for the readers benefit, and for his; they usually do not help him gain access to The Castle. He also seems to swing between being physically tenacious and physically helpless due to the snow - even the weather is kafkaesque in The Castle!

If I may abuse Kafka, I will paraphrase the whole novel as:

Landlady: It transpires that we have no need of a land surveyor.
K.: I want to talk to someone in charge about this.
Landlady: Your childish misunderstanding of the workings of the Castle are almost beyond belief and can only be because you are an outsider. Having an interview with an official from the castle is quite impossible. You will never be admitted to the Castle.

People’s actions seem meaningless to K. and to other villagers but are later explained as completely necessary and unavoidable to the participant. This is perhaps the point of the novel - if it has any. Hasty assumptions and generalizations on incomplete information lead to misunderstandings and despising (or feeling gratitude) without any real justification. This is all very existential and postmodern. This is similar to the shifting realities of the movie Rashomon in which it is clearly impossible for everyone’s version of event to be correct, but it is left unstated as to which, if any, is true. It also strongly reminds me of the X-Files episode “Bad Blood” where the two FBI agents recount their recent adventure in turn but misunderstand and half mock the other agent due to their subjective viewpoint.

An even greater overlap is with Gilliam’s movie Brazil. The insane decision making process of The Castle’s anti chamber is similar to Mr Warren’s barking of seemingly arbitrary answers to questions. There is a certain anonymity of the authority figures in both. Sam only reaches the Deputy Minister - not the Minister him/herself. Confusion of names is also a common theme: buttle/tuttle, sortini/sordini are routinely confused; in fact it is a central plot point for Brazil.

SAM: Excuse me, Dawson, can you put me through to Mr Helpmann’s office?
DAWSON: I’m afraid I can’t, sir. You have to go through the proper channels.
SAM: And you can’t tell me what the proper channels are, because that’s classified information?
DAWSON: I’m glad to see the Ministry’s continuing its tradition of recruiting the brightest and best, sir.
SAM: Thank you, Dawson.

One difference is The Castle’s authority is only maintained by the villagers deference to it’s authority. There is no mention of guards or prisons. Brazil is quite the opposite and takes its methods indirectly from Orwell’s 1984. There is also a hint of Gormenghast but expressed in The Castle as from the lowest rank rather than the highest. Steerpike easily subverts the bureaucracy and I wonder what would result if K. seriously attempted to infiltrate the castle, possibly as a semi-official messenger (through the same channels as Barnabas). I wonder if the Count of The Castle is a victim of bureaucracy as K. and the Earl of Gormenghast.

The writing style of The Castle is frankly rather painful. Rather like a river, it starts swiftly, windingly and clear. The story ends slowly and murkily. The blame cannot be assigned to anyone in particular, least of all Kafka as the book was published from an incomplete text that probably had been abandoned by the author. But was the author trying to frustrate the reader as K. is frustrated?

The closest experience one can have to conveniently experience the alienation of The Castle is to telephone a large company using a call centre and being put on hold. When you eventually get to talk to someone, they are the lowest underling and misinterpret your meaning (sorry to readers who work in call centres!). To apply a concept from the novel, how do you know you are talking to the company and not an impostor? There are people who have no business answering the phones in the call centre but they pick them up on a whim and one should not believe a word of their pranks!

Anti Citizen One