Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philosophy Now 2005 - November - December PDF
Philosophy Now 2005 - November - December PDF
44 Existentialism edited by Robert Solomon Ontological Argument? p.24 U.S. & Canadian bookstores though:
reviewed by John Shand • Disticor Magazine Distribution Services
695 Westney Road S., Unit 14, Ajax,
46 Introduction to German Philosophy by Andrew Bowie Ontario L1S 6M9 Tel. (905) 619 6565
• Ubiquity Distributors Inc.,
reviewed by Peter Rickman 607 Degraw Street, Brooklyn, NY 11217
REGULARS Tel. (718) 875 5491
• Bernhard DeBoer Inc.,
43 Dear Socrates 113 East Center Street, Nutley, NJ 07110
Tel. (973) 667 9300
47 Crossword Deiradiotes
48 Philosophy & Theatre: The opinions expressed in this magazine
do not necessarily reflect the views of
No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre the editor or editorial board of
reviewed by Tim Madigan Philosophy Now.
and immediately after the Second World magazine editor compelled him to finish Other areas include philosophy of
War. Gerald Jones writes about the successes writing an editorial would similarly be in bad mathematics, of science, of religion, of
language, of social science, of history.
and shortcomings of Sartre’s famous lecture faith – denying his inescapable freedom to
on existentialism and humanism. Christine either continue or stop writing the editorial.
Daigle explains the key concepts Sartre In fact he wo Easy reads
• The Problems of Philosophy by
employed in his masterwork, the massive and Bertrand Russell. A short and stimulating
intimidating Being and Nothingness. And in introduction to philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy by
our philosophical theatre column, Tim Bertrand Russell. A long, detailed and
Madigan takes in a performance of Sartre’s readable history of philosophy. Although
dated, it gives a good introduction which can
most famous play – No Exit. then be built upon.
I recently heard another French intel- • Philosophy and Living by Ralph
lectual – this one a London-based friend of Blumenau. Another general history of
philosophy, but with an emphasis on relating
mine – remark how frustrating and puzzling ideas to modern life.
he found it that Sartre, having constructed an • Dictionary of Philosophy by Antony
Flew. Covers an immense variety of subjects,
uncompromising philosophy of personal people etc. Really useful.
freedom, had then spent many years
T
he 21st June 2005 was an auspicious date – the command of styles and genres expertly complements his
summer solstice, the tipping point of Gemini missionary purpose. No, Sartre matters because so many
into Cancer, and the centenary of the birth of fundamental points of his analysis of the human reality are
Jean-Paul Sartre. And on 15th April 1980 – right and true, and because their accuracy and veracity entail
just 25 years ago – Sartre died. These two real consequences for our lives as individuals and in social
dates are worthy of note because, in the intervening 75 years, groups. His distinction is to have obeyed his own injunction
Sartre created a legacy that is not only memorable but is also, of ‘commitment’, and to have persisted in trying to convey his
and more importantly, an appeal to an unconventional messages to as wide an audience as possible, by exploiting
worldview and, by implication, to action. every medium available to the writer.
Sartre’s attainments as writer and intellectual suffice in Existentialism is the philosophical label associated most
themselves to ensure his eminence in the canon of French closely with Sartre’s name. It is not a term he coined – that
literature. He is probably the most significant representative was done by the Catholic philosopher, playwright and critic,
of 20th century French letters, whose accomplishments, by Gabriel Marcel – nor one that he particularly liked, but he
their breadth and their depth, their quality and their quantity, nevertheless used it and gave it wide currency through a
surpass those of Gide, Proust or Camus – and he arguably lecture in the immediate post-war period (given at the Club
dominates the world stage too. In any case, he is, by various Maintenant, Paris, in October 1945), entitled: ‘Existentialism
accounts, the most written-about writer of the last century. is a humanism’. Published as a slim volume in 1946, this little
He also bears comparison with the great names of previous book became the sacred text of the fashionable followers of
French generations, against whom he measured himself from the Left Bank vogue, which is one reason why Sartre regretted
an early age, surrounded by the leather-bound tomes of his its publication. However, it contains a handy definition that
grandfather’s library: whether Descartes or Pascal in the 17th underpins the whole of his philosophy, and that is: ‘Existence
century; Voltaire or Rousseau in the 18th; Balzac, Hugo or precedes essence’. This is a crucial principle because it runs
Zola in the 19th – Sartre set out to forge a reputation equal to counter to the main thrust of western thought from Plato to
any of these giants, and only the most grudging critics deny Hegel, via Judaism, Christianity and Descartes. What it
that he realised that lofty ambition. claims is that there is no a priori conception of humankind,
For both the range and the merit of Sartre’s opus are quite whether as species or individual. It therefore disposes at one
amazing: he is the author of modern classics in several fields – stroke with the Platonic realm of the ideal, with the Judeo-
the novel, Nausea 1938; the short story, The Wall 1939; the Christian creator God, and with the Hegelian notion of the
play, No Exit 1944; philosophy, Being and Nothingness 1943; Absolute Idea. It is axiomatic for Sartre, as it was for
criticism, What is Literature? 1948; biography, Saint Genet, Nietzsche, that we inhabit a godless universe – a common-
Comedian and Martyr 1952; the polemical essay and reportage sense view, given the paucity and poor quality of any evidence
– numerous issues of his periodical Les Temps modernes, for his existence – so that there is no god-given spirit that is
founded 1946 – and ten volumes of Situations; and, not least, distinct from our corporeal selves, and can exist before or after
autobiography, Words 1964, widely regarded as his finest or outside of our earthly lives. Existentialism is therefore also
literary achievement. As if this body of work were not a counterblast to the capital Cartesian notion of the duality of
enough, he also wrote screenplays, journalism, art criticism, mind and ‘extension’, or matter, summarised in the famous
theses on theoretical psychology – notably the emotions and aphorism: Cogito ergo sum. In effect, Sartre inverts this
the imagination – and copious correspondence. Moreover, he premise to say: Sum ergo cogito, I am therefore I think, which is
made (admittedly, ill-fated) forays into radio and television. In for Sartre the natural (arbitrary but actual) order of things.
short, Sartre was, in the phrase he borrowed from For Sartre, by contrast with Descartes, consciousness is
Chateaubriand as an epigraph to the final section of Words, ‘a necessarily embodied: it comes into being only with our
book-making machine’, and the products of his ‘machinery’ advent in the world at birth, and goes out of being with our
had an impact across the spectrum of the arts, media and exit from the world in death. In life, however, consciousness
social sciences. itself is nothing, except insofar as it is consciousness of something.
However, Sartre does not matter simply because he was a Take away all the things of which consciousness is conscious,
great writer, nor even primarily so, although his exceptional and you would have nothing left. Whereas, Sartre argues,
”
therefore open to moral
judgment on the basis of them.
consciousness can seize itself as conscious of something, it the ineluctable, inherent and foundational quality of human
cannot seize itself as conscious exclusively of itself, without being. We are, as he puts it in one of his pithy formulations,
being grounded in some material object of which it is ‘condemned to be free’: every time we act, we are destined to
conscious. We might well have the impression that the discriminate anew between various possible courses of action
Cartesian dualism of mind and matter is an accurate summary in pursuit of our project to modify our situation in the world.
of our condition, but this impression is a delusion. The Whether we like it or not, we are responsible for the actions we
understanding of ourselves as individuated is an empirical commit, and we are therefore, on the evidence of these,
process of learning over time, not an innate awareness. amenable to moral judgment: “You are nothing but the sum
Sartre’s project in Being and Nothingness was to try to of your acts.” Another way of saying that existence precedes
describe the real nature of human existence in a material essence, is to say that ‘doing precedes being’, or that ‘to be is
world of which we are (as bodies) constituent parts, and yet of to act’. Because we are conscious of our moral responsibility,
which we are simultaneously conscious as though we were, in we feel anguish in the face of our freedom, and we are
some sense, not a part of it. This insight produces what is naturally inclined to flee from that anguish.
perhaps his most profoundly true paradox, that “a human is Sartre says in his early philosophy that we always choose how
that being which is not what it is, and is what it is not.” But, to act, whatever the circumstances might be. The exhausted
of course, he also wants to go beyond mere description by athlete chooses the moment at which she is too tired to
drawing out the ethical implications of his ontological continue; the terrified victim chooses to faint in order to blot
analysis, and this enquiry leads him to the moral concepts of out the insufferable situation. He even goes so far as to say
freedom, responsibility, authenticity and bad faith, which he that the tortured man chooses when to cry out in pain – and so
discusses at some length in Being and Nothingness, and on. Despite the extreme quality of some of his examples, it
promises to return to in a later book of ethics. seems to me that Sartre is right to be concerned by the fact
Obviously, Sartre wasn’t the first western philosopher to that, very commonly, we tend to deny or to disguise our
dispose of God, and then find himself wrestling with the freedom in order to evade responsibility for our actions. This
consequences. Nietzsche notoriously declared the demise of tendency he calls ‘inauthenticity’ or ‘bad faith’. A typical
the deity, then confronted the corollary that humans are the strategy is role-playing, behaving in a way that we feel is
sole source of moral values, which had necessarily to be ‘re- dictated or required by the functions we fulfil. He exemplifies
valued, beyond good and evil’. For Sartre, however, it is not this kind of conduct in Being and Nothingness with his
so much the absence of God (which he postulates a priori) as caricature of the ‘waiter who is too much a waiter’, a man who
the nature of consciousness that makes humans the authors of escapes the anguish of his freedom by enacting the
all moral value. The discriminating power of self- exaggerated gestures of a cultural stereotype.
consciousness, enabling us to stand outside ourselves as if we Another common evasive strategy, is to claim that one was
were things in the world much like other things, also enables ‘only following orders’, an excuse advanced in order to
us to discern that any present situation could be different, and exonerate all manner of abominable behaviour, ranging from
that we could make it so: we can always (ought always, Sartre the Holocaust to the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners. These
implies) have a project to amend the status quo. Moreover, in are well-documented crimes, whose perpetrators defend their
most situations, we can conceive of more than one way to actions on the grounds that they were ‘only following orders’.
change things: in short, we can – indeed, we have to – choose. Sartre insists that orders can never cause us to act against our
What Kierkegaard identified as the inescapable ‘Either/Or’, will: they only ever have the force or authority with which the
the source of all anguish, is, for Sartre, the defining character- agent himself invests them. The agent always chooses to assent
istic of human being: freedom. or disobey, to resist or to acquiesce. Several of Sartre’s
Freedom is not itself a matter of choice, Sartre insists; it is protagonists in his novels and plays struggle with the dilemma
“If I choose to kill Brisseau, I am defining myself as a murderer... By choosing Funny Face). Most importantly he wanted to show why his
my action, I choose it for all mankind. But what happens if everyone in the theory wasn’t a licence for a nihilistic free-for-all, but instead
world behaved like me and came here and shot Brisseau? What a mess! Not gave rise to a much more optimistic ‘existential humanism’.
to mention the commotion from the doorbell ringing all night. And of course This project seems to be fairly clear and straightforward,
we’d need valet parking. Ah…how the mind boggles when it turns to ethical but unfortunately (for students accustomed to the lean prose
considerations!” Woody Allen, ‘The Condemned’ of philosophers like A.J. Ayer) the lecture is neither of these
things. Perhaps this is due to the awkward English trans-
I
n the autumn of lation; perhaps it was Sartre’s style – he once confessed to
1945 Jean-Paul Simone de Beauvoir that his work was “not a masterpiece of
Sartre gave a planning, composition and clarity” (surely an understatement,
lecture at a club in as anyone will know who has tried to grasp the meaning of
Paris entitled Sartre’s claim that “Slime is the revenge of the In-Itself”).
‘Existentialism is a Perhaps it was the lecture format – Sartre spoke from memory
Humanism’. It was a without any notes, and simplifies or abbreviates many of his
lecture that propelled ideas. In any case, the lecture is in turns aphoristic,
Sartre into the philo- meandering and pretentious. But it’s also gripping and
sophical stratosphere: inspiring and you can hear in Sartre’s voice a passion, a call for
he became a celebrity action, which is rare in Western philosophy.
overnight, and an intel-
lectual icon whose “People. You must love people. People are admirable... I feel like vomiting.”
funeral in 1980 was Sartre, Nausea.
attended by 50,000
mourners. Sartre ignited So what does Sartre mean by ‘humanism’? Humanism is a
hearts and minds in a way term that alludes to a shift in our intellectual and moral focus
dreamt of only by princesses – from God to human beings. Sartre deplores a certain type
and pop stars. of humanism, one that sees all human beings as ‘magnificent’,
Sartre’s lecture was eventually as people who must be loved no matter what they may have
published as a short book, whose done, simply because they are human. Sartre’s humanism
English edition was poorly titled recognises that there is nothing other than ‘the universe of
Existentialism and Humanism. Although Sartre later renounced human subjectivity’, that we all have the potential to invent
the lecture its publication became the bible of existentialism, ourselves and change our lives, and that although moral values
selling in its hundreds of thousands. The lecture vividly are created by individuals we still have a responsibility to every
reveals the conceptual struggle that Sartre was to have other human being.
throughout his life and it was an explicit attempt to show how The accusation laid at Sartre’s feet by those familiar with
this conflict could be resolved. Namely, to show how existen- his novels, short stories and earlier philosophy, is that existen-
tialism, a philosophy of individual freedom, could be seen as a tialism is not a humanism: it is a pessimistic and rabidly
form of humanism, a philosophy that locates value in individualistic philosophy which leads either to a concern only
humanity. for oneself, or to an abandonment of social action – the
For Sartre the success of this project depended on the ‘quietism of despair’.
success of a certain number of steps. He needed to explain Sartre lays out his philosophical stall by defining existen-
what he meant by ‘humanism’ and how it differed from other tialism as the only theory which correctly positions our
less savoury forms of humanism. He wished to give a existence as prior to our essence. Such a philosophy begins
technical account of existentialism which distinguished it from with the individual: our subjectivity, our consciousness, and
just another trendy, but vacuous, lifestyle choice – black polo- our existence in the world. By starting here it is clear to
necks, smooth jazz, random acts of personal expression (such Sartre that we experience a radical freedom in a way that other
as Audrey Hepburn’s crazzzzy freeform dance in the film objects (knives, cauliflowers and of course slime) do not.
Further Reading
• Thomas C. Anderson Sartre’s Two Ethics, Open Court 1993
(Chap. 5)
• David Cooper, Existentialism Blackwell 2000 (Chap. 10)
• Jones, Cardinal & Hayward, Existentialism & Humanism:
Jean-Paul Sartre Hodder Murray 2003 (Chapter 8)
• Mary Warnock, Existentialist Ethics MacMillan 1967 (Chap. 4)
une 1943, occupied France. A writer named Jean-Paul the hall and finds out that someone sees him; we read about
J
Sartre sees his latest philosophical manuscript, Being the masochist and the sadist, and about female genitalia as a
and Nothingness, a “phenomenological essay on hole to be filled, as a lack of being, as an appeal… Of the
ontology”, 722 pages of fine print (in the original latter passages Sartre says in a letter to Simone de Beauvoir
French edition), published in the midst of World War that they are titillating (croustillants) and that they ought to
II. The presentation wrapper on the early reprint of 1945: compensate for the more boring ones (emmerdants)! Many a
“What counts in a vase is the void in the middle”! reader of Sartre will be drawn by the power of the examples
This wasn’t the first of Sartre’s writings to make some he gives. Sartre’s literary talent is probably to be blamed here.
waves. His article on Husserl’s phenomenology from 1936- His prose is at its best when he describes a situation. What
1937, ‘The Transcendence of the Ego’, had made quite an better way to be introduced to existentialism than to feel in
impression in philosophical circles. Its author cleverly re- one’s own being the philosophy described?
appropriated Husserl’s goal of going back to the things What about this system, then? Setting his feet in the
themselves by kicking the ego out of consciousness and phenomenological tradition, presenting himself as an heir of
carefully delineating the various modes of consciousness and Heidegger and as critical of the master phenomenologist
its encounter with the world. No longer personal, Husserl and of the whole idealistic and rationalistic tradition,
consciousness was presented as something that would only Sartre investigates the lived experience of the individual. True
form an ‘I’ through its encounter with the world. The ‘I’ thus enough, he subtitles his book “a phenomenological essay on
becomes an object, just like any other, only slightly more ontology.” However, while Heidegger had been interested
personal. After all, we care more for our ‘ego’ than for a rock! primarily in the metaphysical nature of Being and only studied
A few years later, after publishing an (in)famous novel Da-sein (the being of the human individual) as an instance of
(Nausea), short stories (The Wall) and two philosophical essays, it, Sartre wanted to focus mainly on this human reality. What
one on the emotions and one on imagination, and after some of Being? The introduction of Being and Nothingness takes care
further meditations on Husserl’s philosophy and a serious of it rather quickly and concludes: “Being is. Being is in-itself.
study of Heidegger, Sartre unveils his major treatise. Being Being is what it is.” (p.29) Now what? Let us get down to
and Nothingness hits the shelves with a loud thud (rumour has serious business and talk about what really matters: the for-
it that it weighs exactly a kilo and can be used on the market itself, human reality, and its relationship with the in-itself and
place to measure quantities of food!) and shocks the philo- with others.
sophical world. The historical context, combined with the I will not enter into the details of Sartre’s ontological
density and opaqueness of some passages, has it that the theory, as this would entail an over-technical discussion that
impact of the work is not immediately felt. However, as more would not enlighten the reader as to the real import of the
and more readers delve into the complexities of the treatise, it book. Rather, I will concentrate on the concepts that he
becomes impossible to ignore its importance. As Michel presents and that have shaped Sartre’s existentialism and
Tournier later recalled of his, and others, encounter with the contributed to the impact of his work. Thus, what follows
work, the book was certainly unusual, due to both its style and will focus on freedom, responsibility, bad faith, and relation-
its content, but there was no doubt about its significance and ships with others. But first, a word on Being.
about the fact that a system was born.
How does Being and Nothingness stand out in terms of style? Being
Sartre biographer Annie Cohen-Solal calls it an “enormous The in-itself (in other words, Being), is the first of the pair
bastard”. Indeed, calling it a ‘treatise’ may be inappropriate in ‘Being and Nothingness’ to be investigated by Sartre. It is not
that it certainly does not follow the typical format of philo- to be equated with the world. The world is a later product of
sophical treatises that emanate from academic circles. Sartre the encounter between the for-itself (consciousness, human
mixes theoretical reflections with examples that explore trivial reality) and the in-itself. What comes out of this encounter is
daily situations. We meet with the waiter in the café; we await the world which is truly a human creation. Sartre has adopted
Pierre in that same café; we witness how a woman on a date the phenomenological concept of intentionality whereby
abandons her hand in that of her suitor; our heart beats in consciousness is always conscious (of) something. If there is
unison with that of the peeping Tom who hears footsteps in nothing besides consciousness, nothing of which it can be
The Legacy
What then of Being and Nothingness’ legacy? I would argue
that its impact has been tremendous. Existentialism, as Sartre
formulates it in this treatise, empowers the human being in a
period when power seems to rest in the hands of only a few
individuals. The philosophy of freedom puts the individual
back in the centre, allows him to engage in his own projects
no matter what oppression or situation he is facing. Further,
in a period struck by nihilism and atheism, existentialism gives
individuals the possibility to make something of themselves, to
flourish in their project without suffering from any alienation
caused by a transcendent world of values or by a magnified-
Other like God.
The individual is thus left alone in a world where no values
are to be found already made. He must make values himself
and shape himself as he acts. No easy business. The task is
crushing and the responsibility immense. However, the
human being is up to it; he has everything one needs to take
the roads to freedom (to quote the title of the series of novels
by Sartre published after Being and Nothingness). In those
years of uncertainty, in the midst of the war in occupied
France, Sartre’s philosophy may have been just what the
doctor ordered! But its impact was more prolonged than that.
Sartre’s philosophy has been ever present since then. We
ought to take a new look at it at the start of the 21st century
as we keep struggling with the nihilistic age. We could thus
use it as a bible. Understanding the book well might allow us
to find our way out of the sticky situation we have found
ourselves in for too long now. However, we would be well
advised to keep in mind that the man himself eventually
concluded that another route had to be taken. But that, my
friends, is another story.
© DR CHRISTINE DAIGLE 2005
Christine Daigle lectures in Philosophy at Brock University in
Ontario. She is also Vice-President of the Society for Existential
and Phenomenological Theory and Culture.
hen Jean-Paul Sartre published Being and principles which we wished to become universal laws. I don’t
W
Nothingness in 1943, his conclusion promised punch you on the nose because a world in which everybody
a sequel. This was perhaps not the most punched each other on the nose would be intolerable. But,
enticing prospect for a reader who had just Sartre might have rejoined, suppose I have a boss who
finished ploughing through 700 impenetrable underpays and overworks me, harasses me and bullies me and
pages. But in fact the book ended on a cliff-hanger. In a generally makes my life a misery. Can we really say that for
godless universe in which we are ‘condemned to be free’, it is him to punch me or for me to punch him are equivalent
all the same whether one becomes a leader of nations or gets actions?
drunk on one’s own. So did existentialism open the door to In fact, Sartre argued, we live in a world where the distrib-
moral anarchy? Was Dostoevsky (as quoted by Sartre) right ution of wealth and property are based on past violence,
when he claimed: “If God did not exist, everything would be however much the present order may condemn violence.
permitted”? Sartre’s position is beautifully illustrated by the story of the
Sartre insisted this was not the case: an existentialist Yorkshire miner walking across open moor land. The local
morality was not only possible, it would hit the bookstands landlord rode up and told him he was trespassing on private
shortly. But it didn’t. Compared with JK Rowling, Sartre was property. The miner enquired how the land came to be his.
not very adept at delivering sequels. His novel cycle The Roads “My great-great-great-grandfather won it in a battle,” replied
to Freedom and his biography of Flaubert were both left the landlord. “Take your coat off,” said the miner, “and I’ll
incomplete. This probably has something to do with the fact fight you for it now.”
that Sartre was much better at asking questions than at Sartre’s conclusion was that “morality today must be revolu-
answering them. tionary socialist”. That is, our first priority must be to fight
But if Being and Nothingness – 2 never saw the light of day, for a society based on equality and common ownership of
it was not for the want of trying. In 1947 and 1948 Sartre wealth. Only when that was achieved could we have universal
wrote some 600 pages on the question of an existentialist moral principles. The Notebooks are a rich and complex, if
morality. But he never resolved the issues to his satisfaction, fragmentary, work, and it is impossible to cover everything
and never published the manuscript. It appeared after his here. But one theme which has a particular importance for
death under the title Cahiers pour une morale (1983), and was Sartre’s work, and is still highly relevant today, is the question
later translated into English as Notebooks for an Ethics of ends and means.
(Chicago, 1992). In the period that stretched from the German Occupation
The problem, as so often for Sartre, was politics. For to the early years of the Cold War this was a vital question.
various reasons, he was becoming more and more politically Resistance fighters had often seen their struggles and sacrifices
involved. In 1948 he took part in an attempt to launch a new as justified by the fact that they were preparing ‘singing
political movement independent of both Washington and tomorrows’. Diehard supporters of Stalin’s Russia defended
Moscow. those aspects of the regime’s brutality which they couldn’t
On the one hand, Sartre recognised that any political simply deny by saying that these were harsh necessities on the
stance had to have a moral basis. This brought him into road to the establishment of a classless society from which
conflict with many Marxists. Sartre made fun of the French oppression and exploitation would be banished. On the other
Communist Party’s contradictory attitude to morality. On the hand, anti-Stalinists like Sartre’s one-time friend Arthur
one hand its textbooks of Marxism taught that capitalists were Koestler argued that Communism was such a great evil that it
obliged by inexorable economic laws to maximise profits. On was necessary to link up with the United States or right-wing
the other hand the Party’s popular daily paper denounced politicians such as de Gaulle in order to combat it. In the
‘wicked’ bosses. early fifties, when Sartre had his notorious quarrel with
But if a moral impulse lay behind any attempt to change Camus, one of Camus’ main arguments against Marxism in
society, at the same time it was impossible to establish his book The Rebel was that it meant sacrificing the present to
universal moral principles in a society based on gross the future, doing evil now in the hope that good would come
inequality. Kant had argued that we should act according to later.
I
n Erica Jong’s best-selling novel of the seventies, Fear of Adieux: A
Flying, two characters amuse themselves by telling a Farewell to
third that they’re Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Sartre) consists
Beauvoir, their acquaintance being vaguely conscious of two parts,
that these are names he ought to recognise, but unable the first
to quite locate the reference. It is presumed that the readers tracing Sartre’s
will do so and that awareness of their significance will be part physical
of an educated person’s intellectual equipment. Indeed, the decline up to
pair formed the most renowned couple of the twentieth his death, the
century – and in addition Beauvoir effectively wrote Sartre’s second being a
adult life-history as well as her own (“a dazzling biography of lengthy
Sartre in her memoirs”, according to Claude Francis and dialogue
Fernand Gontier) . Although his public image was not between
altogether Beauvoir’s creation, she was certainly its principal Beauvoir and
disseminator, and showed herself determined during her Sartre ranging
lifetime to maintain control over it. Consequently much of over his
what was known about Sartre’s private life and the image of history, philo-
their relationship was constructed on the basis of her memoirs. sophic
Even when it was significantly modified following his death by outlook,
the publication of a selection of his letters to her, it was she politics and
who edited and published them. The letters of both, together personal
with much subsequent documentation, reveal the extent to foibles. After
which the image of Sartre that appears in the memoirs was the initial
distorted and sanitised (as was her own). volume, which is concerned with Beauvoir’s personal growth,
Beauvoir presents Sartre both as an intellectual and thinker the succeeding ones all intertwine her career with the course
and a human personality. Her memoirs consist of five of Sartre’s philosophic development, imaginative creation,
volumes, published between 1958 and 1981, very differently personal relations and political trajectory.
structured in each case. In the first, (Memoirs d’une jeune fille
rangé; translated as Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter) dealing with The mutual project
the years between her birth and graduation, Sartre appears Readers first meet Sartre towards the close of the first
only towards the end, though in a manner which sets the volume when, preparing for her Sorbonne degree, Beauvoir
scene for their future relationship. The second (La Force de encounters him as a member of a scarily intellectual and
l’Âge translated as The Prime of Life) describes the years up to somewhat disreputable group of Ecole Normale students who
the Liberation during which Sartre had begun to make a name mock every bourgeois convention and attitude. Sartre is
as a philosopher and author, as, more modestly, had Beauvoir depicted as the brightest of them all, the most philosophically
herself. In this, some of the complexities of their personal informed and ablest in debate, who is nevertheless endlessly
relationships are also recounted, though in a heavily censored willing to give all the others the benefit of his time and under-
fashion. The third (La Force des choses, translated as Force of standing. With money too his “munificence was legendary”.
Circumstance) covers the years of their fame, of The Second Sex, She does not fail to mention his theatrical and musical gifts;
of political endeavour and disillusionment ending in the and “Torpor, somnolence, escapism, intellectual dodges and
trauma of the Algerian war, also describing some of their truces, prudence and respect were all unknown to him” He
personal history. abhors conformity but also the pursuit of novelty for its own
The final two volumes are of a different character. The sake. His ambitions to experience life are so comprehensive
fourth (Tout Compte Fait translated as All Said and Done) is that a note of irony creeps in when she recounts them, but she
more a series of episodic anecdotes and reflections than a is deadly serious when identifying “his true superiority over
memoir. The last, (La Cérémonie des Adieux translated as me” – the fact that he “lived in order to write” and that even
Conclusion
Although The Second Sex is the foundation document of
twentieth-century feminism it was not until late in life that
Beauvoir declared herself to be a feminist. Taking that step
however made no difference to her estimation of Sartre,
which never deviated, in essence, from what she had written
in the initial volume of her memoirs – she continued to regard
him to the end as the ‘dream companion’ of a lifetime, and by
all accounts never fully recovered from his death.
It is evident that the image presented in the memoirs is in
its details a very distorted picture, and not only on account of
the omissions which are in the nature of any record, or even
those which are deliberate concealments intended to mislead
the reader. The more significant distortion – though it might
be pleaded that such an outcome is intrinsic to any chronicle –
is that much, if not all, of the contingency in Sartre’s career
and in their relationship is edited out, and the result is a
literary artefact presented with a coherence and unity, a patina
of necessity, that could not possibly correspond to the
actuality.
Any outside observer taking into account both the memoirs
and other sources would be forced to the conclusion that
Sartre’s treatment of Beauvoir was less than principled. Apart
from taking advantage of all the unreciprocated organisational
assistance she accorded him, on no fewer than two occasions
he contemplated marrying one of his lovers (or would-be
lovers), promising to Beauvoir all the while that such a move
would not affect their essential relationship and eventually,
without informing her in advance, adopted one of them as his
daughter. Yet nowhere in the public record or interviews nor
in Beauvoir’s letters or diaries, does she regard his behaviour
as inexcusable.
A hostile critic could characterise this as Beauvoir
struggling to perpetuate the myth to which she had attached
her identity, but another interpretations is possible - namely
that the image presented in the memoirs reflects the basic
realities of Sartre’s life and their relationship, the deliberate
inaccuracies of which she took steps to see would be amended
at a later date.
Overall, the picture emerging from Beauvoir’s memoirs is
of a life which in spite of Sartre’s changes of political tack
formed – except in its last, short phase, which could
reasonably be attributed to waning mental powers – a unity in
a manner which is true for few individuals. Development is
recorded of course, but development along a logical pathway,
which does not reverse, or break with his earlier concepts (in
spite of his repudiations) but grows out of and incorporates
them. In the end perhaps, in spite of all the distortions,
lacunae and misleading trails, that picture is not untrue in
essence, not notably different from what is otherwise known
of the real Sartre – so far as that term has any meaning.
© WILLIE THOMPSON 2005
Willie Thompson is currently a visiting professor in History at
Northumbria University Newcastle; he has had a lifelong interest in
Sartre and his philosophy.
C
ommuter conversation normally amounts to The trigger for Anselm’s argument is a passage in Psalms
nothing much, or nothing at all. So what was (14:1; 53:1), about the ‘fool’ who “hath said in his heart,
my surprise when a sixth-grade teacher seated There is no God.” Nothing in the argument turns on the
next to me, seeing me red-penciling a paper, selection of this particular fool (any fool will do); but of
asked what it was, and hearing the word course, this is the one Anselm would most want to prove
‘philosophy,’ told me eagerly that his favorite philosophical wrong and foolish. Anselm actually provides two Ontological
topic is St Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Arguments, joined by a shared first premise – one for the
Smart guy, he picked the most intriguing of the attempted existence of God, the other for God’s necessary existence.
proofs of the existence of
God. Indeed, according First version:
to one claim the 1) Even the fool, on hearing the description “a
Ontological Argument has being than which none greater can be conceived,”
generated more philo- understands it. And whatever is understood exists
sophical debate than any in the understanding. Thus a being than which
other in history. And it none greater can be conceived exists in the under-
did indeed originate with standing even of the fool.
Anselm, abbot of Bec and 2) To exist in reality (in re), however, is greater than
later archbishop of to exist in the understanding alone (in intellectu).
Canterbury, in his Therefore, a being than which none greater can be
eleventh-century conceived exists in re as well as in intellectu.
Proslogion. Otherwise a greater being could be conceived than
Among its ups and a being than which none greater can be conceived,
downs, Duns Scotus and which is a contradiction.
St Bonaventure embraced
the argument, but Second version:
William of Ockham (of 1) Even the fool, on hearing the description “a
Ockham’s Razor) did not; being than which none greater can be conceived,”
nor did Thomas Aquinas, understands it. And whatever is understood exists
whose rejection was the in the understanding. Thus a being than which
scholastic kiss of death. none greater can be conceived exists in the under-
With the dawn of modern standing even of the fool.
philosophy, Descartes 2) But “it is possible to conceive of a being which
recreated and revived the cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater
argument, after which than one which can be conceived not to exist.”
Spinoza and Leibniz Therefore, a being than which none greater can be
added their versions of it. conceived cannot be conceived not to exist (exists
Even after Kant dealt the necessarily). Otherwise a greater being could be
argument a crushing blow St Anselm conceived than a being than which none greater
in the eighteenth century, can be conceived, which is a contradiction.
it resurfaced in a nineteenth-century Hegelian reformulation.
Bertrand Russell went from pro (1894) to con (1946). Objections from Gaunilo and Kant
Meanwhile, the argument attracted twentieth-century The earliest objection to Anselm’s argument, “On Behalf of
followers on the Continent, and in America, philosophers the Fool,” came from the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutier, and
Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm upheld the it was included in some manuscripts of the Proslogion, along
argument even in the face of the Positivist values-massacre. with Anselm’s reply. “Of God, or a being greater than all
Now apparently it is a hot topic among sixth-grade teachers. others,” Gaunilo contends, “I could not conceive at all, except
In a second objection,
Gaunilo posits a ‘Lost Island,’
abundant beyond anything ever
experienced. We can picture
this “most excellent” island, and
can accept that it exists in
intellectu; but we would hardly
say that it therefore exists in
reality.
Anselm counters that the
Ontological Argument can only
apply to God; and if anyone can
prove otherwise, Anselm will
personally find and give him (or her, I
suppose) that Lost Island. His thinking is based on the
second version of the argument, the notion that God cannot
be thought not to exist. This makes sense, because one of the
traditional distinctions between God and everything else is
that only God’s essence contains or entails existence; we would
Stephen Lahey
not say this of an island or mountain, no matter how
‘excellent’ or ‘great.’ But as we know, Gaunilo has already
testified that God can be thought not to exist. And Anselm’s
rejoinder here is lame indeed:
“If a being than which a greater is inconceivable is not understood or The Argument from Hubris
conceived, and is not in the understanding or in concept, certainly either Russell expressed what no doubt most people think, that “it
God is not a being than which a greater is inconceivable, or else he is not is easier to feel convinced that [the Ontological Argument]
understood or conceived, and is not in the understanding or in concept. must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the
But I call on your faith and conscience to attest that this is most false. fallacy lies.” There are three main points where a fallacy might
Hence…” occur: mid-way into the first premise, between understanding
the description and understanding the being described
It is Kant who christened Anselm’s argument ‘ontological,’ (Gaunilo’s first approach); at the second premise (Kant’s
and who provided the other most important objection to it – approach, and Gaunilo’s in the Lost Island objection); or at the
itself ontological in nature. His contention is that unlike ‘red’ very beginning, with the premise that the fool understands the
or ‘round,’ ‘exists’ is only a ‘logical,’ not a ‘real’ predicate. description “a being than which none greater can be
Pierre Gassendi anticipated Kant’s point in the seventeenth- conceived.” I think this is where Anselm (first) goes wrong, and
century by saying that “existence is a perfection neither in for a very simple reason, one I have not seen mentioned
God nor in anything else; it is rather that in the absence of elsewhere, although it is hard to believe that something so
which there is no perfection.” Existence, in short, is not a elementary could have escaped notice for a thousand years.
property or a quality. So it borders on a category mistake to Anselm is aware that a description or analysis will generally
say that existence in re is greater or more excellent than tell us more about a thing than just a name, and that he has
existence only in intellectu, or that existence is part of the cleverly chosen the particular hook on which he hangs his
essence or definition of God. argument.
M
any philosophers argue passionately about “…[nature] cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium,
questions that no one could possibly take either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation and lively
seriously in daily life. Is there a world impression of my senses, which obliterates all these chimeras. I dine, I
independent of my consciousness? Will play a game of back-gammon, and I am merry with my friends; and when
causal relations that have held in the past after three or four hours’ amusement, I wou’d return to these specula-
continue to hold in the future? Are other people conscious? tions, they appear so cold, and strain’d, and ridiculous, that I cannot find
Are people responsible for what they do? Is movement it in my heart to enter into them any farther.”
possible? Some conclude that we have no rational justifi-
cation to believe these things. Yet they go on acting just as At such times Hume finds himself “absolutely and neces-
they did before. They treat objects as if they exist when sarily determin’d to live, and talk, and act like other people in
unperceived, they treat other people as if they really do have the common affairs of life.” Thus reduced to this “indolent
feelings, they expect the future to resemble the past, they hold belief in the general maxims of the world” he is ready to
others responsible for what they do and so forth. In short, throw “all my books and papers into the fire, and resolve
they don’t put their money where their mouth is. So they never more to renounce the pleasures of life for the sake of
seem cowardly or dishonest. Either that or they live with reasoning and philosophy.”
contradictory beliefs and insist on having it both ways, a But this is more easily said than done. For as he tells us
flagrant violation of the philosopher’s blood oath forswearing shortly thereafter, he is also constitutionally disposed to doing
contradiction. Given this tawdry state of affairs, it is philosophy. When he is “tir’d with amusment and company
surprising that so few modern defenders of skepticism have and have indulg’d a reverie in my chamber or a solitary walk
anything interesting to say about how to live with or by a river-side” he is “naturally inclin’d to refin’d reflection.”
understand their skeptical conclusions. (Some Greek and And he’s not the only one. As he says, it is “almost impossible
Roman skeptics actually did try to live in conformity with for the mind of man to rest, like those of beasts, in that
their skeptical beliefs). narrow circle of objects, which are the subject of daily conver-
David Hume (1711-76), perhaps the greatest skeptic of sation and action.” Furthermore, without philosophy
them all, struggled valiantly with this conflict. According to ignorance and superstition rule and philosophy is preferable
Hume, we face a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, we to superstition “of every kind or denomination.”
must respect philosophical reasoning (or, as he calls it, “refin’d So we are left with the conflict. On the one hand, we can’t
reflection”). It is our only defense against ignorance, super- take the skeptical conclusions of philosophy seriously in
stition, and other beliefs governing daily life which, one and everyday life. On the other hand, we can’t help doing the
all, originate in ‘illusions of the imagination’. On the other kind of philosophy that generates those conclusions.
hand, we can’t run our lives on the conclusions of refin’d Furthermore, philosophy is the voice of reason and, as such,
reflection since our chief weapon against ignorance and superstition. So what
is to be done?
“…the understanding, when it acts alone, and according to its most For a start, it’s helpful to remember that philosophy is not
general principles, entirely subverts itself, and leaves not the lowest the only discipline in which there are conflicts between what
degree of evidence in any proposition, either in philosophy or common one says on the job and what one believes (how one acts) off
life.” [This and the following Hume quotes are from A Treatise of Human the job. Some behavioral psychologists denied that human
Nature, Book I, Part IV, section VII]. beings had feelings and emotions; others, more moderately,
denied that subjective experience had any impact on our
Midway through his discussion, Hume asserts that there is behavior (a view still widely held by contemporary psycholo-
no rational solution to this problem, but that we don’t need gists who believe that all the causal action is in the brain). But
one. Although reason makes no headway here, ‘nature’ seems I’m sure many of them explained surrendering to various
to solves the problem in favor of ‘common life.’ One can only temptations with sentences like “It felt so good. I just
entertain skeptical conclusions for so long before couldn’t resist” (without understanding such sentences tauto-
logically). Twentieth century sociologists of many persuasions
“Gentlemen of Athens, I am far from making a defence now on my own Socratic ‘human wisdom’ and the anti-hubristic
behalf, as you might think, but on yours: lest you do wrong to god’s gift to mission of the philosophical ‘gadfly’
you by condemning me. For if you kill me you will not easily find Untying this loose paradox requires understanding
another like me. Socrates’ mission of ‘human wisdom.’ He claims that the
“What’s likely, gentlemen, is that in reality it’s the god who is wise, and longstanding slander in the streets – that he’s an atheistic
that in this oracle he is saying that human wisdom is worth little or quack-scientist and sophist with no concern for truth or
nothing ... as if he were saying ‘he among you humans is wisest who, like tradition – is more dangerous than his formal accusers, and the
Socrates, knows that he’s really worth nothing when it comes to wisdom’.” main reason jurors might consider him guilty. Where did his
Socrates, in Plato’s Apology of Socrates 30e and 23ab reputation for being such a wiseguy come from? From a
misunderstanding, he says, of the one kind of wisdom that he
S
ocrates, a founding figure in both the aspirations and is willing to claim. It’s not scientific wisdom or rhetorical
the skepticism of Western philosophy, was convicted expertise, and it’s not the superhuman wisdom that would
and executed on charges of corrupting the youth by make us real teachers of genuine virtue: Socrates always denied
undermining Athenian traditions. The vote of the that he could teach these things. The only wisdom he’s willing
very large jury was fairly close: Plato reports that a to claim is what he calls ‘human wisdom,’ which is revealed to
switch of just 30 out of 500 votes would have produced an him cryptically through an oracle from Apollo.
acquittal. Some believe that Socrates could have spared his What is this human wisdom? Apparently, when an enthusi-
life if he had only been less arrogant at his trial. After all, astic admirer asked the oracle whether anyone was wiser than
Plato shows Socrates calling himself god’s gift to Athens, Socrates, the oracle said no. Socrates was puzzled, as he was
calling Athens a lazy horse who needs rousing by a philo- well aware that he had no special knowledge, yet he couldn’t
sophical gadfly, and suggesting that his ‘penalty’ for his believe that the god could lie or be mistaken. So he set out to
services should be free meals for life in city hall. (Apologia in discover what this riddling oracle could mean. He visited
Greek means a defense speech, not “I’m sorry”!) Indeed people with a reputation for moral wisdom, but he found that
Socrates must have sounded arrogant; another admirer, they didn’t really know what they thought they knew. He
Xenophon, tries to explain parts of Socrates’ defense by interviewed politicians, playwrights, and others with the same
claiming that Socrates wanted to die. In Plato’s more famous results: people always harbor inconsistencies in their beliefs
and more complete version (which is probably also more about the good life, and are unable to explain their beliefs in
accurate in spirit), Socrates defends his life in earnest and the light of Socrates’ searching questions. The more expertise
acknowledges that he must sound arrogant – but insists that he people claimed about the most important things in life –
is not. He turns the tables on his accusers by explaining that it justice, virtue and the best way to live – the less they could
is their arrogance, and their misunderstanding of his own justify their claims. Even the knowledge some people did
humble service to philosophy, which is responsible for his possess, like the art or science of their trades, was
being on trial. overshadowed by their mistaken belief that they were also
Could Socrates be right that his life of refuting others is qualified to tell people how they should live.
genuinely humble, and that his humble philosophical Eventually Socrates recognized his modest superiority: “it
questioning must appear arrogant to those who really are seems that neither of us knows anything great, but he thinks
arrogant? Or is he just cleverly trying to make a bad case seem he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not
strong with tricky arguments? That’s what his detractors know, neither do I think I know. So it seems I am wiser than
alleged for much of his life, and some say the same about he in this one small thing, that I do not think I know what I
philosophers today. I’ll try to explain how Socrates’ way of do not know.” This is the famous paradox that Socrates’
questioning could be both genuinely humble and naturally special wisdom consists in recognizing his ignorance.
open to the mistaken accusation of arrogance. (I use Plato’s Whereas others arrogantly think they know important things
portrait in his Socratic dialogues, which is the best we’ve got). that they don’t really know, he humbly acknowledges that he
Then I’ll consider a recent study of arrogance, and compare doesn’t know: “it’s the god who is wise, and in this oracle he is
Socrates’ style of questioning with some things that go by the saying ... ‘he among you humans is wisest who, like Socrates,
name of ‘Socratic Method’ today. knows that he’s really worth nothing when it comes to
T
he ideas in this article have their origin in a not change any of them until they had looked at at least five
difficulty I was having in teaching a course in cases. I did this because I anticipated that, when faced with
Ethics to my students. I wanted to put into practical cases, they would rapidly come to question the
action the idea that philosophy is something in merits of their original ideas.
which you actively participate and something Thus began a fairly exceptional experiment in what I’ll call
which can help you gain a greater understanding of your own ‘empirical’ philosophy. I realised that what I’d got was a kind
ideas. At the same time, I wanted to introduce my class to of philosophical laboratory in which I could test an important
some of the major perspectives in moral philosophy in a way hypothesis. I hoped we might be able to demonstrate the
which would help them appreciate their various strengths and possibility of a liberal ideal; that people of different cultures,
points of conflict. It occurred to me that the best way of genders, class backgrounds etc, might be able to come to
doing this was to build on a thought experiment suggested by some kind of workable consensus of core values. Indeed,
the American philosopher, John Rawls. from Rawls’ perspective, such a consensus, attained between
Rawls, famously, suggested what he called ‘the original ideally rational agents, is what constitutes moral knowledge.
position’ – an imagined situation in which disembodied souls Most of my students thought some principle about
consider the requirements of a just society while waiting, in a ‘preventing suffering’ was very important and several of them
state of ignorance about their eventual identities and charac- considered it to be the most important principle of all. In
teristics, to be born into the world. Rawls hoped that his philosophy, this is what is called a ‘consequentialist’ moral
thought experiment would enable us to see past our particular viewpoint because it suggests that the intended or foreseeable
interests as people with specific identities (e.g. ‘white’ and consequences of our actions are the most important criteria
‘male’) so that we could consider the principles which would for deciding if an action is morally permissible or not.
govern a truly just and fair society. The problem with this point of view, as my new Supreme
Rawls’ thought experiment was controversial for several Court found out when they were faced with ‘real life’ cases,
reasons but one was that it seemed, in a way, implausible, to was that it tended to lead to consequences with which they
his critics, to ask us to distance ourselves from any specific were not at all happy. I gave them one dilemma to consider
cultural values we might hold. Thus, one of the many in which they had to decide if they should allow involuntary
criticisms levelled at Rawls by philosophers was that the euthanasia in the case of a man who was ignorant of his own
demands placed upon his participants were psychologically terminal condition, in great pain and terrified of death. In
implausible; the abstract, rational, individual that he imagines my fictional case, the man’s family had asked that he be
is no individual at all. administered a lethal dose of painkillers under the pretence
that it was a routine jab.
The Experiment The students thought that this would be a gross
Reflecting on Rawls’ ideas, it struck me that I could give infringement of what they called the man’s ‘human rights’ but
his thought experiment an empirical twist and do so without felt obliged to accept that it would be the best way to
requiring any psychologically implausible efforts on the part minimise suffering. This case highlights a very important
of my students. I asked them to play the role of a new UK problem with consequentialist moral positions and that is that
Supreme Court which would rule on the merits of a series of there are other things, apart from their consequences, which
cases. However, before the court could start looking at we recognise as making our actions right or wrong. This was
specific cases, it had the additional job of selecting, in order of the viewpoint taken by those of the students who placed a
priority, the principles it would be using to judge the merits of principle about ‘respecting the autonomy of autonomous
each case. In other words, I asked the members of the court beings’ at the top of their ‘constitutions’.
to begin by writing their own ‘constitution’. I provided a Various versions of this principle are at the heart of what
series of possible principles and gave the students time to are called ‘deontological’ moral theories. Deontological
debate their merits and order them. However, I stipulated theories begin from the premise that some actions, such as
that, once they had settled on a set of principles, they could deciding for another rational being that it would be better for
I
n Issue 50 of Philosophy Now, an article by Ian Dungate without UN approval,
called ‘The Aquinas Inquiry,’ imagined the reactions of thus he let neither moral
certain medieval philosophers to the invasion of Iraq. hang-ups, nor diplomatic
The panel, led by St Thomas Aquinas, used six criteria niceties stand in the way.
to determine whether the invasion could be morally However Richelieu,
justified; unfortunately for Blair and Bush, they ruled that it drawing on his
could not. While the conclusions of the Aquinas Inquiry may experiences in the Thirty
be comforting to some people, others who do not follow the Years War, might object
idealistic tenets of medieval Christianity may feel that what that merely taking action
Aquinas and company had to say was irrelevant. After all, a lot doesn’t necessarily prove
has changed in the last 700 years, and that includes percep- that one is not blinded by
tions of morality. ideology. For example, he
May I offer an alternative to the Aquinas panel – the might say, Ferdinand II of
Machiavelli panel, consisting of Niccolò Machiavelli, Cardinal the Holy Roman Empire
Richelieu, Klemens von Metternich, and Otto von Bismarck. turned down highly
These four statesmen are famous for basing their calculations favorable peace terms in
not on high-minded principles, but on the cold-blooded calcu- order to continue fighting
lations of Realpolitik. Though the word Realpolitik has been the Protestant heretics. It
confused and abused, and was not even popularized until after was a catastrophic
the deaths of three of our panelists, it roughly means that the decision for his Empire.
measured acquisition of power is the best way of assuring the Though Bush may not
survival of the state. It is not idealistic in outlook; it is have been inhibited by
realistic. Since this typifies the strategies of our panel popular morality, could
members, they are uniquely qualified to offer a second ‘neoconservative’ ideology
perspective on the war in Iraq. Even if they concede the have caused him to act
findings of the Aquinas inquiry, it doesn’t mean that they rashly when moderation
would have ultimately disagreed with Bush. What they will was in the best interests of
seek to find is whether the war and how it was initiated were the US? One possible
in the best interests of the United States. Did Bush analyze clue that Bush was
things in a sober way? Did his actions before the outbreak of addicted to ideology was
hostilities maximize the US’s chances for success? his seemingly unwavering
The panel members have pondered such matters deeply, belief that Iraq possessed
written copiously, and on top of that, have had a great deal of a large arsenal of weapons
experience putting their theories into practice (more than can of mass destruction.
be said for our first panel!). Though there are no clear-cut Despite the fact that Han
criteria like the Aquinas panel enjoyed, they are sufficiently Blix and his team of
crafty to put together six new criteria. Let’s review each, point inspectors had found no
by point, to see if Bush made decisions that would advance US ‘smoking gun,’
interests. neoconservatives said that
people were only living
1) Was utility placed above ideology? Personal with a false sense of
religious beliefs, prejudices, loyalties etc. must not inhibit security if they doubted
action or reduce flexibility. The first thing our panelists must the existence of these
judge is whether Bush allowed such things as international law weapons. Since the
or his own professed devotion to Christianity to stand in the resulting invasion found
way of an action that probably runs counter to both. On the no weapons it can be
surface it appears quite simple – he launched a destructive war argued that Bush was
Criminality and Cannabis at un.org) on the CIA World Factbook Or how many ideas can be stored in a
DEAR EDITOR: Robert Davies’ critique website. Doing this reveals that 17.8% cupboard?
of arguments against the legalization of (34 states out of 191) of UN members Hey! Great magazine and lucky for
cannabis, in Issue 51, made some excel- are not democratic, but are monarchies, me I’ve discovered it!
lent points with which I agree. It’s on dictatorships, communist states, transi- JOE GOERKE
the matter of danger being the criterion tional, or ‘broken democracies’ (unreli- LESMURDIE
for illegality that I wish to comment. able voting results). The widespread use WESTERN AUSTRALIA
The assessment of risk involved in of inaccuracies like these to defame the
certain acts, it seems to me, is no valid only democratic international institution
standard by which to measure crimi- we have is worrying to say the least. The Natural Basis of Ethics
nality. Also, if acts should be banned by HENNING STRANDIN DEAR EDITOR: Tim Madigan’s article in
virtue of their being dangerous, then a STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN Issue 51 explaining the scientific basis of
whole host of other risky behaviors, morality is excellent in presenting argu-
(including mountain climbing, skiing, ments against a supernatural basis. It
and sky diving) should suffer a similar Triads and Empiricists could have been stronger in arguing for
fate to that of heroin. DEAR EDITOR: I think there are exactly a natural one. I disagree with one of his
When merely dangerous, consensual 10 kinds of philosophers: Those that fundamental arguments, “The capacity
acts are lumped together with neces- understand binary notation and those to care for others is the bedrock of all of
sarily coercive and damaging ones, the that don’t. our moral systems.” This is only true if
concept of criminality becomes diluted JOHN RADCLIFFE morality deals strictly with one’s treat-
and the bright line between otherwise BY EMAIL ment of others.
tolerable acts and intolerable ones Any observer of nature cannot help
becomes blurred. but notice that self-preservation is the
What then is intolerable? There are Angels and Pinheads primary motivation of all sentient
certain acts which are illegal every- DEAR EDITOR: My daughter bought me beings. This tells me it must also be the
where: Worldwide you will find, in my first ever copy of Philosophy Now – bedrock of all moral systems.
some jurisdictions, nudist colonies, but March/April 2005 – and I was once In Ayn Rand’s ethics, caring for
no rapist colonies. You can find legal again struck by that superficial descrip- others is part of one’s own rational self
heroin, but no legal homicide. tion of medieval philosophy’s so called interest. Violation of trust and ‘faking
A rough but reasonable rule of thumb obsession with “How many Angels can reality’ are not. Indeed, the primates do
for toleration might be: If an act is non dance on the point of a needle?” This have the requisites for moral behavior.
coercive and legal anywhere, it should denigration of the great depth and Humans have superior ability to grasp
be legal everywhere. wisdom of the scholastics needs to be and communicate the reasons for
In short, shooting up and happy hour challenged. I recall the simple wisdom morality, including the fact that all
have a lot more in common with of Selwyn Grave, Professor of moral choices can be tied back to a
jumping out of airplanes and skiing than Philosophy at the University of Western single guiding principle that nature
they do with robbery, rape and murder. Australia in the 1960’s, who commented provided and we do not need to be
What’s dangerous here is the on how this question raised the issue of ashamed of.
employment of the ‘dangerous’ standard the relationship between corporeal and I have taught my children a guiding
in determining criminality. spiritual realities. principle that serves well in every situa-
ROBERT KRAFT Why do we need to trivialise the tion and eliminates every apparent social
CHICAGO, IL debate with a superficial dismissal of the dilemma when reasoned through.
profundity of the real question? Are we Whenever they come to me with a
afraid of what the scholastics achieved, problem, I ask, “What is the guiding
The United Nations or of their refinement of logic and their principle in life?” Caitlyn, 9-years old,
DEAR EDITOR: Richard Winston gift to science or simply because we are answers, “Do what’s best for Caitlyn.”
claimed in the June/July edition of so limited in our own understanding? If She understands and lives out this prin-
Philosophy Now that “a vast majority of we looked to Quantum Mechanics and ciple, and so does my grown-up
[United Nations] member states are the mysteries of entities that both are daughter. They are two of the sweetest,
dictatorships.” This is a much repeated and are not at the same time, maybe we most empathetic human beings I’ve ever
but completely false claim. It’s easy could appreciate that the medievalists known.
enough to check the form of govern- were also grappling with questions like JOE HEWLETT
ment of each member state (list available how many muons can fit into a quark? RIDGECREST, CALIFORNIA
who do not believe that there is any the intentionally false utterance, of
On Bullshit (objective) truth, thus departing from the course). These elements may be added to
by Harry Frankfurt ideal of correctness. Now, Frankfurt does the condition of the bullshitter’s indiffer-
not mention the word ‘postmodern’ at all ence to the ideal of truth. Then again, can
in his book (which is a good thing, I we be certain that to identify utterances as
HARRY FRANKFURT, a think), but to some extent the last pages bullshit in any given situation necessarily is
moral philosopher, starts may be understood to be a critical punch connected to an understanding of the bull-
this little book with the on a postmodern rejection of the ideal of shitter’s indifference to the truth?
following observation: “One of the most the truth. Be this as it may, when a person Needless to say, there are numerous
salient features of our culture is that there rejects the notion of being true to the facts problems which may be expanded, looked
is so much bullshit.” He then proceeds to and turns instead to an ideal of being true into and analysed concerning bullshit.
develop a theoretical understanding of to their own substantial and determinate And I dare say that Frankfurt’s little book
bullshit – what it is, and what it is not. nature, then according to Frankfurt this is a nice starting point.
Aspects of the bullshit problem are sincerity is bullshit. © PETTER A. NAESSAN 2005
discussed partly with reference to the Bullshit seems to be defined largely Petter Naessan is a PhD student in linguistics
Oxford English Dictionary, Wittgenstein negatively, that is, as not lying. Frankfurt’s at the University of Adelaide
and Saint Augustine. Three points seem discussion – which he admits is not likely
especially important – the distinction to be decisive – reveals that there is • On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt, Princeton
between lying and bullshitting, the nothing really distinctive about bullshit University Press (2005). £6.50/$9.95
question of why there is so much bullshit when it comes to either the form or pp.67.ISBN: 0691122946
in the current day and age, and a critique meaning of utterances. It is predominantly
of sincerity qua bullshit. about the intention and disregard for truth
Frankfurt makes an important distinc- of the bullshitter. How then do we discern Existentialism
tion between lying and bullshitting. Both bullshit from other types of speech
edited by
the liar and the bullshitter try to get away behaviour? Is it really possible to accu-
Robert C. Solomon
with something. But ‘lying’ is perceived to rately know the values (or lack thereof)
be a conscious act of deception, whereas involved when a person speaks?
‘bullshitting’ is unconnected to a concern Probably not. One may have some THIS IS AN eclectic
for truth. Frankfurt regards this ‘indiffer- intuition that certain utterances constitute collection of extracts, as
ence to how things really are’, as the bullshit. Frankfurt does not provide any befits the decision of the
essence of bullshit. Furthermore, a lie is answers here, but one could perhaps editor, Robert C. Solomon, not to define
necessarily false, but bullshit is not – suggest that the ‘cooperative principle’ of ‘existentialism’ tightly. Existentialism is
bullshit may happen to be correct or H.P. Grice (1913-1988) might provide undoubtedly tricky to define, but Solomon
incorrect. The crux of the matter is that some further food for thought within the must have had something in mind when he
bullshitters hide their lack of commitment emerging field of bullshitology (as I would put together this collection other than just
to truth. Since bullshitters ignore truth like to call the scientific study of bullshit). following what people habitually call ‘exis-
instead of acknowledging and subverting Grice, in his 1975 book Logic and tentialism’. At any rate, it includes those
it, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than Conversation, outlined a number of under- philosophical giants most associated with
lies. lying principles (‘maxims’) that are existentialism – Kierkegaard, Nietzsche,
Having established the grave danger of assumed by people engaged in conversa- Heidegger, Jaspers, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty
bullshit, Frankfurt’s next step is to ask why tion. Speakers and listeners assume that – as well as slightly less famous philoso-
there is so much bullshit around. The the others abide by certain, predominantly phers similarly implicated – de Unamuno,
main answer to this is that bullshit is unstated, speech norms. The cooperative Marcel, de Beauvoir, Hazel Barnes, Martin
unavoidable when people are convinced principle can be divided more specifically Buber, Paul Tillich, Keiji Nishitani, Colin
that they must have opinions about “events into the maxims of quantity, quality, rele- Wilson, Viktor Frankl – and finally those
and conditions in all parts of the world”, vance, and manner. For bullshitological whose existentialist credentials are
about more or less anything and every- purposes, the violation of the maxims embedded in more literary genres –
thing – so they speak quite extensively would appear to be relevant. So if utter- Turgenev, Dostoyevsky, Hesse, Rilke,
about things they know virtually nothing ances convey not enough or too much Kafka, Camus, Márquez, Beckett, Borges,
about. Frankfurt is non-committal as to information (quantity), are intentionally Pinter, Heller, Roth, Miller.
whether there is more bullshit around now false or lack evidence (quality), are irrele- Going where angels, and even
than before, but he maintains that there is vant to any current topic or issue (rele- Solomon, fear to tread, I shall take a stab
currently a great deal. vance), and are obscure, ambiguous, at defining existentialism. The core of
There is an interesting problem unnecessarily wordy or disorderly existentialism is a recognition of
sketched at the end of the book, wherein (manner), they would seem to qualify, inescapable personal responsibility. It
sincerity is described as an ideal for those although not necessarily, as bullshit (minus involves the realisation that the human
Down
Across
5 An added four inches makes utilitarian an industrial 13 Place for a paradoxical 18. (4)
worker! (4-4) 14 Sailors join us in home of a Stoic 18. (6)
7 2001 computer held by backward set, one believing 16 Cow Island. (6)
everything comes from water. (6) 18 Adze not embedded in philosopher? No, the opposite. (4)
9 Where is encyclopaedist from Seville hidden? In Paris, I 19 Philosopher from Asine. Or Chios? Or Gadara? Or
do reckon. (7) Miletus? (9)
10 South wind could be initially an unusually strong 22 A man’s better half might have trouble with this? (6)
typhoon, extremely rough. (6) 23 Run, rascal queen! (7)
11 Presumed enemy loses prey and reverses into founder of 25 Very large flower for Egyptian god. (6)
Eretrian school. (9) 26 Miners hesitation consumed can do maths. (8)
(see p.49 for solution)
“I’ll be your mirror/Reflect what you are/In case put so much emphasis on the power of begin to get on each other’s nerves. A
you don’t know” – The Velvet Underground theater to bring ideas alive, it is nice to strange, unfulfilled attraction sets in –
know that his plays are still considered Estelle wants a relationship with Garcin,
or over twenty years now I have worthy of presentation. primarily because he is the only man
Crossword No.7
Solution
(See page 47 for the questions)
Philosophy Now has been published ever since the late 20th century
– 1991 to be exact. Given its vast antiquity, it is hardly surprising
that we’re often asked for back issues which have long since sold
out. However, we now have a solution – we’ve put our first forty
issues onto two CDs. The CDs will work equally well on Mac and PC,
and when opened on your computer screen will look pretty much
like the pages in the original magazines.
Volume 1: Issues 01-20 UK£15 US$23 Can$43 Aus$44 NZ$47 RoW£17
Volume 2: Issues 21-40 UK£15 US$23 Can$43 Aus$44 NZ$47 RoW£17
Both volumes: UK£25 US $40 Can$75 Aus$77 NZ$83 RoW£30
Please select from the options below: Please select from the options below:
• I’d like to subscribe to Philosophy Now for 6 issues, • I’d like to subscribe to Philosophy Now for 6 issues,
starting with Issue 53/Issue 54. (Delete as appropriate). starting with #53/#54 (delete as appropriate) at a cost of
only $28.00, a savings of $7.94 compared to the newsstand
UK £12.75 Australia Aus $44
price.
Canada Can $41 Europe £14.50
New Zealand NZ $49 Rest of World £18.50 • I’d like to buy the Philosophy Now Back Issues CD
Volume 1/Volume 2/Both volumes.
• I’d like to buy the Philosophy Now Back Issues CD
Volume 1/Volume 2/Both volumes. • I’d like to buy the following paper back issues:
______________________________________
• I’d like to buy the following paper back issues:
______________________________________ • I’d like to buy ___ binders to hold my back issues.
• I’d like to buy ___ binders to hold my back issues. TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE: $_______
TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE: _________ Please make your check payable to ‘Philosophy Documentation Center’
or fill in your credit card details below:
Please make your cheque payable to ‘Philosophy Now’ or fill in your
credit card details below: Mastercard /Visa? Expiry_______ Name on card___________________
Card no.
Mastercard /Visa? Expiry______ Name on card___________________
Card no. and send it to:
Philosophy Documentation Center,
and send it to: Philosophy Now Subscriptions P.O. Box 7147,
Kelvin House, Grays Road, Charlottesville, VA 22906-7147
Westerham, Kent TN16 2JB,
United Kingdom
(You can also order by phone on 800-444-2419)
by Joel Marks.
Philosophical Prestidigitation
B ack in Issue 48 I wrote about my fascination with vision.
There is much more to say. I left off with the tantalizing
suggestion that everything that we see is in some sense ‘in our
the very existence of a material world beyond our own mental
experience (as the classical idealists, such as Bishop Berkeley,
did).
mind.’ This was a version of the Argument from Illusion. A But consider this argument. Imagine a nice red apple.
simple example is this. You are experiencing a visual illusion, Now there seems to be no question at all of this being a
such as the shaken pencil that appears to be rubbery. Suppose physical apple, because this is something you have just
you see me performing this trick. You see the ‘rubbery summoned up in your mind. You could even have your eyes
pencil,’ which you know is in fact a rigid pencil (although the closed. If you know anything for certain, it is that there is an
illusion can be convincing enough to make you doubt your image of an apple in the universe ... even if everything else,
knowledge, which after all could be false if I had been trying including your own body, should prove to be hallucinatory.
to fool you all along). But let’s say it really is rigid. Now let me ask you a simple question: Is that ‘apple’ red?
But what is the ‘it’ that is rigid? The pencil itself, of course. At first it seemed simple enough to assert that it is not an
But what are you seeing? What you are seeing is decidedly apple; there is no piece of fruit inside your skull. But why,
flexible, not rigid. So it seems natural to conclude that what then, are you so sure that there is anything red there?
you are seeing is not the pencil at all, but only a visual image Well, you say, the redness is not inside my skull – no more
of the pencil. Such an image used to be called a ‘sense datum’ than is the ‘apple’. Both are in my mind, which, being by
in philosophical circles. definition non-physical, is not located anywhere in physical
Now, the ‘So’ in the preceding paragraph may also be a space, including inside my skull.
little sleight of hand, since its logic is suspect. Since the word Curious that the apple image should reside in time,
is so small, however, it is easy to slip it into the magician’s though, is it not? That is, you are experiencing it right now
patter and make you think you have concluded something and not an hour earlier or later; but is not time also a physical
significant. Anyhow, the Argument from Illusion proceeds. phenomenon?
Since the pencil you are seeing is not a pencil at all but an More directly to the point: What is red; that is, redness? If
image of a pencil, then we suddenly face the peculiar problem: we take the redness of an apple as paradigmatic, then is it not
What is holding the pencil? natural to infer that the color is a quality of the apple – that is,
Why, my hand, of course. My hand looks its normal self – of a real, physical apple? In other words, the very notion of red
no fluid hand where there should be a solid one, for instance. is something we know about from acquaintance with the
Yet, the hand is holding a pencil that isn’t there ... and there surface of a physical object; it is, perhaps, a particular chemical
does not appear to be any gap – visual or real – between the composition of a particular substance that alters incoming
pencil in the hand and the hand itself. So ... might not one ‘white’ light in such a way as to emit radiation that then
conclude that the hand you see is also not a hand, but just the impinges on the light-sensitive cells of our retinae and
image of a hand? ultimately activates the optic cortex in such a way that we have
If so, then it’s a short hop of inference to conclude that a certain experience that we have learned to label ‘red’. Yes?
everything you, or anyone, ever sees is the content of one’s If that is so, then it is clear that there is no red image in
own mental experience and not a part of the physical world at your mind at all right now, because there is (presumably) no
all. Indeed, I can make you disappear – that is, cease to exist in apple skin, or anything comparable, inside your skull respon-
the material world – simply by touching you with my hand! sible for the experience you are having when you summon up
For if my hand – that is, the visual image of the hand that you a red apple in imagination. Presto! No red apple (image)!
see – is not ‘really there’ in the physical world, then – just as And by analogous argument, no mental apple at all.
the imaginal pencil ‘infected’ the hand with its immateriality – What there is, then, is some sort of brain event, no doubt
so the hand in turn can infect you (that is, your body) with its! comparable to the event in your optic cortex when you are
(This traveling infection reminds me of the dreaded Ice seeing a real red apple (or bloody dagger) before you.
Nine in Kurt Vonnegut’s novel, Cat’s Cradle. I will not spoil So much for philosophical prestidigitation. Let me end by
the ending of the book for those of you who have not read it noting that vision, even if purely physical, still contains magic
by revealing the details of this analogy.) – real magic, if I may use that term. For example, when you
But now let me reverse the trick with a continuation of this look at the Andromeda Nebula on a clear, moonless night,
visual dialectic. This time I will make the image itself vanish with only your naked eyes you can literally see 14 trillion
from existence and leave in its place the good old physical miles into the distance and two million years into the past.
world. The previous demonstration would seem to have © JOEL MARKS 2005
established that certainty resides in our own (in this case, Joel Marks is Professor of Philosophy at the University of New
visual) experience. It might even be possible to doubt or deny Haven in West Haven, Connecticut. www.moralmoments.com
Dear Sally, two years furrow her brow in frustration: “Is this it for us?
My girlfriend and I have been together six years. She has The end of the line, as you Americans say?”
recently returned to college. I am a blue collar guy who barely Ginger sat up. “I don’t have a choice.”
graduated high school. She’s asked me to read a book that she says is Elizabeth sat up also. She kissed Ginger’s shoulder. “Yes
very special to her. However, this book – Being and Nothingness you do. Your land is the land of the free isn’t it?”
by Jean-Paul Sartre – is written in some kind of fancy, Einstein “Not for people like me.”
language. Any advice? Later, on the road, Ginger cruised comfortably through
Rocco, Brooklyn, NYC border control. For the past year she’d regularly made the
journey from Texas into Mexico and back again. Ginger tried
R
occo read the letter again. Of course, he’d read it fifty to imagine what the Dog and Pony Show would really be like.
times that week, just amazed at the fact his words were She had a nun fetish and hoped the women, who belonged to
printed in a national magazine. Up until then his some wacky Catholic sect, wore the full sisters’ robes. But it
proudest moment had been making a ninety thousand dollar didn’t really make a difference, as Ginger had missed her
tribute payment to Anthony Sciorra, the most feared of all the opportunity.
New York bosses. But that morning was different. After Ginger turned on the radio. As the hour struck four, the
hearing the news, Rocco thought immediately about Marcia. news headlines were broadcast. Jean-Paul Sartre had died.
She would be heartbroken. Seeing as she’d left early for
college, Rocco scribbled a note: “Heard about JPS. Gone to •••••
Houston on business. Back in a couple days. Love, R.”
Driving to Numchucks, a wiseguy bar downtown, Rocco By the time the taxi arrived outside her parents’ home,
shook his head as the news of Sartre’s death was read out over Ginger had decided not to travel to Washington. The whole
the radio. Inside, he broke the news to the others. intern thing was a sham. Her father was a judge, her uncle a
“Jean-Paul who?” said Paulie, scrunching up his face. “Was senator. She wasn’t prepared to be just another spoilt rich kid
he a friend of ours?” prancing around Capitol Hill. Packing her bag, she thought
about calling Elizabeth. But Elizabeth liked surprises.
••••• Walking round the family home, Ginger thought about her
parents and siblings
It was dusk. Ginger trotted briskly in the direction of the having a great time
small tent, tucked away at the very backend of San Forda. in LA, on vacation –
Suddenly, a hand appeared out of the darkness and grabbed without her. She
Ginger’s wrist. particularly hated
“You don’t know what’s in there. It’s awful,” pleaded the grand family
Elizabeth. portraits. Why had
“That’s why I want to go.” Ginger wrestled free of she smiled on those
Elizabeth and stepped up to the entrance of the tent. occasions?
A man stood charging thirty pesos to see the show. “No no Sometimes she
no. No ladies allowed.” hated herself for
The man noticed Elizabeth standing in the shadows. He such things.
spoke to her in Spanish. Ginger realised Elizabeth was apolo- Inside the cab,
gising on her behalf. Eventually, Elizabeth dragged Ginger Ginger noticed the
away by the hand. Behind them they heard heavy tribal book sitting on the
drumming coming from the tent as the Dog and Pony Show cab driver’s
began. dashboard –
“He said if he’d let us in the police would close them Understanding
down,” Elizabeth later told Ginger. Sartre.
They were lying next to each other on Elizabeth’s bed. “Didn’t he just
Ginger stroked Elizabeth’s hair as she watched her lover of die?”
•••••
The final two days it still hurt to breathe, but Jean-Paul didn’t
feel the pain. Not only was he being kept comfortable in his coma,
Philosophy Now
Binders
but he really was somewhere else entirely. It was a huge tent made
from blood-red sheets. It was night. Light came from a huge fire in
the centre. Round this fire was a stage on which women, some of
whom were dressed as nuns, performed a variety of sex-acts with
animals (mostly dogs, goats and horses) for the entertainment of an
audience. Jean-Paul was sat amongst the crowd, which encircled the
stage.
But it went on for days… A never-ending series of sexually-gross
performances. Eventually bored, Jean-Paul stood up and walked in
the direction of the exit, but was blocked by a large man who
guarded the exit and refused to let anybody past. Jean-Paul
shrugged and sat back amongst the audience. So this, he realised,
was death. He noticed that he no longer had any bodily concerns: he
grew no hair, never needed to piss, at one point realised he wasn’t
even breathing, didn’t need to sleep or eat, had no compulsion to
smoke or do speed… After the first couple of weeks, a girl across on
the other side of the tent sparked Jean-Paul’s interest. Less
Spanish-looking than everyone else (except himself) and the only
woman in the audience, she had bullet wound traumas to her head Do you yearn to acquire an air of gracious living? To
and chest, a suitcase at her side, and her eyes constantly searched the escape the swamp of clutter that threatens to engulf you?
crowd for something or someone she would, Jean-Paul presumed, Tidy away all those essential back issues of Philosophy Now
ultimately never find. – store them in our smart green binders. Each holds 12
© MARK RICHARDSON 2005
magazines securely and in style.
Mark Richardson is a final-year undergraduate in Philosophy at the
University of Dundee. For details of how to order, please see page 50.