The Basis of an Argument

In the Judeo-Christian bible, there is the parable of two men. Both men wanted to build a house. One man decided to build his house on the sandy shores of the sea whilst the other decided to build it on the rocks just back from the beach. Later, when a storm came (I assume it must have been a storm otherwise the story would make no sense), the waves crashed in and eroded the foundations of the house built on the sand. As the house fell apart, sinking into the sand, the man was seen writing an angry letter to his local politician to blame them for his misfortune. We know that he did this because the other man, the man who built his house on the rocks, watched it happening from the safety of his house as the waves crashed against the foundations and made no impact (pun intended). One might question why he did nothing to help his neighbour but that’s a story for another day.

The parable, although one cannot say for certain what it means, bears an interesting parallel when we look at it in light of how one makes an argument.  An argument is often a declaration of belief- I think this, therefore it is true, thusly my argument will be an attempt to assert what I believe to be true. What few people do is question the validity of their beliefs. Is what I believe true? Or in other words, are the foundations of my beliefs true, and does this effect that validity of my argument? We can assume that if the foundations of an argument are erroneous then the argument will likely be also. For example, if I were to say, if I jump off a wall I will fly, I can jump off the wall and gravity and the floor will quickly nudge me that I may be wrong. But what about other beliefs and arguments.

Today, we will look at two and consider the validity of the argument.

1. There is a God

For many the belief that there is a God stems from Holy Scripture. For the sake of simplification, we will refer to only Christianity and the Bible although this is relevant for all religions.

The argument is as follows: The Bible says X, Y and Z and is literal ergo there is a God

The counter argument is as follows: The Bible says X, Y and Z and cannot be literal ergo there is no God.

The third argument goes: The Bible says X, Y and Z and it may be literal ergo thusly it may be true

As we can see, all three arguments stem from the same foundation- whether or not the Bible is literal. This is ironic for one of the main points of contention for Atheists (those who believe that there is no God) is that the Bible must be read literally and ergo cannot be true. The irony in this is that all three arguments are stemming their foundations on the notion that the Bible can be literal or not. Even arguments such as, how can there be suffering is there is a God?, stems from a literal interpretation of the Bible for it makes the assumption that if there is a God then he must be as described by the Bible- a man who likes to interfere in the lives of mortals (us), just as the gods of antiquity did. Not once does one consider if maybe the literalness of the Bible, a book written to try to understand that which cannot be understood, i.e. life, should not be thought of as the proof or no of the existence of a God, rather take it for what it is, mostly a mythos to try to understand life. Then one can consider that maybe God is something greater than what can be understood and inscribed in blood and flesh. If one follows these arguments, one can see that just as the man building his house on the sand, the foundation of the argument is not firm and any attempt to dispute it is met with, usually in my experience, hostility, passive or other.

For the second argument we will look at is the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

It is common to see Palestinian flags in Western countries flown by people who describe themselves as Muslim or Liberal. Indeed, the Israeli flag is considered to be a mark of conservatism and capitalism. To provide a brief background on the issue; during the second world war, whilst it was known that Hitler et al were committing genocide to, amongst others, Jewish people, the West stood back and did nothing. After the war, the Jewish people (because you can generalise like that…), were offered their own sovereign state and thusly Israel (meaning Wrestles with God, which is a pretty cool name for a country) was created. At the same time that the Jews were without a home, so were the Palestinians. They would travel from door to door (country) and get turned away by those who now ‘stand’ with them. When Israel was created, the Palestinians were offered their own state, which they declined. And thusly a two-state solution fell down and led to conflict, the conflict that we know of now which is far to complex for anyone, especially me, to understand. However, the arguments  one hears seems to stem from:

        1)Palestinians are victims and/or Muslim, therefore Israel is evil

2)Israel has the right to defend itself

Both of these arguments are very superficial and are void of context. Both Palestine and Israel fire rockets into each other, killing children. It seems for those of argument 1, Israeli children’s lives are worth less that Palestinian child lives. This, if one steps back and looks at it in the cold light of day (an odd phrase) is absurd for all lives are equal and one’s politics and religion have nothing to do with the value of life, no matter what people would have you believe. And for argument 2, yes Israel has the right to defend itself, but not at the cost of innocent lives. The actions which take place are mostly those of governments and so if people want change to come about surely they should unite and join with both sides to protest the governments to bring real change?

 However, the real problems are those which are ignored. That it was us who let the Jews wander, persecuted, that it was us who turned away the Palestinians, not caring if they were fellow Muslims or not, when they were on their knees. Thusly, the arguments one hears on this issue are built on sand and thusly no solution can be found. If and once people admit that they are to blame for the beginning of the situation then maybe a solution can be found. There are enough Islamic countries in the region, why not offer food and medicine? Why not offer somewhere for them to live? After all, for many it is their faith that binds you! Yet, as with all of these things, as with all of these arguments, it is self-interest which determines actions and until we as species have the guts to say, maybe what I believe is true for me, but maybe the foundation of my belief is wrong- not doubt God but rather doubt my ability to conceptualise through language that which cannot be known- our world cannot raise itself up and unnecessary suffering will continue.

‘till next time                     

The Need for Nuance in Arguments

The other day, a teacher was in the news for expressing that there may be more than one side to the Holocaust, the name given to the genocide of the Jews, disabled, gypsies et al., by the Nazi party and those around during World War II. (Note: I will be referring to the Holocaust as Genocide because the word Holocaust originally referred to a burnt offering to God in Judaism and the events to which we are referring are in no way, shape of form, in service to a God or sanctified as an offering to something greater than us, mere humans. Rather, it was the actions of humans on humans- never forget that.)

The backlash was inevitable. A member of the educational board had to come out to defend the teacher, drawing condemnation unto their self. Reading this story I noted that, sure, there is only one absolute law, as we have mentioned in these pages before, do no unnecessary harm, and in the terms of absolute objective law  the genocide was absolutely evil and completely unnecessary, however, even through there is one absolute ‘side’, there are a myriad of perspectives.

We think of the genocide as a series of Walt Disney (see what I did there?) caricatures and Jungian Archetypes with blackened silhouettes and glowing eyes (interesting how few Disney villains are white, eh, Walt?) but when reality they were just people like you and me. You might think that there is no way that I could do that! And hopefully you are right, however, in his brilliant book, a book which blew my mind so much I refer back to its lessons years later, The Nazi Doctors: The Medical Killings and the Psychology of Genocide, R J Lifton speaks of ‘doubling’. Doubling is a psychological method which one does often to deceive their self. For example, Josef Mengele, one of the extermination camp leaders known as the Angel of Death (who interestingly was never held to account for his actions, fleeing in fear of persecution, hmmm) was planning the perfect back garden in his compound in the extermination camp. This, he thought, made him a good person. Here he was trying to find a way to make his children happy. That he experimented on children and sent them to their deaths was irrelevant. His double was a good man and that was the lie he chose to believe. Eichmann, another Nazi, justified sending trains to camps by saying he was just doing his job, very well. The train must leave come hell or high water (let’s hope he is in one of them now, eh?) and ergo he was not guilty or complicit as he was just following orders. These examples seem extreme but regular readers will be able to recall examples from daily life where such techniques are involved in the humiliation and degradation of others, behaviours not only defended but encouraged by society.

Anyway, why are we discussing this? To return to the original premise, here we have something which is absolutely wrong- genocide. However, as we can see, there is not one perspective on it, rather there are many. One might say that these behaviours were beyond vile, yet another may say it was for the good of a nation. One might say they were just doing their job, and another might say that they are a good person as they love their children. And, the majority may say that they don’t care either way, nothing to do with me. The last reason we will look at, although there an infinitely more, indeed as many as every person who has lived and how many changes of mind they have, is that people justify these actions with dehumanising arguments and whataboutism.

The English football team, Newcastle United were recently taken over by a Saudi company, the chairman of which is the Crown Prince. Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, ‘colloquially known as MBS, is a Saudi Arabian politician who is the crown prince, deputy prime minister, and minister of defence of Saudi Arabia’, was recently found guilty by International Agencies of the death of a journalist. The violations to Human Rights in Saudi Arabia are well-known and manyfold. International agencies concerned with Human Rights opposed the takeover. However, the English Premier League greenlighted the takeover and now one of the UK’s clubs is owned by a man who is known to have ordered the murder of a journalist for questioning him. Newcastle fans were jubilant. The way they talk, one would think they were not a Premier League team but rather a non-league team £20 away from ceasing to exist. Their response to the takeover was that they had suffered like no one before with the previous owner. When asked about the Human Rights violations, they, with all of their expertise in geopolitics, said, ‘Yeah but, the government buys oil from them…’. The nuance that for Geopolitics to work, for there to be a Western presence in the only Middle Eastern county to have healthy diplomatic ties (I use healthy very loosely), one must have open trade as this attempts to force countries to have better Human Rights due to fear of sanctions and also to try to root out terrorism, seemed lost on them who seemed to be ‘doubling’, ‘these people are evil, but no one has suffered like me with my football club’.

In order to understand anything, one must have access to true context. I say true context as context is often subjective and through hearing as many different opinions as possible, weighing life experience and one’s own opinion one can start to understand not only the world but what we are, humans. Thusly, when teaching of genocide (even the ones happening right now as you read this) or racism (some UK  schools are trying to censor To Kill a Mockingbird, a novel about the heinousness of racism, for containing a racial slur) (even the racism happening as you read this) one must make it clear that there is an absolute wrong, no debate, however, different people see things differently as we are all subjective, and by understanding this from a historical perspective we can, hopefully, cease the crimes genocides happening now and in the future.

‘till next time                    

Gratitude

The Roman Senator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, once stated ‘Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the other’, a sentiment later echoed by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, ‘Ingratitude is the essence of vileness’.

Upon reading these a few years ago, I was able to start to articulate that which I had realised. One of the wonderful things about quotations is that one can spend years working out concepts and then see it articulated perfectly and understand their own thoughts (note: for those of you who see quotations as a quick fix to understanding, please note that one can see the same quotation a million times and have no impact, however, one can see a quotation once and understand one’s own thoughts. If you want to know and understand, put in the work!). I had noticed a difference in myself and others. When someone did something for me, even if it wasn’t something I liked, needed, or even wanted, I would refrain from criticism and accept it for what it was, an act of kindness. Upon being on the receiving end of the opposite form of behaviour- for example, giving someone a gift for them to look disappointed or hear them complain- I started to realise the importance of gratitude.

One of the loopholes which people use to get around their ingratitude is the oft used defence of honesty. One will say, for example, ‘I don’t like this, I only use certain brands etc.’, and then say, as thorough subconsciously shifting the blame, ‘I’m just being honest. Wouldn’t you rather I was honest?’. Interestingly, as an experiment, I tried this. I was given something I did not want as I felt that, instead of a gift, I was given an obligation. I politely accepted it, but later, asked not to be given such gifts again as they are something for which I have no interest. The person to whom I was speaking then explained how it was for my ‘own good’, and theorised how next time they could do the same thing again. Later, they returned to the subject and started to make plans as how to do the same thing again. As it was the same person who had previously disregarded a gift I had given them and made me promise not to do it again, I found this very interesting. Here was an individual to whom their thoughts, and their thoughts alone, maybe unconsciously, were the reality of the world and that their truth was the one and only truth. Or, in other words, their worldview was wholly subjective.

Armed with Cicero’s quote, I delved deeper into the seeming contradiction between actions of self and of one to another. It seemed that gratitude was the key, not as a single concept, but rather what it was an aspect of. Gratitude is the manifestation of a worldview which is, not completely, for that is implausible, objective. Gratitude is to understand, or maybe not even understand, but acknowledge, that another exists as their self. What do I mean by that? Well, I’m so glad that you asked… Humans, as we know, are complex beings, not complex as a sphinxian riddle, rather complex in that they have many parts. One of the struggles of being human is to reconcile the inner world with the outer world, to bring the world in my head into harmony with the world without. The German Jean Paul Richter created the phrase, ‘weltschmerz’ to express the feeling of depression which comes when the outer world cannot reach the standards of the inner, ideal, world. However, those who experience weltschmerz are probably few and far between as often the inner and outer worlds do not remain distinct. We are shaped by our nature and our nurturing, our environments, and so if we see behaviour which reconciles with our own worldview that we are ‘normal’ and that the world exists as it should do for us, then it is easy to think that we are right and that our behaviours are good. The use of honesty in this manner is an inherently dishonest use as it stems from a self-lie. What one may consider honesty can more clearly be labelled prejudices as the thoughts and emotions that the words express show a narrow worldview in which the ‘I’, to use the philosopher Martin Buber’s concept of I-Thou (more on which later) is the world and everything must conform to this.

The genius of Martin Buber’s I-Thou is that it transcends that I-It relationship where the world is an extension of one’s self, existing merely for the one and takes a more holistic approach. In I-Thou,the thou, the other, is complete in their self. I see a chair and I-It says it is a chair for me to use. I-Thou looks at it and goes here is something which was created to serve a purpose in life. If I happen to be able to use it, it is a fulfilment of its purpose and is not anything to do with me. If we expand this to people, then here is a person with hopes, fears, dreams, emotions, pasts, presents, futures etc. which exist separate to mine and then we can think, ‘wait, this person has done something for me which cost them time, money etc., the very least I can do is be gracious if not wholly accepting their existence, as they are an individual separate to me, and how would I feel if I were in their shoes, would I do unto them what I would have done unto me?’. It is a small step from that to acknowledging the other not as an ‘other’ but as a ‘one’ separate form and from this compassion can start to form and very soon our worldview is changed and our new, blossoming, virtues manifest themselves as gratitude.

‘till next time          

Degild the Idols

The Canadian poet Irving Layton once told his girlfriend that he couldn’t marry her but would buy her a wedding ring so that she could change her name to Mrs Layton. Upon arriving in the shop, he then proceeded to buy a silver bracelet for his wife and mother of his child. His best man, Leonard Cohen, instead bought the ring and gave it to Irving’s girlfriend so she could change her name. Later, speaking about it, Leonard Cohen said that Irving was a nice man who didn’t want to hurt anyone. He also placed the blame on Irving’s wife and girlfriend for trying to force him to choose. The now Mrs Layton later complained that Irving would sleep with every girl he could and tell her about it. To summarise, a man goes to buy his girlfriend, with whom he is having an affair, a wedding ring, decides to buy a gift for his wife instead and his best friend says this is good behaviour, blames the victims whilst another victim complains that others do what she did.

Here we have a wonderful illustration of what Emerson said that, ‘People do not seem to realise that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character’, and so we can see that Leonard Cohen had no qualms about women being mistreated by one whom he identified with and Mrs Layton disliked the same bad behaviour that she did if it impacted her negatively, and Irving Layton was an insecure child who placed no value on himself.

One does not have to be a God or famous to be considered an idol. In our everyday lives we have people we admire and who admire us. The key word here is people. When I was young, I devoured copious biographies of those whom I admired to find out the source of their art/thought. Vile behaviour I paid no attention to, too busy trying to uncover their inspirations. Years later, I was struck by how blind I had been. As my knowledge and awareness of the world fed into a deeper understanding, through reflection, I realised that many of these great figures were incredibly flawed people, often leaving others to pay the price. Leonard Cohen lived on the Greek island of Hydra with Marianne Ihlen (so long). They lived in a bohemian fantasy culture of infidelity, drugs, no rules etc. Even the of those involved children were given drugs. Of the group of people, most of the children developed psychological problems, addiction, suicide etc., all paying the price for the freedom of their parents. ‘Marianne and Leonard’ is one of the great celebrity love stories. Her son, from a prior relationship whom Cohen helped to raise, lives in a psychiatric hospital. It also must be noted that reflecting on the time, Marianne said that every time Leonard Cohen cheated on her, or gave the impression that he had, she wanted to ‘die’.  

The failure to show remorse and accept blame is prevalent in society. The actor Johnny Depp used an award acceptance speech to claim how, simply because a judge said he beat women, Hollywood was turning its back on him. He said similar things in defence of Roman Polanski for only giving drugs and alcohol to an underage girl and raping her. Please note, the ‘victim’ Johnny Depp was receiving an award for acting when he spoke of how his career had been destroyed.

The reason why people can get away with such behaviours are twofold:

1) They are idolised and seen as being beyond good and evil

 2) People are insecure so think by living their phantasies through famous people, or just people they admire, they make themselves greater.

An Idol sits on a shelf covered in gold but if we look closely, we can see that this gold is just vermeil and if we peel off just a thin layer we can see below that they are merely human and then, once the gilding is removed, we can judge them by the same standard as anyone else, by their humanity.

’till next time