John Gray: ultimate pessimism and contradictions or good ideas?

[mike3]

Hi.

I'm curious about this. I heard of this philosopher named John Gray:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Gray

Now I haven't read any of his stuff, but reading the article on Wikipedia makes me wonder some things:

Gray has written several influential books, including False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (1998), which argues that free market globalization is an unstable Enlightenment project currently in the process of disintegration, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (2003), which attacks philosophical humanism, a worldview which Gray sees as originating in religious ideologies, and Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia (2007), a critique of utopian thinking in the modern world. Gray sees volition, and hence morality, as an illusion, and portrays humanity as a ravenous species engaged in wiping out other forms of life. Gray writes that 'humans ... cannot destroy the Earth, but they can easily wreck the environment that sustains them.'

So we see him attack something "rooted in religion". Yet in other places, I've heard he says good and positive things about religion. So what kind of religion does Gray consider "good religion"? He critiques Dawkins and other "atheists". So what is his idea of good religion?

Also, if there is no will, or volition, and "morality" is just an illusion, then does that imply that morality is no real good? If that's the case, then why don't we all go out and insult, rob, kill, and just be as scumbagish as we want? If you say that such should not be done, is that not a form of morality? Yet if morality is no real good ... contradiction? And religion ... doesn't religion have, yup, dum dum dum, ... morality in it?

Though on the other hand, it does seem there are a lot on this forum who might also take issue with the idea of "free will", but I don't see them as against "taking any action" to resolve issues. But, what comes next seems really up-front anti-action:

Central to the doctrine of humanism, in Gray’s view, is the inherently utopian belief in meliorism, namely that humans are not limited by their biological natures and that advances in ethics and politics are cumulative or that they can alter or improve the human condition, in the same way that advances in science and technology have altered or improved living standards.[8]

Gray contends, in opposition to this view, that history is not progressive, but cyclical. Human nature, he argues, is an inherent obstacle to cumulative ethical or political progress.[8] Seeming improvements, if there are any, can very easily be reversed: one example he has cited has been the use of torture by the United States against terrorist suspects.[9][10] "What's interesting," Gray said in an interview in 032c magazine, "is that torture not only came back, but was embraced by liberals, and defended by liberals. Now there are a lot of people, both liberal and conservative, who say, 'Well, it's a very complicated issue.' But it wasn't complicated until recently. They didn't say that five or ten years ago."[11]

Furthermore, he argues that this belief in progress, commonly imagined to be secular and liberal, is in fact derived from an erroneous Christian notion of humans as morally autonomous beings categorically different from other animals. This belief, and the corresponding idea that history makes sense, or is progressing towards something, is in Gray’s view merely a Christian prejudice.[8]

In Straw Dogs, he argues that the idea that humans are self-determining agents does not pass the acid test of experience. Those Darwinist thinkers who believe humans can take charge of their own destiny to prevent environmental degradation are, in this view, not naturalists, but apostles of humanism.[8]

(underlining mine)

Which seems to suggest that he is saying ethics cannot be advanced because of "human nature", which is an unalterable limit. If humans cannot "take charge of their own destiny to prevent environmental degradation" (since he says that idea comes from humanism and he rejects humanism), then why shouldn't I just go and get myself the biggest SUV I can possibly get with the lowest MPG around -- heck, no, forget an SUV, let's get my own personal hulking armored vehicle -- and drive it around hours a day, buy every single thing I can get my hands on, go on a diet of lavish, exotic food shipped in from half-way around the globe, buy two new phones every month, throw decadent, lavish parties and par-tay par-tay par-tay! Consume consume consume! Guzzle guzzle guzzle! Hey, we can't be any better! Let's just live it up 'till the planet is toast and we're all toast! Though I'd admit that in my case I'd have the practical problem of not having enough money to do that, but if I did... Or perhaps less dramatically, why not just sit on my butt and just do nothing, be passive in the face of all wrong done in the world (what is "wrong", anyway? Isn't "morality" just an illusion?), apathetic, and just plain not bother.

But more seriously, if nothing can be done about it, what on earth is the point in complaining? To find something worthy of complaining about, in my mind, seems to imply one thinks that something can be done about it. But that's not what I'm getting from this. But I'll admit: you probably can't get that much from Wikipedia. It's just that the picture it seems to paint seems fatalistic to the point of making one wonder "why bother?"

I noticed a thread here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256854

and some seemed to be sympathetic to his stuff, so I'm wondering: how are the above concerns addressed? What is wrong with this very rough, initial assessment? Is the information I have just too cursory? If I were to read his books, would I find in there that he does in fact advocate some kind of action, or think that such would be beneficial in some way?

 

[Aepervius]

Also, if there is no will, or volition, and "morality" is just an illusion, then does that imply that morality is no real good? If that's the case, then why don't we all go out and insult, rob, kill, and just be as scumbagish as we want? If you say that such should not be done, is that not a form of morality? Yet if morality is no real good ... contradiction? And religion ... doesn't religion have, yup, dum dum dum, ... morality in it?

If you see morality as a set of rule & limitation preferred to have a society stable, then it becomes clear that even if we have no free will (the volition part) selecting against individual which will break those rule is an advantage for that society, as well as teaching individual infants with those rules.

it boils down to :
* Choice is an illusion
* Morality as such is only another set of rule which helps society be stable

The reason we do not go all kill / rape and so forth, is because of the safeguard of the society and this rule imprinting when we are infant. I am undecided personally whether this is 100% learned or at least partially inherited.

As for the non volition part / non free will, i recommend all those thread where people are fighting to say whether there is no free will or if there is.

 

[angrysoba]

I've read John Gray's Black Mass, and if that is representative then I wouldn't really call him a philosopher but more a cultural critic. His main idea in the book was that humans generally concoct some eschatological theories about the world which are supposed to explain the direction in which we should travel, but they are all made up and any attempt to follow them inevitably leads to coercion of those who won't be persuaded which inevitably leads to murder and lots of death.

Originally many of these were religiously inspired, but later secular ideologies such as Communism and Fascism were pretty much the same, and the most recent ones are things like neoconservatism which was an attempt to get everyone around the world to embrace classical liberalism, and new atheism which is essentially another kind of classical liberalism which assumes human beings are rational when they aren't.

At the risk that I may have slightly glossed that, please do take my characterization with a pinch of salt, but that's how I remember it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Also, if there is no will, or volition, and "morality" is just an illusion, then does that imply that morality is no real good? If that's the case, then why don't we all go out and insult, rob, kill, and just be as scumbagish as we want?

Because if you do that, you will be arrested, and if you resist arrest, you will likely be shot.

If you say that such should not be done, is that not a form of morality?

If you like, yes. It's the social contract we make. We profit enormously from living in social groups, and so we punish those who would disrupt society.

Though on the other hand, it does seem there are a lot on this forum who might also take issue with the idea of "free will"

Libertarian free will is certainly a fiction, because it is not a logically coherent concept. Compatibilist free will, on the other hand, is demonstrably real.

But, what comes next seems really up-front anti-action:

He conveniently ignores all science and technology, the very definition of our age. Indeed he conveniently ignores all of human history. And I mean that in a very exact way, because what he claims about human nature - if it were ever true - changed utterly with the invention of writing. Knowledge is not lost; it accumulates. Change accumulates.

Though I'd admit that in my case I'd have the practical problem of not having enough money to do that

Exactly. Capitalism solves the problem before it can even begin.

Or perhaps less dramatically, why not just sit on my butt and just do nothing, be passive in the face of all wrong done in the world (what is "wrong", anyway?

You'd starve. Those inclined to do that don't last long.

 

[Bikewer]

I'm currently re-reading Ornstein's The Evolution Of Consciousness, and he points out that we are living in a dense, high-tech world with brains that have evolved to facilitate living in small bands of hunter-gatherers.
That many of our hard-wired responses are baggage from our long evolutionary history.

This is something I noted in a post just last week, when I saw reporting on high-level officials from China and the US engaging in "my old man can beat your old man" schoolboy rhetoric.
One need only look around the world news (or one's own neighborhood) to see how society is hampered by our natural tendencies.

On the other hand, I think that culture does have a mitigating effect. Stephen Pinker, in The Better Angels Of Our Nature, points out that generally we have become less violent and less prone to warfare than at any time in our past.

My own thought is that human nature may well change, but very slowly.

 

[mike3]

Exactly. Capitalism solves the problem before it can even begin.

Though the average American does still have a fairly hefty environmental footprint, I believe.

You'd starve. Those inclined to do that don't last long.

I mean, "do nothing to change anything", or just "do what everyone else does", essentially, i.e. with little care for the environment, etc. . Essentially, just be apathetic.

 

[PixyMisa]

Though the average American does still have a fairly hefty environmental footprint, I believe.

But shrinking.

I mean, "do nothing to change anything", or just "do what everyone else does", essentially, i.e. with little care for the environment, etc. . Essentially, just be apathetic.

There is a cost to every action, even inaction. Whether you care about the cause or not, you will care about the costs.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm currently re-reading Ornstein's The Evolution Of Consciousness, and he points out that we are living in a dense, high-tech world with brains that have evolved to facilitate living in small bands of hunter-gatherers.
That many of our hard-wired responses are baggage from our long evolutionary history.

Exactly. And this band of hunter-gatherers recently discovered the Higgs Boson and landed a nuclear-powered robot on the surface of Mars.