Why philosophers are really weird people...

Recently I was reminded again just how strange philosophers must be to 'normal' folks. First a domestic example. Dutch minister of Justice, Jan-Hein Donner, wrote in his contribution to a book that democracy is a vulnerable institution. If two thirds of the population would support the introduction of the Sharia in Holland, it would be law from then on. And, so Donner continued, I support this.

To a philosopher (only to those kinds of people) it is immediately clear that Donner meant to endorse the principle, not the Sharia (as if there is only one 'sharia'). Especially, if you know that the man is a Christian and a former law professor. However, he was immediately called to parliament to explain that he did not mean that he would be thrilled if this were to happen. To me (as a philosopher) it is also eminently clear that Donner is right in a further sense, namely, that a democracy in order to be stable needs a certain kind of political culture and society that is committed to democratic values (which ones? discuss!).

In the end, it turned out, it was also clear to the parliamentarians (including those of his own party --incedentally, the main speaker for the Christian Democrats immediately repeated his proposal to ban parties whose program does not support the constitution, a sure way to stamp out any discussion about the merits of any constitutional provision) who called him to parliament. Mr. Donner has talked like a lawyer, but this is not what a minister should be saying! Nonsense if you ask me, but then again, I am a philosopher.

The other example was Pope Benedict's recent "insult" of Islam. On the Vatican website the speech that caused the furor is available. To be sure, the Pope is not a person I would usually defend (I think this is the first time I do so), but the outrage is just so, well, unphilosophical. The pope is quoting from 14th century dialogue between a Byzantine (i.e., Christian) emperor, Manuel II, and a Persian (i.e., muslim) scholar. In this dialogue, the emperor attacks the scholar rather vehemently "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The pope does not immediately say that he finds this untrue, incorrect, bad taste, or what have you. All he says is that he does not want to go into the merits of the emperor's claim, but that he wants to pick up on one point of it, namely, the question whether the faith can be spread by the use of force. It is a complicated and difficult point which nowhere talks about Islam anymore.

Is this an insult? No of course not. The pope is not endorsing the point of view of Manuel II. He is using it as an intro to a theological subtlety. That is all. But of course, he has been apologizing left and right and now he cannot visit Turkey, where Manuel II lived and will spend a lot of time apologizing to muslims and to anti-muslims for apologizing in the first place.

And just as Mr. Donner could have avoided the turmoil by either not speaking out, or arguing in detail that he sincerely hopes that Sharia will never be introduced in the Netherworld (though expert Arabist Maurits Berger argued that most of Dutch family law is in agreement with most of commonly agreed upon Sharia law -- oh horror!), or saying something as obvious as that. Similarly, the pope could have lamented the fact that in the 14th century a public discussion between Christians and Muslims could take place where both sides took strong positions, made crass assertions and yet, the discussion was not terminated because all sides were smart enough to see what was meant.

And that is why philosophers are really weird, for just like Manuel II and his adversary, and just like Mr. Donner at occasions, they can listen to an argument and rather than intuiting, emoting, imagining they hear what is really being said.

NB: Sorry-- make that GOOD philosophers!

Understanding the Arabs

Joris Luyendijk, a journalist who has worked as foreign correspondent in Egypt for five years, wrote an interesting piece in the wake of all the commemorations of 9/11. It is in Dutch, but it is worth summarizing his point.

He argues in the piece that there are three reasons why there are still so many misunderstandings and ignorance about the Arab world. First, all Arab countries are dictatorships. It is hard for a citizen of a well-functioning democracy to appreciate what that really means. For example, one of the questions always raised about the citizens of Arab states is why there are no massive protests against suicide terrorism. Luyendijk's answer is simple: anyone even contemplating such a movement will be targeted by the secret police, since dictators don't like movements that they do not control. When we, in the West, see footage of demonstrations burning the American flag, we tend to think of these as signs of genuine sentiments. But, so Luyendijk urges, these are not demonstrations: they are no spontaneous actions by concerned citizens. Instead, they are carefully orchestrated pieces of street theatre put there for the benefit of foreign correspondents and governments. Many of these spontaneous demonstrations will not make it to the local news which is heavily censored. Similarly with comments by 'the man in the street': it is very likely that they are excercizing self-censorship saying what they suppose the regime wants them to be saying. In short, we don't know what public opinion is in Arab countries.

Another reason Luyendijk mentions is that the prevailing picture is that there is irrational rage of many Arab muslims against the West. However, Luyendijk argues that most dictatorships are supported and held in place by the EU and the USA through economic and military assistance. As a result, a big chunk of the 'rage' against the West is not religious in nature, but political.

If we took these facts in consideration, we might do something about the image that we in the West have of the inhabitants of Arab countries.

It is important to note what Luyendijk is saying. Many of our objections and accusations to the Arab world seem misplaced and naive if he is correct. Our image of the Arabs is in need of some careful reconsideration.