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!
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!
posted by Bruno at Sunday, September 17, 2006
5 Comments:
I believe you're being to kind on the pope. Read this bit from his speech:
"The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry."
I read this essentially as: "Conversion by the sword is not rational, and therefore we Catholics understand that it cannot be God's will. However, this is not an argument that muslims will agree with."
Apart from whether it's true or not, it was in my opinion a rather stupid thing to say. Oil on the flames.
PS I am a philosopher. Just a bad one, according to you, I guess ;-)
I am not sure why anonymous thinks that the pope "essentially" meant to say that "Conversion by the sword is not rational, and therefore we Catholics understand that it cannot be God's will. However, this is not an argument that muslims will agree with."
Again, the literal text of the speech ignores whether or not muslim agree with this. Nor does it go into the question whether they ought to agree and whether Islam is committed to forceful conversion. The pope is using it as an illustration of a theological principle within Catholic theology (a principle which the Catholic Church has violated repeatedly in its history).
However, given that the world is not inhabited by a majority of philosophers (good or bad), it was utterly predictable that it would have this result. Does that make it stupid, or does it illustrate the stupidity of the world...? ;)
"Again, the literal text of the speech ignores whether or not muslim agree with this."
The text says that muslims would not agree with the argument given against conversion by the sword. This suggests, but does not actually say, that muslims do believe in such conversion.
"..it was utterly predictable that it would have this result. Does that make it stupid, or does it illustrate the stupidity of the world...? ;)"
False opposition. It illustrates the stupidity of the world, but the pope of all people should have been aware of this stupidity. If he then goes ahead and says it anyway, then that makes him stupid.
Considering that the pope had been aware of the likely reaction, I am still not sure that it was a "stupid thing to do". Maybe he thought it was worth risking a public outcry to start of a debate, hoping for some reasonable argument among the less considered responses.
Regarding the Sharia point, from a German perspective, it seems not immediately clear that a 2/3 majority in favour of the Sharia should lead to its adoption, if it violates other constitutional principles. Of course, defending these principles against majority decisions from a liberal point of view poses difficulties at least, and probably reliance on a democratic culture is the only viable safeguard.
Post a Comment
<< Home