Mind over body

In the last of his series on Descartes Richard Francks ponders the nature of objectivity

It seems to me that the big philosophical problem we all face today is that of Objectivity. Every day we run into situations where a clash of beliefs involves what is either literally or figuratively a clash of cultures, i.e. cases where what is at issue is not just the particular point we disagree about, but the standards we should apply for resolving it.

Moral cases are the obvious examples: those who are for and against abortion, or gay rights, or suicide bombings, seem so far apart that you have to ask yourself whether they have enough in common ever to come to an agreement. Is there such a thing as an objective answer to such disputes, or is each side trapped within its own little bubble of understanding which is impenetrable to anyone not brought up the right way, or who hasn’t seen the light?

But morality isn’t the only area where such disagreements occur. Questions like Intelligent Design, monetary policy, the Holocaust, alternative medicine, GM crops and the existence of God all seem on the surface to be straightforwardly factual disputes. But it soon becomes clear that the two sides disagree also about which facts are relevant, what counts as evidence, what constitutes a good reason, whose opinion is of value, and a thousand other things which leave you wondering whether we shouldn’t give up the idea that there is a correct answer, and just concentrate our energies on managing the battle in such a way as to minimise the damage it causes.

Descartes’ philosophical work was devoted to proving the possibility of an Objective answer to every question. Everybody has an innate ability to think clearly, and such clear thinking will always get to the truth. By such means we can see beyond the misleading appearances of the world to the reality that underlies them. Even in practical affairs, where the issues are complicated and the facts are few, we can achieve a detached, Objective view on which we can all agree.

Here too, Descartes’ view is the one that has filtered down to us through the ages. This is the faith of the Enlightenment, that a rational, scientific view is always available, and can in principle unite us all. That faith is still active in the world, and informs the way we think about these issues, and therefore about people who disagree with us.

For Descartes, though, the belief in Objectivity is essentially bound up with his views on the self, and on God. The Objective view is the view of the pure, immaterial mind, which can rise above the deceptive urgings of its physical embodiment and perceive the world through pure intellect. And the view of the intellect is guaranteed to be true, because by escaping in this way from the body, we can recapitulate in our own small way God’s own, non-sensory, understanding of his creation.

Most people now are unhappy with Descartes’ ‘dualistic’ account of the mind as essentially separate from the body it ‘inhabits’. And most people now would not accept his idea that through reason we can achieve quite literally a God’s-eye-view of the universe. The Big Question, then, is this: if you take away those metaphysical underpinnings, what remains of the idea of Objectivity?

It seems to me that the idea of an Objective point of view is a contradiction. Any intelligible opinion must make some assumptions, must operate by some standards – and those foundations will be challenged by people who don’t accept them. So if you think your standpoint is the correct one, you will need to defend it; and for that defence to be effective it had better start from something your opponent is prepared to concede. The alternative to a standpoint which can be challenged is not an Objective view, but no view at all.

Richard Francks retired last year as Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in Philosophy at the University of Leeds. He has published translations of Leibniz (with Roger Woolhouse), his own Modern Philosophy (Routledge, 2003), and has just finished the manuscript of a Reader’s Guide to Descartes’ Meditations (Continuum, 2008).
Getty
Show Hide image

Four times Owen Smith has made sexist comments

The Labour MP for Pontypridd and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour leadership rival has been accused of misogynist remarks. Again.

2016

Wanting to “smash” Theresa May “back on her heels”

During a speech at a campaign event, Owen Smith blithely deployed some aggressive imagery about attacking the new Prime Minister. In doing so, he included the tired sexist trope beloved of the right wing press about Theresa May’s shoes – her “kitten heels” have long been a fascination of certain tabloids:

“I’ll be honest with you, it pained me that we didn’t have the strength and the power and the vitality to smash her back on her heels and argue that these our values, these are our people, this is our language that they are seeking to steal.”

When called out on his comments by Sky’s Sophy Ridge, Smith doubled down:

“They love a bit of rhetoric, don’t they? We need a bit more robust rhetoric in our politics, I’m very much in favour of that. You’ll be getting that from me, and I absolutely stand by those comments. It’s rhetoric, of course. I don’t literally want to smash Theresa May back, just to be clear. I’m not advocating violence in any way, shape or form.”

Your mole dug around to see whether this is a common phrase, but all it could find was “set back on one’s heels”, which simply means to be shocked by something. Nothing to do with “smashing”, and anyway, Smith, or somebody on his team, should be aware that invoking May’s “heels” is lazy sexism at best, and calling on your party to “smash” a woman (particularly when you’ve been in trouble for comments about violence against women before – see below) is more than casual misogyny.

Arguing that misogyny in Labour didn’t exist before Jeremy Corbyn

Smith recently told BBC News that the party’s nastier side only appeared nine months ago:

“I think Jeremy should take a little more responsibility for what’s going on in the Labour party. After all, we didn’t have this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism in the Labour party before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.”

Luckily for Smith, he had never experienced misogyny in his party until the moment it became politically useful to him… Or perhaps, not being the prime target, he simply wasn’t paying enough attention before then?

2015

Telling Leanne Wood she was only invited on TV because of her “gender”

Before a general election TV debate for ITV Wales last year, Smith was caught on camera telling the Plaid Cymru leader that she only appeared on Question Time because she is a woman:

Wood: “Have you ever done Question Time, Owen?”

Smith: “Nope, they keep putting you on instead.”

Wood: “I think with party balance there’d be other people they’d be putting on instead of you, wouldn’t they, rather than me?”

Smith: “I think it helps. I think your gender helps as well.”

Wood: “Yeah.”

2010

Comparing the Lib Dems’ experience of coalition to domestic violence

In a tasteless analogy, Smith wrote this for WalesHome in the first year of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition:

“The Lib Dem dowry of a maybe-referendum on AV [the alternative vote system] will seem neither adequate reward nor sufficient defence when the Tories confess their taste for domestic violence on our schools, hospitals and welfare provision.

“Surely, the Liberals will file for divorce as soon as the bruises start to show through the make-up?”

But never fear! He did eventually issue a non-apology for his offensive comments, with the classic use of “if”:

“I apologise if anyone has been offended by the metaphorical reference in this article, which I will now be editing. The reference was in a phrase describing today's Tory and Liberal cuts to domestic spending on schools and welfare as metaphorical ‘domestic violence’.”

***

A one-off sexist gaffe is bad enough in a wannabe future Labour leader. But your mole sniffs a worrying pattern in this list that suggests Smith doesn’t have a huge amount of respect for women, when it comes to political rhetoric at least. And it won’t do him any electoral favours either – it makes his condemnation of Corbynite nastiness ring rather hollow.

I'm a mole, innit.