Eric asked:

I get a little tired of scientists saying ‘everything is composed of atoms.’ Surely thoughts and feeling are not composed of atoms. I am thinking of this in the context of ‘qualia’ — obviously mental phenomena are acompanied by changes in the brain — but that is not the same thing as the subjective experience — although physicalists wd say it is!

Answer by Jürgen Lawrenz

I commend your healthy scepticism. For a start, it is palpably wrong to say that everything is made of atoms, since atoms themselves are composed of parts. Therefore the claim is correct only for the chemical realm. But thoughts and feelings are not part of chemistry; and you are perfectly in the right being tired of hearing physicalist assertions — they have not a shred of evidence to support them. For anyone to declare qualia, emotions, desires, will power etc. to be based in chemistry is nothing other than an expression of their personal opinion and no higher in probability terms than your complaint.

Indeed the correlation of certain brain sectors with subjective states and performances succeeds in merely pushing the argument up one level, i.e. that the brain sectors in question each have responsibility for the generation of subjective assessments in light of their particular competence, such as dealing with danger or engendering a cognitive performance. Logically, then, subjectivity begins there; and the outcome of their activity is to entangle your consciousness in the decision-making process or in the cognitive apprehension of some situation. Does this remind you of Dennett’s Consciousness Explained? Well, Dennett himself put the question at the end of his book, whether he succeeded only in explaining consciousness away? I think the aye’s have it.

So you can see that this line of argumentation goes round in circles and knows not where to stop. Our difficulty with subjective states is, that not only humans, but many species of animals are demonstrably equipped with mental capacity. Whereas not a single item of chemistry or physics has ever been shown to exhibit signs of animation.

I am sceptical that this dividing line can be transgressed by future scientific discoveries. We know intuitively and intellectually that there is a dividing line between life and non-life, in the sense that they are incompatible states of being. This is shown by the fact that all life forms make use of physical substrates for their own benefit, whereas nothing in the physical realm is demonstrable as an entelechy, i.e. a potential bearer of life. Indeed the triumph of science rests solidly on the demonstration that the entire subatomic realm, from neutrons to Higgs boson, is utterly devoid of life. In sum, I can’t see any plausible argument whatever, anywhere, for the physicalist doctrine of mental states, subjectivity, qualia or intentionality.

Ruth asked:

What do you philosophers think about the Brexit crisis? Do you have anything useful to contribute? Any advice to Theresa May?

Answer by Geoffrey Klempner

Let’s get clear about the ground rules for the kind of answer you are looking for. A philosopher needn’t be (and usually isn’t) an expert on economic theory or political theory. What we are good at is seeing connections and relationships, and drawing logical conclusions. And we have good memories, too.

I remember the early 70s (I am that old) when German industry and business was booming and the UK was dubbed “the sick man of Europe”. It was a situation that called for drastic action. Under Margaret Thatcher union power was curbed, and the UK shed a large proportion of its manufacturing industry. Between then and now, the service industry and financial sector grew to take up the slack, which is why the UK economy is currently in a relatively healthy state.

Was that the best possible outcome? Those who remember the misery that many endured during the Thatcher years will say, No, but then they owe a plausible story about what real alternatives there were available at the time.

More history, military this time. In 1956, the UK went through the Suez disaster, then 1982 celebrated the Falklands triumph (a disaster for the Argentinians, of course). In both cases, a calculation was made and risks taken. In war, much hangs on relatively small incidents and events. The attempt to retake the Suez Canal could have succeeded with a more credible plan, and if a few more French Exocet missiles had hit their target, the Falklands conflict would have ended in British national humiliation.

Maybe you can see where this is going. The battle to save Brexit is a war. In the case of no deal, trade and business will be hit and some businesses will be hit very hard. Those who have much to lose will naturally complain loudly and lobby for support. But it was always going to be that way. When Churchill took over as British Prime Minister at the beginning of the Second World War there were many who, remembering the terrible loss of life in the Great War wanted to make peace with Hitler, and they had arguments that were just as persuasive as the arguments that Remainers give for revoking Article 50. (I am not comparing them in any other way.)

If you can’t take injuries and losses, you can never win any conflict. The important thing is making an accurate assessment of what you stand to gain. The Leavers have made a strong case that in the place of businesses that fail, other businesses will start up and thrive. If you run a company, you know that there are nearly always alternative markets and alternative sources of supply — if you are willing and able to adjust your business plan. The businesses that can’t adjust will be replaced, and that is as it should be.

You do not need to be an expert to perceive that in UK politics today, cowardice rules. The blamers and complainers get the most TV and radio air time. Meanwhile, watching the antics of the British Parliament day after day, there must be many in the UK who have come to the realization that any vote, in a Parliamentary Election or a Referendum is a wasted vote.

US President Donald Trump has expressed the opinion that he would have handled the Brexit negotiations better than the British have done. I am tempted to conclude that he may be right. But it is not too late. Theresa May has given more than a hint that if her deal with the EU fails as it is now very likely to do, the UK will leave without a deal. There is no logical reason why that course of action should lead to disaster. Along with many others, I believe that we have as much to gain as we have to lose from making a clean break.

Julia asked:

How did Robin Hood act if one judges his motifs according to the ethical models of Immanuel Kant, the principle of usefulness of J. Bentham and J. Mill?

Answer by Paul Fagan

The actions of Robin Hood, in particular his ‘robbing the rich to give to the poor’, have provided many philosophers with food for thought for many years. In particular he provides a dilemma for deontologists such as Kantians; often leaving the way for many to claim that his actions were utilitarian in nature, providing actions that Benthamites and followers of the Mill family may promote. In fact, before reading this piece, the reader may initially like to visit an interesting and succinct website entitled ‘Moral Dilemmas – The Robin Hood Problem’ (https://nlcsethicsproject9fsilviasicheri.weebly.com/).

For deontology, the dilemma may be briefly described here. Robin Hood’s actions would satisfy notions of Kant’s ‘good will’ as they are directly acting out a moral obligation by assisting those in need: nevertheless, the act of robbing a person is using that person as a ‘means’ to produce a result, when according to Kantian theory, people should only ever be used as ‘ends’.

Such dilemmas have generated a seemingly continual stream of discussion and have necessitated Kant’s original work to be adapted and modified (and should the reader be interested the pros and cons of deontology, further reading is provided by Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy’s entry entitled ‘Deontological Ethics’ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/).

That said, the dilemma leaves room for the individual observer’s own feelings to be exercised and show partiality: if a person values the act of helping the needy they would favour the first horn of the dilemma, while those upholding the notion that persons should always be considered as ‘ends’ would favour the second.

Moving to look at the situation form a utilitarian perspective, then such difficulties would not expect to be as pronounced. Immediately, a redistribution of goods in the manner of Robin Hood, would cause an increase in overall happiness, or utility, in society. Of course, the persons being robbed would suffer some grief but if they were robbed of goods that they could spare, then the utility value of these goods when given to the needy would be enormous. To elucidate, if Robin Hood robbed five coats from a man with a wardrobe full of coats, and distributed the proceeds of the robbery to five shivering persons, then the whole of society benefits! Five persons may now go about their business, and although the victim may be upset, on balance the asset of five coats being used in society, rather than residing in a wardrobe, should really benefit of all.

Additionally, utilitarian acts may often be judged by their long term results. For instance, if the persons newly equipped with coats, now produce long lasting goods as a consequence of their warmer life, such as building houses that may be used in the future, then an aggregating amount of utility benefits society.

To conclude, Robin Hood’s actions are problematic for deontologists but he may be viewed far more favourably by utilitarians.

Huzeyfe asked:

I came across this in Hannah Arendt’s book: Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy:

“Thinking, as Kant agreed with Plato, is the silent dialogue of myself with myself, and that thinking is a ‘solitary business’ (as Hegel once remarked) is one of the few things on which all thinkers were agreed. Also, it is of course by no means true that you need or can even hear the company of others when you happen to be busy thinking; yet, unless you can somehow communicate and expose to the test of others, either orally or in writing, whatever you may have found out when you were alone, this faculty exerted in solitude will disappear.”

I could not quite understand what is signaled in the last sentence. What does “this faculty exerted in solitude will disappear”? Can you elaborate? Also, can you add your thoughts on this thinking?

Answer by Jürgen Lawrenz

Something might have got lost in translation. Try this instead:

“When you are deep in thought, you might hardly take notice of anyone in your company; you might ignore them when they speak, perhaps not even hearing them. On the other hand, if you cannot communicate your solitary thoughts to them, either in speech or in writing, and thereby give others the opportunity to weigh them up, the exertion of your faculties in those moments of solitude will vanish when you are finished, as if it never happened.”

I think the plain meaning of this passage is that thinking is a solitary activity; two people thinking are also solitary, even sitting side by side, each with their own thoughts. But the thinking faculty is helpless in bringing thoughts “into the world”, sooner or later you must speak. Then they will not vanish without a trace; they will be considered by others. Then they will either make their way or be sidelined. But communication is the key for any thoughts that do not wish to be soliloquistic.

Xavier asked:

I’m trying to explain to my friends about things existing. I gave them this question: if you place a pencil in an opaque box and close the box, does the pencil exist? They say yes and I ask how do they know and why. All they come up with is “because I put the pencil in there”. I’m having a tough time explaining why the pencil ceases to exist once you close the box.

Answer by Jürgen Lawrenz

I’m not surprised that you’re having a “tough time”. You’ve done nothing other than hide the object. Meanwhile everyone of your interlocutors is in a position to demonstrate that your assertion of non-existence is nonsense.

All I can say by way of slight remedy is this: That someone coming into the room later and seeing the box, would not know there is a pencil in it. But again this says nothing about existence or non-existence. I think you’ve muddled up a dictum you might have read somewhere, that certifying existence is a privilege of living creatures. This has no relevance to your context, and especially so when plain concealment is your only argument. In short, you have to do better than this!

Gary asked:

For a while now I can’t work out where, when I’m speaking out loud, the words come from; it seems like magic. The words come out without my knowing where they originate. They seem to emerge out of nowhere, even when I’m having a normal conversation.

When I want to think, I think in English (my only language), and I can comprehend what I’m saying to myself (obviously?). I’ve successfully ‘gagged’ my internal voice and when I do so, I can’t think. I can see pictures and have feelings, but no more. Perhaps like meditation? This is worrying me a little because it feels that ‘I’ am not in control – something is living my life for me and ‘I’ am merely an observer. I’m sure I’m not mad – can you enlighten me?

Answer by Jürgen Lawrenz

You are quite right in sensing that you are “not in control”, but the other part (something is living my life) does not follow. Your brain is still your brain-the core of your persona. You need to understand that this organ has to work at speeds which are unimaginable to us and therefore simply inaccessible to consciousness.

But the answer to your question of “Where do the words come from?” is relatively simple. Learning to speak involves amassing words, phrases, adages, synonyms, slang and their semantics in memory, together with pronunciation, idioms, syntax, grammar. This is your resource. It is activated when you speak, your thoughts passing through the speech cortex into the appropriate motor cortices (throat, tongue, lips, jaws, sometimes nose too). But the same rules apply here, as with other faculties of the brain. All this happens so fast that “you” are barely conscious of either thinking or speaking, which is one reason why we often say things we didn’t mean or grab the wrong words. – You should ask yourself how much thinking you do during a rapid-fire debate or argument. Mostly minimal, sometimes none at all. The secret, if I may call it that, lies with your intentions: as long as they are translatable into speech, your cortices will do that work for you.

The crux of this matter is, accordingly, your intentions. The brain and its faculties exist to facilitate them. The speed at which they operate does not exclude you from control or your sense of selfhood. To grasp this, consider anaesthetised people. Their body and brain are still alive and functioning, but for some time they cannot exert their intentionality.

So you’ll also find an answer here to the endless debate about whether we think in or with words. My answer is “no”, because it’s possible only in circumstances of quiet and deliberate concentration. This is the slow train to the goal of finding a good or the best articulation of what you wish to express, which you can then memorise or write down. It is obviously impossible in any animated or excited environment, such as mentioned above. The redeeming factor is that a rich verbal resource makes it easier for the relevant cortices to extract the most suitable means of expression for your verbal intentions.

In sum: “You”, as a person, are always in the driver’s seat. This does not necessarily entail consciousness-no more than you are conscious of the activity of kidneys, liver, pancreas etc. They purr along all by themselves, and only rise into consciousness when something goes wrong. Likewise your brain does all the hard slog of finding the words and phrases you wish to speak in a matter of microseconds, that otherwise you would have no hope of dredging up from your verbal memory.

The real mystery is, of course, caught by the word ‘intention’. We still don’t know what it is, how it works, nor how many of our body processes are entangled in it. So I would risk a variant on Kant’s “Unity of apperceptions” for the proposition that a person is the “Unity of intentional faculties”. Hope this goes some way to answering your question.