Pending FDA approval, safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines could reach the first wave of Americans in a matter of weeks. Manufacturers of leading vaccine candidates are releasing promising results from clinical trials, revealing that some experimental vaccines, including those from Pfizer and Moderna, are more than 90% effective against the coronavirus. But vaccine development alone will not end the pandemic; getting the distribution right is key. Host Alok Patel speaks with two immunization experts about the challenges of distribution at an unprecedented scale. Tune in to explore questions like: What are the differences between the first vaccine candidates? Who can expect to get vaccinated first and how much will it cost? And why do vaccines have to be kept so cold?
France was once home to the father of immunisation, Louis Pasteur, but it is now among the most vaccine-sceptic nations on Earth – a pressing concern as it prepares one of the biggest vaccination campaigns in its history.ADVERTISING
Britain’s announcement on Wednesday that it was approving a Covid-19 vaccine for general use piled pressure on other countries to shield their citizens from a virus that has killed nearly 1.5 million people worldwide.
But he faces a tough task to persuade enough people to get the jabs to achieve herd immunity – the threshold at which the entire population is protected from the virus.
Risks ‘exaggerated’
A survey in Le Journal du Dimanche newspaper at the weekend showed only 41 percent of the French planned to get inoculated, compared with the 58 percent recorded in a recent Gallup poll in the US, where coronavirus and vaccine scepticism is also high.
Macron rejected a call from Greens leader Yannick Jadot to make the jab compulsory, saying he hoped to win over people with “conviction” and “transparency” instead.
Richard Lamette, a 65-year-old Paris-based plumber, told AFP he had no plans to get the Covid shot “until it has been well tested on the population”.
Remarking that several of his admittedly younger colleagues had contracted the virus but recovered within 10 days, he said he felt that the dangers had been “a bit exaggerated”.
“Other diseases kill far more people, like cancer and cigarettes and they don’t make as much of a fuss about them,” he argued.
‘Yellow vest’ influence
Long reputed as a nation of pill-poppers with one of the world’s highest rates of use of antibiotics and antidepressants, the French have in recent years grown increasingly suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry.
The anticapitalist “yellow vest” protest movement that erupted in opposition to fuel taxes in late 2018 amplified conspiracy theories about the government being beholden to drug companies – theories that were fuelled by the increase in the number of compulsory jabs for children from three to 11 in 2018.
A Gallup survey of 140,000 people in 44 countries showed the French to be the most vaccine-sceptical in the world, with one in three saying they did not believe vaccines to be safe.
The Journal du Dimanche poll showed the scepticism strongest among supporters of far-right and far-left political parties.
Health experts say public trust in inoculations began to erode after a 1980s scandal when hundreds of haemophiliacs were infected with HIV after receiving tainted transfusions.
Revelations in 2009 that a popular slimming drug Mediator caused serious heart damage and may have killed over 2,000 people further deepened the suspicion of drug companies.
Swine flu fiasco
Many French people also frown on mass vaccination campaigns after a drive in 2009 against swine flu ended with the state incinerating millions of superfluous jabs, costing hundreds of millions of euros.
For Jocelyn Raude, a professor at the EHESP School of Public Health in Rennes, the swine flu affair marked a shift in public opinion.
A number of doctors and pharmacists led by surgeon Henri Joyeux, based in the southern city of Montpellier, began to beat the anti-vaccine drum.
Joyeux, who has 175,000 followers on Facebook, “gave the (anti-vaccine) movement credibility”, Raude said.
On his website the doctor likens the race for a Covid jab to the arms race between the US and the Soviet Union.
Daily newsletterReceive essential international news every morningSubscribe
Geographer Lucie Guimier, who did her thesis on the anti-vaccine movement, noted it was strongest in Marseille, home of Didier Raoult, the professor who touted the anti-malaria drug chloroquine as a cure for coronavirus.
“The idea has taken root that it’s a rebel city against the central state. It’s quite dangerous in terms of public health,” she said.
Marseille deputy mayor Samia Ghali is among the sceptics.
Accusing the government of bungling its response to the coronavirus pandemic, Ghali told BFMTV in September she did not “want to serve as a guinea pig” for a Covid-19 shot.
Blessed Bernardo Francisco de Hoyos y de Seña is an 18th-century Spanish priest who wrote vividly of his mystical gay marriage to Jesus. This queer saint was beatified in 2010 and his feast day is Nov. 29.
Today on Nov. 28, 2020, Q Spirit presents a new, never-before-published translation of one of Bernardo’s queer visions, plus a newly translated prayer calling upon him. These beautiful modern translations were done by Cody Hooks, a queer student at Harvard Divinity School. The translations are presented in full later in this article.
Bernardo (1711-1735) was 18 when he had a vision of marrying Jesus in a ceremony much like a human wedding. He described it this way:
Always holding my right hand, the Lord had me occupy the empty throne; then He fitted on my finger a gold ring…. “May this ring be an earnest of our love. You are Mine, and I am yours. You may call yourself and sign Bernardo de Jesus, thus, as I said to my spouse, Santa Teresa, you are Bernardo de Jesus and I am Jesus de Bernardo. My honor is yours; your honor is Mine. Consider My glory that of your Spouse; I will consider yours, that of My spouse. All Mine is yours, and all yours is Mine. What I am by nature you share by grace. You and I are one!” (quoted from “The Visions of Bernard Francis De Hoyos, S.J.” by Henri Bechard, S.J.)
Bernardo’s vision inspired artist-priest William Hart McNichols to paint an icon of Bernardo’s wedding with Jesus. It is surprising to see that the sacred heart of Jesus is burning in Bernardo’s own chest.
“I was so taken with this profoundly beautiful account of Jesus’ mystical marriage with Bernardo, including all the symbols of a human wedding,” McNichols wrote.
Bernardo’s experiences fit into a long tradition of “mystical marriage” comparing the soul’s union with God to a human wedding. It is also called nuptial mysticism or bridal mysticism.
Bernardo de Hoyos was inspired by queer visions
Official Roman Catholic accounts emphasize how Bernardo went on to become “the first apostle of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Spain,” but the church downplays the queer vision that inspired him. Bernardo’s marriage with Christ can justifiably be interpreted as a “gay Jesus” story.
Bernardo lived during the so-called Golden Age of Spanish mysticism, when famous saints such as John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and Ignatius of Loyola renewed the church by describing their intimacy with Christ.
Bernardo spent nine years in the Jesuit formation process and was ordained in January 1735. His pastoral ministry was cut short later that same year when he died of typhus on Nov. 29, 1735. Some call him a “boy saint” because he only lived to be 24. His dying words indicate that he felt the presence of his Spouse Jesus at the end. Bernardo’s last words were, “Oh, how good it is to dwell in the Heart of Jesus!”
After his death, Bernardo’s superiors preserved and circulated the journals and letters where he wrote about his spiritual life. His reputation for holiness continued to grow, but church politics slowed his path to sainthood until the 21st century. His beatification ceremony was held in April 2010 in the northwestern Spanish province of Valladolid, where Bernardo spent his entire life.
While the Catholic church refuses to bless same-sex marriages, the lives and visions of its own saints tell a far different story — in which Christ the Bridegroom gladly joins himself in marriage with a man.
Translated vision: “Bernardo, I Want You as Mine”
A newly translated portion of Bernardo’s visions is posted here for the first time online. The modern translation was done by Cody Hooks, a queer writer, editor, and gardener with roots in the South and Southwest. He is a student at Harvard Divinity School focusing on spiritual caregiving.
“This translation takes up a particular task: to excavate and elevate the queer nature of the unspeakable, mysterious love that existed between the Divine and male mystics like Bernardo,” Hooks explained. “To that end, I have chosen to translate the words ‘bride’ and ‘wife’ as ‘companion.’ I think the phrase ‘bride of Christ’ (especially as it is used for the collective of all professed Christians) is, firstly, so common as to be clichéd, and secondly, too narrow for my project of making the version of holy love in Bernard’s mystical union more available to queer spiritual seekers today.”
Here is the translation:
____________________
For this heavenly betrothal, Jesus the Lord was readying Bernardo, his beloved servant, for the mystical union. Jesus gave him particular gifts; the first wedding favor was speaking luxuriously to Bernardo in the interior of his spirit and, like this, asking his very soul for consent to be married. The Lord said to him in the divine language and love:
“Handpicked soul of mine, I want you for my companion. I am the Son of the Eternal Father, equal and the same as Him, and from whom I come by generative creation. I am the second face of the Blessed Trinity, having the same essence as the Father and the Holy Spirit. Equal is my power, my grandeur, my immensity, my kindness, my distinctions and my perfections with the Father and the Divine Spirit. Really consider whether you want to have me for your husband, because I want you as mine.
I am God and Man, thus blessed as a Man in all the dowries corresponding to my heavenly dignity. I am the most beautiful of Men. The scriptures are full of my grandeurs. Authority over all of creation has been handed to me, being King of all that is. This beautiful machine of the Universe, with all its perfections, has grabbed hold of me like the Maker, as God and as the heir to the reign of Judah. The supreme Angels kneel before me and they adore me, knowing the dignity that I have and the infinite distance that there is between them and myself.
Consider, beloved soul, if it would suit you to take me as your husband, because I — who only have love for you — want to marry myself with you. Consider it well, and desire it with the desires owed, because much time is still to pass; meanwhile, I will go on preparing you and giving you lavish gifts, that will be a certain pledge. These are my favors and the first is this vision, which I have made to burn in your heart,” said Jesus to his beloved, Bernardo.
And Bernardo answered his Beloved, “The words were clear as day and deep inside me, and my soul was listening to these sweet nothings with sweet fright. Oh who has the tongue of angels to say some pretty little thing about how much happened in my soul in this moment! Now see for yourself how pleasant and full of love these recited words are. But such was the love with which he told this to me that, if his Majesty does not treasure and keep my life, it would be impossible to live.”
The Lord was waiting for the answer, but Bernardo’s confused soul, submerged in the abyss of its miseries and its own nothingness, did not know what to do, seeing with a clear light what had been communicated to him and how unworthy he was of this sovereign favor. He seemed undone and annihilated. Stunned and surprised by excessive admiration, Bernardo could not speak, as if embraced in living flames of love. And babbling, without forming a word, he was speaking in riddles and could only say: “Ecce Ancilla Domini fiat mihi secundum Verbum tuum” — “Here is the servant of the Lord, let it be done to me according to your Word.”
It is not easy to explain other such virtuous acts, to explain how, with this singular fondness, Bernardo only loved, admired, praised, magnified, thanked, adored, venerated and exalted the grandeurs of his Beloved. He was confused, annihilated and looked unworthy of such great favor.
“The effects of this proposal have been divine,” Bernardo said. “And now I had better be silent, since I am pining from love and I cannot go on.” ____________________
The section translated here comes from Book 1, Chapter 10 of the biography written by Padre Juan de Loyola S.J., Bernardo’s spiritual director. This work is posted in the original Spanish on serviciocatolico.com, a website advocating for Bernardo’s canonization.
Translated prayer: “O Bernardo, young and kindest angel, pray for us”
Cody Hooks also translated a 19th-century Spanish prayer calling on the energies of Bernardo. It was written by Father José Eugenio de Uriarte around 1896.
“This is a prayer for centering yourself in love. To work with this prayer in the tradition of a Roman Catholic novena, as it was originally written, pray it every day for nine days. Hold in your heart a specific intention, such as the healing of someone who is sick, the wellbeing of your community, or the needs of a friend or your family. You can also pray for the needs and longings in your own heart. (The spot for making these “petitions” is marked in the prayer with a set of asterisks),” Hooks explained.
“Bernardo de Hoyos: Villagarcia novitiate, 1776-1778,” source unknown
To begin, Hooks suggests settling into a comfortable position and looking at an image of Bernardo or the Sacred Heart. Then pray:
“Holy and eternal are the divine gifts of the cosmos, and blessed is the miraculous unfolding of every form of life, made with perfection in the first instant of their creation. May it be so.”
This is followed by silent meditation and optional movement such as a bow, making the sign of the cross, or another bodily gesture that feels holy. When ready, move on to the main prayer:
____________________
Oh Beloved Bernardo, you are the embodiment of spiritual seekers. You are the most precious jewel of your ancestors, child of perfect divinity, and my most loving protector. Open and trusting, I come to you. I come to you for your powerful, spiritual guidance. Oh Bernardo, Beloved of Jesus and Friend of the Sacred Heart of Universal Love, I contemplate the grit on your brow and the radiant crown of your soul. With all the energy with which you loved this holy and infinite presence, please bless the body, mind and soul of **my beloved** with the blessings of perfect wellness.
Bernardo, my most beloved companion, please ask our most loving Mother, Mary, to help me open myself to the eternal flow of loving-kindness you knew so well. Because of the tender relationship that you had with Her, for which she let you glimpse the cosmic mysteries, I know with every particle of my being that you receive my intentions with care.
Oh Bernardo, kindly hear my prayers. May your burning love reach those who need it. May you have your place among the saints and on the altars, helping to guide the everyday miracles and profound transformations at work in our lives. May you especially bless the sick and troubled, and those who dwell in compassion and loving-kindness. May I do what I can with what I have, and like you, may I do it always with the infinite love of the cosmos. May it be so.
Heart of Love, bless our ancestors and the generations to come.
Heart of Love, glorify our beloved Bernardo. Please hear our prayers and grant miracles to those who need them.
Heart of Love, through Holy Mary and through every cell of creation, help us soon, and may the seeds of your divine essence now blossom.
O Bernardo, young and kindest angel, pray for us.
____________________
This prayer comes from “Vida Del P. Bernardo Francisco de Hoyos de La Compañia De Jésus” by José Eugenio de Uriarte and Vicente Agustí, published in Barcelona in 1896 by Francisco Rosal.
It is also part of the Queer Christ series series by Kittredge Cherry at the Jesus in Love Blog. The series gathers together visions of the queer Christ as presented by artists, writers, theologians and others.
FollowKittredge CherryFounder at Q SpiritKittredge Cherry is a lesbian Christian author who writes regularly about LGBTQ spirituality.She holds degrees in religion, journalism and art history.She was ordained by Metropolitan Community Churches and served as its national ecumenical officer, advocating for LGBTQ rights at the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches.
Trust in vaccines grows slightly, distribution faces challenges, and legislators plan for the next stage. Here’s what you should know:
Trust builds as mRNA vaccines may soon be available in the US
With the news that Moderna has applied for emergency use authorization for its coronavirus vaccine, and that Pfizer and BioNTech’s shot has been approved in the UK, the US is inching ever closer to having one, if not two, vaccines approved for use. Both are mRNA vaccines, which trigger cells to build proteins that look like coronavirus and thus set off an immune response. The UK regulator’s decision marks the first time an mRNA vaccine has been approved for use in humans. And, that aside, these two shots have been developed on a record-setting timeline that some experts hope will become the new normal.Whereas only about half of US adults said they would get vaccinated in September, new research from Pew has found that 60 percent now say they would definitely or probably get vaccinated against Covid-19 today if they could But that still leaves a significant number of Americans who say they would not get the vaccine, many of whom also reported that more information wouldn’t change their minds. This lack of trust in vaccines could exist for any number of reasons, including the country’s long history of medical racism and the rapid spread of vaccine misinformation online. In the hopes of building public trust, former presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton recently announced they will all get vaccinated as soon as possible, and may even film the process.
Vaccine distribution is imminent, but won’t be without its challenges
Preparations are now underway to assure that administration goes as smoothly as possible once vaccines are approved for use in the US. On Tuesday, a federal advisory panel issued its official recommendations for who should get vaccinated first. It advised that the country’s approximately 21 million healthcare workers and 3 million nursing home residents and staff should have access to the first doses. But ultimately, it will be up to governors to make this decision on behalf of their states.There is also the question of how to quickly pharmaceutical companies can manufacture and distribute a new and complicated vaccine. Pfizer and BioNTech had planned to produce 100 million doses for use worldwide by the end of 2020. But they announced in November that that number had been reduced to 50 million after some of the raw materials they received didn’t meet standards. And newly released research from IBM found that hackers have attempted to carry out sophisticated phishing attacks against the companies that are preparing to help transport the vaccine at the necessary frigid temperatures, another wrinkle in what’s already a very complicated supply chain.
US Covid-19 numbers hit troubling highs as legislators plan for the pandemic’s next stage
With the same trademark compassion and erudition he brought to The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, Oliver Sacks explores the place music occupies in the brain and how it affects the human condition. In Musicophilia, he shows us a variety of what he calls “musical misalignments.” Among them: a man struck by lightning who suddenly desires to become a pianist at the age of forty-two; an entire group of children with Williams syndrome, who are hypermusical from birth; people with “amusia,” to whom a symphony sounds like the clattering of pots and pans; and a man whose memory spans only seven seconds-for everything but music. Illuminating, inspiring, and utterly unforgettable, Musicophilia is Oliver Sacks’ latest masterpiece.
Bağlama (saz)An ashik performance in TabrizAshugh Jivani (center, playing the kamani) with instrumentalistsSoviet stamp from 1962 devoted to Sayat-Nova‘s 250 anniversary.
The word ashiq (Arabic: عاشق, meaning “in love” or “lovelorn”) is the nominative form of a noun derived from the word ishq (Arabic: عشق, “love”), which in turn may be related to the Avestaniš- (“to wish, desire, seek”).[9] The term is synonymous with ozan [tr] in Turkish and Azerbaijani, which it superseded during the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries.[10]:368[11] Other alternatives include saz şair (meaning “saz poet”) and halk şair (“folk poet”). In Armenian, the term gusan, which referred to creative and performing artists in public theaters of Parthia and ancient and medieval Armenia, is often used as a synonym.[5]:20[1]:851–852
The ashik tradition in Turkic cultures of Anatolia, Azerbaijan and Iran has its origin in the Shamanistic beliefs of ancient Turkic peoples.[12] The ancient ashiks were called by various names such as bakshy/bakhshi/Baxşı, dede (dədə), and uzan or ozan. Among their various roles, they played a major part in perpetuation of oral tradition, promotion of communal value system and traditional culture of their people. These wandering bards or troubadours are part of current rural and folk culture of Azerbaijan, and Iranian Azerbaijan, Turkey, the Turkmen Sahra (Iran) and Turkmenistan, where they are called bakshy. Thus, ashik, in traditional sense, may be defined as travelling bards who sang and played saz, an eight or ten string plucking instrument in the form of a long-necked lute.
Judging based on the Turkic epic Dede Korkut,[13] the roots of ashiks can be traced back to at least the 7th century, during the heroic age of the Oghuz Turks. This nomadic tribe journeyed westwards through Central Asia from the 9th century onward and settled in present Turkey, Azerbaijan Republic and North-west areas of Iran. Naturally, their music was evolved in the course of the grand migration and ensuing feuds with the original inhabitants the acquired lands. An important component of this cultural evolution was that the Turks embraced Islam within a short time and of their own free will. Muslim Turk dervishes, desiring to spread the religion among their brothers who had not yet entered the Islamic fold, moved among the nomadic Turks. They choose the folk language and its associate musical form as an appropriate medium for effective transmission of their message. Thus, ashik literature developed alongside mystical literature and was refined starting since the time of TurkicSufiKhoja Akhmet Yassawi in early twelfth century.[14]
The single most important event in the history of ashik music was the ascent to the throne of Shah Isma’il (1487–1524), the founder of the Safavid dynasty. He was a prominent ruler-poet and has, apart from his diwan compiled a mathnawi called Deh-name, consisting of some eulogies of Ali, the fourth Caliph of early Islam. He used the pen-name Khata’i and, in ashik tradition, is considered as an amateur ashik .[15] Isma’il’s praised playing Saz as a virtue in one of his renowned qauatrains;[16]
Bu gün ələ almaz oldum mən sazım — (Today, I embraced my Saz) Ərşə dirək-dirək çıxar mənim avazım — (My song is being echoed by heavens) Dörd iş vardır hər qarındaşa lazım: — (Four things are required for the life:) Bir elm, bir kəlam, bir nəfəs, bir saz. — (Conscience, speech, respiration, and Saz.)
According to Köprülü’s studies, the term ashik was used instead of ozan in Azerbaijan and in areas of Anatolia after the 15th century.[17][10] After the demise of Safavid dynasty in Iran, Turkish culture could not sustain its early development among the elites. Instead, there was a surge in the development of verse-folk stories, mainly intended for performance by ashiks in weddings. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the governments of new republics in Caucasus region and Central Asia sought their identity in traditional cultures of their societies. This elevated the status of ashugs as the guardians of national culture. The new found unprecedented popularity and frequent concerts and performances in urban settings have resulted in rapid innovative developments aiming to enhance the urban-appealing aspects of ashik performances.
A concise account of the ashik (called ashugh in Armenian) music and its development in Armenia is given in Garland Encyclopedia of World Music.[1]:851–852 In Armenia, the ashugh are known since the 16th century onward, acting as the successors to the medieval gusan art. By far the most notable of the ashugh of all was Sayat Nova (1712–95), who honed the art of troubadour musicianship to crowning refinement.[18]
Pahlavi era was the darkest period for Azerbaijani literature. The education and publication in Azerbaijani language was banned and writers of Azerbaijan, had to publish their works in the Persian language. However, ashik music was tolerated. Ashiks frequently performed in coffee houses in all the major cities of east and west Azerbaijan in Iran. Tabriz was the eastern center for the ashiks and Urmia the western center. In Tabriz ashiks most often performed with two other musicians, a balaban player and a qaval player; in Urmia the ashik was always a solo performer.[19] After the Islamic revolution music was banned. Ten years later, ashik Rəsul Qurbani, who had been forced to make a living as a travelling salesman, aspired to return to the glorious days of fame and leisure. He started composing songs with religious and revolutionary themes. The government, realizing the propaganda potential of these songs, allowed their broadcast in national radio and sent Rəsul to perform in some European cities. This facilitated the emergence of the ashik music as the symbol of Azeri cultural identity.
The School of Athens (detail) — by Raphael (courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
It seems like we’re always talking about “the battle of ideas” these days. This is nothing new— John Stuart Mill famously coined the term, “the marketplace of ideas” to describe open discourse within free societies. Given the availability for people to get their ideas into the public domain more easily than ever, the battle of ideas seems inevitable and beneficial.
When I say “we”, I’m of course referring to the philosophically-minded. Those of us for whom ethics is not simply inherited from our parents, for whom politics is not merely a team sport, for whom religion is not simply a question of which church you were raised in. Those of us who are still interested in things like open discourse and debate.
Don’t mistake it for arrogance when I cast myself among the philosophically-minded. It’s not a compliment. It’s not exactly an insult either. Suffice it to say that we’re a disagreeable group in many respects, in spite of our many virtues.
Ludwig Wittgenstein was sometimes known to remark, “Don’t try to shit higher than your ass”. A bit crude — but honestly, I think it’s a perfect warning for philosophers. Philosophers are always shitting higher than their ass. We’re always trying to come up with all-encompassing theories. Always trying to use logic to bend the world to our will. Always trying to “solve” moral and religious disputes that have plagued mankind for centuries, as if all we needed to solve the problem was for another philosopher to come along and set us straight.
But that’s just what I’m here to talk about. In a way, this is a bit of an intervention. Philosophers… we need to talk. This is from someone who once held these same prejudices, and got over them. Those of us who consider ourselves philosophically-minded tend to have some serious misunderstandings about debate.
The issue is partly that most people are confused about what human beings are doing when we debate. The psychological evidence would suggest that we didn’t evolve to employ reason in debate for the purposes of gaining true beliefs about reality. This isn’t to say that such a thing is impossible, or that reason necessarily isn’t a means of gaining knowledge about reality — far from it.
But if we’re asking why humans debate, the psychological explanation points towards social reasons. The argumentative theory of reasoning holds that reason evolved essentially as a tool for social competition. When we argue, we’re not trying to find truth — we’re trying to win.
From an evolutionary standpoint perhaps this seems so intuitive as to be almost inescapable. Evolution doesn’t care about “the objective truth”. Evolution selects for that which gives advantage, and selects against that which gives disadvantage. In the social context, those beliefs that are passed down will be passed down by those who most effectively purvey those beliefs.
Hugo Mercier, the co-author of an article on the argumentative theory of reasoning published in April of 2011 in The Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, explains this in an interview with NYT:
“Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions… It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.”
Reason is a way of winning people over. But, perhaps more importantly, Mercier asserts that even flawed reasoning is an effective means of doing this. In fact, flawed reasoning only survives because it can give advantage in argument. Flawed reasoning is an adaptation. To quote Mr. Mercier once again, “People have been trying to reform something that works perfectly well.”¹
Some have, of course, taken issue with this characterization of reason. It seems like an overly-bleak assessment of the situation. It makes everything about combat, about selfishness. This pushback isn’t at all surprising. We don’t want to entertain any viewpoint, like the argumentative theory, that might threaten our cherished concepts: such as truth, justice, love, and the like.
But really, none of that is at issue here. We’re not talking about the value of truth itself, but the functionality of debate as a means of doing so. The moral prejudices that we have about “the marketplace of ideas” and the value of debate presuppose to some extent that logic is a potent force. If debate is a truth-seeking behavior, that implies that the truth can be revealed through debate. What would this mean, in practice? That logic, in its sovereignty, can make other minds bend the knee? That if someone is made to understand the illogic of their position, naturally they will want to change that position? But we all know that this is nonsense.
Furthermore, we don’t have to conclude that everything boils down to combat. The problem is far more subtle than that. After all, if a belief were false in a dangerous way, such that it were disadvantageous for the whole community, evolution would select against that too. There has to be some underlying merit to a belief for it to survive at all.
The point of my criticism is not to reduce our outlook on debate to utter cynicism. But we must acknowledge that arguing is a social activity, and it has social motivations. Our powers of reason developed in proportion to the social utility of persuading. Employing logic in the course of a debate is something we do to out-maneuver, to make ourselves look better, to dominate, to take control of the narrative.
As such, all those familiar logical fallacies will always be with us — because they work. When we argue with others, the concern is what we find persuasive. What humans find persuasive has very little relationship with the objective truth.
We philosophically-minded will eternally object to these considerations. This is probably because we really like debate, and we really like truth-seeking, and we tend to think that we can do both simultaneously.
We might even permit that such social forces on human psychology do exist. We might admit that we’re wired to engage in debate as combative and/or competitive activity. But still — we want to hold on to the notion that there is something real there. That logic has real power separate from mere persuasion, and debate is worthwhile as a truth-seeking activity. That open discourse and the marketplace of ideas can actually do what we imagine that they do.
This argument is very, very old. Plato records a version of it in the Socratic dialogue, Gorgias. Gorgias, for whom the dialogue is named, is a rhetoritician against whom Socrates argues. Socrates, naturally, holds the position that reason as he employs it is both a means of getting to the truth, and separate from the art of persuasion. Socrates argues that truth should be the ultimate standard, and that rhetoric is therefore an inferior art to philosophy. Gorgias argues, on the other hand, that if a rhetoritician uses his powers for evil — such as to persuade a democratic body to vote for something harmful — that is not a failing of the art or the instructor, but simply an example of a person using a tool for immoral purposes.
Even though the two debaters diverge starkly in their perspective, it’s hard to see how anyone could deny the immense power of rhetoric. Gorgias:
“I say that if a rhetorician and a physician were to go to any city, and had there to argue in the Ecclesia or any other assembly as to which of them should be elected state-physician, the physician would have no chance; but he who could speak would be chosen if he wished; and in a contest with a man of any other profession the rhetorician more than any one would have the power of getting himself chosen, for he can speak more persuasively to the multitude than any of them, and on any subject. Such is the nature and power of the art of rhetoric.”²
Socrates has a big problem with this, naturally… but is Gorgias speaking falsely here? Can anyone deny that he is correct?
Gorgias praises Socrates’ own skill for persuasion early in the dialogue, which should not go unnoticed. So much of the appeal of Socrates is just this: his talent for persuasion, and his ability to use reason to demolish and dominate his opponents. Socrates is actually a great rhetoritician. Much of what we moderns admire about Socrates is his style rather than the substance. Typically, modern people don’t hold Socrates’ conclusions to be true — such as ideas about censoring music and art or having a caste-based society — but we still read Socrates… why? To watch the master work. To see him weave his arguments, entrap his opponents, and excel at the sport of debate.
The debate recorded in Gorgias is a debate about debate itself: whether debate is about winning or whether debate is about seeking truth. This debate about debate has been going on for millennia — whether in the Athenian forum, or between psychologists writing in scientific journals. And I’m not about to settle the matter in this article. Let’s not shit higher than our ass here.
So, instead, I’ll appeal to personal experience. Speaking as someone who would consider himself very open-minded, I have to admit that when I get involved in a debate, very rarely am I actually in the mindset to be persuaded of something. The longer the debate goes on, the more in-depth the debate goes, the more I find myself locating flaws of logic and coordinating attacks in order to demolish the person’s argument. That’s quite a different thing from considering whether there’s some underlying sense to how this person sees the world. I also have to admit that I’ve rarely changed anyone’s mind as the outcome of a debate.
Well, that’s not exactly true. The person you’re arguing with is rarely the intended audience. On social media these days, you can argue before an audience of all your friends and family. On a website like reddit, you can demolish someone in front of millions. The reason why we try to persuade is for the audience’s benefit, rather than the person you’re arguing with. Just like on any popular talent show these days, its the audience that judges.
Sometimes, when it comes to divisive issues, like politics, even the audience isn’t really there to be convinced of anything. They’re there for the competitive aspect more than anything else: like the fans of two opposing teams at a football game. If there is any change in the audience’s perception, it’s usually in the form of heels digging in, perceptions of the other side solidifying, not to mention all the emotional excitement that we derive from social competition.
To the extent that persuasion is happening, the relevant questions are: Who comes out looking better? Who took control of the narrative? Who framed their arguments in a more appealing manner?
Very rarely are we winning the heart or the mind of the person we’re actually talking to. Usually it has little to do with “the truth”. Again, that isn’t the function that debate evolved to fulfill.
Does that mean that changing hearts or minds is impossible?
No. I’ve seen friends and family utterly transform on a whole host of very personal and important issues, from politics to religion and everything in between. But how does that happen? Spoiler alert: it isn’t because they got “destroyed with facts and logic”.
As Alan Watts brilliantly pointed out in one of his best lectures, entitled Mind Over Mind, all transformation is gradual. It’s work. It’s a process. Watts:
“Neurology knows relatively little about the brain, which is to say that the brain is a lot smarter than neurology… There is this [organ] which can perform all these extraordinary intellectual and cultural miracles, but we don’t know how we did it. We didn’t have some campaign to have an improved brain, over the monkeys or whatever may be our ancestors. It happened. And all growth, you see, is fundamentally something that happens.”³
While Watts’ words may almost seem like a truism — ‘growth is just something that happens’ — the meaning here is that you can’t force growth. You can’t make someone to grow by browbeating them anymore than you can can get perfectly sculpted abs simply by willpower. We understand perfectly well when it comes to our physiology that change is gradual. Change happens due to little choices we make every single day. You have the body that your lifestyle created. If you want a different body, you have to change your lifestyle.
So, what is the equivalent when it comes to the psychology? Someone who thinks all liberals are communistic devil-worshipers isn’t going to change that view after hearing a “devastating” liberal argument. Someone who has never met a rural conservative and thinks they’re all toothless hillbillies who hate women and minorities isn’t going to take a more nuanced view after hearing the arguments of a pundit on FOX News. In all likelihood, either person would probably become more entrenched in their beliefs.
What might change either one of those people — broad caricatures, I know, but still — would be to actually meet and maybe even befriend the other person. To develop relationships with people who believe differently from them. Not to ostracize the family members with beliefs they think are stupid or abhorrent, but to maintain those family ties in spite of that. Minds are changed after years of personal growth. Minds change because of what we see, feel and experience. They change because of a million little interactions and relationships.
So, my message is not not simply that debate is meaningless, and therefore we should abandon reason. It’s not that the truth never prevails, or that you can’t override your human biases given the right conditions.
All I’m asking — in this intervention — is that we be realistic about what we’re doing when we’re scoring a slam dunk of an argument on an opponent on Twitter. It’s nothing more than a social game. It’s really no different from two apes wrestling, while the others look on and cheer. If we can be honest and self-reflective about that, and still think it’s worthwhile activity — then, by all means. Go on wrestling, my fellow apes.
You might win the argument. But if you think you’re forging the truth in the raging fire of the battle of ideas… remember Wittgenstein’s rule, and adjust your aim.
Socrates Café is all about making ours, on local and global scales, an inclusive, thoughtful and participatory society where regular exchanges of ideas and ideals among diverse people take place.
.jpg){kind=link}
