Siby-Lecture_1

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 1: Notes - 1

An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy 1. PHILOSOPHY Philosophy (etymologically, the love of wisdom [philo(love)+sophia(wisdom) in Greek] is the enquiry into the broadest and most fundamental questions of human knowledge and possible answers to them. Philosophy can ask a question regarding all that exists (the broadest of all questions): what is being? what does it mean to be? At the same time, philosophy can ask also the broadest and most fundamental question in a particular field of study, say, in science (this branch of philosophy is called ‘the philosophy of science’): does quantum physics tell us about the way the world really is?

Now, philosophy asks not only the broadest and most fundamental questions, it is also the broadest field of knowledge. When Isaac Newton wrote the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy in 1687 physics was still thought to be a branch of philosophy. In fact, at some point nearly every subject currently listed in our university’s catalog would have been considered philosophy. It is when new methods of enquiry like experiment, observation, explanation, verification, and evidential reasoning developed that philosophy was considered different from other fields of study. The most basic method of philosophy is reasoning per se without any allusion to other methodologies I have mentioned above. Hence it is a completely conceptual exercise.

Being the broadest field of study, philosophy has several branches or subfields of enquiry. The study of the broadest and most fundamental questions regarding reality is called metaphysics. The most central question of metaphysics is ‘what is real?’ It is the broadest question because there is nothing beyond the real; it is the most fundamental question because on the answer to this question rests all our priorities, perspectives, and knowledge. If we believe God is the fundamental reality, of which everything else is born and to which everything else goes back, our most important priorities could become very religious and spiritual. On the other hand, if we believe the fundamental reality only the scientifically explicable material principles, our attitude to life could become scientific and factual. Similarly, the study of the broadest and most fundamental questions regarding knowledge is called epistemology. Its central question is ‘what is knowledge?’ The study of the broadest and most fundamental questions regarding human behavior is called ethics. It asks the question what the principle (value) is according to which we can call our actions good and bad. There are other sub-branches of philosophy like logic (enquiry into reasoning or inference), politics (enquiry into government and sharing of power), and aesthetics (enquiry into the nature and criteria of beauty). Since philosophy is the study of things most fundamental, all other branches of knowledge begin from a philosophical base or starting point. For example, physical sciences begin from a philosophical understanding of nature and organize their experiments and tests accordingly. They assume things that cannot be explicated through scientific methods proper. For example, modern sciences assume that there

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 1: Notes - 2 is a universal time flow. But the sciences cannot explicate what time is. While we can describe events in time, time itself is hard to describe. Time per se is a philosophical idea. Since branches of knowledge begin from philosophical bases, a philosopher can inquire into the philosophical bases of these branches of knowledge or disciplines of study. So we have the philosophy of biology, the philosophy of technology, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of economics and so on.

2. HUMAN QUESTIONS, HUMAN ANSWERS Among the living beings on Planet Earth, human beings alone are philosophical beings. They alone ask such questions. Of course, this is a truism. But the point here is: the questions raised and answered in philosophy are human questions and human answers. That is to say, philosophy is a plainly human endeavour; so are the sciences. Philosophy’s basis is the thinking, rational capacity of humans. A philosopher might question reason itself, but she/he uses reason itself to question reason. For example, the postmodern philosophers of Europe today think that an overtly rationalist, scientific perspective has not helped humanity and our Planet. They question reason, but reason itself is the weapon used to put ‘reason’ on the dock. Questions and answers to them in philosophy are not given by holy books or revered authority, but these questions come and go in the history of philosophy in accordance with human reason, human priorities, human imagination, and also human history. Philosophy is not based on holy books and theology, though one can philosophize about matters of religion. This is called philosophy of religion.

Hence, we need not be fooled at all that the most fundamental answers we receive in philosophy (and in any other branch of human knowledge including physical sciences) are absolutely objective final answers. They are ‘human’ answers; if we can attach any objectivity to them, it has to be qualified as plainly ‘human’ objectivity. That is, ‘objectivity’ as a function of the finite human mind. See: we need to understand that human knowledge is produced through the functioning of at least two definitive factors: (i) the structure of the human mind (it is through our consciousness that we access realities outside our mind; we do not have any direct access to things as they exist outside us; the philosopher Immanuel Kant makes this distinction in the following way: thing-in-itself or noumena [to which we have no access], and thing as it appears to our consciousness or phenomena [which is the only thing we know]. To clarify this point, think of it that many animals are color blind, and the reality of color is not accessible to them.), and (ii) the cultural, imaginational, historical elements that influence our way of looking at reality. Scientific knowledge through is a product of the human mind, but extraneous influences on this type of knowledge could be considerably reduced through scientific methodologies.

In short, ‘reality’ does not speak to us and reveal its fundamental nature to us, but we deal with ‘reality’ and impose our perspectives on it. If the Vedic Indian thought that nature was ‘spirit’, it was certainly a perspective of nature, which allowed her/him to relate with nature in a particular way. Similarly, the modern scientific perspective that nature is mere matter.

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 1: Notes - 3 3. SIGNIFICANCE OF PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES But the philosophical perspectives are important because it is in accordance with them that we relate to our world, other human beings and ourselves. A philosophical perspective means broad perspectives basing upon which we think, understand, and thereby act. Without the understanding of nature that it is matter obeying certain universal laws modern science was not possible. Medieval European did not think so. That is to say, if we, for example, want to save nature today, it is rather important that we examine how we understand nature, what value we attach to it, and, if need be, think about a perspective-change or paradigm shift.

Whether we like it or not we live our lives on the strength of certain established stories or narratives and on the strength of the rejection of certain others. These big stories are called ‘metanarratives’ (in fact ‘mega stories’) by the postmodern philosophers of Europe. Such metanarratives dominate for a time and usually give way to other stories. They are called metanarratives because they have explanations for everything under the sun, right from matter to mind, under a coherent system. It is altogether another matter whether these explanations can stand the scrutiny of reason, but within the system (that is, if we accept the system’s internal logic and basic assumptions) they do fall in place rather coherently. Historical examples of metanarratives include big religions with systematic theology like Christianity, ideologies like Marxism or modern science.

4. ORIGIN OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE Sixth Century BCE (before common era; CE=common era) of the Axial Age (the period 800-200 BCE that was the ‘axis’ or pivot for later humanity), was an important period in the life of philosophy. The idea of the Axial Age is from the book The Psychology of Worldviews by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883-1969). In fact, this period was the time when in different parts of the world philosophical thinking started independently (without any cross consultation or dialogue): Socrates and pre-Socratics, Plato and Aristotle in Greece, the Vedas, the Upanishads, Gautama Buddha and Mahavira in India, Lao Tzu and Confucius in China, Zoroaster (founder of Zoroastrianism/ Parsi religion) in Persia, and the prophets of Judea. According to Jaspers, the spiritual foundation for later humanity as we know in history was laid during the Axial Age. The mode of thought before the Axial Age was ‘myth’. Myths are tales narrated in poetic form, easy for committing to memory and presenting orally, which stood for people’s beliefs about fundamental matters like, for example, the origin of the world.

Philosophy in India and Greece (western philosophy starts from Greece) began by thinking about nature. (Here we discuss only Indian and Western philosophy because they are the philosophical systems that concern us most.) The Vedic Indian’s attribution of divinity to powerful natural forces was an attempt to understand the rta or order/ law of nature. This somewhat spiritual understanding of nature survives in all the Indic/Dharmic religions –

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 1: Notes - 4 Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism. Similarly, the earliest Greek thinkers began with the question ‘what is the ‘stuff’ or first principle (arche) out of which reality is made?’. (Early Greek philosophers took a route different from the accepted religious and mythical perspectives available in their societies, unlike in India. They posed philosophy in opposition to religious enquiry. This is not the case with India, where philosophy and religion are considered integrally or holistically.)

But Socrates of the fifth century BCE, one who is credited with properly founding western philosophy, turned away from philosophy’s concern with nature. For him, philosophy was a matter only of the inner world of human beings, and nature as such, he said, had nothing to teach him. Western philosophy has showed remarkable fidelity to this rebirth it had with Socrates and Plato. It began to consider the human mind as the powerful spiritual world, separated radically from the material world or nature, which the intelligent being was to tame, conquer, and use for the purpose of human advancement. The Judeo-Christian religious tradition, which places the human being at the centre of creation (in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, God blesses and tells the first human beings after creating them: “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” Genesis 1:28), got established across the west by third-fourth century CE. This development only further helped to radicalize the western understanding of the strenuous separation between humans and nature. Hence, what is called ‘anthropocentrism’ (anthropos is Greek for man), the centrality of human beings in the world, got firmly established in the west.

5. CONSEQUENCES OF ANTHROPOCENTRISM Now, we need not imagine that anthropocentrism was a gross evil. From a non-environmental and humanistic perspective, anthropocentrism was a great boon to the west. Anthropocentrism speeded up western development unlike never before. It led to the Renaissance and the Age of Reason (Enlightenment=the idea that human beings are no more under religious or other authorities in matters of conscience and free thought, but have achieved maturity for thinking independently and freely for themselves); it led to curious man discovering far off territories and traveling around the globe only for the sake of discovery; it led to scientific inventions and discovery of the hidden laws of our vast universe; it led to very humanistic developments as in medicine and human friendly technologies.

It also led to increase in western wealth primarily on account of colonization and imperialism. Another remarkable aspect of these developments was the establishment of the western view and philosophy, sciences and store of knowledge, methods and perspectives, as the universal way of gaining knowledge and the resultant knowledge as the universal pool of knowledge. From our discussion so far, I hope it is clear that the western perspective, which today has become nearly the universal perspective under the banner of modernity (so you and me are not less westerners in as much as our education and training – and thus our perspectives – are

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 1: Notes - 5 rather completely westernized) is not environment-friendly by any stretch of the imagination.

Scientific developments and the Age of Reason have been fantastic for human beings, but a grave danger for nature.

6. PHILOSOPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS So, we need to remember today that when we say there is a crisis of environmental thinking, this crisis is an offshoot of the western paradigm, despite the many advantages this paradigm has given to humanity. A critical and historical perspective is important to understand the environmental crisis. Modernity is a product of the west, and with colonialism, modernity was blindly imposed on the rest of the world without any room for critical and selective accommodation.

Of course, at the same time, we need not forget at all the developmental angle of modernity and the western paradigm. In fact, economic development everywhere has a thoroughly contradictory aspect and a profound dilemma: economic and industrial development brings about human prosperity but the same development affects the environment adversely; development increases human happiness and provides us with better material conditions, but it lays waste to the environment. A completely poor and most primitive human community is probably most friendly to the environment, but from a humanistic angle how do we justify the inhuman conditions and abject poverty of that community?

Western philosophy seriously forgot about nature for a long time. It was only in midtwentieth-century that there was a revival of the philosophy of nature, termed as environmental philosophy, and that too in response to (that is forced by) what was widely perceived as the ecological crisis in the 1960s. What has come out of this crisis as environmental philosophy is an account of how human beings should think about the natural world and their place within it. An important question here is about value: do only human beings as the value-generating beings have value, or also non-human life has value? Is nature intrinsically valuable just as human beings are?

7. NEED FOR NEW NARRATIVES We said earlier that studying philosophical perspectives, becoming aware of them, and doing something to change or transform them is important because we literally ‘live’ within these narratives. For example, without having at least a popular (as against strongly theoretical and mathematical) understanding of modern science, it is so very difficult to understand what it means to say that the earth is spherical and not flat because such understanding contradicts our common plain experience. This also means that just like humans in their recorded history always did not look at Planet earth as spherical, human relationship with Planet earth was not always in the same way. As we noted earlier, early human beings thought of themselves as integral part of nature unlike people of the scientific era, who think of nature as a manipulable machine from

Siby: Environmental Philosophy Lecture 1: Notes - 6 which human society is separate and distinct and over which humans ought to establish their mastery.

This amounts to say that the real environment is seen through a cultural filter made up of a philosophy, certain attitudes and modes of behavior. ‘Real’ and perceived environments differ, and it is impossible for humans to access the environment as it is in itself. We perceive things (reality) through the structures of our mind and through the cultural filter. While we can’t do anything to change our mind’s structure, the cultural filter, influenced by the dominant narrative of nature in an era, is changeable. All decisions with regard to the environment are made by us in accordance with our perception of the environment, the cultural glass with which we look at it.

Environmental perception is different in different cultures – humans perceive nature through their cultural filter.

Twentieth-century environmental philosophy is a recognition of several things, the most important of which is the harm that total, absolute and blind acceptance of the technoscientific culture has done to our Planet. This does not mean environmental philosophy is anti-science; rather, it means that environmental philosophy, based on a critique of technoscience, demystifies science, and allows us to look at nature more integrally, holistically. ‘Technoscientific culture’ does not mean a special attitude among technologists and scientists, but it is a cultural phenomenon and a philosophy associated with modernity. Modern environmental philosophy aims at a harmonious relationship between nature and humans. It argues for a cultural and philosophical revolution.

Figure 1: The Cultural Filter

filter human being

perceived environment

real environment