NationStates Jolt Archive

Tanaka: Welcome to the February fifth edition of Broadcasting Centre, live from Kensington, Eurasia. I'm Mitsuki Tanaka, for the EBG. Please remember that this programme is protected by a glass screen, but vital parts of it aren't. Today, we're interviewing Bastien Ferailler, a noted Ariddian philosopher at the University of Rêvane. His most famous works include Refuting the Myth of "Human Nature": An Analysis of Societal, Economic and Cultural Norms in Capitalist and Non-Capitalist Societies, Why We Should Delude Ourselves: The Illusion of Free Will and Religion and Social Cohesiveness. [turns towards Ferailler] Sir, it's a great honour.

Ferailler (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Bastien_Ferailler): "Thank you. I'm honoured to have been invited."

Tanaka: I understand that you are a major advocate of determinism. Could you please explain that philopsophy?

Ferailler: "With pleasure. Thank you for calling me a 'major advocate'!" (laughs) "And thank you also for inviting a philosopher for an interview. I only wish more television media followed your example.

Determinism... Well, to put it concisely... Determinism is the theory that there is no such thing as free will. That free will is merely... what I call a 'necessary illusion'. Everything that happens, including every human act, is the inevitable, almost mechanical consequence of a multitude of causes interacting. Those causes themselves were the predetermined consequences of previous causes, and so on. The word 'Determinism' comes from the fact that everything that happens is pre-determined. Not by any consciousness or will - that would be fate, which I don't believe in - but by the inevitable string of causes and consequences.

To put it another way, if the human mind were able to know all the causes existing and acting at this precise moment, we would know everything that's ever going to happen, everywhere, to everyone. Determinism is the theory that consequences follow on from causes without any such thing as human 'free will' playing a... randomising part in the equation."

Tanaka: If you're aware of this...inability to have free will, how do you make any decisions? For example, how did you end up here in this studio?

Ferailler: “A very good question. One which actually raises the issue of language. I don’t want to sound as if I’m avoiding the question – I’m not – but the answer very much depends on what you mean by ‘I’.

I’ll try to make that a bit clearer… Obviously ‘I’ decided to come here. But what is ‘I’? We’re all used to considering that we are defined by our free will. When you say that you have done something, in most cases you implicitly mean that you’ve done it of your own free will. A Determinist, on the other hand, believes that the human mind functions... rather like a biological machine. Remember what I said about causes and consequences? Your actions are the consequences of multiple interacting causes... which may include past experiences, sensual stimuli, a whole range of possible causes affecting your brain, your mind. It reacts accordingly. And all those causes lead to just one possible outcome. Believing that you can act in several different ways in the face of a specific set of influences is the illusion. There's just one mechanical consequence. That's what I mean when I say there's no free will.

So to answer your question without rewriting the language and redefining 'I', 'I' am aware of what my mind and body do, but the 'I' is just that passive awareness, not an active agent with free will. I ended up here with you in this studio because it was the only possible consequence based on a vast multitude of interacting causes."

Tanaka: Now, from what I've heard, some of the perceptions of free will, of a sovereign self who singlehandly directs the control of the body, are inspired by some sort of evolutionary basis - that it's there to benefit us. Do you have a comment on that?

Ferailler: "You mean the idea that free will distinguishes human beings from other animals? Well... The issue of animal self-consciousness is one that we've barely begun to explore, but certainly there is some difference, in terms of... self-reflecting awareness. My point, really, is that you have to distinguish between self-awareness and free will. Obviously you and I are self-aware. That doesn't necessarily imply that we have free will. We come back to the problem that 'I' has traditionally been defined as the entity which has... self-awareness and free will fused together. They're really seperate issues."

Tanaka: I see. Changing gears here slightly, you also write about the dangers of "the capitalist deconstruction of the social contract". Could you explain that?

Ferailler: "Ah. That's a slightly different topic. What I mean by that is... Well, in my view the capitalist ideology is rather unhealthy. Inherent to capitalism in most societies is the idea, actively promoted, that individualism and selfishness are an essential right - in fact, the essential right; that they're a good thing, the epitome of 'freedom'. People are being encouraged to see themselves simply as individuals, and not as members of a society. The very basis, the essence of any society is the principle that we have a responsability towards one another, that society is founded on principles of mutual solidarity. Capitalism encourages people to believe that the 'right' to selfishness is more important, more valuable, than being a member of a society in any meaningful sense. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the ideology of capitalism is destructive to the very bases of society."

Tanaka: How do you view the social contract? What, in your opinion, would be a better way in which to view the social contract?

Ferailler: "Well, when I use those words, what I mean is that society itself is, or should be, a contract of solidarity between all citizens. The concept of a society only makes sense if there is this principle of solidarity. That is, if people are willing to contribute to one another's essential well-being, and to make sure that nobody is left unattended when homeless or sick or hungry. Capitalism goes against that. Capitalism is about putting individualism in front of everything else, to that point that selfishness is seen as the most fundamental right.

In practical terms, to answer your question, the damage needs to be undone in capitalist societies. Capitalist propaganda has taught people to think like 'good', selfish little consumers. People need to be taught to think critically, to think for themselves about everything they're told. The State needs to play a positive role in encouraging people to adopt values better suited to living in a society. Such as solidarity, and compassion."

Tanaka: So, in contrast, I presume, you'd argue that capitalist societies lack the cohesion necessary to be successful?

Ferailler: "That very much depends on how you define success, doesn't it? If the aim of a society is to ensure decent living and working conditions for all its people, then yes. That requires cohesion, and a sense of being a part of society, with resonsabilities as well as rights."

Tanaka: You argue that capitalism prevents a society from reaching optimal working and living conditions - but why would such a system become so prevalent?

Ferailler: "Because ensuring good living conditions for every member of society isn't necessarily everyone's priority. It definitely isn't the priority for those who stand to gain from employing poorly educated workers with poor wages, keeping them in a state of competition to keep wages down and maximise profits. The sad thing is that capitalists have, in many countries, persuaded the general public that an individual should care for no-one but himself, and his immediate family. There are variations depending on the traditional values of each society, of course, but the basic capitalist ideology is very adaptable. It tells you that looking out for yourself means you can ignore the suffering of everyone else. Individualism valued to such an extent that the concept of society becomes almost meaningless."

Tanaka: Is it possible to have individualism and socialism?

Ferailler: "Ah. Well. I think it's a matter of degree. It's neither possible nor desirable to remove a person's sense of individualism. Socialists are sometimes accused of wanting to do that, which is rubbish. The idea is to find a balance, so that the individual can care for himself and for other people. Mutually. What's needed is a healthy balance. And it's possible. As I said a moment ago, the damage caused by capitalist ideology needs to be undone, and people need to start considering alternatives. There's nothing natural about extreme individualism, contrary to what some... rather ignorant capitalists. In fact the emphasis on individualism is very culture-specific and very recent, built up within Western societies through a historical process linked to the rise of a capitalist economy. Look at traditional Pacific societies and their emphasis on community, for example."

Tanaka: Mr. Ferailler, I'm afraid that we're rapidly running out of time for this particular interview. Is there anything you'd like to say before we go off the air?

Ferailler: "There's always more to say, but..." (smiles) "Thank you for inviting me. It was a pleasure to be here and talk about a few important issues. If you're curious or you have questions about anything I've said, go to the website of the University of Rêvane; some of my ideas and texts are available online there. Anyway, thank you for this opportunity."

Tanaka: It was my pleasure. (smiles, turns toward camera) To find the complete transcript for this interview, please visit news.ebg.co.eu; also, visit the University of Rêvane website to learn more about Mr. Ferailler's philosophies.