Letters

Write for The Iranian Editorial policy

Thursday
July 26, 2001

Philosphical pondering

Your letter ["What about you?"] shows that you have a basic understanding of philosophical issues and can analyze a subject with relative fairness. So, why you hide your name, I don't know. However, when it comes to deep philosophical discussions, it is very easy for readers to distort the essence of an article by injecting into it their own uni-directional meanings and pre-conceived ideas. Therefore, I like to clarify a number of points regarding your letter. ["Last refuge"]

You wrote: "Does a piece of dust sitting on your dinning table ask 'what about ME?'" A piece of dust will never ask such question because it does not have the neurological complexity of the human brain. If it had, it would ask the exact same question. If you adhere to the belief that you are nothing "more than just a piece of dust in the universe", that's fine with me, but please do not project your inferiority complex onto others. Your reasoning reminds me of the story of Gregor Samsa, the unfortunate hero of Kafka's masterpiece, Metamorphosis: "As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning after disturbing dreams, he found himself transformed in his bed into an enormous bug" (read Introducing Kafka).

Without a doubt Homo Sapiens Sapiens (the technical term for modern humans) are the most intelligent species on earth and the human brain is the most complex organ known. One of the hallmarks of such complexity is that humans are not only aware of their surroundings, but they are also aware of themselves. They are 'self-aware'. One of the consequences of this self-awareness is that we not only question ourselves and our surroundings, but also the relationship between these two -- both scientifically and philosophically. Therefore, the two great forces of science and philosophy have been responsible for the emergence of modern human civilization. Apparently, it is only people like you who confuse philosphical pondering with self-indulgence.

My article, ["Last refuge"] is personal to the degree that it shows my own intellectual development. That's all. The main message of the article is that the secular humanistic philosophy has been unsuccessful in converting masses of people, and part of this failure lies in the very essence of the philosophy itself and the kind of secular, existential comfort it offers to humans.

I agree that many existential philosophers go to extremes and surround their speculations with so much pessimism and nonsensical lamentations, but there are many who do not loose their balance and it is not fair to label all philosophical speculations, especially in the realm of existential philosophy and literature, "pointless and self-indulgent". Using your logic, one has to dismiss Samuel Beckett, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Albert Camus, Soren Kierkegaard, Arthur Schopenhauer and all the Greek Tragedians for being "arrogant and self-indulgent". It is the spirit of rebellion, curiosity, intellectual anxiety and uncertainty, combined with the correct use of scientific methodology, that fuels the human mind and force humans to go forward despite the awareness of their final fate.

You wrote: "[I]f one lowers one's expectations, and humbles oneself, and comes to grips with one's actual place in the universe, instead of adopting an arrogant and self-indulgent attitude and demanding more from the world than we already have, then one won't become depressed as you said from reading Dawkins's Selfish Gene. There is no reason to be depressed from realizing our very small place in the universe. We have been 'given' the 'gift of life'."

First of all, if you had bothered to read my article more carefully, you would have known that I never referred to myself as being depressed. I am perfectly fine. I wrote: "[t]hey read Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" and become more annoyed and more depressed." This is a fact that Dawkins himself has acknowledged. After reading his book, "The Selfish Gene", people wrote him letters and asked him why he even bothers to wake up in the morning. All I said was that once I was in a state of "intellectual bewilderment" which is something that happens to all those who do research and question their own beliefs.

Second of all, I suppose your main point is that we should be happy and grateful because we have been given the gift of life. Well, tell that to the hundreds of female prisoners in Iran who are being "gang-raped" by Pasdars (revolutionary guards) and other prison officials. Sedayeh Iran and Voice of Israel have interviewed a number of these women. Tell that to the European countries who congratulated President Khatami for his reelection. Tell that to such undemocratic organizations as World Bank, IMF and WTO who are crushing the people of third world countries by devising and implementing unfair laws and tactics.

Tell that to: (a) those who promote and practice slavery in Sudan and Mauritania; (b) thousand of men and women, in the city of Nanking, beheaded, raped and mutilated by the Japanese soldiers (read Rape of Nanking); (c) millions of people in Iran, Afghanistan, Far Eastern and African countries who live either jobless, overworked or in great poverty; (d) thousands of poor Indian girls beaten and forced into prostitution. I don't deny the great contributions of science and the its role in the progress of civilization. This was actually the subject of my other article, ["Somewhere inbetween"], but it does not mean we should turn a blind eye to human suffering and be overtly optimistic.

You also quoted an Omar Khayyam or Omar Khayyam-like poem to prove your point. All the experts agree with the fact that Khayyam's poetry does not necessarily point to a definite direction when it comes to existential questions. One rubayi encourages you to be courageous and self-reliant; another rubayi complains that fate and the world of living do not meet our expectations. I am not holding this against Khayyam. It is actually a sign of intellectual vitality to cover opposite view points with the same degree of mastery. So, Khayyam could be pessimistic and optimistic, humble and self-indulgent (using your standard).

I hope I have clarified the main message of my article for you and other readers. In the meantime, what you can do is to find a reputable university and take a number of courses in science, philosophy, history, literature and, maybe, international relations.

Best regards,

Hamed Vahidi

Comment for The Iranian letters section