Cogito - Issue 2 - Reading School Student Philosophy Magazine

Issue 2

18/03/2022

COGITO The Reading School Philosophy Magazine

Contents 3

Foreword

4

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

7

The Essence of Formal Logic – Validity and Soundness

11

The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics

14

Your Consciousness Is Two

17

Can We Prove God Exists Through Pure Reason?

19

Absurdism: The Death of Hope?

20

Why Does Religion Exist?

23

The Success Paradox

25

Fight Club: A Philosophical Analysis

Editors-in-Chief: Ryan Lin Daniyal Vemuri Ciaran McEligott Designer-in-Chief: Mudit Pahwa

Foreword After publishing the first edition of Cogito, we were heartened to see how widely and deeply the school community engaged with the magazine. Far from being a failure or a niche pursuit, the magazine encouraged students, parents, and other members of the school community to engage with philosophical ideas and to enter that scrutinising mindset which we hoped to promote.

With the second edition of Cogito, we want to achieve this again; we want to bring you more challenging and intriguing ideas for you to grapple with and analyse.

We are also extremely pleased to welcome younger-year writers to the Cogito magazine. With articles ranging from the ideas of Albert Camus (the LRC’s author of the month for February) to the philosophy behind Fight Club, we trust that their contributions will put forward insightful, engaging, and powerful perspectives.

In this edition, we delve into and explore the midst of psychology, the existence of God, quantum mechanics, and existentialism, providing readers with a range of thought-provoking issues and topics.

We hope you enjoy this issue of Cogito Sincerely, the editors and contributors

Writers: Ciaran McElligott Daniyal Vemuri Ryan Lin James McClure Mohammed Youssef Dahoui Siddhant Mathur George Robby Aditya Kapoor

2

3

Six minute read

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs What motivates you? Why do you have a reason to do some things and not others?

Well, many people have asked themselves the exact same question, and many answers have been proposed. Today I will present one of the most common theories about motivations - Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs! Most likely you have encountered this theory previously, but you may not have a complete understanding of it.

Abraham Maslow was a psychologist who believed in the innate desire of humans for self-actualisation. Now, what is self-actualisation? Self-actualisation in the context of the Hierarchy of Needs is the innate desire of every human to fulfil what they believe to be their purpose. However, this desire rarely reared itself when more basic needs were met. This led him to formulate this set of desires and categorise them to allow people to reach true fulfilment and growth more effectively. He then proceeded to arrange these needs into a pyramid and created his iconic hierarchy of needs.

The bottom tier of Maslow’s hierarchy is regarding physiological needs. These are basic needs and desires such as hunger, thirst, and sleep. However, this extends to all animalist needs such as a desire to reproduce. Maslow said that these desires must be met before our attention can shift towards needs and desires that are higher up in the hierarchy.

For example, when you are hungry it is very difficult to think about activities besides eating. Maslow also states that people who are dominated by their desires in this tier will begin to alter their “whole philosophy of the future” (Maslow 1987). This leads the physiologically motivated person to define success based on if their basic needs are met, leading them to discard or ignore other desires as merely pleasant bonuses.

Just about that tier are safety Needs which are most easily understood as physical safety such as possessing a home. However, Maslow’s theory encompasses all types of safety including financial, social, psychological, and vocational safety. these things are considerably less fundamental than physiological needs, so are higher on the pyramid. If one was to lose their job or life savings, they will feel unstable and unprotected. Maslow observes how this need can be especially present in children who become overly stressed and anxious when not in a familiar and predictable environment.

The third tier of needs is comprised of love and belonging needs. Humans are innately social creatures, and we enjoy having social connections (romantic, friendships, et cetera). However, this extends beyond just enjoying social connections. Lack of human interaction can lead to serious mental health conditions such as depression, sleep issues and Alzheimer’s. Furthermore, psychologists have found a correlation between being successful and happy and being active within the local community.

The penultimate tier of needs is esteem needs. These are broken into two sections. The first is feeling confident about yourself. The second section is about feeling that your contributions and achievements are recognised and valued by others. If needs in this tier are met it leads to people feeling happy and being confident in themselves. Furthermore, Maslow says that needs in this tier are vital to begin the process of self-actualisation. It also grants people the ability to be creative and psychologically free.

The final and top tier of needs are self-actualisation needs. This, as mentioned above, is the innate desire of every human to fulfil their purpose. This purpose is personal and unique to the individual. It is the belief that the person is doing exactly what they should be doing in life. However, Maslow emphasises that this is a process and very few people achieve true self-actualisation. Among them were Albert Einstein and Mother Teresa.

This is, in Maslow’s opinion, the ultimate goal for human beings: to achieve this kind of understanding of themselves and their needs.

Well, now that we have defined our terms, it is important to mention how we progress up this hierarchy of needs and attain elusive self-actualisation. Maslow suggests that in order for people to attain true self-actualisation they need to have a desire to deepen their understanding of the world around them. Partly because it can allow them to meet certain needs (learning and demonstrating a new skill may meet an esteem need), and partly because it can lead us to discover our purpose and achieve self-actualisation.

Maslow also hypothesised that no need must be completely fulfilled to begin progressing towards a need that is higher up the hierarchy. Instead, most people operate by fulfilling several needs at the same time. For example, going out for a meal may fulfil one’s physiological needs for sustenance, but at the same time, it may also fulfil one’s desire for love and belonging by eating a meal with a friend or partner.

However, Maslow’s theory also has a level of adaptability to it. He acknowledges that his hierarchy needs to be malleable to be useful to the vast populace. This is because despite his attempts he is unable to prove that human needs are organised in the order that he describes them. This could mean that someone may value esteem needs less than love and relationship needs. However, Maslow does still suggest that self-actualisation is an omnipresent goal for all humans and that while the unique order of needs may differ, they do fundamentally organise themselves into a hierarchy.

Maslow’s theory has faced a lot of scrutiny since it was released, and many researchers

4

5

Six minute read have attempted to perform surveys and studies to inquire about the validity of his theory.

Tay and Diener (2011) found supporting evidence for Maslow’s ideas about needs and that there was indeed a link between these needs being met and overall positive response.

Specifically physiological needs and safety needs were positively correlated with people’s overall rating of their lives, whereas love and belonging needs were positively correlated with an overall feeling of positive emotions.

However, Tay and Diener also found that the needs, in the order they were assembled

by Maslow, did not agree with reality. Many people in poverty said that they felt loved and had good relations with those around them. They concluded that Maslow’s core ideas were supported, however the order of these needs were mostly arbitrary and that a more nuanced perspective is required to fully understand the complexities of human motivation, as has already been discussed

the essence of formal logic

Validity and Soundness

In conclusion, while Maslow’s hierarchy of needs may not be a perfect theory by any means, it does have a large amount of explanatory power and offers a lot of people a Philosophical basis upon which they base their lives. Despite its flaws, it is still commonly understood as a “folk” understanding of human motivation and can provide a useful framework for planning. It also influenced many other theories including Singer and Ryff ’s “eudaimonic well-being.”. Its usefulness is evident by its presence in the public consciousness and will most likely remain a simple and effective tool for understanding oneself. ciaran mceliggot

6

7

In the introduction to formal logic, we outlined what an argument was and what it meant to evaluate an argument, distinguishing between those that are deductive and those that are inductive. We also noted that logic is concerned with the deductive validity of the argument, with whether the inference steps of an argument are valid. We now take a look at the concepts of validity and soundness in more detail in order to fully understand what we mean when we say that an argument is valid or sound.

We have outlined validity as follows: an argument is deductively valid if when assuming its premises are true its conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well. But what does it mean for a conclusion to be guaranteed to be true?

Our more refined definition is this: an argument is (deductively) valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which its premises are true, and its conclusion is false.

This raises the question of what is meant by a possible situation. Consider the following argument: 1.

2.

Jack fell off a cliff and hit the ground.

Jack is therefore injured.

In the real world, we would be inclined to say that the inference step in this argument is valid – no one can survive an unimpeded fall from a cliff. However, we can conceive of alternative possible situations – if the laws of nature were different e.g. the Earth’s gravitational field was weaker, Jack would survive the fall. When we say ‘possible’, we mean possible in this weak sense – we can conceive of a possible situation where (1) is true and (2) is false, meaning that this argument is not deductively valid.

Consider the following argument: 1.

Object A is a cube.

2.

Object A therefore has 6 faces.

This is a deductively valid argument – by definition a cube has 6 faces and so there is no possible situation in which object A is a cube and also does not have 6 faces (this extends to all situations where we colloquially say an argument is ‘true by definition’ – in all situations, assuming we are using the same definition of the terms used, the premises entail the conclusion).

Similarly, consider the following argument: 1.

Rex is a dog.

2.

All dogs are red.

3.

Rex is red.

entail the conclusion that Rex is red.

Something is logically possible if there is no self-contradiction in at least one coherently conceivable situation, and something is logically impossible if there is a self-contradiction in all coherently conceivable situations.

Therefore, when we say that an argument is valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which its premises are true and its conclusion is false, we are saying that in all coherently conceivable situations where the premises are true the conclusion is true as well.

This definition means that there are 3 different categories under which an inference step can be deductively valid: an inference can have actually true premises and an true conclusion, actually false premises or a mixture of false and true premises and a false conclusion (it is logically possible for that argument to be true i.e. no internal contradiction but it is not true in our world), or actually false premises and a true conclusion. To illustrate the last case, take the following argument: 1.

2.

3.

Everyone who does not have a middle name is part of the Tory party.

Boris Johnson does not have a middle name.

Boris Johnson is therefore a member of the Tory party.

(1) is false as not everyone who does not have a middle name is part of the Tory party.

Nor does Boris Johnson not have a middle name (far from it). However, Boris Johnson is a member of the Tory party, and if we assumed our premises to be true it would be logically impossible for the conclusion (3) to be false. This argument is thus valid but has false premises and a true conclusion (it may be useful to think of this as being correct but for the wrong reasons).

The only category which a deductively valid argument cannot fall under is that of having actually true premises and a false conclusion, as a valid argument must have a true conclusion if the premises are true. This is known as the invalidity principle – an argument with true premises and a false conclusion must be invalid.

The idea of something being necessarily true is used repeatedly throughout philosophy, and we can define what it is to be necessarily true through referring to possible situations in a similar manner to how we defined validity. Something is necessarily true if that thing is true in every possible situation e.g. a triangle has 3 sides is necessarily true because in all situations a triangle must have 3 sides.

In this case, (1) and (2) may be true or false in the real world but this has no bearing on this argument’s validity – this argument is deductively valid as we can conceive of a world where Rex is a dog and where all dogs are red, and in that world those facts logically

Finally, we consider the idea of an argument being sound. Describing an argument as sound is to say that the argument is valid (if the premises are true the conclusion cannot be false) and that the premises are actually true, and so the conclusion is actually true as well. When in everyday speech we say an argument is valid we usually mean that the

8

9

Five minute read argument is sound, and the distinction between validity and soundness is key within formal logic. All sound arguments are necessarily valid, but not all valid arguments are sound (see the above example about Boris Johnson).

It is reasonable to ask why we are defining all these terms. Is this not purely pedantry?

In daily life we tend to use reasoning of the inductive form most often, so why should we be concerned with deductive reasoning? Science, with its use of experiments to collect data and then argue inductively from these to a conclusion (a hypothesis), has arguably had a far greater impact on our daily lives than philosophy and is the epitome of inductive reasoning.

Aside from deductive reasoning being the bread and butter of philosophy and so its study being key for any full study of that discipline, deductive reasoning is also key within other fields as well, including science. Deductive reasoning is used within science to a large degree. Scientists will come up with a hypothesis, and then deductively reason from this to a testable conclusion. They then test this conclusion, and if the conclusion turns out to be false the premises must therefore also be false if the argument is deductively valid (and so it is important to understand the concept of validity and when arguments are valid).

Everyone studying Physics at GCSE will be familiar with the Rutherford gold foil experiment. Rutherford hypothesised that the positive charge of an atom was spread evenly over a large space, and then validly reasoned using deduction that positively charged alpha particles fired at an atom should only be minorly deflected if the positive charge of the atom was spread over a large space. When some alpha particles were then deflected heavily, Rutherford was able to deduce that his hypothesis was incorrect, leading to his creation of the nuclear model of the atom – arguably one of the most important developments within physics.

The study of inference steps and validity i.e. the study of formal logic is therefore valuable no matter where your interests lie – be that physics, be that politics or be that philosophy. daniyal vemuri

the philosophy of

Quantum Mechanics Quantum physics is an area of physics which studies reality in the smallest of scales.

Its name comes from the word ‘quanta’ which is the smallest possible amount of any physical entity involved in any interaction. It studies the behaviour of objects such as photons, electrons, neutrons, and atoms. The behaviours of such objects are extraordinarily different to the objects we observe in everyday life which can be described (approximately) by the familiarities of classical mechanics – Newtonian mechanics. What makes quantum physics so important is that all objects, no matter what size, will consist of small parts and indivisible, quantised particles. This means that quantum physics describes and has implications on everything in existence.

Unlike its classical counterparts, quantum mechanics is a theory that incorporates intrinsic probability. For example, the measurement of the position of a quantum particle such as an electron is entirely probabilistic – we can only say where the electron is located using probabilistic terms governed by the electron’s wave function described by the Schrödinger equation. A wave function is a mathematical model to represent the distribution of probabilities of locating a particle at a certain position. Before measurement, it makes no sense to say where the electron is located, because it is not located anywhere, only having a distribution of probabilities of being located in a range of positions if we were to measure the electron’s position.

An interpretation of quantum physics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum physics corresponds to reality - ‘what is actually going on’. There are various views on ‘what is actually going on’ but no consensus has been reached among physicists on which interpretation best describes reality.

Interpretations are particularly concerned about how the wave function of an object corresponds to a quantum measurement of said object, and how the mechanism results in a probabilistic outcome. Interpretations can be split into three main categories:

10

11

1. Interpretations which are adamant that probability is intrinsic within reality.

2. Interpretations which argue for the existence of parallel universes.

3. Interpretations which argue probability is stochastic but due to some fundamentally deterministic mechanism we are unaware of (hidden variables).

Einstein was notoriously opposed to the first kind of interpretation, and he famously said, ‘God does not play dice’.

The Copenhagen interpretation is of the first kind. It argues that our universe is fundamentally indeterminant and probabilistic, arguing that the probability we observe through measuring quantum objects is due to the wave function ‘collapsing’ upon measurement. The Copenhagen interpretation has an advantage when explaining how measurements seem to interfere with the wave-like nature of light. In a double slit experiment, when firing individual photons at a double slit, we find an interference pattern will form, if the photons before the double slit are left unobserved. However, once we start measuring the photons before they enter either slit, the interference pattern behind the slits will cease to be formed. The Copenhagen interpretation explains this phenomenon as the wave function of the photons collapsing and we alter its state.

Therefore, the superposing effects of a wave function entering both slits at the same time, and interfering after the slit due to diffraction, will also cease.

The many-worlds interpretation is of the second kind. It argues the universal wavefunction is objectively real. However, unlike the Copenhagen interpretation, it argues the wavefunction never collapses. Upon measuring a quantum object, due to the wavefunction, reality splits into an uncountably infinite number of other universes, cumulatively encompassing every possible measurement within each universe. One of these universes, which is the one we happen to experience, is one in which the measurement we observe occurs.

of the Earth, and every possibility in the many-world interpretation being an actuality, if it is the only actuality where you are still consciously alive, your consciousness will transfer to the universe where that occurs. In other words, the instant you are about to die, you will experience teleporting to the other side of the Earth, preserving your consciousness, whilst the consciousnesses (other people) within ‘this’ universe will perceive you dying. The instant you are about to die in any scenario, your consciousness will experience some miracle and you will experience continuing to be alive.

Pilot wave theories fall into the third kind of interpretation. They argue that a probabilistic wavefunction does not really exist but is merely a good model to show how particles behave without additional knowledge of hidden variables. Pilot wave interpretations argue that all particles form an actual physical wave around themselves, which the particles interact with as they evolve through time. They argue that the apparent probabilistic nature of quantum particles is due to our inability to measure these pilot waves and the interactions that occur between the particle and the pilot wave.

One famous pilot wave theory was developed by Louis de Broglie, in which he proposed the pilot wave had a wavelength inversely proportional to the particle’s momentum, with a constant of proportionality equal to the Planck constant.

Quantum mechanics seems like the direction physics is heading towards to form a ‘theory of everything’. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the philosophical implications the theory has on metaphysics, truth, and the nature of reality, as it a high chance of accurately describing our universe. ryan lin

An interesting implication of the many-worlds interpretation, when applied to the macroscopic world, is that consciousness effectively becomes immortal. But this seems absurd, people die all the time, right? The immortal consciousness theory accepts that other people within your conscious experience can die, however, it argues that the consciousness of those people have been ‘transferred’ to a parallel universe where they are still alive through the splitting of universes when a quantum measurement takes place. At the instant someone ‘dies’, due to the wavefunctions of all the particles which make up someone’s body and brain splitting off infinitely many parallel universes, there is bound to be one universe that sustains that consciousness. The theory argues that consciousness takes the path that sustains itself, and therefore, your consciousness effectively cannot cease.

Let’s take an example. Let’s say you are involved in a fatal vehicle accident – which kills you in ‘this’ universe. Due to the wavefunctions of all the particles within your body giving an infinitesimally small probability of spontaneously teleporting to the other side

12

13

Five minute read

Your Consciousness

The human brain is an incredibly complicated structure – more than anything else in your body. Weighing 2% of your body mass, but consuming 20% of your calorie intake, it has driven evolution and innovation forwards. Despite the brain being a constant companion to all of us, it is still one of the least understood areas of research, comparable to quantum physics or the deep ocean.

The brain is composed of around 450 unique structures, each with its own purpose.

Three structures make up the majority of the brain – the cerebrum, the brainstem and the cerebellum.

The cerebrum, the largest portion, can be roughly divided into two hemispheres each further divided into four lobes - the frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital. Termed lateralization, specific processes tend to be specialized to one side of the brain. The canonical example of this is how the left hemisphere controls speech, with the right hemisphere being unable to generate it and having severely impeded understanding of language. There is evidence, however, that the right brain provides emotional insights into speech, and damage to it can reduce intonation in speech. Calculation and recalling facts are predominantly left brain, while facial recognition is right brain. Motor control and sensory input is controlled by the opposite side of the brain, with the left hemisphere seeing through the right eye and controlling the right hand, and vice versa.

A few structures do not fall neatly into this categorisation though. One of these is the corpus callosum (Latin for tough body), a thick nerve bundle bridging the longitudinal fissure between the cerebral hemispheres and connecting them to each other. It is the route by which much of the communication between the hemispheres takes place.

A form of epilepsy which causes extreme seizures can be treated by a corpus callosotomy, where the corpus callosum is cut to limit the spread of epileptic activity between the hemispheres of the cerebrum. It has been found to increase the life expectancy of patients by two to three times, has a relatively low mortality rate, and almost completely reduces seizures. However, it does have a unique side effect, termed callosal syndrome, or split brain.

Is Two 14

Split-brain patients often have conflict between the two hemispheres. One patient reported one hand trying to dress him, while the other attempted to undress him. When one hand was violent, the other would restrain it. A split-brain patient who has an object presented to only his left eye cannot describe the object, as the left hemisphere, responsible for speech, has not seen the object.

A split-brain patient will often try to verbally rationalise the actions of the right hemisphere. When presented a different object to each eye and then asked to pick a similar object from a pile, each hand would complete this successfully. When then asked to explain their choices, they would attempt to relate both chosen objects to the object presented to the right eye.

15

Five minute read These experiments and others present a chilling image of two entities in one skull.

Both hemispheres are capable of a majority of tasks, with one simply unable to speak.

Both hemispheres are undoubtably human, and seemingly equally conscious. While instinctively it seems that the left brain, capable of speech, is you, that would mean that you do not recognise the faces of loved ones and cannot empathise through words.

Considering the right brain to be you then raises the idea that you are trapped in your own skull, unable to communicate generally with the wider world.

Can we prove that God exists through Pure Reason?

In another medical procedure to treat extreme epilepsy, a hemispherectomy, one hemisphere of the brain is removed entirely. If human consciousness is considered to have innate value, then is this procedure ethical? It is generally agreed that you cannot be forced to kill yourself in order to improve another’s life, however this is precisely what seems to be happening in this procedure. One consciousness is destroyed to improve another’s.

The debate of whether God exists has troubled even the brightest of minds since the dawn of humanity. This question is so important to us as it can reveal whether our life has meaning, whether we can seek protection from a higher power, even after death, and reveal a fundamental truth about reality and our existence.

Furthermore, are patients who have undergone a hemispherectomy worth less? They have half the consciousness, so would seem to be worth half as much as someone who has not undergone the procedure. In younger children the remaining hemisphere can adapt to perform the functions of the other half and are indistinguishable from people who have not had a hemispherectomy. In adults, however, this very rarely happens, with massive ramifications for the patient.

If patients who have had a hemispherectomy are worth the same as someone who has not, then the lost consciousness must have no value. As either hemisphere can be removed, this must mean that value is in identity rather than consciousness, in which case someone with split personality disorder would seem to have more innate value. If having a hemispherectomy makes you worth less, even when in young children who can adapt, then simply undergoing a medical procedure can make you worth less. If only adults who undergo a hemispherectomy and lose functionality are considered worth less, that means the value of a human is tied to their ability, meaning that people who are born with learning disabilities are worth less than those who aren’t, or people who are better at science are potentially worth less than those better at art.

In the corpus callosotomy, nothing is added to the brain, certainly nothing that could be considered to add a consciousness. This seems to indicate that the two hemispheres of the brain have separate consciousnesses in everybody, but it is unnoticeable as both hemispheres receive all the sensory inputs and can control both sides of the body. As we age and speech becomes more important, it is no stretch of the imagination that the right hemisphere simply stops trying to exert itself and resigns itself to being a silent passenger in a body that it has no influence over. james mcclure

16

A branch of philosophy, the metaphysics of God, concerns itself with this problem.

More specifically, the ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments. Ontological arguments attempt to prove God exists through pure reason. Teleological arguments attempt to prove God exists through evidence of design (regularities found with the universe and nature). Cosmological arguments attempt to prove God exists from the fact that the universe and things within the universe exist which require a fundamental cause.

This article will consider an ontological argument.

All ontological arguments have distinct characteristics which make them ontological arguments for God’s existence. Ontological arguments must be ‘a priori’ – this means not requiring any sensory experience that is relied upon in the premises of the argument. For example, 2+2=4 is an ‘a priori’ truth as it does not require sensory experience to derive the truth of the statement. The second characteristic of ontological arguments is that they must be ‘deductive’ - this means that the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed from the truth of the premises of an argument. For example, 1. Eagles are birds 2. All birds have wings 3. Therefore, eagles have wings. If 1. and 2. are true, then 3. cannot possibly be false and so must be true. This is a deductive argument.

This reveals the significance of ontological arguments for God. If any ontological argument succeeds, then we have proven that God exists without doubt, as we arguably cannot doubt ‘a priori’ facts and since the conclusion that God exists is guaranteed to be true due to the argument being deductive.

One famous ontological argument is Anselm’s ontological argument proposed by St Anselm, a theologian, who was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109.

Anselm argued: P1) God, by definition, is a being greater than which cannot be conceived.

P2) It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.

C1. Therefore, God must exist.

17

Three minute read Although for some it may initially seem like something has gone wrong, the conclusion follows from the premises because if we define God to be P1, if God does not exist, we would be able to conceive of something greater than God – a perfect being which does exist. However, since we defined God as a being greater than which cannot be conceived, it would be impossible to for something greater than God to be an idea within our minds and whatever our initial idea was (a God which does not exist) is clearly not God because that would not be the greatest conceivable being.

For example, if I try to claim, ‘God does not exist’, I would be able to conceive of something greater than this being (namely God which does exist), and therefore (due to the definition of what God is), my initial concept of a ‘God which does not exist’ was not God. The actual concept of God is the concept that contains God’s existence.

Namely a ‘God that does exist’, as only now would this be a ‘being greater than which cannot be conceived’ as we cannot logically think of something that could possibly be greater than this concept.

Now read everything from the last 3 paragraphs again.

You should see that God must exist, if we define God in this way, and accept the premises. In this way, we have proven God’s existence through pure reason.

Right?

I personally do not believe we can prove that God exists in this way, but I will leave readers to puzzle about this ontological argument and consider whether it succeeds. ryan lin

Absurdism: The Death of Hope?

In the darkest times, the human mind can begin to wonder about some very deep and difficult questions. Why bother with life as a good and moral person should nothing matter, since nothing exists that is of any value? Why does our life matter? Why do we live by guidelines and let rules and morality serve as compasses to lead us? Our quest for morality, our quest for principle, the quest for reason and meaning is futile.

These questions were on the lips of modern French philosopher and writer, Albert Camus. Lost, alone, and deprived of meaning on the desolate rubble of post-war Algeria, Camus forged his philosophy; rooted in absurdism.

Camus grew up in Algeria under the French Empire and there he witnessed the atrocity of life first-hand. A child of poor background and a Pied-Noir (French descendent born in Algeria) he was born with greater rights than ordinary Arabs who lived in the colony. There, he witnessed the sheer division between ‘his kind’ and ‘them.’ Disgusted by this division between the French and Arabs, Camus joined the French and Algerian communist parties – despite not being a communist – to bridge the gap between the Arabs and the French. He would eventually witness the suffering that would occur during World War Two and due to being unable to participate in the war, he began to ask himself. Why does evil flourish and good wither?

He concluded that there is no rule governing the universe which prevents the growth of evil – no deity or higher purpose which stops evil and grows good. If there is one, it is impossible for us to find out about it. He argued that there is no rhyme, reason, higher truth, or moral goodness in the world and that we should accept that. He described humans to naturally want some sort of rhyme or reason when faced with the meaninglessness of life – this comes in the form of political ideology, religion, or pursuit for meaning, which is futile and as such, it is absurd to search for universal meaning.

With such a depressing premise, it is easy to fall into a cycle of despair, realising that the world has no greater meaning. With the reasoning of absurdism, surely it makes sense to commit suicide as that is the only rational thing to do to respond to an irrational, meaningless life? Thus, it is worth asking, is suicide an option for Camus? A resounding no.

Camus argues that living is one of the greatest human expressions imaginable and even though it may not be part of a higher purpose, it certainly can be for humanity and us individually. Since nothing matters in the universe and neither do our motives for living, that gives us no reason to stop aspiring and living the lives we deserve and dream of. If the universe does not declare that we should help others, we can invent our own rules and declare for ourselves that we should help others! siddhant mathur

18

19

Four minute read Have you ever wondered why religion exists? Religion is one of the most essential elements in the lives of billions of people in the world. Many religions have passed on from generation to generation but the reason for religion – that is, why it is necessary in our lives – is likely an unknown to some readers. In this article, I will be gathering information from various studies and presenting it in order to explain why religion exists and also why it is such an addiction for some people.

Many existing theories are just that – theories; none have been empirically tested.

Why Does Religion Exist? an unorthodox explanation

A group of scientists at Queens’ University ran a series of tests wherein they tested some volunteers in order to see how religion affected them. Through this test, they concluded that the primary reason for religion was to enhance basic cognitive function and selfcontrol, and in doing so develop useful social skills. In the experiment they conducted, they gave volunteers a word puzzle to revitalise their inner religious thoughts, then gave all the volunteers (even those who didn’t do the puzzle) an unsavoury mix of a drink containing vinegar, orange juice and other ingredients. They were told that they could stop whenever they wanted to and that they would be paid corresponding to the volume of liquid they drank. The scientists noted that the volume of the drink they forced down correlated to their self-discipline. As predicted, the ‘religiously activated’ or ‘reawakened’ volunteers endured more and drank more of the unpleasant drink. The research suggests that the religiously reminded volunteers had heightened self-control and rationalised reasoning skills.

Self-control in real world situations is a difficult virtue to display. Whenever we show self-control in a difficult situation, our mind, just like our muscles, gets fatigued or frustrated. Through the experiment, the scientists also showed that the people who were reminded of their religious beliefs were cognitively ‘refuelled’ by them and continued to endure the unpleasant experience. This reason for religion has been shown by some scientists as a necessity in any community and would be needed in the future because religious beliefs can be thought of as a substitute for self-control, which is needed by the individuals in society for its continued existence and the collective good.

Previously, we have talked about why we need religion in terms of the virtues it provides us. However, some scientists have an alternative take on why it exists as a necessity in our lives: they argue that religion has a predisposition in our mind. Our cognitive mind has a common trait to give purpose to the world around us to find order in the face of chaos. For example, young children tend to believe that the trivial aspects of nature have a purpose. When you ask them what reason for which a river exists, their response tends to be “it is so we can go fishing” or something similar. Adults also tend to have this cognitive trait to attest meaning to their surroundings.

A study in 2008 by Jennifer Whiston found that people find more patterns in separated dots when the researchers primed them to believe that they had no control. This study concluded that people were primed to find patterns and orders in the world around

20

21

Five minute read them naturally as a trait in our natural line of thinking. They also found that people have a bias to the supernatural – children even up to 3 years old naturally attribute immortality and omnipotence to God even when they have never been exposed to any religious scriptures, teachings, or other material about deities. The essence of the study’s conclusion is that our basic cognitive equipment biases us towards a certain kind of thinking which leads to thinking about a pre-life, an afterlife, gods, and invisible beings, similar to those which are themes in most major religions.

While some scientists believe in predisposition, others disagree and have come up with alternative explanations for religion. They don’t believe that cognitive tendencies which bias us towards religious beliefs evolved for purposes other than thinking specifically about religion. For example, the temptation to believe that someone or something is behind certain experiences – the sound of leaves rustling in the wind in a dark forest elicits thoughts of a ghost, or perhaps a predator. This natural chain of thought is your inner trait that does not allow you to ignore the rustling and the wind and risk death if the noises do prove to be a harm to you in any possibility. This is the point that some scientists make: believing that there is an intelligent actor causing every stimulus could be interpreted as a survival trait. This very same tendency makes us susceptible to believe in an omnipotent concept like God. These cognitive tendencies in our mind allow us to create religions that are built around supernatural and omnipotent beings that watch over our lives and help those in need.

This serves a certain relief to the instinctive thought that someone is the reason behind a certain experience, especially if this someone is an omnibenevolent being.

In conclusion, the research conducted on the subject of the purpose of religion has mostly concluded that religion is an unavoidable by-product of our mind and its inner workings and tendencies. george robby

The Success Paradox A common question many people ask themselves is if their success is due to their effort and hard work or the random results of the cosmic dice. Many people tend to fall into one of these schools of thought, primarily believing that either luck or hard work are the deciding factors. In this article, we will analyse ways to look at this question, look at reasons why people think hard work is the main factor and why luck is the main factor. It is important to note that success for most of this article will be viewed from a stereotypical sense, e.g., becoming a professional athlete, making lots of money, being famous, etc.

Visualising the dilemma

A typical way of visualising the success paradox is the idea of where luck can be found at the intersection of opportunity and preparation. To better illustrate this, imagine a train station where there is no schedule, trains come and go at random intervals and there are all kinds of people waiting to catch one, everybody wants to get on the train of opportunity, but nobody knows when or how to get on it. Since the train comes unannounced some people may be sleeping, some may have lost their stuff, and so on.

When the train arrives none of these people are ready and miss it. So, they go back to waiting to hope to catch the next one. Often the people labelled as lucky are the people that have their equipment ready and their ticket for the train in hand, so they don’t miss the train because the train isn’t going to wait for them. In a practical sense, the train ranges from getting into a good university or joining a professional football team. This is where luck plays the largest role in success.

That is not to say hard work is insignificant, from taking advantage of the opportunity, the ability to sustain success by being consistent stems mostly from skill and ability. For example, you cannot join a professional football team and slack off afterwards. This entertains the idea that there is a mix of both luck and hard work in success. Hard work paves the pathway for luck to help reach success. But both need to be in conjunction.

A textbook case of how luck can impact success is the country you live/were born in.

If you were born in Malawi, even if you were smart to hard-working the chance of you making lots of money as an adult is slim. It is important to note that the measure of success is subjective, each person defines success differently.

Why do we think luck is insignificant to success?

The reason why we as humans disregard luck as a factor in success is egocentric bias.

In layman’s terms is the general tendency to rely too heavily on one’s own perspective and/or have a higher opinion of oneself than reality. For example, if you ask a group of people who did a presentation and asked them the percentage of the work they did, all their individual percentages would likely add up to a significant amount over 100%. You

22

23

Four minute read only experience and remember vividly what you do and don’t experience what other people do, naturally, we sometimes overestimate our own contributions and overestimate others. So, if we succeed and work hard, we think that success rewards hard work, so if other people don’t succeed, we may think they simply didn’t work hard enough because we didn’t get the experience of those who worked hard and failed. Furthermore, us believing that we are more in control of our own destiny than luck improves the chance of success, believing that luck plays a large role makes you less likely to invest effort.

This can work the other way, if we do not work hard to a satisfactory level and manage to succeed, we may view ourselves as lucky and those who fail are unlucky. Or perhaps we worked hard and failed, we may view others who succeeded as luckier. The notion of success being primarily controlled by either luck or hard work revolves around the premise of egocentric bias.

Fight Club

A Philosophical Analysis

Different Types of Comparing success

Another way to answer the question is the statement: luck matters more in an absolute sense and hard work in a relative sense. The absolute sense is comparing your level of success compared to everyone else. What makes someone the best in the world at a specific thing? At this level competition is high and promotes an environment where success is attributable to luck, there are simply just too many factors that play a role.

On the other hand, relative success is your level of success relative to others in a similar situation to you. The luck element slowly starts to diminish as the comparison becomes more local. Relative success is mainly determined by hard work.

Conclusion

In essence, we talked about a few ways to view success and luck together, how luck can be good and bad for success, and the reason we think that luck doesn’t play a major role.

You cannot give a definitive answer on whether success is determined by hard work or luck as success is subjective, there is no universal measure of success. Stereotypically, success is viewed in society by an abundance of money, being famous, etc. And for this measure of success, there is an element of luck. However, if your measure of success is just to be happy, or anything to do with personal development, that does not require any luck as other people aren’t involved in your success. At the end of the day, it’s about your measure of success, if your measure of success requires other external factors to be involved in deciding your success, naturally luck plays a role, but if your measure of success is not decided by other external factors and only yourself, it’s mostly hard work. mohammed youssef dahoui

24

25

To the average person the best description of the movie, Fight Club is two muscular, shirtless men beating the living brains out of each other while a crowd of equally muscular men applaud and cheer. However, some see the film for what it actually is.

A philosophical goldmine.

For those who aren’t familiar with the thought-provoking masterpiece, the film, based on Chuck Palahniuk’s book that shares the same name, presents the story of two main characters. A nameless, self-destructive insomniac who works a job he hates and ‘fulfils’ his life goals by stacking his apartment with Ikea shelves and drinking Starbucks, and Tyler Durden, a charismatic, ambitious, intelligent man living in squalid conditions who is everything the narrator wishes he was. Fight Club explores many philosophical ideas, but I want to focus on three key notions that I believe divide us in contemporary society.

“The things you own end up owning you.”

Tyler’s behaviour and lifestyle makes it clear that he does not agree with the narrator’s obsessive desire of constructing a “perfect” apartment by hoarding IKEA shelves. He disdains artificial materialistic items. This method of thought is influenced by Diogenes of Sinope, an ancient Cynic philosopher who claimed that contemporary, civilized living hampered our natural existence. This view is rather radical, however, without modern technology many aspects of our modern world such as medicine and transport would be much worse. Despite this, the horrifying fact is that many individuals now own costly shoes and garments just because of the self-assuredness and confidence that comes with purchasing pricey items. Our self-image is attached to our attire. Tyler describes this by saying “We buy things we don’t need, to impress people we don’t like.” The exterior world cannot define the interior world; therefore, we attach our self-image to material goods.

our lives, we should accept our current state and set up a system of work. Note, not a goal but a system. Having goals is good but a strategy is optimal because it provides a process. My goal is to be a good student and work on my Table Tennis. Whereas my strategy of accomplishing this would be putting in work revising and training. What is your strategy?

“It’s only after we’ve lost everything that we’re free to do anything.”

The third and most decisive point Fight Club is trying to portray is the image of nonconformity. Again, Tyler Durden reminds me of Diogenes – a Greek philosopher who refused to adapt to conventional behaviours; they were both non-conformists, but Diogenes lived in a barrel and Tyler in an abandoned, dilapidated home. The narrator, however, is the epitome of a conformist, he lives blindly following the patterns of society. Again, Tyler is proposing a rather radical anti-conformity message, however, a less extreme version of this philosophy can be applied to our everyday. Being completely complacent would reduce the value of human life. There would be no inventiveness or authenticity, it would be a shallow way of life.

Conclusion

Fight Club is a narrative about the defiance of authority and a call for a simpler existence. It challenges our obsession with security and financial goods, as well as how individuals let society’s standards dominate their life. Furthermore, it emphasizes the concept that we cannot live our lives by someone else’s rules; instead, we should develop our own rules based on a combination of gut instincts. We will not be flawless to any extent but that isn’t a reason to give up. Instead, we should acknowledge our imperfections and strive onwards. aditya kapoor

“Stop trying to control everything and just let go!”

The second philosophical lesson we can take from Fight Club is the ‘art’ of relinquishing control. An extremely important scene in the movie highlights the idea of letting go.

In a car, the narrator and Tyler Durden, who is the alter ego of the narrator, don’t exist and are a metaphor for the narrator’s conflict in which he searches for constant perfection, are bickering. It’s raining, and the highway is congested. Tyler teases the narrator by accelerating while twisting and letting go of the steering wheel. The narrator is begging Tyler to stop playing around. Tyler screams at the narrator, calling him pitiful for demanding total authority and control. The narrator’s existence is a never-ending struggle for “self-perfection” and contentment. He attempts to control everything, and he just needs to “let go”. Even though Fight Club presents letting go in a careless light, letting go does not imply irresponsibility; rather, it implies the ability to hang on to crucial aspects of your life while letting go of everything else. Tyler Durden is advising the narrator not to place such a high value on an outcome that you have no control over.

This is a valuable lesson for all of us to remember. Instead of a search for authority in

26

27

operations organiser: s00235@reading-school.co.uk feel free to get in touch if you would like to contribute or suggest improvements!