"Straw Dogs", John Gray
Much-vaunted by secular humanists and the enfants terribles philosophers of our age, Straw Dogs promises to force us to profoundly question our own perspective of the world. Calling for all people of an intelligent and thoughtful bent to discard traditional religion and contemporary humanism alike, it propounds a radical new worldview, demoting humanity from its place at the pinnacle of creation and demanding that we consider ourselves part of a continuous whole, kin to the great community of life with which we share this world, remarkable only in the extent to which we have developed one particular survival trait over any other. In order to explore these difficult ideas without feeling constrained by a traditional format, he expresses his thoughts in a series of thematically-arranged but disconnected passages, anecdotes, observations and citations, between a few lines and a page or more in length, exploring his various themes from different angles and in different ways.
Okay, seriously.
Either I've totally failed to read this book properly, or I'm a rare genius, or Gray's actually quite a fatuous thinker, because I'm pretty sure I thought through pretty much everything this book has to offer by the time I was eighteen.
Gray's points are basically a) people aren't really that special, when you think about it; b) humanists are kind of kidding themselves when they say they've put the ignorance of religion behind them, since they still enshrine humanity as a privileged and unique animal; and c) I've heard of this cool thing called Gaia Theory, and you should really look it up.
These ideas aren't ground-breaking. If you're completely sold either on a traditional theist religion, or on a socialist, secular-humanist belief in fairness and the dignity of man, you may find his ideas shocking; but I'd still be surprised if you've never even entertained the notions.
My problem, basically, is that Gray offers no concrete philosophy to replace what he's casting aside. Religion isn't primarily about how we're great because God said; it's about a set of behaviours and expectations and a way of viewing the world, part of which is the assumption of a special relationship between Man and God. By the same token, humanism isn't primarily about how we're great because we've worked out how to make frappucinos; it's about a set of behaviours and expectations and a way of viewing the world, part of which is the assumption that human thought and culture warrant preservation and promotion. Gray says they're both wrong, basically, and that humans are just clever monkeys. Fine, John, and entirely true, but where does that leave you? How should we behave?
Philosophy and theology are about people; about how people should relate to each other, how they should view the world, and what their values should be. We are story-telling animals, and these are the stories we tell to understand ourselves, each other and our environment. It's natural, therefore, that most philosophies and theologies start from an assumption that humanity is centre of the world. Acknowledging that we are the peers of animals and other organisms is fine, and an interesting line of enquiry; but a line that ends around the time we attempt to ask our peers their own views of the world. "I like to smell bums!" "Biscuits are yummy!" Fine and valid points, but not, on the whole, helpful.
It's a well-written book, mind, and the fragmentary nature of it is used effectively and efficiently. You'll enjoy reading it, if you're interested in what it has to say. I personally predict that the fairly basic point will sink in around halfway through chapter 2 and, like me, you'll keep reading in the hope that he actually adds something, which he'll eventually do in the last chapter. Or you could Google "Gaia Theory," which will at any rate tell you more than Gray does about it.
A well-crafted but largely wasted book.
Okay, seriously.
Either I've totally failed to read this book properly, or I'm a rare genius, or Gray's actually quite a fatuous thinker, because I'm pretty sure I thought through pretty much everything this book has to offer by the time I was eighteen.
Gray's points are basically a) people aren't really that special, when you think about it; b) humanists are kind of kidding themselves when they say they've put the ignorance of religion behind them, since they still enshrine humanity as a privileged and unique animal; and c) I've heard of this cool thing called Gaia Theory, and you should really look it up.
These ideas aren't ground-breaking. If you're completely sold either on a traditional theist religion, or on a socialist, secular-humanist belief in fairness and the dignity of man, you may find his ideas shocking; but I'd still be surprised if you've never even entertained the notions.
My problem, basically, is that Gray offers no concrete philosophy to replace what he's casting aside. Religion isn't primarily about how we're great because God said; it's about a set of behaviours and expectations and a way of viewing the world, part of which is the assumption of a special relationship between Man and God. By the same token, humanism isn't primarily about how we're great because we've worked out how to make frappucinos; it's about a set of behaviours and expectations and a way of viewing the world, part of which is the assumption that human thought and culture warrant preservation and promotion. Gray says they're both wrong, basically, and that humans are just clever monkeys. Fine, John, and entirely true, but where does that leave you? How should we behave?
Philosophy and theology are about people; about how people should relate to each other, how they should view the world, and what their values should be. We are story-telling animals, and these are the stories we tell to understand ourselves, each other and our environment. It's natural, therefore, that most philosophies and theologies start from an assumption that humanity is centre of the world. Acknowledging that we are the peers of animals and other organisms is fine, and an interesting line of enquiry; but a line that ends around the time we attempt to ask our peers their own views of the world. "I like to smell bums!" "Biscuits are yummy!" Fine and valid points, but not, on the whole, helpful.
It's a well-written book, mind, and the fragmentary nature of it is used effectively and efficiently. You'll enjoy reading it, if you're interested in what it has to say. I personally predict that the fairly basic point will sink in around halfway through chapter 2 and, like me, you'll keep reading in the hope that he actually adds something, which he'll eventually do in the last chapter. Or you could Google "Gaia Theory," which will at any rate tell you more than Gray does about it.
A well-crafted but largely wasted book.