English 2107
13 July 2009
Pulling
a Swift One:
Confusing Philosophy with Science.
Swift’s satire of science so little
resembles a satire of science that it’s actually very difficult to understand
it as a satire of science at this far a date removed from it. It reads off like
a straight attack on Pythagorean philosophy, one that could have been written
at just about any point up to the year 1800. It is only through studying
Swift’s life that it becomes clear that when it seems blatantly obvious that he
is attacking philosophy, he is really attacking what he has confused with
philosophy, namely science. Furthermore, it is only through studying a vague
“meta-history” of European culture that Swift’s view that science and
philosophy are interchangeable and therefore equally evil can be fully
understood within it’s proper context.
Labelling periods of history is both ambiguous
and arbitrary, but it’s also often convenient when attempting to compare events
that appear to occur in cycles. European history could be arbitrarily broken
down into the following five periods, a violent or non-violent revolution
occurring between each and with each change being the result of the import of
new ideas. The first period could be dubbed the Homeric period and would
comprise of the period between the third Indo-European invasion of Europe, as described by Marija Gimbutas, and the rise of philosophy on the Ionian coast.
This period is not relevant to this essay, nor is the fifth and current
post-WWII era of technology. The three time periods that are to be discussed
are the Pythagorean or Platonic period (c. Pythagoras-Justinian, often referred
to as “Antiquity”), the Christian Period (c. Justinian – Bacon, often referred
to as “Medieval”) and the Scientific Period (c. Bacon – Heisenberg, which
combines the Renaissance, Enlightenment and Romantic periods into one period).
The
Pythagorean period is characterized by the viewpoints of Pythagoras and
Parmenides, the writings of Plato and the mathematics of Archimedes and Euclid.
It was a time when deductive thought was assumed to be the ideal and correct
means of understanding the natural world. While Democritus may have correctly deduced an atomic theory, and Anaximander may have correctly deduced a rough theory of evolution (without natural selection and
with undoubted influence from Chaldean mermen), these
deductions followed from nothing but arbitrary axioms and were certainly not
conclusions stemming from the results of experiments that were repeatedly
demonstrated to be repeatedly demonstrable. Consequently, the leading
philosophers of the day routinely discarded superior theories – such as the
heliocentric system or the fact that the earth is roughly spherical – over
inferior theories because they preferred the axioms that led to the inferior
theories over the ones that led to the superior theories. Nonetheless, there is
a rough continuity of thought between the Pythagoreans and the Scientists in
the sense that they agree that the search for answers is through studying
natural explanations to observable phenomena. It is therefore understandable
how a Christian living in the beginning of the scientific era may have confused
the new system of Science with the old system of Philosophy and managed to
attack science by characterizing it as no different than the old and
discredited system of philosophy.
Christianity,
of course, has little in common with either Science or Pythagorean philosophy
in regards to it’s methodology, despite Christianity’s clear cultural
inheritance of Platonist ethics and symbolism. Christianity is based neither on
inductive experiment nor on deductive thought but on an argument from
authority, the authority being the scriptures. Where philosophy and science
both attempt to construct consistent systems of thought based on either axioms
or experiments, i.e. systems without logical paradoxes or contradictions,
Christianity makes no attempt to be consistent whatsoever, as such an attempt
would necessarily require a suspension of scriptural authority. In truth,
Christianity even goes so far as to assume a set of logical contradictions –
singular is identical to plural, life is equivalent to death, etc – and then
attempt to draw deductions from these contradictions. This is not the place to
criticize Christianity’s entirely conscious deficiencies of rigour; the point
is that the epistemological approaches
of philosophy and religion are and always have been wholly incompatible with
each other, regardless of whether or not the dominant view amongst the
philosophers of the era was inductive or deductive. An anonymous and now
unknown Platonist of late antiquity may have even gone so far as to define
philosophy and religion as cosmic opposites of each other.
So,
then we have Jonathan Swift. Born in the midst of an intellectual upheaval, and
yet rooted in the theories of the past. The time he spent studying for his
doctorate in theology, in a time where doctor and theologian in the same phrase
did not create an oxymoron, would have been more than enough time for him to
stumble across entire books full of information about that strange old nemesis
to Christianity, those heathens and heretics, the ones that Justinian had to
shut down by force, the ones that wrote lengthy discourses on how frivolous
Christianity really is[1].
What theology student wouldn’t find that fascinating? Yet, the histories
obtainable to Swift would have read off like cartoons, with superhero bishops
and evil villains running the academies[2].
Now, a scientist may have questioned these writings more rigorously, but Swift
was not a scientist, he was a deeply religious man who was taught to take
information on authority. To Swift, science was evil because it was pagan, it
represented an uprising of the forces that Christianity had spent it’s entire
existence fighting against, which he knew was true because he was told it was
true.
Satire
is primarily a subconscious stress-relieving response to the fear of a deep
fear being actualized in front of you (Zoglin).
Hence, satirists tend to go after targets that they feel threatened by –
political leaders or ideas, systems of thought, business competitors. Swift may
have been deeply conservative, but he wasn’t completely disconnected from his
time, he saw what he would have declared as “the rise of paganism” tearing down
the ancient barriers, and this would have deeply frightened him. Imagine!
Heathens! Heretics! All around us! They will undo the Christian religion and
all of England,
under the tyranny of the so-called Philosopher Kings, will be bound by chains
and worshipping Apollo in the churches in no time!
See,
fear is also often irrational. It’s often based on confusion; certainly, Newton wasn’t going
around sacrificing mead, even though he was denying the trinity[3],
and even though some of the Masonic organizations around at the time actually
were doing more esoteric things along those lines.
And,
see, this is how ignorance spreads: paranoia fuses all of one’s enemies
together into one evil monster, it combines Masonic rituals, experimental
methodology, Pythagorean philosophy and it’s superstitious dark age offshoots –
such as alchemy, physiognomy and astrology – and
the growing rationalist opposition to Christianity into one evil of nearly
unthinkable proportions: Science.
The
first thing to note is that Swift’s conception of England was of a modern,
protestant, business-oriented society – far superior to the pseudo-pagans on
the south of the continent. Swift also articulates his disdain for the
uncivilized Dutch, whom he accuses of being less merciful than “heathens”
(Swift 148). Ridiculing an individual of Dutch ancestry by questioning his
religious devotion and then comparing him negatively to “heathens” certainly
seems rather unsophisticated at this date, but the juvenility of the discourse
was reasonable within the context of the mindset of the era, considering that
Dutch and British shipping interests were in the midst of a long struggle.
These targeted comments, which appear in the first chapter of the third part of
Swift’s text, haphazardly demonstrate the profound racial, religious,
linguistic and ethnic xenophobia that characterized the society that Swift
existed within and consequently shaped his thoughts and views.
By
claiming that the islanders speak an unknown romance language, he immediately
sets the reader up to compare the society on the island to one under Roman
Catholic rule, which, at the time, could only be a reference to the papacy as
the Roman Emperor, King of France and King of Spain were all Germans. However,
given the way the story unfolds, it seems more likely that Swift really
misspoke here. While Swift knew that most of the arguments he had read about
while studying theology were directed at the Romans, particularly the eastern
Romans, he did not know that by the time an antagonistic discourse had
developed between Christianity and Pythagoreanism,
the Roman Empire had adopted the Greek language and taken on a fundamentally
Greek identity. Swift appears to have incorrectly thought that Porphyry and Plotinus both wrote in Latin.
If
Swift is really consciously satirizing the Pythagoreans, the island could very
well be representative of Atlantis, or, more accurately, Francis Bacons’ New
Atlantis. Atlantis, the archetypal utopian society, was first described by
Plato and was used as the model of utopia throughout the Pythagorean era. Bacon
wrote a text entitled “The New Atlantis” that was essentially a plan to
construct a workable version of Plato’s ideal society. Laputa,
Atlantis and the new Atlantis all share the characteristics of being highly
isolated and highly technological societies. Swift’s tract could very well be
seen as an attempt to discredit Bacon’s ideas by tying them to evil pagan
religion.
Swift’s
satire is so heavy-handed that a collection of simple quotes is sufficient to
demonstrate his views. Swift makes his intentions clear near the start of the
second chapter, when he clearly describes the Laputians
in Pythagorean terms. The Laputians, like the
Pythagoreans, are obsessed with astronomy and music. Swift even satirizes the
Pythagorean oath of silence:
Their outward Garments were adorned with the Figures of Suns, Moons,
and Stars, interwoven with those of Fiddles, Flutes, Harps, Trumpets, Guittars, Harpsichords, and many more Instruments of Musick, unknown to us in Europe … It seems the Minds
of these People are so taken up with intense Speculations, that they neither
can speak, nor attend to the Discourses of others. (Swift 152)
Next, Swift
satirizes the philosopher king:
At last we entered the Palace, and proceeded into the Chamber of
Presence; where I saw the King seated on his Throne, attended on each Side by
Persons of prime Quality. Before the Throne, was a large Table filled with
Globes and Spheres, and Mathematical Instruments of all Kinds. His Majesty took
not the least Notice of us, although our Entrance were
not without sufficient Noise, by the Concourse of all Persons belonging to the
Court. But he was then deep in a Problem, and we attended at least an Hour,
before he could solve it. (Swift 155)
Now, swift
satirizes ideal forms:
In the first Course, there was a Shoulder of Mutton, cut into an A
Equilateral Triangle; a Piece of Beef into a Rhomboides;
and a Pudding into a Cycloid. The second Course was two Ducks, trussed up into
the Form of Fiddles; Sausages and Puddings resembling Flutes and Haut-boys, and
a Breast of Veal in the Shape of a Harp. The Servants cut our Bread into Cones,
Cylinders, Parallelograms, and several other Mathematical Figures. (Swift
155-156)
Now that it is blatantly clear that
the victim of Swift’s tirades is not science but Platonist philosophy, it is
interesting to point out that Swift even goes so far as to regurgitate the
views of Plato’s largest critic, his pupil Aristotle, as can be found in the Metaphysics:
On the other Side, after having seen all the Curiosities of the Island, I was very desirous to leave it, being heartily
weary of those People. They were indeed excellent in two Sciences for which I
have great Esteem, and wherein I am not unversed; but at the same time so
abstracted and involved in Speculation, that I never met with such disagreeable
Companions. I conversed only with Women, Tradesmen, Flappers, and
Court-Pages, during two Months of my Abode there, by which at last I rendered
my self extremely contemptible; yet these were the only People from whom I
could ever receive a reasonable Answer. (Swift 169)
It
is here that we come to the real heart of Swift’s views on philosophy. There is
truly little independent thought in what he has written; he is merely
regurgitating the established Christian and Aristotelian attacks against Pythagoreanism, which he is unable to distinguish from Baconian science. Swift is clearly widely read; had he
taken the time to disentangle Pythagoreanism from
science, he may have come to entirely different conclusions. However, he didn’t
take the time to disentangle the new system from the old system that it
resembled so shallowly and, as such, should be regarded as merely another
ignorant voice at the end of an era of ignorance.
Works Cited
1)
Swift, Jonathan. “A voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and
Japan.” Gulliver’s Travels. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1977. 147-180.
2) Porphyry. Against The Christians. Lost text. c. 300.
3) Tertullian. “De Spectaculis”. Apology.
De Spectaculis.. London: Heinemann, 1931.
Internet Archive. Jul. 12 2009.
<http://www.archive.org/stream/apologydespectac00tertuoft>
4) Zoglin, Richard.
“Harry Shearer on Political Satire.” Time Magazine. 18 Jul. 2008 Time Inc.. Jul. 12 2009.
<http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1824482,00.html>
5) Newton, Isaac. An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions
of Scripture. London:
John Green, 1841. Google Books. 12 Jul. 2009 <http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1>
Works Not Cited
1)
Gimbutas, Marija. The Kurgan Culture and the
Indo-Europeanization of Europe. Washington: Institute
for the Study of Man, 1997.
2)
Berryman, Sylvia. “Democritus.”
The Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. Aug.
15, 2004. Stanford
University, Center for the Study of Language and
Information. 12 Jul. 2009.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/>
3)
Couprie, Dirk. “Anaximander.” The Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy. 2006. 12 Jul. 2009.
<http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anaximan.htm >
4)
Stevenson, David. The Origins of Free Masonry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
5)
“Anglo-Dutch Wars”, Wikipedia, 10 Jul. 2009. Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.. 12 Jul. 2009
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Dutch_Wars>
6) Aristotle. Metaphysics. Tran: W.D. Ross. Internet Classics
Archive. 12 Jul. 2009
<http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html>
[1] Porphyry, Against the Christians, c 300.
[2] Tertullian, “De Spectaculis”, Apology. De Spectaculis. (London: Heinemann, 1931), 230-304.
[3] Newton,
Isaac, An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture
(London: John Green, 1841) , 1-88.
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/essays/swift.html
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/thoughts/essays/swift.html