Talk:John Gray (philosopher)

Quotations

what about this abundance of quotations? shouldn't they rather be on wikiquote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.65.47 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gray's position and qualifications

An anon IP just edited the intro, and I'm wondering whether the new edit is correct. It says: "John Gray (born 1948), School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, prominent British political philosopher, educated at Jesus College, Oxford (BA, MPhil, DPhil)."

First, what is the significance of saying he's the School Professor, rather than Professor? And I've read elsewhere that he went to Exeter College e.g. here His LSE website doesn't say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

This also says Exeter. I'm going to change it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes hello I edited the intro. Apologies for making the mistake about Exeter/Jesus - you are absolutely right, and I came on here today to change it but you beat me to it. Technically there is a difference between "School Professor" (how he's listed on the LSE profile page at http://www.lse.ac.uk/people/[email protected]/) and simply "Professor"; the former title was created while the LSE was under the Directorship of Giddens, and reflected what was originally (I think) some sort of special short term (6 year?) appointment while he left his chair at Oxford - though Gray may well stay at LSE permanently. As usual someone else may correct me again if I'm wrong on this.

Hi, I saw the LSE calls him School Professor, but his publications simply say Professor of European Thought, so I wondered whether the School thing was appropriate for WP as it seems to be just an internal reference. But I'm fine with it.

I'm not fine with the rest of the article though, which could do with some expansion; in fact, a rewrite, though I don't have time myself for the next few weeks anyway. But if you'd like to have a go, by all means feel free.

By the way, it's helpful if you could sign your posts on the talk pages so other editors can see who said what. You can generate your signature by typing four tildes after your posts, like this ~~~~. This will produce your IP, time and date. If you don't want your IP to show up (as it currently does in the edit history), then you can sign up for a user name. It only takes a few seconds, and another advantage is that edits and posts from user names tend to be taken more seriously than from IP addresses. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Worked at

Why has user named pedant changed the wording to "works/worked as" in numerous places ("He formerly worked as a lecturer in political theory at the University of Essex")? One hardly ever sees it written like that in the academe, it looks and seems highly awkward. Also why on earth link to a page on "currently", especially when that takes you to a page on the current date at time of clicking? Oh and thanks for helpful comments above, I will get round to registering soon!

Rapacious species

greetings, I have just removed the line "in which he portrays humanity as a rapacious species engaged in wiping out other forms of life while destroying its natural environment.". I'm presently reading straw dogs, and while the preceeding is accurate, I think in the context in which it is likely to be viewed by the average reader, it is a misleading summary of the book. I've added "in which he denies humanity's special status with respect to other living things". duracell

I think he does a bit more than simply deny humanity's special status. He sees us as a dominant and dangerous species. Could you sign your posts, please? See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I tihnk you may be missing the point. As I said, your comment is accurate. But, it is not the central theme of this book. *everyone* thinks that we are a "dominant and dangerous species". That is a completely unoriginal point. The point Gray is making is that liberal humanism sees humans as having a special status. This status, humanists think, will allow us to transcend the boundaries placed on other animals qua being animals. But, Gray argues, this is illusory - and in fact based on christian thinking, which liberal humanists ostensibly reject. We are in no sense "different" to other animals - by virtue of conscious reflection, free will or anything else (all of which he spends a good deal of the book setting forth). Hence, the line I inserted is more accurate. The book is "an excoriating attack on humanist progressivism abnd all its derivatives" (D. Marquand, "New statesman") "a hectoring attack on man-centered thinking" (Ian thompson "the independent") "A disturbing and thought provoking book. Are we really that different from animals?" (sunday tribune). All of which, of cuorse, come from the inside cover of the granta paperback of this book.

Lets just change it to "an attack on humanist progressivism" ok? duracell

Hi, he doesn't only reject the notion that we're special; he describes us as a particularly appalling species. I think an earlier version of the page did allude to us as nothing but a genetic accident, or words to that effect. Can't we keep both: your attack on humanist progressivism, and rapacious species destroying its own and others' environment? By the way, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your posts. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

rather a large post below, but I enjoyed writing it and thinking about it.

Ok, look "appalling" with respect to what? his central message is that we do away with notions like this, becasue they imply that humans are somehow special. Think of it like this: no other animal can be "appalling". Have you ever heard people going on about the morality and free choice of hyenas or the HIV virus? Those things are not seen as bearers of responsibility. So, if we can be appalling, it must be because there is something special about us - we have "free will" and so on. And, by virtue of these properties (so the humanist thinks), we will be able to transform the world into whatever form we see fit, so we have a responsibilty to protect other animals etc. That we are "appalling" means we abrogate this reponsibility. Needless to say, Gray does not have much time for this idea. For him, "cities are as natural as bee hives". Individual humans probably dont really even have free will - let alone humans as a species. So you see, he is saying that it makes no sense to call us "appalling". It is a category error, in the sense that we mean it here. I dont imagine he thinks it is a category error in all circumstances though - he's not necessarily a relativist in terms of ethics. I dont know what his ethics are actually. He does still think that we will wipe out a good many species, most especially ourselves. But, we are powerless to stop ourselves (just like *any other animal*), so it makes no sense to hold us responsible.

Actually, I have revised my opinion, and I am not even sure your comment really represents the books position at all. Our behaviour does not make us particularly "dangerous". Like lovelock, Gray is at pains to make clear that the biosphere will be fine, whatever we do. We may temporarily cause imbalance - but the result of this will just be our own destruction, and the restoration of more conditions more generally viable for most living things (this is Gaia theory, see e.g daisy world model. In general, the natural, non-evolved (becasue there's no selection between biospheres, on account of theres only 1 of them) occurence of homeostasis). We may wipe out particular species - but we cannot wipe out the whole biosphere. It will wipe us out, make us change or adapt to us. Think of the first photosynthesising lifeforms. They released a terrible toxic substance into the environment (oxygen was toxic to all life 2 or 3 billion years ago) and in the process must have caused mass extinctions. Appalling?

Those observations are *part* of his argument aginst the special status of humanity. that is the conceptual theme of the book, philosophically (and it is a *philosophy* book).He also turns his guns on the green movement, who he sees as humanist progressives, yet your comments would seem to carry within them the implicit message that he is a supporter of the green movement. He is much subtler than that, as I have tried to argue.

I have found this book so interesting, I'm actually considering writing something (not here, obviously) about why I think he very narrowly misses the point. Taking inspiration from neo-darwinism, Gray's ultimately nihilistic perspective is based on the notion that evolution is "random" (as you say). But, there are other views on evolution than neodarwinism. In my line, I look at how the brain harnesses self-organising properties. This is just a fancy way of saying it harnessess naturally occuring patterns. Thats how come something so complex can evolve "randomly". At each level of complexity, evolution harnesses intrinsic pattern formation to produce the next level of complexity. But there is a real sense in which those patterns were there to be found, implicit in the meso-level physics around us. Moreover, there seems to be a ratcheting effect whereby complexity is retained; life has on the whole got more complex. I choose to see significance in that - and it *is* a choice, although I agree with him that most things aren't. Maybe that makes me a "progressive". See the work of stuart kauffman, Francisco Varela (mentioned in straw dogs) Scott Kelso for all this, generally emerging views in many areas of science which put non-linear dynamics on center stage Duracell 16:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sorry - just to clarify - the *point* of the foregoing was to show that a single line description of the central theme of this book as "humans are dangerous to the environment and other species" is just wrong. A single line description could be "denies special status of humans", but "attack on liberal, humanist progessives, who he sees as tacitly deriving their ideas from religeon" is best. Duracell 17:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've now added my edit to this article, which I insist on despite the fact that you are an "adminstrator" or whatever. As it happens, I consider these and related issues proffesionally, so I would urge you to consider my contribution. If you do not find it satisfactory, might I suggest we contact John Gray for his opinion? I do appreciate that his opinion is probably not as important as that of an adminstrator, however,

C Duracell 17:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When was John Gray born?

The Guardian article says he was born in 1947. It also has no mention that he taught in the University of Essex.

The copyright page of Liberalisms (1989), gives a birthdate of Nov. 5, 1948, which is also the date that libraries use to distinguish him from other authors with the same name. Brown's article contains at least one factual error: Straw Dogs wasn't published in 2000, but two years later, and, if Gray hadn't matriculated at Oxford until he was nearly 21, it probably would have come up in newspaper profiles before.

24.129.37.143 03:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't he have any personal life? Married? Kids? Hobbies? This looks more like a self-affirmation piece than a biography. I came to find out who he is, and all I found is what he thinks. 71.185.45.208 (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, he has stated before that he is "profoundly disinterested in [his] own personality" 2603:8081:8A07:9000:FC15:DC37:C978:D47A (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Literary Criticism

The section entitled literary criticism needs to go for several reasons.

Firstly, it is not about anything you'd normally call literary criticism. Secondly, it says nothing about the thought of John Gray. Thirdly, it is not NPOV in that it is critical of John Gray but supportive of the journalist Francis Wheen. Fourthly, it contains an unreferenced claim that Wheen's book had "otherwise received glowing praise". Fifthly, it quotes an article that is bordering on the abusive. Sixthly, it is about something that is deeply unimportant.

I have tried to delete it once but it was reverted. I think somebody else tried to. It needs to go.--Oldandrew (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As there are no sources to support the section I placed it into comment. Once independent sources can be found to verify the information it can be added back in. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Gtstricky - Fair enough, I'll get the references and add them. When you say you've "placed it into comment" what does that mean? Sorry, I've not had to do this before.

Oldandrew - I'm beginning to think you're John Gray himself! Point by point: 1. It is about a review which John Gray wrote of another writer's book, commonly known as literary criticism. 2. This page is about John Gray, not the "thought of John Gray", therefore any information about him is legitimate on this page. 3. NPOV does not preclude publicly available, verified quotes about people. Read the rules. 4. The claim on praise is entirely true, but I'll modify this phrase. Something you could have done yourself, but you preferred to delete the entire section. 5. People sometimes say nasty things about eachother, get over it. If they say it in public and they can back it up, there's nothing to say it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. 6. If importance is your measure of what should go on Wikipedia then perhaps you should delete all the pointless additions you have made over the years. They don't seem to be particularly important or well-thought out to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.196 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Retirement

The first paragraph says that he is still at LSE and the second says that he is not. Someone should resolve this. Klmarcus (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Quotes issue

To get rid of the tag I've removed this:

"I should liken Kant to a man at a ball, who all evening has been carrying on a love affair with a masked beauty in the vain hope of making a conquest, when at last she throws off her mask and reveals herself to be his wife." In Schopenhauer's fable the wife masquerading as an unknown beauty was Christianity. Today it is humanism.

What Schopenhauer wrote of Kant is no less true today. As commonly practised, philosophy is the attempt to find good reasons for conventional beliefs. In Kant's time the creed of conventional people was Christian, now it is humanist. Nor are these two faiths so different from one another.

Over the past 200 years, philosophy has shaken off Christian faith. It has not given up Christianity's cardinal error – the belief that humans are radically different from all other animals.

Philosophy has been a masked ball in which a religious image of humankind is renewed in the guise of humanist ideas of progress and enlightenment. Even philosophy's greatest unmaskers have ended up as figures in the masquerade. Removing the masks from our animal faces is a task that has hardly begun.

Other animals are born, seek mates, forage for food and die. That is all. But we humans – we think – are different. We are persons, whose actions are the results of their choices. Other animals pass their lives unawares, but we are conscious. Our image of ourselves is formed from our ingrained belief that consciousness, selfhood and free will are what define us as human beings, and raise us above all other creatures.

In our more detached moments, we admit that this view of ourselves is flawed. Our lives are more like fragmentary dreams than the enactments of conscious selves. We control very little of what we most care about; many of our most fateful decisions are made unbeknownst to ourselves. Yet we insist that mankind can achieve what we cannot: conscious mastery of its existence. This is the creed of those who have given up an irrational belief in God for an irrational faith in mankind.

But what if we give up the empty hopes of Christianity and humanism? Once we switch off the soundtrack – the babble of God and immortality, progress and humanity – what sense can we make of our lives?

— John Gray, Straw Dogs

This really explains Gray's insight and I can't see how it could be put any better. I'll try and write a synopsis under a section called "The core thesis of Straw Dogs" or something? Anyone got any better idea how to handle this? Sarah777 (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotations section

Does this section breach WP:QUOTEFARM?Autarch (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Gray10.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gray10.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to me to in violation of NPOV, in that it summarises Gray's arguments and reports all the praise he's had but doesn't so much as mention the serious criticisms that have been made of him; for example, I read at least one article that described him as a political opportunist whose philosophical positions shift as the political climate changes, and who can be relied upon to challenge radical criticism of the political mainstream, whatever the political mainstream happens to be (except for when he was on the far left, but that was a time when the far left in Britain was experiencing a brief surge in popularity). I can't remember who wrote the article, but it's not the only scathing criticism of Gray I've read. He is much more controversial than this article suggests, and it needs more material to redress the balance. In the meantime, I would suggest that it needs at least a banner calling for a more comprehensive account of his reception, and not just a section called 'Acclaim', because he hasn't received nothing but acclaim. Lexo (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Agreed - where's the criticisms section? Richwil (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John Gray (philosopher). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120305112447/http://www.psa.ac.uk/psanews/0406/Gray.htm to http://www.psa.ac.uk/psanews/0406/Gray.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080915193023/http://www.econlib.org:80/library/Essays/LtrLbrty/gryHRCtoc.html to http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/LtrLbrty/gryHRCtoc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agonistic liberalism

Para 3 of this section appears to contradict para 1. Either "agonistic liberalism" describes Berlin's philosophy or it is an alternative to it; can't be both Encylopaedia Salesman (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I was struck by the same thing. I thought that perhaps the implication is that Gray's judgment of Berlin's political philosophy is incorrect. Then we need something like "Gray's characterization of Berlin's political philosophy is disputed by X, Y, and Z. They claim that..." Meir Simchah (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the cited articles for the last two paragraphs in this section. These not only say almost nothing about Gray's views, but do not seem to clearly support the claims of these paragraphs, which at best might be related to the views of the cited authors, not of Gray. I hence deleted both paragraphs. If someone thinks the views of these two other philosophers shed light on Gray's views, I invite them to submit a longer, and better explained and documented, explanation thereof. Alternatively, a brief one-sentence reference with links to the articles on the authors mentioned, indicating that they also discuss political agonism but with differing interpretations, may be appropriate. A third option, perhaps even better, is to create a new wikipedia page on agonistic liberalism, describing and comparing at length the differing views of these authors.ScottForschler (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

in this view, not naturalists, but apostles of humanism.[10]

The link is to naturalists, the professional students of biology.

I have not read the book. If the contrast case is humanists, then I think that this kind of naturalist is more likely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) but I could imagine a pun where both apply.

2404:4404:4423:EB00:1C0E:967:F431:652 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)