John Gray: ultimate pessimism and contradictions or good ideas?

Hi.



I'm curious about this. I heard of this philosopher named John Gray:



http://ift.tt/1iqgESu



Now I haven't read any of his stuff, but reading the article on Wikipedia makes me wonder some things:

Quote:

Gray has written several influential books, including False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (1998), which argues that free market globalization is an unstable Enlightenment project currently in the process of disintegration, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (2003), which attacks philosophical humanism, a worldview which Gray sees as originating in religious ideologies, and Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia (2007), a critique of utopian thinking in the modern world. Gray sees volition, and hence morality, as an illusion, and portrays humanity as a ravenous species engaged in wiping out other forms of life. Gray writes that 'humans ... cannot destroy the Earth, but they can easily wreck the environment that sustains them.'

So we see him attack something "rooted in religion". Yet in other places, I've heard he says good and positive things about religion. So what kind of religion does Gray consider "good religion"? He critiques Dawkins and other "atheists". So what is his idea of good religion?



Also, if there is no will, or volition, and "morality" is just an illusion, then does that imply that morality is no real good? If that's the case, then why don't we all go out and insult, rob, kill, and just be as scumbagish as we want? If you say that such should not be done, is that not a form of morality? Yet if morality is no real good ... contradiction? And religion ... doesn't religion have, yup, dum dum dum, ... morality in it?



Though on the other hand, it does seem there are a lot on this forum who might also take issue with the idea of "free will", but I don't see them as against "taking any action" to resolve issues. But, what comes next seems really up-front anti-action:

Quote:

Central to the doctrine of humanism, in Gray’s view, is the inherently utopian belief in meliorism, namely that humans are not limited by their biological natures and that advances in ethics and politics are cumulative or that they can alter or improve the human condition, in the same way that advances in science and technology have altered or improved living standards.[8] Gray contends, in opposition to this view, that history is not progressive, but cyclical. Human nature, he argues, is an inherent obstacle to cumulative ethical or political progress.[8] Seeming improvements, if there are any, can very easily be reversed: one example he has cited has been the use of torture by the United States against terrorist suspects.[9][10] "What's interesting," Gray said in an interview in 032c magazine, "is that torture not only came back, but was embraced by liberals, and defended by liberals. Now there are a lot of people, both liberal and conservative, who say, 'Well, it's a very complicated issue.' But it wasn't complicated until recently. They didn't say that five or ten years ago."[11] Furthermore, he argues that this belief in progress, commonly imagined to be secular and liberal, is in fact derived from an erroneous Christian notion of humans as morally autonomous beings categorically different from other animals. This belief, and the corresponding idea that history makes sense, or is progressing towards something, is in Gray’s view merely a Christian prejudice.[8] In Straw Dogs, he argues that the idea that humans are self-determining agents does not pass the acid test of experience. Those Darwinist thinkers who believe humans can take charge of their own destiny to prevent environmental degradation are, in this view, not naturalists, but apostles of humanism.[8]

(underlining mine)



Which seems to suggest that he is saying ethics cannot be advanced because of "human nature", which is an unalterable limit. If humans cannot "take charge of their own destiny to prevent environmental degradation" (since he says that idea comes from humanism and he rejects humanism), then why shouldn't I just go and get myself the biggest SUV I can possibly get with the lowest MPG around -- heck, no, forget an SUV, let's get my own personal hulking armored vehicle -- and drive it around hours a day, buy every single thing I can get my hands on, go on a diet of lavish, exotic food shipped in from half-way around the globe, buy two new phones every month, throw decadent, lavish parties and par-tay par-tay par-tay! Consume consume consume! Guzzle guzzle guzzle! Hey, we can't be any better! Let's just live it up 'till the planet is toast and we're all toast! Though I'd admit that in my case I'd have the practical problem of not having enough money to do that, but if I did... Or perhaps less dramatically, why not just sit on my butt and just do nothing, be passive in the face of all wrong done in the world (what is "wrong", anyway? Isn't "morality" just an illusion?), apathetic, and just plain not bother.



But more seriously, if nothing can be done about it, what on earth is the point in complaining? To find something worthy of complaining about, in my mind, seems to imply one thinks that something can be done about it. But that's not what I'm getting from this. But I'll admit: you probably can't get that much from Wikipedia. It's just that the picture it seems to paint seems fatalistic to the point of making one wonder "why bother?"



I noticed a thread here:



http://ift.tt/1kGCQGe



and some seemed to be sympathetic to his stuff, so I'm wondering: how are the above concerns addressed? What is wrong with this very rough, initial assessment? Is the information I have just too cursory? If I were to read his books, would I find in there that he does in fact advocate some kind of action, or think that such would be beneficial in some way?

via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1iSZVtC