Final paper written for PHI 309: The Anthropocene: Ethics and the Environment with Dr. Arianne Conty. Fall 2018, American University of Sharjah (BSc).
Grade: B+
***
The dichotomy of mind and matter as separate entities within one being is one example of the prominent Cartesian view of our world. Notwithstanding, the concept of dualism has been deeply engrained in human civilisation as a result of a Western hegemony and has been applied to many different aspects of our lives. For example, environmental feminism entails breaking down the dichotomy of man/woman and reason/emotion to battle the environmental problems that had risen as a result of a patriarchal society which constitutes the historical oppression of women and its linkages to the exploitation of nature (Warren, 2015). Generally speaking, these Cartesian world views, among many others, continue to influence the manner in which humanity interacts with nature. This paper examines the argument Jason W. Moore presents in his book Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital on how the nature/culture divide, that constitutes a separation between the values of Man versus the value Nature has to offer, has given rise to the Capitalocene and hence the ongoing environmental degradation as well as a global crises due to its exploitation. In Moore’s words, “late capitalism increasingly manifests as a qualitative erosion of the conditions of human, never mind extra-human, well-being” (Moore, 2015, p. 149). On the other hand, Christian De Quincey discusses the philosophy of panpsychism in his book “Radical Nature: The Soul of Matter” in which it can be derived that an adopted world-view of such a philosophy may bridge the dualistic gap between humans and nature. He emphasises the need to “find a way to restore a sense of the sacred to science and to the world – to embody mind and to “enmind” matter” (De Quincey, 2010, p. 14)., Much like with Moore, De Quincey implies a solution to the global environmental crises we have entered by showcasing the concept of humans in nature. Despite the semantic shortcomings throughout his book, he argues that it is paramount to further understand the philosophy of the mind; that both entities of human and nature may be attributed the same level of consciousness to achieve scientific developments and ecological sustainability.
Moore coined the term “Capitalocene” as the new epoch that we have entered, following the peaceful and flourishing Holocene. In his book, “Capitalism in the Web of Life” he challenges the widely accepted ideology that we have globally entered the geological epoch, the “Anthropocene”. The latter term once again demonstrates a Cartesian dualism of humans separate from nature, as he describes it, “humanity becomes Humanity. There are “human constructions” and “natural constructions” – even as humans are recognized as a geophysical force” (Moore, 2015, p. 170). However, capitalism is described as a way of organizing “Nature”; it is co-produced by human and non-human value. Thus, capitalism is driven by a dichotomous view that separates man, more specifically the Western man, from Nature. This encompasses both environmental biotic and abiotic constituents: cheap food, cheap energy, cheap raw materials and cheap labour power of lower class individuals and women. These “Four Cheaps” of Nature can be viewed as the “matter” by which the Western man, the “mind”, exploits. This is the separation of nature’s value from that of human values, which are specifically attributed to cultural ideologies of the West. Furthermore, Moore emphasises that capitalism can continue as long as there are new frontiers to appropriate and exploit, which have been manifested as different cycles of growth. As such, the exploitation of Nature implies its value exists only as capital value. The concept of Humanity separate from an unconscious and unreactive Nature, paves way for its appropriation and therefore exploitation to satisfy an anthropocentric world-view.
An alternative solution to this capitalistic world-view can be derived from Christian de Quincey’s book, wherein he discusses the concept of panpsychism. The paradox of consciousness evokes several different questions. How and where did it arise in human beings? To what extents are other living beings are conscious? And regarding the Cartesian dualistic viewpoint on mind and matter as being non-physical and physical entities respectively, how is it possible for them to interact? These questions can be elucidated by the ideology that all matter, on some level, is conscious. As such, the mind/matter dualism is met with a contender, stating that “panpsychism could be considered another variation of monism; but it is neither neatly materialist (purely physical) nor idealist (purely mental)” (De Quincey, 2010, p. 103). That is to say, consciousness is intrinsic to matter, an allusion to Spinoza’s metaphor that the mind and body are two sides of the same coin. Consequently, both De Quincey and Moore oppose the concept of dualism. Ontologically speaking, if the natural world, from the tree to the rock and down to the smallest sub-atomic particle, which humanity has long since regarded as separate unconscious entities, is in fact attributed their own levels of consciousness, perhaps the manner in which we treat the world would shift so as to develop an ecologically sustainable future. The relation of this concept with the way in which we treat nature as its own entity is also stated in Moore’s (2015) book,
“Everything that humans do is a flow of flows, in which the rest of nature is always moving through us. The forms of sociality that we evolve reflect a species-specificity that is unusually plastic. In this, “consciousness” is not outside but inside. Consciousness itself is “state of matter”. The stories of human organization are co-produced by bundles of human and extra-human nature. Humans build empires on their own as much as beavers build dams on their own. Both are “ecosystem engineers.” Neither exists in a vacuum.” (p.7)
Upon closer analysis, the “flow of flows” Moore refers to here collates with the concept put forward by De Quincey as well, in which he suggests that all matter exists as “processes”. This would of course include consciousness that Moore implies is “outside” of us as well as “inside.” Furthermore, Moore argues that the self-importance humans have attributed to themselves as empire builders is semantically no more significant than the beaver building a dam. If seen through the perspective of De Quincey, the teleology of these entities is the same, as human and beaver both exist with a purpose. Consequently, there is no single point in which either entity exists, rather all entities are in a continual process moving towards a specific goal. In this sense, consciousness can be seen as a process that has a characteristic purpose. Though it is indeed a radical position that De Quincey does not attempt to hide, the teleological definition attributed to consciousness can be traced back all the way down, thus redefining cosmo-ontology.
This however poses a new problem that De Quincey attempts to resolve: What is the definition of consciousness? For it to be accepted as a world-view, one must first establish to what degree we are to attribute consciousness to other beings given the fact that the feeling of consciousness itself is subjective. Though it is speculated, it is not necessarily known that other species are conscious the same way we are (setting aside the scientific reductionist methods that have attributed self-consciousness to the chimpanzee, for example). This is what evokes the main challenge for integrating such a world-view into achieving a more ameliorative relationship between humans in nature. Two concepts, albeit not well-rounded, already exist to battle the capitalist value that Nature has been given: 1. To anthropomorphise other beings such that humans may become more empathetic to any pain, discomfort or loss caused to other beings, and 2. The animistic belief that all beings have a soul, and thus must be respected and treated with the same dignity. These however still shy away from the significant fact that Nature’s components are not given value in and of themselves, yet are deemed as valuable from an anthropocentric viewpoint. From De Quincey’s perspective, purpose and meaning are characteristic of consciousness, providing a teleological definition as previously mentioned. Further listed in his book are “sentience/feeling”, “subjectivity”, “knowledge”, “intentionality”, “choice”, “self-agency”, “purpose” and “value” (De Quincey, 2010, p. 63). When looking into the semantics of each these characteristics, it can be difficult for a sceptic to attribute them to a quark, for example. The idea that a quark has purpose, value, feeling and choice, is indeed radical. This becomes an epistemological problem. To imply a being has choice is to say it has “free will”. This further implies that one must be capable of reason before making a choice, though this is not always the case. For example, some choices may be driven by fear rather than reason, and are subjectively automatic. In this case, the use of “choice” becomes problematic. With regards to quantum theory, “Choice – the exercise of free will and self-agency – must exist to some degree at the micro level if it exists at the macro level” (De Quincey, 2010, p. 25-26).The complexity of each of the features attributed to consciousness is relational to the complexity of the being that is studied. Therefore, the complexity of consciousness between different beings is also varied; the semantics used to describe it remain under scrutiny.
To conclude, a dualistic world-view has culminated in what Moore describes as the Capitalocene. The separation of man from nature, the conscious from the unconscious, is what drives the appropriation and exploitation of nature and therefore the accumulation of capital. However, the “limits of capital and the limits of nature are much more tightly connected” (Moore, 2015, p. 111). As a consequence, De Quincey proposes the concept of panpsychism as a replacement for the dominating capitalist world-view. As stated in his book, the complexity theory entails the “interrelatedness and interdependency between the various parts of a whole system” (De Quincey, 2010, p. 28). Developing this further, he states that “the dream of complete prediction and control of nature for the benefit of humanity – must be given up” as “we are part of the system” in order to justify an ecological panpsychist world-view (De Quincey, 2010, p. 29). Both authors disagree with Cartesian dualism, both within a capitalist regime as well as within popular environmentalism. The relation between humans and nature is that we are within nature; we only control it as much as it controls us.
References
De Quincey, C. (2010). Radical Nature: The Soul of Matter. (2nd ed.). Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.
Moore, J. (2015). Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital. London: Verso.
Warren, K. (2015). “Feminist Environmental Philosophy”. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Summer 2015 Edition). Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-environmental/#NatFemIss
Barkat.S 