Brain in a Vat Critique

Brain in a Vat Critique Donald Davidsons philosophical writings include a variety of essays that plays an important role in the realm of Philosophy of Action, Mind, and Language. His profound essay Action, Reason, and Causes (1963) set about a standard for the action theory wherein he begins by claiming that reason rationalizes the action and that this rationalization of an agent (characterized as having a pro-attitude and a belief) is a species of causal explanation. In addition to this, Davidsons significant contribution to the Philosophy of Mind is his concept of Anomalous Monism which serves as a foundation of his philosophical work. Now, let us consider a sceptic argument of Brain in a vat, a fiction so created via scientific technique, as discussed by Renà © Descartes1 and Hilary Putnam. Just to assume, what if we are all brains in a vat, being fed electrical impulses by computers [as operated by scientist] impulses that alter our brain states and thereby create pseudo-experiences, and beliefs.2 If we regard this assumption to be true, then the hypothesis of Brain in a Vat in prospect brings with it the illusion of experience of performing an action and having some beliefs (that are actually being imposed by the scientist). Here, two positions are considered- one, Davidsons theory of Belief and Action and, other, the sceptical hypothesis of being a Brain in a Vat. So, considering Davidsons philosophical approach towards human actions, beliefs, and thoughts; in this paper, I intend to figure out his response to this given- assumed- situation of Brain in a Vat and the extent to which he can dissipate such sceptical argument, in order to justify his theory. I have divided my paper in three main sections wherein section I is an overview of Davidsons philosophy followed up by section II which takes into account the exposition of Brain in a vat argument. And finally, section III which shows Davidsons dissipation of such a sceptical hypothesis. I. An Overview of Davidsons Philosophy Davidson is accredited of presenting a suave philosophical account of interpreting human actions that depicts the very existence of human beings and so can be expressed as a means of self- expression.3 He maintained that every action that an agent perform (under a description) has a primary reason involved, inclusive of a pro-attitude (, i.e., desires, wants, urges) and a belief (, i.e., knowing, perceiving). This constitutes the rationalization of an agent (as governed by reason) which Davidson argues is a species of causal explanation. This can be formulated as: R is a primary reason why an agent performed the action A under the description d only if R consists of a pro attitude of the agent towards actions with a certain property, and a belief of the agent that A, under the description d, has that property.4 So it can be said that the essential point in Davidsons approach towards action is that an action so performed by the agent is voluntary in nature; it is an intentional act performed with reason, under a particular description. But, here, Davidson pointed out that to know the primary reason of an action so performed by the agent is to know the intention of an agent in performing the action, but the converse is not necessarily true.5 Moreover, he emphasized on the role of causal concepts in the description and explanation of human action6 which brings with it the foremost concern that even primary reason for an action is its cause.7 There is a proper pattern of cause and effect that is involved in explanation of an action that connects the physical event being performed with the mental event (or intention) of an agent. Now, a question can be asked as to what is this Mental that Davidson is talking about? What does he mean by Mental? Simon Evnine has clearly explained this notion by characterizing mental states into sensations (that an agent may feel) and the intentionality which includes beliefs, desires (that are also referred as propositional attitudes). Davidson is primarily concerned with the propositional attitudes that have propositional content and so has confined himself to the content-bearing, propositional states8. As he said: The distinguishing feature of the mental is not that it is private, subjective, or immaterial, but that it exhibits what Brentano called Intentionality.9 Moreover, mental states can be analysed from two perspectives: the first-person point of view and the third-person point of view. The former is according to agents sensations and the latter is in accord with propositional attitudes that is pertinent to Davidsons view. This is because, as Evnine mentioned, understanding in terms of rationality is a distinctive human activity (or is a communal activity) which is in principle public and observable to all. And the states like belief, desire play an important role in this way.10 Also, two kinds of laws are generally considered in relation to the Mental the psychophysical laws that connect mental states to physical states; and the psychological laws that connect mental states to mental states itself. Davidson denies the value or presence of both these laws and this is what he has in his mind when he talks about The Anomalism of the Mental. As he writes, . . . The causal dependence, and the anomalousness, of mental events are undeniable facts.11 Thereby, Davidson advocated his theory of Anomalous Monism which exhibits the fact that mental states or events cannot be given purely physical explanations; such that not all events are mental, while . . . all events are physical.12 This may mean that, since there is a categorical difference between the mental and the physical state, it is regarded that there cannot be any strict psychophysical law. As he stated in his essay Mental Events (1970): It is a feature of physical reality that physical change can be explained by the laws that connect it with other changes and conditions physically described. It is a feature of the mental that the attribution of mental phenomenon must be responsible to the background of reasons, beliefs, and intention of the individual. There cannot be tight connections between the realms if each is to retain allegiance to its proper source of evidence.13 Davidson pointed out that, although the two states of mental and physical cannot be connected with any particular law, in spite of having some causal interaction between them, yet it can be said that the characterisations of mental events somehow depend on the characterisation of physical events. This may be termed as Supervenience, i.e., an object cannot alter in some mental respect without altering in some physical respect.14 But this does not imply any sort of reducibility whatsoever. Further, as it has been observed that Davidson is primarily concerned with the interpretation of human actions, wherein both mental and the physical state or event has a distinctive role to pay, the next consideration demands the specific attribute of interpretation itself. The question may be asked: what makes interpretation possible? What is the role of understanding in interpretation? Given a situation, what if you land up in a place you are completely unaware of. You cannot understand the language or utterance of the people (of that unknown place) and so you are unable to interpret their happenings or the behaviour of the people of the unknown environment. This implies that without understanding, no interpretation is ever possible. In order to interpret the actions of the people (of the unknown place), to attribute beliefs, desires and other mental states to them, to assign meaning to their utterances and say what they are doing, we have to begin from scratch.15 Thereby, Davidson posits the problem of interpretation and maintained that All understanding of the speech of another involves radical interpretation.16 So, having a great influence of Quines Radical Translation, Davidson advocated (a little different) doctrine of Radical Interpretation wherein the interpreter tries to understand the actions of the people, allocating meaning to their sayings, according to the environment they are living in. In a way, Radical Interpretation, as Evnine explained, is a theoretical exercise designed to reveal the interrelations between the various intentional, or propositional states and events like beliefs, desires, linguistic utterances and actions, and the relation between these states and events and non-intentional states, and events such as brain states, noises; marks on paper and bodily movements.17 Now, Radical Interpretation has been credited of having two features- Normativity and Holism. Normative principles are general principles that is applicable to every other person in concern which deals with the question, how things should or ought to be? Davidson claims that radical interpretation should be guided by normative principles for mental states can justify other mental states, having an assumption that the person concerned is rational. So rationalization has an essential role in terms of attribution of mental states. However, rationality, here, is restricted in the sense of its relation to the world and actions being performed.18 Secondly, regarding the holistic feature of radical interpretation, it is claimed that mental states are adhered only in relation to other mental states. The attribution of the mental states is based on the behaviour of the agent performing actions, but such attribution is not fixed and so must be made according to the attributes of other mental states. So in the light of other attributions, the reason for an action can be considered.19 Thereby, it can be said that in Davidsons view actions and mental states mesh together in a holistic network . . . a web in which everything is connected, either directly or indirectly, to everything else.20 Thus, Davidsons account of interpretation as normative and holistic is about rational interpretation and attribution of mental states only. But this does not mean that no error in terms of interpretation is ever possible for there can be a gap between interpretation of belief of someone and his actual belief. This brings us to take into account the indeterminacy of interpretation which allows the possibility of having more than one set of interpretation. Moving on, can we say, in Davidsonian context- Is there any connection between Interpretation and Anomalous Monism? Quite obviously, there is a strong connection between Interpretation and Anomalous Monism that yields a correct analysis of utterance of the speaker. To explain this- utterance is an action, and so an event, and to interpret a certain event, we ought to describe it. And this description gives the meaning of the uttered sentence. So, in context of Interpretation and Anomalous Monism, we are concerned with events and descriptions. Events, in themselves, are opaque and meaningless. But they can be seen as intentional actions or mental events only when they are described in a certain way.21 As Davidson writes: we interpret a bit of linguistic behaviour when we say what a speakers words mean on an occasion of use. The task may be seen as one of redescription.22 Now, Radical Interpretation occurs only when the interpreter is able to understand the unknown language for which meaning of language is very important as the essence of language lies in understanding and its usage. But how can we account for the truthfulness of the sentences being uttered by the speaker? Or, how can we account for the validity of the interpretation itself? In order to answer this, Davidson accommodated The Principle of Charity, i.e., an assumption that the speakers utterances will be counted as true, in terms of his belief as well as his meaning. For the belief of the speaker and the meaning of the sentence incorporates the truthfulness of the sentences being uttered by the speaker. The underlying thought of this principle is the fact that given this Principle of Charity, it is generally assumed that the speakers utterances will be regarded as true and rational. Although even this assumption is guided by rationality (in broader context), however, the Principle of Ch arity also include the possibility of mistaken beliefs for its base is assumption only. The point is that The Principle of Charity cannot be sidelined if we are to adhere to Radical Interpretation, in Davidsonian context. This is so because the concept of belief, desire, meaning and intentional action are defined by what the theory, the principle of charity, says about them.23 But, even The Principle of Charity, which has been adopted as an across-the-board basis24, can be sorted out into two main principles The Principle of Correspondence and The Principle of Coherence. The former principle takes into account the assumption of the truthfulness of the speakers utterances per se whereas, the latter principle takes into account the principles governing attribution of attitudes to an agent and description of the agents behaviour so as to make the agent out to be by and large rational.25 Also, Davidson in concern with epistemology upholds the position that coherence yields correspondence; wherein coherence allows a set of true beliefs of an agent (as guided by his rationality and understanding). Again assumption plays a central role here as well, as he said: There is a presumption in favour of the truth of a belief that coheres with a significant mass of belief. Every belief in a coherent total set of beliefs is justified in the light of this presumption, much as every intentional action taken by a rational agent . . . is justified.26 However, it should be noted that Truth is not to be defined specifically in terms of coherence and belief, for truth is primitive, according to Davidson, and is always in relation of correspondence with the existing world. More so, in spite of adhering to his coherence theory as assuming the truthfulness of beliefs of an agent, Davidson accepts the possibility of even coherent set of false beliefs that an agent may have because of the gap between what is held to be true and what is true.27 II. Being a Brain in a vat The sophisticated form of the sceptical hypothesis of being a Brain in a vat in prospect has been addressed by Hilary Putnam in Reason, Truth and History (1981). This possibility urges us to assume, what if we are really brains in a vat? , i.e., what if the experiences (or sensations) I am currently having is as per the scientists wish? In other words, the argument of Brain in a Vat as stated by Putnam, says: A human being . . . has been subjected to an operation by an evil scientist. The persons brain . . . has been removed from the body and placed in a vat of nutrients which keeps the brain alive. The nerve endings have been connected to a super- scientific computer which causes the person whose brain is to have the illusion that everything is perfectly normal.28 This implies that a being can never know that he is not a brain in a vat because it might be the case that the experience he is having is being fed to him by the scientist, and that his experience is ex-hypothesi identical with that of something which is not a brain in a vat.29 Although Putnam considered such a fictional argument that has its space in some physically possible world, however, he denies the practical possibility of the sceptical argument by regarding it to be self-refuting in nature.30 I shall take up this view of Putnam later, for as of now my main focus is to assume the situation of being a Brain in a Vat to be true wherein all that the person is experiencing is the result of electronic impulses travelling from the computer to the nerve endings . . . that if the person tries to raise his hand, the feedback from the computer will cause him to see and feel the hand being raised.31 This may mean that the person is, as though, performing an action (of raising his hand) or having a sensation or feeling; in spite of being a brain as merely placed in a vat. In addition, another case of such a scientific fiction that can be put forward is that of Turings Test a test that can judge whether a computer (or machine) is conscious or not? Turing advocated the following test: let someone carry on a conversation with the computer and a conversation with a person whom he does not know. If he cannot tell which is the computer and which is the human being, then . . . the computer is conscious . . . the conversations are all carried on via electric type-writer.32 The point that Turing maintained is that even a machine can be qualified as being conscious, having thoughts, if it passes the test. But even the test that Turing advocated is criticized for the very fact that there is a gap between the concept of being conscious and the computers technical language. Now, as having considered the point that even a Brain in a Vat (in some sense) is performing some action or is having some belief that may have (in his perspective) some rationalization of his performing an action; although in actuality, those experiences are all being induced by the scientist. Here, let us consider that given this assumed-situation of being a Brain in a Vat to Davidson; let us figure out his response towards such a sceptical position. Quite obviously, Davidson dissipates such a position, but let us see how. III. Against Brain in a vat A Davidsonian version The very assumption of being a Brain in a Vat brings with itself the practical difficulties that can never be accounted for. The reason being that it is a mere scientific technique, a fiction that induces the illusion of having experiences, beliefs or performing actions, to the brain as kept in a created- scientific- environment, a vat. Putnam, himself, attributed such a hypothesis to be self-refuting in nature, and explicitly denies any junction between the brain in a vat world and the actual world.33 But, since my concern is with Davidsons version, let us consider his objection against this sceptical hypothesis with special reference to his Coherence Theory.34 Davidson assumed (and so asserted) that there are coherent set of true beliefs, however, he never rejected the fact that there can also be coherent set of false beliefs. He maintained that beliefs can be false as well but the very concept of false beliefs introduces a potential gap between what is regarded as being true and what is actually true.35 Although the possibility of having false beliefs is minimum in Davidsons context, yet this can be viewed directly against the Brain in a Vat hypothesis as the brain that has been placed in a vat- a created scientific environment, have illusory beliefs merely based on some sensory stimulations*  [1]  that are surely false, and the very fact that the brain in a vat have false beliefs itself shows that there is a practical- potential- gap between the created world of brain in a vat and the actual rational world of human beings. Even Putnam explained this by saying that there is no qualitative similarity between the thought of the brain in a vat and the thought of someone in the actual world.36 Secondly, to consider Quines view, he said that the meaning . . . [of] sentence is determined by the patterns of sensory stimulations that would cause a speaker to assent to or dissent from the sentence.37 Davidson argues that such an account will invite scepticism leading to the falsity of every sentence whatsoever. As he said, when meaning goes epistemological in this way, truth and meaning are necessarily divorced.38 He asserts that sensory stimulations can never be regarded as an evidence or justification for the belief (which is veridical in nature). In his words: Quine . . . ties the meanings of some sentences directly to patterns of stimulations . . . but the meanings of further sentences are determined by how they are conditioned to the original, or observation sentences. The facts of such conditioning do not permit a sharp division between sentences held true by virtue of meaning and sentences held true on the basis of observation . . . I now suggest [to give up] the distinction between observation sentences and the rest. For the distinction between sentences belief in whose truth is justified by sensations and sentences belief in whose truth is justified only by appeal to other sentences held true is as anathema to the conherentist as the distinction between beliefs justified by sensations and beliefs justified only by appeal to further beliefs. Accordingly, I suggest we give up the idea that meaning or knowledge is grounded on something that counts as an ultimate source of evidence. No doubt meaning and knowledge depend on experience and experience ultimately on sensation. But this is the depend of causality, not of evidence or justification.39 This, again, can be posited against Brain in a Vat hypothesis for the hypothesis, in itself, invokes vague- sensory stimulations which go against the possibility of having any valid stimulated belief. As a result, the stimulated belief of a brain which is placed in a created scientific environment of a vat is false. Moreover, to determine the content of a belief, Davidson endorsed the view that in radical interpretation, we should identify the object of a belief with the cause of that belief. This view can also be directed against Brain in a Vat hypothesis. The reason being that according to the sceptic, the content of brains belief is not dependent on their causes.40 But this is not acceptable to Davidson as, for him, causality plays an indispensable role in determining the content of what we say and believe.41 And as interpreters, we must consider the belief of a brain in a vat in accordance with its actual environment, the environment that causes those beliefs, with special reference to The Principle of Charity. So in the case of a brain in a vat, Davidson claims that one must have knowledge of computers technical environment. He argues that though the brain is functioning and is having a sensation of performing some action with an illusory belief, but the brain is only reacting to the featur es of its environment which is, in actuality, a computers technical data storehouse. So, therefore, the only way to interpret those actions is to correlate it with the bits of data that the computer is feeding in.42 And such an action cannot have any logical- valid- interpretation in a rational behaviouristic sense of being human. Further, just to consider Turings Test (as explained earlier in section II), Davidson argues against the Turings test of machines claiming them to be conscious. He gave an example of John, a rational human being and Robo-John, artificially created John proxy. Davidson explains that John is causally connected to the actual things outside in the actual world. But Robo-John is not causally connected with the things outside in the actual world. And so, unlike John, Robo-John does not think. Thus, Turing is wrong as John does think whereas his proxy Robo-John does not.43 If this is the case, then it is applicable to the Brain in a Vat argument as well (in terms of actions), for in such a created- scientific- situation there is no causal connection between the brain (as placed in a created environment) and the actual world. Lastly, Davidsons objection to this sceptical hypothesis can also be posited with the help of the notion of understanding. As Davidson maintained that the coherence theory is about beliefs or sentences held true by someone who understands them.44 But it can be questioned that does Brain in a Vat have any understanding as it involves rationalization pertaining to the normal human behaviour? There is a strong doubt that the functional brain which is placed in a vat is able to understand any activity, in spite of being induced the sensations, the beliefs by the scientist. So even though the hypothesis is accredited of performing some action which is a mere illusion, it will not have any capacity to understand things accordingly. Conclusion Thus it can be said that Davidsons position of an action being performed by an agent, that has a proper belief and pro attitude, is about a rational human agent living in this actual real world of human beings who are guided by reasons. It is certainly not about a brain being placed in a scientific- created- environment, a vat and, then, having an illusion of performing an action and having some illusory beliefs and sensations that are actually being induced by the scientist. Whatever actions or beliefs that a Brain in a Vat is experiencing is not grounded on any primary reason, for the brain in concern is merely having false beliefs of experiencing the reality, the false belief of performing some action, it is a case of mere illusion, hallucination that does not have place in Davidsons project. More so, since there cannot be any connection between the brain in a vat world and the actual world of beings, Davidson dissipates the position of being a Brain in a Vat whose scientific, co mputer- created- environment is completely opposed to that of being human and so can never be interpreted in accord with our behavioural patterns and the actions of human agents, as even to interpret the actions of someone, we need to attribute some beliefs in a holistic network according to our rationality. But this seems infirm in the case of brain in a vat. Though the brain placed in a vat is having a belief of performing some false action, still is restricted in his small created domain and so interpreting his actions will be determined in terms of his computer oriented environment which again is being created by a scientist and is contrary to the world of being human per se and hence, is not at par with the rationality of humans as well. And so to understand and interpret the actions or language of a brain placed in a vat in a holistic way would be like interpreting the actions of a swimmer (while swimming) without even knowing what basic technique is required to swim. Hence, t he actions of a Brain in a Vat is merely envision without having any substantial ground. For Davidson claims: If we cannot find a way to interpret the utterances and other behaviour of a creature as revealing a set of beliefs largely consistent and true by our own standards, we have no reason to count that creature as rational, as having beliefs, or as saying anything.45 Reference Notes 1 See Concept of Evil Demon by Renà © Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Trans. John Veitch, (Watchmaker Publishing, USA, 2010), 97-103 2 Richard Rorty, Davidson versus Descartes; in Dialogues with Davidson: Acting, Interpreting, Understanding, ed. by Jeff Malpas, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, London, 2011), 3 3 Simon Evnine, Donald Davidson, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 39 4 See Davidsons essay Action, Reason and Causes in Donald Davidson, Essays on Action and Events, second edition (Oxford: Larendon Press, 2001), 3-5 5 Ibid. , 7 6 Donald Davidson, Essays on Action and Events, second edition (Oxford: Larendon Press, 2001), xv 7 See Davidsons essay Action, Reason and Causes in Donald Davidson, Essays on Action and Events, second edition (Oxford: Larendon Press, 2001), 4 8 Simon Evnine, Donald Davidson, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 7-8 9 See Davidsons essay Mental Events in Donald Davidson, Essays on Action and Events, second edition (Oxford: Larendon Press, 2001), 211 10 Simon Evnine, Donald Davidson, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 9 11 See Davidsons essay Mental Events in Donald Davidson, Essays on Action and Events, second edition (Oxford: Larendon Press, 2001), 207 12 Ibid. , 214 13 Ibid. , 222 14 Ibid. , 214 15 Simon Evnine, Donald Davidson, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 10 16 See Davidsons essay Radical Interpretation in Donald Davidson, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 125 17 Simon Evnine, Donald Davidson, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 10-11 18 Ibid. , 11-12 19 Ibid. , 14-16 20 Ibid. , 39 21 Ibid. , 99 22 See Davidsons essay Belief and the basis of Meaning in Donald Davidson, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 141 23 Simon Evnine, Donald Davidson, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 113 24 See Davidsons essay Belief and the basis of Meaning in Donald Davidson, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 153 25 Kirk Ludwig, ed., Donald Davidson, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 17 26 See Davidsons essay A Coherence theory of Truth and Knowledge in Truth and Interpretations: perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, ed., Ernest LePore, (Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1986), 308 27 Ibid. , 308 28 Hilary Putnam, Brain in a vat, in Epistemology: Contemporary Readings, ed., Michael Huemer, (Routledge, 2002), 527 29 Jonathan Dancy, An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology, (Blackwell Publications, 1985), 10 30 Hilary Putnam, Brain in a vat, in Epistemology: Contemporary Readings, ed., Michael Huemer, (Routledge, 2002), 528 31 Ibid. , 527 32 Ibid. , 529 33 Ibid. , 532 34 Davidson never directly attacked or objected Brain in a vat argument in any of his work. I have tried to postulate the objections that Davidson might have against such a fictional possibility and the so called illusory actions being performed. 35 See Davidsons essay A Coherence theory of Truth and Knowledge in Truth and Interpretations: perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, ed., Ernest LePore, (Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1986), 308 36 Hilary Putnam, Brain in a vat, in Epistemology: Contemporary Readings, ed., Michael Huemer, (Routledge, 2002), 532 37 See Davidsons essay A Coherence theory of Truth and Knowledge in Truth and Interpretations: perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, ed., Ernest LePore, (Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1986), 313 38 Ibid. , 313 39 Ibid. , 313-314 40 Simon Evnine, Donald Davidson, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 142-143 41 See Davidsons essay A Coherence theory of Truth and Knowledge in Truth and Interpretations: perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, ed., Ernest LePore, (Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1986), 317 42 Richard Rorty, Davidson versus Descartes; in Dialogues with Davidson: Acting, Interpreting, Understanding, ed. by Jeff Malpas, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, London, 2011), 4 43 John-Michael Kuczynski, Davidson on Turing: Rationality Misunderstood?, (Principia 9, 1-2, 2005), accessed October 07, 2012; http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br , 114-115 44 See Davidsons essay A Coherence theory of Truth and Knowledge in Truth and Interpretations: perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, ed., Ernest LePore, (Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1986), 308 45 See Davidsons essay Radical Interpretation i

Martin Bernal and describes Essay

Black Athena is the works of Martin Bernal and describes the Afro-asiatic roots of classical civilization in ancient Greece. Martin examines the perception of ancient Greece in relation to its African and Asiatic neighbours especially in West Europe. This occurred in the 18th century onwards and exhibits the denial by the western academia and the influence of the Greek culture on civilization. In his work Bernin does not support the Greek civilization as being founded by the Aryan settlers whose trace is Europe. He gives proves as to the arguments of the famous great Grecian thinkers like Plato, Socrates and Aristotle that Phoenician civilization originally colonized Greece. In this basis he comes up with a theory based on the methodology of these historians and this theory states that Greece was colonized by northern invaders with their existing colony established in Phoenicia. (Moore, 2001) He uses several examples to explain that countries of Africa like Egypt and those on the west are being admired by prominent European leaders because of their historical backgrounds. The current Greek language spoken in classical Grecian world has its roots in the proto Greek language and influence from other Anatolian languages that were spoken nearby. The culture in Greece is believed to have been developed as a result of comparison of unity of elements. Bernam puts great emphasis on the elements of Africa that shaped the Grecian history. He compares the 19th and 20th century eurocentrism with the development of the western appropriation culture and its development. He argues that the western world influenced the Modern Greek language terming the contact between the indo European languages and the culturally influenced Egyptian and Semitic languages as very key in the determination of the modern Grecian culture and language. He gives examples of some words being used in the modern language of Greece to have been from these origins. He estimates the introduction of the Greek alphabet to have been between the period 1800 and 1400 BC. (Moore, 2001) Bernal came to the conclusion that the relationship between ancient Greek and Egyptian influence should not be taken lightly. His background traces to the interests he had on Egypt since childhood and the inspirations by his father. He is further encouraged to take this direction by the discovery of the works of Cyrus Gordon and Astour. Afrocentrism which is now the most felt model in the North American primary and secondary schools has been noted to be the most significant and challenging developments in higher education systems and curriculums. It’s a model which encompasses both multi cultural and Afro Hellenic orientations. This simply means that it’s grounded in ethnic and cultural diversity and the aspect that it is attributed to Africa. In contrast with the black Athena which attributes the development of modern Greece to the western world, the Afrocentric model attributes it to be an abstract, intellectual civilization which is grounded in the traditional orientations of western civilization. Bernal’s discovery of the black Athena is the modern thinking of how the Greek world came into being but has been criticized as not with definite reasons as afrocentric movement. His was of a different order that racist and anti Semitic scholars only showed the historical facts from the Bronze Age onwards making the culture of Greece to be a product of only Egyptians and Levantines. He argues that for the complete concealing of the origin of the Greek culture we need to consider the north of Athens and the medditerenian island of Crete, civilizations which took place in the third millennium. Bernal’s case is different from the afrocentric models because it rests upon on legend and myth. It relies upon the stories told by the ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Aristotle. He interprets these stories as the memories of the Egyptian and Phoenician developments. There is a critic about this however because we need to ask ourselves ‘of what benefit is myths and legends? ’ (Bernal, 1987) Bernal attributes archaeology, myth and linguistic borrowings as evidence to the development in Greece. The history and development of Greece is of much importance to the culture adopted today in Greece. Without the historical base Bernal suggests that tracing of the Greek history and civilization would be very complicated. Bernal claims that approximately 30% of Greek is of Semitic origin, 20% from Egyptian origin and the rest from the ancient Greek origin. Critics however have suggested that his demonstrations is only based on the resemblance merely and not the principles of linguistic adaptation. Bernal takes the similarity of a few words and tries to generalize. The afro centric orientation is based on the western world and argues that linguistic development in Greek civilization has been natural like the development of any other language. (Bernal, 1987) The contention that the Egyptians were the greatest civilization in history is critically opposed by the Afrocentrists. Afrocentrists view the Egyptians as only blacks who cannot contribute anything to the civilizations which took place especially in Greece. Bernal regarded the developments of Greeks like the scientific and mathematical orientations as very important movements. It’s however criticized by the afrocentrics as a total disregard of the facts of chronology. Conclusion The black Athena and the afrocentric movements have had an influence to the history and civilizations of the current Grecian histories. In our study of the two models we need to understand the fact that the current ancient civilization is as a result of amalgamation of the two models. Bernal in his book Black Athena: The afroasiantic roots of Classical civilization addresses the issues which have made the Greek world today be the way it is. Reference: Bernal, M. (1987) Black Athena: Afroasiantic roots of Classical Civilization, Rutgers University press. Moore, D. (2001) Black Athena writes back, Duke University press.

Mount Ida College Admissions SAT Scores, Costs More

Supernatural in Shakespeares Macbeth - Witches and Lady...

The Witches and Lady Macbeth Cause the Downfall of Macbeth William Shakespeares tragic play, Macbeth shows the gradual descent of the character Macbeth into the moral abyss. Macbeths yearning for power draws him to the murder of King Duncan, Banquo, and Macduffs family. It is difficult to understand how a courageous, gentle man such as Macbeth, could be involved in such villainous activities. In truth, it was the witches and Lady Macbeth that transformed into evil Macbeths natural desire for control and authority. The play, Macbeth clearly illustrates that wicked intention must, in the end, produce wicked action. Shakespeare focuses on Macbeths courage early in the play. For example, Duncan and the†¦show more content†¦Hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor!/ All hail, Macbeth! That shalt be King hereafter(I.iii.52-57) When Macbeth hears this prophecy, many questions instantly run through his head. He begins to wonder, What are they talking about and how will I become king? Macbeth does not entirely trust the witches, for he does identify them with evil. The foretelling of the witches sparks the plot of the murder. The sparks burst into flame when Lady Macbeth hears of the prophecy. Lady Macbeth is canny and masterful as she propels Macbeth to kill Duncan. She binds Macbeths attention to the throne of Scotland, but never to the severity of the crime. Lady Macbeth is clever when she constantly urges Macbeth to forget about his torments and the brutal death he has caused. Before the actual murder, Macbeth is shrouded with fear; Banquo can see it on his face. Although Banquo does not know about the planned murder, he asks, Good sir, why do you start, and seem to fear/ Things that do sound so fair(I.iii.58-59)? Macbeth ponders what would happen if the murder scheme fails, and discusses this possibility with his wife. As Macbeth struggles with fear in the presence of Lady Macbeth, she constantly reassures him that there is nothing to fear and that the murder will be for the better. This fear demonstrates that Macbeth realizes the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, and the consequences thereof. However, theShow MoreRelatedMacbeth and His Down fall1613 Words   |  7 Pagesdisastrous. In Shakespeare’s Macbeth, there are two factors that contributed to Macbeths ruin. One of them being more to blame: The influential character of Lady Macbeth displaying temptation towards Macbeth, or Macbeths own ambitious and insecure nature. There are questions whether Macbeths downfall might have displayed more for his own blame. In closer examination, it will be come apparent that Macbeth is more to blame for his downfall. By first examining the influential acts of Lady Macbeth that madeRead MoreMacbeth and King Duncan2211 Words   |  9 PagesLady Macbeth greatly influences her husband to kill King Duncan. Although the witches had planted a seed in Macbeth, he had changed his mind on killing King Duncan. In Act 1, Scene 7, Macbeth tells his wife that they will proceed no further in murdering King Duncan: We will proceed no further in this business. He [Duncan] has recently honored me... At this comment, Lady Macbeth is furious. She uses manipulation to control Macbeth. She insults his manhood by asking him if he is afraid to killRead MoreCharacter Makes Fate3857 Words   |  16 PagesIntroduction Macbeth is the last of the four tragedies written by Shakespeare. Shakespeare depicts how Macbeth, who was once a powerful hero, sinks into a tyrant bringing calamity to the country and people. That reflected his individual ambition and lust for power, which destroyed human nature and showed us the essence of anti-humanity caused by the extreme individualism. There exists inner certainty in Macbeth’s tragedy, which is the ambitious desire, the sense of guilty for vicious circle andRead MoreFactors Contributing to Macbeths Transformation in Shakespeares Macbeth1912 Words   |  8 PagesIn the play Macbeth, the main character, Macbeth transforms from a gallant war hero to a tyrannical murderer. As soon as Macbeth enters this life filled with tyranny his fate is doomed to a tragic downfall. Throughout the play, Shakespeare makes Macbeth responsible for his actions but Shakespeare also uses other characters as influences upon him which gives the character of Macbeth only partial responsibility for what he has done. In the scenes which lead up to the murder of Duncan, ShakespeareRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare and Macbeth8813 Words   |  36 Pageshero was to be pitied in his fallen plight but not necessarily forgiven: Greek tragedy frequently has a bleak outcome. Christian drama, on the other hand, always offers a ray of hope; hence,  Macbeth  ends with the coronation of  Malcolm, a new leader who exhibits all the correct virtues for a king. Macbeth  exhibits elements that reflect the greatest Christian tragedy of all: the Fall of Man. In the Genesis story, it is the weakness of Adam, persuaded by his wife (who has in turn been seduced byRead MoreThe Letter in William Shakespeares Macbeth1609 Words   |  7 PagesThe Letter in William Shakespeares Macbeth Lady Macbeths reaction when she reads her husbands letter is powerful and dramatic.  · As soon as shes finished reading, she has decided she will make sure Macbeth is king Its as if she and her husband are thinking exactly the same thing. She does not hesitate for a moment.  · Lady Macbeth invites the spirits of evil to enter her She knows she has to steel herself, that the murder will need evil power, andRead MoreMacbeth Is To Blame For His Tragedy in Shakespeares Macbeth Essay3086 Words   |  13 PagesMacbeth Is To Blame For His Tragedy in Shakespeares Macbeth Macbeth, the play was one of Shakespeares bloody and goriest tragedies. It was based on a true story of the Celtic throne. It is a play about murder, power, ambition, greed and deception. The play is set in bleak Scotland, where King Duncan rules over all. At the start of the play Scotland is at battle with Norway. Macbeth is Thane of Glamis and has emerged from battle as a brave and courageous solider. He is admired by all as aRead More The Witches In Macbeth, The Source Of A Terrible Tragedy Essay1818 Words   |  8 Pages In reading Shakespeare’s well-known play, Macbeth, one will always notice the many influences that Macbeth encounters before his downfall. Each one of these may have had some bit of impact on the final outcome. The three most controversial and popular causes of the tragedy of Macbeth are the main character’s ambition, the witches’ fateful prophecies, and Lady Macbeth’s dominance. Each one of these can be argued as the main source of influence on Macbeth for muderdering so many people. Some peopleRead MoreEssay about Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Milton’s Satan of Paradise Lost1822 Words   |  8 Pages Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Milton’s Satan of Paradise Lost bear many similarities to each other. Both characters possess diabolical ambitions to overthrow the natural order of their circumstances for the lust for power. Both committed atrocious acts that led to others’ downfalls-Macbeth committed multiple acts of murder, and Satan vowed to corrupt humankind and did so with deceit. Both are portrayed as complex characters with, in some cases, conflicted feelings about their evil doings. AsideRead MoreShakespeares Use of the Supernatural in Macbeth Essay example5126 Words   |  21 PagesShakespeares Use of the Supernatural in Macbeth The supernatural is widely used in Macbeth, and covers major sections of it. It is used to generate interest, and to provoke thought and controversy. At the time the play was written, James the 1st was the English monarch. James the 1st was originally James the 4th on the Scottish throne, until there was a union of crowns between England and Scotland in the late 16th century. Shakespeare wrote the play for him, so the