Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Who thinks that they can subdue Leviathan? Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. It is without fear. It looks down on all who are haughty; it is king over all who are proud. These words inspired PJ Wehry to create Chasing Leviathan. Chasing Leviathan was born out of two ideals: that truth is worth pursuing but will never be subjugated, and the discipline of listening is one of the most important habits anyone can develop. Every episode is a dialogue, a journey into the depths of a meaningful question explored through the lens of personal experience or professional expertise.
PJ Wehry:
Hello and welcome to Chasing Leviathan. I'm your host, PJ Weary, and I'm here today with Dr. Anant Mathar. We are talking about her book, The Poverty of Ethics, and she is the senior lecturer at the Department of Philosophy at Tel Aviv University. Dr. Mathar, wonderful to have you today.
Anat:
I'm very happy to be here. Thank you very much.
PJ Wehry:
So just to get us started, why this book? And I mean, even as we were talking earlier, like there's so much here and it is a timely book, even again, but for our audience, why the poverty of ethics? The poverty of ethics.
Anat:
Okay, well actually the book originates from two sources. One is purely philosophical, the other is my activist part, which takes a lot of my time. And somehow the merge of these two resulted in this book. And I think the activist part influenced the academic part. in the way that I became annoyed more and more throughout the years by the ethical discourse by and large. I mean by people who address themselves to morality, they you know take the moral high ground. They... They are talking about evil and good and good persons and good deeds and whatever But they are not active in any way and I live in Israel. I mean, this is not the place not to be active Now I don't know whether there is any such place but Israel is certainly not one. I mean as we are talking Israel is bombarding Gaza Palestinian children were killed in the last week, I think six or seven of them, really young children, and this is all our country is doing. And I don't think you can, on the one hand, talk very nicely and politely and... with assurance about ethical measures, ethical principles, whatever, and then not being involved in anything. And moreover, those people are, when you approach them with this complaint. They become aggressive, they blame you for being the non-ethical, not enough ethical, or being biased, or being too political, or being loyal to a party, which I'm not. I vote for the Communist Party, which is a Palestinian party, mainly in Israel. But this is not my ethical, political stance by and large. This does not influence me. I don't abide by any rule book of the party. So it's really, I mean, this annoyance, which is, as you can hear, is both political, but also really philosophical and academic. This is. That's the long answer to the question why this book.
PJ Wehry:
And I see, you know, you're kind of drawing from Wittgenstein. How has Wittgenstein's influence and even your response and critique to him informed this book?
Anat:
Yeah, that's a very good, I'm very happy about this question, because Wittgenstein is exactly the kind of figure that ethical philosophers lean on, and I understand why. I think that, rightly so, in a way. I... deal in the book very extensively with the philosophy of Core Diamond, who is a brilliant philosopher. She writes wonderfully and I think she reads Wittgenstein very carefully and nicely and maybe more faithfully than I do.
PJ Wehry:
Hahaha
Anat:
Maybe he was an ethical quote-unquote person. But I think I can get a lot more for Wittgenstein than this liberal ethics that she does and other Wittgensteinian philosophers do. I mean, they're so happy with the goodness in a way, which
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
somehow results miraculously in the most shallow liberal attitude. Such a deep philosophy ends up in... No, just... being a good person and attending to one another and being sensitive and yes, I mean, there are very, very nice results as well, like not following principles very harshly, which I concur with, not being obsessed with analytical definitions of the good, of the ethical, of the political, and, you know, and just deriving, deriving your art, what you ought to do from. from a generalized principle. That is very Wittgensteinian, I mean the resistance to this, and that is nice. I go along with this. But I think at the end, when you follow this route too closely, and maybe, as Wittgenstein maybe did, then as I said... you end up not being political enough and I think not being ethical enough because I think ethics derives from politics or leftist politics and rather than vice versa. So but then why Wittgenstein at all? And I think I think that Wittgenstein along with others I mention in the book mainly two there are others but mainly two one of them is Voloshinov who was a Marxist philosopher Soviet philosopher and he wrote a book about Marxist philosophy of language and and he's I think he managed to show in a very beautiful way very exact very precise way how language is is imbued with ideology. And that when we are required to address ourselves, to be sensitive to the principles, the linguistic principles, the way the operations of language, we need to attend to the ideology that is conveyed implicitly. And I think he showed that very nicely. And Wittgenstein doesn't say a word about that. And the third one is Jacques Derrida. And I think Derrida was of course aware, I mean, politics was his bread and butter. And he did, unlike me, he wasn't vegan, so I suppose he, and he was French, so I suppose butter was part of his menu.
PJ Wehry:
I'm
Anat:
But,
PJ Wehry:
gonna go
Anat:
yeah.
PJ Wehry:
get it. Hahaha.
Anat:
What I mean is he shows this Voloshinovian. principle in another manner and that is in the way that language can be attacked, is not always, you know, is not always needly ideological, but also is full of contradictions and that
PJ Wehry:
Mm.
Anat:
is wonderful. And the role of Wittgenstein in this triad is by showing how I think best, by showing how we live in language, how we act in language, how we cannot separate linguistic principles and linguistic understanding from our way of being, from our experiences, from the way we are educated, the books we read, our community. I think he showed it best. I don't know any philosopher who did that better.
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, I've. Absolutely. Yeah, I still find Wittgenstein's account of language to be one of the best, if not the best that I've read. Something that you've mentioned and this is just a... make sure that I'm on the same track with you. It's almost what you're, it sounds like you're saying is Wittgenstein talked a lot and really clearly demonstrated a lot about language, especially in like, you know, he like to think about his metaphor of the game, right? Like language games, but what he didn't do is ask who's running the game, right?
Anat:
Yes, exactly.
PJ Wehry:
Like when we talk about the, like that, that missing the ideological component and how that ideological spread happens.
Anat:
Yeah,
PJ Wehry:
Um,
Anat:
exactly.
PJ Wehry:
it's.
Anat:
I mean, there's one exception to this. It is when he talks about... mature persons bringing into language children, you know, about teachers
PJ Wehry:
Mm-hmm.
Anat:
and, you know, he has those many metaphors of the teacher and the schoolboy or schoolgirl. It doesn't think of schoolgirl, but we do.
PJ Wehry:
As we should.
Anat:
So
PJ Wehry:
As we
Anat:
there
PJ Wehry:
should.
Anat:
are those metaphors in exactly in the way, in those places that you refer to, you know, in language games, in the question of rule following and how we bring people into our language, into our game, and how we initiate the young. And
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
I think he's very sensitive to this. I think he describes that wonderfully. But again, without thinking of the notion of power that comes along with that.
PJ Wehry:
Yes, it reminds me of the, he has lectures and conversations about aesthetics and he talks about how the beautiful is derived from the good and the good is derived. And we just don't think about the pedagogy of this. Literally, we give a child some food and we want them to eat it and we go, mmm, good. And
Anat:
Yeah.
PJ Wehry:
from there we then distinguish beauty and It is, that's how it's taught. It really is. We don't think about how basic it is, how it starts from these very simple experiences. But what he doesn't do is he is like, when we start giving these to children at this impressionable age, we are progressing, we are progressing so into clear systems of power and these clear ideological systems. And this is where I think, you know, I want to ask
Anat:
And you
PJ Wehry:
kind
Anat:
know,
PJ Wehry:
of a sideways,
Anat:
let me just interrupt in
PJ Wehry:
yeah.
Anat:
a second, because he came from an aristocratic family, of course, and he was
PJ Wehry:
Yeah.
Anat:
aware
PJ Wehry:
Ha.
Anat:
of that, and he wasn't happy about that.
PJ Wehry:
Mm.
Anat:
But he was, I don't think he really managed to... to separate himself as much as he would want, perhaps, from the education that he got, which comes to show exactly his own principle. You can't really overcome the education as much as you want to. So he was sensitive to that, but I don't think sensitive enough to the aristocratic attitude that he himself had.
PJ Wehry:
You know, before we go too far, I do want to address your motivation for writing this book and how much it resonates with me. I hope it resonates with me. There is a real frustration. I don't mind moralizing that has a conclusion in mind already. I do believe in moral intuitions, right? That we're like, okay, I talked to Dr. Francis Beckwith about this. He's like, it's okay to have an argument for torturing children is wrong, right? However we need to defend that, right? That's a good moral intuition. But what's very frustrating, and I think this is, again, trying to make sure I'm tracking with you. I so often see ethics as instead of justifying real moral intuitions, justifying ease, justifying comfort. When you talk about this kind of shallow liberal ethic, it's astonishing, I'll put that near quotes, some sarcasm there, how comfortable people's ethics can make them. It's like all of a sudden it's like, wow, it's astonishing how like... you came to this conclusion that let you live your life the way you wanted to. And there's this focus on ease. And a lot of times we're not willing to make hard decisions. And so we find ways to justify not making, uh, sacrificial decisions on our own part.
Anat:
I'm not that happy with the sacrificial part.
PJ Wehry:
Okay.
Anat:
I don't think it's... I don't think... I'm serious actually, because I don't think this should be the measure. I mean, I'm very much for happy politics and, you know, joyful, joyful actions as much as we can. And, you know, so it's not, I don't think a question of sacrifice. But I do think that, you know, being... too easy with oneself and one society especially. And again, I'm speaking as a privileged Israeli Jewish citizen here in the days, in the week, that Palestinian children were tortured, some of them were, some of them are still wounded, but some dead. I mean, five-year-old,
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
seven-year-old, just died a couple of days ago. And I see the Israeli society and it's coming from all classes and you know... it covers the whole of, almost all of the Jewish population in Israel. They justify this. And they justify, so they would accept, I'm sure. the general principle of not torturing or not killing children. Of course, of course they are against. And they would say, you know, when you open a discussion with them exactly about this, they'd say, of course we are against killing children. But we had no choice. But they are the children of our enemy. And what can we do? I mean, we had to kill this enemy. And they share their lives with him. And they live in the same apartment. and that there was no choice. So, I mean, it's so easy, I think, to find justification derived from very, very mild or consensual principles, and then something that we all agreed to. that you can defend yourself, that killing innocent persons is wrong, but if there's no choice and if you have to defend yourself, then you may kill. You know, there is all this theory that is gradually built and leads eventually to the killing of those children. And this is something I resist
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
wholeheartedly. I mean, it's not... And this is tied to the... And what we were just talking about, Wittgenstein actually, and what we get from Wittgenstein is a refusal to go this way, you know, in justifying through principles and theories and going to the abstract rather than seeing what we have in front of us. But the question is then, how do we see? And Wittgenstein talks about and teaches us how to be sensitive. But he doesn't, as I said, he himself is not sensitive enough to the political or ideological part that sensitivity plays in our life. So without being politically sensitive, you really cannot be sensitive at all. This is what my book is about, actually.
PJ Wehry:
Yes, and kind of a sideways question here, but I think it will dovetail nicely with what you just said. Why did you write this book in Hebrew?
Anat:
Oh yeah. Yeah, it's a difficult question. I hesitated myself, but I was thinking more when I wrote it. I was thinking more about my political community than my academic community. I was writing it for them, in a way, and actually they do read it. My first
PJ Wehry:
Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe
Anat:
readers, when the book came out in Hebrew, were my fellow demonstrators and people from Anarchists Against the Wall and all these groups that I'm involved with. So that was, it paid. I mean, they were really the first ones to comment. But it was also a gesture against academic literature, against academic writing. And I found that it would be easier for me to detach myself from academic writing in Hebrew rather than in English.
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
Maybe because English is not my first language or maybe because English is my academic language. I mean, when do I write in English? I mean, I write in Hebrew in all sorts of contexts. I write in English mainly in academic contexts. And I wanted to detach myself. philosophy book or another academic book.
PJ Wehry:
Hmm. And so the tie-in that I'm hoping for there is that you were talking about the, for you this is primarily about politics goes all the way down. And that all of our actions are grounded in Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz in our community, in our community first. And I loved your introduction about, I'm gonna butcher this. writing in the theater. Oh, I can't remember the name of the place, forgive me.
Anat:
in Jaffa.
PJ Wehry:
Jaffa, thank you. Thank you. I was trying to find it here, I should have written it down. But, and you're explaining about this. Can you kind of sketch for our audience the way that you view the political sphere? Like, what do you consider politics?
Anat:
Yeah, that's the hardest question actually, apart from the question what is left, which is even harder.
PJ Wehry:
Yes,
Anat:
But
PJ Wehry:
yes.
Anat:
of course, yeah, they are interconnected of course, but yeah, I think of the political in our context. vis-a-vis the moral or the ethical. So I'll just say a word about the moral or the ethical and then I think the political will be understood better. And it also continues what we just talked about, because when I think about moral or ethical discourses, they have to do with either principle, generalized principles, and what follows or supposed to be following from them, or ethical a good person or being evil. And all this is very, very abstract. And the political for me is first of all not abstract. It's first of all concrete. It's an understanding that goes, as you said, all the way down, but materially. So I'm actually thinking as a Marxist on politics. I think that the fact that philosophy and moral discourses and... ethical justifications, do their best to avoid the economic discourse, for example, or any empirical discourse actually, historical discourses, tiny data, all the rich information that they want to bracket. I think the political brings it back. I mean, you cannot talk about, this is the example I discuss, as you surely know, very, very at length in the book is the abolition. And all the discourse about slavery, when it comes to philosophers, it becomes a question of principles, what were the principles of convincing, of persuading for and against, you know, all that. And not about the revolt. I mean, everyone... forget about the revolt of the slaves themselves. And I think it is not a coincidence, because those philosophers were first of all interested in the ethical justification of the abolition. They're thinking about themselves. I think they're thinking about white persons, privileged white persons, maybe the intelligentsia or you know, and how we should react to the reality of slavery, what position should we should we do? But they never think of themselves as the slaves themselves. I mean, or as black persons or you know as the oppressed person, or as Palestinians in my context. So it's just a question of us, you know, and the us, this us is very privileged, very white, and oops, sorry for that. And so the political for me is bringing that awareness back. I'll just shut that down. Yeah.
PJ Wehry:
Um
Anat:
Did that answer your question?
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, I think yes, that answers it in part. I'd love to see, if you don't mind, can you talk a little bit more about how politics and community, do you see those terms as equivalent? Or do you, what is the connection between what you think of as communal activities or the community itself and politics?
Anat:
Okay, let's start with community. I think this is where I go along with the Witkanshtanians and Witkanshtanians themselves. As we said, I think we cannot be individualized. we cannot abolish society as Margaret Thatcher did. I mean, there's not such thing as society, famously she said. And no, there is such thing as society, and we are part of it, and we are born in our community, in our family, in a class, in gender, you know? And what we are is all that. It reflects all that, reflects our community. This is where we get our notions, our values, our value judgment in aesthetics, in ethics, and everything else. The way we behave, the way we are enraged, what limits are to our rage, for example. So this is all part of community life. And that's very important. We cannot think, I don't think we should abstract from that in any way we couldn't. I mean, if we want to abstract from that. This must be a mistake, eventually. It's something about understanding, it's about persuasion, it's about concepts formation. I mean, so it's about philosophy of language, if you wish. So that's the role of community for me. It's in a way more abstract. When I think politically about that, I mean, this is already political, of course, but when I want to connect it to the political, we were just discussing. I'm thinking even about enlarging this notion of community. I'm thinking about the international community. I'm thinking about not being part, just being happy with your own family and friends and small community, but understanding that we on this world... on earth actually are part of a large community and that we have to think about all of us together and that includes animals as I hinted before.
PJ Wehry:
Yeah.
Anat:
I mean everyone, everything that is living on our planet. And I'm not... referring at the moment only to the climate crisis, but of course I am referring to this as well. So that's the political for me and its relation with the community. It is part of our understanding of what community is, but it's also shattering the boundaries of the community in order to enlarge it more and more. Otherwise, I mean, otherwise it's not a leftist politics. I mean, the leftist politics just... It just pushes you outside the boundaries of your community.
PJ Wehry:
uh... it
Anat:
We were just listening to the news just before we started our conversation. You're in the States, I'm not, I have my own problems here. But about the problem of immigration now. I mean, in the southern border with Mexico, that was just on the news before I joined this conversation, and I think it's very clear how we should not think, not limit ourselves to the American community, or, you know, American in this sense, the United States community, and think about all those people carrying their babies and children in the water, you know, those horrible pictures that we just saw. just so...
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
I mean...
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, that we're humans first.
Anat:
Yeah, well, animals sent you first, yes. Yeah, but yeah, yeah, yeah.
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, and something that I'm picking up from the way you're talking about this is that we, you talk about your frustration with bracketing, with abstracting, and some of that obviously is you talk about your own activism, you know, it's the way that they break off from application and from calls to action. But it also seems that there's an epistemological... part to this that they are, you talk about bracketing off from rich data. Um, and so it, it really seems to violate, uh, like it creates these inconsistencies that, you know, Derrida would rip apart and deconstruction in their language because they are avoiding certain pockets of inconvenient information.
Anat:
Exactly. Yeah.
PJ Wehry:
Okay, so I am good, I'm tracking with you.
Anat:
Well, yeah, would you like me to give an example?
PJ Wehry:
Yeah.
Anat:
An example
PJ Wehry:
Great.
Anat:
I'm discussing in the book. So I'm writing a little bit about Martha Nussbaum, who is a Cherish philosopher, an American philosopher, and she's involved politically. She's very involved. But her involvement does exactly the kind of bracketing, this is why I was reminded of this, no, exactly the kind of bracketing that you just mentioned. She has her heroes, as I do too, of course, but she has her heroes like Nelson Mandela, you know, the regular liberal heroes,
PJ Wehry:
Hahaha!
Anat:
so Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, you know, this, the trio. But
PJ Wehry:
The liberal
Anat:
she
PJ Wehry:
holy
Anat:
somehow...
PJ Wehry:
trinity.
Anat:
What?
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, that's right. The liberal holy
Anat:
Sorry?
PJ Wehry:
trinity. Yeah, yeah,
Anat:
Yeah, yeah, exactly
PJ Wehry:
yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Anat:
the whole... Exactly the whole eternity. Very good.
PJ Wehry:
Yeah.
Anat:
But when she discusses them and she does it at length, she somehow forgets, I mean, she turns a blind eye to interesting data about information about those people. For example, the attachment, especially Martin Luther King and Mandela, of course, to the Communist Party. and all their economical attitudes. I mean, these are not only liberation fighters, and it's not only civil rights or even human rights. It goes much, much deeper in both persons. I should leave Gandhi aside because it's a more complicated example at the moment. But these two. And for Mandela, I can say, because it's later, for Mandela, I know for a fact that his support for the Palestinians was unlimited. And
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
actually he wrote that
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
unless the Palestinians will be free, we will never be free
PJ Wehry:
Mm-hmm.
Anat:
about black persons in South Africa. And actually he meant everyone else. We, I mean, we too. will never be free. And this is, this I call bracketing. I mean, it's so important. It's an essential feature, it's not like his hate or whatever, how many children he has. It's not that kind of information. It's very relevant to his thought, but it's a bit inconvenient and let's forget about it. And I think this is a very, very liberal move, you know, non-liberal move that's bracketing those parts that are not convenient. And in many occasions, not in her case. She's good at that. But in many cases it has to do with cherishing non-violence. Well, we all like, we're against killing children, okay? So and we're against violence. But I think we should think about non-violence seriously. And this principle of cherishing non-violence And bringing again and again the Holy Trinity as examples of nonviolent struggles, it's not helpful and it's not
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
right. As I said, she acknowledges, of course, Mandela's turn to violence when he had no choice, when he discovered that he had no choice. But many people forget that. Now when we see sculptures everywhere, when we see faces depicted everywhere, it's not the violent path that he had to take, that he had to take because non-violence didn't pay. And this is again something that is usually bracketed. It's not convenient.
PJ Wehry:
It's not comfortable, right? We take what's radical
Anat:
Yeah.
PJ Wehry:
and we make it comfortable. And
Anat:
Yeah,
PJ Wehry:
violence
Anat:
exactly.
PJ Wehry:
is never comfortable, yeah.
Anat:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And it's not comfortable to me as well. I mean, it's not something we should gladly adopt. I really don't think, yeah, let's go and just kill everyone. This is not the right way to go. But I also think that, you know, just speaking very nicely and complacently about nonviolence is not helpful.
PJ Wehry:
Right, and I mean, you know, to take, and I probably shouldn't wade into these waters, like you said, it's more complex, but, Gandhi's path towards nonviolence involved some very extreme measures on his part. You know, hunger fasting,
Anat:
Yeah.
PJ Wehry:
like this is
Anat:
Yeah.
PJ Wehry:
not, not easy, not comfortable. But it's easy when you're,
Anat:
Yeah. It's usually the people who support those strikers that I'm complaining against, rather than the people involved in it themselves.
PJ Wehry:
Right. Which I could see why that would turn towards the academic community in many respects. This is a critique of that. You mentioned kind of with Mandela that when he says we will not be free, he's speaking that kind of universal human sense, right? And you've already referenced that. At the beginning of your book, you talked about that move from Hebrew to English as a universalizing move and you felt that was the time.
Anat:
Yeah.
PJ Wehry:
What have you seen? How has the reception changed and you know, the the active translation is an act of sublation. What have you learned from the move into English in context and language that sort of thing?
Anat:
Yeah, I'm very happy about this question as well because I was surprised that I found... I found friends, you know, I found friends much, yeah, in a much wider neighborhood than I expected. I did expect people to like this book, people whom I knew and whose philosophy I knew, I mean close philosophers, and of course several activists who were up my alley. But it came, you know, it reached a much wider audience. And I am a readership. And that I'm surprised by. You know, just a couple of weeks ago, a mathematician from Paris wrote to me that he stumbled upon my book and how wonderful it is, and he just quoting it from it. So yes, he's politically active on the left, but he's a mathematician, he's not, he's interested in philosophy, but he's not a professional philosopher. And so... It's in a way a way of shattering the boundaries, as I said before, I mean the community is much much larger even in this respect and And for me as a leftist, this is very good news. This is very good news. And another thing that I was happy to find out is that it goes both to the younger generation and the older one. I mean, people react to this book favorably from all ages. It's not my age. I'm 67 now, so you could say, you know, those 60s people, you know, hippies, or that would be the kind of, of audience, philosophical and activist audience. No, it's even millennials and really young persons. I get, I do. Actually... by Hebrew readers at the moment, but maybe this will change, but young Hebrew readers, I mean of 16, 17 year old, I mean in high school, and they read the book and they say, wow this changed the way we see things, and then they refuse to go to the army, which is another bonus that I get.
PJ Wehry:
One thing I did want to touch on being conscious of your time is you talk a good amount about religion and the divine and kind of how the sacred plays throughout this. What role do you see the sacred in this whole discussion for you?
Anat:
Well, I'm writing about this idiom, the death of God. And what I think is, you know, since Nietzsche killed God for us, and actually what he said is, or implied, is that Kant killed God, and it just took us the whole 19th century to realize that. But so, so let's, let's move between Kant and Nietzsche. So God is dead. But my feeling is that, although he's dead, and I think Nietzsche phrased it best, we didn't really get the meaning of this. And Nietzsche talks about the light of the stars, that it takes so many years to reach us, and we didn't really get or grasp the idea of being in a godless world. And so the sacred and the transcendental, like transcendental good or transcendental evil, or you know, it's something that is magnified in a way and goes beyond everything that we can think. I think it's natural. I know it's mesmerizing, but... I think we should be aware when we think about it. I think we should be aware and not just reduce it. I mean, just not... saying okay this is a godless world let's just be economical or let's just be you know materialist in the wrong way i am a materialist as i said i'm marxist so i must be i must be a materialist but not a materialist in the way that you see no spirit i mean you see so the sacred for me or god for me is just a warning a warning about how to include it in a way that will also serve me politically. Or, you know, not in an instrumental way, it sounds horrible now that I'm saying it, it's just recruit God. So it's not I'm drafting God, but it's just understanding we are in a godless world, but beware of... of taking it in the wrong direction, in a very harsh direction, where we just face brute facts with no sensitivities to each other. And so people who do this, who go along this way, are ethical. But we just said that, you know... I'm comfortable with those ethical persons as well. So I want another step. I mean, without God, but without ethics as something pure and something that replaces God, but with something that is much more, much richer, much. And yeah, much more complicated,
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, I...
Anat:
I would think.
PJ Wehry:
Yeah-
Anat:
Much more conscious, much more conscious, simply.
PJ Wehry:
And I want to make, I should have mentioned it before, that I myself am a devout Christian, and that's just so that there's no sense of, so that this conversation is genuine, right?
Anat:
Yeah.
PJ Wehry:
So I'm not like sitting here like, and as you talk about this, I do find even talking to materialists, and I want to see if maybe we can bring back some of the themes you've been talking about, is there's a materialism that brackets off rich data. in pursuit of being purely materialist. Is that a way
Anat:
Yes,
PJ Wehry:
to talk about what
Anat:
yeah,
PJ Wehry:
you think of as
Anat:
yeah,
PJ Wehry:
the
Anat:
yeah, this, yeah, this, I think this is a very nice connection. So first of all, biographical comment, my supervisor, and actually the topic of my thesis, my doctoral thesis, was Michael Dummett. He was a devout Catholic, and we were very, very close friends. And I mean, he wasn't only a mentor, but he was a mentor in the full sense of the world, and also a friend, and his daughter is now a very good friend after he passed. So, and he understood completely, and she understands completely. I mean, though, you know, we're coming from very different backgrounds, but I think... It doesn't matter whether you define yourself as a Marxist, a materialist or a Catholic, but this political sense that is common to us is really important. So I'm here, I think I would myself bracket actually the... laden, too laden concept of being religious or not, being Christian, being Jewish, being a believer or not, on the one hand, but refusing just the very shallow ethical, being ethical. I'm a person, I'm just sensitive to everyone. So that is something I also don't want. And I think there's a very, very strong common ground here. And the common ground is the common ground of activism. It's political activism before everything else. Michael Domet was an activist. He spent years on political activism against racism, for immigration, for example, in England. He was a very pro-immigration activist. He and his wife was also Catholic and... our friendship was based about this joint understanding through activism, through political activism and then shared views based on that. So I think, I don't know whether it answers your question, but it aims to because
PJ Wehry:
No it did.
Anat:
I think, it's not the holy or the ceremonies that we do. They get their own content. by what we really do. And what we really do is what we really do politically. So when he was a Christian, or she was a Christian, his wife, Michael and I, and dammit, and when I'm not religious in any way, but what we do is takes its content and its significance from our joint political action, this is what matters actually. And I don't think, I take it seriously, I don't think this is a materialist in the shallow way of... of seeing materialism. I do think there's something sacred about that, if you see what I mean. You know,
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, absolutely.
Anat:
there's something very... it's important, it's important to me. And I don't think materialists can speak about importance in the same way. Maybe this is the word I was looking at. Significant,
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
it's important.
PJ Wehry:
How do we avoid this kind of bracketing off of rich data? Do you see that primarily as an intellectual exercise? Obviously you see activism playing that role. Are there certain rituals and practices that enrich us to be to enrich our souls maybe so that we have the significance that avoids this this bracketing. What would
Anat:
I
PJ Wehry:
you
Anat:
think
PJ Wehry:
recommend
Anat:
it takes
PJ Wehry:
for
Anat:
time,
PJ Wehry:
that?
Anat:
and time is something that we lack. It
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
takes time because it needs reading, it needs listening, like, you know, to your podcasts. I mean, it requires time. And this is not something I can ask from anyone. I mean, most people don't have time.
PJ Wehry:
Hmm.
Anat:
So... This is a sort of privilege, of the privilege of academics, of people who do have more leisure. And this is why I think we understand or we can explain differences in political attitude regarding classes, differences in classes. There are classes who cannot afford paying so much attention and taking so much time about being updated. So they get the information from very, very quick... click-bites, you know,
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, oh yeah.
Anat:
they read scatteringly and that's bad, but we understand it, I mean, this is the reality, but if we want to overcome that, I think... We should, I mean, education plays a large part here. And as you said, I mean, political activism on just causes. But political activism is not, again, I don't want it to sound, now it's alarming a little bit. I don't want it to sound like a general principle itself. Political
PJ Wehry:
Mm.
Anat:
activism can have so many manifestations. It's like unionizing. I mean, you just, you just, This is political activism enough. You understand something that you have interest in, it pays you, I mean it pays you in both ways. And I'm very much for it. I don't think that... self-interest is something wrong. I think it's very good and important. People do act and should act from their, first of all, from their own interests, and then, only then, rather than principles, and only then understand the principles that they can rely on or generalize. So unionizing is one thing. being involved in your children's class or helping immigrants, as I said, or something like that. It may be tiny activities, but being involved in such things opens your world in a way that enriches you. And then I think once it's starting, then... reading comes along and watching the right movies comes along and listening to podcasts while you're cooking comes along and all that.
PJ Wehry:
Um, and this is a clarification question. Um, when we, yeah, you've mentioned a couple of different things like, uh, as these kind of little ways of political activism and, uh, I'm trying to understand how the moral and political interact and whether, you know, when we talk about what does it mean for politics to be all the way down when you are going down the side of the road. and you see someone broken down. Of course, this doesn't matter as much anymore with cell phones, but there was a time where, you know, like this was a big deal. Or you see someone, you know, trying to, let's say they're carrying something heavy and they're trying to get a door open and they're a stranger and you open the door for them. Do you see that as a moral thing or do you see that, well, and or political? How does the, is that thing political? when you were doing that for that person.
Anat:
Okay, I think this is a tricky question, because it reduces the moral to those trivial incidents that everyone can do this. And even fascists open the door for it.
PJ Wehry:
Ha ha!
Anat:
I'm not kidding, actually. I mean, even
PJ Wehry:
Yeah,
Anat:
fascists
PJ Wehry:
yeah, yeah.
Anat:
would help an elderly person to cross the road. help them carrying something that is very heavy. So we're human, and we're human also as fascists, as murderers or as pilots bombing Gaza. I mean, some of them are probably my neighbors and they're very nice and they help me collect the garbage or whatever. So this is why it's the wrong question
PJ Wehry:
Okay
Anat:
reason I find the moral discourse or the ethical discourse going along the wrong way, simply, because it's so inviting to think about these examples. But these are the wrong examples. I mean, you can't, because as I said, I mean, in the morning you can help this elderly woman and in the evening you go and bomb Gaza. And I think there is a connection here. I think there is a connection. It's not that... It's not that these are two different worlds. It's you're helping this elderly woman, which helps you think of yourself as a moral person and then gives you the license to kill. or the license to be a fascist or the license to bracket your own deeds and just focus on your very, very nice deeds in the morning. So this is why those things are, I don't think they're helpful, I think we should be aware of them. But this doesn't mean that we shouldn't help. You know,
PJ Wehry:
OK.
Anat:
those... You see what I mean? I mean...
PJ Wehry:
So those are moral actions, but
Anat:
Let
PJ Wehry:
they're...
Anat:
me try, just a sec, let me try
PJ Wehry:
Absolutely.
Anat:
saying this as entering the same room from another door.
PJ Wehry:
Sure.
Anat:
At the end of the book I'm writing about, okay, we've been through all this, and now let me just say it in another way, I say it in the book and I'm saying it now. It's not that the political surpasses the ethical, it's just that when we think politically, the whole world, the whole distinction between the political and the moral should collapse. And when we see the moral through the eyes of the political, we just understand things differently. And this is what I was trying to convey by giving this example about the morality of helping this elderly woman or something. So of course we need to help people. I mean, it's wrong not to help. But when you understand that after this, you're getting the wider and richer picture, that I think you see the place of this in the whole mechanism, in the whole theory.
PJ Wehry:
Yeah, I would a way to think about this be that sometimes people talk about almost like balancing things out or canceling things out. So that it's like if I do nine nice things, I can do the tenth, you
Anat:
Yeah,
PJ Wehry:
know,
Anat:
yeah,
PJ Wehry:
the tenth
Anat:
yeah.
PJ Wehry:
nasty thing, right, or evil
Anat:
Yeah,
PJ Wehry:
thing.
Anat:
yeah, yeah, exactly. So there is, I mean... We're human. I mean,
PJ Wehry:
Right?
Anat:
we care about our self image. We care about ourself. Everyone cares about, even those who deny that. We care about our self image. And morality and our being ethical is part or has a large part in our self image. Even if again, we're cynical and we say, I don't care. I mean, I'm narcissistic, I'm egotistic. It's not true. I mean, even those people who declare that care about their... self-image. So here comes the thing that you just mentioned. I mean, yeah, I'll do these and these things. I am part of, you know, I collect money for the poor or something like that. But then it's bracketed. It's not understanding the whole thing. It's not understanding the mechanism. It's not understanding what you really are doing.
PJ Wehry:
Well, Dr. Matar, just absolute pleasure having you on today. If I could ask you before we finish up, what is one takeaway, and this is often the hardest question I ask, but what is one takeaway you would leave for our audience as they think about your episode this week?
Anat:
Oh, it is the most difficult question, and I didn't
PJ Wehry:
Yeah,
Anat:
respond.
PJ Wehry:
every time.
Anat:
Well, first of all, thank you for having me here. what I think about context think about political context this is what this is what about power relations don't delude yourself it's so it's so easy to delete and I do do it too I mean it's not as I said I mean we are all human and we all compliment ourselves and we congratulate ourselves for what we do so but just take one step back and just think from a leftist point of view. And I think being leftist is what I'd like people to be.
PJ Wehry:
That sounds like a whole different podcast, but what does it mean to be leftist? But we'll
Anat:
Yeah,
PJ Wehry:
leave that for another time.
Anat:
but I think people
PJ Wehry:
Thank
Anat:
understand
PJ Wehry:
you.
Anat:
my reason why now.
PJ Wehry:
Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Again, thank you for coming on. It's been a real pleasure.
Anat:
Thank you very, very much. Bye-bye.