The Taoist Philosophy Of John Gray

The Taoist Philosophy of John Gray

Multiculturalism and Immigration within Liberal Democracies

At the Munich Security Conference of the 5^th February 2011, the British Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron gave a speech regarding the nature of the emergence and threat of terrorism from within the U.K. Whilst explicit in stating that the increasing terrorist threat has not been from one group alone as there is still to some extent a strong level of hostility from extremist republicans in Northern Ireland the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism within the country has been identified as the major source of terrorist activity. Cameron argues that a perverted form of Islam has gripped the mind of young individuals, indoctrinating them into a certain ideology, causing them to subsequently decide to commit terrorist acts such as suicide bombings. Whilst Cameron claims that the state must do all it can to create tighter security measures, the growing threat can only be dissolved through assessing the root causes of extremism, which in this case is Islamic fundamentalism. In creating a distinction between Islam and Islamic extremism , Cameron has made it clear that this is a fight against a political ideology that has been manipulated by the religion rather than an attack on the religion itself, explicating that Islam itself and the West are not incompatible. Some have argued that the involvement of the West in the Middle East has caused instability in the region through the overthrowing of some leaders, and upholding those who seek to move away from democratic practices. However, Cameron has pointed out that a lack of democracy cannot explain extremism as it has been increasing heavily in free and open democratic societies such as the U.K. Rather, it is the ideology of Islamic extremism, drawing in individuals who lack a solid identity that has fuelled the rise in terrorist activity within the U.K. In Cameron s mind this lack of a solid identity has been caused and perpetuated by the growth of multiculturalism, as it has seemingly segregated certain communities from one another, allowing different or conflicting ways of life to flourish in the same country, thus creating a complete lack of any notion of a collective national identity. In order to combat this, Cameron has stated that a more robust form of liberalism must be implemented into society in order to dissolve our differences, as a genuinely liberal society must promote certain values such as freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and democracy in order to preserve a stable and prosperous society.

Clearly, there is an overarching contradiction within this speech, and within the whole concept of liberalism itself. How can a liberal democratic society on one hand promote freedom and individuality, whilst on the other hand state that in order for a sustainable liberal society to work there must be certain values that are held by all? Freedom of expression within a liberal democracy should be prescri ptive for all individuals, regardless of instances whereby their values may come into conflict with others. If we are to live in a free and open cohesive society it must be one where there is full recognition and acceptance of our differences, along with recognition of the contradictory nature of the liberal society. The goal of the liberal society to create some notion of harmony has in fact done more harm than good. It can be viewed further that Cameron s argument regarding multiculturalism represents a key problem within the liberal philosophy that must be remedied in order for instances of extremism within liberal democracies to be resolved.

We can see further examples of this kind of rhetoric within supposedly free and open liberal democracies. In October 2010, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel claimed that the task of building a multicultural society in Germany has completely failed due to the lack of integration by immigrants into the society. The concept of multikulti whereby all citizens within the country would live together harmoniously has not worked according to Merkel. A survey within Germany revealed that almost 30% of the population believed that the country was being overrun by immigrant workers, leading to demise in the German national identity. However, similarly to David Cameron, she made clear in her speech to members of her political party - the Christian Democratic un ion (CDU) - that her views regarding the failure of multiculturalism did not mean that certain religions or cultures, such as Islam, were not welcome or accepted within German society. However, Merkel has been under recent pressure from the CDU to take a tougher stance on immigration within a society than contains roughly 4 million Muslims, during a period of increasing tensions regarding the integration of this Muslim community. This tougher stance has been furthered by similar views from within the Christian Social un ion (CSU), who are part of the coalition government. The Premier of Bavaria, Hoorst Seehofer, has claimed that Turkish and Arab immigration must be completely stopped, stating... "It`s clear that immigrants from other cultural circles like Turkey, and Arab countries have more difficulties. From that I draw the conclusion that we don`t need any additional foreign workers from other cultures'lt;/i>. The increasing friction within German society regarding the integration of Turkish and Arab immigrants has been fuelled by the publication of a book in August 2010 authored by a long-term member of the Centre-Left Social Democrat Party (SPD). Thilo Sarrazin s book titled, Germany Does Away With Itself , has been the main source of the increasing anti-immigration sentiment within the country. In his book, Sarrazin claims that the influx of under-educated Muslims who are resistant to integration into German society will ultimately bring about the collapse of the state, as they do not have any skills to contribute to Germany s growth except for the trading of fruit and vegetables . It has been one of the most widely read German-published books within the country since the Second World War, selling over 1.3 million copies so far. The German President Christian Wulff has made attempts to calm the tension that has been fuelled by the views within Sarrazin s book, stating that Islam belongs in Germany on the 20^th anniversary of German reunification on the 3^rd October. However, as previously stated, the German opinion polls show significant support for a tougher stance on immigration, with 20% of voters claiming that they would support a hypothetical party led by Sarrazin.

This evidence points towards a vicious and peculiar paradox within these two liberal democracies. On one hand, there are claims that immigrants, such as those of Muslim descent, are resisting integration and will therefore cause instability within that society. On the other hand, due to increasing animosity towards certain cultures supposedly because of their inability to contribute to society groups within a multicultural society would ultimately fear disrespect or loss of their culture, and thus integration would become completely impossible. It can be put forward that a lack of respect and acknowledgement of cultural differences, along with the desire to uphold and maintain some form of solid national identity, has in fact created further barriers towards integration. Furthermore, from looking at the examples of the U.K and Germany, occurrences of extremism within Muslim communities in multicultural societies are a result of a lack of integration, produced by the sentiment that individuals from certain cultures are incapable of integration. This has produced a surge of extremism from right wing groups in liberal democracies, as there is an increasing notion that a lack of integration within that society will cause their country to fall to those who hold cultural or moral differences to the vast majority. If a liberal society is supposed to uphold and maintain notions of individuality, then surely only a diverse multicultural society is truly representative of the foundations which form the basis of that society. In developing a further understanding of this problem within liberalism I will be using the main ideas within the work of John Gray, as well as exploring the ways in which this problem can be countered.

Any talk surrounding notions of integration become completely irrelevant without first the acceptance and subsequent maintenance of cultural differences within a multicultural society. To some, this would seem like an obvious statement. However, the evidence within the two examples given points towards the view that differences amongst individuals whether they be moral or cultural create problems for the prosperity of that society. Furthermore, notions of harmonious integration within liberal democracies, along with the promotion of a national identity has in fact created an environment that lacks tolerance and fuels extremism from both sides of the political spectrum. In promoting certain values such as human rights or freedom of expression the liberal society has become idealised by those who uphold it, in an attempt to maintain the supposedly timeless, universal, and absolute nature of these values. John Gray heavily examines this paradox throughout his work, assessing the nature of the views born out of the Enlightenment period, whilst promoting a substantial alternative method for coexistence known as Modus Vivendi which is based on the notion of value-pluralism. However, as Gray s ideas are not just confined to the political realm it is important to evaluate the consistent themes which run through all his works.

John Gray s concept of Value-Pluralism

Gray is one who views the desire for a harmonious society with great caution. Gray does not necessarily view harmony as a detrimental concept, but rather sees the quest towards the achievement of harmony as unrealistic and therefore damaging to society through the constant implementation of a sense of false hope. Initially that this is a strange and pessimistic view. How can one live a fulfilling life or be a good person if they view efforts towards the achievement of a harmonious society in such a negative way? How can society function if it is populated by individuals who also take such a pessimistic view? The foundation of Gray s views regarding the world lies in his book The Two Faces of Liberalism, in his concept of Modus Vivendi (MV). This concept will not only provide the starting point for examining the basis for an ethical society, it will offer a notion through which every aspect of society can be assessed against. Whilst it may arguably seem strange, and to some extent close-minded to use one concept to assess the nature and progression of society, Gray s MV is debatably so highly convincing that this concept should be viewed as a serious basis with which to replace the pursuit of a reaching a rational consensus on the good life. However, whilst using the political philosophy of The Two Faces of Liberalism his other works allow us to delve deeply into not only thoughts regarding the nature of liberalism, but also ideas regarding the nature of everything we regard to be significant in the progression and conception of the entire world. More importantly, it will allow us to examine further questions regarding the occurrence and nature of extremism and political dissent within liberal democratic societies.

Gray s concept of MV is concerned with the maintenance of a plurality of values through toleration as a means of coexistence. He initially argues that the concept of a liberal state was born out of a pursuit for toleration as a means of coexistence. However, he argues that liberalism contains two incompatible facets. On one hand liberal toleration seeks promote freedom through the belief that individuals may flourish and prosper in many different forms of life. On the other, it attempts to build a rational consensus regarding what the best life may be through a process of a prioritisation of values. These two conflicting aspects of liberalism bring forth great criticism from Gray. If individuals on one hand can prosper in many different ways of life, then there is acknowledgement that those individuals are diverse and may have different, if not conflicting values. However, if a liberal society is based on a rational consensus regarding what the best life may be then there is an assumption that values can be rationally prioritised. But if our values are indeed different, and they allow us to flourish in many ways of life then how can they be compared? By what scale do we measure the worth of one value over another? What makes some values such as human rights more important than the right to own property?

Some would argue that a question such as that is ridiculous to ask, as of course most individuals within liberal societies would argue that human rights are undoubtedly so highly regarded that to question this prioritisation is nonsensical. However, some individuals only hold some values such as human rights so highly as a product of faith in the ethical improvement of society. This notion of individuals having faith in the capability of liberalism to create an advantageous rational discourse which will put us on the path towards moral salvation is a key feature in Gray s political philosophy. However, whilst some could view Gray s contempt for building a rational consensus in a negative light, it can be asserted that his concept of MV as a basis for coexistence creates a society where individuals can truly exist freely without the fear of their values being attacked. In contrast with attempts to build a rational consensus, it can be viewed that MV is a more pragmatic, realistic, and practical basis for coexistence.

Gray argues that in attempting to dissolve conflicts of value we in turn diminish the certain goods which caused the conflict in the first place. He stresses that MV provides a political application from which to construct a state of coexistence, rather than prescribing the concept as some form of overbearing moral system. Gray finds it strange that the concept of liberalism has imposed to some extent a requirement of neutrality as the basis for constructing a rational consensus. He argues further that only since the 1970s specifically since the work of John Rawls has liberal thought assumed some form of neutral identity. With regards to Rawls, this is his idea of the original position whereby individuals would be able to enter unhindered into a rational agreement or contract regarding the ethical structure of society. Gray views this idea of neutrality within liberal thought only to be a recent occurrence since the work of Rawls.

Gray s views regarding contemporary liberal thought are seemingly directed against the main ideas within the work of Rawls, and therefore these ideas must be explored in greater detail. Rawls hypothetical notion of a practical basis for a social contract relies on rational agreement and the prioritisation of justice as the driving forces. Society is seen by Rawls as a structure, directed by a system of rules put in place in order to preserve and advance the good of the individual through co-operative means. As one s individual justice overrides the greater good of society, as strong mutual relationship must be created in order for co-operation to become a means for an individual to achieve their goals. Despite differing ideas regarding the nature of social distribution, justice can be used to enforce a fair structure that would not allow the possibility of the ends of one individual to take precedent over that of another. Justice is so highly regarded by Rawls as it is seen as the main asset of social institutions. Such institutions include the protection of freedom of thought, competitive markets, and the traditional family structure, all which can be upheld in Rawls mind though the use of rationality. Under the veil of ignorance within the original position as mentioned previously, individuals will ultimately be able to come to rational agreements regarding certain matters, as a lack of knowledge regarding their status within society will allow one to act accordingly within certain procedures of justice.

In the latter of Gray s work he argues that thinkers such as Rawls have replaced obscure and complex political negotiations with the mediation of law as a means to neutralising any threats to rights, through the application of constitutional guarantees in order to secure human freedom. Gray argues that contemporary liberal thought has promoted rights as timeless universal human characteristics, completely ignoring the changes within history. Furthermore, Gray argues that this mode of supposedly neutral thought regarding certain universal values has only come about through the creation of the modern nation-state, which has been shown through historical examples such as the establishment of the U.S as a modern nation after a civil war to have been formed as a result of conflict and loss. The liberal view however is that a society within a modern nation-state is freer than that within an empire. However, again it seems that this is an assumption within liberal thought which has completely disregarded history. Historical examples such as the level of toleration and acceptance of different religions within Europe under the Ottoman empire show that this is not always the case. As the position of neutrality is unrealistic in making ethical decisions, we cannot hope to cement it as a basis for individuals within society. Gray ultimately finds comfort in the fact that differences amongst the values of individuals exists, and to try to reach a rational consensus regarding what the best values may be is not only unrealistic in Gray s eyes but also provides a threat to our coexistence.

Gray not only finds the concept of a rational consensus regarding our values unrealistic in its operation, he sees it as being completely unrepresentative of our experiential lives. He argues that the philosophical assertion that human beings may find good in rival ways of living is a fact of our existence. This is not to say that Gray has uncovered this fact through some form of detached moral calculation, but rather through common experience with other individuals. Our coexistence with other individuals allows us to see that we find good in many different forms of life, and that we may also find some of the values of others to be morally abhorrent to us. The growth in multicultural societies has intermingled people with various and conflicting values regarding the good. Gray argues that a conflict between values is truer to our experiences and that a condition of contention regarding values has subsequently become the norm within societies. He states that... Neither ethical life nor moral discourse is a closed system in whose categories , concepts , principles or values we are fixed. On the contrary, we move from one form of life to another, translating their key terms piecemeal, case-by-case, more or less freely. As we do this, we regularly perform feats of reasoning that theoretical ideals of rationality say are impossible .

Gray argues that a condition of value-pluralism is truly representative of human life. Value-pluralism as a concept is the notion that there are many different values held by various individuals. The difference of these values means that they cannot be compared on any scale or level. To try to rationalise values creates a deluded monistic system whereby that which is outside the scope of rationality is prioritised into an ordered system. However, this is not to say that we cannot make decisions regarding which way of life to lead. Individuals may even have inner conflict regarding which ethical choices to make. What choice one would make regarding a specific matter could ethically conflict with the choice made regarding another matter. Therefore, our values are neither better nor worse than another, but rather they are different, and subsequently differently valuable. With regards to political matters, different regimes cannot be seen as being better or worse than another, nor more legitimate than another. But rather different regimes may be legitimate for different reasons. Criticism of values or regimes may be wholly irrelevant, but it still does not stop us from making choices as through our experience we can ascertain what would be the best option. Gray asserts that value-pluralism does not prescribe any notion of ethical life remaining the way it is, but rather it shows us that there are no truths regarding our existence, and therefore ethics must be a process of empirical examination.

Gray s notion of MV does not attempt to dispel the liberal state or notions of democracy, but rather it tries to build a basis whereby notions such as democracy are used as instruments of coexistence rather than being idealised as the perfect political structure. The danger of concepts such as human rights being propped up as an ideal creates a mindset of moral absolutism whereby states are constructed on the basis of the assumption that some rights are absolute. Rights should rather be thought of as instruments which adapt to the changing interests of humans and to the changing social environment. Gray argues further that one type political system may be more legitimate in dealing with certain problems than another however this means that the notion of a legitimate state has no certain qualities, and therefore as states become more legitimate they do not necessarily become more similar. This cements Gray s view that certain values are held regarding certain aspects of society due to the circumstances of the time.

There are huge problems contained within the project of attempting to reach a rational consensus regarding the good life. Here we can see the major contradiction of the modern liberal state. The question may be asked: How can a liberal state, which is based on foundations of freedom, individuality, and diversity, seek to promote these ideals whilst at the same time promoting the concept of the liberal state as the only legitimate form of governance? The concept of liberalism is flawed, and creates a dichotomy whereby notions of freedom and diversity are upheld through the implementation of a rational consensus which attempts to discover and promote the best way of life. How can one possibly view the liberal state in this light to be a beneficial environment for coexistence? Does it not seem strange that there are those who are so certain about right and wrong? Arguably, there are some individuals that would find the notion of experiential examination as a basis for ethical life to be extremely dangerous. If there are individuals who feel that there is a necessity to build a moral compass which exists independently of time or experience, then it is ultimately an attempt to uncover moral truths to direct us accordingly. This notion of the quest for truth is something which I will be deeply exploring throughout this piece of work. If there are those who are afflicted with the desire and need to discover the truth, then there will ultimately be an attempt to progress to the extent where society will reach a point of salvation. The concept of linear progression within society as a narrative of ethical improvement along with the notion of utopia is heavily explored in the latter works of Gray. In assessing this I will also be looking at the extent to which religion effects our conception of ethics and truth, and to what extent this conception is different between Eastern and Western thought.

The practical nature of MV as a means of coexistence cannot be understood within a modern liberal society. Life in Western liberal democracies the U.S.A in particular is concerned with the pursuit of happiness as an ideal, and the achievement of happiness as an end point. This pursuit seemingly manifests itself in the form of material gain and economic stability. If individuals within a society are financially stable and have the potential to become financially prosperous, then their families will not only be able to survive but will also have access to certain luxuries, and therefore this in turn will make people happy. However, this mindset has taken on a narrow view of life, and subsequently influenced the way in which liberal societies have been constructed. Social contracts merely seek to outline laws and rights regarding what people have or lack, taking a strictly rationalist approach to ensure some form of concrete and acceptable end point.

Eastern approaches within Gray s work

The arguments outlined by Gray in Straw Dogs use his concept of MV as a basis from which to create a more holistic viewpoint, examining our society as a whole. His views within this book point towards a more Eastern mode of thinking than the majority of other prominent political philosophers. The fascinating aspect of Gray s work is that it is a stark contrast to the domination of the liberal tradition within Western political thought. Liberal thought pushes individuals into thinking about the way in which the world ought to be, whilst making the way in which the world is, to a large extent, fairly irrelevant. Gray s notion of value-pluralism point towards notions within Taoist philosophy, as it attempts to create an ethical process based on an interpretation of empirical data, which in turn provides the opportunity for the maintenance of a more pragmatic and connected society. The connection between Gray s ideas and Taoist philosophy is something which will be explored further in order to obtain a wider understanding of these claims. Some individuals would view acceptance of conflict or tragedy within society as something negative and detrimental to the progression of society. However, Gray s views within Straw Dogs seem to show us that without this acceptance we are living a sheltered and deluded existence whereby conflict will only increase due to the anger caused by the inability to achieve harmony and dissolve conflict forever.

Gray argues that the liberal conception of morality is completely disconnected from the actual process of everyday life. We attempt to create some form of rational basis from which we can act morally, but in our lives we seem mainly to react instinctively to circumstances. Life would become very slow moving if we had the knowledge of every single choice at hand, and could rationally make decisions regarding our actions within current circumstances. The problem of concerning one s self constantly with what ought to be creates a severe disconnection from the natural world and the events within our society. Taoist thought attempts to dispel a distinction between the way in which the world is, and the way in which we feel the world should be. This allows one to deal with circumstances and act according to the situation through some form of experiential clarity. This does not mean that we act on a whim regarding certain situations, but rather we think and act through a form of objectivity. In Liberal thought this position of objectivity is impossible because one s mind is held back by the desire to achieve goals and ends, rather than focusing purely on the situation at hand. Taoist thought attempts to take the concept of the self out of the situation, rejecting the idea of projecting one s own goals into the world in order to gain a degree of objectivity. To view life as having a concrete purpose not only produces arrogance of certainty, but also creates a state where one must have their goals or desires realised in order for their existence to have some sort of purpose. Taoist forms of thinking would view the assumption of purpose to be unrealistic as life is just a series of events.

This mode of thinking allows one to be more pragmatic regarding situations, and could ultimately create a society of more compassionate and more aware individuals. Furthermore, this view projects a more realistic and practical approach to coexistence. However, whether this viewpoint is achievable in the minds of individuals within liberal societies is not clear. It is therefore important to assess the ideas within Taoism to a greater extent in order to examine the potential capabilities of this philosophy in dissolving instances of extremism through a hypothetical shift in thought within Liberal democracies. Furthermore, we must assess the extent to which the adoption of a Taoist mentality, through the promotion of Gray s concept of MV, can provide a substantial remedy for the contradictions within liberal thought.

There are debatably various problems within tradition liberal thought. One is that the concern seems to be primarily with the external system or structure as a barrier to change within a society. Many individuals can take an extremely reductionist stance, blaming a certain political or economic system as the cause of perceived grievances. This way of thinking shifts the focus away from the individual and towards the structure as the basis for understanding how society is and how it ought to be. Taoism in contrast is primarily concerned with the development of the individual, specifically with regards to one s attitude towards life. The view is that we must constantly challenge our perceptions and values, whilst leaving them completely open to change in order to understand the world as a constantly fluctuating reality. Solid principles which have a purpose in achieving some form of end-point will ultimately produce problems, as through focusing so heavily on what must be achieved, one may miss what is happening around them. Gray elegantly sums up this point, stating that... Other animals do not need a purpose in life. A contradiction to itself, the human animal cannot do without one. Can we not think of the aim of life as being simply to see?

For example, individuals who are rigid, tense, uptight, meticulous in conduct and belief, humourless, quick to take offence, or overwhelmed by hardship represent the exact opposite of Taoist qualities. To pride one s self of going against the flow or current is not representative of Taoist mentality, as it is viewed that one must constantly adapt themselves to each situation, rather than engaging in an ongoing conflict in the hope that your views or values will ultimately preside over those of others. There are those who believe that adapting to the situation is synonymous with the maintenance of a defeatist perspective, and subsequently view strong action against perceived grievances as the only viable solution. However, it is wrong to assume that a defeatist mentality is adopted through the decision not to pride one s self on going against the flow. A comparison has been made between the Taoist mindset and flowing water, which is simultaneously the weakest and strongest of elements. Streams, whilst achieving their course, do not smash against rocks that can be easily avoided. Rocks that cannot be avoided are eroded over time, with such patience that the progression of the stream is almost invisible. This adaptation to situations is known in Taoism as wu wei, meaning that there must not be any incidences of exertion that are not rooted in the nature of the situation at hand. The ability to adapt according to the situation at hand relies on the acceptance of the concepts of Yin and Yang. Yin signifies the sunless side of the mountain , whilst Yang represents the sunny side . Though these may be perceived as opposites, they are in fact two sides of the same coin, with neither existing without the other. Neither one is seen to be inferior to the other, and is never found in isolation from the other. The implications of the acceptance of the necessary relationship between Yin and Yang allow the individual to deal accordingly with instances of perceived positivity and negativity.

Taoism as a remedy for the contradictions within liberalism

The adoption of a Taoist mentality amongst individuals within liberal societies could have serious implications with regards to the nature of our values. Various questions could potentially arise that would provide a barrier to the adoption of this mentality. Taoist philosophy is very similar to existentialist schools of thought, whereby we are not grounded in any one notion of morality. However, if we accept this comparison, would the adoption of this mindset completely disintegrate values as we know them to be? Is there any basis for making moral decisions and holding certain principles if we are able to adapt to the situation accordingly? Values which are not grounded in any one notion of morality form the groundwork for an ethical process, rather than for a system based around certain principles. Furthermore, the whole notion of principles becomes irrelevant as this mindset is adopted. Whilst it may seem that this is a suggestion to move towards making values themselves irrelevant, this is not what is being implied by this argument. Rather, through the adoption of a Taoist mindset one would not feel the need to idealise their values over those of others, nor prioritise their own to the extent that certain guiding principles dictate the course of their lives. A truly free and clear-minded individual is one who has the ability to question their own thoughts and values, whilst not being chained to anything specific. If we look further into this notion, it can be seen that through the prescri ption of a humble mindset, Taoism can provide a remedy for the arrogant nature of liberal thought. By the arrogance of liberal thought, it is with regards to the notion that our values represent a degree of truth regarding some form of external reality, rather than merely our interpretation of events.

However, whilst a Taoist philosophy maintains a constantly evolving ethical process whereby we are not chained to a singular perception of existence, it is asserted in the Tao Te Ching the main book within Taoist thought that this notion of ethics is what firmly roots individuals, providing the way (the literal translation of Tao ). In reference to a vessel said to have been used in the temple of Chou, the Tao Te Ching states... Rather than fill it to the brim by keeping it upright, better to have stopped in time hammer it to a point and the sharpness cannot be preserved forever...To be overbearing when one has wealth and position is to bring calamity upon oneself. To retire when the task is accomplished is the way of heaven ... The vessel within the temple stands when empty, but topples when full. This passage metaphorically emphasises the necessity of humility for those in high position in order for their arrogance to not take precedence. The necessary virtue of humility within Taoist thought is seemingly the virtue which grounds individuals who are familiar with the way. Taoism asserts that an individual can only act accordingly to the situation, rather than judging what is best through the application of certain preconceived notions. To label one s self is to limit and predetermine actions and values, thus completely destroying this essence of humility.

Contemporary liberal thinkers such as John Rawls have lost their way in attempts to bring about a state of neutrality through the application of rationality into certain situations. Furthermore, the concept of Rawls original position assumes that individuals must have no knowledge of any social aspect of themselves in order to make an unhindered decision regarding certain matters. This presumption is somewhat misleading in stating that individuals must be under the veil of ignorance , as rather than not knowing anything about one s self, one must know themselves entirely in order to understand, for example, how they could be selfish in certain situations. It is only through knowing one s self entirely that an individual is able to step outside of themselves, and gain a level of impartiality through clarity of mind. Taoism can ultimately provide a remedy for the stagnant notion of individualism provided by Rawls. In setting a precedent for a form of processional individualism, rather than using certain principles to form a solid basis for the maintenance of individualism, we can see how the application of a Taoist mindset can provide individuals with an open and humble ethical process whereby their individualism is fully respected rather than enforced by certain guiding principles.

Furthermore, there are individuals or groups within society who are getting too ahead of themselves with regards to the pursuit for political change. There are those who constantly find problems within a specific political system or structure, viewing some structures or ideologies to contain intrinsic moral connotations, which could either, have constructive or destructive implications for example. However, it can be put forward that no system, structure, or ideology has any necessarily inherent moral qualities.

Rather, all political structures come into existence as a result of the thought patterns and qualities of certain individuals. Therefore, the individual is the starting point and the initial entity which must be constantly developed in order for our political systems to develop in a beneficial manner. It seems strange that there is an assumption within the Western mindset that if a certain political system was changed then individuals would ultimately have different, or supposedly better lives. This is a dangerous viewpoint to take, as it implies that individuals are completely at the mercy of the political system, and therefore we would subsequently disregard efforts towards personal development as it would seem that our existence is completely dominated by the political structure. In order for political systems to not fall into destructive territory we must first ensure that individuals of high position within that structure are not driven by greed or satisfaction of ego.

The liberal conception of existence as following a linear time structure has forced individuals into believing that as their lives will end at a certain point, there must be some overall purpose. In Straw Dogs Gray assesses certain concepts within the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. Heidegger s view is that human beings are superior to animals in the sense that they construct and direct the world in which they exist, whereas animals merely react to certain situations and are at the mercy of the events which occur. In his later work Heidegger rejected the notion of a human-centric world, claiming that the focus should be on the being . However, in turning towards this ambiguous notion of being , the view that humans have a unique place in the world with some form of purpose has merely be reaffirmed. In his final work however, Heidegger expresses the notion of release or liberation through rejecting the notion of will, which subsequently draws out similarities between this view and the Taoist mindset. In comparison, Gray notes that this view had been previously expressed by Arthur Schopenhauer through an understanding of art. Schopenhauer expresses that through art, and specifically through music, we are able to reach a point where we completely forget our sense of self and enter a state of selfless contemplation . Schopenhauer s view of art as a tool which can provide the opportunity for an individual to reach a higher state is quite powerful and fascinating, inasmuch as it has provided a transition for development within Heidegger s philosophy. As previously mentioned before, the latter views of Heidegger have moved away from a human-centric and purpose-driven conception of existence, with a vague notion of being , towards a view that rejects these very notions. In assessing the development of this philosophy, Gray has pointed out certain problems within this mode of thought.

Summary

It can be asserted all of Gray s views regarding the nature of coexistence stem from an essentially Taoist position. Throughout this piece of work we have seen that traditional liberal thought, which has placed the human on a pedestal as the central driving force of the world, has created a superiority complex which has, for the most part, created constant cycles of destruction and intolerance. The perception of our own existence as a short linear time period has, to a large extent, caused individuals to focus on goals that must be reached before this time ends. This desire to reach certain goals can manifest itself in many ways, but these ways are for the most part materialistically-driven. This existentialist perception of existence causes individuals to forcefully make the most out of their lives and gain as much as possible before the end of their life. The problem of one s ego within this mindset could produce complete disregard of another individual s existence by another. The problem of a self-indulgent materialistic pursuit within a free society cannot be remedied by the enforcement of certain ideological principles in order to create fairness. This will only produce more conflict within societies, as there will ultimately be an increase of animosity towards the political structure as certain policies are implemented, as well as an increase in extremism from certain groups towards others, with regards to a perception of fairness.

Liberal thought has jumped too far ahead in attempting to reach agreements regarding what one has or is entitled to, as the foundations for coexistence have either not been laid, or have been provided through certain means based on unrealistic assumptions. Liberal political thought is fairly reductionist in believing that matters of conflict can be solved through rational discourse, along with the application of justice to ensure the maintenance of a fair society. However, it can be put forward that whilst human use rationality as a tool, it is not something which is inherent to our everyday existence. The use of rationality within ethics only seeks to provide a basis for the application of certain principles, whilst completely disregarding the nature of the situation. We live in an irrational world where our emotions take precedent within certain situations. To apply rationality to a situation is to implement a notion which is disconnected to the way in which we coexist. It seems that individuals within the liberal-dominated West are stuck in a certain paradigm whereby our capacity for personal and spiritual development has been hindered by a pursuit of a rational consensus regarding the best means for existence. Difference in values is a problem for liberal societies, as without a notion of harmonious co-operation it would arguably be difficult for certain individuals to achieve their goals. However, a notion of co-operation used to the benefit of each individual within society is an unrealistic assumption. Furthermore, a difference in values is something which should be embraced by individuals, more specifically those within multicultural societies. Ultimately, the attitude of the individual is what creates barriers to coexistence. Those within a society who seek to move it towards one vision, whether that vision contains supposed universally held values or not, will eventually create an environment of intolerance and conflict, as there is a complete lack of acceptance for the coexistence of individuals within one society who hold differing of conflicting values.

Whilst other Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism or Hinduism could have been used to assess the concept of the self within Western liberal democracies, the explicit references to Taoism within the work of Gray, along with the Taoist qualities within all of Gray s ideas, has caused this specific philosophy to be used as a firm basis to counteract the various problems and contradictions within liberal thought. The emphasis within Taoism on the connection between the individual and the rest of nature could create a broader understanding of existence if this mindset were adopted. This broader understanding of existence or reality would allow us to realise that we are not merely just confined to ourselves within a separate human world, but rather that we are a part of everything that happens. To change the way in which we view our morality through the process of abstracting ourselves from our own values - can provide many difficulties within our daily lives.

Our conceptions of ethics pose many questions regarding how we should live, and whether any best form of existence is achievable. We perceive such things to be true , and since a very young age we are taught about right or wrong and thus form an ethical basis from which to live by. Most of us would never commit an illegal act, not because of the nature of the act, but because we our perception of that act being wrong is a product of the law against it. However, to view these perceptions as mere arbitrary assumptions is treading a dangerous line. These are not ethical assumptions, but rather they are relics of traditional rhetoric that have been so engrained into our lives that we cease to question the moral values that are at the core of our existence. Values such as murder is wrong are so highly held by the majority of humanity that to question them would make one seem to be truly insane. Our moral values subsequently bind us to a certain perception of reality and society, and thus many see the world through the spectacles of their ethical notions. The real difficulty lies in questioning one s own values. If one were to constantly question their values then there is the potential for the outbreak of a personal identity crisis, which could in turn lead to a lack of direction and stability within society. In order to create a modern and stable political environment we must have a sense of ethical direction, where the progression of society is a process towards some form of harmonious end. However, whilst the progression towards a harmonious society is something which seen to be an unquestionable endeavour, there are those that view the progression towards utopia as being not only deluded, but highly dangerous.

Furthermore, certain practices can allow an individual to adopt this mindset through accessing a state of mind whereby impartiality through clarity of mind can be gained. In Taoist philosophy, meditation is used as a practice to achieve this state. However, it seems that as the main cultures within liberal democracies do not have a strong tradition of meditative practices, the achievement of this certain state of mind through meditation can only achieved by a minority of individuals within these societies. It can be viewed that the majority of individuals within the West are stuck within an ego-centric and materialistic society, whereby any occurrences of thought outside of what is provided to them by society are few and far between. Furthermore, the majority of these individuals have ignored pathways towards personal or spiritual development as a result of prejudice against certain practices. However, if we turn back for example to Schopenhauer s view of art as a tool for liberation, we can see the potential it has in providing an opportunity for individuals within Western liberal democracies to reach a state of selfless contemplation . If we start to engage more in practices which are completely abstract to our understanding of reality or existence, then our thoughts regarding the supposed certainty of our existence or an external reality have the potential to be challenged internally through this engagement. Furthermore, this internal dialogue has the potential to create a sense of humility, which would subsequently cause an individual to reject the desire to impose their goals or values upon other individuals, thus creating a more accepting and tolerant process for coexistence. It can be asserted that if this mindset were achieved and adopted, the process of politics would not become perverted or manipulated in order to meet the desires and goals of certain individuals, which would in turn create a more peaceful and compassionate society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blofeld, J. (1980) Gateway to Wisdom: Taoist and Buddhist Contemplative and Healing Yogas Adapted for Western Students of the Way

Gray, J. (2007) Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia

Gray, J. (1995) Enlightenment s Wake

Gray, J. (2003) Straw Dogs: Thoughts on humans and other animals

Gray, J. (2000) The Two Faces of Liberalism

D.C. Lau (1963) Tao Te Ching

Olson, R.P (2002) Religious theories of personality and psychotherapy: East meets West

Rawls, J. (1972) A Theory of Justice

INTERNET SOURCES

Connolly, K. (2010) German politician inflames immigration debate - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/11/germany-immigration-horst-seehofer

Kern, S. (2011) Islam Does Not Belong to Germany - http://www.hudson-ny.org/1947/islam-does-not-belong-in-germany

Weaver, M. (2010) Angela Merkel: German multiculturalism has utterly failed - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed