Well well well. Here we are again, about to embark on another mostly aimless tangent.

I feel I should begin with historical background, in light of my recent Romanticism/Age of Enlightenment divergence. Browsing the internet quickly takes one back a long way.

Ancient to Medieval History

In the West, we look back to the Greeks:

You ask me for what reason Pythagoras abstained from eating the flesh of brutes? for my part I am astonished to think what appetite first induced man to taste of a dead carcase or what motive could suggest the notion of nourishing himself with the loathsome flesh of dead animals ~ Plutarch

This is one of many vegetarian views expounded by philosophers of this period and region. (The Greek á¼€ποχá½´ ἐμψύχων, which literally translates as... well, not much. Something like "abstention of the spirited" - the latter word is a form of the verb to inspirit, but often means 'human', revealing the emotions behind the term.)

Indeed, vegetarianism is traditionally one of the many indicators used to indicate non-violence, cross-species egalitarianism or distinction from main-stream attitudes (typically, in meat-eating societies, it has generally been a trait either of 'principled' individuals, or societies or groups with a particular identity to preserve.) It is also associated, historically speaking, with radicalism, and rebellion against established culture.

Intruigingly, the objections generally cited by Western ancients as the initialy motivation are frequently that meat restricts mental or physical abilities or metempsychosis (human souls being attached to animals). I find this interesting, since although - as is certainly to be expceted - the debate rapidly turned to ethical considerations about life, the philosophers either considered this less important, or were reluctant to mention it as their guiding motive.

Christian history is by far the most immediately relevant recent religious movement with a substantial voice in Europe. Paul's letter (epistle) to the Romans contains the following quote:

One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. (Romans 14:2-3)

It is striking that Romans 14 contains such a stongly worded rejection of Christian-ethics-motivated vegetarianism, but even more striking are Paul's words to the Corinthians in his first epistle:

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” (1 Corinthians 10:25-28)

Throughout the middle ages, the world of monks and religious devotees is generally considered to have contained little ethically motivated avoidance of slaughter. In the 1300s, papal statutes attempted to deny monks free access to meat, but this had little effect - in 1339, the Pope basically conceded. Two of the most highly influential saints (with respect to the medieval period and later), Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, in fact are seen to stress the absence of any obligation of humans to look after animals.

Meat was, of course, considered a massive luxury during the middle ages - this is possibly one of the reasons the church proper also turned towards it, since they generally attempted to put on public displays of their wealth and power. The following is a description of a feast of incredible proportions:

The amount of food consumed during these feasts, which might continue over a number of days, was enormous. When, in September 1465, the enthronement of George Neville as Archbishop of York was celebrated at Cawood Castle to demonstrate the riches and power of his family, 28 peers, 59 knights, 10 abbots, 7 bishops, numerous lawyers, clergy, esquires and ladies, together with their attendants and servants arrived at the castle. Counting the archbishop's own family and servants there were about 2500 to be fed at each meal. They consumed 4000 pigeons and 4000 crays, 2000 chickens, 204 cranes, 104 peacocks, 100 dozen quails, 400 swans, 400 herons, 113 oxen, 6 wild bulls, 608 pikes and bream, 12 porpoises and seals, 1000 sheep, 304 calves, 2000 pigs, 1000 capons, 400 plovers, 200 dozen of the birds called "rees", 4000 mallards and teals, 204 kids, 204 bitterns, 200 pheasants, 500 partridges, 400 woodcocks, 100 curlews, 1000 egrets, over 500 stags, bucks and roes, 4000 cold and 1500 hot venison pies, 4000 dishes of jelly, 4000 baked tarts, 2000 hot custards with a proportionate quantity of bread, sugared delicacies and cakes. 300 tuns of ale were drunk, and 100 tuns of wine, a tun containing 252 gallons according to the usual reckoning. There must have been well over 60 pints of wine for each person. ~ R. Mitchell and M. Leys (A History of the English People, 1950)

Indeed, meat was often seen as a cure for ills.

As an aside, the Eastern history of vegetarianism is starkly more developed and - well - obvious. Most people leap to think of the Buddhist tradition.

My thought has wandered in all directions throughout the world. I have never yet met with anything that was dearer to anyone than his own self. Since to others, to each one for himself, the self is dear, therefore let him who desires his own advantage not harm another. ~ Buddha

The Buddhist principle of not causing harm to living creatures generally means that Buddhists will not kill animals, or consume or otherwise use animals which have been killed for them. Technically, this does not make 'practising' Buddhists vegetarians, since animals which die accidentally are not harmed by the actions of the consumer, but this is often a minor detail.

Hinduism, by contrast, has had a... patchy history, with those in higher castes and having a higher income being able to afford a vegetarian diet, whilst the worse off needed whatever they could get to live.

And someone I know insists I mention the 'Hare Krishna' (no, not Harry Krishna, you fools - 1.2m results in Google!) movement, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. This was a movement born from a Hindu tradition which worships Vishnu, or its avatar, as God. Founded in 1966, this movement praised the four 'legs' of dharma, including Tapas and Åšaucam: self-control and cleanliness of body and mind. Consequently, followers of the dharma system disallow caffeine, tobacco, alcohol and vegetarianism (also, eggs are disallowed). This interpretation of an ancient system emphasises the long history of the association of vegetarianism with purity.

Of course, many places in the East were vegetarian on purely practical or financial grounds, a statement true of most beliefs the world over.

Up To 17^th Century

Coming out of the medieval period, and back to the West, we see a resurgence in interest regarding moral considerations of duties to animal - cutting both ways.

Apparently, da Vinci was one of the first major figures to adopt the pro-vegetarian philosophy. However, two immensely important philosophers in a period where many different disciplines were being reassembled - Descartes and Kant - were also arguing explicitly that there can be no ethical duties towards animals (they were both Christians who were very interested in the concept of soul, the major topic of discussion at the time, and were debating the place of the human soul primarily). (Interestingly, Descartes seems to have been a devoted vegetarian despite this, a habit formed probably by the health benefits which were perceived.)

Meanwhile, the common people had gradually increasing access to meat.

[By the mid 17th century,] Gregory King estimated that half the poor who were in work ate meat every day, the other half at least twice a week, and even the unemployed might do so once a week. But for those who had no land to help feed hungry children life was hard

For some classes, attitudes were quite strange:

Meat remained the staple diet of all those who could afford it, joints being generally preferred to minced meat, offal and made dishes. The meat was not of high quality since it was not until the 18th century that improved strains of beef-cattle and sheep were developed; and since they had no means of refrigeration, butchers could not allow their carcases to hang long enough to make them tender. Also, for much of the year fresh meat was difficult to obtain, as cattle were slaughtered in the autumn, there being no means of feeding them during the winter months. So meat still had to be preserved in brine or powdered with salt; and huge amounts of salted beef were eaten. The daily allowance for common seamen was 2lbs. It was a diet that, with few or no fresh vegetables, often led to skin diseases. Housewives were instructed in cookery books how to get rid of the salty flavour of the meat, but many relished the taste, as they did of other strongly preserved foods. (The Diary of Samuel Pepys as edited by Latham and Matthews, 1970-83)

However, this period also saw the rise of one Thomas Tryon, a merchant who capitalized on the proliferation of independent religious sects advocating vegetarianism to make his case for a unified religion outside of Christianity, in which animal rights play a major part.

Remember that all Beasts are not only endued with sences equal with Man, but also with all kinds of Passons as Love, Hate, Wrath, and the like, which their Flesh and Blood is not freed from, for in the Blood consists the high Life of every Creature, therfore the Illuminated Prophet Moses Commanded that it should not be eaten, because the more noble human Nature should not pertake, nor be infected with the Beastiality for Killing and Eating the Flesh and Blood of Beasts. ~ Thomas Tryon ("Of Moyst Airs", Monthly Observations for the Preserving of Health, 1688)

Eshew things derived from violence, and therefore be considerate in eating of…any thing, not procurable but by the death of some of our fellow Creatures. ~ Thomas Tryon ("Dreams", Pythagoras; His Mystick Philosophy Reviv'd, 1691)

His belief was very pacifistic, and shows some of the signs of importing Eastern ideology (specifically Hinduism, which he believed to be part of the original unified religion) into Westen vegetarianism. This practice became common over this period, with contact with Inda particularly fuelling ideological shifts during the 17^th century.

[Europeans had] accustomed themselves to thinking of Europe as the pinnacle of humanity, travelers were shocked to find in India a thriving religion which had been sustained in a pristine form since well before – and virtually oblivious to – the invention of Christianity ~ Tristam Stuart (The Bloodless Revolution)

Though largely Eastern ideologies seem significant over this period, many of the concepts were projected and attributed (largely inaccurately) to the Pythagorean cult.

This period also saw the rise of resentment against the wealthier classes (the Cromwellian English Revolution contained some strong egalitarian ideals), and gluttony in meat consumption was seen as one of the indicators of elitism.

Furthermore, there was a revived interest in the concept of an idealistic 'State of Nature' in the naturalistic (rather than the political) sense. This even grew to the belief that in the Garden of Eden, before the Fall, Adam and Eve ate no meat. This can be considered to contain the seeds of a widespread (then and, significantly and worryingly, now) but terribly mistaken conviction than humans are 'naturally' herbivores.

This all helped open up much debate on the issues involved. People such as John Evelyn (a writer who took up many environmental issues, even lobbying parliament for air pollution regulation!) made the case for vegetarianism, whilst others like Henry More insisting that cattle and sheep were only living creatures to ensure meat was fresh "till we shall have need to eat them." (There weren't many good anti-vegetarian arguments out there.)

Moving On

The eighteenth century saw upper classes continue to gorge on massive meals, though the penetration of the consumption of vegetables increased. The main changes approaching the 1800s were an increase in the number of doctors prescribing vegetarian diets (a Dr. William Lambe, a dietician, recommends it as a cure for cancer), and a sudden attack of conscience among the more nature-friendly writers.

[The late 18^th century was] the heyday of medical vegetarianism [...] it flourished in the most prestigious medical faculties of Europe ~ Stuart, Ibid.

This period includes the Age of Enlightenment with its rational and dissection-like tendencies - anatomy became more scientific, as nutrition started to do (Descartes had started, much earlier in the 17^th century, to perform experiments on himself, which is apparently what led him to become a vegetarian), and the ill effects of massive meat intake were seriously considered. Also, people became more convinced that humans and other primates were (primarily) herbivorous creatures (the only large primate that hasn’t been observed eating some kind of animal protein is the orangutan).

England did much to foster the growing vegetarian tendencies through the 1800s (a role it had until recently - Gandhi did not accept the ethical arguments until his studies in London, where he got to know the chairman of the London Vegetarian Society, and wrote articles which they published). Shelley (an English Romantic poet) took on a highly visible role, and indeed, in 1847 the renowned Vegetarian Society was founded - it grew to have 889 members in just 6 years. This was largely driven by the Empire increasing contact with India and hence interest in both the philosophy and practicalities of Hindu and Jain life.

However, the Society had many highly puritanical views about condiments (including but not limited to salt), and the members could be heard to state that they were as bad 'stimulants', and as dangerous as alcohol. This earnestness in ethical matters filtered through to other areas, and strengthened cultural links between extreme purity and moral rectitude, and vegetarianism. It was connected with abstention from alcohol, and meat was claimed to be a cause of 'lust'. At a time when British beef was one of the Empire's selling points, the cause was widely ridiculed by the rich and powerful aristocratic classes.

Perhaps the only 20^th century events to really impact on meat consumption are the two world wars.

The First World War forced pacifism and vegetarianism together, strengthening what we know as a very strong tie - 70 conscientious objectors who were vegetarian died whilst in prison, with it seeming obvious that their inability to subsist on their meals was the main cause. A food strike eventually rectified this, with vegetarian meals being provided.

The Second World War had a considerable impact on diet for many people, with rationing particularly changing eating habits. By 1942, vegetable and cereal production had increased by over 50%, whilst animal raising had fallen: the number of pigs by 51%, and of chickens 24%. Decreased meat consumption 'caught on' at the end of the war, as part of a diet which some considered better than pre-war food.

The interest in non-violence has continued strong to this day. Most people are affected by slaughtering animals, as something from which we are isolated and protected, and think of only through many distorting layers. Things such as the life-cycle of animals raised for meat which were once so essential to life her have become almost totally unknown, and our contact with such animals is very ill-informed and remote, until the instant it arrives on our plates.

Health risks and the pragmatics of access to meat are, for most people, the only real factors considered when deciding on what food they want to eat.

Next time, on Vegetarianism: I look at all the arguments I can for and against vegetarianism.

Some people are quite obsessed by 'free will' (some people don't give a flying proverbial. If in this category, go to 'Back'.) Mostly, they're either religious or avidly interested in the science/philosophy boundary. This means there are not only small variations of opinion, but massive rifts in viewpoint amongst those who find this an interesting question.

I just thought I'd throw in my personal perspective and history. (A 'Free Will and Me' thing, you might say.)

For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, I'm partly an Age of Enlightenment academic nutcase, and partly a hapless, lost-cause Romantic. Yes, that's one hell of a direct juxtaposition. But hey, I'm like that.

The Enlightenment attitude is basically about a highly reasoned approach to debate and decision. This isn't (necessarily) a cold, calculating philosophy by any means - it supported human rights movements, and opposed bloated institutionalization of human thought. There are many Enlightenment 'mavericks', taking inspiration largely from resentment about repressive societies, many of them religious and fascinated by attempts to resolve complex abstract issues into more concrete concepts. The spread of pantheism was one of the many outcomes of this - the view that God is not unearthly, but is rather synonymous with the world, or with the universe.

By contrast, the Romantic movement was an idealistic movement, largely borne by the visual arts, musical development and literature which are its home ground. Its sociological background is a combination of a reaction against the aristocratic class driving the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution's effects.  Its ideology is one of emotional attachment to nature, 'aesthetics' and folk culture - that is, it places great significance on natural beauty, most especially untamed, raw nature, as well as on the 'nobility' of folk art. It had the effect of driving many different religions' popularity up, despite its professed interest in overthrowing the dogmatic and orthodox - partly, this is because of the increasingly vulnerable classes who had dismissed religion in the light of Reason, but turned back to it as their positions became less comfortably bourgeois.

These two different movements, theoretically opposed, though sharing some attitudes (regarding human rights, for instance) and some proponents (Beethoven was attracted to both, lauding Romantic traits in his works, whilst supporting the Enlightenment ideals of the French Revolution), contain the seeds of much of Western view on free will.

Often, people think of one question when they consider free will: "Is everything we do pre-determined?", or "Is determinism correct?" This is, for many of the interested, at least the most important question to answer, if not the only one. It is, indeed, a fascinating subject, but also - far too often, in my opinion - a very technical one. To the Romantic, the many different incarnations of determinsm are of extreme interest - the movement is associated with forays into areas such as cultural determinism (which teaches that human actions are a consequence of their social upbringing) and environmental determinism (which teaches that culture itself is entirely a product of the physical surroundings of the society, rather than of social conditions and human innovativeness) since some Romantics were intrigued by the possibility of humans reaching a natural equilibrium with their surroundings, in the form of a 'folk' culture or a similar social structure and system of laws.

However, the two most obvious fundamental types of the philosophy are causal determinism and religious determinism (also 'theological' determinism).

The first is the proposition that the laws of nature allow only one course based on previous events (an elaboration of the concept that 'what goes up must come down', if you like). This scientific determinism is one which has a strong appeal to many people trained in logical thinking, for obvious reasons, although probabilistic effects in Quantum Mechanics are frequently cited as 'ways out' of this problem (QM proposes a system in which the state of nature is indeterminate, until some part of it is measured - however, this measurement will throw other aspects of the system into uncertainty - this uncertainty is a property of nature, NOT of the measurer or their apparatus). This viewpoint is clearly important to Enlightenment philosophy's insistence on logic and reason.

The latter proposition is that there is a powerful being - a God - who is either determining all events for himself, or who is omniscient (that is, a God who can 'see' what is going to happen ahead of time). The first of these positions pretty much excludes all other questions of free will, as I view it (although definitions of free will are available to skirt this problem); the second is strongly analogous to causal determinism (since causal determinism indicates that it is possible for a being to know what will happen next).

However, there is at least one other question of extreme relevance to the free will debate - this falls under the category of "compatability". The compatabilist position is that free will is perfectly possible in a deterministic world, whilst incompatabilism states that they are irreconcilable.

For many, incompatabilism is the most logically obvious viewpoint ("How can you have free will if someone knows what you're going to do?"). There are three important subdivisions of incompababilists: firstly, Libertarianism teaches determinism is wrong, and that we do indeed have free will - the most widespread assumption. Secondly, 'hard' determinism states that determinism is correct, and that all we have is the illusion of free will - the obvious alternative, historically common amongst scientists. Finally, pessimistic incompatabilism preaches that although determinism is (or might be) incorrect, free will is still illusory - this often challenges our definition of free will.

However, compatabilitism's challenge of our conpect of free will is - for me - a much more fascinating question, independently of my belief in determinism. It has a long history (back to the Greek school of Stoicism, who had, interestingly, a very Romantic view about harmony with nature involving 'prohairesis'), and has always attracted very interesting and clever philosophers, not least of whom the currently very active Daniel C. Dennett, who is my favourite modern philosopher.

The position of the compatabilist (who does not necessarily believe in determinism - if they do, they are 'soft' determinists) is that determining whether an action is an expression of free will is not about whether or not the result is predictable. Actually, this is not a very outlandish claim, despite the initial resistance to the conclusion of the argument - free will, surely, is an internal phenomenon, not an external one, and anyway, so what if your decision is predictable? For most of us, free will is about making a choice 'for ourselves'.

My personal interpretation of this is that we should consider carefully the origins of our choices. At the end of the day, in the argument against causal determinism, what is important is that the sequence of thoughts and analyses which we make - independently, even spontaneously (to use a heavily loaded word) - is determined (principally, and to the near exclusion of all else) by how our 'minds' (leaving aside the whole mind-soul-brain-body issue for another time) 'think' (leaving aside the issue of what thought is too) - phew! That's a lot of brackets.

But ultimately, what this boils down to is this: there is nothing in causal determinism that stops me from saying that my mind reaches the same decision it would without determinism. The environment of the mind clearly influences the thought process (causal or not) - when we are angry, we make harsh decisions, but when we are happy, we make generous decisions, and when we are 17 year old college students in South West Wales having spent our lives in the British education system, brought up by my parents, and having had my experiences, we make decisions consistent with what I like to call 'me'. This argument doesn't work as is for higher-level forms of determinism (most intriguingly cultural determinism), but for general causal purposes clearly shows how we can interpret our actions (human 'agency' in philosophy) as voluntary, and as moderated by what we identify as the 'self' - or more specifically, the mind.

For those of you interested in more - and better! - writing, Dennett has a subtle twist of compatabilism which he assembles over a set of books, bringing several ideas together in Freedom Evolves (Elbow Room is his perhaps more focused work devoted to assessing the behavioural of free will). He argues that the abilities we have evolved allow us 'evitability' - the ability of an entity to (try to) make events follow a chain leading to beneficial consequences, whilst avoiding unwanted situations.

One of the main reasons I consider this important is its role in repudiating particular incarnations of fatalism and defeatism. Popular culture (particularly the sci-fi and fantasy genres) is full of characters who exhibit what I consider repulsive and highly destructive behaviour - the tendency to assume that life is all about either finding ways around, or struggling against, events which they 'know' are pre-destined. Somehow, people move from a clear-thinking analysis of a situation to a type desperation which is psychologically detrimental, and worse, contagious.

Similarly, people routinely seem to step without hesitation from seemingly reasoned arguments to conclusions about ethics which are totally off the wall - most commonly, the (as it were) 'moral determinism' which swiftly apportion blame and hence responsibility for one's actions on events (or even people) in one's history. There are some brilliant fallacies there.

Anyway, that's all we have space for folks. :)

[ PS:  Check out this hilarious post about Obama! ]