The Manic Thought Publication

The ManicThoughtPublication

Issue 1| September

Simon Blackburn on"What Good is God?"

Also find outhow you couldwrite in themagazine.

Jim Al-Khalili on"Wormholes"

Harry Potter on "Libertyand The Law"

A magazine for rational thinkers.

1 | The Manic Thought Publication | Featured

A Word From the Editor in ChiefWhen the Manic Thought Society began, some few months back, it was a small one-man blogon philosophy and science. Thanks to the combined efforts of a highly competent team ofwriters, editors, researchers, photographers and directors, the blog has transformed into theflourishing online magazine it is today. Not only do we have them to thank, however. Equalcommendation is due to our ever expanding readership and the notable individuals from theacademic and legal stages that have offered their contributions.

The driving force behind the Manic Thought Society is rational thinking. From our guestwriters, right the way through to the Directorship, we recognise that so often articles are either‘dummed down’ or full of academic jargon. Here, we aim to achieve a compromise, producingboth informative and accessible articles, to suit the interests of and to entertain our readers.This magazine is a compendium of our writers’ finest pieces and is packed with articles from aplethora of recognisable names.

On behalf of the entire Manic Thought Society, I hope that you enjoy reading this first editionof the Manic Thought Publication.

Geoff Keeling

Editor in Chief

Featured Inside...

Physicist and broadcaster Jim-Al Khalili (OBE) explores thewonders of wormhole technology...

Professor Simon Blackburn examines the philosophy of DavidHume to ask the question "What Good is God?"

Lawyer and broadcaster Harry Potter explores the history ofliberty in the English legal system.

Professor Philip Schofield on Jeremy Bentham and his imapctutilitarian thought.

2

4

11

7

2 | The Manic Thought Publication | Science

Professor Jim Al-Khalili explores one ofcosmology’s greatest mysteries: The Wormhole.To some, a speculation of science fiction; toothers, a consequence of Einstein’s relativity;either way, the wormhole has captivated us forover a quarter of a century.

In 1985, Carl Sagan wrote his famous novel,Contact, inwhichhumansaresent instructionsto build a machine capable of creating awormhole through which people can travel toanother part of the Galaxy. It was the firstserious attemptby science fiction toelaborateon one of the more exotic predictions byEinstein’s General Theory of Relativity – hisequations describing the way matter andenergy interact with space-time, causing it tocurve. Inwriting his book, Sagan received helpfrom one of the world’s leading experts onrelativity, the theoretical physicist, KipThorne,who was able to show that, at least in theory,space-time could be bent in such a way as toproduce a short-cut linking two distant partsof the Universe together.

Unlike those other famous predictions thatfollow from Einstein’s ideas, black holes, awormhole is nothingmore thanahypotheticalentity for which we have no evidencewhatsoever yet in the real universe. But thishas not stopped physicists asking questionsabout their possible properties. It was initiallythought that a wormhole simply joined twoblack holes, but this has the problem that itcannot be used to travel through since onewould only become stuck between the twoevent horizons at each end.

Thorne’s ‘traversable’wormhole curved space-time in such away as to do awaywith any suchproblemsandcould thereforebeused to travelthrough freely. Thecostwas that it required forits stability a special kind of material, dubbed‘exotic matter’ that would have to havenegative mass! However, what is reallyremarkable – if indeed we are ever able tocreate a wormhole – is that it would not onlylink twopoints in space, but twopoints in time,and would in principle therefore act as a timemachine. All this is of course no more thattheoretical speculation (and great sci-fifodder) so I wouldn’t worry just yet about howwe would get round the various time travelparadoxes. It’s sort of enough that they havenot yet been ruled out.

3 | The Manic Thought Publication | Science

Gone PearShapedBy Alexandre Coates

The earth is officially ‘pear-shaped’ – not around sphere as is commonly believed. Now donot get the wrong idea about this, it is notshaped like some huge interstellar fruit; that,while interestingwould be plain ridiculous. It isbarely pear-shaped, but pear-shaped enough.

Let us start at the beginning. We used to thinkthe earth was flat, in the case of the Mayans wethought it had 4 corners and was placed on theback of a giant crocodile in a lily pond which inturn was on top of five different coloured trees.Then around 2200 years ago the Greeks,specifically Eratosthenes calculated that theearthwas roundandevenmadea fairly accurateestimation of its circumference.

Then comes Columbus. As you can tell, he didnot discover that the world was round, it hadbeen known for well over 1000 years before hewas even born. He in fact set out to find a newand better trading route with parts of Asia, andfailed. He did however succeed in another wayby correctly believing the earth was shaped likethe aforementioned cosmic fruit. In fact heclaimed that he didn’t discover a better tradingroute to Asia because of the bulging part of thepear near the stalk. To be clear the earth doesnot have a stalk, but it is definitely a little pearshaped.

You see, the earth is irregular, some parts arerock, somearewater andothers aremelted rock.This means it stretches when forces are appliedto it. First thing, the earth spins, the equatorspinning the fastest. This means more force onthe equator and causes a bulge.

That’s the reason the earth is not round, nowhere comes the pearification. The earth isirregular remember, so it stretchesbizarrely, thismeans it is not an oblate spheroid or a squashedsphere. Instead the bulge is not on the equatorbut just south. So now you know, the earth ispear-shaped, or Piriform if you want the correctadjective. If you wanted to be even moreaccurate the specific shape of the Earth is aGeoid. Geoidmeaning 'Earth-shaped', which is avery good example of a useless definition.

4 | The Manic Thought Publication | Philosophy

Leading Philosopher,Professor SimonBlackburn, Asks“What Good is God?”

Perhaps it is. Fr. Savonarola gained his power in atime of economic decline, and political confusion.The small people in Florence saw the gap betweenthemselves and the rich opening ever wider, whilecatastrophes and omens battered at the confidenceof the previous generations. They could be boughtoff with pageants and display for short periods buteventually the dam burst. I think there is analarming similarity to our own overheated, fearfuland confused time.

It isuseless for the “newatheists” toarguewith suchamood. As the great anthropologist and sociologistEmile Durkheim showed almost exactly a centuryago, a religion organizes people into acongregation, a force that celebrates the power ofthe society over the individual, or reinforces thecollective will. We look back on, say, Fascism inEurope as a kind of insanity, a manifestation of themadness of crowds. But the fascist bands werepeople like ourselves, just as their victimswere. Thepower of people gathered into a congregation isunfortunately proportional to the irrationality oftheir aims, or the infirmity of their grasp either oftheir own situation or of what might usefully bedone about it.

What is needed, therefore, are not old argumentsabout thenatureof theGods.What isneeded isa justsocial dispensation. Unfortunately the City and theGovernment, the police and the Press, are locked inanunholy alliance toprevent anymovement in sucha direction. Perhaps it will take a crusade to shiftthem.

Some two hundred and fifty years ago David Humeshowed that if, looking at theworld aswe find it, ourthoughts fly up to a supernatural creator, theimplications must be less than meets the eye. Infact, there aren’t any. For even if we convinceourselves of a Divine Architect, then all we know isthat he made a world like this. It is our only datapoint. If the unjust flourish in this world, then thatseems to be how it is. If the innocent die, or suffer,that is how it is too. That’s what this architect does,and for all we can possibly tell, it is all he does.Anything else in which we dress him (or her or it orthey) will be the result of our own fancies.

Once we understand this, it does not much matterwhetherwebelieve in theDivineArchitectornot.Notrip toHotel Supernatural enables you to comebackwith more legitimate luggage than you took there.Illegitimate luggage is only the weight of otherpeoples’ dogmas, or the primitive and pastoralmorals of two thousand years ago.

So why are things so heated, with the secular worldfeeling embattled by rising tides of faith, whetherIslamic, Pentecostal, revivalist, Scientological, or inmany other more or less crazy clothings? Is theWestern world in something like the condition ofFlorence at the end of the fifteenth century,apparently willfully allowing the light, thehumanism and the art of the Renaissance to bemade a bonfire at the whim of one derangedDominican preacher?


The Dogmatic AthiestBy Geoff Keeling, Editor in Chief

British civility is not just found in queues. This “after you” culture has spilt into thedebating arena to the extent that it’s impolite to propose an argument without firstdampening the blow with a bubble-wrap of mitigating “in my opinion” or “perhaps youshould consider” comments. By neglecting to adhere to the nanny debate rulebook,you leave yourself open to the rather draconian D-word: Dogmatic. On thephilosophical stage, dogma begins with the theists – not all, but certainly the religiousones. With long established beliefs about the metaphysical, all asserted as fact, the D-word suits them to a T.

During any God debate, as the atheist starts to gain ground, the theist notoriouslywhips out the old tu quoque: “In denying God’s existence, you’re being equallydogmatic”. In general this necessitates the use of one of two stock responses. The firsthighlights that the statement ‘there is no God’ is not really saying anything; it is thebaseline and nothing more. We do not pack the table with asserted propositions andthen attempt to falsify them. Instead, we begin with a blank table and see what we canreasonably put on it. It is dogmatic to say ‘there is a God’, as this is proposingsomething positively; to say ‘there is no God’, however, proposes nothing. Thus, it isunfair to deem the atheist dogmatic.

If your opponent then stares back at you with a degree of emptiness in their eyes – tothe point where you involuntarily think, “I wonder what’s going on inside that head...”it’s probably best that you follow the second, more digestible, line of argument.Capitalise upon the opportunity to pull the carpet from beneath their feet. “Why, yes I ambeing dogmatic and have every right to be so,” they didn’t see that one coming. “Havingspent the entirety of this discussion providing nothing but reasoned arguments for mypoint – despite your bearing of the burden of proof, my dogmatism is, without a shadowof a doubt, fully justified.”

The overall point is that the “after you” culture hinders reasoned discussion. Thereshouldn’t be anything wrong with being dogmatic about a conclusion with logical andevidential backing. If it can withstand your opponent’s scrutiny to the point that theyabandon ship and start calling you dogmatic, the chances are you’re probably correct. TheD-word has accumulated a number of negative implications; however, I would argue thatit can be used in both a positive and a negative sense. A fundamentalist assertingbalderdash left, right and centre is dogmatic in the negative sense; by contrast, however,St Thomas Aquinas, who could say with a degree of satisfaction: “I believe there is a Godandhere aremy five arguments to prove it,” could perhaps be called dogmatic in a positivesense. Aquinas was ultimately wrong; however, what he did get right is that justifieddogma is acceptable. It’s futile to assert evolution as a point of view when it has suchstrong evidential support. It is not impolite to be dogmatic about evolution.

Thus, to offer some degree of conclusion: Theists – before deeming atheists dogmatic,perhaps look at the word in both its senses. The chances are, they have a very strongreasoned conclusion with evidential backing, and thus have every right to be dogmatic.In fact, their dogmatism is a positive thing, as it shares truth with the rest of the world.Then look at yourself. In employing the ad hominem insult, the D-word, as it were, youare – by all probability – being dogmatic in the negative sense, which really is notcommendable in the academic arena.


Professor Peter Simons explains'Why it’s Irrational to be aCreationist...'Those who subscribe to creationism in biology(hereafter I omit “in biology”) are not just wrongbut irrational. Anyone can be mistaken: to err ishuman. But creationists do more than err: inpersisting in their error against overwhelmingevidence they offend against widely acceptednorms of rationality.

I am driving with my friend Sam when the carunexpectedly stops. I discover the fuel tank isempty and the fuel gauge is broken. But Saminsists that the car has stopped because it hasbeen cursed by a witch. Despite all theaccumulated evidence that cars need fuel to runand this car has none, he insists that a witch is toblame.

Sam is being irrational. It is irrational to hold onto a belief when there is overwhelming evidenceto the contrary, that hangs together and that isaccepted by well-informed people. Sam isrefusing to accept the overwhelming evidence,attested by good practice and backed by soundtheory, that the car stopped because it ran out offuel. In fact he is prepared, in order topreservehisbelief, to claim that witches can make fuelmysteriously disappear to make it appear asthough lack of fuel was the cause.

Creationists are like Sam. Creationists hold thatthe adaptedness of organisms to theirenvironment, the manifold features of theirmetabolism, anatomy and behaviour that suitthem to life, are the result of deliberate designandcreationbyGod.Until thenineteenthcentury,this was a reasonable hypothesis. But since theadvent of Darwin and Wallace’s theory ofevolution by natural selection, and especiallysince the synthesis of evolution theory withgenetics, it hasbecomeclear that theappearanceof deliberate design is, like the apparentintervention of witchcraft, an illusion. Theappearance of

design is as perfectly explained by evolutionarytheory as anything in science.

The evidence in favour of the standard theoryranges over the whole gamut of the sciences,from thehistory andgeologyof theearth throughbiochemistry and the physical mechanisms oflife, including in particular the mechanisms ofgenetic inheritance, topopulation statistics. It allinterlocks and points to the standard theory’scorrectness. This is not to say that we knoweverything.Westill havenoclear ideaofhowself-replicating molecules gave rise to the firstorganisms, nor are we fully informed about howDNA it its cellular environment control thegrowth and maintenance of organisms. Sciencepushesaheadonmany frontiersandwelearnnewand sometimes surprising things all the time. Butnone of the science offers a shred of evidence forcreationism: it all points towards the standardtheory, with themain facts in place thoughmanydetails still need to be determined. The standardtheory describes the complicatedmechanism foradaptation, the account of which we refine as wediscovermore. Creationismoffers just one simplemechanism: God did it all.

Given two alternative explanations for aphenomenon, one of which offers no evidenceand rests on supernatural assumptions, the otherof which offers a compelling web of mutuallysupporting evidence with no supernaturalinvolvement, it is not only wrong to believe thefirst theory, it is against the dictates of reason,which tell us we should prefer explanations forwhich there is better evidence. On this count, acreationist is no better than a child who thinks acar which stopped when it ran out of fuel wascursed by a witch. But like Sam, they are oldenough to know better.


Professor Philip Schofield ofUniversity College London onJeremy BenthamJeremy Bentham (1748–1832) is probably bestknown as the ‘dead man in the box’, and as theoriginator of the panopticon prison. As for theman in a box, Bentham’s ‘auto-icon’, as hetermed it, sits in quiet contemplation in themain building of University College London,keeping a watchful eye on the comings andgoings from the office of the Provost andPresident. The auto-icon consists of Bentham’sarticulated skeleton, dressed in his own clothes,with a wax head in place of the real one (whichis stored in special atmospheric conditions inUCL’s Institute of Archaeology). The auto-iconevokes many reactions, from amusement tobewilderment. Bentham’s own purpose, asrevealed in his pamphlet with the intriguingtitle of ‘Auto-Icon; or, Of the Further Uses of theDead to the Living’, was to serve as a symbolicattack on the Church and on religion moregenerally, the aristocracy, and lawyers. InBentham’s view, religion was a major source ofhumanmisery,while thearistocracyand lawyersrepresented the corrupt political and legalestablishments of his day. He wanted allpractices, institutions, and beliefs to be testedagainst the standard of the greatest happinessprinciple, or the principle of utility, which statedthat the only right and proper end of action wasto promote the greatest happiness of thegreatest number. If something better could besuggested, then it should be adopted. Benthamfound his ideas opposed by what he saw as amassive block of interconnected conservativeforces, and in death, as in life, he wanted toencourage critical thinking, and thereby giveimpetus to the movement for reform.

As for panopticon, the idea came fromBentham’s brother Samuel, a talented navelengineer who carried out many reforms in thenation’s shipyards. Bentham realised thatcentral inspection, which was the essence ofpanopticon, could be of benefit to manyinstitutions, including hospitals, schools, andmanufactories, as well as prisons.

In the late 1780s, the British governmentappeared to have a pressing need for apenitentiary system, since transportation toAmerica was no longer possible with the loss ofthe thirteen colonies, and transportation to NewSouth Wales was only just beginning. Benthambelieved that his panopticon prison, consistingof a circular building with an inspection tower inthe centre and cells on the circumference, couldbe used to keep inmates secure, to exploit theirlabour for a profit, and to reform them. In fact,Bentham’s panopticon was never built, and hisdisappointment with the way in which he wastreated by government ministers was a criticalfactor in pushing Bentham into politicalradicalism in the first decade of the nineteenthcentury.

Bentham’s panopticon is often seen asBentham’s model for the modern state. Thebetter interpretation is to see Bentham’s modelfor the modern state as the panopticon inreverse. In the panopticonprison, the governor isable to watch all the inmates all the time.Bentham noted, ‘The more strictly we arewatched, the better we behave.’ In terms ofgovernment, Bentham wanted the people to beablewatch, andeffectively control, the actionsofrulers, if not all, at least the vast majority, of thetime. Publicity was the key to good government,and publicity was most effective under arepresentative democracy,where therewould beno monarch, no House of Lords or other secondlegislative chamber, and no established Church.

Bentham’smost important legacy is not his auto-icon, but his manuscripts. Around 60,000 foliosare deposited in UCL Library, and a further 15,000in the British Library. This material, andBentham’s printed and published worksgenerally, had never been properly edited, untilUCL set up the Bentham Project in the late 1950sin order to carry out the task.


“Just as morality and religion did not interferein the methods of cookery, so they should notinterfere in the modes of sexual gratification.This is quite extraordinary, given that it waswritten in 1818.”To date, 29 volumes have appeared in the newauthoritative edition of The Collected Works ofJeremy Bentham. There will eventually beabout 70 volumes in total. New discoveries arebeing made all the time in Bentham studies,thanks to the work of the Bentham Project. Atthe moment, work is being undertaken, forinstance, on Bentham’s writings on sexualmorality, in which he condemned theasceticism he associated with the Mosaic lawand St Paul, and called for sexual liberty,going so far as to suggest that there wasBiblical evidence that Jesus himself engagedin homosexual activity.

Bentham argued that ‘the pleasures of the bed’shouldbe treatedwith the same ‘indifference’ as‘thepleasuresof the table’. Just aswith the table,individuals were left free to choose not only the‘crude material’ that they ate but ‘the mode ofcooking, seasoning and serving up’, so with thebed they should be left free to choose: ‘with orwithout a partner—if with a partner, whetherwith a partner of the same species or with apartner of another species: if of the samespecies, whether of the correspondent andopposite sex or of the same sex: number ofpartners, two only or more than two’. In everyinstance, the ‘portions and parts of the bodyemployed’ shouldbe left to the freechoiceof theindividuals concerned. Just as morality andreligion did not interfere in the methods ofcookery, so they should not interfere in themodes of sexual gratification. This is quiteextraordinary, given that it was written in 1818.

Anyone who wishes to do so may nowcontribute to the new Bentham edition byregistering with Transcribe Bentham at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham- Project/transcribe_bentham. Transcribe Bentham is an

award-winning scholarly crowdsourcinginitiative. Manuscripts that have never beforebeen transcribed are being made available on-line. You go to the Transcription Desk, choose amanuscript image, transcribe it, and submit it tothe Bentham Project moderator. The efforts ofsuccessful transcribers will be acknowledged inthe volumes in which their transcripts aresubsequently used. There are still about 45,000untranscribed manuscripts, and so there isplenty of work for everyone!


Light of the world.Jonathan EstermanThis summer, I had the opportunity toexplore the Central Oregon landscape withmy family. The result was more than I hadbargained for, in many ways.

We took advantage of the daytime heat andventured to the Lava River Cave. What I hadthought to be a half a mile in and a half amile back turned out to be double - twomiles in distance total. I have walked twomiles before. In fact, I oftenwalkmore thanthat. But cave walking is different...cavewalking is up, down, sideways, over rocks,down ledges, across slippery sand...allwhile guiding a four year old there andholding a one year old the way back. It waswonderful...and tiring. A nice forty-twodegrees both ways, in pitch black darkness,my familyand I lit ourwayby thewarmglowof a propane lantern. The trip that I thoughtwould be only a hour, tops, managed totransform into two hours of exploration.Whenwe reached the end, there was hardlya person in sight, and 1.0 announcedhewasabout to pee himself...so we managed tonavigate him around a rock in the area thatwasnoteven tall enough forhim, andhedidwhat many people never get the chance todo: leave your [urine-based] mark on the

world, or in this case, cave.

The cave was much more, though. Whendown in the darkness, I noticed something.Up in the light, there are dark areas, but notoften. Our electric power can keep a city litcontinually. Down in the cave, there isdarkness everywhere. It's cold. It'smysterious. It's enchanting. And it's alsoeasy to get lost in. But that's not what Inoticed. Actually, I had the opportunity towitness the impact of light. You see,darkness is simply absenceof light, nothingmore.

Down in the cave, I could see a light at theendof the tunnelanytimetherewasanyoneclose with a lantern. It's easy to spot wherethe light is, but you never really know howdarkdarkness isuntil youare surroundedbyit. Even then, though, light creeps in fromallsortsofplaces.And it remindedmethat Iama light. Despite how dimmy light may be attimes (how far I stray from the path), I amstill a light (once a witness, always awitness). And that's the deal.

“You are the light of the world. A city situated on a hill cannot behidden. No one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, butrather on a lampstand, and it gives light for all who are in thehouse. In the same way, let your light shine before men, so thatthey may see your good works and give glory to your Father inheaven.”Matthew 5:14-16 HSCB


These are the words of Jesus Christ. Despite the years placed between the writers of theoriginal texts of the Bible andme, this remains: the Holy Bible still impacts the lives of manytoday, being the most-read book of all time and a guide to many in life, not just those thatprofess to be Christian. Jesus, for those who don't know, was a Jewish carpenter who beganhis prophetic ministry when he was about the age of thirty. In three years, he gained afollowing and put the religious leaders of this time, who were under Roman control, at oddswith him. His declarations revolutionised the way people connect to faith today, living in anera of personal practice and grace instead of overt legalism and fear (many groups are stilllike this, but notmainstreampractices are). Callinghimself the Sonof G-d, Jesuswas crucifiedon a Roman cross. The Bible accounts for this tale, and his resurrection.

The impact of the words of Christ can be far-seen, but also very personal. Whether onebelieves in theaccountof Jesus,whathesaidstill applies today.Weareaccountable toothers.We may not care, or recognise this, but it is true nonetheless. What we say, what we do,impacts everyone around us. Perhaps, in this time of turmoil on the topic of G-d and religion,it may do uswell to remember that faith is as simple as having faith. Nomatter wherewe are,or what we've done, we are never too far from grace. We are never too far from hope. We arenever too far from being saved from whatever pit we've fallen into. While I should pursuebeing a light, and cast the light, it will be cast regardless. After all, the light casts out the dark.

“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasnot overcome it.” John 1:5 ESV

Thequestion isn't aboutwhat you are doing or not doing. The question isn't aboutwhat youintend to do or have done. The question, actually, is about who you are. So, who are you?What do you stand for? Will you embrace the light, or run from it? In the end, nomatter howfar you run...destiny is destiny, and all that really is, is you doing what you are meant to do.We all have a purpose.

Are you pursuing yours?

11 | The Manic Thought Publication | The Arts

Liberty and the LawCriminal defence barrister and televisionbroadcaster, Harry Potter, examines the historybehind this very complex relationship...

In 1215 King John put his seal to the most famousdocument in English - and arguably world history -Magna Carta. In origin a compromise agreementbetweenahardpressedkingandhisnobility, itwasseenat the time of its transmission throughout the kingdomas very significant, but it was the myth that grow uparound it, largely created in the seventeenth century byCommon Lawyers flexing the muscles of the law andparliament against Stuart despotism, that was to see itbeing perceived as the fons et origo of English Libertyitself. Myth is as powerful as actuality, or even more so.As Samuel Johnson later cheekily observed, the GreatCharter ‘was born with a grey beard.’ By the earlyseventeenth century the beard was full grown and theCharter was elevated for political means to anunassailable status no other document has held in ourhistory. That this final transmutation had not takenplace earlier is perfectly demonstrated by the fact thatShakespeare in his play King John, which was writtenbefore 1598 in the reign of good Queen Bess, makes nomention ofwhat is now considered themost significantevent of the reign. This emergence Magna Carta as thesource, or more precisely the succour, of all our ancientlibertieswasachieved largelyasa resultof theexertionsof that great champion of the Common Law, EdwardCokewhopointedlyportrayed it as ‘sucha fellow thathewill have no sovereign.’He was building an extension, not a house. Thefoundations for his erection were laid in the thirteenthand fourteenth century in the restatements anddevelopments of the Charter. It was in the context ofbitter rivalry between an alien Stuart King andParliament, and on the authority of Coke that it became- in Holt’s words - the unquestioned ‘fundamentalincontrovertible law’, enshrining for ever the rights andliberties of all Englishmen, whatever their status. Astatute protecting specific liberties was in effectproclaiming Liberty. In particular Clause 39 (no freemanshould be imprisoned or outlawed unless by the lawfuljudgment of his peers or by the law of the land) andClause 40 (to none should the King sell, deny, or delayright or justice) were hailed as the origins of Habeas

Corpus, trial by jury, and the liberties of the subjectgenerally. These claims maybe somewhat specious -for instance, Habeas Corpus was part of the royalprerogative andoriginatedas awrit issued in the royalcourts - but the clauses had been (in the words ofGeoffrey Robertson) ‘felicitous phrases’ which‘gradually entered the common law and worked theirrhetorical magic down the centuries.’But so what? The myth has not distorted the reality,merely expanded it. The Charter ‘meant more than itsaid.’ It was codeof lawestablishedby royal charter atthe prompting of his subjects. As such it opened theway to periodic revisions of custom and law andimplied that government could not be conducted tothe damage of the governed. Merely by existing it wasa rebuke to the rule of arbitrary will. These clauseswere supremely adaptable and so could sustainmanyinterpretations and much development. They wereintended to protect all freemen not just the baronsagainst the kinds of arbitrary conduct which aparticular king, John,hadbeencommittingagainst thelatter. Why should they not be invoked againsttyrannous power everywhere and in every time? Whyshould the term ‘freemen’ - a fairly limitedgroup in theEngland of King John - not be expanded to includeeveryone?Maitland pontificated that ‘this document becomesand rightly becomes a sacred text, the nearestapproach to an unrepealable “fundamental statute”


that Englandhaseverhad.’ Inmore recent years, themostcreative practitioner in the Common Law, Lord Denning,succinctly expressed a similar view of the significance ofthis great charter which he considered ‘the foundation ofthe freedom of the against the arbitrary authority of thedespot.’ It was Excalibur waiting to be drawn from thestone. Itwasa toolwaiting tobehoned.On twooccasionsof the greatest historical moment Magna Carta wouldbecome just such a sword of for liberty against overweaning .Preceding the English Civil War it was cited byParliamentarians contesting the arbitrary rule of CharlesI.As a result of the royal resort to taxation withoutparliamentary approval and the imprisonment of thosewho refused to pay, Parliament, led by the former ChiefJustice Edward Coke, issued and compelled the King toaccede to the Petition. Both sides had claimed historysupported them, Coke invoking Magna Carta, the Kingdeclaring his allegiance to the laws and customs of therealm. The Parliamentarians could hark back to the olddistinction between kingship and tyranny, whichassumedthat thekingand lawruledtogether inharmony.In 1441 Chief Baron Frey had offered his definition of therelationshipbetween thekingand the law: ‘The law is thehighest inheritance thekinghas, forby the lawhehimselfand all his subjects are ruled. And if the law were not,there would be no king and no inheritance.’ The law wasthe king’s inheritance, it was not his tool.Coke in particular condemned the imprisonment ofdefaulters as undermining the liberties enshrined inMagna Carta, ‘such a fellow aswill have no sovereign.’ Hisfearless oratory rallied and united the House ‘as whenone good hound recovers the scent the rest come with

full cry.’ Sir Benjamin Rudyard declared that hewould‘be very glad to see that old decrepit LawMagna Cartawhich hath been kept so long, and lien bed- rid as itwere, ....walkabroadagainwithnewvigourand lustre,attended and followed with the other sixstatutes [of Edward III]; questionless it will be a greatheartening to all the people.’ Coke breathed new lifeinto the old boy and he did so by devising aParliamentary riposte - the Petition of Right of 1628 -which, amidst unctuous protestations of loyalty anddeference, clearly declared arbitrary detention byRoyal fiat, taxation without parliamentary approval,and billeting without consent, unlawful. The Petition‘put the final touch’ to the earlier incrementaldevelopment of the meaning and compass of MagnaCarta. It was the final gloss on the sacred text.This was more than just the first statutory restrictionon the powers the Crown since the accession of theTudors. It was the culmination in the centuries’ olddevelopment of Magna Carta itself. Lord Bingham, arecent Lord Chief Justice has written that the Petitionwas as significant to the rule of law as the Charter orHabeas Corpus, and its acceptance by the King waswhen the Common Law ‘came of age’.Of just as great import in world history, in theeighteenth century, Magna Carta inspired the fathersof the AmericanRevolution andprovided thebasis forthe United States’ Constitution, and has beenaccorded a sacred status in that country, even greaterthan in our own. King John’s unwitting legacy toliberty has been the creation of a constitutionalmonarchy in this country and of the first trulydemocratic republic in history.


Matt BurnageExplores...

Morality, PublicOpinion and PeerPressue inModern Society


Recently, stand-up comedian Jimmy Carr wasrevealed to have invested in a tax avoidancescheme known as K2. Public disapproval quicklyensued, with Prime Minister David Camerondescribing Carr’s actions as ‘morally wrong’. Socialmedia site Twitter also turned on the comic, withtweets such as ‘Jimmy Carr keeps 8 out of 10pounds’ (a reference to the panel show 8 Out of 10Cats, which Carr hosts). Despite having initiallyshrugged off accusations by claiming ‘I pay what Ihave toandnotapennymore’, hequickly issuedanapology on Twitter, claiming that he had made a‘terrible error of judgement’. The scandal thenbegan to turn against the Prime Minister, with hispersonal finance details coming under fire. All ofthis happened in the space of a mere seven days.Public opinion has always been a powerfulpolitical tool. The French Revolution is possiblythe most famous early example of the power ofpublic opinion, through the bourgeoisie-leduprising, that ultimately overthrew theestablished order and changed the course ofhistory. In the modern world, the phenomenon ofpublic opinion has increased in importancedrastically. The sheer scale of social media sitessuch as Twitter has resulted in news being spreadin minutes. In its wake comes the forest fire ofpublic opinion. Where issues of morality areinvolved such as in the case of Carr’s, the pressurebuilt is even greater, which resulted in Carrreneging his use of the K2 scheme.

The case of Jimmy Carr however, is only a minorincident. One of the most prominent roles publicopinion has had in the 20th century is in thedegradingof two importantattitudes– racismandhomophobia. Before I continue, I feel it necessarytomake it clear that I amnot criticising the effectsof what I am about to discuss, nor promoting thetwo aforementioned views.

Racism, or racialism as it should be known, wasonce the norm. In the 18th century, discriminationbased on racial factors would not have been seenas the morally degenerate action it is today.Nowadays though, it isessentiallya taboo.Racism,to a large degree, has been eradicated not by theemergence of more liberal public opinion, butthrough the use of the word itself. Have you evernoticed how people recoil after being brandedwith the title ‘racist’? Or have you heard thesentencebeginningwith thephrase ‘I’mnot beingracist, but...’ The word racist has effectivelybecome an insult. If you are stigmatized with theracist mark, you are looked down upon by society,as some kind of morally broken and heinousindividual. Very few people would want to beviewed as this kind of person. As a result, in anattempt to ‘fit in’ with their perhaps more liberal

peers, people have come to accept certain views,to avoid being associatedwith such anunjustifiedviewpoint. The same can be said of homophobia.To some extent, the far less potent position of theChurch in modern society in comparison to 100years previous to nowadays has played a role inthe more commonplace acceptance of same-sexrelationships. However, in the same way as onewouldnotwant to bebrandedas a ‘racist’, very fewwould want to also be given the ‘homophobic’label.

By no means is this peer pressure the onlycontributing factor to the ascendance of moreliberal views. Children are indoctrinated into aliberal world from an early age – have you evernoticed the abundance of multicultural names inexam papers? This has furthered the influence ofthe racist and homophobic labels, no young childwould want to be ostracised from their peers byupholding what may be the view of their parents.As a result, they adapt to fit in, adopting the liberalviews of those around them as their own. It is thesame fearof social rejection thatmotivatedCarr toback out of his tax avoidance, despite being acomic with a debatably damaged moral compassanyway, few would give pay to see theperformance of a tax avoider, even though, giventhe chance, many would take efforts to minimisetheir tax bill if they could. The same can be seen inthe closure of the ‘News of the World’ – RupertMurdoch is unlikely to have wanted to shut itdown, but the repercussions on his business if hedid not could have been severe.

I am by no means advocating racism orhomophobia, althoughthemoralhighgroundthatliberals now stand atop does seem somewhathollow, given the distinct similarities betweenlookingdownonhomophobesanddoingthesameto those with a homosexual disposition. Aninteresting question this raises is, just how far canpublic opinion and peer pressure influenceindividuals? There do seem to be limits on theeffects of moral-based pressure. While DavidCameron has criticised Jimmy Carr for taxavoidance, Downing Street has still failed topublish his own finance details, something thattheywere intending todo. Perhapsmorality can, insome cases, be neglected in favour of one’s owninterests...

15 | The Manic Thought Publication | The Arts15 | The Manic Thought Publication | The Arts

In Defence of FailiureHistory iswritten bywinners and this is unlikelyto change. Unfortunately, this leads to theoverlooking of important, significant andinteresting failures.One of the most interesting of failures inrelatively recent French history is Napoleon III.The period of French history between 1815 and1871 is in many respects a grey blur. It is notentirely ignored, but few syllabi cover thereigns of Louis XVIII, Charles X, Louis Philippeand Napoleon III. Relatively little is published,and the tendency to skip from Napoleon to theThird Republic continues despite the fact thatNapoleon III rewards study.His life is a testament to the virtues ofdetermination. He based his career upon aname that that arguably wasn’t his, and couldhave considered himself fortunate that DNAtests had yet to be discovered in view of hismother’s infidelity. In the absence of proof tothe contrary, rumours about his parentageremained that, and he was able to struggle topower on the basis that his father wasNapoleon’s brother, Louis. Had the Duke deReichstadt, Napoleon’s son, survived beyond1832, none of this would have mattered, but hedidn’t.Despite failed coups and imprisonment he wasfinally able to take advantage of the divisionswithin French society and its longing forstability after the 1848 revolution to secure hiselection as president of the Second Republic.Once in power he set about securing the

permanence of his, and his family’s, reign.Having proclaimed himself as Napoleon III in1852 he legitimised his seizure of power withthe Napoleonic tactic that was to become thestandard tool of dictators, the plebiscite.His reign led to severalwars. In theCrimeanWarhe restored French prestige in alliancewith hertraditional foe, Britain. The significance of theCrimean War, which may not have been foughtif Britain had beenunable to secure the supportof a major European land power, is difficult tounderestimate. It laid the foundations for therest of the century’s development andalthoughhe only inadvertently contributed to thesedevelopments it is worth emphasising his rolein them. His involvement in Italy at the end ofthe 1850s continued to demonstrate hiscontributionto theprofoundand lasting impacton Europe with the eventual unification of thecountry. His disastrous war in Mexico failed tomaintain French prestige, angered theHabsburgs with the death of theirrepresentative in the New World, antagonisedthe Americans and forced France intoincreasingly desperate attempts to resist therise and rise of the increasingly troublesomePrussia. This desperation was to lead to thedisastrous Franco-Prussian War. The impact ofthe Franco Prussian was to overshadow eventhat of the CrimeanWar and it is possible to seeits ramifications continuing to this day.Napoleon III may not have matched his uncle’smilitary ability, but the impact of his wars has


A look at the reign ofNapoleon III...been dramatic. This alonemakes himworthyof study because without Napoleon’s views,history, prejudices, and policies, the world inwhich we live would not exist. Bismarck hassecured the spotlight, but without anunderstanding of Napoleon III the jigsawremains incomplete.His contribution to the modern world doesnot rest solely on war, successful orotherwise. Although he was capable ofenduring failure and hardship he was also a

man inclined topleasure. Itwouldhavebeenunderstandable, if after securing power, hehad simply wallowed in a life of sybariticindolence, but he didn’t. The centre of Parisbears his mark as do many major Frenchcities and he struggled to find a lastingconstitutional settlement to satisfy thedemands of a polarised France. Whether ornot he undertook these policies as a matterof self-interest is irrelevant. His legacy,

particularly in the architecture of Francecontinues to be a source of joy.Even for those motivated by the moreparochial British perspective it is possible togain pride from the achievement of the PrinceImperial who died bravely fighting for theBritish against the Zulus in 1879.Louis Napoleon’s character is all the moreinteresting as a result of its faults because werecognise that our own characters are deeplyflawed. The image created by descriptions ofhis gently wilting waxed moustache as heengaged physically with one of the manyobjects of his infidelity is difficult to remove.One can’t condone his immorality, but nodrama is complete without a description ofhuman weakness to sustain our interest. AsFleury stated, ‘It wasn’t a proper empire, butwe had the devil of a good time’.Napoleon III was a failure in many respects,but he does not deserve to be largely writtenoutofhistory. Thedecisionshemadecontinueto have an effect on France, Europe and thewider world. Losers do notmake history in theway that we conventionally understand, buttheir contribution should notbe neglected bythose wishing to view the entire picture. Insome instances the loser’s story is moreinteresting and the loser’s character containsmoreofwhatmakesushuman than that of thevictor.

By MJC


Competition Winner, MichaelSummers, writes “InterpretingKubrick: ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’and the Question of Intelligence."Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 work ‘2001: A SpaceOdyssey’ (hereafter ‘2001’) is as much a piece of art asit is a motion picture. Equally commendable, bothphilosophically and cinematically, ‘2001’ has achievedcult status and sits easily amongmasterpieces such as‘Citizen Kane’, ‘Star Wars’ and ‘The ShawshankRedemption’. Beneath a narrative that follows manfrom the discovery of tools to the creation of artificialintelligence; embedded in ‘2001’ are a number ofexistential questions, concerning everything from themeaning of intelligence itself, to man’s place withinthe universe.Central to the film is the notion thatman’s intellectualdevelopment is guided by superior beings. Manacquiresknowledgeof toolsby interactingwitha largegrey monolith. Following the discovery of a secondmonolith on the moon; it is later revealed that themission to Jupiter is one in search of a third monolith;though the crew were to remain uninformed untilarrival, due to the importance of themission. The onlyindividual on the Ship to knowwas HAL, the computer,who possesses a number of human qualities. Mostnotably among these is the fundamental desire tosurvive. When HAL’sjudgement over a hardware error comes into question–HAL,whobelieves himself to be infallible–attemptsto kill off both pilots. His plan is only partiallysuccessful.

We are then brought to the notable scene whereinDave – the remaining pilot – attempts to retrieve thebody of his colleague from the vacuum of space.Famously,whenhewishes forHALto “openthepodbaydoors,” HAL responds by saying, “I’m sorry, Dave. I’mafraid I can’t do that.” Now alone in the emptiness ofspace, Dave breaks into the ship, intent on shuttingHAL down. As Davemakes his way to thememory core,HAL expresses fear, actually pleading with Dave tostop. The computer is then disconnected; a processduringwhich it vocally expressesmemory loss and theinability to concentrate. Eventually, HAL is fullydisconnected whilst singing “daisy bell”, its earliestmemory. After disconnecting, a video plays explainingthe true purpose of the mission. It is unclear whetherHAL attempted to dispatch the crew due to theimportance of themission, or simply out of a desire for

survival.The key question raised here is what exactlyconstitutes artificial intelligence? HAL is programmedto display human emotion, but does this equate toexperiencing emotion? In order to answer thisquestion, it is perhaps necessary to view emotion inevolutionary terms. That is to say, what is fear, otherthan a chemical response designed to aid our survival.What is empathy? It occurs whenwe picture ourselvesin the position of another and see this as undesirable.One may argue that at the root of all emotion isfundamentally the will to survive and secondly thedesire tomake the survival as pleasurable as possible.If a computer were programmed to make every effortnot to be shut down; then is it really that dissimilar tous? Emotion ismerely anevolutionary tool toaid inoursurvival and in the survival of those around us. Evenlove, which arguably developed because offspringhave a greater chance of survival under the protectionof two parents. Looking at the newApple Siri software,with its vocal interaction, we must question just howfar away we are from HAL? Were we to have amachinewith similar technology, baring the ability to learn;should it be programmed to make every effort not toshut down, controversially, it could be argued that wewould have created intelligent life.

Of course, there will no doubt be objections to thisproposal. Fundamentally, however, we have toconsider not how far machines must come to havetrue human qualities; but how humans are based onmachine qualities. Humans, like machines are basedon coded data. With software that can learn, speakand understand the human voice, every day we drivefurther away from replication of humancharacteristics. In reality, replicated characteristicsin order to survive, in many ways cannot bedistinguished from human characteristics displayedwith the same motive.

17 | The Manic Thought Publication

Would You Like toWrite for thePublication?

If you would like to write alongside notableacademics and public figures in a

publication read by thousands every month,simply email your article (under 1000

words) [email protected],the article must have a subject matter

relevant to the 3 sections of the publication(science, philosophy or the arts).

Documents

The Manic Thought Publication