- Email: [email protected]
More on Catharsis
Correspondence
More on Catharsis In his review of my book (April 8, p 1135),1 Raymond Tallis advocates scientism—a belief that, given time, science will explain everything, including the eternal human mysteries that are traditionally the concern of religion and humanities. Tallis states: “Scientific medicine is, perhaps, the greatest of all human achievements”. Catharsis2 acknowledges the great strides made by science, but points also to its limitations. “Science by its nature, can have nothing interesting to say about individual human values”.3 It is not able to answer questions that start “Why?” or “What for?”— “questions asking about the reality at its deepest level”.4 It can answer only questions beginning “How?” Our understanding of man requires the complementary approaches of art (including poetry) and science. Poetry compensates for science by its “negative capability”. This is, according to John Keats, the ability to be uncertain, mystified, and doubtful without immediately reaching after fact or reason. From Homer to present times, it is in terms of myth that poets worked out their deepest thoughts. The differences in outlook between Tallis and myself might stem from our cultural backgrounds. Tallis’s fascination with reason can be traced to the Enlightenment, where epistemology—ie, the theory of knowledge—was largely supplied by Britons: John Locke and David Hume. I have, however, lived a large part of my life in Poland under the Soviet regime and have experienced what the modern utopia of “the unlimited progress of knowledge” and the materialistic break-off with “idealistic mythology” leads to. Tallis seems surprised by the strength of my Catholic faith (I wish he was right!) and criticises my reverence to “the most banal statements of Pope John Paul II”. This is a narrow view of a man who was one of the greatest forces of the 20th century. As with www.thelancet.com Vol 367 June 17, 2006
all men who achieved change, not everyone will agree with the details of what they did. The dominant feature of John Paul’s life was his role in the development of Catholic theology and in defeating communism. I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
Andrzej Szczeklik [email protected] Jagiellonian University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Skawiñska 8, 31-066 Kraków, Poland 1 2
3 4
Tallis R. Myths, medicine, and meaning. Lancet 2006; 367: 1135–36. Szczeklik A. Catharsis: on the art of medicine. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2005. Ridley BK. On science. London: Routledge, 2001: 34. Penrose R. The road to reality: a complete guide to the laws of universe. London: Jonathan Cape, 2004: 1028.
The transcendental problem that will determine many aspects of medicine in the future is the definition of a human being. In his book Catharsis: on the art of medicine, Andrzej Szczeklik holds the view that man is both body and spirit; Raymond Tallis,1 in his review, seems to disagree. Whether man’s humanistic behaviour is a product of a highly complex neuronal network or of a nonbiological principle linked to biology has implications for ethics, law, sociology, and the practice of medicine. A non-biological principle could have arisen, I believe, from an extension of the principles of Darwinian evolution, with man making a qualitative leap above other primates. However, I am not sure. Tallis seems sure of his position in commenting on Szczeklik’s belief. In solving the problem of the nature of man, what is needed is debate based on understanding from both sides. Just as the clinician scientist, trained in two disciplines, is important for interface research, so a breed of philosopher-scientist might help truly to define man. What is not helpful at this stage is certainty on either side. I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
John Martin [email protected] University College London, London WC1E 6JJ, UK 1
Tallis R. Myths, medicine, and meaning. Lancet 2006; 367: 1135–36.
Evolution and morality Noel Johnson (Mar 25, p 984)1 rightly emphasises that “the implications of the theory [of Darwin] are too important to be treated dismissively”. However, by asking “if life truly is the result of random forces, conditions, and elements, where do we find the moral authority to govern our behaviour?”, he incorrectly implies that Darwin’s theory does not indicate moral directions. In truth, recent scientific insights based on Darwin’s theory, besides rationally explaining how morality arose millions of years ago as an evolutionarily advantageous biological phenomenon aimed at ensuring the survival of our ancestors,2–5 who lived in small groups at high risk of extinction,2,3 indicate unequivocal moral directions that are grounded on science.2,3 As such, these directions are more objectively reliable and universally acceptable than the divergent ones indicated by mutually incompatible religions in the last 0·1% of humankind’s evolution.2,3 Unless we untenably claim that the unlikelihood of extinction of today’s immense societies entitles us to overturn the meaning of morality, it is evident that some religious “moral” directions are actually immoral, because they would lead small communities to extinction.2,3 I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
Riccardo Baschetti [email protected] CP 382, 60001-970 Fortaleza (CE), Brazil 1 2
Johnson NT. Debating intelligent design. Lancet 2006; 367: 984-985. Baschetti R. Evolutionary, biological origins of morality: implications for research with human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev 2005; 14: 239–47.
e-mail submissions to [email protected]
1975
More on Catharsis In his review of my book (April 8, p 1135),1 Raymond Tallis advocates scientism—a belief that, given time, science will explain everything, including the eternal human mysteries that are traditionally the concern of religion and humanities. Tallis states: “Scientific medicine is, perhaps, the greatest of all human achievements”. Catharsis2 acknowledges the great strides made by science, but points also to its limitations. “Science by its nature, can have nothing interesting to say about individual human values”.3 It is not able to answer questions that start “Why?” or “What for?”— “questions asking about the reality at its deepest level”.4 It can answer only questions beginning “How?” Our understanding of man requires the complementary approaches of art (including poetry) and science. Poetry compensates for science by its “negative capability”. This is, according to John Keats, the ability to be uncertain, mystified, and doubtful without immediately reaching after fact or reason. From Homer to present times, it is in terms of myth that poets worked out their deepest thoughts. The differences in outlook between Tallis and myself might stem from our cultural backgrounds. Tallis’s fascination with reason can be traced to the Enlightenment, where epistemology—ie, the theory of knowledge—was largely supplied by Britons: John Locke and David Hume. I have, however, lived a large part of my life in Poland under the Soviet regime and have experienced what the modern utopia of “the unlimited progress of knowledge” and the materialistic break-off with “idealistic mythology” leads to. Tallis seems surprised by the strength of my Catholic faith (I wish he was right!) and criticises my reverence to “the most banal statements of Pope John Paul II”. This is a narrow view of a man who was one of the greatest forces of the 20th century. As with www.thelancet.com Vol 367 June 17, 2006
all men who achieved change, not everyone will agree with the details of what they did. The dominant feature of John Paul’s life was his role in the development of Catholic theology and in defeating communism. I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
Andrzej Szczeklik [email protected] Jagiellonian University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Skawiñska 8, 31-066 Kraków, Poland 1 2
3 4
Tallis R. Myths, medicine, and meaning. Lancet 2006; 367: 1135–36. Szczeklik A. Catharsis: on the art of medicine. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2005. Ridley BK. On science. London: Routledge, 2001: 34. Penrose R. The road to reality: a complete guide to the laws of universe. London: Jonathan Cape, 2004: 1028.
The transcendental problem that will determine many aspects of medicine in the future is the definition of a human being. In his book Catharsis: on the art of medicine, Andrzej Szczeklik holds the view that man is both body and spirit; Raymond Tallis,1 in his review, seems to disagree. Whether man’s humanistic behaviour is a product of a highly complex neuronal network or of a nonbiological principle linked to biology has implications for ethics, law, sociology, and the practice of medicine. A non-biological principle could have arisen, I believe, from an extension of the principles of Darwinian evolution, with man making a qualitative leap above other primates. However, I am not sure. Tallis seems sure of his position in commenting on Szczeklik’s belief. In solving the problem of the nature of man, what is needed is debate based on understanding from both sides. Just as the clinician scientist, trained in two disciplines, is important for interface research, so a breed of philosopher-scientist might help truly to define man. What is not helpful at this stage is certainty on either side. I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
John Martin [email protected] University College London, London WC1E 6JJ, UK 1
Tallis R. Myths, medicine, and meaning. Lancet 2006; 367: 1135–36.
Evolution and morality Noel Johnson (Mar 25, p 984)1 rightly emphasises that “the implications of the theory [of Darwin] are too important to be treated dismissively”. However, by asking “if life truly is the result of random forces, conditions, and elements, where do we find the moral authority to govern our behaviour?”, he incorrectly implies that Darwin’s theory does not indicate moral directions. In truth, recent scientific insights based on Darwin’s theory, besides rationally explaining how morality arose millions of years ago as an evolutionarily advantageous biological phenomenon aimed at ensuring the survival of our ancestors,2–5 who lived in small groups at high risk of extinction,2,3 indicate unequivocal moral directions that are grounded on science.2,3 As such, these directions are more objectively reliable and universally acceptable than the divergent ones indicated by mutually incompatible religions in the last 0·1% of humankind’s evolution.2,3 Unless we untenably claim that the unlikelihood of extinction of today’s immense societies entitles us to overturn the meaning of morality, it is evident that some religious “moral” directions are actually immoral, because they would lead small communities to extinction.2,3 I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
Riccardo Baschetti [email protected] CP 382, 60001-970 Fortaleza (CE), Brazil 1 2
Johnson NT. Debating intelligent design. Lancet 2006; 367: 984-985. Baschetti R. Evolutionary, biological origins of morality: implications for research with human embryonic stem cells. Stem Cells Dev 2005; 14: 239–47.
e-mail submissions to [email protected]
1975