fence to cull wild horses; now he builds a fence to keep cattle and
pigs and sheep from running away; now he builds a fence to
enclose his land from his neighbour’s. But it started as a measure
of personal protection, did it not? It started from fear. And when
he makes a stick to protect himself, he then uses this for other
purposes, does he not? He now digs soil or knocks fruit off a
branch with the stick, doesn’t he? Your tools – your civilization
itself – is an extension of your war effort, and none of the
improvements would exist if it hadn’t been for war. But in India
we do not wish our civilization to be driven by war. In India, we
must learn not to fear. And we do not need sticks.
Mill: But how can you avoid them? Englishmen and Indians
have the same bodies, so we must have the same fears too. Was
your skin not as sensitive as mine? How can an Indian not build
fences and make sticks?
Gandhi:The way we fought the British: by passive resistance.
Mill:You, sir, may be strong enough to passively resist a force
applied to you. But will you passively resist a murderer coming
after your child or a rapist coming after your wife? You may
want to be pure; but can you be pure when others suffer from
your purity? How pure are you if evil is committed in front of
you and you do nothing?
Gandhi:But by reacting the way you do, the murderer and the
rapist have acquired power over you, sir. You wish to live the good
life; but the worst of the Earth make you play by their rules. The
bad have taken the good hostage! They bring you down, sir – you
who fancy yourself to be good. By simply being in the world, they
make you build a fence and pick up a stick. But what is the differ-
ence between the good and the bad if both are wielding sticks?
Mill:Maybe the difference is that the good think harder? Maybe
they use reason more? Maybe while holding the stick they hesi-
tate and doubt? Maybe they ponder how not to become bad,
how not to overstep, how not to lose their humanity, how to use
the stick only against the bad, and only when necessary?
Gandhi:But violence must be stopped by someone. Someone
must drop the stick first. And who should do this, if not the
good? Those who have learned to control their own fear. The
good! Or do you find the conflictgood?
Mill:I do not. But I did not make it so, I found it so. What can
one do but face all this with courage, with maturity, with hope?
Not to remain indifferent in the presence of evil – but not to
stoop to its level either. Is there a recipe for how to do this well?
I don’t have it. Do you?
Gandhi:I thought there would be some answers here –
Mill:I did too.
Gandhi:Did you ask at the office?
Mill: They say they don’t know. But you can always file a complaint.
Gandhi:Where did you say the monsoon section was?
Mill:Not sure. Again, I would ask at the office. [Stands.] Harriet
must be wondering where I am.
Gandhi:And I must look for Kasturba. [Stands.] You know how
they say: happy wife, happy afterlife. Good afternoon, sir.
Mill:Good afternoon, sir.
[Exeunt in different directions.]
© EUGENE ALPER 2019
Eugene Alper studies political philosophy at Claremont Graduate
University and thanks Dr Sharon Snowiss, Dr Maria Gracia
Inglessis, and Patrick Burge.58 Philosophy Now ●August/September 2019W
illiam from Ockham (or Occam), an otherwise obscure vil-
lage in Surrey, England, was the greatest philosopher of
the fourteenth century. Known as the Doctor Invincibilis,
he didn’t care whom he offended, and with his rough and
ready style of argument, he offended plenty of people – which eventu-
ally got him into big trouble.
He became a Franciscan monk, an order famous for its commitment
to poverty. But this meant he was at risk of having idle hands (one of
poverty’s unacknowledged benefits), and so doing the Devil’s work. To
avoid this calamity, he wrote widely on logic, physics, and theology.
Today he is most often associated with ‘Ockham’s Razor’, his idea
that explanations should be as simple as possible (alternative formula-
tions of this principle include ‘Entities should not be multiplied beyond
necessity’ and ‘It is futile to do with more things that which can be done
with fewer’). Frankly, this is a good rule of thumb whatever you’re think-
ing about. As an application of this principle, he also taught that the only
things that exist are individual entities such as this chair, that table, the
tree over there, and so on: there is no universal Chair or Table or Tree
from which the physical entities draw their essence (pace Plato).
Having already been condemned as a heretic in 1326 for having
unorthodox views, since he argued against Aquinas’s philosophy, he
didn’t help himself when in 1328 he sided with those who argued against
the Pope that Jesus and his disciples didn’t own any property. This was
obviously a matter of considerable importance to the Pope, who owned
a lot of property. Seeing what was coming (imprisonment and execu-
tion), William took refuge with the Holy Roman Emperor in Bavaria.
Excommunicated, but feeling a bit safer, he wrote polemics against the
Pope’s claim to temporal power, thus emulating Dante.
The invincible teacher was finally beaten around 1347/48, probably
by the Black Death. The Pope had died earlier, in 1334, still owning lots
of property, just like Jesus.
© TERENCE GREEN 2019
Terence is a writer, historian, and lecturer, and lives with his wife
and their dog in Paekakariki, NZ.William of Ockham
(1285–1347/8 CE)A pauper’s philosophy –
Only things exist.
Excise the excess.Philosophical Haiku
OCKH
AM©^
ST
EP
HENLAH
EYFiction