A Tennis Story

A Tennis Story

I have been making a study of James Bond, reading the novels and watching the movies. I think I now know the Bond mind: principled, decisive, realistic, ingenious, effective, sometimes violent. I recently faced a Bond challenge over at the tennis courts, involving a shrub. I don’t think SMERSH was behind it, but still—it had to be dealt with. You see, when hitting against the wall the ball would sometimes go into the shrub and linger there so that you had to reach in to retrieve it. The trouble being that the shrub has pointy leaves and spiny stems, which menace the eyes and scratch the hands; more than once blood has been drawn. I mentioned this to the local bigwigs, but nothing was done. The ideal solution would be to remove the shrub, which would not be difficult. Do we have to wait till someone gets poked in the eye? Then I hit on my own solution: I took a pair of garden clippers over there and stealthily cut off the offending leaves, one by one. No longer do you have to reach inside the bush, shielding your eyes and risking the scratches—you just bend down and pick up the ball, no problem. Of course, the high-ups might disapprove, but the job got done. I stuffed the spiky leaves into the trashcan to be taken away in due course; I wonder what the organization will think of it. It will be a mystery to them. 007 has paid a visit (with a license to trim). A wrong has been righted, lives saved. Corners have been cut. Protocol has been set aside. Cue the James Bond theme.

Share

The View from Iran

So, the thieves claim to be acting out of moral concern! One of your books or papers would be enough for someone to feel that they had made their entire contribution to philosophy!

Though, recording your ideas on your blog makes it extremely difficult for the thieves to steal them. Perhaps you could also number them or use a system of categorisation, such as ‘Idea No. 20 (e.g., Mysterianism) of Category 5 (Consciousness), Date’.  That would also make them easier to cite.

During the preparation of the Wittgenstein volumes, we received no complaints or similar emails from any of the contributors about your contribution. Of course, had there been any, I would have preferred them to withdraw, whoever they were. At the same time, though, your standing in Wittgenstein studies is beyond any doubt!

Ali

—

Dr. Ali Hossein Khani

Assistant Professor, Science Studies Department, Iranian Institute of Philosophy (IRIP).  (Academia)

Researcher, School of Analytic Philosophy, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM). (Google Scholar)

Just published:

  1. Kripke’s Wittgenstein: Meaning, Rules, and Scepticism(Anthem Press, 2026).
  2. The Routledge Handbook of Wittgenstein and Other Philosophers: Part One(with Gary Kemp) (Routledge, 2026).
  3. The Routledge Handbook of Wittgenstein and Other Philosophers: Part Two (with Gary Kemp) (Routledge, 2026)

I had been telling him about a volume on Shakespeare I had contributed to: some of the other contributors had threatened to withdraw their papers because I was in the volume, a threat which proved hollow. He replied:

It’s really annoying to hear these things, Colin. It’s great that you run your own blog and share your thoughts there. I’m sure that many of those who behave like that read your posts one by one and get ideas from them.

As a little scholar of philosophy, I’m proud to live in a time when philosophers as brilliant as you are alive.

Ali

—

Dr. Ali Hossein Khani

Assistant Professor, Science Studies Department, Iranian Institute of Philosophy (IRIP).  (Academia)

Researcher, School of Analytic Philosophy, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM). (Google Scholar)

Just published:

  1. Kripke’s Wittgenstein: Meaning, Rules, and Scepticism(Anthem Press, 2026).
  2. The Routledge Handbook of Wittgenstein and Other Philosophers: Part One(with Gary Kemp) (Routledge, 2026).
  3. The Routledge Handbook of Wittgenstein and Other Philosophers: Part Two (with Gary Kemp) (Routledge, 2026)
Share

A Causal Theory of Everything

A Causal Theory of Everything

Is language caused by reality? Is meaning caused by facts? Does the environment give rise to our talk about it? I want to say yes. Language is caused by what it is about, in conjunction with other causal factors. The explanation of the characteristic features of language is the world in which we live—our planet basically. We have the language we do because of the planet we live on. Language may be largely innate, but its ultimate cause is environmental. This is because everything about us is caused by our planetary environment. All animal life on Earth is caused by Earth; all aspects of life on Earth are causally explained by the physics (dynamics) of Earth. Life on other planets is caused by those planets, and any life created by some form of intelligence (divine or alien) is caused by that intelligence; but life as we know it on Earth is the causal upshot of our planet, including language. Its nature derives from the place from which it originated; it emerges from this particular celestial object with that object’s specific characteristics. We are what we are because it is what it is.

To see this, it helps to go back to the beginning. In some way we don’t yet fully understand, the first primitive life was caused by the conditions obtaining on Earth (perhaps thermal vents). The nature of this life was predictable from its earthly antecedents; you could infer the effect from the cause. The effect wasn’t some radically new entity or process. The elementary life form was like a book recording its causal history.[1] With the passage of time new life forms developed, also caused by earthly conditions—physical, chemical, geological, climatic. One thing led causally to another. Eventually bacteria evolved as a causal consequence of what existed before; we don’t know how or why exactly, but it happened. There was no infusion of help from outside. Whether to call this process “physical” is a moot point, depending on what that word is taken to mean; what is undeniable is that the process was insulated, internal to the planet on which it occurred. No miracles from on high, no extraterrestrial injections (save the odd meteor). In the fullness of time, plants and animals came along—life as we know it. Mutation and natural selection were the driving mechanisms, building on what went before. Bodies began, various and distinctive. Thus, living bodies were caused by planet Earth—by the terrestrial environment. This included other living bodies: each body existed in a world partly composed of other bodies. This fact shaped the production of new bodies: one body is as it is because other bodies are what they are. For example, the body of a predator is shaped by the bodies of its prey; the tiger’s body is as it is because the antelope’s body is as it is. That is what it chases, hunts, kills, and eats. Prey cause predators (and predators cause later prey by reciprocal interaction). The body of one animal comes to be like a book about another animal; you can infer predator from prey and prey from predator, down to fine detail (with some input from the bodies of other animals that prey on the predator or compete with them). The point is that it’s all causality working its magic (or non-magic): everything is ultimately an effect of antecedent planetary conditions. Everything is a reflection of something else. Nothing happens by chance or intentional design. Causality rules. Trees are caused by earth and light. Fish are caused by water and oxygen. Birds are caused by air and gravity. All animals are caused by space and time. The universe is one big causal machine lumbering along. Nothing exists but that it was caused by something. This is not a reductionist thesis but an historical thesis: history, including pre-history, is a causal process, obeying the laws of causality. Not chance, not divine intervention, but blind deterministic causation. Causality truly is the cement of the universe and its modus operandi (despite what some quantum theorists and mystics say). Surely, this is by now a truism.

The same goes for the organs of animal bodies: they too are caused and shaped by prior planetary conditions, slowly evolving over time. Hearts and kidneys are caused by the earth, rearranging planetary matter. Hydrodynamics and gravity play a role, as well as available biochemical components. They are literally parts of planet Earth. The brain is no exception: the earth caused the brain; the brain contains elements of the earth. The brain emerged from the earth, taking on its characteristics—shape, size, weight, chemical composition, water, electricity. It lies at one end of a long causal chain tracing back to rocks and H2O. The earth gave birth to the brain (its wrinkled baby) after a long gestation period. The brain is as much an effect of the earth as a volcanic rock formation, and it reflects its causal origins; its properties are derivable from earthly properties, though often mysteriously. Its study is part of earth science (“the extended earth”). The thinking organ might be physically different on other planets, being differently caused; but earthly brains have earthly causes. They have the earth written into them. They even look like the earth (round, hilly)!

What about the mind—is it too caused by the earth? Of course it is. It bears the marks of the earth, though this is less obvious. If panpsychism were true, it would be infused with earthly micro-minds. We don’t understand the causation involved (the mind-body problem), but it must have such a causal history. The earth caused our emotions, our thoughts, our knowledge—what else could cause these things? Not God, and they didn’t happen by chance. Geo-genesis is the correct doctrine. Somehow the laws of nature allowed the mind to emerge from the earth. Among the causal powers of the earth is the power to become mind. Other planets in our solar system lack this power and remain psychologically sterile, barren. Then what of language? One might well say that language is trivially caused by the earth, because it arose from it like bodies, brains, and minds—it had to. But we can ask a more interesting question: is there anything about language that resembles its cause? Specifically, does language resemble the part of the earth that constitutes its subject-matter? Does the external environment both cause language to exist and intricately shape its nature? If it does cause language, we might expect that it shapes its nature, though perhaps in transmuted form. Does the environment configure the brain and hence the brain’s linguistic contents? Is language in any way a record of the long causal history that led up to it? Is it a kind of fossil of the earth that produced it? Take sound: spoken language, as we have it, consists of sounds, but that is only possible because planet Earth permits the production of transmissible sounds in virtue of its atmosphere. Sound waves need a material medium through which they can propagate—such as air. No air, no sound. There also must be physical mechanisms that can cause sound waves—falling water, explosions, collisions. It’s a sound world. Thus, Earth contains the resources with which to create sounds; in a world without atmospheric disturbance there cannot be spoken language (though there could be a sign language made possible by light). Spoken language owes its existence to a naturally noisy environment (as sign language owes its existence to the sun’s light). We thus know that pre-linguistic earth was a sound earth, because we make sounds now. Phonology is a result of terrestrial sounds—the pushing around of air molecules.

But the influence of the earth goes deeper into the make-up of language; it forms language’s very structure and content. The world consists of objects and properties, the instantiation relation, events, processes, pluralities, facts, space, and time—all these are reflected in the architecture of language. To put it baldly, objects and properties cause (causally explain) subjects and predicates (nouns and adjectives), instantiation causes predication (“is”), events and processes cause verbs, facts cause propositions, space and time form the very framework of meaningful sounds and marks. The sentence “snow is white” means that snow is white (expresses that proposition) because it is a fact that snow is white (these things really exist on Earth). Ontology causes and forms semantics. Where else could meaning come from? You say the brain or the genes; true enough, but where do they come from? They come from the earth (and earlier from the cosmos more generally). The whole machinery of language is caused by antecedent states of the universe, going back to the Big Bang. But language on Earth (“Earth-Speak”) owes its existence to the planet itself—that unique celestial object in all its singularity. We will not find examples of spoken language like ours on planets in which life develops differently—a soundless planet made of pure light, say. Even a purely liquid or gaseous planet will not produce our kind of language; for that you need solid objects with persistent properties. Our linguistic scheme is constrained by our geological and biological environment, our world of rocks and plants and animals. Our language is partly shaped by the existence of living bodies; they cause it to mean what it does. Proper names exist because there are things to be named—persisting substantial things. Spatial terms exist because space exists. Mental vocabulary exists because minds exist. The environment must be thus and so in order that talk about it should exist. That environment incorporates the reality of planet Earth, which is both an instance of something more general and a unique planetary formation. Language is one of Earth’s many effects, along with mountains, plants, animal bodies, and minds. Earth is a potent cause; not every chunk of matter floating through space has its protean power. A world of formless gas lacks such powers; it creates no languages, no bodies, no minds. As far as we know, only planet Earth has the power to produce these (to us) familiar things, including the ability to talk about itself. Earth is the cause of its own story. We are the vehicles of this story. We are the book in which Earth tells its tall tale. It took a long time, but eventually it learned to speak, with us as its vocal apparatus. We are Earth’s mouthpiece. Evolution is the earth working out its causal potential. Life on Earth is Earth’s causal history.[2]

[1] See Richard Dawkins, The Genetic Book of the Dead (2024).

[2] It is worth reminding ourselves that what I say here would have been considered the height of blasphemy only a couple of centuries ago. The idea that the earth could be the cause of all things human and animal, and not a divine being, would seem preposterous—isn’t the earth mainly mud? But Darwin’s causal theory of species creation put paid to that point of view; yet it lingers on in our ordinary thinking. A “Humean” theory of causation as constant conjunction (not the actual Hume’s position) also makes it hard to see how the earth could be so causally fecund, since it denies the productivity of causation. We need to appreciate how creative (yet conservative) causation can be; the earth has remarkable constructive powers. We should treat it with the awe and respect it deserves. Earth, we salute you!

Share

Skill: A Practical Philosophy

The following is a summary of a book I intend to write. I would be interested in any comments readers might have about what might be included in addition to what is described here.

 

Skill: A Practical Philosophy

Introduction: James Bond and Me

Friends sometimes compare me to James Bond because of my range of skills (“skillset”). Our skills don’t overlap much, though more than you might think (we both do knife throwing and are extremely suave) because we have different occupations, but the range is impressive in both cases. I think he has a slight edge on me, but then he is a fictional character and I am not. My skills include tennis, table tennis, squash, billiards, kayak surfing, windsurfing, skim boarding, skiing, gymnastics, pole vault, trampoline, discus, football, cricket, skateboarding, mountain biking, bowling, swimming, diving, Frisby, drumming, guitar, harmonica, singing, motorcycling, and the aforementioned knife throwing. This is not to mention my intellectual and writing skills or acting and comedic. But my purpose is not to boast (or not much) but to establish my credentials: I am not your typical clumsy ill-coordinated awkward egghead. I have a lot of physical (and other) skills. I also teach many of these skills and love to talk about them. So, this a good book for me to write. I will be mentioning my forays into skill a good deal in what follows.

Chapter 1: What is a Skill?

Here I will define the concept of a skill, so that we know what we are talking about. A skill is a learned ability to perform an activity, job, or task well through training, practice, and experience. It is primarily physical not mental, though it involves the mental. It takes place largely in the brain, though the muscles are crucial (“muscle memory”). It is not just any old ability.  A skill is always an achievement, generally hard-won, a feather in one’s cap.

Chapter 2: The Scope of Skill

Skill is ubiquitous in human life; almost everything we do involves skill. Work, play, sex, art, music, science, hobbies, socializing, cooking, etc. But not everything we do can be called a skill: digest, excrete, breathe, blink, sit down, fall over, jump up and down, and so on. There is unskilled manual labor and expertly playing the violin for a living. Material objects have no skills, nor do plants. Many animals have some skills, but some do not (e.g., jellyfish), and what they do have is nothing like human skill. We are the skilled species. Economies are built on skill, as are cities and countries. Our culture is saturated in skill. You can’t live a normal human life and have no skills–the more the better, and the better the better. We are always exercising our skills in one way or another.

Chapter 3: The Origin of Skill

Our skills go back a long way into pre-history, when we were still up there in the trees, brachiating away to our heart’s content. When we came down to earth, we had free hands and we made good use of them in developing skills, mainly involving tools. Skills saved us from extinction. They gave us purpose. They made us hunters and fighters. The development of civilization was the development of skills, mainly manual skills. Architecture, art, sculpture, heavy machinery—all require sophisticated skills. Brain, mind, body, and skilled behavior all developed together to generate the human package. Skill paved the way. It was one of evolution’s greatest discoveries. Eventually language skills evolved. Our distinctive intelligence is a skilled intelligence not a form of disembodied logical reason–the skilled deed not just the deed or the thought.

Chapter 4: How to Acquire a Skill

This is what you have been waiting for—skills are wonderful, but how do you get them? Not much expertise is innate, so they must be laboriously learned, and it isn’t instantaneous or easy. It takes work. This is where I excel: I’m willing to put in the work, and I enjoy it. You must be patient, disciplined, methodical—no lazing around boozing. A lot of repetition, analysis, focus, commitment. You can do it! Tennis takes a good three years to get even basically competent, even for the most talented players in the world (they are always going on about how much hard work they put in). I believe them; I do too. I favor an incremental method mixed with a more holistic approach. Break the skill down into smaller units; don’t just bash away at the fast forehand. You can practice in your living room—every day if possible. Every now and then try a full stroke and analyze what happens. Learn from your mistakes. Study and copy. Keep at it. I found that knife throwing took me over a year of daily practice, gradually stepping further back from the target. I can now stick it reliably from ten feet away, left-handed, no spin. I never thought that was even possible. Notice your improvement. The same for learning to sing: practice every day, pay attention to detail, don’t give up. Use your head as well as your lungs.

Chater 5: Physical and Mental Skills

We speak as if there are mental skills as well as bodily skills, but it is not clear whether this is metaphorical or not. Is acquiring knowledge a skilled activity? Not always—it just happens when you open your eyes. There is nothing skillful about dreaming or desiring or fantasizing. Mental abilities are not generally skilled performances. The concept of skill is primarily physical with mental performances so described by analogy. True, all skilled abilities have a mental component—they are sensorimotor—but mental actions and states are not generally skilled. When did you ever practice them or study the techniques involved? They are no more skilled than digestion or blood flow or respiration. You don’t learn these things by diligent practice. I don’t think I’m being particularly skillful when I think about philosophy or how to get somewhere. Skill arises mainly in the hands not in the brain alone. The brain houses the machinery of skill, but it itself has no skills to speak of.

Chapter 6: The Value of Skill

But why does skill matter? What makes it good? Two answers suggest themselves: they are useful for survival or obtaining pleasure, and they are intrinsically valuable—good in themselves. Both these things can be true, and I think both are. For sure, skills can get you the good things in life—money, mates, status, admiration. But they are also valuable because they expand the self (the soul); they add to what you are. They promote what psychologists call self-realization—I would prefer to say self-augmentation. A human being with no skills is a paltry being, an object of pity, not envy. But a skilled individual is viewed as well-rounded, impressive, special. Skill is an occasion for pride. Also, it is enjoyable to exercise a skill—to stick a knife in a target, to hit a tennis ball just so. Skills are like knowledge—the more the merrier. Your life is more meaningful the more skilled you are. I have never regretted acquiring a new skill (I took up skateboarding at 74). Skills are fun! They produce self-esteem as well as admiration by others. Dare I say that they make us more godlike? Jesus had a worthy skill, carpentry, and his heavenly father had every skill known to man or God—omni-skillfulness. They make us whole, divine, splendid (I wax poetic, but that’s how I feel). A skill is definitely something worth possessing.

Chapter 7: Capitalism and Skill

Work has always involved skill–economies run on it. It was Adam Smith who extolled the virtues of the division of skilled labor, and capitalism grew from this economic insight. But there is a downside, which we might call skill-starvation: people are condemned to a single limited skill for the whole of their working life (nail sharpener in Smith’s famous example). They used to have a full set of skills adequate to a human life (to human nature), but under capitalism they become one-trick ponies—bored ponies, stilted and stifled ponies. They fall on a single stool. Thus, capitalism fails to respect a central fact of human nature—the fact of poly-skillfulness. True, we can be more productive economically this way, but we become stunted and dissatisfied. I would view my own life as impoverished (poorer) if I were deprived of my range of skills and allowed to practice only one (say, bowling). As an athlete, I like to do many sports. As a musician and singer, I like to play more than one instrument and sing different kinds of song. Capitalism makes us richer but also poorer (did Karl Marx ever make this argument?). Skill starvation is a real thing. You might die of it, spiritually.

Chapter 8: Philosophy of Skill

How should philosophy respond to the centrality of skill in human life? Two areas stand out: philosophy of action and epistemology. We need to distinguish action generally from skilled action: non-skilled action is subject to simple belief-desire psychology, but skilled action also involves the presence of a skill. I eat an apple because I’m hungry and I believe an apple will relieve my hunger, but I hit a tennis ball in a certain way because I am a skilled player—the skill plays an explanatory role (among other things). So, action theory needs to recognize the importance of skill as a determinant of action, not just belief and desire. I hit the ball that way because I am a skilled player—skills explain skilled action. In regard to epistemology, it is generally accepted that there is knowing-how as well as knowing-that; and the former is another way of talking about skilled action. Thus, there is skilled practical knowledge and unskilled factual knowledge. Indeed, this kind of skilled knowledge is arguably the basic kind—knowing how to throw and catch a ball, say. It precedes and underpins theoretical understanding of ball dynamics. Philosophy of skill needs to be added to the curriculum (Wittgenstein got close to this in his emphasis on rule-following ability).

Chapter 9: Happiness and Skill

Here is my considered opinion: a happy life is a life of skills—many of them. In my case intellectual skills (if we allow these to be skills in good standing), athletic skills, and musical skills. Secret agent 007 apparently prefers skills of fighting, driving fast cars, seduction, and martini drinking (he is a skilled shaker). To each his own. But he has a wide range of them, and they make him what he is. Skilled action contributes to human flourishing more than unskilled action, or no action at all, like eating and lying in bed. Bond clearly gets a kick out of his advanced espionage skills, as I get a kick out of my more pacific skills. It’s about doing, and doing it well, not passively feeling pleasure. It’s about having a license to skill. We need to cultivate our skills. Education must inculcate skills in students as well as facts and theories. It already does so in PE, art class, and music class; but I would like there to be an explicit emphasis on skills—they are good preparation for a normal productive life. There is nothing I like better than seeing a young boy or girl hitting a tennis ball skillfully.

Chapter 10: The End of Skill?

Is there a danger that skill may wither and die? Capitalism has caused some withering, along with opportunities for developing other skills, but AI contains a more potent danger, especially in the form of robots. For it threatens to make human skilled behavior redundant: robot doctors, teachers, and lawyers (not to mention bricklayers) are apt to steal jobs from human agents. Why do we need to learn skills if machines can do all the skilled work? We can just lounge around the place instead of acquiring new skills (loafing not learning). This has already happened to some extent with the industrial revolution, but it may become even more pervasive: robot actors, athletes, comedians, hostesses, masseurs, sex partners—these devices might become more skillful than their human counterparts. Then what? Well, life would lose a lot of spice and zing, because we admire and enjoy skill in others and ourselves. It would all be rather mechanical. My own view is that we will come to accept a kind of dual economy—powered by AI skill and HI skill (“H” for “human”). Maybe we will fulfill our skill needs in leisure not work, in games not labor. The future of skill may be very different from hitherto: in some respects worse, in others better. Maybe we will develop our skills for fun not profit.

Share

Marathon Interview

Marathon Interview

I have just completed approximately 80 hours of interviews with my Turkish associates (now friends) Ugur and Burcu Polat. The interviews take the form of detailed written questions, submitted in advance, and presented to me by Burcu (who is a neurologist) while Ugur listens. They cover all aspects of my life and work and are very thorough. The plan is to convert them into a book, to be published in Turkish. The video interviews themselves may also be published in due course. I talk about everything under the sun philosophically, and sometimes other subjects of interest to me. The interviews are one of a kind and took an immense amount of work on the interviewers’ part. I do not discuss my personal life. I am grateful for their efforts, intelligence, and good humor.

Share