What do you think?
Rate this book
Debate: Is Man a Machine? : Clarence Darrow, Affirmative; Dr. Will Durant, Negative
Excerpt from Debate: Is Man a Machine?
As further evidence of an overwhelming interest in this topic, I am informed by the management, there are about_2000 prospective listeners outside who cannot find admission to this hall.
As further evidence of an overwhelming interest in this topic, I am informed by the management, there are about_2000 prospective listeners outside who cannot find admission to this hall.
70 pages, Paperback
Published August 24, 2018
4 people want to read
About the author
Clarence Darrow
236 books67 followersin 1857, Clarence Darrow, later dubbed "Attorney for the Damned" and "the Great Defender," was born. For a time he lived in an Ohio home that had served as a stop on the Underground Railroad. His father was known as the "village infidel." Darrow attended the University of Michigan Law School for one year, then passed the bar in 1878 and moved to Chicago. There he joined protests against the trumped-up charges against four radicals accused in the Haymarket Riot case. Darrow became corporate counsel to the City of Chicago, then counsel for the North Western Railway. He quit this lucrative post when he could no longer defend their treatment of injured workers, then went on to defend without pay Socialist striker Eugene V. Debs. In 1907, Darrow successfully defended labor activist "Big Bill" Haywood, charged with assassinating a former governor. His passionate denunciation of the death penalty prompted him to defend the famous killers, Loeb and Leopold, who received life sentences in 1924.
His most celebrated case was the Scopes Trial, defending teacher John Scopes in Dayton, Tenn., who was charged with the crime of teaching evolution in the public schools. Darrow's brilliant cross-examination of prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan lives on in legal history. During the trial, Darrow said: "I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure—that is all that agnosticism means." Darrow wrote many freethought articles and edited a freethought collection. His two appealing autobiographies are The Story of My Life (1932), containing his plainspoken views on religion, and Farmington (1932). He also wrote Resist Not Evil (1902), An Eye for An Eye (1905), and Crime, Its Causes and Treatments (1925). His freethought writings are collected into Why I Am an Agnostic and Other Essays. He told The New York Times, "Religion is the belief in future life and in God. I don't believe in either" (April 19, 1936). D. 1938.
More: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytr...
http://darrow.law.umn.edu/index.php?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history...
His most celebrated case was the Scopes Trial, defending teacher John Scopes in Dayton, Tenn., who was charged with the crime of teaching evolution in the public schools. Darrow's brilliant cross-examination of prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan lives on in legal history. During the trial, Darrow said: "I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure—that is all that agnosticism means." Darrow wrote many freethought articles and edited a freethought collection. His two appealing autobiographies are The Story of My Life (1932), containing his plainspoken views on religion, and Farmington (1932). He also wrote Resist Not Evil (1902), An Eye for An Eye (1905), and Crime, Its Causes and Treatments (1925). His freethought writings are collected into Why I Am an Agnostic and Other Essays. He told The New York Times, "Religion is the belief in future life and in God. I don't believe in either" (April 19, 1936). D. 1938.
More: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytr...
http://darrow.law.umn.edu/index.php?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 20, 2023
I'm a massive fanboy of Will Durant. My love affair with him began in 2016, when I discovered his Story of Civilization and began making my way through the 11 massive volumes. He taught me more about history, philosophy, and art than any other writer, and he largely informed my outlook on life. Now I've taken to seeking out and reading everything the man has written, no matter how obscure.
This is the transcript of a public debate, held by the "League for Public Discussion", between Mr. Durant and the famous lawyer Clarence Darrow on the titular question in 1927. Now, almost a century later, the question is a little farther from our concerns. But reading this debate demonstrated why I love reading things from this era - the oratory is so eloquent and just a treat to read, on both sides but particularly Mr. Durant's. Apparently, this debate was held in a packed Carnegie Hall, with 2000 people crowding outside straining to hear. It makes one wonder if something this remarkable could be recreated, or if this was the peak of public interest in philosophy.
Of the two speakers, I think Mr. Durant is the more rousing and convincing in his speech, but history has proven Mr. Darrow right. Durant is espousing the philosophy of vitalism. He claims not to be a vitalist towards the end, defining it as the philosophy of Henri Bergson (a then-popular, now mostly-forgotten philosopher). But Durant's whole argument matches point-for-point with the textbook definition of vitalism, which is the belief that life cannot be fully explained by physical laws, and the difference between life and non-life can be explained by some sort of "life-force" or "vital energy". There was a raging debate over it among scientists at the time, but since the 1950s vitalism has been regarded as pseudoscience. Durant frames the debate as being between physics and biology, but by today's standards, it's between science and New Age mysticism.
Of course, all this isn't to disparage Durant. Even on paper, you can just feel the enthusiasm when he unfolds his argument, and since they're generous enough to label when there's applause, you can tell the crowd is loving it too. But as Durant is rhapsodizing about the beauty of life, the laughter of children, even reading some of his own poetry, his arguments feel unconvincing. Perhaps it's just the benefit of hindsight. For example, Durant argues that a machine can't navigate through obstacles to get a piece of food like even a microorganism can, and for sure a machine can't write poetry. Well, now we have machines that can do both.
Darrow must have been an intimidating presence on the stage, resembling an evil count from an old horror movie. He is less poetic, more matter-of-fact in his language. He was a forceful speaker, but there are a lot of hedging phrases like "I think", "I feel", "I don't know", "Nobody knows". While I love Durant's poetic flights of fancy, I also appreciated Darrow's bringing the issue back down to earth with simple statements of the facts. A few unnecessarily harsh jabs come from his side. Durant even admits to feeling hurt by his comments, to which Darrow apologizes and reaffirms his respect for the man and his work. Even at their most heated, the debate is an infinitely better show of graciousness and civility than anything we've been seeing in American politics recently. The two men had sparred before, and outside of the debates they were good friends.
My fellow reviewer seems to think Darrow is foolish, illogical, and a cheap debater. I disagree. While he doesn't respond to every argument his opponent makes and shifts some definitions, Durant, much as I love him, isn't innocent of these sins either. He completely abandons his own broad definition of "mechanism" which he gave at the start of the debate, and instead sticks with a narrow 1920s conception of what a "machine" is and is capable of.
I have a physical copy of the "Little Blue Book" this debate was printed in. It's no longer blue, and so fragilely bound together that if I so much as sneezed it would disintegrate into dust. It's better to read it for free online, and it's a quick, worthy read if you want to experience the eloquence of public debate in these times, or like me, are one of the 15 Durant fans left in the world. I'll close with some of Will's reminiscences on this event in his 1977 Dual Autobiography:
This is the transcript of a public debate, held by the "League for Public Discussion", between Mr. Durant and the famous lawyer Clarence Darrow on the titular question in 1927. Now, almost a century later, the question is a little farther from our concerns. But reading this debate demonstrated why I love reading things from this era - the oratory is so eloquent and just a treat to read, on both sides but particularly Mr. Durant's. Apparently, this debate was held in a packed Carnegie Hall, with 2000 people crowding outside straining to hear. It makes one wonder if something this remarkable could be recreated, or if this was the peak of public interest in philosophy.
Of the two speakers, I think Mr. Durant is the more rousing and convincing in his speech, but history has proven Mr. Darrow right. Durant is espousing the philosophy of vitalism. He claims not to be a vitalist towards the end, defining it as the philosophy of Henri Bergson (a then-popular, now mostly-forgotten philosopher). But Durant's whole argument matches point-for-point with the textbook definition of vitalism, which is the belief that life cannot be fully explained by physical laws, and the difference between life and non-life can be explained by some sort of "life-force" or "vital energy". There was a raging debate over it among scientists at the time, but since the 1950s vitalism has been regarded as pseudoscience. Durant frames the debate as being between physics and biology, but by today's standards, it's between science and New Age mysticism.
Of course, all this isn't to disparage Durant. Even on paper, you can just feel the enthusiasm when he unfolds his argument, and since they're generous enough to label when there's applause, you can tell the crowd is loving it too. But as Durant is rhapsodizing about the beauty of life, the laughter of children, even reading some of his own poetry, his arguments feel unconvincing. Perhaps it's just the benefit of hindsight. For example, Durant argues that a machine can't navigate through obstacles to get a piece of food like even a microorganism can, and for sure a machine can't write poetry. Well, now we have machines that can do both.
Darrow must have been an intimidating presence on the stage, resembling an evil count from an old horror movie. He is less poetic, more matter-of-fact in his language. He was a forceful speaker, but there are a lot of hedging phrases like "I think", "I feel", "I don't know", "Nobody knows". While I love Durant's poetic flights of fancy, I also appreciated Darrow's bringing the issue back down to earth with simple statements of the facts. A few unnecessarily harsh jabs come from his side. Durant even admits to feeling hurt by his comments, to which Darrow apologizes and reaffirms his respect for the man and his work. Even at their most heated, the debate is an infinitely better show of graciousness and civility than anything we've been seeing in American politics recently. The two men had sparred before, and outside of the debates they were good friends.
My fellow reviewer seems to think Darrow is foolish, illogical, and a cheap debater. I disagree. While he doesn't respond to every argument his opponent makes and shifts some definitions, Durant, much as I love him, isn't innocent of these sins either. He completely abandons his own broad definition of "mechanism" which he gave at the start of the debate, and instead sticks with a narrow 1920s conception of what a "machine" is and is capable of.
I have a physical copy of the "Little Blue Book" this debate was printed in. It's no longer blue, and so fragilely bound together that if I so much as sneezed it would disintegrate into dust. It's better to read it for free online, and it's a quick, worthy read if you want to experience the eloquence of public debate in these times, or like me, are one of the 15 Durant fans left in the world. I'll close with some of Will's reminiscences on this event in his 1977 Dual Autobiography:
Soon after the end-of-the-year holidays I prepared for a risky encounter - to debate Clarence Darrow on January 8, 1927, at Carnegie Hall on "Is Man a Machine?" On the way to the battle we visited Clarence in his room at the Belmont Hotel; no one could have told from our conversation that he and I were about to meet in combat. ...
I spoke first, and gave the usual arguments for a vitalistic view, borrowing heavily from Bergson. I ended with an explosion of sentimental poetry in which I finally identified myself with God. When Darrow's turn came he walked slowly to the podium, and began in his usual drawl, "That is the worst poem I have ever heard." Then, seeing me woefully deflated, and hurrying to heal my wound, he told the audience, "I am sorry if I hurt my friend. I would rather have written The Story of Philosophy than have done any of the things I have done in my life." It was an absurd exaggeration, but I readily forgave it, and long treasured it.
He went on to argue that all human behavior can be interpreted by the laws of physics and chemistry ... The audience gladly forgot my arguments in its enjoyment of Darrow's dry humor. After two forgotten rebuttals we walked off the stage arm in arm.
January 25, 2021
To be kept in mind: I don't mean for this to be a serious, exhaustive analysis of the debate. I did take notes but I also read it late at night while I was supposed to read something else for tomorrow's lecture and in a dire mental struggle with an addiction to a dumb phone game.
Is man a machine?
Will Durant: No.
•When we reflect on ourselves we see ourselves very different at heart from machines (and other very lovely poetical words).
•Many scientific authorities (some mentioned) disregard the mechanical-human theory as contradictory to scientific evidence.
•Machines can't reproduce, self-repair or develop. Moreover, they lack purpose.
Clarence Darrow: yes.
•There isn't any scientific evidence against it (took a nap during Durant's speech?), all that rubbish is unscientific, poetic, religious humbug.
•If there's anything more than the mechanical body then why doesn't it live on after we destroy the mechanical body?
•Maybe science didn't explain the tiniest details but it justifies the resemblance.
•The world is so old and all forms of life were there before and might survive to the future
...etc (fuck me if I had an idea how this is related).
•.. and other things that are of no importance and I'm tired.
Summing up,
Clarence seems to have little science, philosophy, and logic. He attacks his opponents in person. He ignores arguments and facts. He puts words and theories into the mouth of his opponents then refute them, like he did when he attributed to Durant the Vitalistic theory of the universe that belongs to Bergson. He uses so many cheap tricks from the court to win over the audience.. all looks petty when read after some 90 years.
Durant might have went too long into poetry and stirring the hearts of his speakers about the wonderful poetry of life. Basically, he supposes a biological explanation while Clarence a physical one. Durant wins due to his opponent close mindedness and ignorance.
An interesting topic and discussion. Durant is always a treat. He is so mellow on the senses and intellectually kissable. Would've been a better discussion if they had picked a better opponent.
Is man a machine?
Will Durant: No.
•When we reflect on ourselves we see ourselves very different at heart from machines (and other very lovely poetical words).
•Many scientific authorities (some mentioned) disregard the mechanical-human theory as contradictory to scientific evidence.
•Machines can't reproduce, self-repair or develop. Moreover, they lack purpose.
Clarence Darrow: yes.
•There isn't any scientific evidence against it (took a nap during Durant's speech?), all that rubbish is unscientific, poetic, religious humbug.
•If there's anything more than the mechanical body then why doesn't it live on after we destroy the mechanical body?
•Maybe science didn't explain the tiniest details but it justifies the resemblance.
•The world is so old and all forms of life were there before and might survive to the future
...etc (fuck me if I had an idea how this is related).
•.. and other things that are of no importance and I'm tired.
Summing up,
Clarence seems to have little science, philosophy, and logic. He attacks his opponents in person. He ignores arguments and facts. He puts words and theories into the mouth of his opponents then refute them, like he did when he attributed to Durant the Vitalistic theory of the universe that belongs to Bergson. He uses so many cheap tricks from the court to win over the audience.. all looks petty when read after some 90 years.
Durant might have went too long into poetry and stirring the hearts of his speakers about the wonderful poetry of life. Basically, he supposes a biological explanation while Clarence a physical one. Durant wins due to his opponent close mindedness and ignorance.
An interesting topic and discussion. Durant is always a treat. He is so mellow on the senses and intellectually kissable. Would've been a better discussion if they had picked a better opponent.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews