Time has come for a philosopher in the Áras
Douglas Hyde after being sworn in as the nation's first President of Ireland in 1938. Picture: Keystone/Getty Images
Summer has come and gone and we are now into autumn. I belong to the school of thought that May, June and July are the summer months but, it would seem, that I am old hat and the modernists who claim that summer begins in June and ends in August are now in the ascendency. So, given either summer definition, we are into autumn now and autumn is a time of change. Nature gives the world a new set of extravagant colours and temperatures drop, colds and sniffles in humans increase, coughs develop and the bright mood of summer gives way to more serious questions. Where did the summer go? Autumn is great but how many days to Christmas?
That last question betokens a desire to get quickly to Christmas and eliminate autumn. Perhaps it is the consumer society, the brand managers, the influencers and the marketing gurus who make society leapfrog over autumn and bring us straight into the splurge of Christmas. Whatever the reason, autumn does not get a fair chance to exhibit its many glories.
Spring, I have to say, is my favourite season. Seeing the daffodils, in all their creamy magnolia glory, burst forth from soggy soil gives a lift to the heart which needs an auld boost every now and then. Summer, with its sunburn and threatening melanoma, I can take it or leave it.
Autumn is a close second to spring in the favourites’ hierarchy. Beholding the leafy canopy of oak, birch, beech, sycamore, willow and ash change colour day by day is simply delightful and more than compensates for the drudgery of having to rake, gather, collect and sweep up the tons of shedding leaves as autumn drifts towards winter. Dreadful palm fronds and pine needles are another kettle of fish altogether and best avoided. Too late now for me!
It is the time of year when the philosopher breaks out in people, when people are inclined to give thought to the important things in life. As for me, when we arrive at this glorious time of year that is a prelude to the dark and foreboding days of winter, I tend to get caught up in debate, mostly with myself, about what the future holds. Well, obviously the future holds death for us mere mortals, but, beyond that, what are the prospects? It all depends on your point of view.
Nowadays, with scientists in the ascendency, we are all subject to the laws of science, but has anyone considered that the sciences might be wrong? I have an open mind on the subject but when I philosophise I find comfort in thinking that the earth is indeed flat and is being propped up in the oceans of the world by innumerable tortoises paddling flat out to keep an obese and ever increasingly fat world afloat.
I’m not a great believer in the paddling tortoises’ theory but equally I find it difficult to get my head around the ever increasing scientific discoveries about an earth and universe that continues to expand at an alarming rate. That wonderful scientist/physicist, the late Stephen Hawking came up with or perhaps expanded on the theory of the Big Bang to explain the universe and our place in it. The general theory is that Hawking was correct in his time but science has moved on and now there are scientists discovering new universes by the dozen.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has stood the test of time but it is easy enough to pick holes in it nowadays with archaeologists and anthropologists placing Homo erectus much further back in time. And, of course, if we are to accept Darwin’s theory then we have to consider what the ramifications of trying to reverse the process of evolution by such measures as recycling plastic bottles and such like are? Is evolution not inevitable?
Darwin is much more plausible than what we get in the Bible even if the notion of our antecedents slimily crawling out of the ocean to, millennia later, grow into a boneless and spineless growth that finally manages to develop a bit of backbone and limbs and succeeds in getting up on his hind legs to become what we now call man. I can sort of get my head around Homo erectus arriving from such a less than inspiring background, but what about the female of the species? How did/does Darwin explain the women? Perhaps AI, about which I know nothing but which, I’m told, knows the answer to everything, might provide a definitive answer.
I defer to no man or woman or binary or non-binary person(s) in my admiration for the female of the species. I just have a natural inclination to respect, admire, appreciate and worship the species. For reasons best known to myself and someone very near and dear to me, I fall short of idolising the ladies or fantasising over the female form. The female form is undoubtedly a wonderful piece of construction and, to my mind, a far superior, visually attractive and more pleasantly eye-catching version of the human form than the male. I know this might be anathema to the vast majority of people, but it seems to me that God, in his wisdom, knew what he was doing when he plucked a debilitating rib from Adam’s side and built a most beautiful Eve to be the better half and superior.
There is something more appealing in the Bible version of creation than Darwin’s somewhat appalling version of man. I misremember the exact order of the Bible version and don’t exactly know on which day The Garden of Eden was created or indeed on what day, probably the Saturday, when Adam and later Eve were brought into being but I do know on the seventh day God rested and wisely left the rest of the world to do their thing.
And that brings me nicely to where we are, at this point in time, looking for an Úachtaráin. We’ve had Dubhghlas de Híde (an academic and linguist) we’ve had Sean T Ó Ceallaigh (a politician and hail fellow well met), we’ve had Éamon de Valera (an insurrectionist and mathematician), we’ve had Erskine Childers (son of a gun-runner), we’ve had Paddy Hillery (politician and golfer), we’ve had Mary Robinson (lawyer and visionary), we’ve had Mary McAleese (journalist and intermediary) and we’ve had Michael D (poet, politician, pacifist and straight-talker). The one glaring omission from the credits is a President with philosophical values, though Michael D might disagree.
I’m looking through the announced potential candidates for our upcoming election. As I write, there’s Catherine Connolly, a strong contender with a leftist view of the world. She will be there or thereabouts at the finish, probably not helped by the fact that she is seeking to replace Michael D. She is not announced yet, but Heather Humphries is odds on to be the Fine Gael candidate and is equally odds on to become President.
Fianna Fáil continues to dither, hoping that Jim Gavin will say yes. He is on the steps of the altar now, making it difficult for him to say no. But, if he has any sense, he will say no. Fianna Fáil is in disarray, as I have mentioned in recent times, and not a party that can unite to give Gavin or Billy Kelleher a much needed boost. Sinn Féin are in much the same boat. Unable to find a candidate with a hope of winning, they will, or should, throw their weight behind Catherine Connolly. The Independents seeking nomination, apart from myself, would not appear to have the proverbial snowball’s chance.
It is time to have a President with a philosophical outlook and there’s only one such candidate offering.
- Confucius
