Matthew Parris on this year's conference speeches
Epiphenomenalism is, as 16-letter words go, not an obvious hook with which, dear reader, to draw you to this column; but let me explain; because I think I may be an epiphenomenalist.
My dictionary defines this as the doctrine that consciousness is merely a by-product of physiological processes and has no power to affect them: that we do not weep because we’re sad, but rather that we are sad because we’re weeping.
The idea is not quite as crazy as it sounds. Tony Blair did not sound passionately sincere because he was passionately sincere. He mastered the knack of delivering his lines with such passionate sincerity that he became spellbound by his own performance, and believed in it. And only last week in Blackpool the Times’s political sketchwriter, Ann Treneman, said to me, ‘I think an election may be approaching because I’ve started eating crisps.’ In the same way, one cow might observe to another, ‘I think it’s going to rain because I’m lying down.’
More articles from: Matthew Parris | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
If there really is a secret Zionist brotherhood running the world, why aren’t I a member?
Scratch the surface and there is always tragedy, mixed, of course, with wickedness.
When the leaves fall is the fun time of year for artists
Classlessness means your five-year-old chanting ‘sheepshaggers’ on the terraces
A fortnightly column on technology and the web
Tom Bower, the Prime Minister’s biographer, says that Gordon’s reinvention as the socialist who can save capitalism is just the latest in a series of convenient masks he has donned
The Prime Minister has triumphed for now with his grand rescue plan, says Irwin Stelzer. But that is no reason to blame the crisis on America. It may be a reason for an early election
It didn’t occur to Cameron that White Van Man might be trying to pat him on the back
The taboo on discussing migration has only been partly lifted, says Dennis Sewell. We pretend that all migrants are the same, whereas the statistics reveal some uncomfortable truths
The view from 2018: how it all went wrong for Prime Minister Osborne
Build your own Sky package online. Sky TV, Broadband & Talk only £17.
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be amongst the first to have it - order now.
Build your own Sky package online. Sky TV, Broadband & Talk only £17.
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be...
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
C.Gatenby
October 12th, 2007 3:12amI would disagree that Cameron’s popularity is the catalyst for his ‘good’ speeches. We rate Cameron because he, unlike Brown, has the capacity to inspire. The line 'Call that Election. We will fight, Britain will win' will forever give the British people a reverend flutter to what is quintessentially the lions heart.Could he be the one to now give it it's roar? Britain is listening - and it likes what it hears.
Michael Gorman
October 15th, 2007 8:01pmAgreed absolutely. I was there in 2005 for the Tory leadership speeches. Cameron, competent but a little nervous since he was without notes; Davies, competent; Fox, good but unlikely to win; Clarke, brilliant, by far the best, but outclassed by the Cameron PR machine. (P) I write as a former President of the Guildford Speaking Club, accustomed to judging speeches.
Purple Scorpion
October 15th, 2007 8:28pmThere are two different phenomena here. Cameron was in trouble before the Tory conference, so his outriders (including your editor) were saying he would have to make the speech of his life ... in preparation for saying afterwards that he had. While the Cameron narrative was sketched out beforehand, the narrative about Brown seems to have been changed after the event. At the time the speech was not bad, but with hindsight it became dull. This is just scribblers desperate for a striking angle.
David Moss
October 15th, 2007 9:50pmI see your "epiphenomenalism" and raise you "the intentionality of perception".