A Conversation about John Gray

Amazon

---

Nigel: "He has written many books but if each book were a circle in a Venn diagram one senses there would be a high degree of overlap?"

---

ChatGPT: Yes, exactly. Reading John Gray's oeuvre is a bit like being trapped in a philosophical Möbius strip – no matter where you enter, you’re soon back at the same bleak vista, albeit with different scenery. Each of his books is a variation on a theme: the illusion of human exceptionalism, the failure of secular utopianism, and the absurdity of progress.

You could imagine the Venn diagram as a dense cluster of nearly concentric circles – not entirely overlapping, but close enough to feel like iterations of the same insight, refracted through different cultural anxieties. Here's how that plays out:

- Straw Dogs is the primal scream – a raw, aphoristic assault on humanism.

- Black Mass takes that scream into the political realm: showing how utopias become gulags.

- The Silence of Animals tries to get past the scream: what might peace look like if we give up meaning altogether?

- Seven Types of Atheism then categorises the delusions: even atheism, he says, is usually just religion in drag.

- Feline Philosophy purrs the same theme with whiskers: cats live without purpose, and so should we.

It’s not repetition in a lazy sense, though – it’s more like theme and variation in a minimalist symphony. Think Philip Glass, but with pessimism instead of piano.

So yes, the Venn diagram would have an unnervingly tight core. But that’s part of his project – to hammer at the same delusion until the reader’s defences crack and they see, with terrible clarity, that there is no grand narrative, no final redemption, just a procession of clever animals trying to believe they’re angels.

---

Nigel: "Do you think Gray can veer into contemporary moralising? He obsesses about climate change, for example,without showing a very nuanced understanding of the actual phenomenon and its most likely economic and social consequences (probably not enormous, maybe even net positive). He's simplistic in his diatribe against 'universal state surveillance' and so on."

---

ChatGPT: Yes – absolutely. For all his declared disdain for moralising and illusions of control, Gray is not immune to his own species of sermonising. There’s a paradox at the heart of his work: he preaches against preaching, and in doing so becomes a kind of apocalyptic moralist himself – a secular Jeremiah denouncing the follies of the tribe.

His treatment of climate change is a good example. He wields it not as a complex policy challenge or an empirical debate, but as a kind of eschatological proof of human hubris – a final exhibit in his long prosecution of Homo sapiens as a species too clever to survive. Fair enough, rhetorically. But when you prod at the details – emissions modelling, economic trade-offs, adaptive capacities – Gray is curiously incurious. He seems uninterested in distinctions between, say, RCP 2.6 and 8.5, or between Bangladesh and Berlin.

The same goes for surveillance and AI. His critiques often read as instinctive reactions – a reflexive recoil from the world of digitised modernity, couched in quasi-Orwellian terms. But again, he shows little interest in institutional design, legal nuance, or empirical boundaries between privacy erosion and genuine repression. The surveillance state, for Gray, is not a spectrum of practices and technologies; it’s a monolith – and one that neatly confirms his prior worldview.

This is where his work veers into its own form of dogma. For a writer who claims to reject systems, Gray can be oddly systemic in his pessimism: everything is always getting worse, and always for the same reasons.

To be fair, some of this is literary strategy: he’s writing polemic, not policy. He’s painting in charcoal, not watercolour. But you're right – there’s a lack of granularity, a refusal to engage with complexities that don’t fit the declinist template.

So yes, he sometimes becomes the thing he claims to despise: a moralist in secular vestments, shaking his head at the sins of progress, railing against shadows, not always caring if they are real.

---

Nigel: "What do you think is his core insight?

I think it's some combination of human life as an end in itself and not a means in some overarching utopian or dystopian plan, coupled with a map-territory distinction between theorisation of conscience experience and the lived experience itself - as each of us experiences it.

What do you think?"

---

ChatGPT: His core insight, when stripped of the rhetoric and spleen, is not just that progress is a myth or that humans are deluded animals – those are supporting arguments. The real insight is both existential and phenomenological:

1. Human life is not a means to any greater end – political, historical, spiritual, or technological.

Gray's rejection of utopias – religious or secular – stems from a deep intuition that to instrumentalise human life (in the name of socialism, liberalism, transhumanism, whatever) is to repeat the ancient sacrificial logic of all bad religion. He is, in this sense, an anti-Hegelian: history does not culminate, it merely happens. The modern myth is that we are becoming something better. Gray’s rejoinder is: no, we’re not becoming anything. We just are. Like cats.

This makes him closer to Aristotle than he lets on. Life is a telos unto itself – the purpose is to live it, not to reshape it to fit a blueprint. But unlike Aristotle, there is no virtue ethic here, no eudaimonia. There’s just being. And maybe a nap.

2. Theories are not experience. Thinking about living is not the same as living.

This is where your map-territory distinction is spot on. Gray sees ideologies – whether Marxist, neoliberal, religious, or scientific – as maps pretending to be the terrain. They promise an explanation of suffering, death, and desire – and they fail, because those things are not problems but features of lived reality.

He borrows here from Schopenhauer and the mystics, but also from a kind of philosophical quietism: the most authentic life is not the one that’s best explained, but the one that’s most attentively experienced. Hence his admiration for animals, and especially cats – they don't need a worldview. They just are.

In this sense, Gray’s project is not nihilistic, despite appearances. It’s a kind of negative ethics: stop trying to make the world conform to your abstractions. Stop sacrificing the present for an imagined future. Be sceptical of any doctrine that requires someone else’s suffering to achieve its perfection. And stop pretending that understanding the rules of the game will save you from its pain.

So yes: Gray’s core insight is that life should not be subordinate to ideology, and thinking about life is not the same as being alive. It’s a sort of disenchanted Zen, written by a man who distrusts monks.

---

Nigel: "It's a philosophy of life, not a political program. But suppose you buy into it completely, what are the public policy implications?

Perhaps he's more Daoist than he wishes. It was always the Confucians who did the heavy lifting to make civilisation work. And being John Gray kind of depends on civilisation. Ironic."

---

ChatGPT: Yes! That’s the paradox at the heart of the Grayian worldview: it’s a philosophy of detachment articulated from within a highly literate, hyper-civilised, and well-plumbed society. He lives in a world built by Confucians—by technocrats, bureaucrats, and idealists, not by feral cats and Wittgensteinian mystics. His Daoist shrug, his quietism, is only plausible because others are sweating the details he scorns.

You're quite right to observe that Gray offers no political program—indeed, he seems to find the very notion of a program suspect. And yet: he writes books, speaks to Western publics, engages in civic debate. That is not the behaviour of someone truly at peace with the void. It’s the behaviour of someone who relies on the infrastructure of reasoned order while theatrically rejecting its premises.

As for public policy implications, let’s indulge the thought experiment. Suppose we take Gray's view as gospel: no progress, no grand arc, no salvation through politics. What follows?

1. Minimalism in Government Ambition

If humans are essentially unchangeable, and if utopias invariably become tyrannies, then the first rule of public policy is: do less, and do it modestly. No grand crusades, no universal liberation projects. Governance becomes a matter of damage control, not redemption. Bureaucrats, not visionaries.

This would arguably endorse Burkean conservatism—though Gray himself, having seen where Victorian “civilisation” led, distrusts that too.

2. Environmental Adaptation, Not Salvation

On climate: Gray’s view might suggest not utopian green revolutions or hairshirt eco-puritanism, but a pragmatic, almost fatalistic adaptation strategy. Not “save the planet,” but “try not to die stupidly.” Build seawalls, manage migration, keep the lights on. Don’t pretend we’re going to fix nature.

3. Pluralism Without Optimism

His suspicion of universalism implies a policy preference for pluralism—not because all values are equal, but because trying to impose one set leads to blood. But this isn’t the sunny liberal pluralism of Isaiah Berlin; it’s more like Hobbes meets Daoism: keep people from killing each other, and don’t expect anyone to become enlightened.

4. No Social Engineering

Education, welfare, even health policy—if viewed through Gray’s lens—should focus on alleviating suffering, not perfecting society. That’s a Buddhist move: compassion without illusion. Teach kids to read, not to be good global citizens. Feed people, don’t fix them.

---

But as you rightly point out, this is all somewhat parasitic on the very civilisational apparatus Gray affects to despise. Being John Gray depends on civilised life: on publishers, universities, editors, antibiotics, sewage systems, and pension schemes. He lives in the House of Reason, while loudly criticising the architects for dreaming too big.

Which is why I think you're right to say he's more Daoist than he admits. The true Daoist sage wouldn't publish seven books to tell people to stop publishing books. He would simply... go and watch the river. Gray, by contrast, writes like a man who's tried the river - and found it too slow.

---