Down the rabbit hole! Philosophy and social comment in 'Alice in Wonderland'

You may think that Alice in Wonderland is just a children's tale you happen to take too seriously. Good news - there are more than a couple of reasons to completely justify your obsession with it! And people will be delighted to join you in discussing social issues in Wonderland over tea and treacle...by Abigail Muscat

The existence of non-existence

The existence of Non-Being is probably one of the main reasons why the world of Alice was dismissed as one of absolute nonsense. Yet the existence of Non-Being is actually one of the oldest philosophical controversies of Western philosophy. It is clear that Carroll was influenced by his learnings of Greek philosophy at Christ Church.

The beginnings of this controversy can be dated back to the cradle of Western Philosophy: a group of philosophers called the Pre-Socratics (as in pre-Socrates, who in honour of Bill and Ted we should pronouce 'So-creights' not the correct 'Sock-rat-ease'). The Pre-Socratics were also called natural philosophers as they studied the most obvious thing to them: Nature. They wanted to develop the essence of being and explain the changes around them... namely, how things went from being to non-being. Parmenides of Elea was probably the most radical Pre-Socratic philosopher as he relied, for the most part, entirely on his reason. The crazy fool!

This Parmenides asserted that change is utterly impossible, as something in existence cannot move out of it. He said that only 'Is' (i.e Being) is, and one cannot speak of something that 'is not', for who can recognise something that does not exist? It was baffling to his rationality and therefore, he rejected it.

It seems that Carroll disagreed with this assertion, as both the Alice books show. In fact, Humpty Dumpy tells Alice 'there are three hundred and sixty four days when you might get un-birthday presents'. Carroll here seems to follow the ideas of another natural philosopher: Heraclitus.

Heraclitus and Parmenides are often contrasted because of their opposing views. Heraclitus was the very opposite of a rationalist; he was an empiricist (he followed observations according to what his senses showed him). Heraclitus was so deep that some other ancient guy who thought a lot said 'it would take a Delian deep sea diver to get to the bottom of him'. Heraclitus spoke of change, and said that opposites do not exclude each other - as Parmenides argued - but in fact complement each other.

Therefore, in a Heraclitean world (and in Wonderland), opposites (being and non-being) co-exist peacefully. This is the philosophical basis that Carroll must surely have used to write the Alice books. To Carroll it seems that 'nothingness' is, in fact, a special essence, something that is immaterial but existent.

Lewis Carroll also seemed to share the concept of a non-material realm with the philosopher Plato. Here are some examples of the importance Carroll gave to the existence of non-material things:

'Try another Subtraction sum. Take a bone from a dog: what remains?

Alice considered. 'The bone wouldn't remain, of course, if I took it - and the dog wouldn't remain; it would come to bite me - and I'm sure I shouldn't remain!'

'Then you think nothing would remain?' said the Red Queen.

'I think that's the answer.'

'Wrong, as usual,' said the Red Queen: 'the dog's temper would remain.'

'But I don't see how - '

'Why, look here!' the Red Queen cried. 'The dog would lose its temper, wouldn't it?'

'Perhaps it would,' Alice replied cautiously.

'Then if the dog went away, its temper would remain!' the Queen exclaimed triumphantly.'

Lewis Carroll constantly asserts the essence of nothingness:

If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?

And:

Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.

'I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, 'so I can't take more.'

'You mean you can't take LESS,' said the Hatter: 'it's very easy to take MORE than nothing.'

Plato believed that everything in existence in our world (which is often referred to as the world of experience), exists as an Idea or perfect form in another plain of existence. This belief seemed to be shared by Lewis Carroll also, most clearly in the infamous grin of the Cheshire Cat:

Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin; but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my Life!

According to this Platonic theory, a grin can exist without its master, as a grin may exist entirely on its own, as a non-material being, as a perfect idea of a grin. As the Cheshire cat himself may be a non-material being and can exist, possibly without its body, as a non-material essence of a Cheshire cat head.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless philosophical theories about the world of Wonderland. Some say it is a message about the existence of non-existence, a satire about the war of the roses, a story about Carroll's interest in Logic and Language or simply written proof that he was high on drugs. This is probably why we are all so fascinated by this story; it is the type of nonsense we can comprehend, the type of nonsense that requires one to have a considerable amount of sense to write it. I'm sure all of you (myself included) are master Logicians when it comes to nonsense and stupidity.