Behemoth the Cat

1. Introduction

In Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita, the most endearing character is Behemoth the Cat (Кот Бегемот). He stands on his hind legs, reaching over a metre in height according to his presentation in the 2005 Russian television adaptation. He is black and plump, has fine whiskers, speaks perfectly good Russian, eats with a fork, and plays chess. He also delights in creating chaos in the human world. He is immune to bullets or any other human assault, save that he does not like it when in chapter 23 Margarita digs her nails into his ear. He is one of the entourage of Woland, that is to say Satan. In his undisciplined way he supports Woland's project of disrupting Moscow life and exposing the follies of the government and the people.

If one gets truly engrossed in the novel, or indeed in the 2005 adaptation (and maybe in other adaptations), he becomes entirely convincing. He does so to a greater extent than the other members of the entourage, Koroviev, Azazello and Hella, all of whom are in human form, and perhaps to a greater extent than Woland himself. This may be because we are familiar with the inner mental lives of human beings and the natural sense that people have of their own limitations, so the human or quasi-human characters with their extraordinary powers are obviously not quite right. There is no plausible coherent mental life of a sane adult human being to match their actions. But we are not familiar with the inner mental lives of cats, so we could impute a coherent mental life to Behemoth without being able to say that it was implausible. Indeed, the mental life of an exceptionally mischievous human child who was also precociously knowledgeable and self-controlled could be attributed to him.

The convincing nature of Behemoth reaches the point that if one were to finish the novel, go out into the street, and be met by a large bipedal talking cat, one would not feel forced to conclude that one was drunk or dreaming. The encounter might seem odd, but one could take seriously the idea that this really was a talking cat.

The strange encounter would however still demand an explanation. It might be, but would not have to be, an actual talking cat. What might the explanation be? How could we come to select the best explanation, or at least identify explanations to rule out?

In section 2 we shall set out some possible explanations. In section 3 we shall move on to the problem of selection. Then in sections 4 and 5, we shall look at a way to choose explanations that would normally be ruled out and at what we might learn by exploiting that way.

2. Possible explanations

2.1 Altered states of mind

The explanation of the cat and the other strange goings on that is offered by the authorities in the epilogue to the novel is mass hypnosis. Correspondingly, if one had appeared to meet a talking cat, one might later conclude that one had been under the influence of some hypnotist. The fact that one could not recall any hypnosis session would not count against this, because that lack of awareness would itself have been engineered by the hypnotist.

Another possibility would be that one had been dreaming. That might however be ruled out by the coherence of experience over a period of some hours, and the clear awareness that we can have when awake that we are in fact awake, a particular type of awareness of being awake that seems to be absent from dreams.

A third possibility would be that one had been under the influence of alcohol or hallucinogens. But again, extended coherence of experience and a sensation of sobriety could rule this out.

2.2 Fake cats

We might be taken in by a human being in a costume, posing as a very large cat. We might also be taken in by a robot cat. In both cases, it would help that the large size and ability to talk would undermine our expectation that this was an ordinary cat. Thus it would not be vital for a human being or a robot accurately to mimic every normal characteristic of cats.

2.3 An actual talking cat

The most obvious but on sober reflection least plausible explanation would be that there had in fact been a talking cat. This could not be ruled out on logical or metaphysical grounds, or even on the ground of physics. It would take biology to discard the explanation as wholly unreasonable, even though we might without scientific thought be confident that it was not in fact correct. We shall keep this explanation in play.

3. Choosing an explanation

3.1 Discarding explanations

We are familiar with the idea that observations may appear to have a particular explanation, but on reflection that explanation turns out to be no good.

An explanation may be discarded either when further information becomes available, or when we think about what would have to be the case for the explanation to be plausible and realise that it would not be sensible to expect those further requirements to be fulfilled.

Either route to discarding an explanation could be relevant to the case of an apparent talking cat.

3.1.1 Further information

Further information could include learning that one had been under the influence of a hypnotist, of alcohol or of hallucinogens, or that one had in fact been asleep despite a clear sense that one had been awake. Then explanations other than hypnotism, alcohol, hallucinogens or sleep would probably be discarded as unnecessary (a human being in a cat suit or a mechanical cat) or implausible (an actual talking cat).

Further information could also include noticing something about the cat's movements, or sounds it emitted, that indicated either that it was a human being in a cat suit or that it was a mechanical cat. Again, other explanations would probably be discarded as unnecessary (hypnotism, alcohol, hallucinogens or sleep) or implausible (an actual talking cat).

Further information might also lead one to discard explanations directly, rather than by rendering them unnecessary. Perhaps unaltered perception of the world around oneself, or an ability to read a book easily or to follow a mathematical argument, would count against hypnotism, alcohol, hallucinogens or sleep. And an X-ray or MRI scan of the cat might show no sign of any human or mechanical presence under the fur, counting directly against such explanations.

3.1.2 What would have to be the case

Sometimes explanations can be discarded without obtaining further information, simply by reflecting on their implications against a background of existing knowledge. 

The one explanation of an apparent talking cat that might easily be discarded in this way would be that there really had been a talking cat. The first point of relevant background knowledge would be supplied by zoology: talking cats have never been observed. That would not suffice to render them impossible, but we could then move on to more general biological considerations. We could cite the need for certain brain and vocal structures in order to talk, structures that have never been observed in cats, and the need for large bipedal cats to have evolved and to have developed a human language (presumably by interaction with human beings) without anyone having noticed them before now.

The conclusion would be that talking cats were extremely unlikely to exist. At the level of biology we could firmly exclude the possibility. But we would need to invoke special sciences like biology in order to rule them out. Physics would not be enough, even though physical considerations would be invoked when thinking about evolutionary processes, necessary vocal structures, and the like. It might be argued that biology could be reduced to physics so that physical considerations encompassed biological ones, but that would be to overstate the power of physics to rule out particular organisms. The physics of the universe accommodates the actual biology of this planet and explains why certain biological combinations would be impossible, for example certain combinations of vocal structures and linguistic abilities, but the same physical laws could equally well accommodate other biologies so long as they did not require physical impossibilities. We would need to move up to the level of actual biology to argue against the possibility of talking cats, and to add the need for integration of evolution and of food chains to rule out the existence of some hitherto unnoticed parallel biology on Earth that physics on its own would also permit.

3.1.3 Saving explanations from their implications

If an explanation had to be discarded because its implications would clash with our wider knowledge, it might be tempting to narrow our focus and not take account of all potentially relevant knowledge or not draw all potentially relevant inferences.

At first glance, that move would be flagrantly illegitimate. In our academic pursuits, whether in the natural sciences, the social sciences or the humanities, we bring all potentially relevant knowledge to bear when assessing putative explanations. (We shall call this general approach of all respectable disciplines the academic approach, an approach characterised by a demand to do the best we can to discover the truth and not to flinch from drawing inconvenient inferences.) A hypothesis that an apparent talking cat is an actual talking cat is not ruled out by physics alone, but it is ruled out when we broaden our view to take biology into account. Such broad views of our knowledge are needed to stop us believing nonsense such as magic or astrology.

We do however have another option, to switch from the academic approach to what we shall call the poetic approach. This is the approach that is used in fiction, whether prose or poetry, when one wishes to say things that our academic knowledge would exclude, but it may also have application in real life. Under the poetic approach, we avoid constraints that would be imposed if we took a broad, academic, view of our knowledge. We may do so in order to save explanations such as the existence of an actual talking cat from being discarded. We shall see how the poetic approach can be put into effect, and some consequences of adopting it, in sections 4 and 5.

3.2 Retaining explanations

We can now consider would would be needed for an explanation to be retained.

It is not merely that an explanation should not have implications that would clash with existing knowledge (except to the extent that adoption of the poetic approach allows us to avoid this constraint). An explanation should also have considerable positive plausibility, even though (as Karl Popper pointed out) we never establish an explanation beyond all doubt. The best we can do is to test it severely and fail to falsify it.

Thus if hypnosis were the explanation under consideration, hypnosis in general would have to be shown to be able to be strong enough. Dreams would have to be able to be coherent and long-lasting enough to fool the dreamer into thinking that he or she was awake. And alcohol and hallucinogens would have to be able to have the required effects on people. Likewise, if one were to explain an apparent talking cat as a fake cat, it would not suffice that people could fit into catsuits or that robot cats could be built. Fooling people with a fake cat would have to be a plausible thing for someone to do, unless the need for plausibility fell by the wayside because the fake cat was captured and the creature was scanned or the suit removed to reveal what was underneath.

Turning to the explanation of a real talking cat, which only remains in play so long as one is being poetic rather than academic and can therefore avoid constraints imposed by existing knowledge, the locus of the test of plausibility shifts from the world considered academically to the content of some poetic work or to a poetic description of an episode in real life. Does the work or the description find a natural place for a talking cat? If it does, the explanation that the talking cat is real may be retained. Moreover, one should take no interest in adopting other explanations (altered states of mind or fake cats), although reference to them might form part of a work of fiction (as mass hypnosis features in The Master and Margarita, in chapter 12 and in the epilogue) or part of an account of an episode in real life (as in a statement that any such prosaic explanation would leave the account unable to capture the impact of the experience).

4. The poetic approach

When we take the poetic approach, we avoid some of the constraints imposed by our existing knowledge in order to make room for desired readings of stories or for appealing explanations of experiences. We may do this in order to immerse ourselves fully in a good story. In The Master and Margarita, Behemoth has to be an actual talking cat (disregarding his transformation in chapter 32). We may also do this in order to capture the impact of an experience in real life. It might be that only a prima facie bizarre explanation would suffice to capture the impact that the experience had.

4.1 What the poetic approach involves

Admitting the existence of an actual talking cat would be a radical step, plainly foolish from an academic point of view. It would mean overstepping the limits set by academic knowledge. It would indeed be a desire to overstep those limits that had driven us to the poetic approach. Poetry and dramatic fiction written within the bounds of academic knowledge could also be satisfying, but within those bounds we would not be allowed to speak literally of talking cats.

Strong reasons would be needed to make it legitimate to adopt the poetic approach in the context of explaining experiences in real life. (There is no such demand for strong reasons in the context of reading fiction, because it is clearly understood to be fiction.) We shall look at reasons shortly, but first we need a better idea of what the approach involves.

What goes on when we adopt the poetic approach in order to overstep limits set by academic knowledge? There are two broad possibilities.

The first possibility would be to modify our understanding of the world in general, scientific laws, general ways people behaved, and so on, in order to accommodate the views of the contents of stories, or the explanations of experiences, we desired.

There are two ways in which this first possibility might be put into effect. The first way would be to overlook specified inconvenient elements in our academic knowledge. The second way would be to transfer our entire imagination to an alternative world view, where whatever facts about the world in general there might be would be envisaged to be such as to permit whatever views of the contents of stories, or explanations of experiences, we desired. It is not that gaps would be put in knowledge, as in the first way. Rather, it would be supposed that the world in general was in a complete state that was as permissive as required, although the details of that state would be supposed to be whatever would do the job rather than their being specified.

The second way to put this first possibility into effect would be the more plausible way. When being poetic, we are not likely to specify general facts about the world that would be needed or would need to be ignored. Moreover, overlooking specified inconvenient elements in our academic knowledge would make us conscious that we were engaging in make-believe, pretending that there could be talking cats. Supposing an appropriate but unspecified complete state of the world in general, by contrast, could be done by transferring our entire imagination into the supposed world, losing most of our awareness that we were violating the norms of academic knowledge.

The second possibility would be to preserve our academic understanding of the world in general, but to avoid discomfort by failing to draw inferences from our desired views of the contents of stories or from our chosen explanations of experiences.

This second possibility might require less intellectual effort than supposing that the world was in an unspecified but suitably accommodating state. On the other hand, it would create the highly specific intellectual discomfort of knowing that one was closing one's eyes to constraints imposed by some important facts. That could be harder to bear than the more diffuse discomfort of knowing that one was supposing the world in general to be accommodating. Indeed, it would lead to a sensation of engaging in make-believe much like that which would be engendered by overlooking specific inconvenient parts of our academic knowledge.

For such reasons, we favour the second way in which the first possibility might be put into effect, that is, supposing the world in general to be in an appropriate but unspecified state, as a conception of how we are poetic beyond the bounds of academic knowledge.

4.2 Reasons to adopt the poetic approach

What kind of justification for the poetic approach could be given? How could someone legitimately say "I am being poetic, and in so doing am breaking free from the constraints of academic knowledge, but we should still take seriously what I say"?

If one were being poetic for its own sake, as for example in the writing or the reading of fiction, no further justification would be needed. Not all intellectual activity has to be in the pursuit of knowledge. And who knows, we might happen upon inspiration that would lead to academic knowledge. The human brain can progress to new ideas that have academic value by strange paths, and not only by inferential progression from a combination of existing knowledge and new empirical data in an academically respectable form.

As noted above, one might also need to be poetic in order to give an experience in real life an explanation that would represent the experience in such a way as to capture its full impact, even though the explanation would prima facie be bizarre.

Such justifications for being poetic would however not give that activity any status as an independent source of knowledge. Fiction is not rejected for failure to comply with real-world theories and data, but that is because it is recognised as fiction, not as fact. And a lively account of an experience must be stripped of those elements that depend for their legitimacy on use of the poetic approach before it can be regarded as the literal truth.

This difficulty in seeing the poetic approach as a direct route to the literal truth should not surprise us. Setting the mind free from potentially relevant knowledge is a bad start in the search for truth.

There is however another way for the poetic approach to be of cognitive value. It may offer a short cut to an appreciation of humanity that could only much more laboriously be obtained by academic means, and that might not even be open to being stated in academic terms. Fiction in particular can show us how people may feel and act in unusual situations, and thereby disclose to us the human condition and the workings of the human mind. And a lively description of an actual experience can show both the experiencer and his or her audience what is significant to people in such experiences and how people are inclined to respond to them.

The epistemic status of what was learnt would however be somewhat unclear. It would not be on a par with the status of academic knowledge, unless it were practical to make academic checks on its content. And the making of such checks would require statement of the content in a suitably academic form, when it might not be easy or even possible to state the content without reliance on metaphor.

Our discussion has become rather general. It is time to get back to Behemoth. In so doing, we may get a better idea of what sort of thing might be learnt through adopting the poetic approach.

5. Back to Behemoth

5.1 Teaching us about human beings

In The Master and Margarita, Behemoth is a supporting character in the team that exposes various human follies. The exposure of follies teaches a valuable lesson about human beings that survives our reversion to an academic approach. And while the story is made highly effective by being told in a way that happens to rely on the reader's acceptance that the possibilities of nature are not constrained by our academic knowledge, it could have been told without that reliance, using less engaging characters. So here we see the poetic approach allowing a highly effective route to academic knowledge of human folly.

There is also scope for a more specific benefit of adopting the poetic approach than the benefit of permitting engaging characters. Seeing a talking cat as real is a good way to flex the concept of humanity. The creature exhibits qualities, such as talking and then acting in accordance with what he says, that we normally regard as specific to human beings, while exhibiting other qualities, such as feline form, that we regard as never exhibited by human beings. To say that a human being is cat-like can be a way to convey information about that person. We attribute to him or her some of the qualities we attribute to cats, such as being demanding, cunning, or aloof. (Many such qualities were highlighted by the characters in the musical Cats and, less dramatically, in the inspiration for that musical, T. S. Eliot's collection of poems entitled Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats.) We might think of ourselves as merely drawing analogies between cats and human beings, but when Behemoth comes on the scene, bipedal and talking, the gap between cats and human beings that prompts us to think we only have analogies closes. We can directly see properties of cats as being attributable to some human beings. Behemoth is cat and human being in one, felinity yielding the properties and humanity allowing their direct inclusion in the range of potential properties of people.

We might then progress to some lateral thinking. "Just suppose that cats could talk and join in human society. Then what?" We would be prompted to think about whom to regard as a moral agent or a moral client, adjustments to laws and social security to accommodate the different needs of cats while preserving our own safety and security, whether cats should be allowed roles in political processes, and so on.

One lesson for us back in a world without talking cats would be that people are different in ways that may test the boundaries of legal and social arrangements, so that we must work out how to adjust and strike balances. We would already have known that much, but only in a theoretical way if we had so far lived in a homogeneous society. And it is back in the real world that we would test the lessons learnt, by contemplating the natures of actual people, the tensions that heterogeneity can create, and the need to respond to those tensions.

5.2 Experiences that change us

Sometimes, reading literature is a significant experience in itself. It can change us. It can be what in German would be called an Erfahrung. This concept emphasises the long-term change in the experiencer. It may be contrasted with the concept of an Erlebnis, a concept that emphasises simply the experience itself.

When we change our approach to one that allows for talking cats as part of the natural world, how we see and think about the world under that shift of approach can leave mental changes that endure after we shift back to an academic approach. We do not need to have in mind a specified alternative set of natural laws so as to work out that they would allow for talking cats. Rather, we need to go with the flow and welcome talking cats and other strange creatures as part of how life is. Rather than saying that certain laws of nature do not apply, we wholly imagine that nature is such as to make the creatures unsurprising.

In doing that, we both allow ourselves to contemplate alternative ways the world might have been, leading us to notice features of the actual world that we might otherwise have missed, and give new flexibility to our minds. We also leave ourselves wide open to believing nonsense far beyond what is in the text we are reading, but that is not a problem because we shall in due course revert to an academic approach under which the nonsense will be eliminated. Talking cats will be eliminated at the same time, but that is no loss because by then we will have had the Erfahrung, and its effects are what will stay with us.

Turning to real-life experiences, a description of one that is only legitimate under the poetic approach, such as a description that takes a talking cat to be real, can articulate how the experience was an Erfahrung. Giving such a description may indeed be instrumental in elevating an Erlebnis to an Erfahrung, as it leads the experiencer to appreciate the impact on him or her.

So we should not think of an Erfahrung of either the literary or the real-life kind as a direct source of new knowledge. Rather, we should think of it as developing mental capabilities, self-understanding, and an understanding of humanity. By experiencing an acceptance of talking cats, we can develop our ability to break free of the constraints of existing knowledge and thereby make new discoveries, albeit mostly of a non-academic kind. The sleep of academic reason can give rise to the most delightful and instructive monsters. We just need to make sure that academic reason reawakens after the experience.