Southport PiPs meetings take place at
The Conservatory at The Royal Clifton Hotel, Southport. PR8 1RB. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/341376923394618/ PiPs national network: https://philosophyinpubs.co.uk/ Southport Pips is part of the national network of Philosophy in Pubs. At Southport PiPs we discuss and debate a variety of issues including philosophy, science, politics and psychology. No academic or philosophical background is necessary - only a passion for enquiry. Just turn up, and contribute if you wish to. Next Discussion Evening
|
what_is_science.pdf | |
File Size: | 116 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Wednesday, 13th April 2022 at 7pm.
David is presenting: Are Values the New Religion?
Notes & references:
Wednesday, 13th April 2022 at 7pm.
David is presenting: Are Values the New Religion?
Notes & references:
are_values_the_new_religion.pdf | |
File Size: | 69 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 18th November 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
This week we are hosting an Interfaith Week Debate on the topic of Theism vs Atheism.
Notes & references:
Thursday, 18th November 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
This week we are hosting an Interfaith Week Debate on the topic of Theism vs Atheism.
Notes & references:
theism_vs_atheism.pdf | |
File Size: | 59 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 4th November 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting: "Consciousness Explained"
Notes & references:
Thursday, 4th November 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting: "Consciousness Explained"
Notes & references:
theism_vs_atheism.pdf | |
File Size: | 59 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 7th October 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Steve is presenting: "How do we use Empiricism to Best Effect in Philosophy?"
Notes & references:
Thursday, 7th October 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Steve is presenting: "How do we use Empiricism to Best Effect in Philosophy?"
Notes & references:
empiricismandphilosophy_i.pdf | |
File Size: | 44 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 29th July 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
The topic for Thursday is: "Why there is no way back for religion in the West",
which is based on this video: https://youtu.be/YtAR_OGzlcg
Thursday, 29th July 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
The topic for Thursday is: "Why there is no way back for religion in the West",
which is based on this video: https://youtu.be/YtAR_OGzlcg
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 17th June 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
The topic for Thursday is: Psychopaths and Blame.
Notes & references:
Thursday, 17th June 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
The topic for Thursday is: Psychopaths and Blame.
Notes & references:
psychopathy.pdf | |
File Size: | 248 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 10th June 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting: Schopenhauer.
Notes & references:
Thursday, 10th June 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting: Schopenhauer.
Notes & references:
schopenhauer.pdf | |
File Size: | 95 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 27th May 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Steve is presenting: Temporality.
Notes & references:
Thursday, 27th May 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Steve is presenting: Temporality.
Notes & references:
temporality.pdf | |
File Size: | 29 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 6th May 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: Ownership.
Notes & references:
Thursday, 6th May 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: Ownership.
Notes & references:
ownership.pdf | |
File Size: | 88 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 15th April 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Steve is presenting: Zero Sum Situations.
Notes & references:
Thursday, 15th April 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Steve is presenting: Zero Sum Situations.
Notes & references:
zero_sum_situations.pdf | |
File Size: | 51 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 8th April 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
It's Open Forum this week, so bring your ideas for discussion.
Thursday, 8th April 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
It's Open Forum this week, so bring your ideas for discussion.
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 1st April 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Malcolm is presenting: Philosophy of Love.
Notes & references:
Thursday, 1st April 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Malcolm is presenting: Philosophy of Love.
Notes & references:
philosophy_of_love.pdf | |
File Size: | 91 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 25th March 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Jubin is presenting: Buddhism.
References:
Why I Don't Dig Buddhism - Scientific American Blog Network
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-i-dont-dig-buddhism/
Nirvana for sale
https://youtu.be/rRD_NcaHkEE
An atheist's thoughts on Eastern religion
https://youtu.be/UQrrFYkI8E
Thursday, 25th March 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Jubin is presenting: Buddhism.
References:
Why I Don't Dig Buddhism - Scientific American Blog Network
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-i-dont-dig-buddhism/
Nirvana for sale
https://youtu.be/rRD_NcaHkEE
An atheist's thoughts on Eastern religion
https://youtu.be/UQrrFYkI8E
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 18th March 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
It's Open Forum this week, so please bring your ideas for discussion.
Thursday, 18th March 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
It's Open Forum this week, so please bring your ideas for discussion.
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 11th March 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Paul is presenting: Idealism vs Materialism.
Paul's notes are here:
Thursday, 11th March 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Paul is presenting: Idealism vs Materialism.
Paul's notes are here:
idealism_vs_materialism.pdf | |
File Size: | 120 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 4th March 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting part two of his mini-series on cults:
"An Exercise in Epistemology: Belief in Jesus or Belief in Qanon?"
David's notes are here:
Thursday, 4th March 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting part two of his mini-series on cults:
"An Exercise in Epistemology: Belief in Jesus or Belief in Qanon?"
David's notes are here:
jesus_or_qanon.pdf | |
File Size: | 65 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 25th February 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting: Cults – The Dangers of Undue Influence.
References:
Thursday, 25th February 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting: Cults – The Dangers of Undue Influence.
References:
cults.pdf | |
File Size: | 47 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 18th February 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Edmund is presenting: Thomas Paine.
References:
Thursday, 18th February 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Edmund is presenting: Thomas Paine.
References:
thomas_paine.pdf | |
File Size: | 38 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 11th February 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: Was the Enlightenment a Good Idea?
References:
Thursday, 11th February 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: Was the Enlightenment a Good Idea?
References:
the_enlightenment.pdf | |
File Size: | 56 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 4th February 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Richard is presenting: Enhancing Homo Sapiens - should we use biotechnology to improve our species?
References:
Thursday, 4th February 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Richard is presenting: Enhancing Homo Sapiens - should we use biotechnology to improve our species?
References:
enhancinghomosapiens.pdf | |
File Size: | 67 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 28st January 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting: Are we Responsible for Earlier Manifestations of our Personal Identity?
References:
Thursday, 28st January 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting: Are we Responsible for Earlier Manifestations of our Personal Identity?
References:
personal_identity.pdf | |
File Size: | 43 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 21st January 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: The Philosophy of Debt.
References:
Thursday, 21st January 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: The Philosophy of Debt.
References:
debt.pdf | |
File Size: | 30 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 14th January 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Jubin is presenting: Is Maths Invented or Discovered?
References:
The Great Math Mystery - Invented or Discovered?
https://youtu.be/HzasqhFxgGY
Thursday, 14th January 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Jubin is presenting: Is Maths Invented or Discovered?
References:
The Great Math Mystery - Invented or Discovered?
https://youtu.be/HzasqhFxgGY
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 7th January 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: Does a Car need to be Conscious to Drive Itself?
References:
Thursday, 7th January 2021 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: Does a Car need to be Conscious to Drive Itself?
References:
conscious_cars.pdf | |
File Size: | 32 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 24th December 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
It's Open Forum this week so bring along your ideas for discussion.
Thursday, 24th December 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
It's Open Forum this week so bring along your ideas for discussion.
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 17th December 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: Effective Altruism.
References:
Effective Altruism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
Will MacAskill, Associate Professor in Philosophy at the University of Oxford.
https://www.williammacaskill.com/
The why and how of Effective Altruism
https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism?language=en
What are the most important moral problems of our time?
https://www.ted.com/talks/will_macaskill_what_are_the_most_important_moral_problems_of_our_time?language=en
Thursday, 17th December 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: Effective Altruism.
References:
Effective Altruism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism
Will MacAskill, Associate Professor in Philosophy at the University of Oxford.
https://www.williammacaskill.com/
The why and how of Effective Altruism
https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism?language=en
What are the most important moral problems of our time?
https://www.ted.com/talks/will_macaskill_what_are_the_most_important_moral_problems_of_our_time?language=en
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 10th December 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Jubin is presenting: Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories.
References:
My Name Is Fozia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000l7pn
Quassim Cassam - Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories
https://youtu.be/JySO4tgqPQM
Thursday, 10th December 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Jubin is presenting: Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories.
References:
My Name Is Fozia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000l7pn
Quassim Cassam - Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories
https://youtu.be/JySO4tgqPQM
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 3rd December 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Malcolm is presenting: Moral Relativism AITA Style.
See notes: moralrelativism.pdf.
AITA? How a Reddit forum posed the defining question of our age
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/22/aita-how-a-reddit-forum-posed-the-defining-question-of-our-age
Moral Relativism
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking/0/steps/9177
What is Ethical Relativism? - PHILO-notes Whiteboard Edition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzravIHX2aI&fbclid=IwAR3UIbEtCGYSTOQaMKeC1aKywc2KfhpDc8SydY9xRkAbEwIUPeQNe2oww50
Is moral relativism a respected position?
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2s6dvl/is_moral_relativism_a_respected_position/
Thursday, 3rd December 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Malcolm is presenting: Moral Relativism AITA Style.
See notes: moralrelativism.pdf.
AITA? How a Reddit forum posed the defining question of our age
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/22/aita-how-a-reddit-forum-posed-the-defining-question-of-our-age
Moral Relativism
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking/0/steps/9177
What is Ethical Relativism? - PHILO-notes Whiteboard Edition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzravIHX2aI&fbclid=IwAR3UIbEtCGYSTOQaMKeC1aKywc2KfhpDc8SydY9xRkAbEwIUPeQNe2oww50
Is moral relativism a respected position?
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2s6dvl/is_moral_relativism_a_respected_position/
moralrelativism.pdf | |
File Size: | 24 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 26th November 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: The Myth of Mental Illness.
See the notes below (the_myth_of_mental_illness.pdf).
Szasz states his case in this interview with William F Buckley. The "Hinckley" mentioned in this video is the man who attempted to assassinate Reagan. No doubt Szasz would be livid about Hinckley's subsequent release from hospital, albeit with strict conditions!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzx2UWKvrM4
John Hinckley Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley_Jr
The McNaghten rules, which Szasz disagrees with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_rules
Thursday, 26th November 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: The Myth of Mental Illness.
See the notes below (the_myth_of_mental_illness.pdf).
Szasz states his case in this interview with William F Buckley. The "Hinckley" mentioned in this video is the man who attempted to assassinate Reagan. No doubt Szasz would be livid about Hinckley's subsequent release from hospital, albeit with strict conditions!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzx2UWKvrM4
John Hinckley Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley_Jr
The McNaghten rules, which Szasz disagrees with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_rules
the_myth_of_mental_illness.pdf | |
File Size: | 43 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 19th November 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting: Has the Church Lost its Moral Authority?
Notes:
Thursday, 19th November 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting: Has the Church Lost its Moral Authority?
Notes:
church.pdf | |
File Size: | 93 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 12th November 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
It's Open Forum this week so bring along your ideas for discussion.
Thursday, 12th November 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
It's Open Forum this week so bring along your ideas for discussion.
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 5th November 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David S is presenting: Assisted Dying.
THE LAW
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, assisting a suicide is a crime. Those convicted could face up to 14 years in prison. There is no specific crime of assisting a suicide in Scotland. But it is possible that helping a person to die could lead to prosecution for culpable homicide.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/the-law/
https://cdn.dignityindying.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/DiD_ASSISTED-DYING-IN-OREGON_REPORT_AW_9_SINGLE-PAGES.pdf
Thursday, 5th November 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David S is presenting: Assisted Dying.
THE LAW
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, assisting a suicide is a crime. Those convicted could face up to 14 years in prison. There is no specific crime of assisting a suicide in Scotland. But it is possible that helping a person to die could lead to prosecution for culpable homicide.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/the-law/
https://cdn.dignityindying.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/DiD_ASSISTED-DYING-IN-OREGON_REPORT_AW_9_SINGLE-PAGES.pdf
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 29th October 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Steve is presenting: Language as an Aid to Thought.
Notes:
Thursday, 29th October 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Steve is presenting: Language as an Aid to Thought.
Notes:
language.pdf | |
File Size: | 41 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 22nd October 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: Logical Positivism.
References:
Logical positivism (Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
Logical positivism (Britannica)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Western-philosophy/Logical-positivism#ref922856
Logical positivism (Radio 4 In Our Time)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b00lbsj3
Thursday, 22nd October 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Neil is presenting: Logical Positivism.
References:
Logical positivism (Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
Logical positivism (Britannica)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Western-philosophy/Logical-positivism#ref922856
Logical positivism (Radio 4 In Our Time)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b00lbsj3
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 15th October 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting:
Should We Sign The Great Barrington Declaration?
Notes:
Thursday, 15th October 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting:
Should We Sign The Great Barrington Declaration?
Notes:
the_great_barrington_declaration.pdf | |
File Size: | 33 kb |
File Type: |
the_great_barrington_declaration__update_for_thursday_15oct20_.pdf | |
File Size: | 94 kb |
File Type: |
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 8th October 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
It's Open Forum this week so bring along your ideas for discussion.
Thursday, 8th October 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
It's Open Forum this week so bring along your ideas for discussion.
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 1st October 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Jubin is presenting:
Misinformation, Disinformation and Malinformation.
'News' spreads faster and widely when it's false (article)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02934-x
False information spreads faster than true information
https://youtu.be/Ah9H4-QSBLo
'Fake news' explained: How disinformation spreads
https://youtu.be/8fQdzVbQlaU
Thursday, 1st October 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
Jubin is presenting:
Misinformation, Disinformation and Malinformation.
'News' spreads faster and widely when it's false (article)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02934-x
False information spreads faster than true information
https://youtu.be/Ah9H4-QSBLo
'Fake news' explained: How disinformation spreads
https://youtu.be/8fQdzVbQlaU
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 24th September 2020 at 7pm. For Zoom login details email: [email protected] David is presenting: Why do People Believe things that are Obviously Untrue? Notes:
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 17th September 2020 at 7pm. For Zoom login details email: [email protected] Neil is presenting: Slavery and Reparations. References: Reparations for Slavery https://www.c-span.org/video/?167191-1/reparations-slavery Debate: The West Should Pay Reparations for Slavery (with contributions from Christopher Hitchens) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HboI2t5_M4I Reparations for slavery in the United States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery_in_the_United_States The Case for Reparations https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631 Trans-Generational Justice – Compensatory vs. Interpretative Approaches https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/papers/reparations%20.pdf Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 10th September 2020 at 7pm. For Zoom login details email: [email protected] OPEN FORUM Bring your ideas for discussion. Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 3rd September 2020 at 7pm. For Zoom login details email: [email protected] Sean is presenting: Darwin and Morality. References: Darwin's The Descent of Man, chapter three, available here: https://teoriaevolutiva.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/darwin-c-the-descent-of-man-and-selection-in-relation-to-sex.pdf Sean has provided notes for this chapter, which are available here:
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 27th August 2020 at 7pm. For Zoom login details email: [email protected] Jubin is presenting: Does Life Require a Purpose and a Goal? Reference: The Real Meaning of Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHyVg2sXy5w&feature=youtu.be Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 20th August 2020 at 7pm. For Zoom login details email: [email protected] Neil is presenting: Is the Existence of a State Justified? References:
|
Previous Discussion Evening
Thursday, 13th August 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting:
Science is the Only Source of True Knowledge and Everything Else is just Emotion and Neuronal Responses.
References:
Science-Art.pdf
Dennett, Lawrence and Pigliucci debating the limits of Science.
https://youtu.be/9tH3AnYyAI8
The Scientism Delusion – Ian Hutchinson at UC San Diego.
https://youtu.be/YvTPDRDCZLU
Thursday, 13th August 2020 at 7pm.
For Zoom login details email: [email protected]
David is presenting:
Science is the Only Source of True Knowledge and Everything Else is just Emotion and Neuronal Responses.
References:
Science-Art.pdf
Dennett, Lawrence and Pigliucci debating the limits of Science.
https://youtu.be/9tH3AnYyAI8
The Scientism Delusion – Ian Hutchinson at UC San Diego.
https://youtu.be/YvTPDRDCZLU
Previous Discussion
Are Teaching and Learning the Same?
Our ability to learn is crucial to the continuation and improvement of civilisation.
How do we learn?
Expectation-experience-evaluation-experimentation-adoption
How do we LEARN to do that?
Surely education’s role is to help us develop the ability to learn. For life, not just for our school/university years.
Does it?
Certainly, in my lifetime, education has been seen as to do with the delivery and regurgitation of information.
The abandonment of curiosity is widespread in adulthood.
Teaching - communication - understanding - challenging - adopting - implementing… constitutes learning.
How does our teaching ethos and practice match that sequence?
Paul C.
Previous Discussion
The Information Age and its Effect on our Lives.
Bearing in mind we may be the last generations with experience of pre-information age life, the vagueness of the topic was meant to aid freedom of thought. If it seems a little too nebulous, the following may help ..
Most who work closely with it can see great potential in information and communications technology (ICT). However being more connected has come with a rise in severe symptoms of common mental disorders (~7% in 1993 to over 9% in 2014 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41125009) and greater divisions in western societies (general consensus - 2019).
Also the general long term rise in European productivity has stuttered since 2008 (https://www.ft.com/content/6ada0002-9a57-11e8-9702-5946bae86e6d).
Why doesn’t ICT seem to be delivering on its promise?
Most of us can’t really control the technology used in business and government, but still have agency in our personal and family lives. How has ICT helped here? Should we be enthusiasts, skeptics or refuseniks?
Steve.
Previous Discussion
What Ethical Systems will Solve the Ecological Crisis?
In the past failed or mistaken moral systems merely damaged humanity through the suppression of truth and the persecution and suffering of the innocent. But now they threaten the entire ecosystem and millions of other species.
The article in the link below was published in 1967 in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. It predicted our current crisis because of the characteristics of our dominant ethical systems.
So what types of ethical systems are best suited to solving our planets existential ecological crisis? Should there be a new concept of Ecological Sin? What would it include and how would it be enforced?
https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_fall09/HistoricalRoots_of_EcologicalCrisis.ashx
David,
Previous Discussion
Freedom of Speech, No Platforming and ‘Woke’.
A couple of years ago, we debated Freedom of Speech with reference to the ideas of Timothy Garton Ash. Certain speakers were being prevented from expressing their ideas at prestigious universities:
https://freespeechdebate.com/discuss/ten-arguments-for-and-against-no-platforming/
Now even comedians, are having their freedom of expression curtailed:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/dec/11/comedians-asked-to-sign-behavioural-agreement-for-soas-gig
Even some well-known liberals, think this is a very bad idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPEHbJgomgA (Stephen Fry in debate on PC )
Oxford university, has recently banned clapping because it upsets some people. But some blind people have commented that clapping is very helpful for them.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/103967/why-oxford-students-have-banned-clapping
At the other end of the spectrum, religious preachers are still free to tell children to do as their god says or burn in eternal hell fire. If they believe that then, by definition, no terrorist threat could be greater. In the link below Richard Dawkins says some pretty controversial stuff about Christian terrorism. The Daily Mail distorted it a bit but for today’s purpose we can forget that. The question is should he be allowed to say things like that? Or is it worse to make up stories about hell?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312813/Richard-Dawkins-Forcing-religion-children-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professor.html
And for recent critics of the ‘Woke’ culture see:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woke-generation-has-created-a-cult-of-purity-f9cr25vj7?shareToken=34a0fcff0a88d6b533dcf3b3d5b9a880
So where is the correct balance, between freedom of speech and freedom of behaviour and political correctness and avoiding offence?
David.
Are Teaching and Learning the Same?
Our ability to learn is crucial to the continuation and improvement of civilisation.
How do we learn?
Expectation-experience-evaluation-experimentation-adoption
How do we LEARN to do that?
Surely education’s role is to help us develop the ability to learn. For life, not just for our school/university years.
Does it?
Certainly, in my lifetime, education has been seen as to do with the delivery and regurgitation of information.
The abandonment of curiosity is widespread in adulthood.
Teaching - communication - understanding - challenging - adopting - implementing… constitutes learning.
How does our teaching ethos and practice match that sequence?
Paul C.
Previous Discussion
The Information Age and its Effect on our Lives.
Bearing in mind we may be the last generations with experience of pre-information age life, the vagueness of the topic was meant to aid freedom of thought. If it seems a little too nebulous, the following may help ..
Most who work closely with it can see great potential in information and communications technology (ICT). However being more connected has come with a rise in severe symptoms of common mental disorders (~7% in 1993 to over 9% in 2014 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41125009) and greater divisions in western societies (general consensus - 2019).
Also the general long term rise in European productivity has stuttered since 2008 (https://www.ft.com/content/6ada0002-9a57-11e8-9702-5946bae86e6d).
Why doesn’t ICT seem to be delivering on its promise?
Most of us can’t really control the technology used in business and government, but still have agency in our personal and family lives. How has ICT helped here? Should we be enthusiasts, skeptics or refuseniks?
Steve.
Previous Discussion
What Ethical Systems will Solve the Ecological Crisis?
In the past failed or mistaken moral systems merely damaged humanity through the suppression of truth and the persecution and suffering of the innocent. But now they threaten the entire ecosystem and millions of other species.
The article in the link below was published in 1967 in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. It predicted our current crisis because of the characteristics of our dominant ethical systems.
So what types of ethical systems are best suited to solving our planets existential ecological crisis? Should there be a new concept of Ecological Sin? What would it include and how would it be enforced?
https://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_fall09/HistoricalRoots_of_EcologicalCrisis.ashx
David,
Previous Discussion
Freedom of Speech, No Platforming and ‘Woke’.
A couple of years ago, we debated Freedom of Speech with reference to the ideas of Timothy Garton Ash. Certain speakers were being prevented from expressing their ideas at prestigious universities:
https://freespeechdebate.com/discuss/ten-arguments-for-and-against-no-platforming/
Now even comedians, are having their freedom of expression curtailed:
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/dec/11/comedians-asked-to-sign-behavioural-agreement-for-soas-gig
Even some well-known liberals, think this is a very bad idea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPEHbJgomgA (Stephen Fry in debate on PC )
Oxford university, has recently banned clapping because it upsets some people. But some blind people have commented that clapping is very helpful for them.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/103967/why-oxford-students-have-banned-clapping
At the other end of the spectrum, religious preachers are still free to tell children to do as their god says or burn in eternal hell fire. If they believe that then, by definition, no terrorist threat could be greater. In the link below Richard Dawkins says some pretty controversial stuff about Christian terrorism. The Daily Mail distorted it a bit but for today’s purpose we can forget that. The question is should he be allowed to say things like that? Or is it worse to make up stories about hell?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312813/Richard-Dawkins-Forcing-religion-children-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professor.html
And for recent critics of the ‘Woke’ culture see:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/woke-generation-has-created-a-cult-of-purity-f9cr25vj7?shareToken=34a0fcff0a88d6b533dcf3b3d5b9a880
So where is the correct balance, between freedom of speech and freedom of behaviour and political correctness and avoiding offence?
David.
Previous Discussion
What are the Most Important Moral Problems of our Time
and can they be addressed by our Existing Governmental and Social Organisations?
This topic is inspired by the following TED talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/will_macaskill_how_can_we_do_the_most_good_for_the_world
The speaker suggests a framework for prioritising the moral issues facing humanity by looking at the size of the problem, whether is solvable and whether it is currently neglected. I think his most powerful point is that most people are not yet born, they do not have a vote and can’t form a lobby group.
Clearly religion has nothing to offer on the major issues. Even within a given religious group opinions are often diametrically opposed. Most of the issues we now face did not exist when bronze age tribesmen made up the stories. So, there is no coherent Christian position on climate change, artificial intelligences, gay rights, animal rights, women’s rights, the importance of protecting children versus their protecting churches etc.
Indeed, as Yuval Noah Harrari points out, not only does religion have nothing to offer it is a source of distraction and division and a major part of the problem. But what are the issues we need to address? Reason and evidence give us a good start and many things have already been identified. However, it seems likely that future generations will look back at us and be appalled by things we currently take for granted. As an example, please consider the case study presented below. But even when we have the list, what is the solution? Do we need a new human ethics or is the inevitable pragmatic solution a (hopefully) benign dictatorship?
CASE STUDY
Please consider the following four scenarios which differ only in one respect. The first two are totally immoral and demand action, the third is also very wrong and the fourth reflects our day to day reality in the UK. There are differences between these scenarios and their moral implications. But what are they? Do they justify the rather mild forms of resistance to faith schools or should we be more outspoken with those involved? Could it be that society accepts this religious based discrimination in much the same way that historically it failed to recognise other forms of gross injustice?
Children with the correct {XXXX}* will be given preferential access to over-subscribed state funded schools; they have the same access as non-{XXXX} children to all other schools. The preferred {XXXX} group insists that the {XXXX} ethos produces a better educational outcome – although statistical analysis of factors such as free school meals shows that the difference is due to parental privilege. In any case non- {XXXX} children are disadvantaged. Good schools will be oversubscribed and therefore only accessible to the correct {XXXX}. Teachers can also be refused jobs and fired based on their lack of {XXXX} affiliations or even failure to live up to {XXXX} standards.
*{XXXX} is:
David
What are the Most Important Moral Problems of our Time
and can they be addressed by our Existing Governmental and Social Organisations?
This topic is inspired by the following TED talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/will_macaskill_how_can_we_do_the_most_good_for_the_world
The speaker suggests a framework for prioritising the moral issues facing humanity by looking at the size of the problem, whether is solvable and whether it is currently neglected. I think his most powerful point is that most people are not yet born, they do not have a vote and can’t form a lobby group.
Clearly religion has nothing to offer on the major issues. Even within a given religious group opinions are often diametrically opposed. Most of the issues we now face did not exist when bronze age tribesmen made up the stories. So, there is no coherent Christian position on climate change, artificial intelligences, gay rights, animal rights, women’s rights, the importance of protecting children versus their protecting churches etc.
Indeed, as Yuval Noah Harrari points out, not only does religion have nothing to offer it is a source of distraction and division and a major part of the problem. But what are the issues we need to address? Reason and evidence give us a good start and many things have already been identified. However, it seems likely that future generations will look back at us and be appalled by things we currently take for granted. As an example, please consider the case study presented below. But even when we have the list, what is the solution? Do we need a new human ethics or is the inevitable pragmatic solution a (hopefully) benign dictatorship?
CASE STUDY
Please consider the following four scenarios which differ only in one respect. The first two are totally immoral and demand action, the third is also very wrong and the fourth reflects our day to day reality in the UK. There are differences between these scenarios and their moral implications. But what are they? Do they justify the rather mild forms of resistance to faith schools or should we be more outspoken with those involved? Could it be that society accepts this religious based discrimination in much the same way that historically it failed to recognise other forms of gross injustice?
Children with the correct {XXXX}* will be given preferential access to over-subscribed state funded schools; they have the same access as non-{XXXX} children to all other schools. The preferred {XXXX} group insists that the {XXXX} ethos produces a better educational outcome – although statistical analysis of factors such as free school meals shows that the difference is due to parental privilege. In any case non- {XXXX} children are disadvantaged. Good schools will be oversubscribed and therefore only accessible to the correct {XXXX}. Teachers can also be refused jobs and fired based on their lack of {XXXX} affiliations or even failure to live up to {XXXX} standards.
*{XXXX} is:
- Skin Colour inherited from Parents
- Biological Sex
- Parental Political Affiliations and party membership
- Parental Religious Belief or Lack of Belief
David
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 20th February 2019 at 7pm
Happiness
Wednesday, 20th February 2019 at 7pm
Happiness
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 6th Febuary 2019 at 7pm
Open Forum
Wednesday, 6th Febuary 2019 at 7pm
Open Forum
Previous Discussion Evening
Wednesday, 16th January 2019 at 7pm
The Role of the Nation State in the 21st Century
Nation States are so embedded in the fabric of western civilisation that we have come to take them for granted. In fact, our own state has never done more for its population. Education, health care, defence, social security, old age pensions, infrastructure, international treaties and law and order are all provided by the state. But the state is also changing.
In the past the British State and the British Nation were closely related. Both were bound, to a greater extent than now, by an emphasis on a single identity, loyalty to state/nation and common belief and superstition systems. In almost every way we were more isolated from effects and influences in the rest of the world. To many people these were the ‘good old days’. People don’t like the new order, it doesn’t meet their expectations and they seem to want to go back to some fictitious past – when ‘Britain was Great’. Recently there has been a global resurgence in tribalism and ‘Identity’ is presented as if only one facet of our characters and phenotype determines who we are.
But is that helpful? Can we go backwards even if we want to? Most of the important challenges facing humanity now transcend national borders. Examples include:
• Climate change and Pollution
• Economics and Investment flows
• Immigration and movement of people, Refugees Crises
• The Internet, Information, Big Data, Cyber Crime & Cyber War
• Religious Repression, Terrorism and Imperialism
• Ideologies in General (Benign and Otherwise)
• The acquisition of nuclear and chemical weapons by terrorists who lack normal human limitations on their behaviour. (Churchill observed that ‘Western civilisation survives because it is embraced by the strong arms of science’, but science is now widely available)
• Global Science and Technology
• Disease Pandemics and their control
• Natural Resources
• International Law and Human Rights
• Trade Protectionism
So, is the Nation State Obsolete? How does it need to change? Do we need stronger global governance? Can that happen before we suffer an existential crisis? Is democracy itself obsolete and does the future require more autocracy – perhaps in the form of a benign Greek style Tyranny?
Before the next meeting please watch the following two videos. The first is a one-hour TED interview with Yuval Noah Harrari (author of Sapiens and Homo Deus) on the subject of nationalism versus globalism and the second is a thirty minute summary of the views of Professor Philip Bobbitt in which he suggests the nation state is becoming the ‘market state’.
https://www.ted.com/talks/yuval_noah_harari_nationalism_vs_globalism_the_new_political_divide?language=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VtS6I5fvgE
David.
Wednesday, 16th January 2019 at 7pm
The Role of the Nation State in the 21st Century
Nation States are so embedded in the fabric of western civilisation that we have come to take them for granted. In fact, our own state has never done more for its population. Education, health care, defence, social security, old age pensions, infrastructure, international treaties and law and order are all provided by the state. But the state is also changing.
In the past the British State and the British Nation were closely related. Both were bound, to a greater extent than now, by an emphasis on a single identity, loyalty to state/nation and common belief and superstition systems. In almost every way we were more isolated from effects and influences in the rest of the world. To many people these were the ‘good old days’. People don’t like the new order, it doesn’t meet their expectations and they seem to want to go back to some fictitious past – when ‘Britain was Great’. Recently there has been a global resurgence in tribalism and ‘Identity’ is presented as if only one facet of our characters and phenotype determines who we are.
But is that helpful? Can we go backwards even if we want to? Most of the important challenges facing humanity now transcend national borders. Examples include:
• Climate change and Pollution
• Economics and Investment flows
• Immigration and movement of people, Refugees Crises
• The Internet, Information, Big Data, Cyber Crime & Cyber War
• Religious Repression, Terrorism and Imperialism
• Ideologies in General (Benign and Otherwise)
• The acquisition of nuclear and chemical weapons by terrorists who lack normal human limitations on their behaviour. (Churchill observed that ‘Western civilisation survives because it is embraced by the strong arms of science’, but science is now widely available)
• Global Science and Technology
• Disease Pandemics and their control
• Natural Resources
• International Law and Human Rights
• Trade Protectionism
So, is the Nation State Obsolete? How does it need to change? Do we need stronger global governance? Can that happen before we suffer an existential crisis? Is democracy itself obsolete and does the future require more autocracy – perhaps in the form of a benign Greek style Tyranny?
Before the next meeting please watch the following two videos. The first is a one-hour TED interview with Yuval Noah Harrari (author of Sapiens and Homo Deus) on the subject of nationalism versus globalism and the second is a thirty minute summary of the views of Professor Philip Bobbitt in which he suggests the nation state is becoming the ‘market state’.
https://www.ted.com/talks/yuval_noah_harari_nationalism_vs_globalism_the_new_political_divide?language=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VtS6I5fvgE
David.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 2nd January 2019 at 7pm
Michel Foucault: Genius or Charlatan? (Keith M)
It is generally agreed that the key to Foucault’s philosophy is his concept of ‘discourse’. For a quick introduction to this concept, search for ‘Critical Legal Thinking Foucault Discourse’ and read the article that comes up first. Then watch the lecture (by Graham R. Gibbs) accessed via this link:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ffCsQx2Cg
His notion of discourse is closely linked to his views on how power is created and exercised in modern society. A good start is the article accessed as follows:
www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere
You could then follow up with this excellent lecture (from the University of Leiden):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLnKbmrW5g
Foucault’s approach to these matters have led to an analysis of surveillance and discipline in modern society, as explained in the following:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG_Q9WnOuxU
Foucault believes that much of what we take for granted in life as some kind of objective reality is in fact socially constructed. He first developed this notion in an early analysis of how notions of madness have changed over time. See:
www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/madnessandciv/summary
These concepts all link into an integrated set of ideas. In his 1971 televised debate with Noam Chomsky, Foucault sets out the implications of his ideas in relation to the quest for a fairer and more just society. The following link will lead you to the relevant portion of this debate:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5wuB_p63YM
This extract demonstrates why some people have considered Foucault to be a post-structuralist, although he rejected this label. It also demonstrates the contrast between Chomsky’s notion that certain human characteristics are innate, and Foucault’s view that human qualities that may appear invariant are in fact a product of culture and social experience.
If any of these links do not work automatically, just copy and paste them into your browser’s search box and they should bring up the required source.
Keith M.
Wednesday, 2nd January 2019 at 7pm
Michel Foucault: Genius or Charlatan? (Keith M)
It is generally agreed that the key to Foucault’s philosophy is his concept of ‘discourse’. For a quick introduction to this concept, search for ‘Critical Legal Thinking Foucault Discourse’ and read the article that comes up first. Then watch the lecture (by Graham R. Gibbs) accessed via this link:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ffCsQx2Cg
His notion of discourse is closely linked to his views on how power is created and exercised in modern society. A good start is the article accessed as follows:
www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/foucault-power-is-everywhere
You could then follow up with this excellent lecture (from the University of Leiden):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=keLnKbmrW5g
Foucault’s approach to these matters have led to an analysis of surveillance and discipline in modern society, as explained in the following:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG_Q9WnOuxU
Foucault believes that much of what we take for granted in life as some kind of objective reality is in fact socially constructed. He first developed this notion in an early analysis of how notions of madness have changed over time. See:
www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/madnessandciv/summary
These concepts all link into an integrated set of ideas. In his 1971 televised debate with Noam Chomsky, Foucault sets out the implications of his ideas in relation to the quest for a fairer and more just society. The following link will lead you to the relevant portion of this debate:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5wuB_p63YM
This extract demonstrates why some people have considered Foucault to be a post-structuralist, although he rejected this label. It also demonstrates the contrast between Chomsky’s notion that certain human characteristics are innate, and Foucault’s view that human qualities that may appear invariant are in fact a product of culture and social experience.
If any of these links do not work automatically, just copy and paste them into your browser’s search box and they should bring up the required source.
Keith M.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 21st November 2018 at 7pm
Does the End Justify the Means? (David)
At the end of the last Pips meeting we discussed various extreme scenarios in which torture or cannibalism (although always wrong in isolation) might be justified by extreme circumstances. So, the end justified the means. But where would we draw the boundaries? Is there a limit to de-ontological (rule-based) systems and in any case who sets the rules? Or do we take a more utilitarian or consequentialist view?
It would be interesting to consider some scenarios. Please remember that the scenario cannot be changed – for example by staying it wouldn't happen or you would seek further information - because that destroys its purpose as a tool to uncover the underlying philosophical issues. By all means bring your own examples, but below there are some to get started with.
Please note that the final parts of scenarios 2 and 3 reflect things which are actually done in other countries and for which other countries are criticised. But is that justified? (Again be careful to stick to the scenario used since some of these nations are accused of broader actions that are clearly unacceptable and may amount to persecutions – but that is not what we are discussing here).
Scenario One
A plane carrying 200 passengers is, with 100% certainty, about to crash and, without doubt, kill 3000 people in central Manchester. Do you shoot it down? What if the plane has a 50% chance of not crashing? What if the he plane has a 90% chance of not crashing? What if the passengers are young school children? What if the passengers belong to a religious group that believes they will go to heaven for eternity from the moment of death? How would this all change if the probability of not crashing was 95%?
Scenario Two
A patient had died of natural causes and his organs can save 10 other people.
Do you harvest the organs without anyone’s explicit permission or approval? Would it be morally right even if it was against the law? What if the relatives object? What if the patient objected before his death? What if the patient’s grounds were merely superstitious (he will not go to heaven without all his organs or his holy book says it is forbidden)?
How would this change if the patient was legally put to death for a murder that he undoubtedly committed? Should undoubtedly guilty murderers be put to death precisely because their harvested organs can save other people’s lives? Is that in fact the moral thing to do? How should we decide who gets the organs? Could they be sold to fund the justice system?
Scenario Three
PART A
A member of Pips is caught speeding at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone on a completely deserted road. His liberty is taken away for a day, via a compulsory speed awareness course.
Is this justified?
The member does not comply, refuses to pay the fine and physically resists when sentenced to detainment. The member is tazered as a result.
Is this justified given the original offence was driving at 35 mph in a 30 zone, when the road was completely deserted, and driving at 33 mph would have been OK.
PART B
A deeply religious family refuse to educate their daughters and treat them as inferior and as mere possessions. If the daughters step out of line, they will be subject to honour killings by stoning. The secular government sends the parents to a re-education centre. They resist, they are incarcerated and forceful techniques, such a cattle prods, are used when they physically resist. The religious groups form terrorist cells to blow up government agencies, and the education centres are fortified accordingly.
Now that seems wrong, but why? Is their treatment of their daughter no worse than driving at 33mph? Does the government have a duty to take even more vigorous action or do the parents have the right to decide their children’s futures? Should the children be removed from the parents and sent to very well run, secular education centres?
David.
Wednesday, 21st November 2018 at 7pm
Does the End Justify the Means? (David)
At the end of the last Pips meeting we discussed various extreme scenarios in which torture or cannibalism (although always wrong in isolation) might be justified by extreme circumstances. So, the end justified the means. But where would we draw the boundaries? Is there a limit to de-ontological (rule-based) systems and in any case who sets the rules? Or do we take a more utilitarian or consequentialist view?
It would be interesting to consider some scenarios. Please remember that the scenario cannot be changed – for example by staying it wouldn't happen or you would seek further information - because that destroys its purpose as a tool to uncover the underlying philosophical issues. By all means bring your own examples, but below there are some to get started with.
Please note that the final parts of scenarios 2 and 3 reflect things which are actually done in other countries and for which other countries are criticised. But is that justified? (Again be careful to stick to the scenario used since some of these nations are accused of broader actions that are clearly unacceptable and may amount to persecutions – but that is not what we are discussing here).
Scenario One
A plane carrying 200 passengers is, with 100% certainty, about to crash and, without doubt, kill 3000 people in central Manchester. Do you shoot it down? What if the plane has a 50% chance of not crashing? What if the he plane has a 90% chance of not crashing? What if the passengers are young school children? What if the passengers belong to a religious group that believes they will go to heaven for eternity from the moment of death? How would this all change if the probability of not crashing was 95%?
Scenario Two
A patient had died of natural causes and his organs can save 10 other people.
Do you harvest the organs without anyone’s explicit permission or approval? Would it be morally right even if it was against the law? What if the relatives object? What if the patient objected before his death? What if the patient’s grounds were merely superstitious (he will not go to heaven without all his organs or his holy book says it is forbidden)?
How would this change if the patient was legally put to death for a murder that he undoubtedly committed? Should undoubtedly guilty murderers be put to death precisely because their harvested organs can save other people’s lives? Is that in fact the moral thing to do? How should we decide who gets the organs? Could they be sold to fund the justice system?
Scenario Three
PART A
A member of Pips is caught speeding at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone on a completely deserted road. His liberty is taken away for a day, via a compulsory speed awareness course.
Is this justified?
The member does not comply, refuses to pay the fine and physically resists when sentenced to detainment. The member is tazered as a result.
Is this justified given the original offence was driving at 35 mph in a 30 zone, when the road was completely deserted, and driving at 33 mph would have been OK.
PART B
A deeply religious family refuse to educate their daughters and treat them as inferior and as mere possessions. If the daughters step out of line, they will be subject to honour killings by stoning. The secular government sends the parents to a re-education centre. They resist, they are incarcerated and forceful techniques, such a cattle prods, are used when they physically resist. The religious groups form terrorist cells to blow up government agencies, and the education centres are fortified accordingly.
Now that seems wrong, but why? Is their treatment of their daughter no worse than driving at 33mph? Does the government have a duty to take even more vigorous action or do the parents have the right to decide their children’s futures? Should the children be removed from the parents and sent to very well run, secular education centres?
David.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 7th November 2018 at 7pm
Is Human Nature Unalterable? (Kate)
“Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
This is how Thomas Hobbs described life in his work of 1651: the “Leviathan”.
Its subject was his opinion of the nature of human beings and the necessity for strong government. He believed that we are all basically selfish, driven by the fear of death and the hope of personal gain. All of us seek power over others, whether we realise this or not.
It could be argued that only some people are selfish, that true altruism exists. Hobbs thought that benevolence plays only a minor role, that at heart we are all selfish and it is only the rule of law and the threat of punishment that keeps us in check. If society broke down and we had to live in what he called “a state of nature”, without laws or anyone to enforce them, the consequence would be that everyone would steal and murder when necessary. At least, we’d have to do that if we wanted to carry on living in a world of scarce resources.
Hobbs’s solution: “the social contract” or “covenant”, was for individuals in this state of nature to give up some of their dangerous freedoms for the sake of universal safety, and given that it is only fear that can persuade people to change the direction of their normal self-interested actions, it requires a powerful individual or government to instil the continuous fear necessary for it to take charge and maintain social order.
There are any number of books and films based on this extreme opinion, describing the after-effects of some apocalyptic event where people, rather than cooperating for the few resources available, revert to savagery.
But life nowadays, at least for the majority of us in the West, is infinitely easier and more comfortable than it was in Hobbs’s time, and resources in the Western world can, mostly, be engineered to keep pace with the requirements of the population, therefore mankind should, theoretically, have become less selfish, more compassionate and generally law-abiding. It is patently obvious that this is not the case: in a world of relative plenty, violence and greed and callousness seem to be as conspicuous as ever they were. And it takes only the fall of an existing powerful government and the fragmentation of a reasonably united society for neighbours, hitherto living in harmony, to fall upon each other with no quarter given.
Do we therefore agree with Hobbs’s pessimistic view that nothing about human nature has changed or is likely to change in any significant way,
and that lawlessness can only be prevented by a regime based on harsh punishment and draconian measures?
Other philosophers have attacked Hobbs, citing equally powerful human motivations such as honour, a desire for justice and the benefits of reciprocity. Is it possible that we can look forward to some evolutionary golden age where men might be self-governing and selflessness might prevail? Or are all groups, when left to their own devices, doomed to act out a “Lord of The Flies” scenario eternally?
Kate.
Wednesday, 7th November 2018 at 7pm
Is Human Nature Unalterable? (Kate)
“Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
This is how Thomas Hobbs described life in his work of 1651: the “Leviathan”.
Its subject was his opinion of the nature of human beings and the necessity for strong government. He believed that we are all basically selfish, driven by the fear of death and the hope of personal gain. All of us seek power over others, whether we realise this or not.
It could be argued that only some people are selfish, that true altruism exists. Hobbs thought that benevolence plays only a minor role, that at heart we are all selfish and it is only the rule of law and the threat of punishment that keeps us in check. If society broke down and we had to live in what he called “a state of nature”, without laws or anyone to enforce them, the consequence would be that everyone would steal and murder when necessary. At least, we’d have to do that if we wanted to carry on living in a world of scarce resources.
Hobbs’s solution: “the social contract” or “covenant”, was for individuals in this state of nature to give up some of their dangerous freedoms for the sake of universal safety, and given that it is only fear that can persuade people to change the direction of their normal self-interested actions, it requires a powerful individual or government to instil the continuous fear necessary for it to take charge and maintain social order.
There are any number of books and films based on this extreme opinion, describing the after-effects of some apocalyptic event where people, rather than cooperating for the few resources available, revert to savagery.
But life nowadays, at least for the majority of us in the West, is infinitely easier and more comfortable than it was in Hobbs’s time, and resources in the Western world can, mostly, be engineered to keep pace with the requirements of the population, therefore mankind should, theoretically, have become less selfish, more compassionate and generally law-abiding. It is patently obvious that this is not the case: in a world of relative plenty, violence and greed and callousness seem to be as conspicuous as ever they were. And it takes only the fall of an existing powerful government and the fragmentation of a reasonably united society for neighbours, hitherto living in harmony, to fall upon each other with no quarter given.
Do we therefore agree with Hobbs’s pessimistic view that nothing about human nature has changed or is likely to change in any significant way,
and that lawlessness can only be prevented by a regime based on harsh punishment and draconian measures?
Other philosophers have attacked Hobbs, citing equally powerful human motivations such as honour, a desire for justice and the benefits of reciprocity. Is it possible that we can look forward to some evolutionary golden age where men might be self-governing and selflessness might prevail? Or are all groups, when left to their own devices, doomed to act out a “Lord of The Flies” scenario eternally?
Kate.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 17th October 2018 at 7pm
The Will to Meaning: Do we need a story for our existence? (Jubin)
Where can we turn, to find the story of our lives? An existential roadmap that explains where we have come from, why we are here and where we are heading? Must each of us discover meaning within the context of our individual lives, or are there universal sources of meaning that we can all access?
Jubin
Wednesday, 17th October 2018 at 7pm
The Will to Meaning: Do we need a story for our existence? (Jubin)
Where can we turn, to find the story of our lives? An existential roadmap that explains where we have come from, why we are here and where we are heading? Must each of us discover meaning within the context of our individual lives, or are there universal sources of meaning that we can all access?
Jubin
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 3rd October 2018 at 7pm
What is the Future of Democracy? (David)
Living in our little bubble of the 21st Century West we tend to make the assumption that liberal democracy is here to stay. It may not be perfect, but it is the best solution to running a prosperous and fair society. Recent events, however, make me wonder about this.
We can easily forget that, for most of our history, society was run brutally by elites such a kings & queens and the purveyors of the great superstitions. Life has unquestionably improved since then; but liberal democracy, truth and the enlightenment are under threat. If we look at the rest of the world things are already very different. Theocracies still rule in places like Saudi Arabia and religion still dominates in the Middle East - and continues to cause causes horrific abuses of human rights throughout much of the world. In Russia the old alliance of autocracy, and the church, has once again taken control with the strong mutual support between Putin and the Orthodox Church.
In China we see a form of capitalist, authoritarian and partial democracy. It may be improving the physical wellbeing of its citizens (most of whom like the government’s policies) but at a high cost in terms of freedom of expression and thought. On the other hand, they can at least make decisions; for example, the bizarre spectacle of China taking over environmental leadership from the USA. In rare cases, such as Singapore, benign rational dictatorships seem to be beneficial for just about everyone. But, presumably, such systems are easily perverted.
So, are we right to think that liberal democracy is the best system? Should it survive? Is it fit for the future challenges that humanity faces?
There are some very real concerns
I recently heard a politician say of climate change: “We know what to do, we just don’t know how to do it and get re-elected”. Political debates seem thin on the issues that really matter - for example the environment, robotics, AI, climate change, inequality and the continued degradation of human beings (especially women) by controlling superstitious and delusions. People vote based on emotion, often with little understanding of what they are voting for (e.g. Brexit). There is a denigration of experts even though we still want them when it suits us (doctors, aircraft pilots etc.). We forget our debt to the fruits of the victory of science and reason over superstition, without which most of us (and our children) would already have died in horrific pain, praying to an apparently deaf (aka non-existent) god.
Perhaps the population should merely set a general objective and then leave it to appointed experts. Perhaps the Chinese or Singaporean system will be more successful, and hence become dominant anyway; and maybe we are already seeing that happen. But the Chinese system comes at a great cost.
So, does liberal democracy as we know it, need to be revised? Is there a middle way?
David.
Wednesday, 3rd October 2018 at 7pm
What is the Future of Democracy? (David)
Living in our little bubble of the 21st Century West we tend to make the assumption that liberal democracy is here to stay. It may not be perfect, but it is the best solution to running a prosperous and fair society. Recent events, however, make me wonder about this.
We can easily forget that, for most of our history, society was run brutally by elites such a kings & queens and the purveyors of the great superstitions. Life has unquestionably improved since then; but liberal democracy, truth and the enlightenment are under threat. If we look at the rest of the world things are already very different. Theocracies still rule in places like Saudi Arabia and religion still dominates in the Middle East - and continues to cause causes horrific abuses of human rights throughout much of the world. In Russia the old alliance of autocracy, and the church, has once again taken control with the strong mutual support between Putin and the Orthodox Church.
In China we see a form of capitalist, authoritarian and partial democracy. It may be improving the physical wellbeing of its citizens (most of whom like the government’s policies) but at a high cost in terms of freedom of expression and thought. On the other hand, they can at least make decisions; for example, the bizarre spectacle of China taking over environmental leadership from the USA. In rare cases, such as Singapore, benign rational dictatorships seem to be beneficial for just about everyone. But, presumably, such systems are easily perverted.
So, are we right to think that liberal democracy is the best system? Should it survive? Is it fit for the future challenges that humanity faces?
There are some very real concerns
I recently heard a politician say of climate change: “We know what to do, we just don’t know how to do it and get re-elected”. Political debates seem thin on the issues that really matter - for example the environment, robotics, AI, climate change, inequality and the continued degradation of human beings (especially women) by controlling superstitious and delusions. People vote based on emotion, often with little understanding of what they are voting for (e.g. Brexit). There is a denigration of experts even though we still want them when it suits us (doctors, aircraft pilots etc.). We forget our debt to the fruits of the victory of science and reason over superstition, without which most of us (and our children) would already have died in horrific pain, praying to an apparently deaf (aka non-existent) god.
Perhaps the population should merely set a general objective and then leave it to appointed experts. Perhaps the Chinese or Singaporean system will be more successful, and hence become dominant anyway; and maybe we are already seeing that happen. But the Chinese system comes at a great cost.
So, does liberal democracy as we know it, need to be revised? Is there a middle way?
David.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 19th September 2018 at 7pm
Philosophy and War (Edmund)
Topics for discussion
In light of the recent Novichok findings: War using science and technology, and the ABC of war (Atomic, Biological & Chemical).
The nature of war: aggression, casualties, economics, politics and the 'warfare' state.
War in history, ancient history and literature.
Personal experiences of war, amongst family and friends.
War in philosophy: Plato & Thomas Aquinas.
Philosophical and practical responses to war: religion, CND, national defence and survival.
Edmund.
Wednesday, 19th September 2018 at 7pm
Philosophy and War (Edmund)
Topics for discussion
In light of the recent Novichok findings: War using science and technology, and the ABC of war (Atomic, Biological & Chemical).
The nature of war: aggression, casualties, economics, politics and the 'warfare' state.
War in history, ancient history and literature.
Personal experiences of war, amongst family and friends.
War in philosophy: Plato & Thomas Aquinas.
Philosophical and practical responses to war: religion, CND, national defence and survival.
Edmund.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 5th September 2018 at 7pm
Should we Live for the Past, Present or Future? (Keith Taylor)
In the past we have a life that we may look back on fondly, and where we had more time ahead of us.
In the future we have hopes and dreams. These may be longed for experiences, material gains, better technology or resolutions to current struggles.
But the present is where we are, so shouldn't we learn to live and enjoy just being alive? Have we lost that ability?
As children this was easy. The present was everything. But in this world of needing to achieve, we are taught to put the future first.
Observing a pet it is clear that they are happy with the present.
But for many humans concerns about the future bring anxiety, as do regrets for the past.
We do need to plan for the future, and learn from the past, but shouldn't the present be a sacred place that we can enjoy without interference from past or future?
"If you are depressed you are living in the past. If you are anxious you are living in the future. If you are at peace you are living in the present."
Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu (c500 BC).
Keith.
Wednesday, 5th September 2018 at 7pm
Should we Live for the Past, Present or Future? (Keith Taylor)
In the past we have a life that we may look back on fondly, and where we had more time ahead of us.
In the future we have hopes and dreams. These may be longed for experiences, material gains, better technology or resolutions to current struggles.
But the present is where we are, so shouldn't we learn to live and enjoy just being alive? Have we lost that ability?
As children this was easy. The present was everything. But in this world of needing to achieve, we are taught to put the future first.
Observing a pet it is clear that they are happy with the present.
But for many humans concerns about the future bring anxiety, as do regrets for the past.
We do need to plan for the future, and learn from the past, but shouldn't the present be a sacred place that we can enjoy without interference from past or future?
"If you are depressed you are living in the past. If you are anxious you are living in the future. If you are at peace you are living in the present."
Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu (c500 BC).
Keith.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 1st August 2018 at 7pm
What would a civilisation, one billion years older than us, be like? (Jubin)
Throughout human history, we have been asking the big philosophical question: Where do we come from?
And we have made some good inroads towards an answer.
We have now reached a level of sophistication to pose a question in the opposite direction: Where are we heading?
To tackle this question, we could set a target question: What would a civilisation, one billion years older than us, look like?
To imagine that, we must first consider where we humans are technologically and where we're likely to be in the future.
If you think it's hard to imagine what technology may exist in a billion years, then it may be even harder to comprehend what life may look like after a million millennia of evolutionary development.
Jubin.
Wednesday, 1st August 2018 at 7pm
What would a civilisation, one billion years older than us, be like? (Jubin)
Throughout human history, we have been asking the big philosophical question: Where do we come from?
And we have made some good inroads towards an answer.
We have now reached a level of sophistication to pose a question in the opposite direction: Where are we heading?
To tackle this question, we could set a target question: What would a civilisation, one billion years older than us, look like?
To imagine that, we must first consider where we humans are technologically and where we're likely to be in the future.
If you think it's hard to imagine what technology may exist in a billion years, then it may be even harder to comprehend what life may look like after a million millennia of evolutionary development.
Jubin.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 18th July 2018 at 7pm
What is Superstition and is it ever Helpful? (David)
It is my view that mild superstitions can be harmless, entertaining wastes of time and that superstition may even be helpful – for example to encourage people in dire circumstances. However, even mild superstition must never replace truth-based systems such as Science and Technology. In contrast serious superstition diverts humanity from useful pursuits that can really improve our lives because they are actually ‘true’ (i.e. consistent with the facts and work when tested).
Suggested You-tube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH7pMPNnYnA
Discussion
Superstitions are defined as irrational beliefs usually founded on ignorance or fear and characterized by obsessive reverence for omens, charms, deities etc. They may involve notions, acts or rituals that derive from such beliefs. They are not based on reason, solid evidence or scientific knowledge. Instead superstitious people have ‘faith’ in, for example, touching wood to ward off bad luck, avoiding the number 13, going to some kind of heaven through belief in a deity or ritual, astrology or fortune telling.
Some readers might object that their belief is a ‘religion’ and not superstitious However, the word superstition is ‘often used to refer to a religion not practiced by the majority of a given society regardless of whether the prevailing religion contains alleged superstitions’. (Vyse, Stuart A (2000). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 19–22). Sadly, this leads to persecution of others with even slightly different beliefs: (http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm).
In the UK the predominant ‘religion’ is Christianity. Why is this not a ‘mere’ superstition? (Sorry if what follows seems one sided but I can’t think of any reasons why it isn’t - so please do come with some).
Is it consistent with Reason?
Belief in an all good, all powerful, omnipresent god as hypothesised by Christianity falls at the first hurdle. As David Attenborough says, it never even occurred to him to believe in god – he points, for example, to the Smallpox virus and the worm that exists for no other purpose than to eat the eyes of children. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Attenborough). But superstition seems resilient to reason. For example, Archbishop Welby admits the problem causes him to doubt the existence of god (he means his god, but in his view, there is no other). But he still stays in the job. (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/18/archbishop-canterbury-doubt-god-existence-welby).
Is it consistent with Fact?
Interestingly these faith-based beliefs (a.k.a. superstitions?) can persist in the face of not just reason but irrefutable hard evidence to the contrary. For example, massive double-blind studies performed by Harvard and the Mayo clinic to the highest standards, funded by Christian groups and involving hugely experienced prayer groups have shown that praying for the sick is totally useless and indeed telling people you are praying for them appears to be harmful (and is therefore immoral). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-prayer-prescription/
In fact, any student of history can see that prayer is useless in the face of, for example, the black death or smallpox but Science and Reason provide solutions. Yet priests throughout the world continue to promote intercessory prayer and to support a church whose reliance on superstition has opposed science and continues to do so with tragic consequences in fields such as Stem Cell Research.
Should Superstitions be held accountable for the harms they cause?
My feeling is that it depends. Many of us would agree that religious parents who deny their children access to life saving medical care should be punished.
But where would be draw the line at punishment and compensation for the victims of superstition? Consider the following:
• Currently the mainstream churches commit acts of discrimination and deny fair access to state funded education to non-religious children.
• Women and LGBT people are still discriminated against by churches.
It took 1800 years for Christianity to act against the exhortations of the new testament in favour of slavery. The Quakers in Lancaster massively profited from their trade in slaves. Should there now be reparation? New Testament letters forcefully instruct slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:22-24, 1Tim 6:1-2, 1Pet 2:18, Titus 2:9-10). Some passages tell masters to treat slaves better—an indication that some Christians treated their slaves poorly (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1). Needless to say the old testament is even worse!
David.
Wednesday, 18th July 2018 at 7pm
What is Superstition and is it ever Helpful? (David)
It is my view that mild superstitions can be harmless, entertaining wastes of time and that superstition may even be helpful – for example to encourage people in dire circumstances. However, even mild superstition must never replace truth-based systems such as Science and Technology. In contrast serious superstition diverts humanity from useful pursuits that can really improve our lives because they are actually ‘true’ (i.e. consistent with the facts and work when tested).
Suggested You-tube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH7pMPNnYnA
Discussion
Superstitions are defined as irrational beliefs usually founded on ignorance or fear and characterized by obsessive reverence for omens, charms, deities etc. They may involve notions, acts or rituals that derive from such beliefs. They are not based on reason, solid evidence or scientific knowledge. Instead superstitious people have ‘faith’ in, for example, touching wood to ward off bad luck, avoiding the number 13, going to some kind of heaven through belief in a deity or ritual, astrology or fortune telling.
Some readers might object that their belief is a ‘religion’ and not superstitious However, the word superstition is ‘often used to refer to a religion not practiced by the majority of a given society regardless of whether the prevailing religion contains alleged superstitions’. (Vyse, Stuart A (2000). Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 19–22). Sadly, this leads to persecution of others with even slightly different beliefs: (http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm).
In the UK the predominant ‘religion’ is Christianity. Why is this not a ‘mere’ superstition? (Sorry if what follows seems one sided but I can’t think of any reasons why it isn’t - so please do come with some).
Is it consistent with Reason?
Belief in an all good, all powerful, omnipresent god as hypothesised by Christianity falls at the first hurdle. As David Attenborough says, it never even occurred to him to believe in god – he points, for example, to the Smallpox virus and the worm that exists for no other purpose than to eat the eyes of children. (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Attenborough). But superstition seems resilient to reason. For example, Archbishop Welby admits the problem causes him to doubt the existence of god (he means his god, but in his view, there is no other). But he still stays in the job. (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/18/archbishop-canterbury-doubt-god-existence-welby).
Is it consistent with Fact?
Interestingly these faith-based beliefs (a.k.a. superstitions?) can persist in the face of not just reason but irrefutable hard evidence to the contrary. For example, massive double-blind studies performed by Harvard and the Mayo clinic to the highest standards, funded by Christian groups and involving hugely experienced prayer groups have shown that praying for the sick is totally useless and indeed telling people you are praying for them appears to be harmful (and is therefore immoral). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-prayer-prescription/
In fact, any student of history can see that prayer is useless in the face of, for example, the black death or smallpox but Science and Reason provide solutions. Yet priests throughout the world continue to promote intercessory prayer and to support a church whose reliance on superstition has opposed science and continues to do so with tragic consequences in fields such as Stem Cell Research.
Should Superstitions be held accountable for the harms they cause?
My feeling is that it depends. Many of us would agree that religious parents who deny their children access to life saving medical care should be punished.
But where would be draw the line at punishment and compensation for the victims of superstition? Consider the following:
• Currently the mainstream churches commit acts of discrimination and deny fair access to state funded education to non-religious children.
• Women and LGBT people are still discriminated against by churches.
It took 1800 years for Christianity to act against the exhortations of the new testament in favour of slavery. The Quakers in Lancaster massively profited from their trade in slaves. Should there now be reparation? New Testament letters forcefully instruct slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:22-24, 1Tim 6:1-2, 1Pet 2:18, Titus 2:9-10). Some passages tell masters to treat slaves better—an indication that some Christians treated their slaves poorly (Eph 6:9, Col 4:1). Needless to say the old testament is even worse!
David.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 4th July 2018 at 7pm
What is the Purpose of Fiction? (Kate)
Most of the time we deal in facts. Of necessity. We can only function successfully by being fairly certain that a usually follows b, or if x, then y. Facts are the bedrock of our daily lives. These rules do not apply to fiction; fiction is not constrained by logic, it can go where it wants, in whatever way it wants, it can move backwards and forwards in time and space, it can mix up the dimensions, take us on a voyage of discovery, upturn our expectations, tease us, puzzle us, transport us to realms of fantasy, provide comfort, amusement and enlightenment.
My education, in common with that of many others, consisted mainly of absorbing facts, compiling them and then attempting to rearrange them into a coherent pattern. I did a Fine Art degree, which focused on the history of art and architecture: who did what when, who influenced whom, and so forth. I followed this with a degree in Psychology and I learned some more facts, e.g.: alcohol slows down reaction times, or there are critical periods for acquiring certain skills, or intermittent reward is the most effective way of achieving desired behaviour.
But all the time I was reading fiction and, later, writing it. And I discovered that reading, for instance, Anna Karenina, taught me more about human motivations than any number of psychological experiments, just as looking at their paintings told me so much more than any amount of dry facts about their creators.
The classic definition of fiction is that its purpose is to inform or entertain or, preferably, both. When we read Jane Austen we “know” what it was like to inhabit a certain social stratum of Regency England, but we are also vastly entertained by her insight and wit. Tolstoy provides us with a vivid depiction of the effects upon the individual caught up in great historical events. Flaubert allows us to identify with the frustrations and boredom of an incorrigible romantic trapped within the confines of French provincial life.
We can read the facts about the Napoleonic Wars or French social history, but fiction brings those facts to life, imbues them with vitality; a good story-teller draws us into whatever world he or she is describing. Fiction makes us aware of the infinite possibilities available to humankind; most importantly, it sets up a situation and brings it to a conclusion – or, in the case of John Fowles’ The French Lieutenant’s Woman, a choice of conclusions.
Francoise Sagan once said, “Life is amorphous, art is formal.” In this sense, fiction, with its formal structure: its beginning, middle and end, provides the possibility, the comfort, of believing in a meaningful existence. It allows us to make sense of our individual experience.
Finally, to quote a fellow writer: Richard Ridley, who expresses it very succinctly:
"What is the purpose of fiction? When you get down to it, fiction is nothing more than a collection of imaginary events experienced by imaginary characters in imaginary worlds. Why does the concept of fictional stories even exist? On the surface, it could seem completely unnecessary.
But we tend to dig deeper … Fiction is more than important for any culture; it is essential. Beyond the escapist aspect and the entertainment value, there is something far more valuable that fiction gives us – the opportunity to experience the possibility of other choices without actually making those choices. In a romance novel a woman might follow her heart and marry the man she loves instead of a man with riches beyond her wildest dreams. We experience the blessings and consequences of that choice. In a science fiction novel, a scientist might discover a cure for a deadly disease but hide the fact that his cure turns everyone into psychopaths. We experience the treasures and destruction his cure brings.
Fiction is much more intimate than virtual reality. It is an inner-reality that gives readers the opportunity to delve into emotions and face the thrill and anxiety of those emotions on the wild little electrical surges in their brains. They process the emotions and discover something about themselves in the process.
Novels throughout the ages have been fictional ‘what-ifs’ that have shaped not just the outer world but the inner world as well. That is the true purpose of fiction."
Kate.
Wednesday, 4th July 2018 at 7pm
What is the Purpose of Fiction? (Kate)
Most of the time we deal in facts. Of necessity. We can only function successfully by being fairly certain that a usually follows b, or if x, then y. Facts are the bedrock of our daily lives. These rules do not apply to fiction; fiction is not constrained by logic, it can go where it wants, in whatever way it wants, it can move backwards and forwards in time and space, it can mix up the dimensions, take us on a voyage of discovery, upturn our expectations, tease us, puzzle us, transport us to realms of fantasy, provide comfort, amusement and enlightenment.
My education, in common with that of many others, consisted mainly of absorbing facts, compiling them and then attempting to rearrange them into a coherent pattern. I did a Fine Art degree, which focused on the history of art and architecture: who did what when, who influenced whom, and so forth. I followed this with a degree in Psychology and I learned some more facts, e.g.: alcohol slows down reaction times, or there are critical periods for acquiring certain skills, or intermittent reward is the most effective way of achieving desired behaviour.
But all the time I was reading fiction and, later, writing it. And I discovered that reading, for instance, Anna Karenina, taught me more about human motivations than any number of psychological experiments, just as looking at their paintings told me so much more than any amount of dry facts about their creators.
The classic definition of fiction is that its purpose is to inform or entertain or, preferably, both. When we read Jane Austen we “know” what it was like to inhabit a certain social stratum of Regency England, but we are also vastly entertained by her insight and wit. Tolstoy provides us with a vivid depiction of the effects upon the individual caught up in great historical events. Flaubert allows us to identify with the frustrations and boredom of an incorrigible romantic trapped within the confines of French provincial life.
We can read the facts about the Napoleonic Wars or French social history, but fiction brings those facts to life, imbues them with vitality; a good story-teller draws us into whatever world he or she is describing. Fiction makes us aware of the infinite possibilities available to humankind; most importantly, it sets up a situation and brings it to a conclusion – or, in the case of John Fowles’ The French Lieutenant’s Woman, a choice of conclusions.
Francoise Sagan once said, “Life is amorphous, art is formal.” In this sense, fiction, with its formal structure: its beginning, middle and end, provides the possibility, the comfort, of believing in a meaningful existence. It allows us to make sense of our individual experience.
Finally, to quote a fellow writer: Richard Ridley, who expresses it very succinctly:
"What is the purpose of fiction? When you get down to it, fiction is nothing more than a collection of imaginary events experienced by imaginary characters in imaginary worlds. Why does the concept of fictional stories even exist? On the surface, it could seem completely unnecessary.
But we tend to dig deeper … Fiction is more than important for any culture; it is essential. Beyond the escapist aspect and the entertainment value, there is something far more valuable that fiction gives us – the opportunity to experience the possibility of other choices without actually making those choices. In a romance novel a woman might follow her heart and marry the man she loves instead of a man with riches beyond her wildest dreams. We experience the blessings and consequences of that choice. In a science fiction novel, a scientist might discover a cure for a deadly disease but hide the fact that his cure turns everyone into psychopaths. We experience the treasures and destruction his cure brings.
Fiction is much more intimate than virtual reality. It is an inner-reality that gives readers the opportunity to delve into emotions and face the thrill and anxiety of those emotions on the wild little electrical surges in their brains. They process the emotions and discover something about themselves in the process.
Novels throughout the ages have been fictional ‘what-ifs’ that have shaped not just the outer world but the inner world as well. That is the true purpose of fiction."
Kate.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 20th June 2018 at 7pm
The Spirit and Soul. (Joan)
The Spirit is your very self, your personality, and is influenced by the soul.
But is the spirit a supernatural being or some non-physical entity?
What are your ideas on near death experiences and out of the body experiences? For example: you are wheeled into the operating theatre, fast asleep, when something strange happens to you - you are floating near the ceiling and looking down on your own body. You are watching the doctor trying to revive you, you have no feelings and there is no sound. This is called Astral Projection or Spirit Walking. Your mind can function outside the body.
You have entered into another dimension. Is this the last attempt for the brain to survive?
What is the structure of the Spirit? Is it a form of energy that could be scientifically measured? The human spirit is a component of human, philosophy, psychology and religion.
A definition of the soul is the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character.
What are your ideas on the mystical experiences and white lights often reported by people who are dying? What are these "Spirit Molecules" and the scientific angle? Or the DMT theory which is the release of certain molecules which play a protective role during a type of stress which comes from the lack of oxygen to the brain?
Finally - Aristotle and Plato's theories on the Spirit and Soul, both are different:
Aristotle had three categories:
1. Earthly matter that could be seen and felt.
2. Heavenly Bodies, like the stars and their planets.
3. The invisible world of the Spirit.
Plato had three elements:
1. The Appetites which include desires, comforts and physical satisfactions.
2. The Spirited hot blooded part that gets angry - the part that loves challenges, loves to win and is spirited with lots of energy and power.
3. The part that likes to think, analyse, look ahead and rationalize to gauge the best way to go overall.
Joan.
Wednesday, 20th June 2018 at 7pm
The Spirit and Soul. (Joan)
The Spirit is your very self, your personality, and is influenced by the soul.
But is the spirit a supernatural being or some non-physical entity?
What are your ideas on near death experiences and out of the body experiences? For example: you are wheeled into the operating theatre, fast asleep, when something strange happens to you - you are floating near the ceiling and looking down on your own body. You are watching the doctor trying to revive you, you have no feelings and there is no sound. This is called Astral Projection or Spirit Walking. Your mind can function outside the body.
You have entered into another dimension. Is this the last attempt for the brain to survive?
What is the structure of the Spirit? Is it a form of energy that could be scientifically measured? The human spirit is a component of human, philosophy, psychology and religion.
A definition of the soul is the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character.
What are your ideas on the mystical experiences and white lights often reported by people who are dying? What are these "Spirit Molecules" and the scientific angle? Or the DMT theory which is the release of certain molecules which play a protective role during a type of stress which comes from the lack of oxygen to the brain?
Finally - Aristotle and Plato's theories on the Spirit and Soul, both are different:
Aristotle had three categories:
1. Earthly matter that could be seen and felt.
2. Heavenly Bodies, like the stars and their planets.
3. The invisible world of the Spirit.
Plato had three elements:
1. The Appetites which include desires, comforts and physical satisfactions.
2. The Spirited hot blooded part that gets angry - the part that loves challenges, loves to win and is spirited with lots of energy and power.
3. The part that likes to think, analyse, look ahead and rationalize to gauge the best way to go overall.
Joan.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 4th April 2018 at 7pm
Euthanasia. (Caroline)
Topics to discuss
1. Voluntary and assisted suicide.
When a person has the capacity to make a decision on their quality of life, and wishes to be freed from a painful disease.
2. Mercy killing.
Where the person is unable to express a decision on whether they want to continue living, as in the case of coma; and dementia - where others believe that they have the right to die with dignity.
3. Preserving life at all costs.
Heavy sedation and using drugs to control pain, to avoid the legal consequences of euthanasia.
4. The Abortion Act 1967.
If the child were to suffer physical or mental abnormalities, should late abortion be granted?
Caroline.
Wednesday, 4th April 2018 at 7pm
Euthanasia. (Caroline)
Topics to discuss
1. Voluntary and assisted suicide.
When a person has the capacity to make a decision on their quality of life, and wishes to be freed from a painful disease.
2. Mercy killing.
Where the person is unable to express a decision on whether they want to continue living, as in the case of coma; and dementia - where others believe that they have the right to die with dignity.
3. Preserving life at all costs.
Heavy sedation and using drugs to control pain, to avoid the legal consequences of euthanasia.
4. The Abortion Act 1967.
If the child were to suffer physical or mental abnormalities, should late abortion be granted?
Caroline.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 21st March 2018 at 7pm
Is Politics, as we know it, Finished? (Paul C)
Over the last 5 years throughout Europe and the US, we have witnessed the rise of “populism”, which has had various degrees of success, most notably the election of Trump in the US.
“Populism” seems to be characterised by a rejection of our political systems and political class, in favour of alternatives, however untested and inexperienced they may be
We have used two referendums in that time to determine major issues. There seems, though, to be a tangible tension between the product of those referendums and our orthodox political apparatus and class. In particular a referendum reduces complex issues into a binary “yes” or “no”, and then politicians struggle to implement “the national will” in the outcome
Layered into this change has been a falling-away of traditional political activity, partly because of a gulf between the individual and full-time politicians. Many feel there are few differences between the major political parties; who have moved ever more to occupy the centre ground.
Why has this happened? Perhaps the internet and social media which make the creation of issue-specific movements possible, and create communication networks which were never possible before. Our democratic systems seem to rest on an assumption that politicians will be “multi-issue”.
Consider how UKIP has been created, peaked and now seems to be on the verge of extinction all in less than ten years.
Where does the referendum sit in our system? The major tension in our politics now seems to be from politicians trying to interpret the implications of our “leave” binary vote.
While the complexity and pace of change increasingly means that the “professionalisation” of politics seems inevitable. We then find our politicians have little or nothing in common with “the man in the street” because they have pursued a career in politics, developing their “professionalism” to the exclusion of anything else.
https://www1.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/Comms-media/Voter%20apathy%20briefing%20ID813.pdf
So what is the future?
Does it matter that respect and support for our traditional political system and class is waning?
If it does matter, how do we recover respect and support?
Has the nature of our public debate on our societal choices moved irretrievably?
If it has, what will the future look like? Will it exclude the computer illiterate?
https://www1.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/Comms-media/Voter%20apathy%20briefing%20ID813.pdf
Paul.
Wednesday, 21st March 2018 at 7pm
Is Politics, as we know it, Finished? (Paul C)
Over the last 5 years throughout Europe and the US, we have witnessed the rise of “populism”, which has had various degrees of success, most notably the election of Trump in the US.
“Populism” seems to be characterised by a rejection of our political systems and political class, in favour of alternatives, however untested and inexperienced they may be
We have used two referendums in that time to determine major issues. There seems, though, to be a tangible tension between the product of those referendums and our orthodox political apparatus and class. In particular a referendum reduces complex issues into a binary “yes” or “no”, and then politicians struggle to implement “the national will” in the outcome
Layered into this change has been a falling-away of traditional political activity, partly because of a gulf between the individual and full-time politicians. Many feel there are few differences between the major political parties; who have moved ever more to occupy the centre ground.
Why has this happened? Perhaps the internet and social media which make the creation of issue-specific movements possible, and create communication networks which were never possible before. Our democratic systems seem to rest on an assumption that politicians will be “multi-issue”.
Consider how UKIP has been created, peaked and now seems to be on the verge of extinction all in less than ten years.
Where does the referendum sit in our system? The major tension in our politics now seems to be from politicians trying to interpret the implications of our “leave” binary vote.
While the complexity and pace of change increasingly means that the “professionalisation” of politics seems inevitable. We then find our politicians have little or nothing in common with “the man in the street” because they have pursued a career in politics, developing their “professionalism” to the exclusion of anything else.
https://www1.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/Comms-media/Voter%20apathy%20briefing%20ID813.pdf
So what is the future?
Does it matter that respect and support for our traditional political system and class is waning?
If it does matter, how do we recover respect and support?
Has the nature of our public debate on our societal choices moved irretrievably?
If it has, what will the future look like? Will it exclude the computer illiterate?
https://www1.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/Comms-media/Voter%20apathy%20briefing%20ID813.pdf
Paul.
Previous PiPs Extra
Monday, 5th February 2018 at 7pm
Nietzsche. (Marg)
Nietzsche was the son of a Lutheran clergy-man. Yet his philosophy is best known for his critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture and the death of God.
Did his religious upbringing and mental illness influence his philosophical writings ?
Discuss and consider these influences and the people in his life who had an impact upon his thinking.
Marg.
Monday, 5th February 2018 at 7pm
Nietzsche. (Marg)
Nietzsche was the son of a Lutheran clergy-man. Yet his philosophy is best known for his critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture and the death of God.
Did his religious upbringing and mental illness influence his philosophical writings ?
Discuss and consider these influences and the people in his life who had an impact upon his thinking.
Marg.
Previous Discussion
Wednesday, 17th January 2018 at 7pm
Determinism & Free Will. (Keith Taylor)
18 th century philosopher Baron d'Holbach advocated a Hard-determinism, basing his assertion on Newtonian mechanics, where the universe is wholly deterministic, and running like a clock, and there are no other possibilities other than what could be predicted.
A contemporary of d’Holbachs astronomer and mathematician Pierre Laplace said: if we knew all of the positions of the atoms in the universe we would be able to predict exactly what is going to happen anytime anywhere.
However, less ridged versions known as Soft-determinism, Compatibilism & ‘Libertarian free will’ were preferred by the majority of thinkers around that time, and these are the most popular today. People were very concerned about what determinism meant for morality and they advocated a deterministic
universe where other possibilities exist; so that when we act on our desires, we can break the pre-determined path.
Kant’s response to determinism was: “Ought implies can”. If you morally ought to do something then it must be the case that you can do it, and freedom is necessary for morality.
Descartes espoused Dualism, saying that the human mind isn't made of the usual stuff such as matter and so isn't subject to the same laws as everything else.
Hobbes, Hume and Voltaire argued that free will is a highly developed ability, refined through evolution, to envisage future possibilities and make the best choices - hence we are morally responsible.
Einstein was a hard determinist, but he still agreed that people should jailed for their crimes.
And in our modern western culture, the justice system takes into account ideas offered by soft determinism when considering degrees of punishment. For example, if a wife killed her husband out of desire alone then she will be punished for murder. But if she had been a victim of severe domestic violence then the court would consider the external causes of her severe emotional and psychological drama and she would be punished less severely.
For Consideration
1. Was soft determinism invented and maintained to avoid people using the idea of determinism to absolve themselves from moral responsibility?
2. Is there any evidence for the existence of soft determinism?
3. How far should we attribute blame to criminals?
4. Defeatism - if you feel like never getting out of bed or ever doing any work, can you say that this is determined and you can’t do anything about it?
5. On causality: How far should we attribute blame? How far back can we take causality? How far can we apportion blame to others?
Keith Taylor.
Wednesday, 17th January 2018 at 7pm
Determinism & Free Will. (Keith Taylor)
18 th century philosopher Baron d'Holbach advocated a Hard-determinism, basing his assertion on Newtonian mechanics, where the universe is wholly deterministic, and running like a clock, and there are no other possibilities other than what could be predicted.
A contemporary of d’Holbachs astronomer and mathematician Pierre Laplace said: if we knew all of the positions of the atoms in the universe we would be able to predict exactly what is going to happen anytime anywhere.
However, less ridged versions known as Soft-determinism, Compatibilism & ‘Libertarian free will’ were preferred by the majority of thinkers around that time, and these are the most popular today. People were very concerned about what determinism meant for morality and they advocated a deterministic
universe where other possibilities exist; so that when we act on our desires, we can break the pre-determined path.
Kant’s response to determinism was: “Ought implies can”. If you morally ought to do something then it must be the case that you can do it, and freedom is necessary for morality.
Descartes espoused Dualism, saying that the human mind isn't made of the usual stuff such as matter and so isn't subject to the same laws as everything else.
Hobbes, Hume and Voltaire argued that free will is a highly developed ability, refined through evolution, to envisage future possibilities and make the best choices - hence we are morally responsible.
Einstein was a hard determinist, but he still agreed that people should jailed for their crimes.
And in our modern western culture, the justice system takes into account ideas offered by soft determinism when considering degrees of punishment. For example, if a wife killed her husband out of desire alone then she will be punished for murder. But if she had been a victim of severe domestic violence then the court would consider the external causes of her severe emotional and psychological drama and she would be punished less severely.
For Consideration
1. Was soft determinism invented and maintained to avoid people using the idea of determinism to absolve themselves from moral responsibility?
2. Is there any evidence for the existence of soft determinism?
3. How far should we attribute blame to criminals?
4. Defeatism - if you feel like never getting out of bed or ever doing any work, can you say that this is determined and you can’t do anything about it?
5. On causality: How far should we attribute blame? How far back can we take causality? How far can we apportion blame to others?
Keith Taylor.
revious PiPs Extra
Monday, 8th January 2018 at 7pm
Moral Judgement using Kant's Categorical Imperative. (David)
When asked about right and wrong many people refer to the Golden Rule ('Do unto others as you would have done unto you') which appears in Christianity and also in much older moral systems. However the Golden rule is obviously flawed. What happens for example if it is applied by a masochist, for example someone with religious beliefs that involve punishments?
The Categorical Imperative would appear to be a superior, reason based approach. In its simplest form it asks us to consider what would happen if everyone behaved that way.
In preparation for this Pips Extra please read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
Then review any other videos, podcasts and articles that you can find. What do you think of this approach? What are its strengths and weaknesses? What other approaches would you suggest?
David.
Monday, 8th January 2018 at 7pm
Moral Judgement using Kant's Categorical Imperative. (David)
When asked about right and wrong many people refer to the Golden Rule ('Do unto others as you would have done unto you') which appears in Christianity and also in much older moral systems. However the Golden rule is obviously flawed. What happens for example if it is applied by a masochist, for example someone with religious beliefs that involve punishments?
The Categorical Imperative would appear to be a superior, reason based approach. In its simplest form it asks us to consider what would happen if everyone behaved that way.
In preparation for this Pips Extra please read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
Then review any other videos, podcasts and articles that you can find. What do you think of this approach? What are its strengths and weaknesses? What other approaches would you suggest?
David.
hdg_doughnut_economics.pdf | |
File Size: | 142 kb |
File Type: |
hdg-cults.pdf | |
File Size: | 79 kb |
File Type: |
hdg-enhancing_homo_sapiens.pdf | |
File Size: | 104 kb |
File Type: |
pips_science_mars.pdf | |
File Size: | 91 kb |
File Type: |
conscious_cars.pdf | |
File Size: | 40 kb |
File Type: |
Contact us
[email protected] |