! Philosophy in Los Angeles !'s topics - tribe.net

WHAT'S THE MEANING OF LIFE? (yeah, really!)

2008-06-25T14:31:07Z

Hi everyone! We are having a gathering this Sunday in Santa Monica (4-20-08; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after Sunday's meeting.

Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email voting this week:

WHAT'S THE MEANING OF LIFE? Does life even have a purpose or meaning? When we ask this question, what exactly are we asking? Does the question even make sense? If it does, it leads to a number of related questions that include but are not limited to the following. Does meaning come 'from within' or from an external source? Can life be meaningful, given its apparent finitude and impermanence, or is it worthwhile only if there is an eternal aspect to it?"

Life's purpose or meaning may be among the oldest of philosophical questions, but philosophers are still talking about it. Typically, they approach it by trying to analyze or make sense of the question, trying to give an answer to it, or trying to show that it has no answer, that life has no meaning. Of those who try to answer it, many attempt to "capture in a single principle all the variegated conditions that confer meaning on life," according to one recent article on the issue.
-----------------------------------

For those interested, here are the full vote-by-email results for this month's topic:

1) Are You An Ethical 'Speciesist' Or Anthropomorphist? (15.5 Votes)
2) Is Science Converging Upon The Truth, (15.25 Votes)
3) What's The Meaning Of Life?? (34.0 Votes)
4) Why Is It Wrong To Pollute? What Is Pollution, Anyway? (8.75 Votes)
5) What Moral Obligations Do We Have To Obey The Laws And Legal Rulings Of Our Government? (9.5 Votes)

Each topic stays on the list until it wins or consistently receives a paltry number of votes. You may have noticed that the votes do not come in whole numbers. This is not because fractions of a person turn in votes, but because you receive one vote for your top choice, a half vote for your 2nd choice (if you had one), a quarter vote for your 3rd choice, and so on.

See you Sunday!

Brian

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 12 replies

Should we & can we cure Aging?

2008-06-21T01:17:07Z

Hi everyone! Our monthly gathering is this Sunday in Santa Monica at 5 PM (6-18-08; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). I hope to see you there!

Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion (either before or after Sunday's meeting) by posting your own ideas in this thread, or in the nearby thread called "Living to 120 years of age, would you want to?"

Here's how I framed the topic this month:

NEAR IMMORTALITY FOR US ALL? Does society have a moral obligation to vastly increase the resources dedicated to curing biological aging? What benefits and burdens would agelessness have for individuals and for society? Would you want the option to live, in good health, nearly forever? (Assuming you could avoid death by severe injury, accident, violence, contagious disease, etc.)

Most people in our society agree we should support at least some research into ameliorating the effects of aging, particularly when the research promises a quick payoff in the form of treatments for specific diseases. What is much more controversial is the mandate, as some argue, to pour massive amounts of money into the attempt to understand the underlying mechanisms of aging and to preemptively intervene in them-- and do so for as many people as possible-- right now. We had a war on polio and on cancer; should we have a "war on aging," too? What if we funded this war on the scale of, say, the war in Iraq? The results could be a huge ethical boon, the halting of the death-by-aging of tens of thousands of people each day. A number of researchers think this is achievable. As the "law of unintended effects" would have it, though, there would be a downside. Is it worth it?
-------------------------

See you Sunday!

Brian

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 6 replies

living to 120 years of age, would you want to?

2008-06-19T06:58:08Z

WELLESLEY, Mass. (AP) -- Ray Kurzweil doesn't tailgate. A man who plans to live forever doesn't take chances with his health on the highway, or anywhere else.

As part of his daily routine, Kurzweil ingests 250 supplements, eight to 10 glasses of alkaline water and 10 cups of green tea. He also periodically tracks 40 to 50 fitness indicators, down to his "tactile sensitivity.'' Adjustments are made as needed.

"I do actually fine-tune my programming,'' he said.

The famed inventor and computer scientist is serious about his health because if it fails him he might not live long enough to see humanity achieve immortality, a seismic development he predicts in his new book is no more than 20 years away.

It's a blink of an eye in history, but long enough for the 56-year-old Kurzweil to pay close heed to his fitness. He urges others to do the same in "Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever.''

The book is partly a health guide so people can live to benefit from a coming explosion in technology he predicts will make infinite life spans possible.

Kurzweil writes of millions of blood cell-sized robots, which he calls "nanobots,'' that will keep us forever young by swarming through the body, repairing bones, muscles, arteries and brain cells. Improvements to our genetic coding will be downloaded via the Internet. We won't even need a heart.

The claims are fantastic, but Kurzweil is no crank. He's a recipient of the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT prize, which is billed as a sort of Academy Award for inventors, and he won the 1999 National Medal of Technology Award. He has written on the emergence of intelligent machines in publications ranging from Wired to Time magazine. The Christian Science Monitor has called him a "modern Edison.'' He was inducted into the Inventors Hall of Fame in 2002. Perhaps the MIT graduate's most famous inventions is the first reading machine for the blind that could read any typeface.

This excerpt was taken from an article by Live science. I found it intriging. I guess each of us has to examine our lives and ascertain if we have achieved the quality of life that would benefit from living to such a ripe old age. Many questions arise from this article, any comments? Deb (Moon)

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 9 replies

The things that influence how people vote

2008-06-07T23:29:40Z

For all those who made it to the Philosophy Club get-together on the 19th, great meeting!

Here is a link to that article I mentioned early on during the discussion. If the link doesn't work, let me know. I have the text, so I can just send it to you.

(The article is written by Louis Menand, who won the Pulitzer, for -- what else?? -- "The Metaphysical Club")

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 3 replies

Can one rationally convert to a religion?

2008-05-21T01:29:03Z

Hi everyone! We are having a gathering this Sunday in Santa Monica (3-16-08; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after Sunday's meeting.

Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of a very close vote by email this week:

IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE RATIONALLY PERSUADED TO CONVERT TO A RELIGION? It's often said that people accept their childhood religion, or convert to a new one, for reasons other than a rational appraisal of arguments and evidence. Is it ever rational to convert to a religion? Whether it is or not, some argue that one's religious choices don't need to be rationally justified, that such choices shouldn't primarily be a matter of intellectual justification. Decisions of this sort are, they say, akin to questions about one’s preferences for food, music, or jobs.

For the sake of the discussion, we'll focus on the usual notion of religion, i.e., religion based on supernatural beliefs. However, if you must, you can argue that it is reasonable to convert to a religion lacking in supernatural beliefs, for example, the reverence for or worship of nature, "Gaia," the big bang, etc. Though, it is arguable whether the supernatural is truly absent in these examples, or, if it is absent, that it could then be called "religion." We may discuss this as a side issue.

-----------------------------------

For those interested, here are the full vote-by-email results for this month's topic:

1) Should Deaf Parents Be Allowed To Refuse To Cure The Deafness Of Their Children? (4.75 Votes)
2) Is Science Converging Upon The Truth, (20.75 Votes)
3) Is It Possible To Be Rationally Persuaded To Convert To A Religion? (24.25 Votes)
4) Why Is It Wrong To Pollute? What Is Pollution, Anyway? (7.0 Votes)
5) What Moral Obligations Do We Have To Obey The Laws And Legal Rulings Of Our Government? (24.0 Votes)

(You may have noticed that the votes do not come in whole numbers. This is not because fractions of a person turn in votes, but because you receive one vote for your top choice, a half vote for your 2nd choice (if you had one), a quarter vote for your 3rd choice, and so on.)

See you Sunday!

Brian

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 4 replies

Would You Enter The Happiness/Experience Machine?

2008-05-18T09:39:00Z

Hi everyone! We are having our monthly gathering this Sunday in Santa Monica, the usual 3rd Sunday of the month (5-18-08; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after Sunday's meeting.

Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email voting this week. This one is much longer than usual:

WOULD YOU CHOOSE TO ENTER THE HAPPINESS MACHINE? Consider this thought experiment, which came up at the end of our "Meaning of Life" discussion at last month's meeting:

"You have the option to permanently enter a virtual reality/ brain stimulation machine that provides you with a subjective world you fully believe to be real, and in which you have all of the experiences you most desire to have, i.e., intense physical pleasures, successful adventures, power, fame, insights, the satisfactions of helping the poor or ill, literary or scientific achievements, religious experiences, great friendships, love, and so on. Not only do you choose the experiences you want (before you enter the machine), but (if you'd like) the machine also can sense and give you whatever it is that you most value and enjoy, even if you don't fully know what that is. It even provides you with hardships, uncertainty, dangers, pain, and weighty decisions to struggle over, if that's what you need to be as happy as possible. Once you enter it, you won't realize you are in a machine, though you'll remember your previous life (unless you want to forget it). Nobody else will witness your dream life/ virtual life within the machine, the "Pulitzer Prize-winning novel" or play you may choose to write will not actually be the superlative work of fiction you are totally convinced it is (though other "people" in your world will tell you it is), and when you die, your dream world will end. The machine will not break or malfunction, cause you to die prematurely, or produce any untoward side effects. The question is this: would you choose to enter this machine for the rest of your life? Is this what is best for you? Why, or why not? What is your instant, gut reaction to this example? What is your final choice after thinking about it for a while?"

To feel the full force of this experiment, imagine that you are in the 20-30 year old range when you answer this question, with a full life ahead of you. If you imagine you are 90 years old when you have this choice, your answer will probably miss the point of the question. Philosopher Robert Nozick invented the "Experience Machine" scenario, as he called it, to spur us to explore and reveal to ourselves our intuitions about what our well-being consists in and what we take to be most worth living for. Note that the issue is not whether such a machine will or could exist, but if it did exist, whether you'd choose to live in it instead of remaining in the real world, interacting with real people and real things. (For you skeptics and solipsists, this example assumes that our present world is fully real, that other people exist, that we're not already in a "Matrix," etc.)
-----------------------------------

For the curious, here are the full vote-by-email results for this month:

1) Are You An Ethical 'Speciesist' Or Anthropomorphist? (20.5 Votes)
2) Is Science Converging Upon The Truth? (17.0 Votes)
3) Would You Choose To Enter The Happiness Machine? (23.0 Votes)
4) Why Is It Wrong To Pollute? What Is Pollution, Anyway? (9.0 Votes)
5) What Moral Obligations Do We Have To Obey The Laws And Legal Rulings Of Our Government? (15.75 Votes)

Each topic stays on the list until it wins or consistently receives a paltry number of votes. You may have noticed that the votes do not come in whole numbers. This is not because fractions of a person turn in votes, but because you receive one vote for your top choice, a half vote for your 2nd choice (if you had one), a quarter vote for your 3rd choice, and so on.

See you Sunday!

Brian

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 1 reply

what's your political type?

2008-03-11T05:45:20Z

The Pew Research Center (the people who are constantly polling Americans) have divided the elecorate into 9 political categories, based on political values and beliefs. (I heard about this on NPR yesterday.)

Click on this link, take their quiz, and see where you fit in. More fun than a personality test! If you're brave, you can post your quiz results in this thread, and perhaps argue about the meaning and/or validity of the typology. Or tell us how it can possibly be the case that the 8 out of 9 Americans who aren't in your category can be so politically misguided, etc.

http://typology.people-press.org/

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 9 replies

What Have You Recently Changed Your Mind About?

2008-02-21T19:54:26Z

Hi everyone! We are having a gathering this Sunday in Santa Monica (2-24-08; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after the meeting.

Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the vote by email this week:
-----------------------------------

WHAT IMPORTANT IDEA HAVE YOU RECENTLY CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT? This query is posed by "The Edge," a website that posts one big question each year and solicits the responses of a slew of well-known thinkers. Most responses are just one or a few paragraphs long. You can read about this question and their list of contributors (165 luminaries) at http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html
To see what these thinker came up with, scroll about half way down the webpage, past the blurbs, to find where their responses start. Alternately, go directly to this link: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_1.html to see just the responses. Much was written, so this will serve as our OPTIONAL READING this month.

Whether or not you look at what they wrote, think for a bit about a significant philosophical, ethical or social idea or issue you've changed your mind about within the last few months or years. Come to our meeting and tell us about it, and most importantly, tell us why you changed your mind, and perhaps why we, too, should change our mind about it.

Though many voted for this topic and said they were curious to hear what others have to say, many also said they couldn't think of what they themselves have had a change of heart or mind about. Thus, I highly encourage you think on the matter ahead of time and write a few things down. Look at The Edge website to see if the words of some of the today's mavens inspire you to alter your views on something significant (or help you remember what you've already changed your mind about, but forgot about).

If you have trouble coming up with something, you might want to consider the related issue of why it is that so few of us change our minds about significant matters after the age of, say, 25 or so. What does this say about us? Is it a mark of our unreasoned resistance to new views or new data?

It took me a while to think of something important I've recently changed my mind about, and I’ll mention it here, since it's precisely on this point. I used to think that people regularly change their minds about significant matters for good reasons, and that we have at least some measure of control over what we believe. While I still agree with this idea with respect to beliefs that carry a small emotional charge, I'm more skeptical about our rational capacities with respect to our most emotionally loaded beliefs

My views have moved in the direction of Nietzsche, Freud and author Michael Shermer, who believe that nearly all of our important beliefs, especially our more personal or emotionally charged, "core" beliefs, are arrived at by non-rational means, in childhood or after. Most of our actual reasoning activity is reserved for matters that don't threaten our core beliefs, or it consists in finding reasons, evidence and clever justifications to support our core views. When it comes to our most important beliefs, almost all rationality is actually rationalization. This probably applies to most people, most of the time, and even to the most rational and intelligent of us, some of the time.

I would add that, when we change our minds about an emotionally charged, core belief, it's usually not for good reasons. This is probably the case, to give a controversial example, with most religious conversions and, on the flip side, with most cases of the loss of one's faith.

Additionally, I think that we have no direct control over our beliefs; we cannot change them by an act of will. Of course, we come across new information all the time, and it sometimes changes us, but we have little control over how that information changes our beliefs-- it acts on its own.

We can control what we choose to think, talk or read about, with what group of people we spend time with, and so on. We may even try to change our beliefs about some matter. These actions may (or may not) indirectly lead to our beliefs changing, on their own, but we have little or no control over the result. Though we may try to be as reasonable as we can be, and try to avoid wishful thinking, we have no guarantee of the outcome.

If the above is accurate, it's no surprise we have a hard time coming up with matters of importance we've changed our minds about! Moreover, when we have changed, it usually has not been as a result of good reasoning. But I am hoping all of you can persuade me that I'm wrong about this!
-----------------------------------

For those interested, here are the full vote-by-email results for this month's topic:

1) What Important Thing Have You Recently Changed Your Mind About? (20.0 Votes)
2) Is Science Converging Upon The Truth, (14.25 Votes)
3) Is It Possible To Be Rationally Persuaded To Convert To A Religion? (12.5 Votes)
4) What Is A Psychoanalytic View On Attempting To Be Rational About Ethics? (9.0 Votes)
5) What Moral Obligations Do We Have To Obey The Laws And Legal Rulings Of Our Government? (16.75 Votes)

(You may have noticed that the votes do not come in whole numbers. This is not because fractions of a person turn in votes, but because you receive one vote for your top choice, a half vote for your 2nd choice (if you had one), a quarter vote for your 3rd choice, and so on.)

See you Sunday!

Brian

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 0 replies

MONOGAMY: Yes or No?

2008-01-16T22:08:08Z

Hi everyone! Here's the topic for this Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica at 5pm (on 1-20-08; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the vote by email this week:
-----------------------------------

MONOGAMY: is it realistic to expect our spouses and partners to remain monogamous? Can you stick to it? Should you try? Has monogamy become one of those ideals that the vast majority of people publicly claims to believe in (and encourages others to adhere to), though far fewer privately believe in or practice consistently?

Sexually, can one person truly complete another? If not, should we be open to "having our needs met" by a variety of individuals? Is the pain we feel when a partner cheats on us due mainly to the deception and the violation of our expectation of monogamy? Or, is it deeper than that; is the abandoning of monogamy a bad idea because it unavoidably yields so much jealousy and insecurity that it destroys relationships?
-----------------------------------

I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after the meeting.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 3 replies

a list of Philosophy Discussion Groups in the greater L.A. area that meet in-person

2007-11-30T04:05:16Z

For all of you who are looking for face-to-face, salon-style group discussions of philosophy (and related topics) in any part of the L.A. / Pasadena. Long Beach / Orange County area, I'll list here the groups I know of, along with contact information.

If any of you know of any group that I haven't listed here, please add that info to this thread (by clicking the "reply to this post" button at the bottom of this webpage). I'll also update this list as I hear of other groups.

I hope you find this useful!

Brian
*********

1) The Philosophy-in-LA discussion group, of course! That's the fun group that created this very webpage/ tribe!
Has been meeting on the 3rd Sunday of every month at 2pm or 5pm for the last 4 years! It's my favorite group :)
Contact: send a message to Brian (AKA ScreamBrian), the moderator of this tribe, by clicking on his profile, or email him at angelonapinhead@gmail.com
Or, check out the other name and website of this group, "The Santa Monica Philosophy Meetup Group," at philosophy.meetup.com/37/ or go to www.meetup.com and put the name of the group in their search bar.

2) Citizen-Thinker Salons will be held at Borders Books on Lake in Pasadena on the first Saturday morning of each month from November 2007 to May 2008. Contact: Philosopher- Citizen Institute philosopher_ citizen@hotmail.com (626) 585-7406. Facilitators: PCC Professors David Uranga (Political Science) & Linda Handelman (Philosophy).
Where: Borders Books on Lake, 2nd floor, 475 S. Lake Ave., Pasadena, CA 91101 (next to Macy's)
"To Our Fellow Philosopher- Citizens: You (along with your concerns about the future of our country) are invited to attend our new series of discussions. When: Our kick-off salon is on Saturday morning, November 3rd, 10AM to 1PM. Civil, balanced discussions. Open to the public. Coffee & light snacks. Suggested donation: $5.00"
Topic: Citizen-Thinkers: Can Our Voices Be Heard?
1. Can a thinking citizen make a dent in our media-blitzed culture?
2. Can our system of representative government ever work as our founders had intended?
(Excerpts from the Federalist Papers will be provided.)

3) Categorically Not! Meets monthly in Santa Monica on a Sunday at about 6pm, with three expert speakers giving short presentations on a theme relating to science, culture and/or (loosely) philosophy. Run by K.C. Cole, the chief science writer for the L.A. Times. Small ticket price (about $5). Santa Monica Art Studios, 3026 Airport Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90405. Contact: categoricallynot.org/upcomingevents.html or www.santamonicaartstudios.com and please RSVP to 310/ 397-7449 or info@santamonicaartstudios.com

4) The Altadena Socrates Cafe. Meets on one Sunday a month in Altadena (near Pasadena).
Contact: socratescafe.meetup.com/128/ , or go to www.meetup.com and put the name of the group in their search bar, or email Bernard at madbard@cafemadbard.com

5) The Los Angeles Philosophy Meetup Group. Meets one Wednesday a month in Eagle Rock (near Glendale).
Contact: philosophy.meetup.com/195/ or go to www.meetup.com and put the name of the group in their search bar.

6) The Orange County Socrates Cafe. For several years, Professor Martin Young has held occasional philosophy discussion cafes for his philosophy students and others in the Orange County area. Contact: www.Madwizard.com

7) The Long Beach Philosophy Meetup Group. Currently meets one Thursday or Friday a month at a coffee house in Long Beach.
Contact: philosophy.meetup.com/250/ or go to www.meetup.com and put the name of the group in their search bar. The organizer is talented Chris Bobo.

8) The OC Philosophy Meetup Group. Currently meets one Friday a month in Orange County.
Contact: philosophynow.meetup.com/1/ or go to www.meetup.com and put the name of the group in their search bar. The organizer is, again, the talented Chris Bobo.

9) The L.A. Futurists Society. Meets one Friday or Sunday a month in the West LA area, sometimes at UCLA.
Contact: go to Yahoo groups and put "LA Futurists" or "Los Angeles Futurists" in the search bar. You can also email them at LAFuturists@yahoogroups.com, but whatever you send to that email address will be distributed to the entire mailing list.

10) Philosophy Club Monthly Dinner. Contact: David at DavidCTerr@aol.com or 310-971-0357.
Here's what their flyer says: "This will be a very informal setting...where people can discuss philosophy, politics, religion, or whatever comes to mind."
Meets, currently, one Sunday evening a month at 6:30 at Souplantation in Brentwood, 11911 San Vicente Blvd (corner of San Vicente and Montana next to I-405) For more information about this restaurant, visit www.souplantation.com/locatio...rant.asp

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 1 reply

Buddhist Theories of the Mind

2007-11-18T20:16:55Z

Hey people, here's the topic of next Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica (May 20 at 5pm; see the event listing in this tribe page). We have a speaker this time, Ron Sharrin, Buddhist Meditation teacher and psychologist at UCLA, who will talk about Buddhist Psychology and Theories of Mind. Afterwards, we will have a question and answer session with him and then, time permitting, we will do our usual back-and-forth on those (and related) philosophical issues.

The Buddhist way of looking at life and the human mind have implications for a number of traditional, western philosophical and psychological controversies, such as the nature of the human mind, the causes of suffering and happiness (and what to do about them), what human nature is (or if there is one), what constitutes a "Good Life" and "The Good," and so on. Our speaker will cover some of these questions and, during the discussion, we can ponder these issues and ask the speaker questions about them.

-------------------------------

I hope to see you there! Also, you can start a discussion of Buddhist Theories of the Mind and Philosophy in this thread, too.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 7 replies

What does it mean to be IRRATIONAL?

2007-11-10T00:18:30Z

Hey everyone, this is the topic for this Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica at 2pm (on 11-11-07; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the vote by email this week:
-----------------------------------

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE IRRATIONAL? When you get the impression that someone is acting or being “irrational,” what exactly do you mean? What are the different meanings of “irrational?” What are the different categories of “being or acting irrationally?”

-----------------------------------

I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after the meeting.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 3 replies

World Government: reasons for and against

2007-10-19T06:48:28Z

Hey everyone, this is the topic for this Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica at 5pm (on 10-21-07; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of a close vote by email this week:
-----------------------------------

WORLD GOVERNMENT: YES OR NO? Would this be a watershed in the attempt to reduce or eliminate war, promote international law and alleviate human suffering, as its advocates contend? Or, are the risks of oppression and incompetence so high that we shouldn’t attempt it? Whether you're in favor of it or not, is world government a real possibility or is it a utopian or sci-fi fantasy? By world government, by the way, we don’t mean a weaker institution like the current U.N., which is usually said to be an extra-governmental or supra-governmental organization, but a true world government.

-----------------------------------

We have a speaker this month, Tad Daley, with some expertise on the matter. He'll introduce the idea of World Government to us for about 15-20 minutes. After this, we'll follow our usual format of conversing about the issue in smaller groups of about 8-12 people for about half of the time, then finishing the discussion as one, large circle for the other half.

-----------------------------------

I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after the meeting.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 2 replies

FRIENDSHIP: the nature of, philosophical questions about...

2007-09-21T02:52:18Z

Hey people, this is the topic of this Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica at 5pm (on 9-16-07; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of a very close vote by email this week:
-----------------------------------

FRIENDSHIP: What does it mean to be a good friend? What are the essential ingredients of friendship? We can tackle a number of questions that philosophers have argued about. How do you (and should you) choose the particular friends you have? Do you have (or need) explicit criteria? Aristotle, for example, distinguished three subtypes: friendships of pleasure, of utility, and of virtue. Is it okay to make friends because the person is useful to you? Because the person needs you? Because you take pleasure in the person's company? Because you like or share their character or traits? Because you hold common views? Is it okay to “trade up” when a new, potential friend comes along? What responsibilities, if any, do we have to ourselves when choosing which friends we have?

How do our friendships affect our moral actions? Can our obligations to friends sometimes trump our moral duties, or must we always subordinate our personal relationships to morality? Many ethicists, for example, claim that the requirements of friendship pose a challenge to our typical ways of thinking about ethics (e.g., utilitarian/ consequentialist theories and deontological theories).
-----------------------------------

I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after the meeting.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 3 replies

Do all sciences reduce to physics? (the topic for this Sunday's meeting in Santa Monica)

2007-08-26T12:43:18Z

Hey Everybody: let's start a discussion on this topic-- feel free to put down any ideas you have on this issue.

We have a speaker this Sunday at our philosophy-in-LA gathering in Santa Monica talking about this (see the Event posting on this tribe page). He is philosopher and UCLA professor of Chemistry Eric R. Scerri, a leading philosopher of science specializing in the philosophy of chemistry, particularly the history and philosophy of the Periodic Table of Elements. He is also the founder and editor in chief of the international journal "Foundations of Chemistry." He will give a presentation on REDUCTIONISM IN SCIENCE, and will then take questions.

SPECIFICALLY, HE WILL DISCUSS WHETHER CHEMISTRY REDUCES TO PHYSICS, PARTICULARLY QUANTUM MECHANICS. This issue is the main philosophical theme running through his new, well-reviewed book, "The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance" (Oxford University Press, 2006). His book focuses on the nature and history of, and philosophy behind, the periodic table, which lies at the core of the science of chemistry. Information on the book can be found at this Amazon.com link, www.amazon.com/Periodic-T...466-9671230

“Reductionism” is one of the biggest and most controversial issues in the philosophy of science. The general question is whether the findings and theories of one science (psychology or biology, for example) can be completely explained by or “reduced to” the theories and principles of another, more fundamental science (physics, for example). If all sciences reduce to physics, as is often assumed, then we should one day be able to, in principle at least, understand, explain and predict chemical, biological, psychological and social phenomena with the equations of physics. Is this really possible? This is the issue professor Scerri will address.

We can discuss it in this tribe, too!

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 2 replies

Free Will

2007-08-25T22:46:15Z

Here's another optional reading for the 3-20-05 gathering's topic of Free Will. It was written by Peter Voss, one of our frequent discussion participants.

http://www.optimal.org/peter/freewill.htm

Read and enjoy!

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 19 replies

What Duties Do We Have To Ourselves & Others?

2007-08-10T10:19:06Z

Hey people, this is the topic of Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica at 2pm (on 8-12-07; see the event listing nearby on this tribe page). Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email vote this week:

WHAT DUTIES DO WE HAVE TO OURSELVES AND TO OTHERS? Whether you think that ethical action reduces to just one duty (e.g., "each action should bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number") or an entire list of duties, come tell us what you deem your obligations in life to be. Even if you don't usually think in terms of living your life by duties, are your actions nevertheless in accord with particular ethical rules or duties? If you are skeptical of the very idea that we have any duties or obligations at all, ask yourself, "What do I feel guilty about doing or not doing? What in life is worth doing? What is the point of doing anything at all?" Your best answer to that can count as your provisional list of duties worthy of living by.

----------------

It's very helpful (though not required) if, before the meeting, you write a list of the duties you deem yourself to have. Try to state your duties in as wide and general form as possible. For example, instead of saying that you have a duty to protect your immediate family, you might say that your duty is to protect all those people you love, or all those who depend on you for their well-being (for example). In addition to listing or telling us your duties, give us reasons why you choose each of your duties.

Here's a concept that may be useful to your thinking on the issue and to drawing up a list of your own duties. Some philosophers claim that our ethical obligations are best understood as consisting of one or more "prima facie" duties, that is, duties we have "on the face of it," duties that we have in general, as a rule, but not necessarily in all situations. These are not absolute rules or duties.

For example, we might have a general, prima facie duty to not harm others, though exceptions to this rule probably exist, e.g., when it conflicts with another duty that takes precedence in that situation, such as the duty to defend yourself or another innocent person against a violent attack. The idea is that, just because a duty isn't followed in every possible situation does not mean that it's not a real, legitimate duty. It's a rule that's highly valued and that we must attempt to follow as much as possible. We must have a good, justifiable reason to make any exceptions to adhering to the duty.

----------------

I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after the meeting.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 2 replies

Self-Deception: How is it possible?

2007-07-14T03:14:57Z

Hey people, this is the topic of Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica at 2pm (on 7-15-07; see the event listing I put up a few days ago on this tribe page). Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email vote this week:

SELF-DECEPTION: how is it possible to deceive yourself? What exactly is self-deception? Is it always negative, or does it have its salutary side, too? Are we morally responsible for deceiving ourselves? Is it morally wrong?

I hope to see you there! Whether or not you come to Sunday's meeting, feel free to carry on a discussion by posting your own ideas here, either before or after the meeting.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 4 replies

Humor: what makes something funny?

2007-07-01T01:18:47Z

Hey people, this is the topic of Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica (see the event listing I put up a few days ago on this tribe page):

HUMOR: what makes something funny, and what’s the nature of humor? What's distinctive about humor? Can philosophy or psychology tell us anything about it? Is it something we could program a computer to have?

--------------------------------

I hope to see some of you there! Also, you can start a discussion of humor in this thread, too.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 16 replies

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

2007-04-29T19:39:05Z

Hey people, this is the topic of Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica at 2pm (see the event listing I put up a few days ago on this tribe page). Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email vote this week:

WHEN, IF EVER, DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

We can approach this question by way of any number of examples, so bring your own favorite hypothetical case. Consider this (admittedly extreme) legal example. In a criminal trial, it's clear that "Fred" is guilty of murder. He freely gives a detailed confession of details that only the actual murderer could know. Yet the court has no other evidence sufficient to convict Fred. Unfortunately, he gave his confession without being read his Miranda rights ("you have the right to remain silent..."). Legally, our judge, Judge Wopner, should throw out the confession, freeing the murderer (who may, of course, commit further crimes). Assuming that the situation is as simple as described, and there are no other relevant facts, what should the judge do? Should Wopner ignore the rule of law and convict the murderer or respect the rule of law and toss out the confession?

Imagine that the procedural justice violation was more extreme than failing to follow the Miranda rule, e.g., coaching a witness, suppressing evidence that might get the defendant freed, or even torturing a confession out of the murderer. Would that change your mind on whether the ends justify the means? What if, instead of murder, the defendant was guilty only of car theft or shoplifting? What if he were not simply a murderer but a murderous terrorist who might have information about upcoming terrorist acts?

In legal or philosophical terms, this sort of dilemma is often framed as a question of procedural justice (good and just means) versus substantive justice (good and just ends). Procedural justice requires that just procedures are followed, e.g., following the same rules for everyone, adhering to the rule of law, playing fair. It also requires that we not allow good ends (imprisoning a murderer) to justify bad means (refusing to give a defendant all rights-- such as the Miranda rights-- and the full protection of the law). Substantive justice requires that a just outcome occurs-- in this case, that the murderer is imprisoned.
--------------------------------

I hope to see you there! Also, you can start a discussion of "Do the Ends Justify the Means?" in this thread, too.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 5 replies

The Logic of Nuclear Deterrence

2007-03-24T06:28:26Z

Tad Daley, a friend of mine and occasional participant of our monthly philosophy discussion group in Santa Monica, recently wrote a good article on this, as it pertains to the current situation with Iran. It appears on several website, including www.truthdig.com, www.huffingtonpost.com, and www.commondreams.org

Check out a direct link to the article:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0306-23.htm

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 0 replies

MODERNITY: an overall benefit for humanity or not?

2007-03-23T20:32:50Z

Hey people, this is the topic of Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica (see the event listing I put up a few days ago on this tribe page). Here's the "official" wording of this topic, which was the winner of the email vote:

HAS MODERNITY BEEN, ON BALANCE, A BENEFIT FOR HUMANITY? This question isn’t answered by economic measures alone, of course, but also by social, psychological, spiritual, or whichever other criteria you deem to be most important to assessing our level of human flourishing and suffering.
--------------------------------

I hope to see some of you there! Also, you can start a discussion of "Modernity" in this thread, too.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 5 replies

Foolish Consistency

2007-03-11T00:40:38Z

By way of preface to a comment I shall make in a separate entry, below, following is an excerpt from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "Self Reliance":

"But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today. -- 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' -- Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood."

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 2 replies

What Characterizes RATIONAL Discussion, & How Does It Differ From Other Ways Of Dealing With Disagreement And Conflict?

2007-02-18T14:56:05Z

Hi people-- this is one of the topics up for a vote for this Sunday's philosophy discussion in Santa Monica. A few people emailed me opinions on it, so I thought I'd start this thread. Tell me what you think about the matter!

Here is the way the topic was worded:

1) WHAT IS A RATIONAL DISCUSSION? What is required for having a rational discussion, and how is it different from other ways of dealing with disagreements and conflicts?

By the way, if you have a favorite topic from the list, you can vote by sending me message today (see the Event listing on this tribe page called "Philosophy-in-LA Café, January 21, 2:00 PM").

Lastly, if you have any philosophical issue or question that's been "weighing heavily on your soul," or that you’ve been dying to talk to somebody about, then definitely write it up and send me a message or email, or start a thread on it! The topics that we vote on and talk about at our monthly gatherings come from such questions and puzzles that have fascinated or annoyed some member of our discussion group and/or this tribe.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 7 replies

What Is Your Most Dangerous Idea?

2007-02-12T09:53:13Z

This is the topic for this Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica, which you are all invited to (see the Event posting next to this topic). Feel free to contribute your ideas here, whether or not you're planning to come to Sunday's discussion. Also, check out the website listed below, for interesting reading:
------------------------

WHAT IS YOUR MOST DANGEROUS IDEA? This is the 2006 Annual Question asked by "The Edge" website, http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_index.html
Here's how they state the question, "The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?"

To see what others have come up with, scroll through the pages of the website—119 people, most of them well-known thinkers and luminaries, wrote their "dangerous idea" in just one or a few paragraphs, typically. But before you look at the ideas of others, think for a few minutes and jot down your own ideas. Most of the contributed "dangerous" ideas are science-inspired, yet these ideas are not primarily about science. Rather, they're about the impact these ideas might have on how society is set up and on our philosophical views about the world, society, and human nature.

If you have a "dangerous" idea, whether scientifically inspired or not, succinctly tell us what it is. Let us know what's philosophical about your idea, why it's dangerous, why you think it might become true, what effect you think it would have on our worldview and society, and/or the reasons why we should accept or agree with your dangerous idea.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 8 replies

The Unabomber Manifesto

2007-02-10T05:13:14Z

Here's a link to the complete text of the Unabomber Manifesto on Wikipedia. It's an interesting, if warped, analysis of contemporary society, politics, and psychology. While I find Kaczynski's conclusions questionable, some of his observations are thought-provoking. If nothing else, I sometimes find it useful in a "here's another way of looking at it" way during philosophical discussions. Enjoy!

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 1 reply

Why Be Moral?

2007-02-02T17:51:21Z

Hey people, here's the topic for our gathering in Santa Monica this Sunday:

WHY BE MORAL? Can you rationally persuade an intelligent, open-minded but amoral person to be ethical and act morally? How? Is there any real, objective basis for acting morally, or is it merely a subjective choice, a matter of taste? Does God(s), if he/it/they exist(s), give us a good reason to be a morally good person (other than fear of punishment or the hope of reward)? Can we be moral without God(s)?

We can role-play this discussion by having a few of our members play the role or the "egoist" or "amoralist," and everyone else can try to persuade them that they should be a moral person.
--------

If anyone has ideas on this, feel free to post them here!

Optional readings: if you'd like to read some articles on "Why Be Moral," I found four of them. Feel free to read any one or more of them, or none of them. First, a good and short (2.25 pages) overview of the question "why by moral," and whether the existence of God helps. This author, philosophy professor Keith parsons, comes from an agnostic or atheistic point of view,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/whymoral.html
Second, from our usual, trusted source, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is a short (2 pages) but somewhat technical discussion of our question by philosophy professor Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. He comes from a philosophical position known as "Practical Moral Skepticism," http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/supplement.html
Third, a more challenging but short (2 pages) reading is from the essay "Game theory and Ethics" by philosophy professors Bruno Verbeek and Christopher Morris, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/ (read only section 5, "Morals By Agreement," as this two page section is the only part relevant to our question).
Fourth, a longer (10 pages), though not difficult, reading by philosophy professor Theodore Drange covers many aspects of the issue, including the issue of whether the appeal to God gives us good reasons to be moral. He comes from an agnostic or atheistic point of view on this last point, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/whymoral.html
-------

By the way, if you know of any other optional readings on this topic, send them to me, especially if the author convincingly argues from a religious ("you need God to have morality") point of view, and/or is a non-philosopher.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 6 replies

BOREDOM: what is it, what does it mean?

2007-01-27T06:42:08Z

By virtue of your votes, this is the topic for this Sunday's philosophy discussion in Santa Monica.
If any of you have any ideas you'd like to share, add them to this thread!

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 5 replies

Can man make it to the next paradigm?

2007-01-02T01:56:31Z

I mean seriously...

IS there a leap in consciousness that is real and possible for any and or all of us?

Was Nietzsche right about his super man?

Do the spiritual teachings of the Buddha and Jesus turn out to be the same teaching just viewed from different angles?

Can mankind 'ascend'?

Let's hear it...

what do you think?

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 0 replies

Inherent Limits of Reason & Science

2006-12-31T17:12:04Z

The question for this month's (tomorrow's) discussion group is

"WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF REASON / RATIONALITY? WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE? Are these two the same thing? If reason and/or science has limits, why?"

I have a few (not necessarily complete) thoughts. "The limits of reason and science" is a hard question to answer, though I think we can, at least, clarify the question. I'll try to analyze the question and offer a few distinctions that make clearer sense of it.

First, our question can be interpreted in one of two ways, "What are the current limits to reason & science" versus "What are the potential limits to reason & science." The former is a less interesting empirical question; the latter is the more interesting philosophical question. Everyone knows science and other fields of human inquiry have many limitations at present. The real question is which of those limits can be overcome by continued inquiry.

Second, the funniest aspect of this question is that we are using reason & rationality itself to try to answer the question of the limits of reason & rationality. This at first seems strange, though I don't think it's a flaw or contradiction. Science and mathematics, after all, often discover their own limits to the acquisition of complete, total knowledge, prediction and control of reality, e.g., Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, many other weird findings in quantum mechanics, chaos theory, complexity theory, Godel's incompleteness theorem, limitations to the speed of computations, and so on. Information theory says that, in the absence of a conduit of information, some info about events or facts may be forever beyond our reach, due to the very structure of the universe. Many physicists & cosmologists believe this may be true about events that may have occurred "before" the Big Bang, or info about the source of physical laws and physical constants. We just can't get at that information. At this point, these seem like real, final limits, though we can't rule out the possibility that future scientific theories may show them not to be limits after all.

A real limit to science, I think, is the ability of science to answer questions about Values, such as good and bad, right and wrong. Moral philosophers call it "The Naturalistic Fallacy," when you try to reason from "What Is" (the realm of science) to "What Ought To Be" (the realm of values, ethics, aesthetics). This is not a limit to Reason in general, just to science in particular (science being one particular application of human reason).

Third, though we are using reason & rationality itself to try to answer the question of the limits of reason & rationality, we may not be limited to reason & science in answering our question. We can, maybe, use our intuition to arrive at the limits of reason. This brings up an interesting question, "is intuition something other than reason? Or is it just the operation of unconscious reason?" I don't know the answer to that. The very question brings up the inherent vagueness of the terms "reason," "rationality," or most any other term in language worth arguing about. This is an issue in most philosophical controversies and debates.

This distinction bears on the arguments made in a recent book, Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink." He argues that humans have practical limitations when approaching things "rationally." By "rational," he means the conscious process of gathering maximal info and performing drawn-out, careful deliberations. Often, he shows us, the snap intuitive judgments of a true expert are better than the elaborate deliberations of lesser experts. In general, many tasks and judgments are better made quickly, by one's gut or intuitive sense, rather than by a long, rational deliberation, especially when you are under time pressure or other kinds of stress. However, Gladwell's point doesn't argue for the limits of reason, if intuition is the operation of unconscious reason.

A fourth and obvious distinction to be made: the limitations to Science versus limitations to technology. The former seems the more philosophical question. The latter, the more empirical question.

Fifth, one of our regular meeting-goer's, Milan, brought up a very interesting point several months ago. If I understood him right, he was interested in the idea that, in doing philosophy, reason/ rationality is limited, and it is not our only tool. Finn Hansen, our speaker on Socratic Dialogue and philosophical counseling in August, brought up the same point. They both seem to think that, to philosophize well, one must supplement "Reason" (in the sense of "the rules of rational deliberation & logic") with our human form of social Understanding (what some German philosophers have called verstehen, if I'm spelling that right). This is the kind of automatic understanding we use when comprehending language and understanding our social world (if I'm remembering it accurately). Like intuition, it is usually or always a quick, unconscious process. The point they are making, I think, brings up another distinction to be made about the question of the limits of reason. When we say "Reason," do we only mean rational deliberation? Or does Reason include the above faculty of understanding? Off the top of my head, it would seem to me that it does include it. I would guess that rationality and understanding are different forms of "Reason." A very abstract question.

As to the question of why reason & science have the limitations they do, the answer often is "due to the limits of the human mind, attention, memory, time, computational power." This brings up a sixth distinction: when we ask about the limits of reason, do we mean the limits of human reason and/or the limits of the reason of a computer we make? Or, on the other hand, do we mean the limits to Reason itself (the limits to an ideal reasoner)? The former is a question about the cognitive limits (processing power, speed…) of human brains, societies and/or computers. This is, I think, not a question about the limits of Reason itself, but about the limits of Reasoning Power. We may build more powerful computers, or we may engineer more powerful human brains, thus pushing the limits back further. Even then, we have to distinguish between the limits of reason to finite beings versus the ideal limits of reason. You could think of God (if he/she/it exists) as an ideal reasoner, but you don't have to invoke God, since the concept of "ideal reasoner" exists even if never instantiated.

This distinction also applies to the fact, if it is a fact, that humans have limits in the ability to understand and grasp the nature of reality. Colin McGinn and a few other philosophers called "The New Mysterians" argue at length about the inherent inability of human understanding to grasp and solve certain philosophical problems, such as the mind-body problem. This sounds to me like a limit to human reason & understanding, not reason & understanding, per se. I've heard similar arguments put forth by religious thinkers. Only God can grasp reality, but humans cannot, at least not through their own powers. They argue that, perhaps by faith, not reason, God will grant the capacity to grasp some aspects of reality. Even if true, that's only a limit to human reason, which might someday change.

This brings up another possibility: what if the limits to understanding reality aren't due to limits in human reason but due to the fact that the universe is not purely rational or understandable in its structure? What if reality is inherently irrational or incomprehensible? (Is that even possible? Does that even make sense?) Now, that would be a true limit to Reason.

The traditions of philosophical Skepticism and Postmodernism talk a lot about other, real limits to Reason, as well as limits to the ideas of reason, the progress of societies, and other "Age of Enlightenment" ideas. These arguments are about the inherent shortcomings of rationality and its incapacity to guarantee that we've actually arrived at true knowledge, as opposed to educated guesses. That's a really long and tough debate.

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 6 replies

What is Philosophy? What's a Philosophical Question?

2006-12-23T06:54:54Z

This is the topic for this Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica. Feel free to post any ideas you might have on this thread. Here's the "official" wording of the topic:

"WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? HOW CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION AND A NON-PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION? What distinguishes philosophy from other fields?
--------------------------------

For info on the meeting location, time, directions...see the posting below under "EVENTS." If you'd like to get all meeting info directly each month, send me as message and I'll put you on our regular emailing list.
--------------------------------

If you'd like to know how Philosophers have defined their field, I've found a bunch of OPTIONAL readings for our gathering Sunday. Most of them are short, the last two are longer, and one is a blog. If you'd like, pick a few to read and perhaps comment on:

For a brief overview and definition of western philosophy (written for undergraduates), from the American Philosophical Association website, read Part 1 of this, http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/publications/texts/briefgd.html
Wikipedia has two interesting summaries, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphilosophy
From "The Free Dictionary," http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Philosophy
From Reference.com, another online encyclopedia, http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Philosophy
A blog where the definition and meaning of philosophy is discussed, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-60331.html
A 15-page article on the differences between "analytic" and "continental" philosophy, the two major academic traditions in contemporary philosophy, http://au.geocities.com/neil_levy/Documents/articles/metaphilosophy.pdf
An article on the nature of philosophy, http:/www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~ffeldman/WIP.pdf

I'll post a few of my own ideas in a day or two.
Post your own ideas below!

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 28 replies

What does it mean to UNDERSTAND something? (the 10-15-06 meeting topic)

2006-11-25T22:39:37Z

"What does it mean to UNDERSTAND something?"

Hi Everybody-- this is the topic for this Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica, which you are all invited to (see the Event posting next to this topic). Feel free to contribute your ideas here, whether or not you're planning to come to Sunday's discussion-- but I hope you do come!

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 5 replies

Anybody read Erwin Schrodinger's "My Vilew of the World"?

2006-10-01T06:38:31Z

This thin volumn, publlished in 1961, contains two never before published essays. The first, "Seek for the Road" of 1925 and the other, "What Is Real" of 1960.

In the latter, the Nobel Prize winner in physics casts doubt on the existence of a "real external world". If I read him correctlly, he says George Berkeley and David Hume got it right.

If I'm wrong, I hope somebody out there can set me straight.

Thanks

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 0 replies

SHOULD WE DEMYSTIFY OR MYSTIFY THE WORLD? (the 9-17-06 meeting topic)

2006-09-29T05:52:31Z

Hi everyone-- this is the topic for this Sunday's gathering in Santa Monica, which you are all invited to (see the Event posting next to this topic). Feel free to contribute your ideas here, whether or not you're planning to come to Sunday's discussion.

Here's how the topic was worded in the email I sent out to everybody on our emailing list:

SHOULD WE ATTEMPT TO DEMYSTIFY OR MYSTIFY THE WORLD? Which is more worthy of praise or celebration, "sacralizing" mysteries, or trying to tackle and solve all mysteries? Are certain mysteries better kept as a mystery? Should we attempt to rationally and/or scientifically investigate and explain all mysteries, or should we in some cases try to maintain (or increase) our sense of mystery and awe by refraining from such explanations?

Some claim that, while it is not necessarily bad or wrong to investigate all mysteries and unknowns, it's sometimes better to have and to experience the sense of mystery—one's life or character is better off for it. And, the argument goes, the attempt to define and analyze something destroys the sense of awe and mystery. Are we forced to choose between the two, or can we somehow get "the best of both worlds," both a sense of mystery/awe and a rational investigation of everything?

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 2 replies

AM I WRONG TO BEAT MY STEPFORD WIFE?

2006-07-29T05:49:42Z

This is one of the topics up for the vote for our gathering in Santa Monica this Sunday. I just thought I'd post this here because several people have emailed me with their opinions and annoyances on this hypothetical scenario (a scenario that may occur in the not-too-distant future).

So, feel free to reply to this posting with your thoughts! Whether or not we talk about this at our gathering, it's a topic worthy of online ponderings.

************************************************

Topic #5 for this Sunday's discussion group:

AM I WRONG TO BEAT MY STEPFORD WIFE? Imagine this near-future scenario: Craig, a computer programmer, is arrested and charged with beating Sally, his mail-order wife. Sally also happens to be an android "Stepford wife." Sally says she feels fear and pain when hit, hates being beaten, and wants to leave Craig. She appears to pass the "Turing test" to most people's satisfaction-- she acts, talks, and looks just like a real person. If there are any differences between Sally and a human, they are subtle. You have to cut her open to see that she's an android. The prosecutor is charging Craig with assault and battery, wife battering, false imprisonment (he won't let her leave him), rape, attempted brainwashing (he repeatedly tries to shut Sally off, reboot her, and reprogram her), and disturbing the peace.

Craig says this: "Sally has merely been programmed to act human, but is not in fact a person. She has no consciousness or subjective life. She doesn't have a mind, so she has no actual values or desires, and she can't feel pain or pleasure, happiness or suffering. Sally is similar to a human, but isn't one. I can detect the differences between the emotional and intellectual responses of a real person and the simulated emotions and thoughts of my android. Appearances to the contrary, she's simply a piece of property, which I legally bought, and thus I can do with as I please. It's no more immoral to beat your "Stepford wife" than to pound on you keyboard when frustrated with your computer-- nobody is there to suffer harm."

"Plus, it's best for everyone if I safely channel my desires for pair-bonding with an android wife. I'd make any real woman miserable. And I recognize my violent tendencies; marrying a real woman would put her at risk of one of my outbursts. I feel it would indeed be wrong to beat a real human, and I don't want to do that. I'm sacrificing authentic intimacy with a real human for the convenience and lowered stress of a relationship with a semi-real, simulation of a wife. Yes, I sometimes miss the true, human interactions I had when I had real girlfriends. But the trade-off is worth it. I get to harmlessly fulfill my fantasies with my beautiful android. And I'm not burdened with the responsibilities of a relationship with a real person, which I'm incapable of fulfilling. Don't I have the right to pursue my happiness in this way? I'm not at fault. In fact, the only one at fault here is the manufacturer of Sally, who sold me a defective product that doesn't operate as advertised—it complains too much, doesn't always do as I ask, fights back, goes to the police, and gets me in legal trouble. I should sue them!"

We "philosophers" have been asked by the prosecutor for help in forming a strategy to convict Craig. Coincidentally, Craig and his lawyer have asked us for legal advice for Craig's defense. How should we advise them?

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 1 reply

Thr refutation of Emanuel Kant's view of cause and effect in human understanding

2006-07-21T23:22:04Z

"Emanuel Kant once decreed that human understandin was such that we necessarily saw the world in terms of cause and effect..." The man on the street still does. How do today's scientists understand this relation?

Jerome

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 2 replies

On Bullshit....a new book from Princton U. Press

2006-07-12T04:10:08Z

Anyone see this new book by some guy named Harry Frankfurt? It's called "On Bullshit" and the catalog says "There is SO MUCH BULLSHIT in our culture. But why? What function does bullshit serve? According to philosopher Harry Frankfurt, we lack a clear theory of bullshit. With insight and humor, Frankfurt attempts to build such a theory."

Some other guy named Raymond Geuss (where do all these people come from??) says of the book: "This is one of the most enjoyable and humanely illuminating short pieces of philosophy produced in the past fifty years"

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 3 replies

Want to learn more about philosophy?

2006-06-30T05:43:14Z

Interested in learning about the history of philosophy in your spare time? Curious, but don't know where to begin? Confused about what they're saying?

I'm a hungry grad student at ucla, and I will be teaching a relaxed yet rigorous course in philosophy. The topic will be the history of the philisophical relationship between art and politics, from Plato to the twentieth century. Note that this will be like a class--you'll have homework, and I'll make sure discussions stay on that topic. Papers are encouraged (that's the best way to learn), but not mandatory.

No previous knowledge or experience necessary. This course is desgined to engage beginners with the practice of reading philosophy.

Beginning in late July 2006, the class will meet every other Saturday morning for two hours at a local coffeeshop. It will last about three months. The cost for the course is $150 per person, or $130 if you bring a friend. (About $20 a session!)

About me: I'm a grad student at ucla with a few years of teaching experience. I really love teaching philosophy, especially introductory courses. But as much as I love the university, I think philosophy is sufficiently awesome that people other than college students might take an interest in it.

Please let me know if you are interested or if you have any questions:
hungry_ucla_grad@yahoo.com

posted in ! Philosophy in Los Angeles ! - 0 replies