South Solihull u3a Philosophy Group - Blog
|
|
Back to Philosophy Group page
Coordinator: Richard Batchelor
INTRODUCTION
Hello There are two groups: one group discusses general topics in philosophy and the second looks at topics with scientific theme. The groups meet monthly, usually on the third Friday and the second Tuesday of the month respectively, starting at 10:00 a.m. You can see dates & details of the next meetings and what we have been discussing on our Interest Groups page, or just contact Richard Batchelor.
New members always welcome - most of started with no previous formal education in philosophy and you are welcome to just look in and see what it's like if you might be interested.
Hello There are two groups: one group discusses general topics in philosophy and the second looks at topics with scientific theme. The groups meet monthly, usually on the third Friday and the second Tuesday of the month respectively, starting at 10:00 a.m. You can see dates & details of the next meetings and what we have been discussing on our Interest Groups page, or just contact Richard Batchelor.
New members always welcome - most of started with no previous formal education in philosophy and you are welcome to just look in and see what it's like if you might be interested.
We meet monthly to discuss Philosophy. We read about what questions various philosophers have addressed, the subject areas of philosophy and tools and methods. We have some set basic texts, but everyone is encouraged to explore other books or the internet and bring anything further of interest to share at the discussion.
ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE
We watched and discussed a series of podcasts on Ethics by Marianne Talbot of Oxford University. Then we decided we wanted a broad if fairly shallow study of philosophy, so we chose to work through Nigel Warburton's "Little History of Philosophy". We then identified "The Philosophy Book" published by Dorling Kinnersley and read from that to take our studies into the modern and contemporary era. We moved on to "The Philosophers Toolkit" by Baggini and Fosl, and then we read and discussed various philosophical topics and gravitated through Aesthetics and the philosophy of beauty and art to Identity and Personhood. We completed a MOOC on Modernism and Postmodernism and looked at Indian Philosophy. A second group studied the Philosophy of Science and then discussed various science oriented topics - The Mind, Time, a scientific approach to religion, and various issues in Bio-Ethics. We revisited the basics of philosophy of science in "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell, We have read to Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". We explored Indian Philosophy, and completed a Coursera course on the moral foundations of political philosophy. We have studied the philosophy of maths and time and Bioethics. and went back to Ancient Greek philosophy. We discussed the Reith Lectures on AI and have completed a course on the Philosophy of Cognitive Sciences. We have discussed and debated Julian Baggini's essays on Ethics. We have read Jim Al-Khalili's "The Joy of Science" and followed Daniel Chamovitz' Coursera lectures on plant biology. We awent back to AI and are looking again at consciousness and after an unproductive dip into ontology we have read four great political thinkers and are looking for women philosophers!.
We watched and discussed a series of podcasts on Ethics by Marianne Talbot of Oxford University. Then we decided we wanted a broad if fairly shallow study of philosophy, so we chose to work through Nigel Warburton's "Little History of Philosophy". We then identified "The Philosophy Book" published by Dorling Kinnersley and read from that to take our studies into the modern and contemporary era. We moved on to "The Philosophers Toolkit" by Baggini and Fosl, and then we read and discussed various philosophical topics and gravitated through Aesthetics and the philosophy of beauty and art to Identity and Personhood. We completed a MOOC on Modernism and Postmodernism and looked at Indian Philosophy. A second group studied the Philosophy of Science and then discussed various science oriented topics - The Mind, Time, a scientific approach to religion, and various issues in Bio-Ethics. We revisited the basics of philosophy of science in "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell, We have read to Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". We explored Indian Philosophy, and completed a Coursera course on the moral foundations of political philosophy. We have studied the philosophy of maths and time and Bioethics. and went back to Ancient Greek philosophy. We discussed the Reith Lectures on AI and have completed a course on the Philosophy of Cognitive Sciences. We have discussed and debated Julian Baggini's essays on Ethics. We have read Jim Al-Khalili's "The Joy of Science" and followed Daniel Chamovitz' Coursera lectures on plant biology. We awent back to AI and are looking again at consciousness and after an unproductive dip into ontology we have read four great political thinkers and are looking for women philosophers!.
FORTHCOMING MEETINGS
27th, October 2023 : Women Philosophers
Aren’t there any women philosophers ? For our next meeting we will go back to The Philosophy Book and read about women philosophers*. We could each try to find out something more about one or two of them.
Aren’t there any women philosophers ? For our next meeting we will go back to The Philosophy Book and read about women philosophers*. We could each try to find out something more about one or two of them.
17th October 2023: Consciousness
We will revisit consciousness. We will view and discuss a couple of Ted talks or videos by Anil Seth author of Being You: A New Science of Consciousness.
We will revisit consciousness. We will view and discuss a couple of Ted talks or videos by Anil Seth author of Being You: A New Science of Consciousness.
SUMMARY OF OUR MEETINGS TO DATE
15th, September 2023 : Great Political Thinkers 4 - Marx
We discussed the last of the “Great Political Thinkers” - Karl Marx by Peter Singer. Singer first followed how Marx adopted Hegel’s assertion - Mind or Spirit inevitably works out its purpose for humanity through a Thesis, which necessitates an Antithesis, and this alienation provokes a dialectic which resolves into a Synthesis which becomes the new thesis - but Marx substituted the reality of our socio-economic condition for Hegel’s Spirit - hence dialectic materialism. We have progressed from feudalism with serfs and landowners to capitalism with the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The apparent liberal freedom to choose our employer masks the commodification of labour, and as the capitalist invests his profits, ever increasing efficiency reduces the demand for labour and increases the wealth of the bourgeoisie. The growing proletariat finding it ever harder to find work will inevitably overthrow toe system and turn to communism to distribute the goods abundantly produced by planned production more fairly. Singer gives a clear argument why communism has failed with a variant of the prisoner’s dilemma: we all agree that using our cars to commute is senseless and agree to use public transport - but then individuals take advantage to use their cars. Marx overestimated our ability to put the community before our own ends: as E O Wilson the ant specialist said, “Good idea, wrong species.
We discussed the last of the “Great Political Thinkers” - Karl Marx by Peter Singer. Singer first followed how Marx adopted Hegel’s assertion - Mind or Spirit inevitably works out its purpose for humanity through a Thesis, which necessitates an Antithesis, and this alienation provokes a dialectic which resolves into a Synthesis which becomes the new thesis - but Marx substituted the reality of our socio-economic condition for Hegel’s Spirit - hence dialectic materialism. We have progressed from feudalism with serfs and landowners to capitalism with the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The apparent liberal freedom to choose our employer masks the commodification of labour, and as the capitalist invests his profits, ever increasing efficiency reduces the demand for labour and increases the wealth of the bourgeoisie. The growing proletariat finding it ever harder to find work will inevitably overthrow toe system and turn to communism to distribute the goods abundantly produced by planned production more fairly. Singer gives a clear argument why communism has failed with a variant of the prisoner’s dilemma: we all agree that using our cars to commute is senseless and agree to use public transport - but then individuals take advantage to use their cars. Marx overestimated our ability to put the community before our own ends: as E O Wilson the ant specialist said, “Good idea, wrong species.
12th September 2023: Artificial Intelligence
We met to met to share our appraisals of one of the various articles we had been reading about AI: what was the question raised? what were the arguments? did we agree with them? and how did we feel? We started by considering just how intelligent AI is now. We perceive that AI is able to perform a fast and extensive search on some question and to collate and present the answers in as a coherent piece. We thought that it would be desirable for AI to at least ask us if we wanted some alternative explanation or contrarian view on the question we had posed. We agreed that at this point AI was probably not sentient or conscious but that we needed to further explore what we meant by these terms to explore in what sense it could be (see below). We discussed power: who controls AI, and how that could harm us. We clearly saw the possibility of a war or terrorism using AI controlled weaponry. We hoped that regulation was possible on this but there are many difficulties. We noted AI is developed by technology companies to enhance their advertising revenue, and we noted the paradox that as AI replaces people in employment, the market will potentially shrink, so we will have to find new ways of distributing wealth, as well as filling the time that unemployment brings. Overall we need to educate ourselves: it is necessary to remain as far as possible as intelligent or more intelligent than AI to evaluate what it offers and to set its goals carefully and with due diligence.
We met to met to share our appraisals of one of the various articles we had been reading about AI: what was the question raised? what were the arguments? did we agree with them? and how did we feel? We started by considering just how intelligent AI is now. We perceive that AI is able to perform a fast and extensive search on some question and to collate and present the answers in as a coherent piece. We thought that it would be desirable for AI to at least ask us if we wanted some alternative explanation or contrarian view on the question we had posed. We agreed that at this point AI was probably not sentient or conscious but that we needed to further explore what we meant by these terms to explore in what sense it could be (see below). We discussed power: who controls AI, and how that could harm us. We clearly saw the possibility of a war or terrorism using AI controlled weaponry. We hoped that regulation was possible on this but there are many difficulties. We noted AI is developed by technology companies to enhance their advertising revenue, and we noted the paradox that as AI replaces people in employment, the market will potentially shrink, so we will have to find new ways of distributing wealth, as well as filling the time that unemployment brings. Overall we need to educate ourselves: it is necessary to remain as far as possible as intelligent or more intelligent than AI to evaluate what it offers and to set its goals carefully and with due diligence.
18th, August 2023 : Great Political Thinkers 3 - J S Mill
We discussed the next of the “Great Political Thinkers” - John Stuart Mill. The difficulty we found with this study was the range of philosophical ideas and political influences (The Corn Law’s and electoral reform) Mill took up, critiqued and built into his philosophy, which became the foundation of Victorian liberalism. His (over)education by his father taught him the value of rational thought, and his subsequent breakdown taught him through poetry the value of feeling. He adopted Bentham's utilitarianism, but poetry is better than pushpin, and people will postpone their own immediate gratification for charitable works to help others for the future satisfaction this brings. He rejected Bentham's felicific calculus, turning to Ricardo's, principles of the free market as a good empirical measure of, and means to general happiness. In summary he supported freedom for everyone to pursue their happiness, subject to the no harm principle. Happiness as he saw it and the widening of the franchise would be served by education for all. We discussed his difficulty with enabling people to get beyond learning by rote to thinking for themselves. This article is about his views on education and it actually gives another good insight into his philosophy.
We discussed the next of the “Great Political Thinkers” - John Stuart Mill. The difficulty we found with this study was the range of philosophical ideas and political influences (The Corn Law’s and electoral reform) Mill took up, critiqued and built into his philosophy, which became the foundation of Victorian liberalism. His (over)education by his father taught him the value of rational thought, and his subsequent breakdown taught him through poetry the value of feeling. He adopted Bentham's utilitarianism, but poetry is better than pushpin, and people will postpone their own immediate gratification for charitable works to help others for the future satisfaction this brings. He rejected Bentham's felicific calculus, turning to Ricardo's, principles of the free market as a good empirical measure of, and means to general happiness. In summary he supported freedom for everyone to pursue their happiness, subject to the no harm principle. Happiness as he saw it and the widening of the franchise would be served by education for all. We discussed his difficulty with enabling people to get beyond learning by rote to thinking for themselves. This article is about his views on education and it actually gives another good insight into his philosophy.
21st, July 2023 : Great Political Thinkers 2 - Hobbes
We discussed Hobbes in Richard Tuck’s contribution to the OUP “Very Short Introduction” series and included in “Great Political Thinkers”. Tuck placed Hobbes in a timeline from Aristotle through Kant up to (then) current times to explain how he came to the conclusion that without a sovereign life would be “Nasty, Brutish and Short” and how his philosophy related to ancient humanism, addressed the prevalent scepticism and was challenged by the separation by Hume and Kant of ethics and the facts of the world and revisited since. We had read how Machiavelli questioned the humanist view of how a leader should behave a hundred tears or so earlier. The rise of scientific enquiry brought more scepticism. Hobbes took up Grotius’ proposition that one simple goal of the individual was their survival and treated it as their one right. The best way to protect that right was to surrender to the protection of a sovereign, who would make as good a job as anyone of deciding what was right behaviour in any related field. This did leave room for freedom in other areas of life, so Hobbes may be seen as a precursor of liberalism or laissez-faire capitalism, though the social context was different then before the rise in prosperity. Tuck did not deal with our criticism that such a sovereign would likely corrupted by self interest and power. Plato envisaged philosopher kings, but “tyrant” and “dictator” have accrued very negative meanings. We did consider that rule by a sovereign might be more effective to combat climate change than a democratic system where we elect a government for five years and dismiss them if they do things we don’t like.
We discussed Hobbes in Richard Tuck’s contribution to the OUP “Very Short Introduction” series and included in “Great Political Thinkers”. Tuck placed Hobbes in a timeline from Aristotle through Kant up to (then) current times to explain how he came to the conclusion that without a sovereign life would be “Nasty, Brutish and Short” and how his philosophy related to ancient humanism, addressed the prevalent scepticism and was challenged by the separation by Hume and Kant of ethics and the facts of the world and revisited since. We had read how Machiavelli questioned the humanist view of how a leader should behave a hundred tears or so earlier. The rise of scientific enquiry brought more scepticism. Hobbes took up Grotius’ proposition that one simple goal of the individual was their survival and treated it as their one right. The best way to protect that right was to surrender to the protection of a sovereign, who would make as good a job as anyone of deciding what was right behaviour in any related field. This did leave room for freedom in other areas of life, so Hobbes may be seen as a precursor of liberalism or laissez-faire capitalism, though the social context was different then before the rise in prosperity. Tuck did not deal with our criticism that such a sovereign would likely corrupted by self interest and power. Plato envisaged philosopher kings, but “tyrant” and “dictator” have accrued very negative meanings. We did consider that rule by a sovereign might be more effective to combat climate change than a democratic system where we elect a government for five years and dismiss them if they do things we don’t like.
16th, June 2023 : Great Political Thinkers 1 - Machiavelli
We discussed Machiavelli in Quentin Skinner’s OUP “Very Short Introduction” series and included in “Great Political Thinkers”. Skinner’s project was to present Machiavelli’s history rather than his image as “Old Nick”, the devil incarnate, explaining how he got his reputation. Machiavelli had been a diplomat representing Florence and in that tradition had been educated as a “humanist”, here meaning taught the arts and history of ancient Rome and its ethics, the striving for “virtù” in the classical sense. His experiences created a conflict with what he had been taught, and on falling from favour he started writing. He had been taught that virtu involved honesty, straight-dealing, generosity, courage, and a desire for honour and glory for one’s state. His notoriety arises from his assertion that if the honour and glory is (rightly) the main goal, it is sometimes necessary to go against the other qualities. We appreciated some of his recommendations for maintaining a good state - a balance of monarchical, aristocratic and democratic government, good arms and good laws, subordination of self interest, dismantling of factions and more. We thought potential Machiavellian great leaders ruled out would list Putin (tyranny), Boris Johnson (self-interest) but for us great leaders included Churchill, Zelensky and, concerningly, Hitler - until over ambition wrecked things (phew).
We discussed Machiavelli in Quentin Skinner’s OUP “Very Short Introduction” series and included in “Great Political Thinkers”. Skinner’s project was to present Machiavelli’s history rather than his image as “Old Nick”, the devil incarnate, explaining how he got his reputation. Machiavelli had been a diplomat representing Florence and in that tradition had been educated as a “humanist”, here meaning taught the arts and history of ancient Rome and its ethics, the striving for “virtù” in the classical sense. His experiences created a conflict with what he had been taught, and on falling from favour he started writing. He had been taught that virtu involved honesty, straight-dealing, generosity, courage, and a desire for honour and glory for one’s state. His notoriety arises from his assertion that if the honour and glory is (rightly) the main goal, it is sometimes necessary to go against the other qualities. We appreciated some of his recommendations for maintaining a good state - a balance of monarchical, aristocratic and democratic government, good arms and good laws, subordination of self interest, dismantling of factions and more. We thought potential Machiavellian great leaders ruled out would list Putin (tyranny), Boris Johnson (self-interest) but for us great leaders included Churchill, Zelensky and, concerningly, Hitler - until over ambition wrecked things (phew).
13th June 2023: Future Machines
We discussed the section of Future Machines in “Future Morality” by David Edmonds. On alternative policing, we took the point that the police do stop and search black people far mare than in proportion to proportion of black people in the population, but do black people commit more crimes in proportion? Some Bayesian analysis might help - though again, do black people “commit” more crimes because the police target them and detect these crimes? In medicine, we thought that AI for diagnosis could be an advantage, overcoming our heuristic approach to data that allows us to ignore symptoms that could point to rarer diseases. We cannot conceive that AI could deliver a bad prognosis in any way comparable with a human. This supports a general conclusion that we need to use AI to complement human decision making rather than try and replace it. The driverless car raised important ethical questions, but it is hard to imagine the law and insurance companies accepting the driverless car: someone will have to be at the wheel for a long time to come - but they probably said that about the man with the red flag in front of early cars. The project that no-one should take the blame in the chapter on retribution was interesting but difficult to accept, though we did discuss the question of diminished responsibility.
We discussed the section of Future Machines in “Future Morality” by David Edmonds. On alternative policing, we took the point that the police do stop and search black people far mare than in proportion to proportion of black people in the population, but do black people commit more crimes in proportion? Some Bayesian analysis might help - though again, do black people “commit” more crimes because the police target them and detect these crimes? In medicine, we thought that AI for diagnosis could be an advantage, overcoming our heuristic approach to data that allows us to ignore symptoms that could point to rarer diseases. We cannot conceive that AI could deliver a bad prognosis in any way comparable with a human. This supports a general conclusion that we need to use AI to complement human decision making rather than try and replace it. The driverless car raised important ethical questions, but it is hard to imagine the law and insurance companies accepting the driverless car: someone will have to be at the wheel for a long time to come - but they probably said that about the man with the red flag in front of early cars. The project that no-one should take the blame in the chapter on retribution was interesting but difficult to accept, though we did discuss the question of diminished responsibility.
19th, May 2023 : Ontology and Metaphysics “Reality Bites”:
We discussed Weeks 1 : Introduction to Metaphysics and and Week 2 Universals. Unfortunately, we found the lecturer’s informal approach lacking structure made it difficult to grasp the project or the question addressed in metaphysics and ontology. The Wikipedia entry on Ontology says that ontology addresses questions like how entities are grouped into categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level. The first topic of the course was whether holes in cheese exist (!) The presenter said or at least implied not, though the proposal in Wikipedia that they are ontologically dependent on the cheese read better. Universals - how “red” can exist in different places at the same time (or vice versa) - is a long standing issue to which no answer has been agreed, but it was difficult to comprehend the difficulty from a working science based definition (a range of wavelengths of light). Overall, we felt that we were not sufficiently interested at this point to pursue the course.
We discussed Weeks 1 : Introduction to Metaphysics and and Week 2 Universals. Unfortunately, we found the lecturer’s informal approach lacking structure made it difficult to grasp the project or the question addressed in metaphysics and ontology. The Wikipedia entry on Ontology says that ontology addresses questions like how entities are grouped into categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level. The first topic of the course was whether holes in cheese exist (!) The presenter said or at least implied not, though the proposal in Wikipedia that they are ontologically dependent on the cheese read better. Universals - how “red” can exist in different places at the same time (or vice versa) - is a long standing issue to which no answer has been agreed, but it was difficult to comprehend the difficulty from a working science based definition (a range of wavelengths of light). Overall, we felt that we were not sufficiently interested at this point to pursue the course.
16th May 2023: Plant Biology - Intelligence?
We ompleted the Coursera MOOC on plant biology: “What a Plant Knows” presented by Professor Daniel Chamovitz of Ben-Gurion University. This covered the plant’s five senses and its capability tp remember stimuli short and long term and respond later.. We all appreciated the course and praised the subject matter,much of it quite recently discovered; the presenter, and his properly scientific approach. He certainly succeeded in persuading us that plants are complex life forms with many more similarities to animal life than we would have attributed to them. While his anthropomorphism of style was noted, we were aware of it and could agree that plants do sense their environment with the equivalent of our five senses. They respond to the environment and have both short term and long term memories all helping them to survive. The complex biological mechanisms were well explained. We are a philosophy group and it was good to move on to considering whether plants are intelligent. Chamovitz differentiated creative, analytical and practical intelligence and argued successfully that plants have practical intelligence - they process sensory inputs to respond with effective responses, at a later time where appropriate.
We ompleted the Coursera MOOC on plant biology: “What a Plant Knows” presented by Professor Daniel Chamovitz of Ben-Gurion University. This covered the plant’s five senses and its capability tp remember stimuli short and long term and respond later.. We all appreciated the course and praised the subject matter,much of it quite recently discovered; the presenter, and his properly scientific approach. He certainly succeeded in persuading us that plants are complex life forms with many more similarities to animal life than we would have attributed to them. While his anthropomorphism of style was noted, we were aware of it and could agree that plants do sense their environment with the equivalent of our five senses. They respond to the environment and have both short term and long term memories all helping them to survive. The complex biological mechanisms were well explained. We are a philosophy group and it was good to move on to considering whether plants are intelligent. Chamovitz differentiated creative, analytical and practical intelligence and argued successfully that plants have practical intelligence - they process sensory inputs to respond with effective responses, at a later time where appropriate.
21st April 2023 : Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 10
We discussed from Baggini: “Without God is everything permitted?” and “Can all moral dilemmas be resolved?” The argument through the chapter on the need for God as the basis of morality was well structured, starting with the Pope Benedict’s assertion that only God could define the good before bringing up Socrates’ Euthypro dilemma, updated to “Does God command what is good because it is good, or are things only good because God commands them?” The latter gets difficult if God can change his mind or is exempt from regular rules, but if the buck pass to us, that is difficult. Is goodness objective, or just arbitrary choice? Neither answer will do. Baggini’s answer is that morality is founded on facts, desires, feelings and needs, so an arbitrary rule must not conflict with these foundations. The final chapter asked if all moral dilemmas can be resolved. The examples he gave, from “the Heart of Darkness” and “Touching the Void” seemed quite simple to resolve - but only if a consequentialist position is held. More difficult was to resolve the differences between moralities of different cultures, particularly at different times, all sincerely held. This led on to a discussion of the need for sanctions to punish moral transgressions through to the relationship between morals and the law. Without a “sovereign” would life be “nasty, brutish and short”? Is morality what we generally live by so that we do not have to continuously appeal to the authorities when the code is breached?
We discussed from Baggini: “Without God is everything permitted?” and “Can all moral dilemmas be resolved?” The argument through the chapter on the need for God as the basis of morality was well structured, starting with the Pope Benedict’s assertion that only God could define the good before bringing up Socrates’ Euthypro dilemma, updated to “Does God command what is good because it is good, or are things only good because God commands them?” The latter gets difficult if God can change his mind or is exempt from regular rules, but if the buck pass to us, that is difficult. Is goodness objective, or just arbitrary choice? Neither answer will do. Baggini’s answer is that morality is founded on facts, desires, feelings and needs, so an arbitrary rule must not conflict with these foundations. The final chapter asked if all moral dilemmas can be resolved. The examples he gave, from “the Heart of Darkness” and “Touching the Void” seemed quite simple to resolve - but only if a consequentialist position is held. More difficult was to resolve the differences between moralities of different cultures, particularly at different times, all sincerely held. This led on to a discussion of the need for sanctions to punish moral transgressions through to the relationship between morals and the law. Without a “sovereign” would life be “nasty, brutish and short”? Is morality what we generally live by so that we do not have to continuously appeal to the authorities when the code is breached?
21st April 2023 : Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 10
We will discuss from Baggini: “Without God is everything permitted?” and “Can all moral dilemmas be resolved?” The argument through the chapter on the need for God as the basis of morality was well structured, starting with the Pope Benedict’s assertion that only God could define the good before bringing up Socrates’ Euthypro dilemma, updated to “Does God command what is good because it is good, or are things only good because God commands them?” The latter gets difficult if God can change his mind or is exempt from regular rules, but if the buck pass to us, that is difficult. Is goodness objective, or just arbitrary choice? Neither answer will do. Baggini’s answer is that morality is founded on facts, desires, feelings and needs, so an arbitrary rule must not conflict with these foundations. The final chapter asked if all moral dilemmas can be resolved. The examples he gave, from “the Heart of Darkness” and “Touching the Void” seemed quite simple to resolve - but only if a consequentialist position is held. More difficult was to resolve the differences between moralities of different cultures, particularly at different times, all sincerely held. This led on to a discussion of the need for sanctions to punish moral transgressions through to the relationship between morals and the law. Without a “sovereign” would life be “nasty, brutish and short”? Is morality what we generally live by so that we do not have to continuously appeal to the authorities when the code is breached?
We will discuss from Baggini: “Without God is everything permitted?” and “Can all moral dilemmas be resolved?” The argument through the chapter on the need for God as the basis of morality was well structured, starting with the Pope Benedict’s assertion that only God could define the good before bringing up Socrates’ Euthypro dilemma, updated to “Does God command what is good because it is good, or are things only good because God commands them?” The latter gets difficult if God can change his mind or is exempt from regular rules, but if the buck pass to us, that is difficult. Is goodness objective, or just arbitrary choice? Neither answer will do. Baggini’s answer is that morality is founded on facts, desires, feelings and needs, so an arbitrary rule must not conflict with these foundations. The final chapter asked if all moral dilemmas can be resolved. The examples he gave, from “the Heart of Darkness” and “Touching the Void” seemed quite simple to resolve - but only if a consequentialist position is held. More difficult was to resolve the differences between moralities of different cultures, particularly at different times, all sincerely held. This led on to a discussion of the need for sanctions to punish moral transgressions through to the relationship between morals and the law. Without a “sovereign” would life be “nasty, brutish and short”? Is morality what we generally live by so that we do not have to continuously appeal to the authorities when the code is breached?
18th April 2023: Plant Biology - plants can see and smell!
We discussed the five weeks of the Coursera MOOC on plant biology: “What a Plant Knows” presented by Professor Daniel Chamovitz of Ben-Gurion University. This covered the plant’s five senses. Much of the content was science rather than philosophy of science, and we were impressed by Chamovitz’ scientific approach. He explained the sensing mechanisms of plants down to structural and cell levels, making this a fairly deep course in biology. We noted particularly his emphasis on experiments designed to falsify a theory. He was therefore convincing in his arguments that plants really do sense different colours of light and different odours, etc. and respond to them. Plants also emit odours for example that “signal” information to other plants, and in this sense plants have a language and communicate with each other. Here we started to get back to philosophy, debating whether this means that plants have consciousness. It was argued that while this communication has evolved for clear advantages in survival, it is hard to detect intent. Higher consciousness involves the ability to remember and recall past experiences and make a choice, demanding a nervous system and a brain to do the processing. That said we need to explore what we mean by consciousness further, and this article from the Guardian is thought provoking: ‘You can anaesthetise all plants."
We discussed the five weeks of the Coursera MOOC on plant biology: “What a Plant Knows” presented by Professor Daniel Chamovitz of Ben-Gurion University. This covered the plant’s five senses. Much of the content was science rather than philosophy of science, and we were impressed by Chamovitz’ scientific approach. He explained the sensing mechanisms of plants down to structural and cell levels, making this a fairly deep course in biology. We noted particularly his emphasis on experiments designed to falsify a theory. He was therefore convincing in his arguments that plants really do sense different colours of light and different odours, etc. and respond to them. Plants also emit odours for example that “signal” information to other plants, and in this sense plants have a language and communicate with each other. Here we started to get back to philosophy, debating whether this means that plants have consciousness. It was argued that while this communication has evolved for clear advantages in survival, it is hard to detect intent. Higher consciousness involves the ability to remember and recall past experiences and make a choice, demanding a nervous system and a brain to do the processing. That said we need to explore what we mean by consciousness further, and this article from the Guardian is thought provoking: ‘You can anaesthetise all plants."
17th March 2023 : Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 9
We discussed “Is torture* ever justified?” and “Is morality relative?" from Baggini’s Ethics, The Big Questions”.
Both chapters seem to convey the same messages. Never say “never” (OK and logically never say “always”. Exceptions can be identified or constructed.. So moral laws are not absolute - they are more pragmatic: useful guides in nearly every case. A drawback of thought experiments is that they oversimplify the complexity of real life. So while we have a natural abhorrence for torture, it is easy to apply a consequentialist argument and do the sums: yes, we if torture could have elicited information to prevent the Manchester bomb, it would have been worthwhile. But such an argument ignores our hubris in our ability to predict what will actually happen in the future, our over- or underestimate of probabilities through confirmation bias. And as Eliza Manningham-Buller pointed out, perceptions of your moral authority are damaged. Moral standards do vary with place and time, and with the less than consistent will of God apparently. Conflicts arise when these differences meet - as society evolves or some diaspora is formed. Here it is necessary to distinguish between what is just a different way of doing things, which requires tolerance of diversity, from a seriously unacceptable divergence. This requires a serious attempt on each side to understand the underlying reasons for the difference and judgement whether to change. Usually this will mean bowing to progress, but in some cases, for example the Maori practice of purifying dehumanised warriors, there is an opportunity to learn from older traditions.
We discussed “Is torture* ever justified?” and “Is morality relative?" from Baggini’s Ethics, The Big Questions”.
Both chapters seem to convey the same messages. Never say “never” (OK and logically never say “always”. Exceptions can be identified or constructed.. So moral laws are not absolute - they are more pragmatic: useful guides in nearly every case. A drawback of thought experiments is that they oversimplify the complexity of real life. So while we have a natural abhorrence for torture, it is easy to apply a consequentialist argument and do the sums: yes, we if torture could have elicited information to prevent the Manchester bomb, it would have been worthwhile. But such an argument ignores our hubris in our ability to predict what will actually happen in the future, our over- or underestimate of probabilities through confirmation bias. And as Eliza Manningham-Buller pointed out, perceptions of your moral authority are damaged. Moral standards do vary with place and time, and with the less than consistent will of God apparently. Conflicts arise when these differences meet - as society evolves or some diaspora is formed. Here it is necessary to distinguish between what is just a different way of doing things, which requires tolerance of diversity, from a seriously unacceptable divergence. This requires a serious attempt on each side to understand the underlying reasons for the difference and judgement whether to change. Usually this will mean bowing to progress, but in some cases, for example the Maori practice of purifying dehumanised warriors, there is an opportunity to learn from older traditions.
14th March 2023: Plant Biology - plants can see and smell!
We discussed the Coursera MOOC on plant biology: “What a Plant Knows” presented by Professor Daniel Chamovitz of Ben-Gurion University. The course presents the biology of plants: how they “see”, “smell”, “feel” and know where they are. The philosophy comes in when we question the validity and relevance of this anthropomorphic narrative. We see and respond to light, that is that part of the electromagnetic spectrum sensed by the cones in our eyes. Plants don’t have eyes, but they respond to light of different colours across and beyond the visible spectrum, sensing different colours with different parts of their structure and responding for example by growing towards the light or by flowering. Is this “seeing”? We also respond to light outside the visible spectrum: we feel infrared radiation as heat and ultraviolet light reddens our skin - but we don’t call that “sight”. What is Chamovitz’s project here? It would appear to be to demonstrate that plants are not simple, inferior forms of life, but that they have evolved separately but in parallel with animals to survive in their environment, their constraint being that they are sessile - literally rooted to one spot. We should recognise this and our dependence on them.
We discussed the Coursera MOOC on plant biology: “What a Plant Knows” presented by Professor Daniel Chamovitz of Ben-Gurion University. The course presents the biology of plants: how they “see”, “smell”, “feel” and know where they are. The philosophy comes in when we question the validity and relevance of this anthropomorphic narrative. We see and respond to light, that is that part of the electromagnetic spectrum sensed by the cones in our eyes. Plants don’t have eyes, but they respond to light of different colours across and beyond the visible spectrum, sensing different colours with different parts of their structure and responding for example by growing towards the light or by flowering. Is this “seeing”? We also respond to light outside the visible spectrum: we feel infrared radiation as heat and ultraviolet light reddens our skin - but we don’t call that “sight”. What is Chamovitz’s project here? It would appear to be to demonstrate that plants are not simple, inferior forms of life, but that they have evolved separately but in parallel with animals to survive in their environment, their constraint being that they are sessile - literally rooted to one spot. We should recognise this and our dependence on them.
24th February 2023 : Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 8
We discussed “What is a just war?” and “What can science tell us about morality?” from Baggini’s Ethics, The Big Questions”. We started by trying to construct Vladimir Putin’s case that he is pursuing a just war. He represents a legitimate authority (a nation state) and could argue a strong probability of success. He may be said to have just cause if that is the encroachment on the former Soviet Union territories by the West. We did note that such arguments always baseline a particular point in time. The encroachment is economic and idealogical rather than physical and not an immediate threat to life, but Western domination is understood as a threat by those countries that have supported him. He has shown little respect for non-combatants. Overall, while we have tried to see his point of view he is guided less by Just War Theory than by Machiavelli. But why should he follow Just War theory when there is little chance he will be held to account? NATO’s intervention in the Kosovo war has been questioned, but it did bring war criminals to justice. This is unlikely to happen to Putin, because there is no overarching global entity with sufficient power. War is a matter of survival, and humanitarian arguments are jettisoned by those powerful or desperate enough to do so where threats are extreme. Without Hobbes' "sovereign", life will be nasty, brutish and short. On science and morality, in Hume’s argument, science is about what is, and morality about what ought to be. Science does allow us to examine past behaviours and correlate them with consequences, frequently to predict forward as circumstances change. AI was suggested as a route to a better society, but it is hard to see AI breaking out of the prevalent culture: could it have argued that slavery or eugenics were wrong in societies where these were implicit assumptions? It is clear that science is telling us we should be reducing our carbon footprint dramatically to avoid “catastrophic” changes to the world. So should we?
We discussed “What is a just war?” and “What can science tell us about morality?” from Baggini’s Ethics, The Big Questions”. We started by trying to construct Vladimir Putin’s case that he is pursuing a just war. He represents a legitimate authority (a nation state) and could argue a strong probability of success. He may be said to have just cause if that is the encroachment on the former Soviet Union territories by the West. We did note that such arguments always baseline a particular point in time. The encroachment is economic and idealogical rather than physical and not an immediate threat to life, but Western domination is understood as a threat by those countries that have supported him. He has shown little respect for non-combatants. Overall, while we have tried to see his point of view he is guided less by Just War Theory than by Machiavelli. But why should he follow Just War theory when there is little chance he will be held to account? NATO’s intervention in the Kosovo war has been questioned, but it did bring war criminals to justice. This is unlikely to happen to Putin, because there is no overarching global entity with sufficient power. War is a matter of survival, and humanitarian arguments are jettisoned by those powerful or desperate enough to do so where threats are extreme. Without Hobbes' "sovereign", life will be nasty, brutish and short. On science and morality, in Hume’s argument, science is about what is, and morality about what ought to be. Science does allow us to examine past behaviours and correlate them with consequences, frequently to predict forward as circumstances change. AI was suggested as a route to a better society, but it is hard to see AI breaking out of the prevalent culture: could it have argued that slavery or eugenics were wrong in societies where these were implicit assumptions? It is clear that science is telling us we should be reducing our carbon footprint dramatically to avoid “catastrophic” changes to the world. So should we?
14th February 2023: Skilled Performance and Embodied Cognition
We discussed a podcast: from ABC Australia on Skilled Performance and Embodied Cognition . Essentially this idea refutes the traditional mind-body dualism going back to Descartes and Plato in favour of embodied cognition - the mind is part of the body, and all life develops by experience of its environment to find at least autonomy if not self awareness. There is no “self” separate from the body. There is something of the blank slate argument here, but we do come with genes from our parents, later supplemented by memes, and our active engagement with the world is driven by these and the properties of our bodies. Mental activity is not passively interpreting representations that come to us - we are actively seeking to respond to what is around us. This led to discussions of performance mainly in sport or music, re-visiting the puzzle we have discussed before that the brain cannot process the information fast enough to catch a ball. We can understand that this is about practice leading to the ability to anticipate and keep up with the ball or a rapid sequence of notes and then to adjust and adapt to the particular situation. We had also been drawn to the observation that while our genes define us, they only make protein. Our genes are the same in all the different cells in our bodies - it is bioelectrics that ensure our limbs and organs are in the right places. This helped us decide on the topic for our next meeting.
We discussed a podcast: from ABC Australia on Skilled Performance and Embodied Cognition . Essentially this idea refutes the traditional mind-body dualism going back to Descartes and Plato in favour of embodied cognition - the mind is part of the body, and all life develops by experience of its environment to find at least autonomy if not self awareness. There is no “self” separate from the body. There is something of the blank slate argument here, but we do come with genes from our parents, later supplemented by memes, and our active engagement with the world is driven by these and the properties of our bodies. Mental activity is not passively interpreting representations that come to us - we are actively seeking to respond to what is around us. This led to discussions of performance mainly in sport or music, re-visiting the puzzle we have discussed before that the brain cannot process the information fast enough to catch a ball. We can understand that this is about practice leading to the ability to anticipate and keep up with the ball or a rapid sequence of notes and then to adjust and adapt to the particular situation. We had also been drawn to the observation that while our genes define us, they only make protein. Our genes are the same in all the different cells in our bodies - it is bioelectrics that ensure our limbs and organs are in the right places. This helped us decide on the topic for our next meeting.
20th January 2023 : Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 7
We discussed “Are we responsible for our actions?” from Baggini’s Ethics, The Big Questions”. The main point at issue was whether we could be responsible for our actions, given that we are conditioned and programmed from birth. We discussed different cultures and conflicts of morality and indeed legal systems posed by, for example, honour killings and blood feuds, and gang culture. Our good fortune and privilege in upbringing meant we felt we were better conditioned than many to control our actions. This underlined the need for early moral education and correction for later transgressions. We considered how strong emotions might cause loss of control - one example was neighbours from hell. So the effect of conditioning was hard to refute, but eventually we took on Baggini’s Compatibilism argument: we still have a choice to be self-regulating. Perhaps one way of coming at this is that we are programmed “to know that…..”, for example to know what is right and what is wrong, but also "to know how….” from tying our shoelaces through to conceiving consequences and deciding between actions.
We discussed “Are we responsible for our actions?” from Baggini’s Ethics, The Big Questions”. The main point at issue was whether we could be responsible for our actions, given that we are conditioned and programmed from birth. We discussed different cultures and conflicts of morality and indeed legal systems posed by, for example, honour killings and blood feuds, and gang culture. Our good fortune and privilege in upbringing meant we felt we were better conditioned than many to control our actions. This underlined the need for early moral education and correction for later transgressions. We considered how strong emotions might cause loss of control - one example was neighbours from hell. So the effect of conditioning was hard to refute, but eventually we took on Baggini’s Compatibilism argument: we still have a choice to be self-regulating. Perhaps one way of coming at this is that we are programmed “to know that…..”, for example to know what is right and what is wrong, but also "to know how….” from tying our shoelaces through to conceiving consequences and deciding between actions.
10th January 2023: Jim Al-Khalili’s “The Joy of Science” 2
We will continued Jim Al-Khalili’s “The Joy of Science” Here is a link to a presentation of the book by the author His project is to persuade the non-scientist of the excitement of science and even more to promote the scientific method. We felt some disappointment with the book, mainly because we are scientists and understood the ideas. It was helpful to look at the pluses and deltas of the book in terms of the domains of philosophy. Ontologically he is a realist. His claim that science can give us knowledge beyond our senses looks strange, because science must come back to the observation of experiments. It is true that we can understand why the speed of light is constant, for example, but he unlike Kant he admits of no noumena beyond phenomena. He explains the logic and epistemology of science: knowledge is empirical, contingent and inductive and always open to revision as a result of experiments seeking to disprove the thesis. He demands we seek evidence and challenge conspiracy theories - but is he too quick to dismiss claims that Covid could have escaped from some laboratory? Science can contribute to ethics and aesthetics: assessing consequences, explaining psychological responses to art, but cannot ultimately tell us what is right or beautiful (though Radio 4 Front Row had an item on AI apps to help artists.
We will continued Jim Al-Khalili’s “The Joy of Science” Here is a link to a presentation of the book by the author His project is to persuade the non-scientist of the excitement of science and even more to promote the scientific method. We felt some disappointment with the book, mainly because we are scientists and understood the ideas. It was helpful to look at the pluses and deltas of the book in terms of the domains of philosophy. Ontologically he is a realist. His claim that science can give us knowledge beyond our senses looks strange, because science must come back to the observation of experiments. It is true that we can understand why the speed of light is constant, for example, but he unlike Kant he admits of no noumena beyond phenomena. He explains the logic and epistemology of science: knowledge is empirical, contingent and inductive and always open to revision as a result of experiments seeking to disprove the thesis. He demands we seek evidence and challenge conspiracy theories - but is he too quick to dismiss claims that Covid could have escaped from some laboratory? Science can contribute to ethics and aesthetics: assessing consequences, explaining psychological responses to art, but cannot ultimately tell us what is right or beautiful (though Radio 4 Front Row had an item on AI apps to help artists.
16th December 2022 : Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 6
We discussed “Is free trade fair trade?” and “Should we protect the environment?” from Baggini’s Ethics, The Big Questions”. We soon agreed that competitive“free markets” are quite rare, because in so many markets there is significant imbalance in the powers of the buyer and the seller, distorting the price negotiation often to the point of exploitation. The further problem of differing standards, particularly safety standards and working conditions, distorts the market and cries out for regulation, but globalisation of business has not been matched by co-operation between governments responsible for such regulation. This is a moral issue, though perhaps not so easy to uphold by the poor of the earth with less disposable income. All that said, markets will be driven by innovation and enterprise, and where workers can live reasonably on lower wages there will be a competitive advantage. Baggini’s case against ”saving the planet” is that we are not separate from “nature” but part of it, that we have exploited, at least modified our environment since ancient times, and that the part will always find a new equilibrium after any catastrophe. That may be true, but we may well be about to inflict a change so enormous that the recovered earth might be a CO2 covered desert like Venus. So what? Maybe we should seek to protect not the planet but our future - or at least a potential future for sentient beings. This may be romantic, but a feeling of respect for the genes and the memes we have inherited is a driver.
We discussed “Is free trade fair trade?” and “Should we protect the environment?” from Baggini’s Ethics, The Big Questions”. We soon agreed that competitive“free markets” are quite rare, because in so many markets there is significant imbalance in the powers of the buyer and the seller, distorting the price negotiation often to the point of exploitation. The further problem of differing standards, particularly safety standards and working conditions, distorts the market and cries out for regulation, but globalisation of business has not been matched by co-operation between governments responsible for such regulation. This is a moral issue, though perhaps not so easy to uphold by the poor of the earth with less disposable income. All that said, markets will be driven by innovation and enterprise, and where workers can live reasonably on lower wages there will be a competitive advantage. Baggini’s case against ”saving the planet” is that we are not separate from “nature” but part of it, that we have exploited, at least modified our environment since ancient times, and that the part will always find a new equilibrium after any catastrophe. That may be true, but we may well be about to inflict a change so enormous that the recovered earth might be a CO2 covered desert like Venus. So what? Maybe we should seek to protect not the planet but our future - or at least a potential future for sentient beings. This may be romantic, but a feeling of respect for the genes and the memes we have inherited is a driver.
13th December 2022: Jim Al-Khalili’s “The Joy of Science” 1
We discussed Jim Al Khalili’s “The Joy of Science”. Prompted by Covid and in response to post truth, his project is to explain the scientific method and forward it as applicable more generally to decision making and opinion forming. Science is not knowledge but a method. Its theories are subjected to tests that attempt to falsify them and the results are subject to peer review. While science seeks a simple solution, it is recognised that things may be complex, and theories must be sufficient and not over simplify. He describes various classes of mystery, partly to argue that science enhances rather than destroys our sense of wonder, and as a route into conspiracy theories, which he says are irrefutable just because those who hold them do not accept any contradictory evidence. He says science describes reality, but does not qualify this, for example allowing Kant’s noumena and phenomena - science applies to the latter. His discussion of moral truths links cleverly to the scientific concept of frames of reference, but the questions seem much wider. But so far we have discussed to chapter three, and some of these points may well be resolved.
We discussed Jim Al Khalili’s “The Joy of Science”. Prompted by Covid and in response to post truth, his project is to explain the scientific method and forward it as applicable more generally to decision making and opinion forming. Science is not knowledge but a method. Its theories are subjected to tests that attempt to falsify them and the results are subject to peer review. While science seeks a simple solution, it is recognised that things may be complex, and theories must be sufficient and not over simplify. He describes various classes of mystery, partly to argue that science enhances rather than destroys our sense of wonder, and as a route into conspiracy theories, which he says are irrefutable just because those who hold them do not accept any contradictory evidence. He says science describes reality, but does not qualify this, for example allowing Kant’s noumena and phenomena - science applies to the latter. His discussion of moral truths links cleverly to the scientific concept of frames of reference, but the questions seem much wider. But so far we have discussed to chapter three, and some of these points may well be resolved.
18th November 2022 : Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 5
We discussed “Is sex a moral issue?” and “Can discrimination be good?” from Baggini’s Ethics, The Big Questions”.
Taking “morals” to be the rules a society expects its members to follow, is the moral code and culture responding to the changes that might affect sexual behaviour, such as effective contraception (directly controllable by women), treatment of most sexually transmitted disease and the emancipation of women? Even if so, the sticking point is the issue of trust between long term partners. We noted a feature in The Times on open marriages, which emphasised that there had to be rules governing liaisons outside the relationship. Whatever the agreed rules, they are there to protect the actual and perceived status of the party who might otherwise be perceived as the “cuckold”. Even then, there is the question whether one party is being persuaded or coerced into the arrangement by the other. This aspect applies to those not in a long term relationship, such as the young, where sexual experimentation is otherwise generally less frowned upon - but there is still opprobrium should an unwanted pregnancy result - mostly at failing to take responsible precautions. Despite the enablers of freedom, the perception of the intimacy of the act is ongoing and that and the perceived entitlement of the individual continues to conserve the moral culture around sex. On positive discrimination, we agreed that quotas led to box ticking. We did like the idea that if a candidate from a minority group is rejected for a job, for example, the reasons should be articulated and recorded - and reviewed to determine if any change in the organisation could be pursued to facilitate equality of opportunity.
We discussed “Is sex a moral issue?” and “Can discrimination be good?” from Baggini’s Ethics, The Big Questions”.
Taking “morals” to be the rules a society expects its members to follow, is the moral code and culture responding to the changes that might affect sexual behaviour, such as effective contraception (directly controllable by women), treatment of most sexually transmitted disease and the emancipation of women? Even if so, the sticking point is the issue of trust between long term partners. We noted a feature in The Times on open marriages, which emphasised that there had to be rules governing liaisons outside the relationship. Whatever the agreed rules, they are there to protect the actual and perceived status of the party who might otherwise be perceived as the “cuckold”. Even then, there is the question whether one party is being persuaded or coerced into the arrangement by the other. This aspect applies to those not in a long term relationship, such as the young, where sexual experimentation is otherwise generally less frowned upon - but there is still opprobrium should an unwanted pregnancy result - mostly at failing to take responsible precautions. Despite the enablers of freedom, the perception of the intimacy of the act is ongoing and that and the perceived entitlement of the individual continues to conserve the moral culture around sex. On positive discrimination, we agreed that quotas led to box ticking. We did like the idea that if a candidate from a minority group is rejected for a job, for example, the reasons should be articulated and recorded - and reviewed to determine if any change in the organisation could be pursued to facilitate equality of opportunity.
8th November 2022: Trust and scepticism in a post-truth world
We discussed podcasts from The Philosophers Zone: Trust and scepticism in a post-truth world by Mark Alfano.. Despite traditional exhortations to find things out for ourselves, so much of our knowledge comes from what we are told - including our date of birth! Nietzsche sounded ahead of his time saying we should trust sources where we are not experts and surround ourselves with distrustful critics where we are, the same principle that underpins scientific peer review. A test question to ask of any source is what internet do they have - particularly if they stand to make money. On the other hand, we should avoid the argument ad hominem trap - even untrustworthy sources may be telling the truth, and if we distrust a source we cannot learn from it. Where possible, trust should be tested for and earned. In What can David Hume teach us? presented in a discussion with Julian Baggini Hume basically exposes the problem of inductive logic: what we call cause and effect is no more than habitually observed association of events. He also noted that reason is slave to the passions - reasons may justify our actions, but does not supply the motive.
We discussed podcasts from The Philosophers Zone: Trust and scepticism in a post-truth world by Mark Alfano.. Despite traditional exhortations to find things out for ourselves, so much of our knowledge comes from what we are told - including our date of birth! Nietzsche sounded ahead of his time saying we should trust sources where we are not experts and surround ourselves with distrustful critics where we are, the same principle that underpins scientific peer review. A test question to ask of any source is what internet do they have - particularly if they stand to make money. On the other hand, we should avoid the argument ad hominem trap - even untrustworthy sources may be telling the truth, and if we distrust a source we cannot learn from it. Where possible, trust should be tested for and earned. In What can David Hume teach us? presented in a discussion with Julian Baggini Hume basically exposes the problem of inductive logic: what we call cause and effect is no more than habitually observed association of events. He also noted that reason is slave to the passions - reasons may justify our actions, but does not supply the motive.
21st October 2022 : Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 4
We discussed chapters 8 & 9 : “Is Abortion Murder?” and “Should Euthanasia be Legal?” In both chapters Baggini pointed out that morality and legality may be in conflict, so abortion is not murder, but there was discomfort with his contention that a fertilised human egg is not a person. That may be true, but contrary to the Warnock report it may be considered a potential person - all humans go through that stage of development. We argued that consequentialism could be a better ethical approach to abortion: a case-by-case examination of the choices considering the outcome for the embryo, mother, father, family and society. We recognised this is not a simple problem - circumstances may change drastically with time, and it would be good to support the mother to construct the stories to work out what path would lead to the least regrets in the future. On euthanasia we recognised the need to protect the old and vulnerable through laws from pressure to end their lives for convenience or economic advantage to their heirs or society. That said we thought we would rather not exist in physical or worse mental incapacity - though would we say that at the time? We also recognised there may be the needs of others keeping the dying going beyond reason. We agreed that after our three score years and ten, quality of life appears more important than longevity
We discussed chapters 8 & 9 : “Is Abortion Murder?” and “Should Euthanasia be Legal?” In both chapters Baggini pointed out that morality and legality may be in conflict, so abortion is not murder, but there was discomfort with his contention that a fertilised human egg is not a person. That may be true, but contrary to the Warnock report it may be considered a potential person - all humans go through that stage of development. We argued that consequentialism could be a better ethical approach to abortion: a case-by-case examination of the choices considering the outcome for the embryo, mother, father, family and society. We recognised this is not a simple problem - circumstances may change drastically with time, and it would be good to support the mother to construct the stories to work out what path would lead to the least regrets in the future. On euthanasia we recognised the need to protect the old and vulnerable through laws from pressure to end their lives for convenience or economic advantage to their heirs or society. That said we thought we would rather not exist in physical or worse mental incapacity - though would we say that at the time? We also recognised there may be the needs of others keeping the dying going beyond reason. We agreed that after our three score years and ten, quality of life appears more important than longevity
18th October 2022: Philosophy of Cognitive Sciences 4
We discussed Week 4 of the Coursera Edinburgh University Course: Introduction to the Philosophy of the Cognitive Sciences - Embodied Cognition. The fourth and final week of the course is all about the huge differences that having an active body, and the physical and social environment make to the kind of tasks that the brain has to perform in order to support adaptive success. This was particularly brought home by the example of a robot with a passive dynamic walking machines built at Cornell University, showing the brain isn’t necessary for the basic task of walking. This plus examples of using the environment - creating eddies to enhance swimming performance, nest building, even using a pencil and paper to hold the stages of mathematical calculations show that we should not think of minds as disembodied computers in charge of meat machines, but rather as completely integrated and intermingled with our physical capacities and our interactions with the world. Conversely, this would suggest that robots will need to be designed as systems with a physicality to complement the AI power.
We discussed Week 4 of the Coursera Edinburgh University Course: Introduction to the Philosophy of the Cognitive Sciences - Embodied Cognition. The fourth and final week of the course is all about the huge differences that having an active body, and the physical and social environment make to the kind of tasks that the brain has to perform in order to support adaptive success. This was particularly brought home by the example of a robot with a passive dynamic walking machines built at Cornell University, showing the brain isn’t necessary for the basic task of walking. This plus examples of using the environment - creating eddies to enhance swimming performance, nest building, even using a pencil and paper to hold the stages of mathematical calculations show that we should not think of minds as disembodied computers in charge of meat machines, but rather as completely integrated and intermingled with our physical capacities and our interactions with the world. Conversely, this would suggest that robots will need to be designed as systems with a physicality to complement the AI power.
16th September 2022 (TBC): Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 3
We discussed chapters 6 & 7 : “Are drug laws morally inconsistent?” and “Do animals have rights?” The use of drugs for recreational purposes hinges on moral rights, which may be positive and negative. These sit within the contractual tradition within which the individuals find themselves. We noted that and assertion of an individual’s rights confers duties or obligations on others.The distinction between law and morals: we noted that laws were determined by the state, published and not violable without some punishment, whereas morals were personal and societal, abstract and resulted in no punishment for their violation. We considered notions of property (the body and money), and noted that it was a sovereign right of an individual to use these as they wished as long as there were no harms to others. Some nation states do allow the use of recreational drugs and this is often related to traditional attitudes and practices.
The right to use animals for human purposes arises out of the religious allocation of dominion over earth. Modern science and changes on things such as consciousness, sentience and emotions have clearly resulted in a change in that view such that the welfare of animals is now granted greater importance. We were unclear about where the line for sentience was to be drawn but it is clear that we should not wantonly cause suffering to animals, especially those in our care. We have always developed and exploited animals (and plans) for human benefits through selective breeding programmes which now include factory farming to pets. These activities are interlinked with our social customs and traditional practices as well as our economic structures. While there are clearly economic consequences to changing these radically, we felt that we should be moving towards well managed and sustainable practices which would meet our needs and at the same time ameliorate the deleterious effects to the environment.
We discussed chapters 6 & 7 : “Are drug laws morally inconsistent?” and “Do animals have rights?” The use of drugs for recreational purposes hinges on moral rights, which may be positive and negative. These sit within the contractual tradition within which the individuals find themselves. We noted that and assertion of an individual’s rights confers duties or obligations on others.The distinction between law and morals: we noted that laws were determined by the state, published and not violable without some punishment, whereas morals were personal and societal, abstract and resulted in no punishment for their violation. We considered notions of property (the body and money), and noted that it was a sovereign right of an individual to use these as they wished as long as there were no harms to others. Some nation states do allow the use of recreational drugs and this is often related to traditional attitudes and practices.
The right to use animals for human purposes arises out of the religious allocation of dominion over earth. Modern science and changes on things such as consciousness, sentience and emotions have clearly resulted in a change in that view such that the welfare of animals is now granted greater importance. We were unclear about where the line for sentience was to be drawn but it is clear that we should not wantonly cause suffering to animals, especially those in our care. We have always developed and exploited animals (and plans) for human benefits through selective breeding programmes which now include factory farming to pets. These activities are interlinked with our social customs and traditional practices as well as our economic structures. While there are clearly economic consequences to changing these radically, we felt that we should be moving towards well managed and sustainable practices which would meet our needs and at the same time ameliorate the deleterious effects to the environment.
26th August 2022: Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 2
We discussed chapters 3-5 of “Ethics, The Big Questions” by Julian Baggini. These chapters were; “Is terrorism ever justified?”, “Should we favour our families and friends?” and “How much should we give to charity?” Given that even killing someone can be justified in certain circumstances, psyching them out with terror must be justifiable, but the conditions are very stringent. We appreciated Baggini’s refusal to take a simplistic consequentialist view, just counting total deaths and losses, and agreed there are wider implications. We also felt that there should be very few options, and(morally) terror is a weapon of the weak and oppressed and certainly not of a powerful and oppressive state. The chapter on favouring our friends points out the problem that utilitarianism would appear to aim to increase the happiness of all, not necessarily those nearest to us - and we noted that Jesus sad “Let the dead bury their dead”. Again Baggini takes a broader view and puts weight on the value of relationships - it does make sense to help someone we know rather than someone we have never met (but see the next topic). We noted this argument does work in favour of an immigration policy - favouring those who contribute to our economy rather than being a burden on it.. The chapter on giving to charity of course takes us in the opposite direction, with Baggini saying that despite the previous chapter, it is hard to defend not giving more to charity. We noted the “Drowning Child” argument, and here are some quizzes on this I found: The drowning child and The letter and the sedan
We discussed chapters 3-5 of “Ethics, The Big Questions” by Julian Baggini. These chapters were; “Is terrorism ever justified?”, “Should we favour our families and friends?” and “How much should we give to charity?” Given that even killing someone can be justified in certain circumstances, psyching them out with terror must be justifiable, but the conditions are very stringent. We appreciated Baggini’s refusal to take a simplistic consequentialist view, just counting total deaths and losses, and agreed there are wider implications. We also felt that there should be very few options, and(morally) terror is a weapon of the weak and oppressed and certainly not of a powerful and oppressive state. The chapter on favouring our friends points out the problem that utilitarianism would appear to aim to increase the happiness of all, not necessarily those nearest to us - and we noted that Jesus sad “Let the dead bury their dead”. Again Baggini takes a broader view and puts weight on the value of relationships - it does make sense to help someone we know rather than someone we have never met (but see the next topic). We noted this argument does work in favour of an immigration policy - favouring those who contribute to our economy rather than being a burden on it.. The chapter on giving to charity of course takes us in the opposite direction, with Baggini saying that despite the previous chapter, it is hard to defend not giving more to charity. We noted the “Drowning Child” argument, and here are some quizzes on this I found: The drowning child and The letter and the sedan
9th August 2022: Philosophy of Cognitive Sciences 3
We continued the Coursera MOOC from Edinburgh University. We discussed Week : Introduction to the Philosophy of the Cognitive Sciences - Intelligent Machines and the Human Brain. The two videos gave a structure for describing how our brains work: First, which task does the brain solve? Second, how does the brain solve that task? Third, why is that task important for the brain to solve? The second video developed the idea that our minds augment or modify our perceptions based on the probabilities in the situation and (re)visited Bayes Theorem. We spent more time on a YouTube video: The Mind of a Bee by Lars Chittka. He showed bees working out problems in ways we may have seen from squirrels and teaching other bees the method. He showed they can behave anxiously in appropriate circumstances. We found it hard to comprehend how they can do this with very small brains. We discussed how we might define and recognise consciousness and sentience in living things (down through plants to the cells in our bodies) and what might constitute such qualities in machines. Perhaps as the first video has it, this involves the ability to structure tasks as a hierarchy with an awareness of this and the ability to think at the different levels.
We continued the Coursera MOOC from Edinburgh University. We discussed Week : Introduction to the Philosophy of the Cognitive Sciences - Intelligent Machines and the Human Brain. The two videos gave a structure for describing how our brains work: First, which task does the brain solve? Second, how does the brain solve that task? Third, why is that task important for the brain to solve? The second video developed the idea that our minds augment or modify our perceptions based on the probabilities in the situation and (re)visited Bayes Theorem. We spent more time on a YouTube video: The Mind of a Bee by Lars Chittka. He showed bees working out problems in ways we may have seen from squirrels and teaching other bees the method. He showed they can behave anxiously in appropriate circumstances. We found it hard to comprehend how they can do this with very small brains. We discussed how we might define and recognise consciousness and sentience in living things (down through plants to the cells in our bodies) and what might constitute such qualities in machines. Perhaps as the first video has it, this involves the ability to structure tasks as a hierarchy with an awareness of this and the ability to think at the different levels.
15th July 2022: Julian Baggini-Ethics the big questions - 2
We discussed the first three chapters of “Ethics, The Big Questions” by Julian Baggini. We concurred with the summary last meeting on The Golden Rule, and we like the way Baggini shows these simple principles are not to be taken as rules but applied thoughtfully to the situation at hand. We did debate consequentialism versus virtue in relation to the government. Consequentialism seems to dominate, and the issue is that it seems to focus on consequences for London and the powerful rather than for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Further afield, we could envisage that the revolution in Ceylon may well be justified as an option to oust a disastrous government. The logical conclusion is that terrorism can be justified - though it has to be in dire circumstances. Exercises on variations of the Trolley Problem (“Should you kill the fat man?) were helpful in questioning the consistency of our logic. But they can show that choices are influenced by our relationship with and responsibility to or contract with “the fat man” in question. This will lead on to next meeting’s theme.
We discussed the first three chapters of “Ethics, The Big Questions” by Julian Baggini. We concurred with the summary last meeting on The Golden Rule, and we like the way Baggini shows these simple principles are not to be taken as rules but applied thoughtfully to the situation at hand. We did debate consequentialism versus virtue in relation to the government. Consequentialism seems to dominate, and the issue is that it seems to focus on consequences for London and the powerful rather than for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Further afield, we could envisage that the revolution in Ceylon may well be justified as an option to oust a disastrous government. The logical conclusion is that terrorism can be justified - though it has to be in dire circumstances. Exercises on variations of the Trolley Problem (“Should you kill the fat man?) were helpful in questioning the consistency of our logic. But they can show that choices are influenced by our relationship with and responsibility to or contract with “the fat man” in question. This will lead on to next meeting’s theme.
12th July 2022: Philosophy of Cognitive Sciences 2b
We continued the discussion on the second week of the Coursera MOOC from Edinburgh University on the philosophy of cognitive sciences. This was on Consciousness - “The Hard problem” Is the problem of consciousness really a “hard problem”? Is it a problem at all? We did not disagree with the conclusion of the previous meeting: we have evolved from simple organisms with direct responses to stimuli to having highly complex brains that recognise and analyse our perceptions of the world, why would we not direct them inwards on ourselves and analyse (at least experience) what is happening? We see consciousness as a spectrum correlating with brain complexity - and this is well explained by an article from the Guardian from “The Book of Minds” by Philip Ball (just published in hardback). We returned to conundrum that Buddhists believe in re-incarnation but not in a soul: all is perception in the instant. Simon Blackburn’s “The Big Questions - Philosophy” was worth revisiting. “Am I a ghost in a machine?" takes on the problems of zombies and Mary coming out of the monochrome room, and questions the idea that consciousness simply correlates with complexity and language development. His chapter on “Can Machines Think” maybe links better to our next topic, but does deal with semantics versus syntax - Searle’s Chinese Room - and the factor of intentionality in sentience.
We continued the discussion on the second week of the Coursera MOOC from Edinburgh University on the philosophy of cognitive sciences. This was on Consciousness - “The Hard problem” Is the problem of consciousness really a “hard problem”? Is it a problem at all? We did not disagree with the conclusion of the previous meeting: we have evolved from simple organisms with direct responses to stimuli to having highly complex brains that recognise and analyse our perceptions of the world, why would we not direct them inwards on ourselves and analyse (at least experience) what is happening? We see consciousness as a spectrum correlating with brain complexity - and this is well explained by an article from the Guardian from “The Book of Minds” by Philip Ball (just published in hardback). We returned to conundrum that Buddhists believe in re-incarnation but not in a soul: all is perception in the instant. Simon Blackburn’s “The Big Questions - Philosophy” was worth revisiting. “Am I a ghost in a machine?" takes on the problems of zombies and Mary coming out of the monochrome room, and questions the idea that consciousness simply correlates with complexity and language development. His chapter on “Can Machines Think” maybe links better to our next topic, but does deal with semantics versus syntax - Searle’s Chinese Room - and the factor of intentionality in sentience.
|
10th June 2022: Julian Bagginin-Ethics the big questions - 1
We made a start on “Ethics, The Big Questions” (other titles are available!) by Julian Baggini. In the preface, Julian Baggini puts forward his aim to help us develop our ability to think about the dilemmas we face individually and as a society. It seemed a good idea to compile a list of reasons people get things wrong to serve as a background to the book, and our list is attached - additions to the list welcome! We did not get far with the first chapter “Is there a Golden Rule?” We noted his point that in a world of relativistic ethics, it seems universal. The problem he raises that people do not all choose to be treated in the same way and hold different values, but that the rule does imply an ethos of reciprocal demand. He debates this further before concluding the rule is a test of this consideration of other people, but does not tell us how we should actually live. |
| ||
7th June 2022: Philosophy of Cognitive Sciences 2a: Consciousness
We discussed the second week of the Coursera MOOC from Edinburgh University on the philosophy of cognitive sciences. This was on Consciousness - “The Hard problem” But is the problem of consciousness really a “hard problem”? Is it a problem at all? If we have evolved from simple organisms with direct responses to stimuli to having highly complex brains that recognise and analyse our perceptions of the world, why would we not direct them inwards on ourselves and analyse (at least experience) what is happening? We were reminded of various past meetings when we discussed consciousness. One theory that’s stuck is that consciousness emerges from the growing complexity in the brain. While it is not possible to “think like a bat”, it seems reasonable to assume that a worm plunging out of the light is acting almost entirely instinctively, but a dog seems to know what it is doing when begging for food and enjoys being petted. Consciousness could be a spectrum? We agreed that consciousness and language development may well correlate. Philosophically it is a problem or at least an issue. Discussions of zombies are apparently about monism versus dualism. The lecture on the debate between the Hindu and the Buddhist view of consciousness and the self puts forward that the Buddhist view, despite their belief in reincarnation is that the self is merely the subject of the first person body and experiences. This seems to question whether there is a self, let alone a soul.
We discussed the second week of the Coursera MOOC from Edinburgh University on the philosophy of cognitive sciences. This was on Consciousness - “The Hard problem” But is the problem of consciousness really a “hard problem”? Is it a problem at all? If we have evolved from simple organisms with direct responses to stimuli to having highly complex brains that recognise and analyse our perceptions of the world, why would we not direct them inwards on ourselves and analyse (at least experience) what is happening? We were reminded of various past meetings when we discussed consciousness. One theory that’s stuck is that consciousness emerges from the growing complexity in the brain. While it is not possible to “think like a bat”, it seems reasonable to assume that a worm plunging out of the light is acting almost entirely instinctively, but a dog seems to know what it is doing when begging for food and enjoys being petted. Consciousness could be a spectrum? We agreed that consciousness and language development may well correlate. Philosophically it is a problem or at least an issue. Discussions of zombies are apparently about monism versus dualism. The lecture on the debate between the Hindu and the Buddhist view of consciousness and the self puts forward that the Buddhist view, despite their belief in reincarnation is that the self is merely the subject of the first person body and experiences. This seems to question whether there is a self, let alone a soul.
13th May 2022: Aristotle & his Successors - Week 5 Stoicism
We will continued the Coursera course on Aristotle and his successors, this on Stoicism. We learnt that this is much more than keeping a stiff upper lip: the analogy of the archer teaches that what is important is to learn your art and aim as best you can, so that you attend to the things you can control. It is beyond your control - and it is fate, whether the arrow actually hits its mark, and missing is then no cause for regret. Unlike the Epicureans, who thought the Gods would not trouble themselves with us or our doings, the Stoics believed that an active principle or Logos at work everywhere in the cosmos. Cicero’s writings on this are evocative of St John’s gospel. Rather like Aristotle, the Stoics aim to follow our nature, which is twofold: our own natures and nature of the universe that Logos or divine reason permeating all things which the Stoics identify as God. While the Stoics believe that outcomes are fate, and that the world will be as it is and the best of all possible worlds, they do not believe in fatalism. It does matter that we try to bring about the required outcome. We follow and discussed objections to fatalism, and saw the distinction between the impression on us which is fated, and our response to the stimulus which is generally not unavoidable. We agreed the courses have been enlightening in understanding Greek philosophy and its evolution.
We will continued the Coursera course on Aristotle and his successors, this on Stoicism. We learnt that this is much more than keeping a stiff upper lip: the analogy of the archer teaches that what is important is to learn your art and aim as best you can, so that you attend to the things you can control. It is beyond your control - and it is fate, whether the arrow actually hits its mark, and missing is then no cause for regret. Unlike the Epicureans, who thought the Gods would not trouble themselves with us or our doings, the Stoics believed that an active principle or Logos at work everywhere in the cosmos. Cicero’s writings on this are evocative of St John’s gospel. Rather like Aristotle, the Stoics aim to follow our nature, which is twofold: our own natures and nature of the universe that Logos or divine reason permeating all things which the Stoics identify as God. While the Stoics believe that outcomes are fate, and that the world will be as it is and the best of all possible worlds, they do not believe in fatalism. It does matter that we try to bring about the required outcome. We follow and discussed objections to fatalism, and saw the distinction between the impression on us which is fated, and our response to the stimulus which is generally not unavoidable. We agreed the courses have been enlightening in understanding Greek philosophy and its evolution.
15th April 2022: Aristotle & his Successors - Week 4 Epicureanism
We continued the Coursera course on Aristotle and his successors, this week on Epicurus. His metaphysics is based on Democritus’ atomic theory, adding his 'swerve' to avoid the need for an unmoved mover. The Gods are not required for the creation or continuance of the world, and since he says they share with men the desire to live free from pain and anxiety, they don’t want to interfere with our lives. We need not fear them while we live, and since the should is material and dies with the body, we do not exist after death, so need not fear the Gods nor death itself. He proposes we live to minimise pain and maximise pleasure: minimise pain by recognising and aggressing its mental effect, and - in contrast with the present day meaning of epicurean - maximise pleasure not by seeking hedonistic experience but by restraining our desires to that which is natural and necessary. The course gave counter reasons why we might fear death and encouraged debate on that and whether pharmaceutical treatments for anxiety and depression would meet with his approval. We also considered whether the universal adoption of his principle of reducing desires was feasible in these times.
We continued the Coursera course on Aristotle and his successors, this week on Epicurus. His metaphysics is based on Democritus’ atomic theory, adding his 'swerve' to avoid the need for an unmoved mover. The Gods are not required for the creation or continuance of the world, and since he says they share with men the desire to live free from pain and anxiety, they don’t want to interfere with our lives. We need not fear them while we live, and since the should is material and dies with the body, we do not exist after death, so need not fear the Gods nor death itself. He proposes we live to minimise pain and maximise pleasure: minimise pain by recognising and aggressing its mental effect, and - in contrast with the present day meaning of epicurean - maximise pleasure not by seeking hedonistic experience but by restraining our desires to that which is natural and necessary. The course gave counter reasons why we might fear death and encouraged debate on that and whether pharmaceutical treatments for anxiety and depression would meet with his approval. We also considered whether the universal adoption of his principle of reducing desires was feasible in these times.
10th May 2022: Philosophy of Cognitive Sciences
We discussed the first week of the Coursera MOOC is from Edinburgh University on the philosophy of cognitive sciences. This was augmented by a series of lectures on the science, the most relevant being no. 8 on object recognition. That video supported the idea that the brain is a collection of linked specialised areas dealing with different sensory inputs and tasks including feature recognition, object recognition and language. On the other hand, the brain seems capable of adapting the use of some of these areas to compensate for damage elsewhere, and the brain is also programmed by training from social interaction. Is language a necessary enabler for carrying out or transmitting complex tasks when animals hunt successfully alone and in packs by instinct? We saw that we were programmed to recognise “cheats” and discussed whether we were indeed less able to transfer the skill to other logic problems.
We discussed the first week of the Coursera MOOC is from Edinburgh University on the philosophy of cognitive sciences. This was augmented by a series of lectures on the science, the most relevant being no. 8 on object recognition. That video supported the idea that the brain is a collection of linked specialised areas dealing with different sensory inputs and tasks including feature recognition, object recognition and language. On the other hand, the brain seems capable of adapting the use of some of these areas to compensate for damage elsewhere, and the brain is also programmed by training from social interaction. Is language a necessary enabler for carrying out or transmitting complex tasks when animals hunt successfully alone and in packs by instinct? We saw that we were programmed to recognise “cheats” and discussed whether we were indeed less able to transfer the skill to other logic problems.
5th April 2022: The Reith Lectures (AI): Staying in Control
We discussed the fourth and last of the Reith lectures on AI: How we hope to stay in control of AI. This was on BBC Sounds. Alan Turing in 1951 predicted we should have to expect machines to get cleverer than us and to take control. Stuart Russell attempted to dispel this fear, and following Asimov, suggested some 'laws': The machine’s only objective is to maximise the realisation of human preferences / The machine is initially uncertain about what those preferences are / The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behaviour. These are rules not for the machine but for the engineers setting up the problem to be solved. We hoped but doubted that all engineers and their employers would heed these rules. We have the ability to build a better world, but we discussed the need for better education and guidance in our dealings with others - in this as well as in using increased leisure when AI takes on much work. We also agreed there is a risk that as we hand over the management of our civilisation to machines, we lose the ability to do it ourselves, and the next generation loses the incentive to learn how to do it.
We discussed the fourth and last of the Reith lectures on AI: How we hope to stay in control of AI. This was on BBC Sounds. Alan Turing in 1951 predicted we should have to expect machines to get cleverer than us and to take control. Stuart Russell attempted to dispel this fear, and following Asimov, suggested some 'laws': The machine’s only objective is to maximise the realisation of human preferences / The machine is initially uncertain about what those preferences are / The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behaviour. These are rules not for the machine but for the engineers setting up the problem to be solved. We hoped but doubted that all engineers and their employers would heed these rules. We have the ability to build a better world, but we discussed the need for better education and guidance in our dealings with others - in this as well as in using increased leisure when AI takes on much work. We also agreed there is a risk that as we hand over the management of our civilisation to machines, we lose the ability to do it ourselves, and the next generation loses the incentive to learn how to do it.
18th March 2022: Aristotle Week 3
We discussed the third “week” of the Coursera course on Aristotle. This covered his metaphysics and his (Nicomachean) ethics. His metaphysics leads logically to an 'unmoved mover' setting and keeping the universe in motion and existence. Susan Sauvé Meyer asks how we would relate this to the 'Big Bang' theory - a challenging question. Science can take us back in time very nearly to its beginning before which the laws of physics break down, but a 'first cause' as efficient cause is not linked to time. The Cosmological Argument is well covered in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, but we have to accept that we cannot ever know the answer to this question. Aristotle links his ethics to the 'virtue' (arete) of man as opposed to the animals. He thinks it is OK to pursue happiness or pleasure, but not the sensual pleasures we share with animals. As humans we have reason, and we can seek to follow the laws and the virtue of being good citizens. But he thinks we can aim to surpass this and try to achieve episteme, the contemplation of pure knowledge.
We discussed the third “week” of the Coursera course on Aristotle. This covered his metaphysics and his (Nicomachean) ethics. His metaphysics leads logically to an 'unmoved mover' setting and keeping the universe in motion and existence. Susan Sauvé Meyer asks how we would relate this to the 'Big Bang' theory - a challenging question. Science can take us back in time very nearly to its beginning before which the laws of physics break down, but a 'first cause' as efficient cause is not linked to time. The Cosmological Argument is well covered in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, but we have to accept that we cannot ever know the answer to this question. Aristotle links his ethics to the 'virtue' (arete) of man as opposed to the animals. He thinks it is OK to pursue happiness or pleasure, but not the sensual pleasures we share with animals. As humans we have reason, and we can seek to follow the laws and the virtue of being good citizens. But he thinks we can aim to surpass this and try to achieve episteme, the contemplation of pure knowledge.
8th March 2022: The Reith Lectures (AI): AI in the Economy
We discussed the third of the Reith Lectures dealing with AI in the economy: will there still be work? Marx held that our society and hence even the way we think depends on the economic system in which we live. AI is going to have a great impact economically, and we questioned whether we can adapt our ways of thinking, our social structures and our ethics at the same pace. Money is the measure of nearly everything right now, and wealth is power. AI is a further stage of automation, this time taking out not 'working class' jobs, but eroding middle class professions in medicine and the law. If our personal wealth is a 'hygiene factor' in our life, i.e. a big problem if you don’t have enough, but not a guarantee of happiness as you amass more, then will we be able to free more people - worldwide - from poverty: or will the rich get even richer? Many people’s aspirations include independence (not being beholden to others) and a feeling we are striving to contribute something to society. Paradoxically, that contribution may well be more in the caring sector, low down in the ranking for reward at present. Our education system is focused on getting a job, and whether thetas embraced or rejected, more needs to be done to prepare us for the new opportunities AI could bring to our increased 'leisure'. It is suggested AI will not solve climate change. It certainly will not if we don’t give it that objective, and that means we have to re-evaluate our values - the demand for cars, clothes and travel. Overall there is an urgent challenge to adopt new values and goals and an education system to lead us towards them.
We discussed the third of the Reith Lectures dealing with AI in the economy: will there still be work? Marx held that our society and hence even the way we think depends on the economic system in which we live. AI is going to have a great impact economically, and we questioned whether we can adapt our ways of thinking, our social structures and our ethics at the same pace. Money is the measure of nearly everything right now, and wealth is power. AI is a further stage of automation, this time taking out not 'working class' jobs, but eroding middle class professions in medicine and the law. If our personal wealth is a 'hygiene factor' in our life, i.e. a big problem if you don’t have enough, but not a guarantee of happiness as you amass more, then will we be able to free more people - worldwide - from poverty: or will the rich get even richer? Many people’s aspirations include independence (not being beholden to others) and a feeling we are striving to contribute something to society. Paradoxically, that contribution may well be more in the caring sector, low down in the ranking for reward at present. Our education system is focused on getting a job, and whether thetas embraced or rejected, more needs to be done to prepare us for the new opportunities AI could bring to our increased 'leisure'. It is suggested AI will not solve climate change. It certainly will not if we don’t give it that objective, and that means we have to re-evaluate our values - the demand for cars, clothes and travel. Overall there is an urgent challenge to adopt new values and goals and an education system to lead us towards them.
11th February 2022: Aristotle Week 2
We recalled that we are re-tracing the development of Western Philosophy (and Science) in Ancient Greece, and we have Aristotle first addressing Parmenides’ issues with change and bringing Plato’s Forms down to earth. In the first week of the course he established that a subject is the unchanging entity to which change happens, and that subjects have substance. But how to explain the causes of these subjects coming into being? he can apply his four causes (or reasons) to a statue well enough: the bronze is the material cause, the shape of the subject the formal cause, the sculptor the efficient cause and adorning the temple the final cause - but how does this work for natural entities - plants, dogs, people? Is Aristotle forced to deduce that the elements constitution natural plants and creatures are the subject and people are just inherent properties of them? He first demonstrates that nature acts consistently and purposefully in its creations, and claims that nature drives and provides the form of living things, and that form rather than matter is nature driving the change in the subjects. The efficient, formal and final cause of living creatures is the soul. Given he could not have known about evolution and genes, a good explanation.
We recalled that we are re-tracing the development of Western Philosophy (and Science) in Ancient Greece, and we have Aristotle first addressing Parmenides’ issues with change and bringing Plato’s Forms down to earth. In the first week of the course he established that a subject is the unchanging entity to which change happens, and that subjects have substance. But how to explain the causes of these subjects coming into being? he can apply his four causes (or reasons) to a statue well enough: the bronze is the material cause, the shape of the subject the formal cause, the sculptor the efficient cause and adorning the temple the final cause - but how does this work for natural entities - plants, dogs, people? Is Aristotle forced to deduce that the elements constitution natural plants and creatures are the subject and people are just inherent properties of them? He first demonstrates that nature acts consistently and purposefully in its creations, and claims that nature drives and provides the form of living things, and that form rather than matter is nature driving the change in the subjects. The efficient, formal and final cause of living creatures is the soul. Given he could not have known about evolution and genes, a good explanation.
8th February 2022: The Reith Lectures (AI): AI in Warfare
We understood how AI made low cost lethal weapons that could be deployed feasible and available, and again our discussions were more about the surrounding political and ethical questions. Stuart Russell sounded quite optimistic that a ban or arms control agreement can be reached, but would that ban be ignored if a government or group found its survival fundamentally threatened? Despite the immorality of such action, it was felt that the ban could be broken. That does not negate the need for or likelihood of a treaty, because the powerful nations will not want such weapons to be readily available to less powerful regimes, terrorist groups or fanatics. Such a ban would need to be subject to inspections and reprisals, and must prohibit the use of such weapons by the strong against the weak. Enforcement of a ban would be difficult, and it was suggested a requirement for a fairer ethical approach by the powerful to the weak - otherwise they may feel they don’t have much to lose by war or terrorist action when weapons are feasible at such low cost and personal risk.
We understood how AI made low cost lethal weapons that could be deployed feasible and available, and again our discussions were more about the surrounding political and ethical questions. Stuart Russell sounded quite optimistic that a ban or arms control agreement can be reached, but would that ban be ignored if a government or group found its survival fundamentally threatened? Despite the immorality of such action, it was felt that the ban could be broken. That does not negate the need for or likelihood of a treaty, because the powerful nations will not want such weapons to be readily available to less powerful regimes, terrorist groups or fanatics. Such a ban would need to be subject to inspections and reprisals, and must prohibit the use of such weapons by the strong against the weak. Enforcement of a ban would be difficult, and it was suggested a requirement for a fairer ethical approach by the powerful to the weak - otherwise they may feel they don’t have much to lose by war or terrorist action when weapons are feasible at such low cost and personal risk.
21st January 2022: Aristotle Week 1
We discussed the first 'week' of the Coursera course on Aristotle. We were told that we only have his notes, these catalogued by Becker. His Categories differentiate Subjects, from individuals through hierarchies of universals, from qualities and activities that may be 'said of' a subject but do not define it. But for Aristotle this is not a linguistic exercise but ontology: he refutes Plato’s ideal Forms and holds that it is the Subjects that are real and changing. The debate continues: In The Times 1st January 2022 Matthew Parris denies that good or evil are eternal forces that possess people - there is only us. We debated whether Richard Dawkins’ Memes are a modern example of forms, existing beyond the individual brains that hold them. A further thought: If we 'discover' maths, does it exist independently as an ideal? Or did we just invent maths?
We discussed the first 'week' of the Coursera course on Aristotle. We were told that we only have his notes, these catalogued by Becker. His Categories differentiate Subjects, from individuals through hierarchies of universals, from qualities and activities that may be 'said of' a subject but do not define it. But for Aristotle this is not a linguistic exercise but ontology: he refutes Plato’s ideal Forms and holds that it is the Subjects that are real and changing. The debate continues: In The Times 1st January 2022 Matthew Parris denies that good or evil are eternal forces that possess people - there is only us. We debated whether Richard Dawkins’ Memes are a modern example of forms, existing beyond the individual brains that hold them. A further thought: If we 'discover' maths, does it exist independently as an ideal? Or did we just invent maths?
11th January 2022: The Reith Lectures (AI)
We discussed how much of the workings of computers we needed to know to discuss AI, but concluded these lectures were more about the surrounding philosophical and ethical questions. We also discussed whether AI computers were conscious (though Stuart Russell said this is irrelevant). We took his definition that “Machines are intelligent to the extent that their actions can be expected to achieve their objectives”. That with his statement that the goal of AI is and always has been general-purpose AI: That is, machines that can quickly learn to perform well across the full range of tasks that humans can perform, led us to consider the setting and control of those objectives. AI machines will become cleverer than us, and we don’t have a great track record of foreseeing the harm new inventions can do along with the good. How do we set good objectives? This involves questions of ethics and politics. Can we prevent machines developing the objectives we give them to their own benefit? Is there another approach to what we want from AI? Russell promises to explain this later.
We discussed how much of the workings of computers we needed to know to discuss AI, but concluded these lectures were more about the surrounding philosophical and ethical questions. We also discussed whether AI computers were conscious (though Stuart Russell said this is irrelevant). We took his definition that “Machines are intelligent to the extent that their actions can be expected to achieve their objectives”. That with his statement that the goal of AI is and always has been general-purpose AI: That is, machines that can quickly learn to perform well across the full range of tasks that humans can perform, led us to consider the setting and control of those objectives. AI machines will become cleverer than us, and we don’t have a great track record of foreseeing the harm new inventions can do along with the good. How do we set good objectives? This involves questions of ethics and politics. Can we prevent machines developing the objectives we give them to their own benefit? Is there another approach to what we want from AI? Russell promises to explain this later.
22nd October 2021: Plato and his Predecessors: Week 4
We continued and complete the Coursera course on Plato and his Predecessors at by discussing Week 4 - Plato on Reality & Goodness. We hardly touched on his cosmology, just noting that it was he was originally recognised for, and that he started the idea that you need the maths. Our focus was on his concept of philosopher-kings or rulers: whether this did indeed make any sense, and why there would be resistance to the idea. We considered how our world view had moved on and what difference that made to his thesis. One change has been the waning of any teleological purpose to the world or the state, and with no goal or perfection (arete) in mind, whether his fundamental axiom of forms can be used as a basis of a political theory. Anyway, would philosophers make a better job of government and in what ways? We looked at the divided line and the cave similes as structure for knowledge, differentiating 'illusion', belief, mathematics and 'intelligence'.
We continued and complete the Coursera course on Plato and his Predecessors at by discussing Week 4 - Plato on Reality & Goodness. We hardly touched on his cosmology, just noting that it was he was originally recognised for, and that he started the idea that you need the maths. Our focus was on his concept of philosopher-kings or rulers: whether this did indeed make any sense, and why there would be resistance to the idea. We considered how our world view had moved on and what difference that made to his thesis. One change has been the waning of any teleological purpose to the world or the state, and with no goal or perfection (arete) in mind, whether his fundamental axiom of forms can be used as a basis of a political theory. Anyway, would philosophers make a better job of government and in what ways? We looked at the divided line and the cave similes as structure for knowledge, differentiating 'illusion', belief, mathematics and 'intelligence'.
16th November 2021: Subjective Time
We discussed the Coursera course Off the Clock: The Many Faces of Time. This production by a team of academics considered time from the viewpoints of physics and also psychology, biology (humans, other animals, plants and even inanimate objects) and general experience. Some interesting points that arose were on that while we see lightning before we hear thunder, at less than 10m we hear an event before we see it. Our experience that an outward journey seems to take longer than a return journey, and time passes more quickly as we get older were addressed. Do we study history to guide how we should see the present, and can we judge history by current standards and paradigms? The breadth and content of the course were impressive.
We discussed the Coursera course Off the Clock: The Many Faces of Time. This production by a team of academics considered time from the viewpoints of physics and also psychology, biology (humans, other animals, plants and even inanimate objects) and general experience. Some interesting points that arose were on that while we see lightning before we hear thunder, at less than 10m we hear an event before we see it. Our experience that an outward journey seems to take longer than a return journey, and time passes more quickly as we get older were addressed. Do we study history to guide how we should see the present, and can we judge history by current standards and paradigms? The breadth and content of the course were impressive.
22nd October 2021: Plato and his Predecessors: Weeks 1-3 Revisited
We revisited the first three weeks of the Coursera course on Plato and his Predecessors. We understood that the Milesians were trying to explain the nature of the world without recourse to divine intervention. We looked at the conflict between Parmenides’ view that nothing could change and Heraclitus’ view that all is in flux. Susan Sauvé Meyer’s explanation is that 'to be' can be used in an existential or a predicative sense, but beyond that there are still difficulties with being and becoming in time. We noted that all we know of the pre-Socratics is from fragments of what they said or were reported to have said, albeit carefully catalogued, and we only know Socrates from Aristophanes and Plato. Socrates clearly was a Gadfly - and ugly and careless of appearance and personal hygiene, let’s say, but he clearly made an impact, and for us he showed the value of questioning what we think we know in an attempt to get to a better understanding. His Meno dialogue on virtue led us to discussions of belief and knowledge.
We revisited the first three weeks of the Coursera course on Plato and his Predecessors. We understood that the Milesians were trying to explain the nature of the world without recourse to divine intervention. We looked at the conflict between Parmenides’ view that nothing could change and Heraclitus’ view that all is in flux. Susan Sauvé Meyer’s explanation is that 'to be' can be used in an existential or a predicative sense, but beyond that there are still difficulties with being and becoming in time. We noted that all we know of the pre-Socratics is from fragments of what they said or were reported to have said, albeit carefully catalogued, and we only know Socrates from Aristophanes and Plato. Socrates clearly was a Gadfly - and ugly and careless of appearance and personal hygiene, let’s say, but he clearly made an impact, and for us he showed the value of questioning what we think we know in an attempt to get to a better understanding. His Meno dialogue on virtue led us to discussions of belief and knowledge.
19th October 2021: The Order of Time 5
We looked at various theories of the nature of time and try to put Rovelli’s ideas in context. Shri supplied a helpful summary from The Economist (Bye, Bye little Susy, 28th August 2021). This essentially came down to a comparison of the various quantum theories of matter and fields, specifically gravity: String Theory versus Rovelli’s Quantum Loop Gravity included. This drove some of us to revisit Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time - which we both found reasonably comprehensible this time through! He does give a good explanation of the arrows of Cosmological Time, Cosmological, Psychological and Thermodynamic. That said, we realised we were moving beyond physics into metaphysics here and had a useful recap on what we believe we know and what we don’t know - and whether we or anyone ever will! We are led to believe that Aristotle was right - space and time are a reality between objects or events. Spacetime is a field and may even be a foam of volume quanta moving to manifest time. History suggests better models will emerge, but is there a limit to what we can grasp of a potentially multi-dimensional universe with the sensory and mental equipment we have evolved for millennia?
We looked at various theories of the nature of time and try to put Rovelli’s ideas in context. Shri supplied a helpful summary from The Economist (Bye, Bye little Susy, 28th August 2021). This essentially came down to a comparison of the various quantum theories of matter and fields, specifically gravity: String Theory versus Rovelli’s Quantum Loop Gravity included. This drove some of us to revisit Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time - which we both found reasonably comprehensible this time through! He does give a good explanation of the arrows of Cosmological Time, Cosmological, Psychological and Thermodynamic. That said, we realised we were moving beyond physics into metaphysics here and had a useful recap on what we believe we know and what we don’t know - and whether we or anyone ever will! We are led to believe that Aristotle was right - space and time are a reality between objects or events. Spacetime is a field and may even be a foam of volume quanta moving to manifest time. History suggests better models will emerge, but is there a limit to what we can grasp of a potentially multi-dimensional universe with the sensory and mental equipment we have evolved for millennia?
1st October 2021: Social Meeting / Poverty and Our Response
This was intended as a relaxed, social meeting, but we did get round to the episode from Crash Course Philosophy: Poverty & Our Response to It: We started with Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics, The Case against Helping the Poor, and noting that Elon Musk spent more on his space project than would be needed to eliminate world hunger, we considered that the lifeboat would seem capacious and sturdy. But problems were identified with the effectiveness of attempts to help the poor. Just giving money can be ineffective, because unless the objective is clear and the channel monitored, much of the money may be diverted through both illegal and legal interventions. Then without trying to differentiate the deserving and the undeserving poor, the political, social and cultural state of the societies of both the donor and the recipient can sustain a poverty trap. That said, does it justify those who have accumulated wealth legally and often through hard work and application feeling no obligation to help those with less? There is a case for the individual (and the state?) taking a view that the top slice of income or wealth may be better spent relieving others than on some further discretionary expenditure.
This was intended as a relaxed, social meeting, but we did get round to the episode from Crash Course Philosophy: Poverty & Our Response to It: We started with Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics, The Case against Helping the Poor, and noting that Elon Musk spent more on his space project than would be needed to eliminate world hunger, we considered that the lifeboat would seem capacious and sturdy. But problems were identified with the effectiveness of attempts to help the poor. Just giving money can be ineffective, because unless the objective is clear and the channel monitored, much of the money may be diverted through both illegal and legal interventions. Then without trying to differentiate the deserving and the undeserving poor, the political, social and cultural state of the societies of both the donor and the recipient can sustain a poverty trap. That said, does it justify those who have accumulated wealth legally and often through hard work and application feeling no obligation to help those with less? There is a case for the individual (and the state?) taking a view that the top slice of income or wealth may be better spent relieving others than on some further discretionary expenditure.
28th September 2021: "The Order of Time" 4
We discussed the last chapters (10-13) of Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time. Again, difficult going, though Rovelli does give a concise summary of his book in Chapter 13 pp167 - 171. We could see that space is granular - going down to quanta, and in another work Rovelli describes the quanta of space as interconnecting loops, and this structure is deformed by local masses and under relative velocity to what we perceive: Newton was wrong! Relativity, specifically the Lorenz transformation, would link time to space - it should be real and quantised in the same sense, but this seems much more difficult to understand, and to link to Rovelli’s claim that our experience reflects our 'blurred' knowledge of quantum states and the disorder as measured by entropy. We also debated whether time is indeed real, or just a construct of our limited senses, particularly recognising we have evolved to survive at the scale we are, not at the minuscule quantum level nor at the scale of the whole cosmos, nor even at the scale of our region, that where entropy is increasing - or where we see entropy increase.
We discussed the last chapters (10-13) of Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time. Again, difficult going, though Rovelli does give a concise summary of his book in Chapter 13 pp167 - 171. We could see that space is granular - going down to quanta, and in another work Rovelli describes the quanta of space as interconnecting loops, and this structure is deformed by local masses and under relative velocity to what we perceive: Newton was wrong! Relativity, specifically the Lorenz transformation, would link time to space - it should be real and quantised in the same sense, but this seems much more difficult to understand, and to link to Rovelli’s claim that our experience reflects our 'blurred' knowledge of quantum states and the disorder as measured by entropy. We also debated whether time is indeed real, or just a construct of our limited senses, particularly recognising we have evolved to survive at the scale we are, not at the minuscule quantum level nor at the scale of the whole cosmos, nor even at the scale of our region, that where entropy is increasing - or where we see entropy increase.
20th August 2021: Social Meeting
Many of us had commitments elsewhere so we just met socially - and talked about identity.
Many of us had commitments elsewhere so we just met socially - and talked about identity.
17th August 2021: "The Order of Time" 3
We discussed chapters 7-9 of Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time. This was difficult going. In chapter 7, Rovelli is trying to emphasise that there is no universal 'now', but each observer (or interacting entity) experiences space-time that depends on speed and local gravitational forces. Having dismissed Presentism, he rejects Eternalism and the 'block universe', perhaps surprisingly, though on the grounds it implies nothing changes. He asks what really exists, then says that there are many definitions of reality. In chapter 8 he argues that Newton’s idea of a privileged variable called 'time' was a wrong move, and all we need is to find variables that enable us to sequence events. He introduces his theory of loop quantum gravity to account for the quanta of space-time. Very hard to understand, but here is a link to his lecture series on this. In chapter 9 he reverses the idea that at a particular time a system’s energy levels define its macroscopic state and says that a “blurred vision of the world”, i.e. a macroscopic state, preserves an energy and this generates a time. He concludes by linking quantum time with the non-commutativity of quantum variables.
We discussed chapters 7-9 of Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time. This was difficult going. In chapter 7, Rovelli is trying to emphasise that there is no universal 'now', but each observer (or interacting entity) experiences space-time that depends on speed and local gravitational forces. Having dismissed Presentism, he rejects Eternalism and the 'block universe', perhaps surprisingly, though on the grounds it implies nothing changes. He asks what really exists, then says that there are many definitions of reality. In chapter 8 he argues that Newton’s idea of a privileged variable called 'time' was a wrong move, and all we need is to find variables that enable us to sequence events. He introduces his theory of loop quantum gravity to account for the quanta of space-time. Very hard to understand, but here is a link to his lecture series on this. In chapter 9 he reverses the idea that at a particular time a system’s energy levels define its macroscopic state and says that a “blurred vision of the world”, i.e. a macroscopic state, preserves an energy and this generates a time. He concludes by linking quantum time with the non-commutativity of quantum variables.
20th July 2021: "The Order of Time" 2
We discussed Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time, chapters 4-6. Chapter 4 dismantled our concept of independent time marching on regardless, drilled into us since Newton, and noted that Aristotle couldn’t conceive of time without change to senses it. We were led to Einstein’s explanation of time as part of the spacetime gravitational field. Chapter 5 showed time is discontinuous - quantised like anything else. We suppose if particles 'jump' from one state to another with no in-between existence possible, they may well need quanta of time to make the jump. His paper on Relational Quantum Mechanics referenced under note 7 to chapter 5 looks interesting - and is explained in his latest book. Having spent five chapters explaining why we have got time all wrong, Rovelli starts in chapter 6 to tell us what time is, and proposes we see the world not as things but events, and “they do not form an orderly queue like the English, they crowd around chaotically like Italians”!
We discussed Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time, chapters 4-6. Chapter 4 dismantled our concept of independent time marching on regardless, drilled into us since Newton, and noted that Aristotle couldn’t conceive of time without change to senses it. We were led to Einstein’s explanation of time as part of the spacetime gravitational field. Chapter 5 showed time is discontinuous - quantised like anything else. We suppose if particles 'jump' from one state to another with no in-between existence possible, they may well need quanta of time to make the jump. His paper on Relational Quantum Mechanics referenced under note 7 to chapter 5 looks interesting - and is explained in his latest book. Having spent five chapters explaining why we have got time all wrong, Rovelli starts in chapter 6 to tell us what time is, and proposes we see the world not as things but events, and “they do not form an orderly queue like the English, they crowd around chaotically like Italians”!
16th July 2021: Altruism
We really met because we could - and enjoyed the summer weather. We did look at Altruism on the Stanford Encyclopaedia to ask ourselves whether we should be altruistic and why. According to the article, there are three reasons: the ancients would have said it is in our own interest to aim for 'Eudaimonia', the highest good, which is the good of the community, so a win-win there. 'Modern' philosophers take an impartial and impersonal, consequentialist view of how we should act. Kant’s moral imperative, or the Utilitarians’ greatest good of the greatest number. A third approach, championed by David Hume (1739), Adam Smith (1759), and Arthur Schopenhauer (1840), gives sympathy, compassion, and personal affection—rather than impartial reason—a central role to play in the moral life. This may well be supported by what we know of genetics: sure the gene is 'selfish', but humans are social animals.
We really met because we could - and enjoyed the summer weather. We did look at Altruism on the Stanford Encyclopaedia to ask ourselves whether we should be altruistic and why. According to the article, there are three reasons: the ancients would have said it is in our own interest to aim for 'Eudaimonia', the highest good, which is the good of the community, so a win-win there. 'Modern' philosophers take an impartial and impersonal, consequentialist view of how we should act. Kant’s moral imperative, or the Utilitarians’ greatest good of the greatest number. A third approach, championed by David Hume (1739), Adam Smith (1759), and Arthur Schopenhauer (1840), gives sympathy, compassion, and personal affection—rather than impartial reason—a central role to play in the moral life. This may well be supported by what we know of genetics: sure the gene is 'selfish', but humans are social animals.
25th June 2021: Social Meeting
With so much to catch up on, and being depleted, we didn’t get round to Ancient Philosophy: in fact we decided to put this topic on hold for a while.
With so much to catch up on, and being depleted, we didn’t get round to Ancient Philosophy: in fact we decided to put this topic on hold for a while.
22nd June 2021: "The Order of Time" 1
We discussed the first three chapters of Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time. His project in the first part of the book is to show how modern physics has undermined our accepted concepts of time. At the top of a mountain, time passes faster (i.e. people who live up there get older than people in the valley - though very slightly). The twin who flies off to a distant star and returns is younger than the twin who stayed at home. Following the maths of special relativity is difficult partly because it is difficult to take in these concepts. Heat transfer is the only physical process that cannot be reversed in time: entropy within a closed system never decreases, and the 'quality of heat', i.e. its entropy, S = ∆Q / T, always degrades. We did have problems understanding his point in saying that in Boltzmann’s entropy, S = k. ln W, is a statistical view of the many possible configurations of the energy states of the particles in the system. He seems to say that if we could track them all, then the time dependence and therefore our idea of time would disappear. His destruction of simultaneity across space time made sense and the effect of black holes on time, though Gödel’s proposal that time loops are possible is still disconcerting.
We discussed the first three chapters of Carlo Rovelli's The Order of Time. His project in the first part of the book is to show how modern physics has undermined our accepted concepts of time. At the top of a mountain, time passes faster (i.e. people who live up there get older than people in the valley - though very slightly). The twin who flies off to a distant star and returns is younger than the twin who stayed at home. Following the maths of special relativity is difficult partly because it is difficult to take in these concepts. Heat transfer is the only physical process that cannot be reversed in time: entropy within a closed system never decreases, and the 'quality of heat', i.e. its entropy, S = ∆Q / T, always degrades. We did have problems understanding his point in saying that in Boltzmann’s entropy, S = k. ln W, is a statistical view of the many possible configurations of the energy states of the particles in the system. He seems to say that if we could track them all, then the time dependence and therefore our idea of time would disappear. His destruction of simultaneity across space time made sense and the effect of black holes on time, though Gödel’s proposal that time loops are possible is still disconcerting.
11th May 2021: Philosophy of Maths 10
We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s Thinking about Mathematics, Chapter 10 'Structuralism', perhaps supplemented by the IEP pages on Structuralism. Structuralism is Shapiro’s declared position. Structuralists don’t start with numbers but at the next level up, claiming it is easier to grasp the pattern of a counting system as fundamental, so that numbers become simply the place holders in the mathematical structure. Inevitably they cannot escape the fundamental realist question: do structures exist as abstract entities or are they just identifiable in the appropriate example systems? We returned again to the general question of the existence of abstract ideas. We questioned why this issue seems to arise in the case of mathematics more than stay with logic or language or music. We appealed to Kant’s ideas of noumena and phenomena in the context of sensation and experience. Is maths one of the tools we have for dealing with the phenomenal world, or does it have its own nuomenal or ideal independent form? We accept this is one of those philosophical questions we cannot answer, but the exploration has enriched our understanding of maths and its status.
We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s Thinking about Mathematics, Chapter 10 'Structuralism', perhaps supplemented by the IEP pages on Structuralism. Structuralism is Shapiro’s declared position. Structuralists don’t start with numbers but at the next level up, claiming it is easier to grasp the pattern of a counting system as fundamental, so that numbers become simply the place holders in the mathematical structure. Inevitably they cannot escape the fundamental realist question: do structures exist as abstract entities or are they just identifiable in the appropriate example systems? We returned again to the general question of the existence of abstract ideas. We questioned why this issue seems to arise in the case of mathematics more than stay with logic or language or music. We appealed to Kant’s ideas of noumena and phenomena in the context of sensation and experience. Is maths one of the tools we have for dealing with the phenomenal world, or does it have its own nuomenal or ideal independent form? We accept this is one of those philosophical questions we cannot answer, but the exploration has enriched our understanding of maths and its status.
13th April 2021: Philosophy of Maths 9
We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s Thinking about Mathematics, reading Chapter 9 on Fictionalism, which denies that numbers and sets exist. Fictionalists do find maths useful though, and we discussed how a work of fiction can convey to us a meaningful message about the real world, but at the same time we fully realise that the characters in the work never existed and the situations (specific to the story) never happened. Fictionalists attack Platonists (or more generally Mathematical Realists) on the premise in their argument that maths is essential to science - which does convey truths about the real world. Their project is to provide a Nominalist explanation for a scientific theory and show that maths is just perhaps an easier route to get to the theory, but is thus not necessary - and doesn’t add anything extra that couldn’t be explained otherwise. Hartry Field explained gravity using space-time points, rather like Euclid did geometry without needing Descartes’ translation into numbers. Charles Chihara dispensed with sets by using open sentences with attributes (“x is a cat” instead of the set of cats). Then we found that Burgess & Rosen show how each side of the debate push the burden of proof to the others, and Mark Balaguer offers both an invincible version of Platonism and Realism and an invincible version of Anti-Platonism and Nominalism. His conclusion is that there is no fact of the matter! We later found an alternative presentation of these ideas on the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s Thinking about Mathematics, reading Chapter 9 on Fictionalism, which denies that numbers and sets exist. Fictionalists do find maths useful though, and we discussed how a work of fiction can convey to us a meaningful message about the real world, but at the same time we fully realise that the characters in the work never existed and the situations (specific to the story) never happened. Fictionalists attack Platonists (or more generally Mathematical Realists) on the premise in their argument that maths is essential to science - which does convey truths about the real world. Their project is to provide a Nominalist explanation for a scientific theory and show that maths is just perhaps an easier route to get to the theory, but is thus not necessary - and doesn’t add anything extra that couldn’t be explained otherwise. Hartry Field explained gravity using space-time points, rather like Euclid did geometry without needing Descartes’ translation into numbers. Charles Chihara dispensed with sets by using open sentences with attributes (“x is a cat” instead of the set of cats). Then we found that Burgess & Rosen show how each side of the debate push the burden of proof to the others, and Mark Balaguer offers both an invincible version of Platonism and Realism and an invincible version of Anti-Platonism and Nominalism. His conclusion is that there is no fact of the matter! We later found an alternative presentation of these ideas on the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
9th April 2021: Ancient Philosophy - 3 Plato's Meno and Republic
We noted Socrates’ method. He claims that there is something he does not know. He then asks someone who claims to know the meaning of that thing, and follows this by showing how that is wrong. He continues like this until it there is some impasse, and the relevant definition is not achieved (aporia).
We discussed the Meno and had a brief discussion on the idea of virtue. We noted that unlike the mathematical examples of Socrates it is uncertain because it is a value judgement. We moved forward to a discussion on belief and knowledge. We didn’t think that knowledge was innate, although accepted that we had the potential to do certain things.
We discussed the notion of Knowledge and its constituents of belief truth and evidence or justification extensively, and in a variety of contexts. We noted that the ideas of ‘knowledge’ and ‘facts’ were used in different situations.
On the Republic we considered some of the points with respect to their relevance and applications to current affairs. The ideally functioning city was like medicine which benefits the individual similarly the guardians to rule the city to benefit the citizens. The functioning of a just city related to the functioning of an individual. We noted the separation of ‘jobs’ in the city and we compared these to some of the systems around the world. We discussed the requirements of each individual to do their job and do what duties and obligations they owe the city as well as the happiness of individuals with respect to the work they do in the modern societies.
We noted Socrates’ method. He claims that there is something he does not know. He then asks someone who claims to know the meaning of that thing, and follows this by showing how that is wrong. He continues like this until it there is some impasse, and the relevant definition is not achieved (aporia).
We discussed the Meno and had a brief discussion on the idea of virtue. We noted that unlike the mathematical examples of Socrates it is uncertain because it is a value judgement. We moved forward to a discussion on belief and knowledge. We didn’t think that knowledge was innate, although accepted that we had the potential to do certain things.
We discussed the notion of Knowledge and its constituents of belief truth and evidence or justification extensively, and in a variety of contexts. We noted that the ideas of ‘knowledge’ and ‘facts’ were used in different situations.
On the Republic we considered some of the points with respect to their relevance and applications to current affairs. The ideally functioning city was like medicine which benefits the individual similarly the guardians to rule the city to benefit the citizens. The functioning of a just city related to the functioning of an individual. We noted the separation of ‘jobs’ in the city and we compared these to some of the systems around the world. We discussed the requirements of each individual to do their job and do what duties and obligations they owe the city as well as the happiness of individuals with respect to the work they do in the modern societies.
19th March 2021: Ancient Philosophy - 2
We discussed the Coursera course from Penn University: Ancient Philosophy: Plato & His Predecessors week 2. We saw a move on from the ontology of natural philosophy to questions of language and ethics. Parmenides held that change was impossible, because something cannot come from nothing, but that paradox arises from a failure to distinguish the use of the verb 'to be' to mean to exist or to indicate a property. We read Socrates’ (Plato’s) Euthyphro and Apology. The Euthyphro question - whether piety is good because the gods love it, or whether the gods love piety because it is good demonstrated not only the Socratic dialogue but also something of Socrates’ claim to know nothing: He well knew that there were questions with no simple answers - philosophy still discusses them! The Apology, his defence at his trial led to a discussion of high principles and how they can lead as far as martyrdom. We discussed the possibility of living the examined life and its development with experience, leading to a thought that old heads are respected paradoxically when they know that change is necessary. A summary of the ideas and lessons from the Apology are: Ideas: Do not betray your own philosophy, even if death is on the line; hold the laws of the land in high regard; resilience to stand firm for a higher qualitative way of life that is expressed in intellectual & moral virtue rather than live for such things as mundane thinking, popularity, power, wealth, & minimal goals. Lessons: Honour what is right and what is just regardless of possible outcome; ensure that your soul feeds on truth and understanding: Forsake pride and pretentious behaviour; no evil can befall a good person; the supernatural realm exists; truth liberates; humility is to be prized; misery accompanies duplicity, misrepresentation, and injustice; even when biases are entrenched, proclaim, pursue and advance truth; the presence and power of truth brings hope; disciple others unto intellectual and moral excellence; The unexamined life is not worth living.
We discussed the Coursera course from Penn University: Ancient Philosophy: Plato & His Predecessors week 2. We saw a move on from the ontology of natural philosophy to questions of language and ethics. Parmenides held that change was impossible, because something cannot come from nothing, but that paradox arises from a failure to distinguish the use of the verb 'to be' to mean to exist or to indicate a property. We read Socrates’ (Plato’s) Euthyphro and Apology. The Euthyphro question - whether piety is good because the gods love it, or whether the gods love piety because it is good demonstrated not only the Socratic dialogue but also something of Socrates’ claim to know nothing: He well knew that there were questions with no simple answers - philosophy still discusses them! The Apology, his defence at his trial led to a discussion of high principles and how they can lead as far as martyrdom. We discussed the possibility of living the examined life and its development with experience, leading to a thought that old heads are respected paradoxically when they know that change is necessary. A summary of the ideas and lessons from the Apology are: Ideas: Do not betray your own philosophy, even if death is on the line; hold the laws of the land in high regard; resilience to stand firm for a higher qualitative way of life that is expressed in intellectual & moral virtue rather than live for such things as mundane thinking, popularity, power, wealth, & minimal goals. Lessons: Honour what is right and what is just regardless of possible outcome; ensure that your soul feeds on truth and understanding: Forsake pride and pretentious behaviour; no evil can befall a good person; the supernatural realm exists; truth liberates; humility is to be prized; misery accompanies duplicity, misrepresentation, and injustice; even when biases are entrenched, proclaim, pursue and advance truth; the presence and power of truth brings hope; disciple others unto intellectual and moral excellence; The unexamined life is not worth living.
9th March 2021: Philosophy of Maths 9
We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s Thinking about Mathematics, reading Chapter 8 "Numbers Exist". We looked at Gödel’s realism (as well as his incompleteness theorem, Quine’s 'Web of Belief', and Maddy’s realism based on our ability to recognise (sense?) sets. On the maths there are links to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem on Wikipedia and YouTube and for Cantor's Infinities and Riemann’s hypothesis. We discussed how it’s near necessity to science and the success of science argued for the reality of maths. The web of belief provides a good metaphor for empiricism, and also gives an alternative to a priori knowledge. We discussed the parallels between the problem of reality for maths compared with that for colour: there is no such thing as colour before biological life; and if colour is part of our evolution to detect predators and prey, then doesn’t the recognition of sets of predators complement that? We agreed the question needs looking at from many viewpoints: will the next chapter modify our perceptions?
We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s Thinking about Mathematics, reading Chapter 8 "Numbers Exist". We looked at Gödel’s realism (as well as his incompleteness theorem, Quine’s 'Web of Belief', and Maddy’s realism based on our ability to recognise (sense?) sets. On the maths there are links to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem on Wikipedia and YouTube and for Cantor's Infinities and Riemann’s hypothesis. We discussed how it’s near necessity to science and the success of science argued for the reality of maths. The web of belief provides a good metaphor for empiricism, and also gives an alternative to a priori knowledge. We discussed the parallels between the problem of reality for maths compared with that for colour: there is no such thing as colour before biological life; and if colour is part of our evolution to detect predators and prey, then doesn’t the recognition of sets of predators complement that? We agreed the question needs looking at from many viewpoints: will the next chapter modify our perceptions?
17th February 2021: Ancient Philosophy - 1
We discussed the Coursera course from Penn University: Ancient Philosophy: Plato & His Predecessors starting with The Milesians & Heraclitus. We first noted that there are only fragments and comments on the early philosophers and their ideas have been reconstructed - and catalogued as a standard for reference. The Milesians were Natural Philosophers: not scientists because they did not experiment, but they sought to explain the substance and animation of the world around them without recourse to the supernatural. Thales thought the fundamental element was water, Anaximines earth, Anaximander fire. Heraclitus had a dynamic view: all is change and everything contains its opposite, but with a unity (reminiscent of Yin-Yang). The unity is one reading of logos (λογοσ). Here are links to a diagram and a summary
We discussed the Coursera course from Penn University: Ancient Philosophy: Plato & His Predecessors starting with The Milesians & Heraclitus. We first noted that there are only fragments and comments on the early philosophers and their ideas have been reconstructed - and catalogued as a standard for reference. The Milesians were Natural Philosophers: not scientists because they did not experiment, but they sought to explain the substance and animation of the world around them without recourse to the supernatural. Thales thought the fundamental element was water, Anaximines earth, Anaximander fire. Heraclitus had a dynamic view: all is change and everything contains its opposite, but with a unity (reminiscent of Yin-Yang). The unity is one reading of logos (λογοσ). Here are links to a diagram and a summary
9th February 2021: Philosophy of Maths 8
We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”, reading Chapter 7 on Intuitionism: Brouwer, Heyting and Dummett. Intuitionism sides with Kant as opposed to Plato: numbers do not exist independently of the human mind. Kant held that numbers are part of our synthetic a priori way of making sense of the phenomenal world. As with geometry, we construct maths.Brouwer pursued this analogy: as geometry is to space, numbers are to time, thus explaining the discrete progression of numbers and the continuous. Because we construct maths, demonstration and proof are more appropriate concepts than truth. This leads to a problem with classical logic’s "undivided middle”: Either A or Not A must be true. Intuitive logic brings in the issue that the negation of “There is a proof that A” could be “There is a proof that Not A”, or “there is not a proof that A”. So the undivided middle - and “proofs” that rely on it - are invalid. Heyting requires the proof or demonstration to be constructed. Dummett relates logic to meaning, and this to manifestation, i.e. use of the knowledge demonstrated. Helpful videos were found for "does maths exist?" and Intuitionist Logic (Excluded Middle)
We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”, reading Chapter 7 on Intuitionism: Brouwer, Heyting and Dummett. Intuitionism sides with Kant as opposed to Plato: numbers do not exist independently of the human mind. Kant held that numbers are part of our synthetic a priori way of making sense of the phenomenal world. As with geometry, we construct maths.Brouwer pursued this analogy: as geometry is to space, numbers are to time, thus explaining the discrete progression of numbers and the continuous. Because we construct maths, demonstration and proof are more appropriate concepts than truth. This leads to a problem with classical logic’s "undivided middle”: Either A or Not A must be true. Intuitive logic brings in the issue that the negation of “There is a proof that A” could be “There is a proof that Not A”, or “there is not a proof that A”. So the undivided middle - and “proofs” that rely on it - are invalid. Heyting requires the proof or demonstration to be constructed. Dummett relates logic to meaning, and this to manifestation, i.e. use of the knowledge demonstrated. Helpful videos were found for "does maths exist?" and Intuitionist Logic (Excluded Middle)
15th January 2021: The Reith Lectures: Mark Carney
There were four lectures in the series, In the lectures Carney:
assesses value - why have financial values come to be considered more important than human ones?
reflects on the 2008 crash - more than a decade on, how much have bankers changed their ways?
looks at the tensions between economic and human values during the Covid crisis. Can human life be assigned a monetary value?
suggests the market can be redirected to alleviating climate change.
It was interesting to hear a Banker arguing so cogently that monetising everything had corrupted our real values, and we should do well to note the lessons of the 2008 crash and the Covid pandemic to reset our goals and constrain and demand that a resilient finance sector enables the outcomes we want, particularly in combating climate change. But is he nevertheless coming from within the system? Will we forget all too quickly the lessons learnt, or can we make a difference and demand a fairer world?
There were four lectures in the series, In the lectures Carney:
assesses value - why have financial values come to be considered more important than human ones?
reflects on the 2008 crash - more than a decade on, how much have bankers changed their ways?
looks at the tensions between economic and human values during the Covid crisis. Can human life be assigned a monetary value?
suggests the market can be redirected to alleviating climate change.
It was interesting to hear a Banker arguing so cogently that monetising everything had corrupted our real values, and we should do well to note the lessons of the 2008 crash and the Covid pandemic to reset our goals and constrain and demand that a resilient finance sector enables the outcomes we want, particularly in combating climate change. But is he nevertheless coming from within the system? Will we forget all too quickly the lessons learnt, or can we make a difference and demand a fairer world?
12th January 2021: Philosophy of Maths 7 - Logicism
The Logicism of Frege and Russell ran into the sand trying to make numbers some logically definable entity, so the Formalist approach takes numbers to be just symbols with no meaning outside mathematics, and the rules that govern their manipulation as similar to the definition of moves of chess pieces. Hilbert took the basic approaches of Term_ and Game Formalism through Deductivism, aiming to show that for any branch of mathematics, the rules are logical and consistent. This leads on to the project of removing the role of intuition in geometry, and further, to “meta-mathematics”, studying the formal languages of mathematics themselves. Back in arithmetic, Finitism restricts arithmetic to finite numbers only, avoiding the problem of seeking an example falsifying a theorem when the list of numbers is endless. Then any other arithmetic is just a theory, but it must work in the finite mode. Further, rules can themselves be enumerated and listed and analysed by a (reminiscent of Turing) computer. Then Gödel came up with his Incompleteness theorem and showed that the Deductivist project must fail - it is not possible to show the consistency of any system within itself. A proof sketch of the (first) theorem may be found here . Curry later proposed that various branches of mathematics emerge, and as they develop they become more rigorous and our confidence increases, enabling further progress.
The Logicism of Frege and Russell ran into the sand trying to make numbers some logically definable entity, so the Formalist approach takes numbers to be just symbols with no meaning outside mathematics, and the rules that govern their manipulation as similar to the definition of moves of chess pieces. Hilbert took the basic approaches of Term_ and Game Formalism through Deductivism, aiming to show that for any branch of mathematics, the rules are logical and consistent. This leads on to the project of removing the role of intuition in geometry, and further, to “meta-mathematics”, studying the formal languages of mathematics themselves. Back in arithmetic, Finitism restricts arithmetic to finite numbers only, avoiding the problem of seeking an example falsifying a theorem when the list of numbers is endless. Then any other arithmetic is just a theory, but it must work in the finite mode. Further, rules can themselves be enumerated and listed and analysed by a (reminiscent of Turing) computer. Then Gödel came up with his Incompleteness theorem and showed that the Deductivist project must fail - it is not possible to show the consistency of any system within itself. A proof sketch of the (first) theorem may be found here . Curry later proposed that various branches of mathematics emerge, and as they develop they become more rigorous and our confidence increases, enabling further progress.
11th December 2020: Moral Maze
We discussed:
Moral Lessons for a Post-Covid World Four panellists will propose one moral principle, relevant to the crisis, that they believe would serve us well in a post-Covid world.
The Morality of the British Empire Most British citizens have for too long been ignorant of the dark and shameful parts of their history. But was the Empire, as many passionately contest, predominantly a system of racism, slavery and exploitation?
It must be said we found both episodes disappointing: there was little to no dialogue, just speakers taking a position, and apart from Michael Burke once mentioning Utilitarianism, no reference to any recognisable ethical principle beyond :”Boo Hurrah”. This was particularly true of the first speaker on the empire: it was a bad thing and no possible merit in it could be countenanced. That said, more positive views can lead to a hubristic view of the superiority of the British. One point well made was that there have always been empires: perhaps questioning their morality is a category mistake? It might be better to analyse history and compare other empires and alternative possible scenarios and learn for the future. The first speaker on post-Covid told us to be sceptical of experts. We thought this showed a woeful lack of understanding of expertise and the languages and frameworks of different experts in science, economics and politics. The next speaker differentiated local communities from global, and balancing our responsibilities to each could be a good debate. The discussion on healthcare and individual liberties versus state intervention again could have been better - indeed we did better!
We discussed:
Moral Lessons for a Post-Covid World Four panellists will propose one moral principle, relevant to the crisis, that they believe would serve us well in a post-Covid world.
The Morality of the British Empire Most British citizens have for too long been ignorant of the dark and shameful parts of their history. But was the Empire, as many passionately contest, predominantly a system of racism, slavery and exploitation?
It must be said we found both episodes disappointing: there was little to no dialogue, just speakers taking a position, and apart from Michael Burke once mentioning Utilitarianism, no reference to any recognisable ethical principle beyond :”Boo Hurrah”. This was particularly true of the first speaker on the empire: it was a bad thing and no possible merit in it could be countenanced. That said, more positive views can lead to a hubristic view of the superiority of the British. One point well made was that there have always been empires: perhaps questioning their morality is a category mistake? It might be better to analyse history and compare other empires and alternative possible scenarios and learn for the future. The first speaker on post-Covid told us to be sceptical of experts. We thought this showed a woeful lack of understanding of expertise and the languages and frameworks of different experts in science, economics and politics. The next speaker differentiated local communities from global, and balancing our responsibilities to each could be a good debate. The discussion on healthcare and individual liberties versus state intervention again could have been better - indeed we did better!
8th December 2020: Philosophy of Maths 6
We discussed Part 3 of Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”, reading Chapter 5 on Logicism: Frege, Russell, Carnap and Logical Positivism. The project of Logicism was to define numbers and derive mathematics from logical principles, thus showing Maths to be analytic without Kant’s claim for intuitive a priori synthetic knowledge. We had read Frege’s argument, helped by this video from the University of Chicago. The trick is to avoid including any idea within its definition, and we discussed how Russell’s library catalogue paradox concerning sets that were not members of themselves de-railed Frege’s analysis. We also discussed Russell’s own approach wherein he differentiated types of classes from each other and from objects, but he still had to postulate infinity (and the set of all sets cannot exist) and that classes could be reduced to objects. Spoiler alert - we know Goedel showed the impossibility of the stated Logicism project. We liked the pragmatism of Carnap’s “tolerance”: from a set of (presumably viable) rules, maths can be shown to be a priori if it can be derived logically from these definitions. But any claim by a logical positivist that cannot be verified is deemed therefore meaningless, and it is noted that any explanation of a theorem beyond its simple statement seems to require ideas beyond the basic axioms.
We discussed Part 3 of Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”, reading Chapter 5 on Logicism: Frege, Russell, Carnap and Logical Positivism. The project of Logicism was to define numbers and derive mathematics from logical principles, thus showing Maths to be analytic without Kant’s claim for intuitive a priori synthetic knowledge. We had read Frege’s argument, helped by this video from the University of Chicago. The trick is to avoid including any idea within its definition, and we discussed how Russell’s library catalogue paradox concerning sets that were not members of themselves de-railed Frege’s analysis. We also discussed Russell’s own approach wherein he differentiated types of classes from each other and from objects, but he still had to postulate infinity (and the set of all sets cannot exist) and that classes could be reduced to objects. Spoiler alert - we know Goedel showed the impossibility of the stated Logicism project. We liked the pragmatism of Carnap’s “tolerance”: from a set of (presumably viable) rules, maths can be shown to be a priori if it can be derived logically from these definitions. But any claim by a logical positivist that cannot be verified is deemed therefore meaningless, and it is noted that any explanation of a theorem beyond its simple statement seems to require ideas beyond the basic axioms.
20th November 2020: Coursera Moral Foundations of Politics - Review
Shapiro’s project is to show you “can’t wring the politics out of politics”. This is because power is monopolistic, and things change. So at present no world government could prosper. No scientific solution to turn government into administration exists, and there is no way to find or sit down and shape the general will. To control that power, democracy with its faults is still better than a benign dictatorship, because it won’t remain benign. A key problem with democracy is the tyranny of the majority, so minority interests need protection. This may be addressed by ensuring there are checks and balances through institutions, though he says this doesn’t really work, or by an effective opposition strong enough to be a government in waiting. Further key properties of a good democracy are decisions based on simple majority voting, representation of all parts of society that are affected and non-dominance over the minority. An acid test of a democracy is that the governing party has stepped down - twice! We could note that certain classes of issues are not determined by simple majority vote (change to a constitution, proportional representation) and contest or at least test the effectiveness of democracy around the world, but while his message is disappointing to idealists, it is helpful to understand how politics works.
Shapiro’s project is to show you “can’t wring the politics out of politics”. This is because power is monopolistic, and things change. So at present no world government could prosper. No scientific solution to turn government into administration exists, and there is no way to find or sit down and shape the general will. To control that power, democracy with its faults is still better than a benign dictatorship, because it won’t remain benign. A key problem with democracy is the tyranny of the majority, so minority interests need protection. This may be addressed by ensuring there are checks and balances through institutions, though he says this doesn’t really work, or by an effective opposition strong enough to be a government in waiting. Further key properties of a good democracy are decisions based on simple majority voting, representation of all parts of society that are affected and non-dominance over the minority. An acid test of a democracy is that the governing party has stepped down - twice! We could note that certain classes of issues are not determined by simple majority vote (change to a constitution, proportional representation) and contest or at least test the effectiveness of democracy around the world, but while his message is disappointing to idealists, it is helpful to understand how politics works.
17th November 2020: Philosophy of Maths 5
We discussed the second part of Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”. This covered the ontology and epistemology of numbers and geometric shapes: do they really exist and how do we know about them? He gives the views of four philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Mill. Plato said they were real: in the realm of being just below his ideal forms, but not in the practical world of becoming. Aristotle and Mill later said we know them by familiarity and Mill said we get to maths the same way as all knowledge - by extended induction. We discussed Kant’s view that we know them "synthetically a priori”. and that they are like space, time and causation part of our built in equipment for looking at the world. We explored why maths is “magic” and deserves all this study beyond other languages we use. Both involve abstraction, but whereas “cat” without any qualification includes all possible cats, numbers are very specifically about quantity and geometry about shape. We recognised that while the theorems of maths are eternal - once discovered - but maths does proceed in response to the scientific questions a society is asking at the time.
We discussed the second part of Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”. This covered the ontology and epistemology of numbers and geometric shapes: do they really exist and how do we know about them? He gives the views of four philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Mill. Plato said they were real: in the realm of being just below his ideal forms, but not in the practical world of becoming. Aristotle and Mill later said we know them by familiarity and Mill said we get to maths the same way as all knowledge - by extended induction. We discussed Kant’s view that we know them "synthetically a priori”. and that they are like space, time and causation part of our built in equipment for looking at the world. We explored why maths is “magic” and deserves all this study beyond other languages we use. Both involve abstraction, but whereas “cat” without any qualification includes all possible cats, numbers are very specifically about quantity and geometry about shape. We recognised that while the theorems of maths are eternal - once discovered - but maths does proceed in response to the scientific questions a society is asking at the time.
20th October 2020: Philosophy of Maths 4
We discussed the first part of Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”. We found this hard going, even realising this was just to set out the question and the project that a philosophy of maths should address. This video from the University of Chicago gave a parallel view. The first issues to be addressed are what are numbers (ontology) and how do we get knowledge of them (epistemology), and it turns out that explanations that address one part of the question run into problems in the other. Are numbers real, perhaps not as Plato certainly thought but as “abstract objects” not occupying time or space or causing anything in the physical world? ** If so, how do we know anything about them? If they are memes which are learnt (empirically) or understood innately (a priori)? then how do you get to a number from lots of examples of that number of things? It has been shown that as well as logic you need set theory - but with sets we are back to abstract nouns and an infinite number of sets. Logic itself is undermined if numbers don’t really exist as abstract objects. We can show that a proposition about a real object is either true or false: “all stags are male”. But “all unicorns are pink” is different: as Russell said with “ The King of France is (/ is not) bald”. Impredicative propositions are another problem - is “the least upper bound” equivalent to “the village idiot”? Is maths just a special language, with syntax and semantics? Given that maths pragmatically “works” and seems fundamentally rather than contingently true, and that mathematicians got where they are today without philosophy, is the problem to underpin mathematics and say how it should be done, or to describe what mathematicians do?
** Is “love” real? An abstract object or a meme (/gene?) we take in with our mothers’ milk?
We discussed the first part of Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”. We found this hard going, even realising this was just to set out the question and the project that a philosophy of maths should address. This video from the University of Chicago gave a parallel view. The first issues to be addressed are what are numbers (ontology) and how do we get knowledge of them (epistemology), and it turns out that explanations that address one part of the question run into problems in the other. Are numbers real, perhaps not as Plato certainly thought but as “abstract objects” not occupying time or space or causing anything in the physical world? ** If so, how do we know anything about them? If they are memes which are learnt (empirically) or understood innately (a priori)? then how do you get to a number from lots of examples of that number of things? It has been shown that as well as logic you need set theory - but with sets we are back to abstract nouns and an infinite number of sets. Logic itself is undermined if numbers don’t really exist as abstract objects. We can show that a proposition about a real object is either true or false: “all stags are male”. But “all unicorns are pink” is different: as Russell said with “ The King of France is (/ is not) bald”. Impredicative propositions are another problem - is “the least upper bound” equivalent to “the village idiot”? Is maths just a special language, with syntax and semantics? Given that maths pragmatically “works” and seems fundamentally rather than contingently true, and that mathematicians got where they are today without philosophy, is the problem to underpin mathematics and say how it should be done, or to describe what mathematicians do?
** Is “love” real? An abstract object or a meme (/gene?) we take in with our mothers’ milk?
16th October 2020: Coursera Moral Foundations of Politics - Democracy
We discussed Democracy, the topic of week 8, We noted that it is difficult to define Democracy beyond there being a Wittgenstein “family resemblance” between democracies. Some litmus tests are that there should be a recognised effective opposition, and ruling parties must have lose elections and ceded power. Democracy has been more criticised than praised. Plato’s metaphor was a wild animal: you have to know what pleases it and what annoys it - an emotivist stance. Also the majority in a democracy can become tyrannical. These criticisms were said to be addressed by (American) Republicanism, where a constitution and higher institutions (such as the supreme court) can limit the power of the government. A Republican strategy to counter the tyranny of the majority is to create many split lines in the population, so that losing in one sphere of interest may well be compensated by winning in another. We discussed how far these ideas hold up in the SA now - and indeed here. We were attracted by the debate about Habermas’s enlightenment / Kantian theory that people could / should debate and reach agreements and even agee on the rationale - but that this again denies “politics” that just, hopefully, reaches a decision and moves on.
We discussed Democracy, the topic of week 8, We noted that it is difficult to define Democracy beyond there being a Wittgenstein “family resemblance” between democracies. Some litmus tests are that there should be a recognised effective opposition, and ruling parties must have lose elections and ceded power. Democracy has been more criticised than praised. Plato’s metaphor was a wild animal: you have to know what pleases it and what annoys it - an emotivist stance. Also the majority in a democracy can become tyrannical. These criticisms were said to be addressed by (American) Republicanism, where a constitution and higher institutions (such as the supreme court) can limit the power of the government. A Republican strategy to counter the tyranny of the majority is to create many split lines in the population, so that losing in one sphere of interest may well be compensated by winning in another. We discussed how far these ideas hold up in the SA now - and indeed here. We were attracted by the debate about Habermas’s enlightenment / Kantian theory that people could / should debate and reach agreements and even agee on the rationale - but that this again denies “politics” that just, hopefully, reaches a decision and moves on.
18th September 2020: Coursera Moral Foundations of Politics - Anti-Enlightenment Theories
We discussed Anti-Enlightenment theories of Politics. The criticisms of Enlightenment theories are that that there is disagreement on which teleological direction is the right one; that these theories are not scientific - perhaps a case of The transition from “ought” to “is” in this case; and that the world is complex and radical changes can lead to dire consequences. Conservatives are distinguished from Reactionaries: we agreed that Lord Devlin’s appeal to “the man on the Clapham omnibus” would stifle change - what liberals see as progress - whereas Burke’s recognition of the need for change, coupled with his concept that any “contract” we have is with our forebears and our children, seems very apposite to the current climate - literally. MacIntyre’s argument that we learn our values from our social group, so cannot have the ethical outlook enlightenment theorists claim to be in our nature makes sense, but this does perhaps legitimise nationalism, tribalism and gang culture. His stance that the emphasis of Enlightenment theories on the individual had taken out the moral core of the long standing Aristotelian mindset is compelling, and it is at first sight disappointing he did not advocate a return to Aristotle’s ideas such as moderation between extremes in ethics as a counter to the “Boo-Hurrah” mentality that has destroyed debate, but perhaps he has precluded advancing yet another goal for politics through his attack on earlier theories.
We discussed Anti-Enlightenment theories of Politics. The criticisms of Enlightenment theories are that that there is disagreement on which teleological direction is the right one; that these theories are not scientific - perhaps a case of The transition from “ought” to “is” in this case; and that the world is complex and radical changes can lead to dire consequences. Conservatives are distinguished from Reactionaries: we agreed that Lord Devlin’s appeal to “the man on the Clapham omnibus” would stifle change - what liberals see as progress - whereas Burke’s recognition of the need for change, coupled with his concept that any “contract” we have is with our forebears and our children, seems very apposite to the current climate - literally. MacIntyre’s argument that we learn our values from our social group, so cannot have the ethical outlook enlightenment theorists claim to be in our nature makes sense, but this does perhaps legitimise nationalism, tribalism and gang culture. His stance that the emphasis of Enlightenment theories on the individual had taken out the moral core of the long standing Aristotelian mindset is compelling, and it is at first sight disappointing he did not advocate a return to Aristotle’s ideas such as moderation between extremes in ethics as a counter to the “Boo-Hurrah” mentality that has destroyed debate, but perhaps he has precluded advancing yet another goal for politics through his attack on earlier theories.
15th September 2020: Philosophy of Maths 3
We read the remainder of “Mathematics A Very Short Introduction” by Timothy Gowers , plus his paper Does mathematics need a philosophy. We reviewed the mathematical concepts the book, looking at multi-dimensional space and hyperbolic geometry. Having clarified these ideas, we noted he included them to show how maths is about abstracting ideas and building coherent structures from a minimal set of axioms. So multi-dimensional space shows we can progress from numbers to ordered pairs and on to n-tuples and the linking idea is distance between points in the Pythagorean sense. Spherical and hyperbolic geometry result when the axiom of plane geometry that parallel lines never meet is modified. This led to a discussion contrasting the idea of abstraction with the need to visualise mathematical ideas, and thence to the link with the physical world and the interplay of maths and science: Stephen Hawking in “A brief history of time” notes that string theory requires that space-time really has ten or twenty six dimensions! So do numbers exist, as Platonists would argue, or are they just concepts in a language, having some public meaning Wittgenstein held?
We read the remainder of “Mathematics A Very Short Introduction” by Timothy Gowers , plus his paper Does mathematics need a philosophy. We reviewed the mathematical concepts the book, looking at multi-dimensional space and hyperbolic geometry. Having clarified these ideas, we noted he included them to show how maths is about abstracting ideas and building coherent structures from a minimal set of axioms. So multi-dimensional space shows we can progress from numbers to ordered pairs and on to n-tuples and the linking idea is distance between points in the Pythagorean sense. Spherical and hyperbolic geometry result when the axiom of plane geometry that parallel lines never meet is modified. This led to a discussion contrasting the idea of abstraction with the need to visualise mathematical ideas, and thence to the link with the physical world and the interplay of maths and science: Stephen Hawking in “A brief history of time” notes that string theory requires that space-time really has ten or twenty six dimensions! So do numbers exist, as Platonists would argue, or are they just concepts in a language, having some public meaning Wittgenstein held?
21st August 2020: Coursera Moral Foundations of Politics :Modern Social Contract Theory
We will discussed the last instalment and modern take on Social Contract theory, focusing on Nozick’s critique of Rawls. Nozick is a champion of individual freedom and a minimal state. He acknowledges the monopoly nature of power which means the state must swallow or destroy all dissenters within its sphere of influence, and it may (but never actually seems to) compensate them for their loss of independence. He does not believe the state should redistribute power or wealth, indeed even if it did, freely entered transactions would soon corrupt the distribution. We felt that this was a very American viewpoint and challenged his assumption of transactions being freely entered into. Money is power, and the state even according to Hobbes exists to protect its citizens, so protection from the rich is important as well as protection from the physically strong. His theory of the disparity of views on redistribution does help emphasise the tension between protecting the week while discouraging the freeloaders and taxing the privileged without risking them burning their crops.
We will discussed the last instalment and modern take on Social Contract theory, focusing on Nozick’s critique of Rawls. Nozick is a champion of individual freedom and a minimal state. He acknowledges the monopoly nature of power which means the state must swallow or destroy all dissenters within its sphere of influence, and it may (but never actually seems to) compensate them for their loss of independence. He does not believe the state should redistribute power or wealth, indeed even if it did, freely entered transactions would soon corrupt the distribution. We felt that this was a very American viewpoint and challenged his assumption of transactions being freely entered into. Money is power, and the state even according to Hobbes exists to protect its citizens, so protection from the rich is important as well as protection from the physically strong. His theory of the disparity of views on redistribution does help emphasise the tension between protecting the week while discouraging the freeloaders and taxing the privileged without risking them burning their crops.
Philosophy of Maths 2
11th August: Models, Abstraction, Profs, Infinity
We discussed the first four chapters of “Mathematics A Very Short Introduction” by Timothy Gowers. From the points he was making we examined real as opposed to rational numbers. We tried to understand them beyond their approximate values, and this led to a discussion of the concept of infinite and how infinities could be different sizes. A good question was why there is such an emphasis on proofs. This is because all of mathematics is built on axioms which are assumed to be true, and any theorem has to link back logically to a minimal set of axioms and no further assumption. So rather than saying a mathematical theorem / statement / construction is “true” rather say it is proven - it does depend on nothing more than the axioms. This axioms are purportedly self evident, but it is more important that they are consistent than that they are true. Gowers is keen to present mathematics as an abstraction: it abstracts a model of the essence of a problem, but also he asks us to go with the abstract and just follow the rules. He is dismissive of philosophy, holding that maths is what it does - he refers to the later Wittgenstein here, and we concluded that maths is a structure, like architecture, and a form of language - like language itself and music. We wonder that maths seems to reveal so much of the observed physical world, but then language and music are also composed of simple elements, yet they can convey deep truths or feelings.
11th August: Models, Abstraction, Profs, Infinity
We discussed the first four chapters of “Mathematics A Very Short Introduction” by Timothy Gowers. From the points he was making we examined real as opposed to rational numbers. We tried to understand them beyond their approximate values, and this led to a discussion of the concept of infinite and how infinities could be different sizes. A good question was why there is such an emphasis on proofs. This is because all of mathematics is built on axioms which are assumed to be true, and any theorem has to link back logically to a minimal set of axioms and no further assumption. So rather than saying a mathematical theorem / statement / construction is “true” rather say it is proven - it does depend on nothing more than the axioms. This axioms are purportedly self evident, but it is more important that they are consistent than that they are true. Gowers is keen to present mathematics as an abstraction: it abstracts a model of the essence of a problem, but also he asks us to go with the abstract and just follow the rules. He is dismissive of philosophy, holding that maths is what it does - he refers to the later Wittgenstein here, and we concluded that maths is a structure, like architecture, and a form of language - like language itself and music. We wonder that maths seems to reveal so much of the observed physical world, but then language and music are also composed of simple elements, yet they can convey deep truths or feelings.
14th July 2020: Philosophy of Maths 1: Scope
We had read six chapters of 50 Maths Ideas you really need to know. This was to level up, and those present were happy to go through the book in due course and raise and discuss any concepts we found difficult. We also considered Timothy Gowers’ Mathematics a very short introduction. His approach is rather hostile to philosophers “who take seriously the question of whether numbers exist, and this distinguished them from mathematicians, who either find it obvious that numbers exist or do not understand what is being asked.” He takes a functional approach, explaining how maths proves useful in modelling the world. is Michael Frayn’s approach in his philosophical work The Human Touch is both helpful and entertaining. His thoughts led us to see Maths as one of the modes we have of communicating - an alternative to language, art and music, each being more appropriate to different situations. That said, we are left to puzzle how it is that mathematical ideas developed as abstractions later turn out to be really insightful models of physical, chemical even economic and social phenomena.
We had read six chapters of 50 Maths Ideas you really need to know. This was to level up, and those present were happy to go through the book in due course and raise and discuss any concepts we found difficult. We also considered Timothy Gowers’ Mathematics a very short introduction. His approach is rather hostile to philosophers “who take seriously the question of whether numbers exist, and this distinguished them from mathematicians, who either find it obvious that numbers exist or do not understand what is being asked.” He takes a functional approach, explaining how maths proves useful in modelling the world. is Michael Frayn’s approach in his philosophical work The Human Touch is both helpful and entertaining. His thoughts led us to see Maths as one of the modes we have of communicating - an alternative to language, art and music, each being more appropriate to different situations. That said, we are left to puzzle how it is that mathematical ideas developed as abstractions later turn out to be really insightful models of physical, chemical even economic and social phenomena.
Indian Philosophy: Knowledge & Causality
10th July (on Zoom): Jain Theory of Knowledge
Less well known outside India than Hinduism (which it may well predate) or Buddhism, Jains are fewer in number but influential through their ethic of duty and works, and through similar pressures to the Quakers, they are active in business. Knowledge may be direct or transcendental (unless mired by Karma) and their theory of knowledge premises that the object is viewed from many perspectives. There are seven standpoints; three are about the range: non-distinguished, generic, particular (like the Carvakas), in time it is of the moment (like the Buddhists), and may be verbal, etymological (through experience) or actual (by use). Thus knowledge is tempered or qualified by the standpoint taken.
10th July (on Zoom): Jain Theory of Knowledge
Less well known outside India than Hinduism (which it may well predate) or Buddhism, Jains are fewer in number but influential through their ethic of duty and works, and through similar pressures to the Quakers, they are active in business. Knowledge may be direct or transcendental (unless mired by Karma) and their theory of knowledge premises that the object is viewed from many perspectives. There are seven standpoints; three are about the range: non-distinguished, generic, particular (like the Carvakas), in time it is of the moment (like the Buddhists), and may be verbal, etymological (through experience) or actual (by use). Thus knowledge is tempered or qualified by the standpoint taken.
Indian Philosophy: Knowledge & Causality
12th June (on Zoom): Induction
We learnt about the Nyaya logic of induction. In Western philosophy induction was exposed by Hume as logically insupportable and Kant’s solution was that causation was something we impose on the world to make sense of it. What we saw was another approach, a logic of establishing and verifying a cause and effect inductively.
12th June (on Zoom): Induction
We learnt about the Nyaya logic of induction. In Western philosophy induction was exposed by Hume as logically insupportable and Kant’s solution was that causation was something we impose on the world to make sense of it. What we saw was another approach, a logic of establishing and verifying a cause and effect inductively.
May 2020 In the time of Coronavirus! Philosophy of Science - The Case Against Reality
We discussed the IAI course, "The Case Against Reality" by Donald Hoffman
"Is reality how it appears? Or nothing like it seems? Professor of Cognitive Science and author of the forthcoming The Case Against Some challenging concepts to get to grips with, as our responses brought out. He does seem to cross the boundary drawn by Kant between things as we sense and interpret them and "things as they are". Science is a disciplined approach to the former and cannot penetrate the latter - thought metaphysics of contemporary science does tempt us to guess what's beyond the curtain
We discussed the IAI course, "The Case Against Reality" by Donald Hoffman
"Is reality how it appears? Or nothing like it seems? Professor of Cognitive Science and author of the forthcoming The Case Against Some challenging concepts to get to grips with, as our responses brought out. He does seem to cross the boundary drawn by Kant between things as we sense and interpret them and "things as they are". Science is a disciplined approach to the former and cannot penetrate the latter - thought metaphysics of contemporary science does tempt us to guess what's beyond the curtain
10th March 2020 Philosophy of Science - Consciousness
We discussed David Dennett’s lecture to Google on Evolution and “Unintelligent Design”, Paola Arlotta on Brain Development and related materials on consciousness in the BBC Science Focus Magazine. After we had acknowledged the Corona Virus situation (is it Gaia self regulating the ecosystem?), we explored Dennett’s exposition of evolution and it’s timescale and mechanics, and his contrasting them with the development of human culture and targeted design. He took the discussion on into the “post intelligent design” of AI and some of its ethical implications - a good development and extension of our reading of Dawkins. Paola Arlotta’s amazing description of the time taken for the human brain to grow and its adaptability informed our discussion of consciousness. We looked at theories of consciousness, some concerned with how it relates to brain structure and / or activity, some debating whether it is an emergent property, even an illusion, but we noted the Attention Schema theory, the brain modelling the outside world and its own internal states.
We discussed David Dennett’s lecture to Google on Evolution and “Unintelligent Design”, Paola Arlotta on Brain Development and related materials on consciousness in the BBC Science Focus Magazine. After we had acknowledged the Corona Virus situation (is it Gaia self regulating the ecosystem?), we explored Dennett’s exposition of evolution and it’s timescale and mechanics, and his contrasting them with the development of human culture and targeted design. He took the discussion on into the “post intelligent design” of AI and some of its ethical implications - a good development and extension of our reading of Dawkins. Paola Arlotta’s amazing description of the time taken for the human brain to grow and its adaptability informed our discussion of consciousness. We looked at theories of consciousness, some concerned with how it relates to brain structure and / or activity, some debating whether it is an emergent property, even an illusion, but we noted the Attention Schema theory, the brain modelling the outside world and its own internal states.
14th February 2020 Indian Philosophy: Buddhism
We looked at Buddhism. From the Khan Academy video we learnt the history of Buddhism and the story of Prince Siddhartha and then the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka (273–232 BCE) under whom Buddhism gained royal support and spread across India and further East, though it was later prohibited in India. We noted the Four Noble Truths: there is suffering (dukkah), it has a cause (our craving for the impermanent), this suffering can be stopped - by following the eight-fold path. Buddhism asserts that everything is impermanent, but, unlike other religions, also asserts that there is no permanent self or soul in living beings. This follows from the idea of momentariness in the five aggregates (skandhas). This convey that nothing is permanent, everything is in flux. Heraclitus captured this for the material world but Buddhism goes further. one metaphor offered is that reality is like a movie: each frame is only visible for an instant, but it follows from the previous frame and “causes” the next frame, constrained by, for example, not only physical laws but the intent of the director (though there is no director, no God). The momentary dharmas evolve in response to karma, ethical causation, which may be wholesome or unwholesome. The enlightenment of the third noble truth is that karma can be eradicated, leading to the cessation of suffering and the cycle of rebirths.
We looked at Buddhism. From the Khan Academy video we learnt the history of Buddhism and the story of Prince Siddhartha and then the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka (273–232 BCE) under whom Buddhism gained royal support and spread across India and further East, though it was later prohibited in India. We noted the Four Noble Truths: there is suffering (dukkah), it has a cause (our craving for the impermanent), this suffering can be stopped - by following the eight-fold path. Buddhism asserts that everything is impermanent, but, unlike other religions, also asserts that there is no permanent self or soul in living beings. This follows from the idea of momentariness in the five aggregates (skandhas). This convey that nothing is permanent, everything is in flux. Heraclitus captured this for the material world but Buddhism goes further. one metaphor offered is that reality is like a movie: each frame is only visible for an instant, but it follows from the previous frame and “causes” the next frame, constrained by, for example, not only physical laws but the intent of the director (though there is no director, no God). The momentary dharmas evolve in response to karma, ethical causation, which may be wholesome or unwholesome. The enlightenment of the third noble truth is that karma can be eradicated, leading to the cessation of suffering and the cycle of rebirths.
11th February 2020 Philosophy of Science - Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Chapers 10-11
We discussed the last two chapters (12, 13) of “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. Chapter 12 discussed game theory, specifically “The Prisoners’ Dilemma”, but as a repeated game with no known last round. The point was to show that altruism, or at least “kind” strategies were more profitable than cheating strategies and could form a (quasi) environmentally stable strategy (ESS). The last chapter is an introduction to his later book “The Extended Phenotype”, probably worth noting for further reading. The extension he addresses is the reach of the gene beyond its host - e.g. a beaver’s dam. He also discusses “bottleneck” organisms: for example we might contrast plant propagation by root division or cuttings with growing from seed. The latter gives life an opportunity to go “back to the drawing board” to face the current environment. We feel we have learnt about the mechanisms of genes and there may be lessons for us ethically if we understand some of the underlying forces that drive us, though we are still struggling with the insistent consciousness fallacy of the "selfish gene" metaphor
We discussed the last two chapters (12, 13) of “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. Chapter 12 discussed game theory, specifically “The Prisoners’ Dilemma”, but as a repeated game with no known last round. The point was to show that altruism, or at least “kind” strategies were more profitable than cheating strategies and could form a (quasi) environmentally stable strategy (ESS). The last chapter is an introduction to his later book “The Extended Phenotype”, probably worth noting for further reading. The extension he addresses is the reach of the gene beyond its host - e.g. a beaver’s dam. He also discusses “bottleneck” organisms: for example we might contrast plant propagation by root division or cuttings with growing from seed. The latter gives life an opportunity to go “back to the drawing board” to face the current environment. We feel we have learnt about the mechanisms of genes and there may be lessons for us ethically if we understand some of the underlying forces that drive us, though we are still struggling with the insistent consciousness fallacy of the "selfish gene" metaphor
24th January 2020 Indian Philosophy: Paths to Enlightenment
We were to look at the ethical theories of Carvakas, Jains and Buddhists. From a remark that these theories seemed to belong to an earlier age, we got into a discussion of the effort it takes to disengage from contemporary culture to examine a different world view - it possibly helps to consider that future ages will look back on our beliefs and ethics as strange and incredible. One stark example was the difficulty of comprehending “soul” resulting from the concept of dualism, which is harder to accept now. The Carvakas were simple to understand (perhaps they are closest to our current ethos!). They are pure materialists. They believe and accept only what their senses tell them. There is no soul, no karma, so they are sceptics and hedonists. priests are charlatans making an easy living. That said, they seem to be more cited by other sects and schools to be criticised than advancing their own philosophy. Jains accept perception but also testimony from a reliable source. Indian philosophy considers other sources of knowledge : inference, analogy, presumption, reductio ad absurdum, non-cognitive, tradition, rumour and gesture , and we will study these further. Jains are also non-violent, to the extent of wearing masks to protect insects and sweeping in front of them. All things, down to ecosystems and stones. All souls are capable of consciousness, which cannot be material and is necessary to animate matter. The desires of souls attract matter and that weighs them down. Souls may be freed from desires by three things: right belief - in the teachings of Jain saints; right understanding of these teachings; and right conduct - abstinence from injuring life, lying, stealing, sensual indulgence.
We were to look at the ethical theories of Carvakas, Jains and Buddhists. From a remark that these theories seemed to belong to an earlier age, we got into a discussion of the effort it takes to disengage from contemporary culture to examine a different world view - it possibly helps to consider that future ages will look back on our beliefs and ethics as strange and incredible. One stark example was the difficulty of comprehending “soul” resulting from the concept of dualism, which is harder to accept now. The Carvakas were simple to understand (perhaps they are closest to our current ethos!). They are pure materialists. They believe and accept only what their senses tell them. There is no soul, no karma, so they are sceptics and hedonists. priests are charlatans making an easy living. That said, they seem to be more cited by other sects and schools to be criticised than advancing their own philosophy. Jains accept perception but also testimony from a reliable source. Indian philosophy considers other sources of knowledge : inference, analogy, presumption, reductio ad absurdum, non-cognitive, tradition, rumour and gesture , and we will study these further. Jains are also non-violent, to the extent of wearing masks to protect insects and sweeping in front of them. All things, down to ecosystems and stones. All souls are capable of consciousness, which cannot be material and is necessary to animate matter. The desires of souls attract matter and that weighs them down. Souls may be freed from desires by three things: right belief - in the teachings of Jain saints; right understanding of these teachings; and right conduct - abstinence from injuring life, lying, stealing, sensual indulgence.
14th January 2020 Philosophy of Science - Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Chapers 10-11
We discussed the next two chapters (10, 11) of “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. Our discussion was wide-ranging, and to summarise it is simpler to start with the discussion of memes. Dawkins refutes the theory that we studied at length a while back that religion has arisen to bind societies together. He is an atheist and is determined to refute group selection as a theory. It does seem clear that while memes inhabit individual minds, they do “belong” to groups, tribes and organisations and contribute strongly to their identity. We discussed how to differentiate the effects of genes and memes on behaviour: what is instinctive and what is learned? Perhaps a meme can exist only where there is a mind capable of some level of imagination or foresight - though this does not limit memes to humanity. The chapter on herds and parasites, and the discussion of reciprocal altruism and environmentally stable strategies accommodating cheats and freeloaders led us to examples in human social behaviour, via litter to climate change - taking in Lovelock’s theories and the wide effects humanity is having despite its low weight in the earth’s biomass and our short existence in the time-span of life on earth - and as far as democracy and whether our form of democracy is capable of addressing the challenge.
We discussed the next two chapters (10, 11) of “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. Our discussion was wide-ranging, and to summarise it is simpler to start with the discussion of memes. Dawkins refutes the theory that we studied at length a while back that religion has arisen to bind societies together. He is an atheist and is determined to refute group selection as a theory. It does seem clear that while memes inhabit individual minds, they do “belong” to groups, tribes and organisations and contribute strongly to their identity. We discussed how to differentiate the effects of genes and memes on behaviour: what is instinctive and what is learned? Perhaps a meme can exist only where there is a mind capable of some level of imagination or foresight - though this does not limit memes to humanity. The chapter on herds and parasites, and the discussion of reciprocal altruism and environmentally stable strategies accommodating cheats and freeloaders led us to examples in human social behaviour, via litter to climate change - taking in Lovelock’s theories and the wide effects humanity is having despite its low weight in the earth’s biomass and our short existence in the time-span of life on earth - and as far as democracy and whether our form of democracy is capable of addressing the challenge.
17th December 2019 Philosophy of Science - Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Chapers 7-9
We will read three more chapters of “The Selfish Gene”: chapter 7 Family Planning, asks how brood sizes come about, chapter 8 is "Battle of the Generations” and chapter 9 “Battle of the Sexes”. We again agreed that it is very easy to understand “the selfish gene” too literally as a scheming, conscious entity. We re-affirmed it is just a metaphor: genes are propagated through reproduction, and those individuals best fitted to meet the challenges of their environment out-survive those less well endowed, so those genes that give advantage are propagated in greater numbers. We then discussed interaction between genes and the environment, where the environmental conditions trigger an otherwise dormant gene behaviour. From the text we focused on Dawkins' observation that in humans it is the males rather than the females who are drab. Does this really mean that in contrast with other species women compete for men? We did recognise that power is an aphrodisiac: perhaps we are not so different from Walruses or lions where the powerful males dominate? We wondered whether there were more matriarchal societies before agriculture was developed, and this then of course led to higher sophistication in human society. From there we moved to the challenges of climate change and over-population and whether mankind would be able to think its way through these problems - and what would be left if it doesn’t?
We will read three more chapters of “The Selfish Gene”: chapter 7 Family Planning, asks how brood sizes come about, chapter 8 is "Battle of the Generations” and chapter 9 “Battle of the Sexes”. We again agreed that it is very easy to understand “the selfish gene” too literally as a scheming, conscious entity. We re-affirmed it is just a metaphor: genes are propagated through reproduction, and those individuals best fitted to meet the challenges of their environment out-survive those less well endowed, so those genes that give advantage are propagated in greater numbers. We then discussed interaction between genes and the environment, where the environmental conditions trigger an otherwise dormant gene behaviour. From the text we focused on Dawkins' observation that in humans it is the males rather than the females who are drab. Does this really mean that in contrast with other species women compete for men? We did recognise that power is an aphrodisiac: perhaps we are not so different from Walruses or lions where the powerful males dominate? We wondered whether there were more matriarchal societies before agriculture was developed, and this then of course led to higher sophistication in human society. From there we moved to the challenges of climate change and over-population and whether mankind would be able to think its way through these problems - and what would be left if it doesn’t?
29th November 2019 Indian Philosophy: Paths to Enlightenment
We learnt about the different Indian Philosophical Schools. There are nine of them, six being Orthodox, meaning they accept and follow the teachings as well as the rituals and sacrifices of the Vedas (the Vedantas are more speculative and their texts are the Upanishads); and the other three being Heterodox, that is they do not follow the teachings of the Vedas. All the schools developed before their philosophies were written down in the Sutras. The Heterodox schools include the sceptical Buddhists and the Jains and the materialist Carvacas. The Orthodox Schools all share common beliefs in Rta, the cosmic laws governing not only the physical universe but Karma, the consequences of our actions - i.e. cause and effect. They all recognise Brahman as the ultimate reality. They all believe in that life is suffering and repeats through reincarnation, but there is a path to salvation or release. Release comes through realised knowledge and is approached by good actions, devotions or yoga. All believe in the existence of the soul in some sense, and in re-incarnation, which is a difficult concept for us to accept, but maybe it can be a simile for passing on our genes and more importantly our memes to our unborn descendants, leaving the world a better place than we found it? That said, space is boundless and time is cyclic through improving and deteriorating times.
We learnt about the different Indian Philosophical Schools. There are nine of them, six being Orthodox, meaning they accept and follow the teachings as well as the rituals and sacrifices of the Vedas (the Vedantas are more speculative and their texts are the Upanishads); and the other three being Heterodox, that is they do not follow the teachings of the Vedas. All the schools developed before their philosophies were written down in the Sutras. The Heterodox schools include the sceptical Buddhists and the Jains and the materialist Carvacas. The Orthodox Schools all share common beliefs in Rta, the cosmic laws governing not only the physical universe but Karma, the consequences of our actions - i.e. cause and effect. They all recognise Brahman as the ultimate reality. They all believe in that life is suffering and repeats through reincarnation, but there is a path to salvation or release. Release comes through realised knowledge and is approached by good actions, devotions or yoga. All believe in the existence of the soul in some sense, and in re-incarnation, which is a difficult concept for us to accept, but maybe it can be a simile for passing on our genes and more importantly our memes to our unborn descendants, leaving the world a better place than we found it? That said, space is boundless and time is cyclic through improving and deteriorating times.
12th November 2019 Philosophy of Science - Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Chapers 4-6
We discussed three more chapters of “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. Chapter 4 deals with how genes influence their “hosts”, chapter 5 explores aggression and how behaviours can coexist stably in a population, and chapter 6 does the maths of altruism and survival of the gene. We reviewed all of the book and noted that Dawkins is an academic with a theory to promote and he anticipates and addresses objections to his argument. We also found it very simple to forget that “the selfish gene” is not a conscious “ghost in the machine”, but a metaphor for the idea that successful genes survive many generations of their hosts and their success breeds success. That said, the idea that we are mere temporary vehicles for genes contrasts with our emphasis on the individual. We discussed the idea that genes “programme” our brains and our behaviour, conscious or instinctive. We explored this in the example of once carnivorous pandas responding to the lack of food in the ice age and adapting to eat bamboo. We noted we carry many dormant genes and wondered if these were called Back into play in this evolution. We looked at the idea of an evolutionary stable strategy and the levels of kinship based on the fraction of shared genes between individuals.
We discussed three more chapters of “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. Chapter 4 deals with how genes influence their “hosts”, chapter 5 explores aggression and how behaviours can coexist stably in a population, and chapter 6 does the maths of altruism and survival of the gene. We reviewed all of the book and noted that Dawkins is an academic with a theory to promote and he anticipates and addresses objections to his argument. We also found it very simple to forget that “the selfish gene” is not a conscious “ghost in the machine”, but a metaphor for the idea that successful genes survive many generations of their hosts and their success breeds success. That said, the idea that we are mere temporary vehicles for genes contrasts with our emphasis on the individual. We discussed the idea that genes “programme” our brains and our behaviour, conscious or instinctive. We explored this in the example of once carnivorous pandas responding to the lack of food in the ice age and adapting to eat bamboo. We noted we carry many dormant genes and wondered if these were called Back into play in this evolution. We looked at the idea of an evolutionary stable strategy and the levels of kinship based on the fraction of shared genes between individuals.
18th October The Bhagavad Gita (Critical Analysis)
In reading this epic, it must be understood that one’s duties or Dharma, assigned by caste must be carried out to the best of one’s abilities without regard to the outcome (win or lose). Lord Arjuna as a Kshatriya or warrior prince is obliged to fight those who have wronged him (we infer his princely Dharma makes war inevitable); but his dilemma is that the fight is against his relatives. Krishna’s debate with him serves as a metaphor for the path to true knowledge. Enlightenment includes the realisation that the material, including our bodies, is just a temporal housing for the spirit - and unlike the christian soul, for example, there is but one Brahman in all. In this story, enlightenment may be achieved by turning one’s energies, the inevitability of always doing, to prescribed duties, and a path to this is karma-yoga.
In reading this epic, it must be understood that one’s duties or Dharma, assigned by caste must be carried out to the best of one’s abilities without regard to the outcome (win or lose). Lord Arjuna as a Kshatriya or warrior prince is obliged to fight those who have wronged him (we infer his princely Dharma makes war inevitable); but his dilemma is that the fight is against his relatives. Krishna’s debate with him serves as a metaphor for the path to true knowledge. Enlightenment includes the realisation that the material, including our bodies, is just a temporal housing for the spirit - and unlike the christian soul, for example, there is but one Brahman in all. In this story, enlightenment may be achieved by turning one’s energies, the inevitability of always doing, to prescribed duties, and a path to this is karma-yoga.
8th October 2019 Philosophy of Science - Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Chapers 1-3
We started “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. We discussed the first three chapters, which gave us some introduction - setting out his project to show that evolution is best looked at as selection at the lowest level - and a lot of science. He traces life back to the formation of replicators - molecules that can copy themselves, and these have become genes. He then places genes between chromosomes and their constituent cistrons, which are themselves strings of nucleotide letters which are the instructions for making a specific protein. Chromosomes are copied (mitosis) every time a cell divides, so every cell can have its copy, and the formation of egg or sperm cells by meiosis, a crossing over of genes between the maternal and paternal given chromosomes explains the gene pool. We felt we need more detail on these processes - how do the chromosomes make copies? Stay the right length? Given these processes, why does he emphasise the gene level and not look further at the proteins enabling them? A problem with his title is to remember that “the selfish gene” isn’t actually conscious, but he is presenting a metaphor that describes the outcome of evolution. Philosophically, we see the ontological demolition of the idea that we are the pinnacle of creation: we are throwaway survival machines - the product of the interaction of the most successful genes with their environment. He will argue that genes influence our behaviour, so that we can see whether they support or conflict with desirable ethical responses.
We started “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. We discussed the first three chapters, which gave us some introduction - setting out his project to show that evolution is best looked at as selection at the lowest level - and a lot of science. He traces life back to the formation of replicators - molecules that can copy themselves, and these have become genes. He then places genes between chromosomes and their constituent cistrons, which are themselves strings of nucleotide letters which are the instructions for making a specific protein. Chromosomes are copied (mitosis) every time a cell divides, so every cell can have its copy, and the formation of egg or sperm cells by meiosis, a crossing over of genes between the maternal and paternal given chromosomes explains the gene pool. We felt we need more detail on these processes - how do the chromosomes make copies? Stay the right length? Given these processes, why does he emphasise the gene level and not look further at the proteins enabling them? A problem with his title is to remember that “the selfish gene” isn’t actually conscious, but he is presenting a metaphor that describes the outcome of evolution. Philosophically, we see the ontological demolition of the idea that we are the pinnacle of creation: we are throwaway survival machines - the product of the interaction of the most successful genes with their environment. He will argue that genes influence our behaviour, so that we can see whether they support or conflict with desirable ethical responses.
27th September The Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 2)
This is a (25 min) summary, and This is a background to the story (along with a bit of ‘advice’at the start!) .
We recalled some aspects of the Vedas especially Rta the inviolable law of the cosmos. We discussed the development of the idea of rebirth from the immortal aspect of Brahman; the body is merely temporary. We discussed the nature of Karma as any action; physical, mental, small or large that exerts a causal effect on our future lives, just as our current life has been determined by our past actions. We further discussed Dharma as ‘doing what is right’ but the nature of how we should act is multifaceted and depends on our individual class, stage of life and our position in society; indeed it changes as we progress in our life. Rta has changed into karma and dharma and these support the individual, the family, the social class, and society, keeping it well ordered.
The Gita involves a family feud which has resulted in the two branches of the family facing each other in a war. Arjuna facing his family and honoured teachers loses hope and falters in his duty as a prince and warrior and refuses to fight. He points out his dilemma in carrying out his duty as a warrior to fight and the his duty to avoid evil in killing his family and so disrupting the order of society. Krishna (the material incarnation God and Arjuna’s charioteer) engages him in dialogue and explains why he should fight. Krishna says he must carry out his duty as a warrior and gives him four reasons.
1) The body is a manifestation of Brahman; ‘embodied self’ is immortal and is not destroyed when the body is destroyed (12-25);
2) what is born must die and what dies must be born again (26-29);
3) it is the duty of the warrior to fight in a just war (31-33);
4) Arjuna would lose face in backing out of the battle at the last moment and would be accused of cowardice (34-37).
It is only by fighting this can Arjuna take the steps to escaping the cycle of rebirth.
In the Gita Krishna further offers three different ways of escaping rebirth: by the path of action (fighting) by the path of knowledge and by the path of devotion. .
This is a (25 min) summary, and This is a background to the story (along with a bit of ‘advice’at the start!) .
We recalled some aspects of the Vedas especially Rta the inviolable law of the cosmos. We discussed the development of the idea of rebirth from the immortal aspect of Brahman; the body is merely temporary. We discussed the nature of Karma as any action; physical, mental, small or large that exerts a causal effect on our future lives, just as our current life has been determined by our past actions. We further discussed Dharma as ‘doing what is right’ but the nature of how we should act is multifaceted and depends on our individual class, stage of life and our position in society; indeed it changes as we progress in our life. Rta has changed into karma and dharma and these support the individual, the family, the social class, and society, keeping it well ordered.
The Gita involves a family feud which has resulted in the two branches of the family facing each other in a war. Arjuna facing his family and honoured teachers loses hope and falters in his duty as a prince and warrior and refuses to fight. He points out his dilemma in carrying out his duty as a warrior to fight and the his duty to avoid evil in killing his family and so disrupting the order of society. Krishna (the material incarnation God and Arjuna’s charioteer) engages him in dialogue and explains why he should fight. Krishna says he must carry out his duty as a warrior and gives him four reasons.
1) The body is a manifestation of Brahman; ‘embodied self’ is immortal and is not destroyed when the body is destroyed (12-25);
2) what is born must die and what dies must be born again (26-29);
3) it is the duty of the warrior to fight in a just war (31-33);
4) Arjuna would lose face in backing out of the battle at the last moment and would be accused of cowardice (34-37).
It is only by fighting this can Arjuna take the steps to escaping the cycle of rebirth.
In the Gita Krishna further offers three different ways of escaping rebirth: by the path of action (fighting) by the path of knowledge and by the path of devotion. .
20th September BBC Radio 4 "The Moral Maze "The Morality of Fashion"
We discussed the issues raised in the BBC Radio 4 “Moral Maze” episode on The Morality of Fashion, Three main issues emerged: the exploitation of workers in the industry particularly in contrast with the low prices of their products; the effect on the environment; and the values we put on clothes and our self image. On exploitation there is a case that the sweat shops do provide a step towards a modern economy and improved prosperity for less developed societies, but consumers should demand reasonable and progressive working conditions. Perhaps a solution as happened with coffee could be a “fair trade” label? The fashion industry’s impact on the environment is enormous - causing pollution, using water in cotton production and contributing to land fill with polyesters that take 200 years to decay. A family in the western world throws away an average of 30 kg of clothing each year. Again perhaps a labelling of products as “responsibly sourced” may help. Our discussions of the effects of climate change took us to social and external costs. We recognise that clothes are an essential part of our appearance and how we present ourselves, but that this is corrupted by consumerism and a fear of failing to be on trend.
We discussed the issues raised in the BBC Radio 4 “Moral Maze” episode on The Morality of Fashion, Three main issues emerged: the exploitation of workers in the industry particularly in contrast with the low prices of their products; the effect on the environment; and the values we put on clothes and our self image. On exploitation there is a case that the sweat shops do provide a step towards a modern economy and improved prosperity for less developed societies, but consumers should demand reasonable and progressive working conditions. Perhaps a solution as happened with coffee could be a “fair trade” label? The fashion industry’s impact on the environment is enormous - causing pollution, using water in cotton production and contributing to land fill with polyesters that take 200 years to decay. A family in the western world throws away an average of 30 kg of clothing each year. Again perhaps a labelling of products as “responsibly sourced” may help. Our discussions of the effects of climate change took us to social and external costs. We recognise that clothes are an essential part of our appearance and how we present ourselves, but that this is corrupted by consumerism and a fear of failing to be on trend.
10th September 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (17) - Special Relativity Phenomenology
We discussed Chapter 49, Special Relativity. While it is easy to accept that you can’t tell how fast you are travelling without looking at something external, it is difficult to conceive that it is the velocity of light that is fundamental and that space and time in a moving frame of reference shrink and slow down to fit. It is hard to understand relativity without going through the maths, and it is tough going, but for example Richard Feynman’s “Six Not So Easy Pieces” is a good guide. At another level, working through Maxwells equations with vector calculus leads to the wave equation for electromagnetic waves and relates the velocity of light to the fundamental constants of electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability. So we can understand the consternation caused: if the speed of light were not constant, then electrical & magnetic effects would change with velocity.
We also discussed Chapter 50, Phenomenology, and linking this to relativity, we explored the idea that we cannot stand outside when we observe the universe - we are part of it and need to understand that it is from within that we experience sensations and even space and time. Michael Frayn’s “The Human Touch (Our Part in the Creation of The Universe)” is an exploration of these ideas.
We discussed Chapter 49, Special Relativity. While it is easy to accept that you can’t tell how fast you are travelling without looking at something external, it is difficult to conceive that it is the velocity of light that is fundamental and that space and time in a moving frame of reference shrink and slow down to fit. It is hard to understand relativity without going through the maths, and it is tough going, but for example Richard Feynman’s “Six Not So Easy Pieces” is a good guide. At another level, working through Maxwells equations with vector calculus leads to the wave equation for electromagnetic waves and relates the velocity of light to the fundamental constants of electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability. So we can understand the consternation caused: if the speed of light were not constant, then electrical & magnetic effects would change with velocity.
We also discussed Chapter 50, Phenomenology, and linking this to relativity, we explored the idea that we cannot stand outside when we observe the universe - we are part of it and need to understand that it is from within that we experience sensations and even space and time. Michael Frayn’s “The Human Touch (Our Part in the Creation of The Universe)” is an exploration of these ideas.
16th August 2019 Indian Philosophy: Consolidation
We watched the two Khan academy videos on the Vedas and Hinduism. We discussed the structure of the vedas being split up into two sections which are further split into two. The first two have prayers and sacrifices and the final two (forest treatises and Upanishads) move from prescriptions to greater degree of philosophical speculation. Prayers are to the many gods of nature. There is thought to be a match between the our life (parts of the sacrificial horse) and the observed cosmos and sacrifices enable repair of any faults in the natural order. There is a cosmic law (Rta) that governs all aspects of the cosmos as well as normative aspects of our lives. Society is divided into four castes and members of the castes are required to carry out their duties and their worldly actions will determine their status of rebirth in future lives. Reincarnation will continue and our goal is to achieve escape from this (moksha) by realising that our worldly perceptions are erroneous. In the Upanishads there is a shift from polytheism of the vedas to monism. The central message of the vedas is that there is an ultimate reality (Brahman) and we are simply material aspects of that reality. We watched a part of the video ‘who am i?’ and considered the idea that unlike western concept of being conscious (when we are wide awake) we are truly only conscious in deep sleep.
We watched the two Khan academy videos on the Vedas and Hinduism. We discussed the structure of the vedas being split up into two sections which are further split into two. The first two have prayers and sacrifices and the final two (forest treatises and Upanishads) move from prescriptions to greater degree of philosophical speculation. Prayers are to the many gods of nature. There is thought to be a match between the our life (parts of the sacrificial horse) and the observed cosmos and sacrifices enable repair of any faults in the natural order. There is a cosmic law (Rta) that governs all aspects of the cosmos as well as normative aspects of our lives. Society is divided into four castes and members of the castes are required to carry out their duties and their worldly actions will determine their status of rebirth in future lives. Reincarnation will continue and our goal is to achieve escape from this (moksha) by realising that our worldly perceptions are erroneous. In the Upanishads there is a shift from polytheism of the vedas to monism. The central message of the vedas is that there is an ultimate reality (Brahman) and we are simply material aspects of that reality. We watched a part of the video ‘who am i?’ and considered the idea that unlike western concept of being conscious (when we are wide awake) we are truly only conscious in deep sleep.
13th August 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (16) - Indeterminacy
We discussed Chapter 47 Indeterminacy, essentially about Quantum Theory, Schrodinger’s Cat and the Copenhagen Explanation, and the problem of the apparent randomness of the universe. We discussed several ideas of quantum theory, particle wave duality, starting with photons and moving to electrons and all particles. We mentioned Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the interaction of the observer in determining the state being measured - and that someone or some thing needs to act on the system for the indeterminacy of its state to be resolved. We mentioned chemistry, the periodic table and electron shells, and talked about Schrodinger's Wave equation, noting it was about probabilities rather than waves. We felt that it was probably OK that God appeared to play dice, and accepted that we are not built on the small scale of elementary particles, so that our descriptions even of the phenomena must be in metaphors, and the “really real” is forever unattainable. We did accept that mathematics, given the skills in that discipline, could enable us to describe what was happening and appreciated the pragmatic understanding that has informed useful predictions and applications.
We discussed Chapter 47 Indeterminacy, essentially about Quantum Theory, Schrodinger’s Cat and the Copenhagen Explanation, and the problem of the apparent randomness of the universe. We discussed several ideas of quantum theory, particle wave duality, starting with photons and moving to electrons and all particles. We mentioned Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the interaction of the observer in determining the state being measured - and that someone or some thing needs to act on the system for the indeterminacy of its state to be resolved. We mentioned chemistry, the periodic table and electron shells, and talked about Schrodinger's Wave equation, noting it was about probabilities rather than waves. We felt that it was probably OK that God appeared to play dice, and accepted that we are not built on the small scale of elementary particles, so that our descriptions even of the phenomena must be in metaphors, and the “really real” is forever unattainable. We did accept that mathematics, given the skills in that discipline, could enable us to describe what was happening and appreciated the pragmatic understanding that has informed useful predictions and applications.
19th July 2019 "The Moral Maze": The Policing of Humour
We started with the example of Jo Brand's joke about throwing battery acid over Nigel Farage. Our discussions soon brought out the importance of context in delivering and understanding humour. Does the audience understand they are hearing humour, not an incitement to violence? Are they culturally “in tune” with the performance (Americans don’t get pantomime), and does the performer understand the audience and its diversity ( a small club is very different from a national radio broadcast)? Some humour may be purely gentle entertainment, some may be a way to provoke or shock (as is the case with other genres of theatre and other art forms): but while humour may challenge convention, it has its own rules: it may “punch up” but not “punch down” at less empowered individuals or groups. That said we noted that subgroups may be less empowered, as the example of Les Dawson’s mother-in-law jokes being insulting to women, yet perhaps OK at a time when young men had to live with their wife’s parents and under their rules. And the butt of the joke can be the apparently more powerful character: we all agreed that Alf Garnett’s situations were always targeting his discomfort, rather than the gays or immigrants he railed against - but we recognised that this could be too subtle for some. We noted that laughter can be a response to fear. The comic’s intentions are important, and a professional should understand the make up of the audience, their customers. We agreed there should not be policing of humour as such - but is it right that comedy or any other art may set itself above the law against incitement to violence, for example?
We started with the example of Jo Brand's joke about throwing battery acid over Nigel Farage. Our discussions soon brought out the importance of context in delivering and understanding humour. Does the audience understand they are hearing humour, not an incitement to violence? Are they culturally “in tune” with the performance (Americans don’t get pantomime), and does the performer understand the audience and its diversity ( a small club is very different from a national radio broadcast)? Some humour may be purely gentle entertainment, some may be a way to provoke or shock (as is the case with other genres of theatre and other art forms): but while humour may challenge convention, it has its own rules: it may “punch up” but not “punch down” at less empowered individuals or groups. That said we noted that subgroups may be less empowered, as the example of Les Dawson’s mother-in-law jokes being insulting to women, yet perhaps OK at a time when young men had to live with their wife’s parents and under their rules. And the butt of the joke can be the apparently more powerful character: we all agreed that Alf Garnett’s situations were always targeting his discomfort, rather than the gays or immigrants he railed against - but we recognised that this could be too subtle for some. We noted that laughter can be a response to fear. The comic’s intentions are important, and a professional should understand the make up of the audience, their customers. We agreed there should not be policing of humour as such - but is it right that comedy or any other art may set itself above the law against incitement to violence, for example?
16th July 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (15) - Non-Euclidean Space and Kant,
Continuing "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell, we discussed Chapter 46 Non-Euclidean Geometry. Spherical geometry is not too difficult once you realise that a straight line, being the shortest distance between two points, is a great circle, but we watched a YouTube video where the presenter explained that the angles of spherical geometry triangles add up to more than 180° whereas for hyperbolic geometry triangles they add up to less than 180°, and showed us how to crochet hyperbolic geometry! We also discussed Einstein’s explanation of gravity as the deformation of the geometry of space - where a mattress or rubber sheet provides a good model!
We moved on to Chapter 48 Kant’s response to Hume’s scepticism that there could be any justification of our belief in cause and effect. Kant replaced a priori and a posteriori classifications of knowledge with the subtly different classes of analytical and synthetic metaphysical truths. Analytical truths depend on the meanings of the terms involved, for example “red is a colour”. Synthetic truths depend on experience: “a flame is hot”. However the proposition that “Effects have causes” is not (totally?) carried in the definitions of cause and effect, but its truth transcends being synthetic as a way we make sense of the world. Difficult concepts, but we could follow that we can only comprehend a phenomenal view of the world - that which our senses and minds allow us to perceive - and we cannot go beyond that to know what is “really real”. After the meeting this YouTube presentation was found
Continuing "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell, we discussed Chapter 46 Non-Euclidean Geometry. Spherical geometry is not too difficult once you realise that a straight line, being the shortest distance between two points, is a great circle, but we watched a YouTube video where the presenter explained that the angles of spherical geometry triangles add up to more than 180° whereas for hyperbolic geometry triangles they add up to less than 180°, and showed us how to crochet hyperbolic geometry! We also discussed Einstein’s explanation of gravity as the deformation of the geometry of space - where a mattress or rubber sheet provides a good model!
We moved on to Chapter 48 Kant’s response to Hume’s scepticism that there could be any justification of our belief in cause and effect. Kant replaced a priori and a posteriori classifications of knowledge with the subtly different classes of analytical and synthetic metaphysical truths. Analytical truths depend on the meanings of the terms involved, for example “red is a colour”. Synthetic truths depend on experience: “a flame is hot”. However the proposition that “Effects have causes” is not (totally?) carried in the definitions of cause and effect, but its truth transcends being synthetic as a way we make sense of the world. Difficult concepts, but we could follow that we can only comprehend a phenomenal view of the world - that which our senses and minds allow us to perceive - and we cannot go beyond that to know what is “really real”. After the meeting this YouTube presentation was found
21st June 2019 "The Moral Maze": Compromise and Climate Change
We discussed episodes from “The Moral Maze” from BBC Radio 4. We selected The Morality of Compromise (this focused on Theresa May’s Brexit deal), and Climate Change. Our discussions were wide-ranging, but we did identify some relevant ethical approaches and philosophical issues. The core question on compromise is identifying where concessions erode fundamental principles. But principles are simple in isolation: the dilemma arises when they conflict. It is necessary if difficult to identify and ensure the decision looks beyond short term self interest. This issue recurs in the problem of climate change. Utilitarianism would point to the greatest good of the greatest number, but how should we ( if at all) measure and balance the good of the privileged of the developed world, the poor of the Third World, the yet unborn generations - and the wider world? John Rawles’ Difference Principle may help: it only permits inequalities that work to the advantage of the worst-off. We recognised the problem of the aspirations of the poor and the unwillingness of (most of) the rich to make sacrifices (an example of The Prisoners’ Dilemma), and while we were optimistic that there are technological solutions, we were less confident that there will be sufficient directed political will to empower governments to tax carbon out and enable these developments.
We discussed episodes from “The Moral Maze” from BBC Radio 4. We selected The Morality of Compromise (this focused on Theresa May’s Brexit deal), and Climate Change. Our discussions were wide-ranging, but we did identify some relevant ethical approaches and philosophical issues. The core question on compromise is identifying where concessions erode fundamental principles. But principles are simple in isolation: the dilemma arises when they conflict. It is necessary if difficult to identify and ensure the decision looks beyond short term self interest. This issue recurs in the problem of climate change. Utilitarianism would point to the greatest good of the greatest number, but how should we ( if at all) measure and balance the good of the privileged of the developed world, the poor of the Third World, the yet unborn generations - and the wider world? John Rawles’ Difference Principle may help: it only permits inequalities that work to the advantage of the worst-off. We recognised the problem of the aspirations of the poor and the unwillingness of (most of) the rich to make sacrifices (an example of The Prisoners’ Dilemma), and while we were optimistic that there are technological solutions, we were less confident that there will be sufficient directed political will to empower governments to tax carbon out and enable these developments.
7th June 2019 Eastern Philosophy 3; Upanishads
We discussed the changes from the Hinduism of the Vedas to the philosophical approach of the Upanishads. We also watched Swami Sarvapriyananda explain the concept of self and consciousness in this mode of thought.. The transformation of Hinduism from the Vedas to the Upanishads in many ways mirrors how other religions (e.g. Judaism) have matured away from the primitive norms of polytheism, sacrifice and a priestly caste. What is striking about Hinduism is the shift of the concept of a God “out there” to the Brahman within - recognised but perhaps less openly declared by sages and scholars of other religions. Swami Sarvapriyananda explained the concept of Brahman as the true consciousness that we struggle to see yet must seek beyond our waking, dreaming and deep-sleeping selves.
We discussed the changes from the Hinduism of the Vedas to the philosophical approach of the Upanishads. We also watched Swami Sarvapriyananda explain the concept of self and consciousness in this mode of thought.. The transformation of Hinduism from the Vedas to the Upanishads in many ways mirrors how other religions (e.g. Judaism) have matured away from the primitive norms of polytheism, sacrifice and a priestly caste. What is striking about Hinduism is the shift of the concept of a God “out there” to the Brahman within - recognised but perhaps less openly declared by sages and scholars of other religions. Swami Sarvapriyananda explained the concept of Brahman as the true consciousness that we struggle to see yet must seek beyond our waking, dreaming and deep-sleeping selves.
21st May 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (14) - Incompleteness, Epistemological Anarchism and Supervenience,
We discussed Chapters 43-45, Incompleteness, Epistemological Anarchism and Supervenience. We took on the technicalities of Gödel’s Theorems with the help of videos by Marcus de Sautoy and by Cory Chang. We learnt that any mathematical system that is sufficiently expressive (i.e. useful) must be either incomplete (needs axioms), or (worse) inconsistent - and you can’t tell which. If this applies to carefully defined mathematical systems, what chance has any conceptual framework got? Our discussions took in Bertrand Russell’s problem in writing Principia Mathematica - essentially the library catalogue problem. We discussed supervenience, mostly through thinking about mind and consciousness supervening on neural activity in the brain and weather patterns arising from the interaction of the molecules of the atmosphere. We watched a Wikipedia audio article to get to grips with Feyerabend’s assertion that the rational approach claimed by science conceals a number of approaches making it in fact much closer to myth and religion. However, his form of cultural relativism is not “anything goes”, but an attempt to get an alternative understanding.
We discussed Chapters 43-45, Incompleteness, Epistemological Anarchism and Supervenience. We took on the technicalities of Gödel’s Theorems with the help of videos by Marcus de Sautoy and by Cory Chang. We learnt that any mathematical system that is sufficiently expressive (i.e. useful) must be either incomplete (needs axioms), or (worse) inconsistent - and you can’t tell which. If this applies to carefully defined mathematical systems, what chance has any conceptual framework got? Our discussions took in Bertrand Russell’s problem in writing Principia Mathematica - essentially the library catalogue problem. We discussed supervenience, mostly through thinking about mind and consciousness supervening on neural activity in the brain and weather patterns arising from the interaction of the molecules of the atmosphere. We watched a Wikipedia audio article to get to grips with Feyerabend’s assertion that the rational approach claimed by science conceals a number of approaches making it in fact much closer to myth and religion. However, his form of cultural relativism is not “anything goes”, but an attempt to get an alternative understanding.
19th April 2019 Eastern Philosophy 2
We discussed the vedas and acquainted ourselves with salient relationships of the texts. We noted that there were many parallels with other world religions. The vedas are taken to be revealed to the sages and then orally transmitted but were finally written down in Sanskrit. These are taken to be infallibly true and contain an inviolable cosmological law (Rta) that covers all aspects of the universe. They comprise four sections which include recitations, methods for sacrifice as well as philosophical speculations in their later sections (arayankas – forest treatises) and most importantly the unpanishads. There seems a grey area between religion, theology and philosophy. The vedas are a basis for religious aspects worshipping gods originally based on nature earth, wind, fire, etc., as well as gods from the older civilisations. They include details of recitations and rituals such as sacrifices and the metaphysical aspects of the vedas are seen in these sacrifice: the various parts of the horse representing the four castes of people (scholars or priests, kings and warriors, merchants and labourers) and separate parts of the universe. These sacrifices are performed by the priests on behalf of the kings, warriors and other members of society to repair or rebalance the order of the universe as well as allowing the sacrificers to gain victories, wealth, health, large families and so on. A further importance is that the rituals and sacrifices must be performed correctly as laid out in the vedas, and in Sanskrit. The language is taken to correctly describe the external world. In addition, it enables us to connect the self with the ultimate reality, that according to the vedas is brahman, the foundation for all existing things, through the word Aum.
They tell us what path to follow and how to live life; our duties and obligations. They prescribe the correct paths to follow a life that is separated into four parts: of learner, householder, ascetic and renunciant. According to the vedas, we live a life of suffering, and on death we are returned to this life in a cycle of rebirth. The aim of life is to overcome this reincarnation by following properly the injunctions of the vedas and achieving and enlightenment.
We also briefly read the ‘hymn of creation’ and noted the many aspects such as existence, causation, a sense of curiosity, and the lack of a specific God.
We discussed the vedas and acquainted ourselves with salient relationships of the texts. We noted that there were many parallels with other world religions. The vedas are taken to be revealed to the sages and then orally transmitted but were finally written down in Sanskrit. These are taken to be infallibly true and contain an inviolable cosmological law (Rta) that covers all aspects of the universe. They comprise four sections which include recitations, methods for sacrifice as well as philosophical speculations in their later sections (arayankas – forest treatises) and most importantly the unpanishads. There seems a grey area between religion, theology and philosophy. The vedas are a basis for religious aspects worshipping gods originally based on nature earth, wind, fire, etc., as well as gods from the older civilisations. They include details of recitations and rituals such as sacrifices and the metaphysical aspects of the vedas are seen in these sacrifice: the various parts of the horse representing the four castes of people (scholars or priests, kings and warriors, merchants and labourers) and separate parts of the universe. These sacrifices are performed by the priests on behalf of the kings, warriors and other members of society to repair or rebalance the order of the universe as well as allowing the sacrificers to gain victories, wealth, health, large families and so on. A further importance is that the rituals and sacrifices must be performed correctly as laid out in the vedas, and in Sanskrit. The language is taken to correctly describe the external world. In addition, it enables us to connect the self with the ultimate reality, that according to the vedas is brahman, the foundation for all existing things, through the word Aum.
They tell us what path to follow and how to live life; our duties and obligations. They prescribe the correct paths to follow a life that is separated into four parts: of learner, householder, ascetic and renunciant. According to the vedas, we live a life of suffering, and on death we are returned to this life in a cycle of rebirth. The aim of life is to overcome this reincarnation by following properly the injunctions of the vedas and achieving and enlightenment.
We also briefly read the ‘hymn of creation’ and noted the many aspects such as existence, causation, a sense of curiosity, and the lack of a specific God.
9th April 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (13) - Science & Gender
We discussed Chapter 42, Science & Gender, straying a little onto Chapter 42, Epistemological Anarchism. Our discussion stressed the difference between sex and gender, the latter being a social construct. We were in broad agreement that women have been less prominent, indeed discriminated against largely through social pressure. The chapter did also suggest that science was subject to and served “male domination”. We picked up on the economic exploitation of nature, and also noted that drug dosages are based on tests on a predominantly male sample groups, and air bags are reportedly designed to protect the male body and so may even endanger some females. This lead to our considerations of the interaction of the instincts of the sexes with societal attitudes and scientific endeavours. The variation in abilities and in masculine and feminine perceived qualities within the groups was seen to far outweigh the difference between males and females, though it was suggested that women may be in fact more fitted to science than men through their greater diligence through education, their biological need to care and their socialising skills in groups - though these hypotheses maybe just represent today’s constructs of femininity.
We discussed Chapter 42, Science & Gender, straying a little onto Chapter 42, Epistemological Anarchism. Our discussion stressed the difference between sex and gender, the latter being a social construct. We were in broad agreement that women have been less prominent, indeed discriminated against largely through social pressure. The chapter did also suggest that science was subject to and served “male domination”. We picked up on the economic exploitation of nature, and also noted that drug dosages are based on tests on a predominantly male sample groups, and air bags are reportedly designed to protect the male body and so may even endanger some females. This lead to our considerations of the interaction of the instincts of the sexes with societal attitudes and scientific endeavours. The variation in abilities and in masculine and feminine perceived qualities within the groups was seen to far outweigh the difference between males and females, though it was suggested that women may be in fact more fitted to science than men through their greater diligence through education, their biological need to care and their socialising skills in groups - though these hypotheses maybe just represent today’s constructs of femininity.
15th March 2019 Eastern Philosophy 1
We met to start and shape the course on Eastern Philosophy. We looked at The Khan Academy on early Indian history:
and a general introductory article into Indian philosophies in the New World Encyclopaedia We first noted the extent of the Sanskrit vocabulary we need to differentiate Periods, Schools, Scripts, etc. Noting Bloom’s Taxonomy, if we want to be able to understand and compare Eastern Philosophy with Western Philosophy, then first we must start by remembering, and it is recommended we all make our own list or mind map (one attached below) to try to fix this. In trying to make comparisons, we must remain aware of the pitfalls of looking at a different culture (Postmodernism says this!) and we will attempt to get to this level of appreciation while seeking a broad understanding of the topic.
We met to start and shape the course on Eastern Philosophy. We looked at The Khan Academy on early Indian history:
and a general introductory article into Indian philosophies in the New World Encyclopaedia We first noted the extent of the Sanskrit vocabulary we need to differentiate Periods, Schools, Scripts, etc. Noting Bloom’s Taxonomy, if we want to be able to understand and compare Eastern Philosophy with Western Philosophy, then first we must start by remembering, and it is recommended we all make our own list or mind map (one attached below) to try to fix this. In trying to make comparisons, we must remain aware of the pitfalls of looking at a different culture (Postmodernism says this!) and we will attempt to get to this level of appreciation while seeking a broad understanding of the topic.
| indian_philosophy.pdf |
12th March 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (12)
Continuing "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell, we started with Chapter 39, Reduction. All disciplines seek unifying principles, and these set aside the particular aspects in favour of common ground. Reductionism between disciplines - usually reduction to physics - makes a point, but there is no conflict with other disciplines - it depends on the focus: don’t go down to the chemistry and physics when studying digestion, even though the reduction informs us about the reactions. In chapter 40 Underdetermination we examined the apparent conflict between the wave and particle theories of light. We recognise that we are just not built on the same scale as the atom, nor the whole universe: our sensory systems are not appropriate on these scales, and many of our theories are metaphorical. In another example, the analogy of water pressure and flow to electricity is helpful but limited: electricity doesn’t leak out of the socket! This perhaps contributes to the postmodernist critique of science as merely a particular social and linguistic construct. But in denying the claim of science to explain reality, aren’t postmodernists putting the cart before the horse? Language and society are themselves evolutionary adaptations to cope with reality - but scientists would say that wouldn’t they?
Continuing "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell, we started with Chapter 39, Reduction. All disciplines seek unifying principles, and these set aside the particular aspects in favour of common ground. Reductionism between disciplines - usually reduction to physics - makes a point, but there is no conflict with other disciplines - it depends on the focus: don’t go down to the chemistry and physics when studying digestion, even though the reduction informs us about the reactions. In chapter 40 Underdetermination we examined the apparent conflict between the wave and particle theories of light. We recognise that we are just not built on the same scale as the atom, nor the whole universe: our sensory systems are not appropriate on these scales, and many of our theories are metaphorical. In another example, the analogy of water pressure and flow to electricity is helpful but limited: electricity doesn’t leak out of the socket! This perhaps contributes to the postmodernist critique of science as merely a particular social and linguistic construct. But in denying the claim of science to explain reality, aren’t postmodernists putting the cart before the horse? Language and society are themselves evolutionary adaptations to cope with reality - but scientists would say that wouldn’t they?
15th February 2019 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 2) Week 9: Postmodern Pragmatisms
We discussed the final week of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern Part 2: “Postmodern Pragmatisms” looking at Richard Rorty, Cornell West, Anthony Appiah and Bruno Latour Our response to Richard Rorty was mixed: we appreciated his pragmatism, and, yes, we cannot access the raw data of reality through perceptions and language. He chooses the coherence theory of truth and rejects the correspondence theory, but does this mean rejecting any idea of correlation of truth with reality? His project leads to scepticism - but he proposes we just work within our society - in his case (American) liberalism - with no logical justification for this leap and a suggestion of complacency. Bruno Latour’s initiative that scientists stop insisting that they pursue truth but rather they pursue matters of concern seemed a good way to prevent conspiracy theorists and the like from using postmodern deconstruction to refute science. His constructivism seems to give a more optimistic way forward to achieving Rorty’s goal of leaving the world a better place for our great-grandchildren. We agreed that the course has been well constructed and presented and a success.
We discussed the final week of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern Part 2: “Postmodern Pragmatisms” looking at Richard Rorty, Cornell West, Anthony Appiah and Bruno Latour Our response to Richard Rorty was mixed: we appreciated his pragmatism, and, yes, we cannot access the raw data of reality through perceptions and language. He chooses the coherence theory of truth and rejects the correspondence theory, but does this mean rejecting any idea of correlation of truth with reality? His project leads to scepticism - but he proposes we just work within our society - in his case (American) liberalism - with no logical justification for this leap and a suggestion of complacency. Bruno Latour’s initiative that scientists stop insisting that they pursue truth but rather they pursue matters of concern seemed a good way to prevent conspiracy theorists and the like from using postmodern deconstruction to refute science. His constructivism seems to give a more optimistic way forward to achieving Rorty’s goal of leaving the world a better place for our great-grandchildren. We agreed that the course has been well constructed and presented and a success.
12th February 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (11)
We continued with Philosophy of Science, based on "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell. We started with Chapter 36, Natural Kinds. This in a way made a gentle lead into Anti-Realism, the question being whether our taxonomies are just useful or do they reflect the “really real” nature of things? We did consider taxonomy necessary - some order is needed to thoughts - and felt that classification is pragmatic, and depends on the purpose of the classification. We discussed whether Darwinian theory and genetics justified and modified earlier classifications - and then whether - since genetics doesn’t yet simply map or guide our classifications, is that just a "Research Programme” (Chapter 37) currently running? To understand that concept we considered earlier foundations of science: the Aristotelian model of the motion of the stars and planets, and Newtonian versus Einsteinian Space-Time. Again, this transitioned into a discussion of Anti-Realism. We were comfortable that Science is pragmatic, and gives useful answers. It was easy to see that we are programmed by Genes and Memes to think the way we do with the present world-view and zeitgeist. We re-visited theories of truth: correspondence, (briefly) coherence, and the deflationary approach. Leaving room to doubt and alternative explanations seems essential to good science, but one approach is not necessarily as good as another, and denying the ”truth” of science gives too easy a get-out to those who deny climate change for example. Science may not show us the "really real” - we are not privileged to know: but surely there is a correlation?
We continued with Philosophy of Science, based on "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell. We started with Chapter 36, Natural Kinds. This in a way made a gentle lead into Anti-Realism, the question being whether our taxonomies are just useful or do they reflect the “really real” nature of things? We did consider taxonomy necessary - some order is needed to thoughts - and felt that classification is pragmatic, and depends on the purpose of the classification. We discussed whether Darwinian theory and genetics justified and modified earlier classifications - and then whether - since genetics doesn’t yet simply map or guide our classifications, is that just a "Research Programme” (Chapter 37) currently running? To understand that concept we considered earlier foundations of science: the Aristotelian model of the motion of the stars and planets, and Newtonian versus Einsteinian Space-Time. Again, this transitioned into a discussion of Anti-Realism. We were comfortable that Science is pragmatic, and gives useful answers. It was easy to see that we are programmed by Genes and Memes to think the way we do with the present world-view and zeitgeist. We re-visited theories of truth: correspondence, (briefly) coherence, and the deflationary approach. Leaving room to doubt and alternative explanations seems essential to good science, but one approach is not necessarily as good as another, and denying the ”truth” of science gives too easy a get-out to those who deny climate change for example. Science may not show us the "really real” - we are not privileged to know: but surely there is a correlation?
15th January 2019 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 2) Week 8:Late Term Review
We discussed Week 8 of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern Part 2: “Postmodern Identities” - a review of the course. We appreciated Michael Roth’s comparison of Modernist and Post Modernist Architecture, we noted that function is distinct from Subjectivity - making a statement. Art as a way of saying something different…but the different becomes the norm? In response to the challenge to come with “three things from the course that have made me think”, as well as this we noted:
Darwin removed the idea of design and teleology and Nietzsche all values are social constructs. We now have to question our value set, can’t just say “that’s a given”.
Zizek (& Adorno) claim we are destroying ourselves through “Modernist” rational (capitalist) thinking. Theirs is a critique of Marxism too. Foucault pointed out our complicity in this as did Wittgenstein with the language games we play.
The course raised contradictions: Freud on happiness - all theses / new norms still leave incompletions. Zizek says efforts to find the real answer leads to discomfort. That said, we still seek “the really real” - In Art (Flaubert, Baudelaire, Woolf)?. Some still in God? In discussions we felt that there was evidence of these ideas around us. The claim that Capitalism and self interest helps the community; the cult of Individuality and individual rights. This impacts education and employment, norms change and we witness consumerism rather than investment. The culture is anti-intellectualism, anti expert, and equality versus equality of opportunity..
We discussed Week 8 of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern Part 2: “Postmodern Identities” - a review of the course. We appreciated Michael Roth’s comparison of Modernist and Post Modernist Architecture, we noted that function is distinct from Subjectivity - making a statement. Art as a way of saying something different…but the different becomes the norm? In response to the challenge to come with “three things from the course that have made me think”, as well as this we noted:
Darwin removed the idea of design and teleology and Nietzsche all values are social constructs. We now have to question our value set, can’t just say “that’s a given”.
Zizek (& Adorno) claim we are destroying ourselves through “Modernist” rational (capitalist) thinking. Theirs is a critique of Marxism too. Foucault pointed out our complicity in this as did Wittgenstein with the language games we play.
The course raised contradictions: Freud on happiness - all theses / new norms still leave incompletions. Zizek says efforts to find the real answer leads to discomfort. That said, we still seek “the really real” - In Art (Flaubert, Baudelaire, Woolf)?. Some still in God? In discussions we felt that there was evidence of these ideas around us. The claim that Capitalism and self interest helps the community; the cult of Individuality and individual rights. This impacts education and employment, norms change and we witness consumerism rather than investment. The culture is anti-intellectualism, anti expert, and equality versus equality of opportunity..
8th January 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (11)
We continued with "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell. We started with Chapter 34, Paradigm Shifts, and once again found it impossible to avoid linking this to Brexit and the social media politicking of the Leave campaign. We also found it exemplified in nutritional science: the reversal of the idea that we should be eating carbohydrates (never sugars of course!). We discussed Kuhn’s further assertion that different paradigms are incommensurable (Newtonian and Einsteinian mass) and it is therefore impossible to make a rational choice - thence even that change is not necessarily progress, but he later retracted that. We also noted that research funding follows the paradigm, reinforcing Kuhn’s point that normal science works within and supports the paradigm. We also discussed Chapter 35, Phenomenalism. the epistemological take on Berkeley’s ontological stance that all really is just perception. So does science tell us about the real world? Or are sub-atomic particles (or anything postulated that can be detected rather than observed) just convenient narratives that explain observable phenomena? It is easy to find past examples of false paradigms - phlogiston, the wave theory of light - but by the “no miracles” argument, can a theory that explains and predicts many phenomena not be really real?
We continued with "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell. We started with Chapter 34, Paradigm Shifts, and once again found it impossible to avoid linking this to Brexit and the social media politicking of the Leave campaign. We also found it exemplified in nutritional science: the reversal of the idea that we should be eating carbohydrates (never sugars of course!). We discussed Kuhn’s further assertion that different paradigms are incommensurable (Newtonian and Einsteinian mass) and it is therefore impossible to make a rational choice - thence even that change is not necessarily progress, but he later retracted that. We also noted that research funding follows the paradigm, reinforcing Kuhn’s point that normal science works within and supports the paradigm. We also discussed Chapter 35, Phenomenalism. the epistemological take on Berkeley’s ontological stance that all really is just perception. So does science tell us about the real world? Or are sub-atomic particles (or anything postulated that can be detected rather than observed) just convenient narratives that explain observable phenomena? It is easy to find past examples of false paradigms - phlogiston, the wave theory of light - but by the “no miracles” argument, can a theory that explains and predicts many phenomena not be really real?
14th December 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 2) Week 7:“Postmodern Identities”
This is about two contemporary thinkers, Judith Butler and Slavoj Žižek. Judith Butler was discussing Gender, so we also watched three crash course videos on Sex and Gender. Basically, sex is biological but gender is a social construct (think skirts versus trousers!) Butler studied under Gadamer who pointed out that our understanding is always from our upbringing - the beliefs and prejudices of our particular point in history. She says that gender is a way of culturally configuring a body, and open to continual remaking. Further, she sees gender as a performance rather than as a descriptor. She is certainly challenging the conventional binary understanding of gender and asking that we recognise it can be played differently. Slavoj Žižek builds on Foucault's theme that conversations reflect power relationships: doctor-patient or judge-prisoner. He follows Marcuse as a critic of the totalitarianist democracy. He His example is the father not just ordering his son to visit his grandmother, but to want to go because she wants him to. Our examples included loving political correctness or health and safety practices in their own right.
This is about two contemporary thinkers, Judith Butler and Slavoj Žižek. Judith Butler was discussing Gender, so we also watched three crash course videos on Sex and Gender. Basically, sex is biological but gender is a social construct (think skirts versus trousers!) Butler studied under Gadamer who pointed out that our understanding is always from our upbringing - the beliefs and prejudices of our particular point in history. She says that gender is a way of culturally configuring a body, and open to continual remaking. Further, she sees gender as a performance rather than as a descriptor. She is certainly challenging the conventional binary understanding of gender and asking that we recognise it can be played differently. Slavoj Žižek builds on Foucault's theme that conversations reflect power relationships: doctor-patient or judge-prisoner. He follows Marcuse as a critic of the totalitarianist democracy. He His example is the father not just ordering his son to visit his grandmother, but to want to go because she wants him to. Our examples included loving political correctness or health and safety practices in their own right.
11th December 2018 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (10)
We had read about Chaos - Chapter 33 of "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell and found it impossible to avoid linking this to the current political scene around Brexit. That said we had been pointed to a sequence of YouTube videos on Chaos by Jos Leys, Étienne Ghys and Aurélien Alvarez, Their website has summaries of each chapter. This material goes through ideas of determinism, Newton's laws and the key concept of chaos theory that very small changes in the initial conditions - that is the position and velocity of each body in a system - can have an entirely disproportionate effect on the future behaviour of the system. Sometimes the system is unstable or breaks down: stop the moon and let it restart with zero velocity and it will fall to earth: give it a higher velocity than before and it would fly off into space. However some systems settle into a statistical pattern of behaviour: the weather model shows consistent probabilities of hurricanes, heat waves and freezes, even if the order in which they occur is in unpredictable. It was interesting that while a butterfly may cause a hurricane, it may also prevent one. Very watchable and artistic videos.
We had read about Chaos - Chapter 33 of "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell and found it impossible to avoid linking this to the current political scene around Brexit. That said we had been pointed to a sequence of YouTube videos on Chaos by Jos Leys, Étienne Ghys and Aurélien Alvarez, Their website has summaries of each chapter. This material goes through ideas of determinism, Newton's laws and the key concept of chaos theory that very small changes in the initial conditions - that is the position and velocity of each body in a system - can have an entirely disproportionate effect on the future behaviour of the system. Sometimes the system is unstable or breaks down: stop the moon and let it restart with zero velocity and it will fall to earth: give it a higher velocity than before and it would fly off into space. However some systems settle into a statistical pattern of behaviour: the weather model shows consistent probabilities of hurricanes, heat waves and freezes, even if the order in which they occur is in unpredictable. It was interesting that while a butterfly may cause a hurricane, it may also prevent one. Very watchable and artistic videos.
.16th October 2018 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (9) We actually spent the first part of the meeting discussing grief and grieving, following the recent death of a U3A member. We then discussed Chapter 30 of "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell - Gaia Theory, which holds that the earth is a homeostatic system - exemplified by the Daisyworld parable explaining how black and white daisies thrive and decline in response to temperature, and thereby regulate the temperature of their world. We questioned whether the theory was a cause of the environment in our world, or just an outcome, in the same way that the values of fundamental physical constants have to be just right for us to exist to ask the question. We also noted that it is feasible that perturbations like global warming could pull the climate beyond the operating region of homeostasis. We successfully argued that Gaia theory is not necessarily teleological, in the same way that the “selfish” gene is just a metaphor for the way the gene appears to have a purpose, whereas genes just replicate, sometimes with errors that then sometimes their “carrier” organisms fare better in the environment than their progenitors. A parallel is Adam Smith’s theory that the economy is regulated by the forces of each participant’s self-interest.
9th November 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 2) Week 6: Paintings 2
This was billed as "a very brief consideration of how artists are responding to the loss of foundations to produce work that redefines art”. Key features of modernist art include depictions of the new classes of society - the bourgeoisie and working classes, engagement of the viewer - the way the women in Manet’s Olympia and Dejeuner sur l’herbe seem to look out from the painting, new ways of painting including capturing the light, and the attempt to capture and present “the really real”. Postmodernism rejects the principle that there is a “really real”, and is perhaps a critique of modernist art. We discussed the link to tradition in art, and whether the elitism implied in recognising these links was necessary to appreciate the work, or whether the work stands alone to be appreciated in itself. We discussed artistic skills and the recognition of artists and art, and when and when and whether commercially driven productions were art.
This was billed as "a very brief consideration of how artists are responding to the loss of foundations to produce work that redefines art”. Key features of modernist art include depictions of the new classes of society - the bourgeoisie and working classes, engagement of the viewer - the way the women in Manet’s Olympia and Dejeuner sur l’herbe seem to look out from the painting, new ways of painting including capturing the light, and the attempt to capture and present “the really real”. Postmodernism rejects the principle that there is a “really real”, and is perhaps a critique of modernist art. We discussed the link to tradition in art, and whether the elitism implied in recognising these links was necessary to appreciate the work, or whether the work stands alone to be appreciated in itself. We discussed artistic skills and the recognition of artists and art, and when and when and whether commercially driven productions were art.
19th October 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 2) Week 5: From Critical Theory to Postmodernism
The learning objective was " Confront the philosophical effort to escape from totality in order to understand the politics of control.” We studied Horkheimer, Adorno & Foucault in the Coursera course on Modernism (Part 2): “From Critical Theory to Postmodernism”. We found YouTube posts by John David Ebert and by Jeff Nicolas helpful additional material. Horkheimer and Adorno argue that The Enlightenment, which through reason gave the capability to control nature and reject myth has been appropriated to dehumanise the individual in politics, economics and culture: authoritarianism (fascism) capitalism (subjugation to machines and consumerism) and mass culture (spoon-fed stereotypes and opinions) What the Enlightenment aimed for was the realisation of the fully autonomous individual, but these calamities collapse the individual into a two-dimensional caricature. In Foucault’s consideration of the asylum, he argued that this demonstrated how differences in individuals are oppressed, and the accepted bourgeoise culture demands conformity. He did warn that even rebellion can slip into a stereotype culture and postulated that we should behave to allow the possibility of something new.
The learning objective was " Confront the philosophical effort to escape from totality in order to understand the politics of control.” We studied Horkheimer, Adorno & Foucault in the Coursera course on Modernism (Part 2): “From Critical Theory to Postmodernism”. We found YouTube posts by John David Ebert and by Jeff Nicolas helpful additional material. Horkheimer and Adorno argue that The Enlightenment, which through reason gave the capability to control nature and reject myth has been appropriated to dehumanise the individual in politics, economics and culture: authoritarianism (fascism) capitalism (subjugation to machines and consumerism) and mass culture (spoon-fed stereotypes and opinions) What the Enlightenment aimed for was the realisation of the fully autonomous individual, but these calamities collapse the individual into a two-dimensional caricature. In Foucault’s consideration of the asylum, he argued that this demonstrated how differences in individuals are oppressed, and the accepted bourgeoise culture demands conformity. He did warn that even rebellion can slip into a stereotype culture and postulated that we should behave to allow the possibility of something new.
16th October 2018 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (8)
We read chapters 29 and 31- Pragmatism and the Duhem-Quine Thesis in "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell We were generally comfortable that Pragmatism is reductionist and drops “true” from the definition of knowledge as “true, justified belief”, and accepted that we believe that which successfully predicts. We compared Pragmatism with Correspondence theory - there is a reality corresponding to what we know, and with Coherence theory - any truth has to be coherent with all our other beliefs. Duhem and Quine criticised Pragmatism from this viewpoint, Quine more radically in that there may be entirely different coherent explanations of a phenomenon, and Duhem more closely that we may have identified and apparently validated the wrong hypothesis. We recognised that scientific theories are subject to change, and that they are context and time dependent. We also felt that Pragmatism with these criticisms should be encouraging us to keep a more open mind and seek better explanations.
We read chapters 29 and 31- Pragmatism and the Duhem-Quine Thesis in "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell We were generally comfortable that Pragmatism is reductionist and drops “true” from the definition of knowledge as “true, justified belief”, and accepted that we believe that which successfully predicts. We compared Pragmatism with Correspondence theory - there is a reality corresponding to what we know, and with Coherence theory - any truth has to be coherent with all our other beliefs. Duhem and Quine criticised Pragmatism from this viewpoint, Quine more radically in that there may be entirely different coherent explanations of a phenomenon, and Duhem more closely that we may have identified and apparently validated the wrong hypothesis. We recognised that scientific theories are subject to change, and that they are context and time dependent. We also felt that Pragmatism with these criticisms should be encouraging us to keep a more open mind and seek better explanations.
21st September 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 2) Week 4: Postmodern Everyday
We go back to Ralph Waldo Emerson and forward to Ludwig Wittgenstein to consider how forms of life and language games need to foundation to be compelling.
o discuss the continuing Coursera course on Modernism (Part 2): "The Postmodern Everyday” on Ralph Waldo Emerson and Ludwig Wittgenstein. There was Further material at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQHiGrCNwJI&t=1s (Searle), and
:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw44w7Tvz2I (Grayling) Emerson was - and is - the great sage, maybe even prophet of America. He stressed self-reliance, and that people should think for themselves, unconstrained by the expectations of others or even by their own past and memories, treating every day as a new day. He saw life as a journey - and influenced the likes of Jack Kerouac. Wittgenstein early on studied with Russell and focused on logic and that which could be demonstrated to be true or false. Other issues were outside the realm of philosophy: “What we cannot speak about we must pas over in silence.” But later he changed his mind, and we discussed his Philosophical Investigations, specifically his linking of language to the way we live everyday life. One of his illustrative language games was a builder and his labourer where “slab!” was not just the label for a particular object (as he claimed St Augustine said), but a command to fetch a slab. "To imagine a language means to imagine a form of life."
We go back to Ralph Waldo Emerson and forward to Ludwig Wittgenstein to consider how forms of life and language games need to foundation to be compelling.
o discuss the continuing Coursera course on Modernism (Part 2): "The Postmodern Everyday” on Ralph Waldo Emerson and Ludwig Wittgenstein. There was Further material at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQHiGrCNwJI&t=1s (Searle), and
:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw44w7Tvz2I (Grayling) Emerson was - and is - the great sage, maybe even prophet of America. He stressed self-reliance, and that people should think for themselves, unconstrained by the expectations of others or even by their own past and memories, treating every day as a new day. He saw life as a journey - and influenced the likes of Jack Kerouac. Wittgenstein early on studied with Russell and focused on logic and that which could be demonstrated to be true or false. Other issues were outside the realm of philosophy: “What we cannot speak about we must pas over in silence.” But later he changed his mind, and we discussed his Philosophical Investigations, specifically his linking of language to the way we live everyday life. One of his illustrative language games was a builder and his labourer where “slab!” was not just the label for a particular object (as he claimed St Augustine said), but a command to fetch a slab. "To imagine a language means to imagine a form of life."
18th September 2018 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (7)
We continued with Philosophy of Science, based on "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell. We focused on Ch 28 on Artificial Intelligence and most of us watched some BBC4 programmes broadcast on 4 September: the Joy of AI andThe Horizon Guide to AI. We also listened to Jonathan Sacks on Radio 4 on Morality in the 21st Century on AI. We discussed the effect of AI on jobs, and -as Marx said - noted that economics strongly influences the way we think, and we will have to define ourselves in other ways than the job we do. We discussed the current workings of AI: it “thinks” very differently from us (as shown by the way it mistook a dog for a trombone when a few pixels in the image were doctored. Searle’s Chinese Room is a good analogy here. However, if we accept that Moore’s law that computing power doubles every year will continue, there will be further advances. This led us to discuss when robots or perhaps robots with biological parts will become moral objects - as "bionic men" (thinking the paraplegic who “willed” his mechanical arm to move) are now. We were far from sure that robots would not harm humans (pace Asimov!), and whether they will leave us behind in intelligence and consciousness, but were on balance optimistic that they could improve the lives of all.
We continued with Philosophy of Science, based on "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell. We focused on Ch 28 on Artificial Intelligence and most of us watched some BBC4 programmes broadcast on 4 September: the Joy of AI andThe Horizon Guide to AI. We also listened to Jonathan Sacks on Radio 4 on Morality in the 21st Century on AI. We discussed the effect of AI on jobs, and -as Marx said - noted that economics strongly influences the way we think, and we will have to define ourselves in other ways than the job we do. We discussed the current workings of AI: it “thinks” very differently from us (as shown by the way it mistook a dog for a trombone when a few pixels in the image were doctored. Searle’s Chinese Room is a good analogy here. However, if we accept that Moore’s law that computing power doubles every year will continue, there will be further advances. This led us to discuss when robots or perhaps robots with biological parts will become moral objects - as "bionic men" (thinking the paraplegic who “willed” his mechanical arm to move) are now. We were far from sure that robots would not harm humans (pace Asimov!), and whether they will leave us behind in intelligence and consciousness, but were on balance optimistic that they could improve the lives of all.
21st August 2018 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (6)
We continued with Philosophy of Science, based on "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell. We focused on Ch 23 on Science & Utopia, but addressed Abduction and aspects of Science and God and Metaphysics during discussions. We agreed that - as asserted in the discussion between Stephen Fry and Steven Pinker - science, as a component of the enlightenment, has transformed our relationship with our environment and given us enormous improvements in our health, life expectancy and wealth. But are we riding a tiger? Marx said that economics determine our social structures and the way we think - but are we able to keep ahead of the side issues of technology and properly understand where it can and cannot be applied? Darwin’s "survival of the fittest” led down the now discredited path of eugenics, and we still face the issues of when to use gene therapy, and indeed whether and how we should try to control world population growth. Global warming would seem to need a global political solution, but we are still organised on the basis of nation states with their own interests. We know we don’t naturally make decisions based on reason. Science has changed metaphysics, but there may well be a case for some form of religion, humanism or not, to foster the altruism necessary for a wider view of our interests as we address such problems - which will of course need yet more scientific advances for their solution.
We continued with Philosophy of Science, based on "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell. We focused on Ch 23 on Science & Utopia, but addressed Abduction and aspects of Science and God and Metaphysics during discussions. We agreed that - as asserted in the discussion between Stephen Fry and Steven Pinker - science, as a component of the enlightenment, has transformed our relationship with our environment and given us enormous improvements in our health, life expectancy and wealth. But are we riding a tiger? Marx said that economics determine our social structures and the way we think - but are we able to keep ahead of the side issues of technology and properly understand where it can and cannot be applied? Darwin’s "survival of the fittest” led down the now discredited path of eugenics, and we still face the issues of when to use gene therapy, and indeed whether and how we should try to control world population growth. Global warming would seem to need a global political solution, but we are still organised on the basis of nation states with their own interests. We know we don’t naturally make decisions based on reason. Science has changed metaphysics, but there may well be a case for some form of religion, humanism or not, to foster the altruism necessary for a wider view of our interests as we address such problems - which will of course need yet more scientific advances for their solution.
27th July 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 2) Week 3 - "Intensity and the Ordinary: Art, Loss, Forgiveness”.
We discussed the continuing Coursera course on Modernism (Part 2) on Virginia Woolf’s “To the Lighthouse”. We watched a Crash Course on the book. We saw that Modernism differed from the logic of Empiricism and also from Romanticism in that multiple fragmented views gave a view of the world, and that eternity can be captured by surrender to particular moments of emotional connectivity. It will never be possible to understand everything, and there are different viewpoints. In the novel we identified the “stream of consciousness" style typical of Modernism and also the "indirect third person discourse", particularly in the use of the house as narrator, delivering a powerful metaphor for the coming of The fIrst World War and the profound changes it brought to the world view of the time. Woolf also conveyed much of her own experience and values, and showed the emerging social changes in attitudes to class and to women.
We discussed the continuing Coursera course on Modernism (Part 2) on Virginia Woolf’s “To the Lighthouse”. We watched a Crash Course on the book. We saw that Modernism differed from the logic of Empiricism and also from Romanticism in that multiple fragmented views gave a view of the world, and that eternity can be captured by surrender to particular moments of emotional connectivity. It will never be possible to understand everything, and there are different viewpoints. In the novel we identified the “stream of consciousness" style typical of Modernism and also the "indirect third person discourse", particularly in the use of the house as narrator, delivering a powerful metaphor for the coming of The fIrst World War and the profound changes it brought to the world view of the time. Woolf also conveyed much of her own experience and values, and showed the emerging social changes in attitudes to class and to women.
19th July 2018 Thursday!) Philosophy of Science - the Basics (5)
We addressed Ch 21 on Positivism and Ch 22 on Vitalism. Logical Positivism declared any statement that could not be verified by experience meaningless. While Karl Popper refuted logical positivism by pointing out that it failed to meet its own criterion, he used the underlying idea in his definition of (good) science: any scientific theory must withstand experiments that might show it to be false. Logical positivism was itself proposed in response to the less rational ideas of Hegel (and then Nietzsche) and Heidegger (and the existentialists). We discussed the relationship between science and rationality and these other world views. Science is able to demonstrate cause and effect (or at any rate correlation), so, as we saw in our studies of religion, it can suggest the underlying drivers to religion, the biological and cultural forces that may lie behind Hume’s “passions” that drive our morality, and the qualities of art and music that trigger aesthetic appreciation. We did not imagine science gave the complete answer, and certainly at this point in time, we need holistic minds and souls complete with aesthetics, music and passions - tempered by science - to live life as best we can. During the discussion we debated whether the more statistical outcomes of science, where predictions cannot be made about an individual case weakened its force. Another aspect of complexity led to our discussion of Vitalism, a concept perhaps strengthened by Hegel’s Will and Darwin’s struggle to survive. Is it now just a historical stance, or does the metaphor of a spirit contribute to our wisdom as do other forms of fiction and myth?
We addressed Ch 21 on Positivism and Ch 22 on Vitalism. Logical Positivism declared any statement that could not be verified by experience meaningless. While Karl Popper refuted logical positivism by pointing out that it failed to meet its own criterion, he used the underlying idea in his definition of (good) science: any scientific theory must withstand experiments that might show it to be false. Logical positivism was itself proposed in response to the less rational ideas of Hegel (and then Nietzsche) and Heidegger (and the existentialists). We discussed the relationship between science and rationality and these other world views. Science is able to demonstrate cause and effect (or at any rate correlation), so, as we saw in our studies of religion, it can suggest the underlying drivers to religion, the biological and cultural forces that may lie behind Hume’s “passions” that drive our morality, and the qualities of art and music that trigger aesthetic appreciation. We did not imagine science gave the complete answer, and certainly at this point in time, we need holistic minds and souls complete with aesthetics, music and passions - tempered by science - to live life as best we can. During the discussion we debated whether the more statistical outcomes of science, where predictions cannot be made about an individual case weakened its force. Another aspect of complexity led to our discussion of Vitalism, a concept perhaps strengthened by Hegel’s Will and Darwin’s struggle to survive. Is it now just a historical stance, or does the metaphor of a spirit contribute to our wisdom as do other forms of fiction and myth?
15th June 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 2) Week 1.
Freud is irreligious and does not understand the “oceanic feeling” but believes that religion is central to how societies function. Freud isolates the individual’s ego, superego, and id – the self (how we act), the regulating self (best we can be), and basic desires (instinct )– as the three forces on the personal level. He relates these ideas to the wider society where the super ego is the moral aspect of society. The religion provides a selflessness and love, the Christian Golden Rule, which supports the society and notices that this love is present even where religion is not.
For Freud humans form groups by sexual love within family groups. Children have “interrupted” sexual relationships with their parents, which cannot be consummated. These relationships depend both on the love-drive (eros) and the death-drive (thanatos) – a combination of deep, powerful sexual attraction, and a desire, too, to destroy that which is closest and most important to us.
Similarly because societies consist, the family unit, and groups, they themselves must behave according to these love- and death-drives. They are thus held together both by selfish desires for liberty, on the individual level, and selfless desires for protection and group stability, on the broader social level. Mature societies have a sense of the ‘aesthetic’ which replaces the spirituality of religion.
We live in a tension between our desires and the tradition in which we have grown up but we must regulate ourselves according to society’s ethics. To do so we must sublimate our instincts of love and aggression and direct them towards other ends. Government reinforces this regulation of our own behaviour and limits the freedoms of the individual. We work together and feel secure within our own groups and notice the differences of others. This, ultimately, leads to a feeling of guilt; as a consequence of we have a feeling of neurosis. Freud, who was writing in a time of wars and oncoming threat of Communism and Fascism, further wonders about the similar ‘sickness’ of societies and feels that there is no consolation to be found here.
We noted the similarities between Freud and Nietzsche as well as and the current tension and power exerted by corporations and leaders in infringing upon individual liberties by imposing demands, excessive regulations or ignoring social and ethical norms.
Freud is irreligious and does not understand the “oceanic feeling” but believes that religion is central to how societies function. Freud isolates the individual’s ego, superego, and id – the self (how we act), the regulating self (best we can be), and basic desires (instinct )– as the three forces on the personal level. He relates these ideas to the wider society where the super ego is the moral aspect of society. The religion provides a selflessness and love, the Christian Golden Rule, which supports the society and notices that this love is present even where religion is not.
For Freud humans form groups by sexual love within family groups. Children have “interrupted” sexual relationships with their parents, which cannot be consummated. These relationships depend both on the love-drive (eros) and the death-drive (thanatos) – a combination of deep, powerful sexual attraction, and a desire, too, to destroy that which is closest and most important to us.
Similarly because societies consist, the family unit, and groups, they themselves must behave according to these love- and death-drives. They are thus held together both by selfish desires for liberty, on the individual level, and selfless desires for protection and group stability, on the broader social level. Mature societies have a sense of the ‘aesthetic’ which replaces the spirituality of religion.
We live in a tension between our desires and the tradition in which we have grown up but we must regulate ourselves according to society’s ethics. To do so we must sublimate our instincts of love and aggression and direct them towards other ends. Government reinforces this regulation of our own behaviour and limits the freedoms of the individual. We work together and feel secure within our own groups and notice the differences of others. This, ultimately, leads to a feeling of guilt; as a consequence of we have a feeling of neurosis. Freud, who was writing in a time of wars and oncoming threat of Communism and Fascism, further wonders about the similar ‘sickness’ of societies and feels that there is no consolation to be found here.
We noted the similarities between Freud and Nietzsche as well as and the current tension and power exerted by corporations and leaders in infringing upon individual liberties by imposing demands, excessive regulations or ignoring social and ethical norms.
5th June 2018 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (4)
We need to verify that the “Rayfish” in the paper we read really is fake news (very convincing, clearly!) and then we spent the whole session almost entirely on Chapter 20 of Southwell - Science and Ethics. We differentiated the discipline of science from its application. We noted that science has to be funded, and debated whether basic research, usually government backed, could really be “pure”. Much science is carried out for sponsors, and the sponsors’ interests can lead to a “sub-optimal” exploitation of scientific research which can be harmful to another perhaps wider organisation - the state or the ecology of the planet. We noted that the longer term effects of scientific developments were very difficult - sometimes impossible - to predict, but it was proposed that society - including, perhaps particularly the scientists working in the field - should take responsibility for exploring possible consequences of their work. At least being able to justify what was considered and decided on at a later date would be a defence in the spirit of Hannah Arendt’s “Banality of Evil”. This and the example of armaments development (specifically nuclear weapons) led to a discussion of the dependence of such arguments on the current social construct - and the difficulty of judging the actions of different eras (past or future) in the light of present day attitudes.,
We need to verify that the “Rayfish” in the paper we read really is fake news (very convincing, clearly!) and then we spent the whole session almost entirely on Chapter 20 of Southwell - Science and Ethics. We differentiated the discipline of science from its application. We noted that science has to be funded, and debated whether basic research, usually government backed, could really be “pure”. Much science is carried out for sponsors, and the sponsors’ interests can lead to a “sub-optimal” exploitation of scientific research which can be harmful to another perhaps wider organisation - the state or the ecology of the planet. We noted that the longer term effects of scientific developments were very difficult - sometimes impossible - to predict, but it was proposed that society - including, perhaps particularly the scientists working in the field - should take responsibility for exploring possible consequences of their work. At least being able to justify what was considered and decided on at a later date would be a defence in the spirit of Hannah Arendt’s “Banality of Evil”. This and the example of armaments development (specifically nuclear weapons) led to a discussion of the dependence of such arguments on the current social construct - and the difficulty of judging the actions of different eras (past or future) in the light of present day attitudes.,
18th May 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) Week 7.
We looked at the paintings of various artists, specifically Delacroix, Courbet and Manet, to see the development of modern art. Delacroix was a romantic and painted the violent and the exotic - and his “Liberty leading the People” shows a propaganda scene of the apparent unity of the classes in the revolution. Courbet was a realist, but also interested in showing ordinary people as they were. Manet provides examples demanding the viewer meet the eyes of the subject in “Olympia" and in "A Bar at the Folies Bergere". Looking at the economic basis of modernism, it was suggested that the rise of the bourgeoisie set the artist free of traditional patronage and led them to paint what they chose. This freedom led to new subjects - different and intermingled classes of society - and usually with a challenge to the viewer of the artwork or to other artists. They painted in a different way too, catching the mood of the subject, painting the light more than the subject itself, consciously producing a painting and asking the viewer to get involved in the scene. There is a “message” It is possible to infer the rise of the self-consciousness (preciousness?) of the artist through this period.
We looked at the paintings of various artists, specifically Delacroix, Courbet and Manet, to see the development of modern art. Delacroix was a romantic and painted the violent and the exotic - and his “Liberty leading the People” shows a propaganda scene of the apparent unity of the classes in the revolution. Courbet was a realist, but also interested in showing ordinary people as they were. Manet provides examples demanding the viewer meet the eyes of the subject in “Olympia" and in "A Bar at the Folies Bergere". Looking at the economic basis of modernism, it was suggested that the rise of the bourgeoisie set the artist free of traditional patronage and led them to paint what they chose. This freedom led to new subjects - different and intermingled classes of society - and usually with a challenge to the viewer of the artwork or to other artists. They painted in a different way too, catching the mood of the subject, painting the light more than the subject itself, consciously producing a painting and asking the viewer to get involved in the scene. There is a “message” It is possible to infer the rise of the self-consciousness (preciousness?) of the artist through this period.
8th May 2018 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (3)
We had previously considered Newton, but could add his view on God, according to Karen Armstrong, as the designer and driving force behind his mechanical universe. We all found Chapter 19 on Berkeley’s Idealism challenging. We first discussed Locke’s primary and secondary qualities - such as when a tree falls in the forest with no-one there, does it make a sound? This led to distinguishing physically measurable quantities from sense perceptions. That covered, Berkeley was saying that Locke's “material substrate” that carried these qualities was, by Occam’s Razor, an unnecessary entity, and all we had were the perceptions, which he said were maintained by God. It is difficult to disprove that we could be just a brain in a vat, or an avatar in a computer game, though we noted Russell’s argument that just because an idea of an object requires a mind to hold it, that does not mean that the existence of the objects themselves depends on the mind. We pursued the ideas of materialism to the sub-atomic. While evidence for the Higgs Boson is indirect, we understood that the theory is a logical extension of the models that have been demonstrated, and therefore there is at least a coherent argument that it represents reality. We started to discuss science and ethics: Einstein’s regret that he encouraged atomic weapons development. Science provides good outcomes - and bad ones, sometimes unforeseen. We will continue this thread next month.
We had previously considered Newton, but could add his view on God, according to Karen Armstrong, as the designer and driving force behind his mechanical universe. We all found Chapter 19 on Berkeley’s Idealism challenging. We first discussed Locke’s primary and secondary qualities - such as when a tree falls in the forest with no-one there, does it make a sound? This led to distinguishing physically measurable quantities from sense perceptions. That covered, Berkeley was saying that Locke's “material substrate” that carried these qualities was, by Occam’s Razor, an unnecessary entity, and all we had were the perceptions, which he said were maintained by God. It is difficult to disprove that we could be just a brain in a vat, or an avatar in a computer game, though we noted Russell’s argument that just because an idea of an object requires a mind to hold it, that does not mean that the existence of the objects themselves depends on the mind. We pursued the ideas of materialism to the sub-atomic. While evidence for the Higgs Boson is indirect, we understood that the theory is a logical extension of the models that have been demonstrated, and therefore there is at least a coherent argument that it represents reality. We started to discuss science and ethics: Einstein’s regret that he encouraged atomic weapons development. Science provides good outcomes - and bad ones, sometimes unforeseen. We will continue this thread next month.
20th April 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) Week 6.
We looked at at Week 6 of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) - “From Struggle to Intensity” - Baudelaire and Nietzsche. Baudelaire and Nietzsche are anti foundationalists rejecting the established hierarchies and set up new structures outside of them.
As Paris developed and expanded there was an intermingling of the classes from different quartiers there was a development of the new. This modernity allowed Baudelaire new exciting and intense experiences, which he used, with his new prose-poetry, to show a reality that we don't usually see. At the same time this was reflected in art in new representations of bridges, buildings, rich people, etc. in cafés.
Nietzsche, in contrast to Plato, Kant and Hegel, questioned why we should accept the morals of the society. His claim that ‘God is dead’ is a statement that there are no intrinsic moral values, rather they are just conventions imposed upon us by ruling groups. For Nietzsche there was a natural tendency for people to exert their wishes onto others. This is the ‘will to power’ which, not only persons, but groups, societies and states exerted over others. This, for the subjugated, leads to a feeling of ressentiment: a feeling of resentment along with the inability to do anything about it. Nietzsche further situated the development of morals in the creditor-debtor relation in which society was the creditor. The society would punish the debtor for infringements of the morals (conventions) form a variety of reasons. This prevents the intensity and the animal nature of persons being expressed. And, because people are unable to express it, there is a loss of freedom, they feel weakened as humans. Finally, because people cannot express their will to power they internalize it; this leads to nihilism. We noted the changes that occur in work and social groups which seem to mirror the ‘will to power’. A criticism of this model was that a society would become unstable, even chaotic, if all people acted out their animal nature and exerted their will to power over others. We noted however some authoritarian societies /states that do exert an influence over citizens and prevent degrees of freedom.
We looked at at Week 6 of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) - “From Struggle to Intensity” - Baudelaire and Nietzsche. Baudelaire and Nietzsche are anti foundationalists rejecting the established hierarchies and set up new structures outside of them.
As Paris developed and expanded there was an intermingling of the classes from different quartiers there was a development of the new. This modernity allowed Baudelaire new exciting and intense experiences, which he used, with his new prose-poetry, to show a reality that we don't usually see. At the same time this was reflected in art in new representations of bridges, buildings, rich people, etc. in cafés.
Nietzsche, in contrast to Plato, Kant and Hegel, questioned why we should accept the morals of the society. His claim that ‘God is dead’ is a statement that there are no intrinsic moral values, rather they are just conventions imposed upon us by ruling groups. For Nietzsche there was a natural tendency for people to exert their wishes onto others. This is the ‘will to power’ which, not only persons, but groups, societies and states exerted over others. This, for the subjugated, leads to a feeling of ressentiment: a feeling of resentment along with the inability to do anything about it. Nietzsche further situated the development of morals in the creditor-debtor relation in which society was the creditor. The society would punish the debtor for infringements of the morals (conventions) form a variety of reasons. This prevents the intensity and the animal nature of persons being expressed. And, because people are unable to express it, there is a loss of freedom, they feel weakened as humans. Finally, because people cannot express their will to power they internalize it; this leads to nihilism. We noted the changes that occur in work and social groups which seem to mirror the ‘will to power’. A criticism of this model was that a society would become unstable, even chaotic, if all people acted out their animal nature and exerted their will to power over others. We noted however some authoritarian societies /states that do exert an influence over citizens and prevent degrees of freedom.
10th April 2018 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (2)
We noted that the world seems to behave in ways which can be described mathematically, and discussed maths as a variety of language, but with axioms. W e discussed experiment, observation and induction and its problems. We noted and admired Bacon’s Eliminative Induction and Newton’s rules for reasoning and his approach to science as explaining and predicting phenomena without offering a theoretical explanation that could not be tested. We saw how it takes a lot of effort to get down to basic principles and explanations - e.g. gravity waves, and we considered how highly theoretical models such as string theory fit this approach. Through Newton and Descartes we could see how the ideas of mechanism arose and how Laplace could see the possibility that his daemon could predict the progress and outcomes of a materialistic, deterministic universe. Descartes had maintained Dualism, and, having discussed Ockham’s Razor we discussed whether Mind is an unnecessary concept beyond being an emergent property of a physical brain. But this discussion will recur when we get to Supervenience and Reductionism.
We noted that the world seems to behave in ways which can be described mathematically, and discussed maths as a variety of language, but with axioms. W e discussed experiment, observation and induction and its problems. We noted and admired Bacon’s Eliminative Induction and Newton’s rules for reasoning and his approach to science as explaining and predicting phenomena without offering a theoretical explanation that could not be tested. We saw how it takes a lot of effort to get down to basic principles and explanations - e.g. gravity waves, and we considered how highly theoretical models such as string theory fit this approach. Through Newton and Descartes we could see how the ideas of mechanism arose and how Laplace could see the possibility that his daemon could predict the progress and outcomes of a materialistic, deterministic universe. Descartes had maintained Dualism, and, having discussed Ockham’s Razor we discussed whether Mind is an unnecessary concept beyond being an emergent property of a physical brain. But this discussion will recur when we get to Supervenience and Reductionism.
23rd March 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) Week 5.
We continue Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) :) We discussed the fifth “week” of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) on Darwin, “Re-Imagining the World”, and an article on Stephen Pinker's defence of the Enlightenment. We accepted Pinker’s argument that the Enlightenment had at least facilitated the advance of science and the benefits that has brought, but noted the fragility and problems of sustainability of those benefits. We debated whether we were in the good frame of mind claimed to address and solve these problems. Linking to the Coursera material, the Enlightenment has made us more (cold-blooded?) utilitarianists and through the emphasis on the individual more selfish. The Coursera material discussed Darwin from a long introduction through the empiricism of Locke, and the British tradition (contrasted with the continental view) of a respect for custom and a social contract by consent. We contrasted the Utilitarianism concept of measuring pleasure with the Romantics’ drive to go and make pleasure happen, and the highly personal conflicts Utilitarianism bestowed on John Stuart Mill and his resolution of such issues and his legacy. Darwin’s observations of nature destroyed the idea that species were distinct and constant and showed that there is no teleological purpose to creation with man at its summit, and no intrinsic morality. We are just another species. The simplistic “survival of the fittest” headline has been invoked to justify individualism, capitalism, imperialism and racism, ignoring the evolution of such super-organisms as the ants’ nest, the beehive and the Portuguese Man-of-War. For science, Darwin’s was the first step to the greater understanding reached of genetics and the origins and nature of life.
We continue Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) :) We discussed the fifth “week” of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) on Darwin, “Re-Imagining the World”, and an article on Stephen Pinker's defence of the Enlightenment. We accepted Pinker’s argument that the Enlightenment had at least facilitated the advance of science and the benefits that has brought, but noted the fragility and problems of sustainability of those benefits. We debated whether we were in the good frame of mind claimed to address and solve these problems. Linking to the Coursera material, the Enlightenment has made us more (cold-blooded?) utilitarianists and through the emphasis on the individual more selfish. The Coursera material discussed Darwin from a long introduction through the empiricism of Locke, and the British tradition (contrasted with the continental view) of a respect for custom and a social contract by consent. We contrasted the Utilitarianism concept of measuring pleasure with the Romantics’ drive to go and make pleasure happen, and the highly personal conflicts Utilitarianism bestowed on John Stuart Mill and his resolution of such issues and his legacy. Darwin’s observations of nature destroyed the idea that species were distinct and constant and showed that there is no teleological purpose to creation with man at its summit, and no intrinsic morality. We are just another species. The simplistic “survival of the fittest” headline has been invoked to justify individualism, capitalism, imperialism and racism, ignoring the evolution of such super-organisms as the ants’ nest, the beehive and the Portuguese Man-of-War. For science, Darwin’s was the first step to the greater understanding reached of genetics and the origins and nature of life.
20th March 2018 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (1)
We had decided to revisit the basics of Philosophy of Science, based on "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell. We had read the first ten chapters. We quickly tabled and discussed several questions covering most of those chapters. We appreciated the efforts of the pre-Socratics seeking the underlying nature of the world. We generally recognised there is a real world, though we could appreciate Berkeley’s position that we only know sensations and Plato’s that we need senses to try to ensure these sensations do not deceive us. We discussed knowledge as true, justified belief, and what that meant, and considered pragmatic truth relevant to science: while a scientific theory explains and predicts usefully, it is true. We recognised science explains how but not why. Science demands demonstration and looks for first principles. We talked about first causes. It was remarked that it is a weak argument for God to say he fills the gaps in our knowledge. We discussed a priori truths and the need for axioms, and deductive versus the inductive logic of science and its problem. We did appreciate the organised observation and eliminative induction of Francis Bacon. We may claim to have covered the first six chapters, though with more to say on the maths of chapter 5.
We had decided to revisit the basics of Philosophy of Science, based on "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell. We had read the first ten chapters. We quickly tabled and discussed several questions covering most of those chapters. We appreciated the efforts of the pre-Socratics seeking the underlying nature of the world. We generally recognised there is a real world, though we could appreciate Berkeley’s position that we only know sensations and Plato’s that we need senses to try to ensure these sensations do not deceive us. We discussed knowledge as true, justified belief, and what that meant, and considered pragmatic truth relevant to science: while a scientific theory explains and predicts usefully, it is true. We recognised science explains how but not why. Science demands demonstration and looks for first principles. We talked about first causes. It was remarked that it is a weak argument for God to say he fills the gaps in our knowledge. We discussed a priori truths and the need for axioms, and deductive versus the inductive logic of science and its problem. We did appreciate the organised observation and eliminative induction of Francis Bacon. We may claim to have covered the first six chapters, though with more to say on the maths of chapter 5.
2nd March 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) Week 4.
We continued Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) :) We discussed the fourth “week” on Flaubert: “Art for Art’s Sake”. Art is an important aspect of Modernism and Post-Modernism, dare we say attracting the reverence once paid to religion? We debated whether the enlightenment enhanced leisure time and the opportunity to make art and agreed it was an essential drive in humanity. We discussed the emergence of art from decoration of ritual: perhaps art is what’s left after any function or purpose has been accounted for: timeless beauty of the expression of values. We eventually agreed that this expression may be negative: in Madame Bovary, Flaubert attacks both the enlightenment rationalist and the “cliché romanticist”, attacked as a nihilist stance by Nietzsche - confessing himself to be another nihilist. Perhaps both of them contributed something to the present day focus on the individual rather than society or the community.
We too briefly looked at a defence of the enlightenment by Stephen Pinker in The Observer - maybe we can return to this next time.
We continued Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) :) We discussed the fourth “week” on Flaubert: “Art for Art’s Sake”. Art is an important aspect of Modernism and Post-Modernism, dare we say attracting the reverence once paid to religion? We debated whether the enlightenment enhanced leisure time and the opportunity to make art and agreed it was an essential drive in humanity. We discussed the emergence of art from decoration of ritual: perhaps art is what’s left after any function or purpose has been accounted for: timeless beauty of the expression of values. We eventually agreed that this expression may be negative: in Madame Bovary, Flaubert attacks both the enlightenment rationalist and the “cliché romanticist”, attacked as a nihilist stance by Nietzsche - confessing himself to be another nihilist. Perhaps both of them contributed something to the present day focus on the individual rather than society or the community.
We too briefly looked at a defence of the enlightenment by Stephen Pinker in The Observer - maybe we can return to this next time.
13th February 2018 Health Care Provision
We discussed the provision of health and social care. We wanted to focus on the philosophical issues rather than politics and economics, but the Kings Fund website provided a comprehensive comparison of the percentage of GDP various (richer) countries spend on health- and social care, and how it is paid for - free, through insurance or per use The World Health Organisation addresses healthcare as a human right, and we noted that it must indeed follow that the state is legally obliged to provide healthcare: rights which are not legally enshrined are “nonsense on stilts” or at least just being advocated as rights. The WHO call for "maximum available resources” to be applied to healthcare sets no figure, and the NICE guidance on Social Value Judgements has to be more specific albeit for one particular state. But while NICE gives a band of acceptable cost of intervention per QALY effect, it proposes a balance between this utilitarian approach and the egalitarian approach, but with a requirement for an open, transparent justification. Positive and negative freedom for the patient and the taxpayer have to be balanced, but treatment is generally not withheld from those who might be judged to contribute to their own issues.
We discussed the provision of health and social care. We wanted to focus on the philosophical issues rather than politics and economics, but the Kings Fund website provided a comprehensive comparison of the percentage of GDP various (richer) countries spend on health- and social care, and how it is paid for - free, through insurance or per use The World Health Organisation addresses healthcare as a human right, and we noted that it must indeed follow that the state is legally obliged to provide healthcare: rights which are not legally enshrined are “nonsense on stilts” or at least just being advocated as rights. The WHO call for "maximum available resources” to be applied to healthcare sets no figure, and the NICE guidance on Social Value Judgements has to be more specific albeit for one particular state. But while NICE gives a band of acceptable cost of intervention per QALY effect, it proposes a balance between this utilitarian approach and the egalitarian approach, but with a requirement for an open, transparent justification. Positive and negative freedom for the patient and the taxpayer have to be balanced, but treatment is generally not withheld from those who might be judged to contribute to their own issues.
19th January 2018 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) Week 3.
We met to discuss the third “week” of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) on Marx. We started on his economics and predictions for the future, and the alienation of paid labour right now, and it was interesting to look at Peter Singer’s list of unfulfilled prophecies from the 1980’s and wonder if some might not yet prove right. There is still a spectrum economies between communist and capitalist. There is a strong case that money is a driver of our social structure and our world view, as Marx said. Marx contributed several ideas that have influenced the modern and the postmodern and become part of the way we think: his idea of creativity as part of our “species being”; and the materialist dialectic - thesis, antithesis, synthesis - encouraging the seeking of alternative belief systems and lifestyles.
We met to discuss the third “week” of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) on Marx. We started on his economics and predictions for the future, and the alienation of paid labour right now, and it was interesting to look at Peter Singer’s list of unfulfilled prophecies from the 1980’s and wonder if some might not yet prove right. There is still a spectrum economies between communist and capitalist. There is a strong case that money is a driver of our social structure and our world view, as Marx said. Marx contributed several ideas that have influenced the modern and the postmodern and become part of the way we think: his idea of creativity as part of our “species being”; and the materialist dialectic - thesis, antithesis, synthesis - encouraging the seeking of alternative belief systems and lifestyles.
10th January 2018 Bio-Ethics: GM Food - continued
We continued discussing GM crops. We set out to think of arguments - hopefully for and against GM crops - from various ethical frameworks. First we looked at moral systems shown as a matrix of Principles versus Actions and Consequences. Divine Command theory tends to be against GM crops, because they interfere with the essence and teleology of life forms (natural law), but one could invoke the divine command to feed the hungry. In a societal context, a big issue is the power of the big corporations controlling the supply of GM seeds, while recognising that it takes big investments which require returns. It was questioned whether we need GM crops when we have not worked on reducing food waste, and it was noted that the key driver of sustainability - which was stated as “giving future generations options” - is population limitation. It was proposed that a utilitarianism view seemed to fit the problem of satisfying conflicting demands on the macro level - such as the trade off between feeding people and protecting farmers from pesticides versus potential health and environmental risks of GM foods (particularly those applicable to western societies), though it was accepted that the “equations” are difficult to set out, particularly when the risks are unknown.
We continued discussing GM crops. We set out to think of arguments - hopefully for and against GM crops - from various ethical frameworks. First we looked at moral systems shown as a matrix of Principles versus Actions and Consequences. Divine Command theory tends to be against GM crops, because they interfere with the essence and teleology of life forms (natural law), but one could invoke the divine command to feed the hungry. In a societal context, a big issue is the power of the big corporations controlling the supply of GM seeds, while recognising that it takes big investments which require returns. It was questioned whether we need GM crops when we have not worked on reducing food waste, and it was noted that the key driver of sustainability - which was stated as “giving future generations options” - is population limitation. It was proposed that a utilitarianism view seemed to fit the problem of satisfying conflicting demands on the macro level - such as the trade off between feeding people and protecting farmers from pesticides versus potential health and environmental risks of GM foods (particularly those applicable to western societies), though it was accepted that the “equations” are difficult to set out, particularly when the risks are unknown.
19th December 2017 Bio-Ethics: GM Food
We met to discuss Bio-ethics starting with GM crops. There was lot of preparatory material and we spent part of the meeting assessing and responding to it. Ethical theories in the first three of Marianne Talbot’s podcasts were familiar to some, but not all of us. They do provide different approaches to bio-ethics, and differences of opinion may arise from applying different frameworks. The references on genetically modified food and gene transfer were helpful and instructive - but the responses and comments were so angry and irrational, and we discussed why that might be so, which led to a discussion of type 1 & type 2 thinking. This linked well to Marianne Talbot’s three later podcasts on common moral arguments against bio-ethics initiatives, which argue the need for a rational approach. We started to look at the issues, discussing Malthusian economics and acceptable levels of risk.
Marianne Talbot on Bioethics: https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/bioethics-introduction
Basics of GM: 1 Royal society https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx953M-tpp4
2 Scientific American https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMPE5wlB3Zk
kurzgezagt – in a nutshell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4
3 sci show (from crash course mob) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU
We met to discuss Bio-ethics starting with GM crops. There was lot of preparatory material and we spent part of the meeting assessing and responding to it. Ethical theories in the first three of Marianne Talbot’s podcasts were familiar to some, but not all of us. They do provide different approaches to bio-ethics, and differences of opinion may arise from applying different frameworks. The references on genetically modified food and gene transfer were helpful and instructive - but the responses and comments were so angry and irrational, and we discussed why that might be so, which led to a discussion of type 1 & type 2 thinking. This linked well to Marianne Talbot’s three later podcasts on common moral arguments against bio-ethics initiatives, which argue the need for a rational approach. We started to look at the issues, discussing Malthusian economics and acceptable levels of risk.
Marianne Talbot on Bioethics: https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/bioethics-introduction
Basics of GM: 1 Royal society https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx953M-tpp4
2 Scientific American https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMPE5wlB3Zk
kurzgezagt – in a nutshell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4
3 sci show (from crash course mob) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH4bi60alZU
17th November 2017 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) Week 2.
We met to discuss the second “week” of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) We had read Rousseau’s "Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” for Week on the negative influences of knowledge the arts and sciences. While we could agree that “the more you want, the more you suffer”, the advances in science today show benefits Rousseau could scarcely imagine - at least he could no longer claim that the life expectation of man in the “natural state” was no shorter than the of civilised man. There were some issues with accessing Week 2 material, but we discussed what we had read. Rousseau's exposition of the evolution of inequality reads as a myth, and in a pre-Darwinian age appears to owe more to Genesis than scientific anthropology. But his three terms: laws and the right of property differentiating rich and poor; magistrates leading to the powerful and the weak; and the change from legal to arbitrary power making masters and slaves makes a plausible route to the state of affairs he observes. We could appreciate the significance of the right to property by considering the aborigine and Maori approach to land as a common resource. Hence we appreciate he New Zealand government’ legislation to prevent speculative land purchase. It was suggested that the accepted concept of money represents a law governing property rights. It is unfortunate that the French revolution - and later Marxism and communism - failed to demonstrate Rousseau’s model as a way forward..
We met to discuss the second “week” of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) We had read Rousseau’s "Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” for Week on the negative influences of knowledge the arts and sciences. While we could agree that “the more you want, the more you suffer”, the advances in science today show benefits Rousseau could scarcely imagine - at least he could no longer claim that the life expectation of man in the “natural state” was no shorter than the of civilised man. There were some issues with accessing Week 2 material, but we discussed what we had read. Rousseau's exposition of the evolution of inequality reads as a myth, and in a pre-Darwinian age appears to owe more to Genesis than scientific anthropology. But his three terms: laws and the right of property differentiating rich and poor; magistrates leading to the powerful and the weak; and the change from legal to arbitrary power making masters and slaves makes a plausible route to the state of affairs he observes. We could appreciate the significance of the right to property by considering the aborigine and Maori approach to land as a common resource. Hence we appreciate he New Zealand government’ legislation to prevent speculative land purchase. It was suggested that the accepted concept of money represents a law governing property rights. It is unfortunate that the French revolution - and later Marxism and communism - failed to demonstrate Rousseau’s model as a way forward..
14th November 2017 Science of Religion
We discussed the additional material we had not covered from week 6 and examined whether we need religion. We also looked at http://universespirit.org/ as a self-proclaimed meta religion and
https://www.alisonmorgan.co.uk/ Alison Morgan’s quotations from and comments on Alain de Botton’s “Religion for Atheists”, and an article fro the New Scientist 15th April 2017 on Atheism - is it a religion? It was interesting that Ed Slingerland gave support to the need for religion, and we found Sam Harris’s Atheism nihilistic and agreed that man is a social animal benefitting from the bonds that religion builds. The problem is belief in God, and this is perhaps the difficulty of the concept of God in the modern(its) world. We sought clarification with Peterson and Scruton, giving Darwinian and more conventionally religious approaches respectively. Meta-religion allows us to explore the properties of religion, and the site referenced confirms we need a Catholic (all inclusive) church, and dogma that does not conflict with the scientific. If the current culture is non-religious, why do people turn to fiction, which is another story-telling insight into life? We debated religion versus spirituality: isn’t the latter too personal - self-centred - to provide the social cohesion of religion?
We discussed the additional material we had not covered from week 6 and examined whether we need religion. We also looked at http://universespirit.org/ as a self-proclaimed meta religion and
https://www.alisonmorgan.co.uk/ Alison Morgan’s quotations from and comments on Alain de Botton’s “Religion for Atheists”, and an article fro the New Scientist 15th April 2017 on Atheism - is it a religion? It was interesting that Ed Slingerland gave support to the need for religion, and we found Sam Harris’s Atheism nihilistic and agreed that man is a social animal benefitting from the bonds that religion builds. The problem is belief in God, and this is perhaps the difficulty of the concept of God in the modern(its) world. We sought clarification with Peterson and Scruton, giving Darwinian and more conventionally religious approaches respectively. Meta-religion allows us to explore the properties of religion, and the site referenced confirms we need a Catholic (all inclusive) church, and dogma that does not conflict with the scientific. If the current culture is non-religious, why do people turn to fiction, which is another story-telling insight into life? We debated religion versus spirituality: isn’t the latter too personal - self-centred - to provide the social cohesion of religion?
15th September 2017 The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) Week 1.
We .discussed the first “week” of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) : Philosophy, Modernity, and Intellectual History, which asked why is philosophy relevant to modernity? We were asked to read Rousseau’s "Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” to feel the fear at the time of the negative influences of knowledge the arts and sciences, but Kant in "What is Enlightenment?" took the opposite and very positive view that we should “dare to know” and throw off our self imposed immaturity. He recognised this was in process and sought evolution not revolution. The method was to conform and obey in “private use” of reason, that is in one’s job as an army officer or clergyman, but one should speak out in “public use” to point out ills that needed consensual redress - through the sovereign, of course. He believed this freedom was in the interest of a strong ruler, and we noted that this was written in the Prussia of Frederic the Great. (Frederic is as ever brilliantly portrayed by Lord Macaulay, and "Evening in the Palace of Reason” by James F Gaines also tells his story and more in the age of enlightenment). We were able to relate Kant’s writings here to the categorical imperative of his ethics, and in this work and others we see great optimism from Kant that the enlightenment is an advance in the ascent of man.
We .discussed the first “week” of Coursera's The Modern and the Postmodern (Part 1) : Philosophy, Modernity, and Intellectual History, which asked why is philosophy relevant to modernity? We were asked to read Rousseau’s "Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” to feel the fear at the time of the negative influences of knowledge the arts and sciences, but Kant in "What is Enlightenment?" took the opposite and very positive view that we should “dare to know” and throw off our self imposed immaturity. He recognised this was in process and sought evolution not revolution. The method was to conform and obey in “private use” of reason, that is in one’s job as an army officer or clergyman, but one should speak out in “public use” to point out ills that needed consensual redress - through the sovereign, of course. He believed this freedom was in the interest of a strong ruler, and we noted that this was written in the Prussia of Frederic the Great. (Frederic is as ever brilliantly portrayed by Lord Macaulay, and "Evening in the Palace of Reason” by James F Gaines also tells his story and more in the age of enlightenment). We were able to relate Kant’s writings here to the categorical imperative of his ethics, and in this work and others we see great optimism from Kant that the enlightenment is an advance in the ascent of man.
10th October 2017 Science of Religion
We discussed the final week 6, "The Future of Religion, Conclusions", of the University of British Columbia’s course on "The Science of Religion”. We discussed “infectious teleology”, the human need to ascribe purpose, and contrasted it with Sam Harris’s atheistic stance and recognition of only scientific truth. But science cannot answer any “ought or should” question and our position on religion reflects our normative world view. It has now been shown that our genes can be switched off by environmental factors and behaviours passed on to future generations, and co-operative behaviour - which religion encourages and supports has contributed to the survival of many species, including ours. We reflected on the transience and fragility of our current situation, and suspect that the example of Scandinavian society with its secularity attributed to a strong welfare state might well prove ephemeral under stress - and we also thought that they were well equipped with custom, ritual and a sense of identity not identified as religious. It was agreed that the most helpful parts of this week of the course were in the supplementary material, We noted that the downside of religion is that because identifying with an in-group defines an “out-group” and its strong power to make individuals ready to sacrifice themselves for the group may encourage violence. That led us to think we should address the “should / ought” question of religion: is it good or bad that religion is waning, at least in our society?
We discussed the final week 6, "The Future of Religion, Conclusions", of the University of British Columbia’s course on "The Science of Religion”. We discussed “infectious teleology”, the human need to ascribe purpose, and contrasted it with Sam Harris’s atheistic stance and recognition of only scientific truth. But science cannot answer any “ought or should” question and our position on religion reflects our normative world view. It has now been shown that our genes can be switched off by environmental factors and behaviours passed on to future generations, and co-operative behaviour - which religion encourages and supports has contributed to the survival of many species, including ours. We reflected on the transience and fragility of our current situation, and suspect that the example of Scandinavian society with its secularity attributed to a strong welfare state might well prove ephemeral under stress - and we also thought that they were well equipped with custom, ritual and a sense of identity not identified as religious. It was agreed that the most helpful parts of this week of the course were in the supplementary material, We noted that the downside of religion is that because identifying with an in-group defines an “out-group” and its strong power to make individuals ready to sacrifice themselves for the group may encourage violence. That led us to think we should address the “should / ought” question of religion: is it good or bad that religion is waning, at least in our society?
15th September 2017 Knowledge as True, Justified Belief: Scientific Knowledge
We continued the topic of knowledge and to discuss Karl Popper on Science, and Pseudoscience from Crash Course Philosophy video #8 at www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ&index=8&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR. We thought that the term pseudo-science could less judgementally be replaced by descriptive science to distinguish it from predictive science. There is a place for just observing without bias and forming associations of ideas. We noted the importance of teamwork in reviews and in challenging theories and getting to robust falsification tests. We noted teamwork has been discouraged and that there is a pressure to prove promising ideas rather than to disprove them. We noted that there are “irrefutable” axioms in the midst of falsification and provisional truth. We went through some descriptive statistics - mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean - to explain how scientific testing seeks to falsify the “null hypothesis”, that is that the test results show some apparent effect is not real, but just random variations in the data. We also looked at the large sample sizes necessary for discrete (pass/fail) data. Roger Scruton holds in his curmudgeonly way that debating what we know is fruitless and the strength of our justification is what matters. He does also point out that knowing what to do and feel has to be learnt to achieve moral competence.
We continued the topic of knowledge and to discuss Karl Popper on Science, and Pseudoscience from Crash Course Philosophy video #8 at www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ&index=8&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR. We thought that the term pseudo-science could less judgementally be replaced by descriptive science to distinguish it from predictive science. There is a place for just observing without bias and forming associations of ideas. We noted the importance of teamwork in reviews and in challenging theories and getting to robust falsification tests. We noted teamwork has been discouraged and that there is a pressure to prove promising ideas rather than to disprove them. We noted that there are “irrefutable” axioms in the midst of falsification and provisional truth. We went through some descriptive statistics - mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean - to explain how scientific testing seeks to falsify the “null hypothesis”, that is that the test results show some apparent effect is not real, but just random variations in the data. We also looked at the large sample sizes necessary for discrete (pass/fail) data. Roger Scruton holds in his curmudgeonly way that debating what we know is fruitless and the strength of our justification is what matters. He does also point out that knowing what to do and feel has to be learnt to achieve moral competence.
12th September 2017 Science of Religion
We discussed week 5, "Religion in Texts, Stones and Bones: Data from Dead Minds", of the University of British Columbia’s course on "The Science of Religion”. The topic described methods of analysing texts using computer databases to search for words and associated words, and to compare across texts. Computer models based on responses to texts can predict the evolution of cultures and texts in a way analogous to gene mapping. We recognised the power of these approaches, but noted that interpretation still needs experience and expertise, and, comparing this modelling with finite element analysis, for example, we queried whether the underlying theories were science or might be pseudo-science. We noted the examples linking religious rites with practical issues (the water temples), and this led to a discussion perhaps anticipating the final session, whether religion which is in place to embed a society’s values and practices can evolve with the culture and its memes to remain relevant.
We discussed week 5, "Religion in Texts, Stones and Bones: Data from Dead Minds", of the University of British Columbia’s course on "The Science of Religion”. The topic described methods of analysing texts using computer databases to search for words and associated words, and to compare across texts. Computer models based on responses to texts can predict the evolution of cultures and texts in a way analogous to gene mapping. We recognised the power of these approaches, but noted that interpretation still needs experience and expertise, and, comparing this modelling with finite element analysis, for example, we queried whether the underlying theories were science or might be pseudo-science. We noted the examples linking religious rites with practical issues (the water temples), and this led to a discussion perhaps anticipating the final session, whether religion which is in place to embed a society’s values and practices can evolve with the culture and its memes to remain relevant.
25th August 2017 Knowledge as True, Justified Belief
We discussed Crash Course Philosophy #7 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhJ3hHK9hQ&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&index=7 and states Gettier’s problem: his paper itself is at http://fitelson.org/proseminar/gettier.pdf. .John had also forwarded a paper from the New York Times suggesting that “the vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight. While we noted that Gettier’s argument that you can have true, justified belief and yet not knowledge complies with the logic and methods of analytical philosophy, the paradox led us to consider the meaning of justification, truth & belief. Belief must be sincerely held ( is Pascal’s Wager a true belief?), and we noted from the New Yorker article that a strong belief can survive evidence that it is not true. Truth may be absolute, relative or pragmatic, analytical (resting on axioms) or synthetic, encompassing scientific, and the type of truth affects the acceptability of the justification. If we reject Hume’s “is-ought” gap and accept that there are moral truths, the justification of our religious or moral beliefs will be different from the justification of scientific beliefs.
We discussed Crash Course Philosophy #7 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhJ3hHK9hQ&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&index=7 and states Gettier’s problem: his paper itself is at http://fitelson.org/proseminar/gettier.pdf. .John had also forwarded a paper from the New York Times suggesting that “the vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight. While we noted that Gettier’s argument that you can have true, justified belief and yet not knowledge complies with the logic and methods of analytical philosophy, the paradox led us to consider the meaning of justification, truth & belief. Belief must be sincerely held ( is Pascal’s Wager a true belief?), and we noted from the New Yorker article that a strong belief can survive evidence that it is not true. Truth may be absolute, relative or pragmatic, analytical (resting on axioms) or synthetic, encompassing scientific, and the type of truth affects the acceptability of the justification. If we reject Hume’s “is-ought” gap and accept that there are moral truths, the justification of our religious or moral beliefs will be different from the justification of scientific beliefs.
8th August 2017 Science of Religion
We discussed week 4, Ritual & Costly Displays, of the University of British Columbia’s edx course on "The Science of Religion”, Ritual is compulsive, repetitive, causally opaque action - that is the action is not causally linked to the desired outcome: though we debated a link if the desired outcome is the reduction of anxiety or the feeling of greater control. Ritual does bring about those effects and a sense of belonging to the group. It is insufficient to say we identify with a group: ritual demonstrates that commitment to ourselves and to other group members. Dysphoria - ritual that is very costly and painful - is a stronger signal. Rituals may be repetitive and doctrinal - encouraging conformity - or singular, and imagistic, such as baptism or marriage. Rituals involve an agent, an action, a patient and a non-natural consequence. In imagistic ritual, the agent may be the supernatural agent. We recognised the power of ritual in religious and current life (sports and football in particular) and the sinilarity to OCD. We noted that the power of ritual could be used for good ends or to manipulate people.
We discussed week 4, Ritual & Costly Displays, of the University of British Columbia’s edx course on "The Science of Religion”, Ritual is compulsive, repetitive, causally opaque action - that is the action is not causally linked to the desired outcome: though we debated a link if the desired outcome is the reduction of anxiety or the feeling of greater control. Ritual does bring about those effects and a sense of belonging to the group. It is insufficient to say we identify with a group: ritual demonstrates that commitment to ourselves and to other group members. Dysphoria - ritual that is very costly and painful - is a stronger signal. Rituals may be repetitive and doctrinal - encouraging conformity - or singular, and imagistic, such as baptism or marriage. Rituals involve an agent, an action, a patient and a non-natural consequence. In imagistic ritual, the agent may be the supernatural agent. We recognised the power of ritual in religious and current life (sports and football in particular) and the sinilarity to OCD. We noted that the power of ritual could be used for good ends or to manipulate people.
14th July 2017 Care Ethics
We watched the Crash Courses 43 - Family Obligations and 44 - Poverty and our response to it. Both link reasonably to personhood, poverty (and lifeboats!) are saddeningly topical. The videos are at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7cOwQQDI7o&index=43&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5sknLy7Smo&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&index=44
The obligations that we have to parents (real or adopted) can be seen as unconditional, conditional or friendship. We felt that it was a mixture of all three. This obligation arises from our love for our parents and the shared experiences. We have similar duties to our friends, however duty towards parents is more demanding. We note that the home environment is not necessarily idyllic and so sometimes there are fewer (or no) obligations towards parents. We noted that the state (and sometimes neighbours) provides care, but we recalled that we do have a special connection with parents. Even though we change throughout our lives our home environment grounds us. The approach to the care for our parents is not entirely a logical one but is infused (for the above reasons) with our feelings and emotions.
It was noted that saving the drowning child from the pond was probably a reflex action; any further considerations would come later. The basis on which we decide to give to the poor or stranded from other nations depends on a range of things. Some reasons that we give are: proximity of the observed distress, if we have a connection with the persons, if we are emotionally engaged, if we think it should be done or we feel that we can make a difference. Duty is to the group for up to 150 persons, beyond this the morals given to us by religions guide our duties and our moral compass. We discussed whether we as individuals should take the responsibility rather than allowing the state to act for us. We wondered if the state, when giving aid, acted truly altruistically or in its own interest. Perhaps the state should support institutions of other nations that support the wellbeing of the population. However it was noted that the nation is an arbitrary delineation, why not smaller groups down to the family?
We watched the Crash Courses 43 - Family Obligations and 44 - Poverty and our response to it. Both link reasonably to personhood, poverty (and lifeboats!) are saddeningly topical. The videos are at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7cOwQQDI7o&index=43&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5sknLy7Smo&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&index=44
The obligations that we have to parents (real or adopted) can be seen as unconditional, conditional or friendship. We felt that it was a mixture of all three. This obligation arises from our love for our parents and the shared experiences. We have similar duties to our friends, however duty towards parents is more demanding. We note that the home environment is not necessarily idyllic and so sometimes there are fewer (or no) obligations towards parents. We noted that the state (and sometimes neighbours) provides care, but we recalled that we do have a special connection with parents. Even though we change throughout our lives our home environment grounds us. The approach to the care for our parents is not entirely a logical one but is infused (for the above reasons) with our feelings and emotions.
It was noted that saving the drowning child from the pond was probably a reflex action; any further considerations would come later. The basis on which we decide to give to the poor or stranded from other nations depends on a range of things. Some reasons that we give are: proximity of the observed distress, if we have a connection with the persons, if we are emotionally engaged, if we think it should be done or we feel that we can make a difference. Duty is to the group for up to 150 persons, beyond this the morals given to us by religions guide our duties and our moral compass. We discussed whether we as individuals should take the responsibility rather than allowing the state to act for us. We wondered if the state, when giving aid, acted truly altruistically or in its own interest. Perhaps the state should support institutions of other nations that support the wellbeing of the population. However it was noted that the nation is an arbitrary delineation, why not smaller groups down to the family?
11th July 2017 Science of Religion
We continued with week 3 of the University of British Columbia’s course on "The Science of Religion”, at https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:UBCx+ReligionX+1T2017/courseware/48c681e068c24329b1bb64fc4d1e5aec/777a1905cb504d3eb66ce28f4a903ac8/?activate_block_id=block-v1%3AUBCx%2BReligionX%2B1T2017%2Btype%40sequential%2Bblock%40777a1905cb504d3eb66ce28f4a903ac8 The topic was Religion in Individuals and Groups.
The topic for week 3 was “Religion in Individuals & Groups”, and the focus was on groups and how religion helped successful groups to evolve. We noted that humans stood upright and discovered fire, consumed protein more easily, reinforcing the growth of the brain and the development of consciousness and language. Groups formed and procreated through genetics plus culture, but were limited to approximately 150 individuals, because beyond that anonymity enabled freeloading. Religion strengthened respect for a hierarchy and fulfilling group needs at the expense of individual needs. One example was monogamy, reducing the intra-group rivalry between males. However women were subjugated to bear children: we wondered whether society still subjugates women, if for different (economic) goals?
We discussed Moral Foundations Theory - individual foundations based on harm and fairness are universal, but it is claimed that the religious and “conservative” are more likely to espouse the binding foundations of Authority & Obedience, Group Loyalty and Purity. We compared deontologocal and utilitarian meta-ethics.
Religion also helps enforce society’s rules: tests show people primed with religious suggestion behave better. We noted the suggestion that religion is not necessary to enforce rules - a strong accepted legal system can do that, but such societies got there from a religious point earlier. We surmised that if religion is such a strong force for society, how will we fare now that religion is in decline and there is more emphasis on the individual not the state? Or do we worship false gods? We also still suspect reductionism in the course, and noted storytelling as a long established medium for passing on important truths.
We continued with week 3 of the University of British Columbia’s course on "The Science of Religion”, at https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:UBCx+ReligionX+1T2017/courseware/48c681e068c24329b1bb64fc4d1e5aec/777a1905cb504d3eb66ce28f4a903ac8/?activate_block_id=block-v1%3AUBCx%2BReligionX%2B1T2017%2Btype%40sequential%2Bblock%40777a1905cb504d3eb66ce28f4a903ac8 The topic was Religion in Individuals and Groups.
The topic for week 3 was “Religion in Individuals & Groups”, and the focus was on groups and how religion helped successful groups to evolve. We noted that humans stood upright and discovered fire, consumed protein more easily, reinforcing the growth of the brain and the development of consciousness and language. Groups formed and procreated through genetics plus culture, but were limited to approximately 150 individuals, because beyond that anonymity enabled freeloading. Religion strengthened respect for a hierarchy and fulfilling group needs at the expense of individual needs. One example was monogamy, reducing the intra-group rivalry between males. However women were subjugated to bear children: we wondered whether society still subjugates women, if for different (economic) goals?
We discussed Moral Foundations Theory - individual foundations based on harm and fairness are universal, but it is claimed that the religious and “conservative” are more likely to espouse the binding foundations of Authority & Obedience, Group Loyalty and Purity. We compared deontologocal and utilitarian meta-ethics.
Religion also helps enforce society’s rules: tests show people primed with religious suggestion behave better. We noted the suggestion that religion is not necessary to enforce rules - a strong accepted legal system can do that, but such societies got there from a religious point earlier. We surmised that if religion is such a strong force for society, how will we fare now that religion is in decline and there is more emphasis on the individual not the state? Or do we worship false gods? We also still suspect reductionism in the course, and noted storytelling as a long established medium for passing on important truths.
20th June 2017 Science of Religion
We discussed week 2 of the University of British Columbia’s course on 'The Science of Religion', The course asked and answered the question “What features of the mind draw us to religion?” First, Mind - Body Dualism is a way of thinking difficult to avoid. We are able to understand what others are thinking and the mind seems such a different kind of thing from the body, so the “ghost in the machine” something quite separate, with an existence of its own. Then evolution has given us hyperactive agency detection: we look for causes from when we reacted to a twig snapping in the jungle. We also ascribe purpose when there may be one, and both of these features lead us to religion and the argument from design for a god. The course considered those who are not “religious”, noting many would still claim to be “spiritual”, that is believing in something though not in a conventional faith group. We considered whether Tarzan would be religious. The course noted that Terror Management, that is the response to extreme danger tends to increase religious conviction, and that a habit of rational thought reduces the religious tendency. Some of us had considered the extra material suggestion religion stemmed from our attempts to understand and live within hierarchical groups. This section also discussed the concept of Newtonian versus Darwinian truth - an argument quite close to pragmatism.
We discussed week 2 of the University of British Columbia’s course on 'The Science of Religion', The course asked and answered the question “What features of the mind draw us to religion?” First, Mind - Body Dualism is a way of thinking difficult to avoid. We are able to understand what others are thinking and the mind seems such a different kind of thing from the body, so the “ghost in the machine” something quite separate, with an existence of its own. Then evolution has given us hyperactive agency detection: we look for causes from when we reacted to a twig snapping in the jungle. We also ascribe purpose when there may be one, and both of these features lead us to religion and the argument from design for a god. The course considered those who are not “religious”, noting many would still claim to be “spiritual”, that is believing in something though not in a conventional faith group. We considered whether Tarzan would be religious. The course noted that Terror Management, that is the response to extreme danger tends to increase religious conviction, and that a habit of rational thought reduces the religious tendency. Some of us had considered the extra material suggestion religion stemmed from our attempts to understand and live within hierarchical groups. This section also discussed the concept of Newtonian versus Darwinian truth - an argument quite close to pragmatism.
26th May 2017 Identity & Personhood
We discussed Identity and Personhood, based on the Crash Course in Philosophy videos on You Tube numbers 18-21. The first one is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TFCMK4i2lo&index=18&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR. We discussed the conflict between the approach from Leibnitz’ theory - Indiscernibility of Identicals - and Heraclitus’ assertion that you cannot step into the same river twice. Like the ship of Theseus, things do change while remaining the same thing - it is a matter of essential versus accidental properties, and these depend on the context - David Wiggins “Sortals” make some sense. Personal Identity could be no more than your name, if Hume is right, but we considered continuity in the same body and psychological connectedness as criteria. We were in agreement that a teleported reconstruction of a person, no matter how perfect, is just a clone - and Aristotle’s Efficient Cause could be cited as an essential difference. We note friends go over the changes since their last meeting to recognise changes in a person, and the idea that marriage vows are renewed every day sits well with staying married to a spouse who has changed. The props of identity read over to personhood, and we discussed the problems that psychological connectedness raises on abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment. The idea of a continuous variable of degrees of personhood helped with some of these dilemmas, an idea similar to “phi” measuring interconnectedness in the brain to correlate with consciousness.
We discussed Identity and Personhood, based on the Crash Course in Philosophy videos on You Tube numbers 18-21. The first one is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TFCMK4i2lo&index=18&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR. We discussed the conflict between the approach from Leibnitz’ theory - Indiscernibility of Identicals - and Heraclitus’ assertion that you cannot step into the same river twice. Like the ship of Theseus, things do change while remaining the same thing - it is a matter of essential versus accidental properties, and these depend on the context - David Wiggins “Sortals” make some sense. Personal Identity could be no more than your name, if Hume is right, but we considered continuity in the same body and psychological connectedness as criteria. We were in agreement that a teleported reconstruction of a person, no matter how perfect, is just a clone - and Aristotle’s Efficient Cause could be cited as an essential difference. We note friends go over the changes since their last meeting to recognise changes in a person, and the idea that marriage vows are renewed every day sits well with staying married to a spouse who has changed. The props of identity read over to personhood, and we discussed the problems that psychological connectedness raises on abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment. The idea of a continuous variable of degrees of personhood helped with some of these dilemmas, an idea similar to “phi” measuring interconnectedness in the brain to correlate with consciousness.
9th May 2017 Science of Religion
We discussed Week 1 of the University of British Columbia’s course on "The Science of Religion” at https://www.edx.org/course/science-religion-ubcx-religionx This first week described the approach and anticipated and addressed possible objections. The cognitive science of religion approach rests on five key principles, ideas, or commitments. The first is the idea that there is no such singular, naturally occurring category to which we can point and say, "This is religion.” The second principle is that religion can, and should, be explained scientifically. The third principle is that in order to explain religion scientifically, we must fractionate it into its psychologically meaningful units then build them back up again to explain religious ideas and systems in their entirety. The fourth commitment is that religious ideas and practices are actively filtered and processed by the human mind - like language and music. And the final point-- if religion, like music and language, can be explained by understanding the human brain and its interaction with the cultural environment, we don't need any specialised domain to understand and explain religion. The objections are principally those of reductionism, and we discussed these in detail, encountering several philosophical ideas, including bracketing (setting aside whether beliefs are “true”), Ryle’s “thick” and “thin” descriptions (“thick”descriptions requiring explanation of the human meaning, not just the mechanism), and denial Locke’s “Blank Slate” model of the mind in favour of consilience plus culture. We expect an explanation of religion beyond an psychological explaining away of the plain text of the story: the explanation must address other hermeneutic aspects of religion as it can be re-interpreted and applied to the needs of the moment.
We discussed Week 1 of the University of British Columbia’s course on "The Science of Religion” at https://www.edx.org/course/science-religion-ubcx-religionx This first week described the approach and anticipated and addressed possible objections. The cognitive science of religion approach rests on five key principles, ideas, or commitments. The first is the idea that there is no such singular, naturally occurring category to which we can point and say, "This is religion.” The second principle is that religion can, and should, be explained scientifically. The third principle is that in order to explain religion scientifically, we must fractionate it into its psychologically meaningful units then build them back up again to explain religious ideas and systems in their entirety. The fourth commitment is that religious ideas and practices are actively filtered and processed by the human mind - like language and music. And the final point-- if religion, like music and language, can be explained by understanding the human brain and its interaction with the cultural environment, we don't need any specialised domain to understand and explain religion. The objections are principally those of reductionism, and we discussed these in detail, encountering several philosophical ideas, including bracketing (setting aside whether beliefs are “true”), Ryle’s “thick” and “thin” descriptions (“thick”descriptions requiring explanation of the human meaning, not just the mechanism), and denial Locke’s “Blank Slate” model of the mind in favour of consilience plus culture. We expect an explanation of religion beyond an psychological explaining away of the plain text of the story: the explanation must address other hermeneutic aspects of religion as it can be re-interpreted and applied to the needs of the moment.
21st April 2017 The 2016 Reith Lectures: Colour and Culture
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00729d9/episodes/player
We now know that the genetic difference between races is insignificant compared with the genetic differences within races and it's unfortunate that this difference shows itself in the biggest organ of the body - the skin. It is easy to say race shouldn’t matter, but it does provide a ready discriminator between “us” and “them”, and an easy target for those economically threatened or needing to feel successful in a competitive world. We discussed the need to feel part of a group, adopting badges and symbols to say who we are, and noted that 150 is a norm for a social unit, and recognised Eric Byrne’s “I’m ok, you’re ok” theme.
We may regard (anthropological) culture as the attitudes, norms and skills endowed on an individual by the family and community into which they are born. This is fitting for that community, but the world gets ever smaller, and conflicts arise when the individual encounters a different society.The individual has to make choices about what of her culture she can jettison to fit in with the new group - and also the receiving society has to decide which cultural differences demand respect and which are unacceptable: we discussed burqas as an example. Appiah extends this argument to “the west” as a whole: we cannot just rest on the laurels oh having “the best” culture, but we need to recognise which of our norms and values are relevant to the world and which need to be dropped in favour of better approaches. Have we clarified Appiah’s “project” or the question he is addressing: What does he mean by “Identity” or “Mistaken Identity”? Perhaps a better title for his lectures would be “Heritage”: what we are born and raised with that shapes us, and perhaps we should regard that as a start point for identity, not an end point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00729d9/episodes/player
We now know that the genetic difference between races is insignificant compared with the genetic differences within races and it's unfortunate that this difference shows itself in the biggest organ of the body - the skin. It is easy to say race shouldn’t matter, but it does provide a ready discriminator between “us” and “them”, and an easy target for those economically threatened or needing to feel successful in a competitive world. We discussed the need to feel part of a group, adopting badges and symbols to say who we are, and noted that 150 is a norm for a social unit, and recognised Eric Byrne’s “I’m ok, you’re ok” theme.
We may regard (anthropological) culture as the attitudes, norms and skills endowed on an individual by the family and community into which they are born. This is fitting for that community, but the world gets ever smaller, and conflicts arise when the individual encounters a different society.The individual has to make choices about what of her culture she can jettison to fit in with the new group - and also the receiving society has to decide which cultural differences demand respect and which are unacceptable: we discussed burqas as an example. Appiah extends this argument to “the west” as a whole: we cannot just rest on the laurels oh having “the best” culture, but we need to recognise which of our norms and values are relevant to the world and which need to be dropped in favour of better approaches. Have we clarified Appiah’s “project” or the question he is addressing: What does he mean by “Identity” or “Mistaken Identity”? Perhaps a better title for his lectures would be “Heritage”: what we are born and raised with that shapes us, and perhaps we should regard that as a start point for identity, not an end point.
11th April 2017 Risk
We looked at the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry on risk at
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/risk/. This references Daniel Kahneman’s "Thinking Fast & Slow”, more about the psychology of risk and available at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByXsRacEHnd5aTkyb2Z5eDMwT00/view: the relevant chapters on Risk are 13, 25, 26 & 30. There is an interview with Daniel Kahneman in which he explains slow and fast thinking as well as some of the bases of our biases at http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/01/daniel-kahneman-on-bias/ and a graphic of 20 of these biases at http://lifehacker.com/this-graphic-explains-20-cognitive-biases-that-affect-y-1730901381 Discussion of Kahneman’s theories of thinking fast and slow led us into discussions of modes of thinking and the effects of personality, though we recognised that such ideas as availability showed our reluctance to do the maths in risk situations. We did therefore discuss type one and type two errors in hypothesis testing. We discussed the ethical implications of risk in relation to development projects. While Failure Modes and Effects Analysis may be and usually is applied to assess risks, the Feynman investigation of the Challenger disaster showed how subjective risk may be minimised in the interest of delivering the project. A strict code of professional ethics is a need.
We looked at the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry on risk at
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/risk/. This references Daniel Kahneman’s "Thinking Fast & Slow”, more about the psychology of risk and available at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByXsRacEHnd5aTkyb2Z5eDMwT00/view: the relevant chapters on Risk are 13, 25, 26 & 30. There is an interview with Daniel Kahneman in which he explains slow and fast thinking as well as some of the bases of our biases at http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/01/daniel-kahneman-on-bias/ and a graphic of 20 of these biases at http://lifehacker.com/this-graphic-explains-20-cognitive-biases-that-affect-y-1730901381 Discussion of Kahneman’s theories of thinking fast and slow led us into discussions of modes of thinking and the effects of personality, though we recognised that such ideas as availability showed our reluctance to do the maths in risk situations. We did therefore discuss type one and type two errors in hypothesis testing. We discussed the ethical implications of risk in relation to development projects. While Failure Modes and Effects Analysis may be and usually is applied to assess risks, the Feynman investigation of the Challenger disaster showed how subjective risk may be minimised in the interest of delivering the project. A strict code of professional ethics is a need.
24th March 2017 The 2016 Reith Lectures: Country
We discussed the second of last year’s Reith Lectures by Kwame Anthony Appiah: Mistaken Identities - “Country” at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zz5mf. We started by considering the scale of allegiance to place: from a region (Mercia?) through England, the Uk and Europe. We thought of India and the partition of 1947 and of the Balkans. The basis of national identity was traditionally "Blut und Boden”, or “Blood & Soil”, but with growing international migration we thought language was a very important factor. This led to a discussion of multiculturalism. Apparently alien attitudes of other cultures should be examined with the principle of charity: Imams who stress the need for women to wear the burqa are perhaps trying to protect their virtue in a strange land where the dress code appears immodest. That does not mean the acceptance of customs that offend what we see as essential human rights. As ever education is a crucial need. One seemingly vital point made by Appiah about allegiance to country is that it should be - and is in many ways seen looking forward: in what country, i.e. territory, sovereignty, people and government - do we see ourselves co-operating, being justly treated and prospering best? Once alienation occurs, rebellion may well follow.
We discussed the second of last year’s Reith Lectures by Kwame Anthony Appiah: Mistaken Identities - “Country” at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zz5mf. We started by considering the scale of allegiance to place: from a region (Mercia?) through England, the Uk and Europe. We thought of India and the partition of 1947 and of the Balkans. The basis of national identity was traditionally "Blut und Boden”, or “Blood & Soil”, but with growing international migration we thought language was a very important factor. This led to a discussion of multiculturalism. Apparently alien attitudes of other cultures should be examined with the principle of charity: Imams who stress the need for women to wear the burqa are perhaps trying to protect their virtue in a strange land where the dress code appears immodest. That does not mean the acceptance of customs that offend what we see as essential human rights. As ever education is a crucial need. One seemingly vital point made by Appiah about allegiance to country is that it should be - and is in many ways seen looking forward: in what country, i.e. territory, sovereignty, people and government - do we see ourselves co-operating, being justly treated and prospering best? Once alienation occurs, rebellion may well follow.
13th March 2017 Missing Evidence / Ultimate Proof
We looked further at evidence, majoring on the IAI video "Missing Evidence" with Massimo Pigliucci, Tara Shears, Rupert Sheldrake. Philip Ball, We also looked at Sheldrake’s theory of Morphic Resonance. We touched on "Ultimate Proof," with Nancy Cartwright, George Ellis, Daniel Everett. Hilary Lawson, It was noted that Pigliucci refused to entertain Sheldrake’s complaint that the evidence he presented for his theory was not being considered by the scientific community. Was this an example of Kuhn’s narrative, that scientists do not strive to disprove theories, but work to prop up conventional wisdom? Or is Sheldrake’s idea to be readily dismissed? Why is his notion of a universe with developed habits rather than laws of nature, of “fields” remembering shapes in a way reminiscent of Plato’s forms to be taken any less seriously than string theory or parallel universes? We recognised the need for theories to run ahead of evidence in the search for explanation of the currently inexplicable. Sheldrake is addressing the question of how genes, reproduced in every cell, can explain how we grow the appropriate cells in appropriate places. But theories also need to make predictions which align with consequential phenomena, and these predictions must be sufficiently important and useful to justify the speculation. Where testable, they must be subjected to properly designed experiments and interpreted in accordance with those principles. This lead us on to the interaction of science with society. Perhaps science, which arose in the enlightenment, is now too much subject to the paradigms of romanticism and post-modernism. Perhaps this underlies the mistrust of science and scientists - and we forget scientists are also members of our society and not the caricature of emotionless beings. We were made conscious that every society has its way of defining, using and processing science, dependent on its structure and zeitgeist.
We looked further at evidence, majoring on the IAI video "Missing Evidence" with Massimo Pigliucci, Tara Shears, Rupert Sheldrake. Philip Ball, We also looked at Sheldrake’s theory of Morphic Resonance. We touched on "Ultimate Proof," with Nancy Cartwright, George Ellis, Daniel Everett. Hilary Lawson, It was noted that Pigliucci refused to entertain Sheldrake’s complaint that the evidence he presented for his theory was not being considered by the scientific community. Was this an example of Kuhn’s narrative, that scientists do not strive to disprove theories, but work to prop up conventional wisdom? Or is Sheldrake’s idea to be readily dismissed? Why is his notion of a universe with developed habits rather than laws of nature, of “fields” remembering shapes in a way reminiscent of Plato’s forms to be taken any less seriously than string theory or parallel universes? We recognised the need for theories to run ahead of evidence in the search for explanation of the currently inexplicable. Sheldrake is addressing the question of how genes, reproduced in every cell, can explain how we grow the appropriate cells in appropriate places. But theories also need to make predictions which align with consequential phenomena, and these predictions must be sufficiently important and useful to justify the speculation. Where testable, they must be subjected to properly designed experiments and interpreted in accordance with those principles. This lead us on to the interaction of science with society. Perhaps science, which arose in the enlightenment, is now too much subject to the paradigms of romanticism and post-modernism. Perhaps this underlies the mistrust of science and scientists - and we forget scientists are also members of our society and not the caricature of emotionless beings. We were made conscious that every society has its way of defining, using and processing science, dependent on its structure and zeitgeist.
24th February 2017 The 2016 Reith Lectures: Creed
We discussed the first of last year’s Reith Lectures by Kwame Anthony Appiah: Mistaken Identities - “Creed” at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b080twcz. We also noted Smart’s 7 aspects/dimensions of religion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG4844xsgHQ & http://southwest.mpls.k12.mn.us/uploads/day_2_seven_dimensions_of_religion.pdf and further references on defining religion and on indigenous religions. Appiah emphsised the imprtance of behaviour resulting from religion rather than beliefs. He stressed that to stay relevant, religious beliefs had to be re-interpreted as civilisations and communities change. We noted that failure to do so would lead to a religion lagging the society it was meant to hold together setting up stresses and perhaps becoming irrelevant. The established religion could then be displaced by de facto religions, and examples satisfying Smart’s seven aspects / dimensions such as “Football” and “Britannia” were advanced. These examples also illustrated a riposte to Scruton’s postulate that “religion is the affirmation of the first person plural”: this entails that “religion is the discrimination of the third person plural" - the infidel - and this gives rise to the divisive effects of religion and maybe explains the desire for a world-wide religion and Appiah’s apparent “pick and mix” attitude. We also noted that Smart didn’t specifically need a God, and we debated the possibility or otherwise of religion without God. We also agreed that such analysis of religion failed to capture its phenomenology - “what it feels like” to believe. Comforting or not, the desire for such a belief was recognised, and philosophy cannot tell us which of utilitarianism or Kantian ethics is right, so in practice perhaps we have to make Kiekegaarde’s leap of faith to decide how we should live..
We discussed the first of last year’s Reith Lectures by Kwame Anthony Appiah: Mistaken Identities - “Creed” at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b080twcz. We also noted Smart’s 7 aspects/dimensions of religion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG4844xsgHQ & http://southwest.mpls.k12.mn.us/uploads/day_2_seven_dimensions_of_religion.pdf and further references on defining religion and on indigenous religions. Appiah emphsised the imprtance of behaviour resulting from religion rather than beliefs. He stressed that to stay relevant, religious beliefs had to be re-interpreted as civilisations and communities change. We noted that failure to do so would lead to a religion lagging the society it was meant to hold together setting up stresses and perhaps becoming irrelevant. The established religion could then be displaced by de facto religions, and examples satisfying Smart’s seven aspects / dimensions such as “Football” and “Britannia” were advanced. These examples also illustrated a riposte to Scruton’s postulate that “religion is the affirmation of the first person plural”: this entails that “religion is the discrimination of the third person plural" - the infidel - and this gives rise to the divisive effects of religion and maybe explains the desire for a world-wide religion and Appiah’s apparent “pick and mix” attitude. We also noted that Smart didn’t specifically need a God, and we debated the possibility or otherwise of religion without God. We also agreed that such analysis of religion failed to capture its phenomenology - “what it feels like” to believe. Comforting or not, the desire for such a belief was recognised, and philosophy cannot tell us which of utilitarianism or Kantian ethics is right, so in practice perhaps we have to make Kiekegaarde’s leap of faith to decide how we should live..
13th February 2017 The Tyranny of Evidence
We discussed the IAI video “The Tyranny of Evidence” by Rupert Read https://iai.tv/video/the-tyranny-of-evidence . The main point of the video, that the absence of evidence of harm is not evidence of the absence of harm was accepted, but the argument of prudence - don’t do anything if it might cause harm - was not. Logically, one can make an equivalent statement of prudence to assert an action should not be banned to one that it should. We noted that many human projects have risks and costs, even the loss of life. Driving a car or even going out of the house involves some risk, but we are not deterred. Many scenarios are complex - economic forecasts, for example can be wildly wrong. It is important to realise that “the past is a tiny fraction of what might have been” or at any rate to look at as wide as possible a range of future outcomes and identify and implement as deemed necessary appropriate preventive or mitigating strategies. The engineering activity of failure modes and effects analysis does this - but it was noted that risks can be biased by politics: the Challenger investigations by Richard Feynman being cited.
This led to a discussion on the reliability of evidence. We should trust experts: but only after looking for alternative motives for their recommendations and checking there is strong effective peer review or regulation where appropriate. Returning to the initial theme, we live in a probabilistic world, and Popper’s thesis that we should seek to disprove a hypothesis points us t properly designed experiments and an awareness of significance levels of results.
We discussed the IAI video “The Tyranny of Evidence” by Rupert Read https://iai.tv/video/the-tyranny-of-evidence . The main point of the video, that the absence of evidence of harm is not evidence of the absence of harm was accepted, but the argument of prudence - don’t do anything if it might cause harm - was not. Logically, one can make an equivalent statement of prudence to assert an action should not be banned to one that it should. We noted that many human projects have risks and costs, even the loss of life. Driving a car or even going out of the house involves some risk, but we are not deterred. Many scenarios are complex - economic forecasts, for example can be wildly wrong. It is important to realise that “the past is a tiny fraction of what might have been” or at any rate to look at as wide as possible a range of future outcomes and identify and implement as deemed necessary appropriate preventive or mitigating strategies. The engineering activity of failure modes and effects analysis does this - but it was noted that risks can be biased by politics: the Challenger investigations by Richard Feynman being cited.
This led to a discussion on the reliability of evidence. We should trust experts: but only after looking for alternative motives for their recommendations and checking there is strong effective peer review or regulation where appropriate. Returning to the initial theme, we live in a probabilistic world, and Popper’s thesis that we should seek to disprove a hypothesis points us t properly designed experiments and an awareness of significance levels of results.
13th January 2017 Aesthetics - Defining Art
We continued with Aesthetics and the Oxford Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art lectures by James Grant https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/aesthetics-and-philosophy-art-lectures, We looked at the last lecture: Defining Art. We agreed the presentation style again left much to be desired, but we addressed the question. We considered whether a definition of art was required to underpin it’s value as a commodity.. This and the (circular) definition that art was what was declared to be art by the artist and the aesthetic community led to a discussion of the qualifications to be an artist, and to what extent being an artist was just an occupation. We tried to differentiate art from natural beauty (the sublime) and from functional objects that are beautiful (architecture is classed as a fine art). It was generally agreed that a definition of art is impossible - and Wittgenstein’s “family resemblance” concept that he applied to games is more helpful. Roger Scruton advances some criteria that may describe art and qutes Kant and Fichte - Kant’s idea of disinterested interest and Fichte’s that art relates the world to the self. The idea of Malow’s hierarchy of needs includes self actualisation and makes art an important aspect of being human. We agreed we were privileged to be able to discuss and appreciate this.
We continued with Aesthetics and the Oxford Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art lectures by James Grant https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/aesthetics-and-philosophy-art-lectures, We looked at the last lecture: Defining Art. We agreed the presentation style again left much to be desired, but we addressed the question. We considered whether a definition of art was required to underpin it’s value as a commodity.. This and the (circular) definition that art was what was declared to be art by the artist and the aesthetic community led to a discussion of the qualifications to be an artist, and to what extent being an artist was just an occupation. We tried to differentiate art from natural beauty (the sublime) and from functional objects that are beautiful (architecture is classed as a fine art). It was generally agreed that a definition of art is impossible - and Wittgenstein’s “family resemblance” concept that he applied to games is more helpful. Roger Scruton advances some criteria that may describe art and qutes Kant and Fichte - Kant’s idea of disinterested interest and Fichte’s that art relates the world to the self. The idea of Malow’s hierarchy of needs includes self actualisation and makes art an important aspect of being human. We agreed we were privileged to be able to discuss and appreciate this.
10th January 2017 Mind - Consciousness
We majored on the Tononi interviews at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGd8p-GSLgY. We acknowledged his approach, starting not with the brain, but with the experience of consciousness - “what is it like to be…” Brain states cannot explain the vegetative state or what it is like to be a newborn, but what would correlate with these states? He turns to complexity and integrated information theory. We discussed the difference between complex and complicated and how non-deterministic systems with many variables can show quite simple patterns. We compared fractals. Consciousness would appear to need not only a very large number of neutrons, but they must also be able to link in many ways. The cerebellum has more neurons than the cerebellum, but tit is the cerebellum that enables consciousness. Tononi said that the perfect zombie is possible, but it would seem difficult to generate a machine that would avoid being conscious if it were really convincing. We sought examples of other systems that could possibly be conscious. We were inspired by his idea that we need to protect the external to nurture our internal experience - which is all the experience we have.
We majored on the Tononi interviews at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGd8p-GSLgY. We acknowledged his approach, starting not with the brain, but with the experience of consciousness - “what is it like to be…” Brain states cannot explain the vegetative state or what it is like to be a newborn, but what would correlate with these states? He turns to complexity and integrated information theory. We discussed the difference between complex and complicated and how non-deterministic systems with many variables can show quite simple patterns. We compared fractals. Consciousness would appear to need not only a very large number of neutrons, but they must also be able to link in many ways. The cerebellum has more neurons than the cerebellum, but tit is the cerebellum that enables consciousness. Tononi said that the perfect zombie is possible, but it would seem difficult to generate a machine that would avoid being conscious if it were really convincing. We sought examples of other systems that could possibly be conscious. We were inspired by his idea that we need to protect the external to nurture our internal experience - which is all the experience we have.
16th December 2016 Aesthetics - Musical Expression
We continued with Aesthetics and the Oxford Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art lectures by James Grant https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/aesthetics-and-philosophy-art-lectures, We agreed that lecture 7 which is about the musical expression was quite tedious and it seemed rather more psychological - how music affects the emotions - than philosophical. Taking a semiotic approach and regarding music as a sort of “sign” leads to supposing that the attribution of emotions corresponding to music could be random. We also suggested that we bring our experiences to the music, and debated whether the linkage between music and emotions is learnt, culturally dependent, or possibly “hard wired”. Music could be related to song or dance. We agreed that music can help mindfulness - helping with focus on a task - and soothes babies. It is used in groups - marches, hymns and anthems bind groups together. It can also be used to lull you into buying things! Music may be composed for a purpose - e.g. film music, but can transcend these limitations into art. We discussed the music making process from composer to listener via the performer, the listener’s role and that of the critic..
We continued with Aesthetics and the Oxford Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art lectures by James Grant https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/aesthetics-and-philosophy-art-lectures, We agreed that lecture 7 which is about the musical expression was quite tedious and it seemed rather more psychological - how music affects the emotions - than philosophical. Taking a semiotic approach and regarding music as a sort of “sign” leads to supposing that the attribution of emotions corresponding to music could be random. We also suggested that we bring our experiences to the music, and debated whether the linkage between music and emotions is learnt, culturally dependent, or possibly “hard wired”. Music could be related to song or dance. We agreed that music can help mindfulness - helping with focus on a task - and soothes babies. It is used in groups - marches, hymns and anthems bind groups together. It can also be used to lull you into buying things! Music may be composed for a purpose - e.g. film music, but can transcend these limitations into art. We discussed the music making process from composer to listener via the performer, the listener’s role and that of the critic..
13th December 2016 Mind - Consciousness
The material we had studied enabled us to discuss how complexity (Complexity theory) explains how the miracle of the mind and consciousness emerges from simple neurons, because they are able to connect together very large numbers in complex ways to form and reform groups. We discussed the measure of complexity and its relationship to consciousness, and were taken to the conclusion that consciousness is a continuum. We discussed whether this leads to a conclusion that the mind can be explained purely as a physical embodiment, and the consequences of this. What is the soul? It was suggested that consciousness could be an emergent property of the mind: once the mind can represent the outside world, it can represent itself thinking. Blackburn in his chapter on "the ghost in the machine” takes us through the argument that zombies are in the end not possible: our minds map our bodies and our bodies give evidence of our feelings and self awareness.
The material we had studied enabled us to discuss how complexity (Complexity theory) explains how the miracle of the mind and consciousness emerges from simple neurons, because they are able to connect together very large numbers in complex ways to form and reform groups. We discussed the measure of complexity and its relationship to consciousness, and were taken to the conclusion that consciousness is a continuum. We discussed whether this leads to a conclusion that the mind can be explained purely as a physical embodiment, and the consequences of this. What is the soul? It was suggested that consciousness could be an emergent property of the mind: once the mind can represent the outside world, it can represent itself thinking. Blackburn in his chapter on "the ghost in the machine” takes us through the argument that zombies are in the end not possible: our minds map our bodies and our bodies give evidence of our feelings and self awareness.
18th November 2016 Aesthetics - The Author's Intention in Literature
We continued with Aesthetics and the Oxford Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art lectures by James Grant https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/aesthetics-and-philosophy-art-lectures, with a discussion of his lecture on Literary Interpretation. We all found the lecture somewhat dull and nit-picking, but it did lead us to some deeper questions: Should you look for the author’s intention to find the meaning of a work? Does the author’s intention matter, and is that the meaning we should seek, or should we favour the postmodernist stance that the reader takes responsibility for seeking the meaning in their own context? Is it a “Category Mistake” to claim that a literary work has meaning at all - does it rather have a “theme” - or what? On the author’s intention, We looked at whether this was conscious or unconscious, and what if the author changed their mind? We considered changes of meaning or cultural context over time, particularly recognising the relatively recent emphasis on sole authorship and demand for personal experience in a work. On the categorical error, we compared literature with other more mundane written communications, like technical reports. We could see why the latter were written, but why do authors write? We perhaps could’ve asked why readers read, and we did explore art versus entertainment.
We continued with Aesthetics and the Oxford Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art lectures by James Grant https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/aesthetics-and-philosophy-art-lectures, with a discussion of his lecture on Literary Interpretation. We all found the lecture somewhat dull and nit-picking, but it did lead us to some deeper questions: Should you look for the author’s intention to find the meaning of a work? Does the author’s intention matter, and is that the meaning we should seek, or should we favour the postmodernist stance that the reader takes responsibility for seeking the meaning in their own context? Is it a “Category Mistake” to claim that a literary work has meaning at all - does it rather have a “theme” - or what? On the author’s intention, We looked at whether this was conscious or unconscious, and what if the author changed their mind? We considered changes of meaning or cultural context over time, particularly recognising the relatively recent emphasis on sole authorship and demand for personal experience in a work. On the categorical error, we compared literature with other more mundane written communications, like technical reports. We could see why the latter were written, but why do authors write? We perhaps could’ve asked why readers read, and we did explore art versus entertainment.
15th November 2016 Mind - Searle, Turing and Learning machines
We had looked at file:///D:/Philosophy/phil%20of%20mind/Philosophy%20156%20Searle's%20Chinese%20Room.htm on Searle’s Chinese Room, file:///D:/Philosophy/phil%20of%20mind/Philosophy%20156%20Turing%20Machines.htm on the Turing Test and the Jeremy Howard contribution Deep Learning on the TED https://www.ted.com/playlists/310/talks_on_artificial_intelligen and Personhood and AI on the Crash Course. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39EdqUbj92U&index=23&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR.
While the Turing Test proposes that if you cannot tell how a computer responds from how a person would, then the computer is thinking, this is response based on behaviour. The Chinese Room taken as a system may or may not be said to effectively understand the semantics of Chinese, but it is still responding in a pre-programmed way. Deep Learning computers with their ability to look at a set of items and make out their own classification, and perhaps this is the threshold of thinking? AI systems can also listen and speak, and before long will pose a threat to the jobs of the middle classes, and in a way more threatening than industrialization in that they can continue to grow their powers - even to reproduce themselves in the sense of designing even better systems. This is closing in on personhood, and we discussed the need for consciousness and debated what that was, beyond self monitoring and fault diagnosis. We felt consciousness is emergent and has evolved to different degrees in natural species, and may emerge similarly in androids. We may soon have to address such questions as whether it is a crime to destroy an android, and how to define human purpose without the prospect of employment.
We had looked at file:///D:/Philosophy/phil%20of%20mind/Philosophy%20156%20Searle's%20Chinese%20Room.htm on Searle’s Chinese Room, file:///D:/Philosophy/phil%20of%20mind/Philosophy%20156%20Turing%20Machines.htm on the Turing Test and the Jeremy Howard contribution Deep Learning on the TED https://www.ted.com/playlists/310/talks_on_artificial_intelligen and Personhood and AI on the Crash Course. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39EdqUbj92U&index=23&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR.
While the Turing Test proposes that if you cannot tell how a computer responds from how a person would, then the computer is thinking, this is response based on behaviour. The Chinese Room taken as a system may or may not be said to effectively understand the semantics of Chinese, but it is still responding in a pre-programmed way. Deep Learning computers with their ability to look at a set of items and make out their own classification, and perhaps this is the threshold of thinking? AI systems can also listen and speak, and before long will pose a threat to the jobs of the middle classes, and in a way more threatening than industrialization in that they can continue to grow their powers - even to reproduce themselves in the sense of designing even better systems. This is closing in on personhood, and we discussed the need for consciousness and debated what that was, beyond self monitoring and fault diagnosis. We felt consciousness is emergent and has evolved to different degrees in natural species, and may emerge similarly in androids. We may soon have to address such questions as whether it is a crime to destroy an android, and how to define human purpose without the prospect of employment.
14th October 2016 Aesthetics - Kant
The judgement of the beautiful as a mode of perception (an aesthetic judgement) is purely subjective and universal. The beauty is not a property of the object not rather it is to do with the observer. There is a difference between something that is beautiful and something that is either good or pleasant. A knife is good (because it is sharp and works well) and food is pleasant because we desire it. With beauty, there is no ‘end’ or ‘property’ of the object; rather beauty is free of concepts and an end in itself. However this does not mean it is relative (that is, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder; when we judge, we each do it personally, but there is a universality to which each appeals). What guides our judgement is the sensation of pleasure or pain.
We have four moments of the aesthetic judgement. It must be disinterested, so for a painting, we don’t have any desire for the painting, who painted, it what genre it is, have a bias towards it, so, because anyone else could be making this disinterested judgement, it is universal. It must be purposive without purposiveness, that is, it (the object) has no concern in existence or a purpose (no ‘end’). The final moment of necessity is linked to the disinterest; because anyone can make the judgement it becomes necessary (we ‘ought’ to find something beautiful).
We found much difficulty with these concepts. We noted that Kant was elucidating this in a particular era and that many views have changed with time, and we are also informed by the history. We wonder if it really is possible to have a completely disinterested approach as this would seemingly require a blank slate when looking at an object. We also wondered whether the judgement would be ‘necessary’; is it the case that someone from a completely different cultural (or temporal) stance ‘ought’ to find an object necessarily beautiful. It is also clear that objects of aesthetic judgement do often have a purpose but why should they then be exempt from being beautiful. Finally we wondered if art really has to be beautiful if it is associated with some purpose. Whereas in the beautiful we feel pleasure in the object, in the Sublime there is a response of awe before something infinite, beyond comparison or the overwhelming. The feelings of awe or fear result in some sort of tension, but this tension is released through the faculty of reason and we have the feelings of awe or are overwhelmed. We have a feeling of sublimation of the ego. We become aware that there is something in us that transcends the overwhelming power or infinity outside us.
The judgement of the beautiful as a mode of perception (an aesthetic judgement) is purely subjective and universal. The beauty is not a property of the object not rather it is to do with the observer. There is a difference between something that is beautiful and something that is either good or pleasant. A knife is good (because it is sharp and works well) and food is pleasant because we desire it. With beauty, there is no ‘end’ or ‘property’ of the object; rather beauty is free of concepts and an end in itself. However this does not mean it is relative (that is, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder; when we judge, we each do it personally, but there is a universality to which each appeals). What guides our judgement is the sensation of pleasure or pain.
We have four moments of the aesthetic judgement. It must be disinterested, so for a painting, we don’t have any desire for the painting, who painted, it what genre it is, have a bias towards it, so, because anyone else could be making this disinterested judgement, it is universal. It must be purposive without purposiveness, that is, it (the object) has no concern in existence or a purpose (no ‘end’). The final moment of necessity is linked to the disinterest; because anyone can make the judgement it becomes necessary (we ‘ought’ to find something beautiful).
We found much difficulty with these concepts. We noted that Kant was elucidating this in a particular era and that many views have changed with time, and we are also informed by the history. We wonder if it really is possible to have a completely disinterested approach as this would seemingly require a blank slate when looking at an object. We also wondered whether the judgement would be ‘necessary’; is it the case that someone from a completely different cultural (or temporal) stance ‘ought’ to find an object necessarily beautiful. It is also clear that objects of aesthetic judgement do often have a purpose but why should they then be exempt from being beautiful. Finally we wondered if art really has to be beautiful if it is associated with some purpose. Whereas in the beautiful we feel pleasure in the object, in the Sublime there is a response of awe before something infinite, beyond comparison or the overwhelming. The feelings of awe or fear result in some sort of tension, but this tension is released through the faculty of reason and we have the feelings of awe or are overwhelmed. We have a feeling of sublimation of the ego. We become aware that there is something in us that transcends the overwhelming power or infinity outside us.
11th October 2016 Mind - Nagel
The discussion started with a discussion of how we can know what is right and how much we accept that we know things to be right through science. As example of alternative worldviews Chinese medicine, Homeopathy, Ayurvedic medical systems were suggested. We realise that science operates within a particular paradigm as do these others and it becomes difficult to say clearly that one is right and another is not. We then moved to notions of objectivity and subjectivity. We accepted the realist scientific approach and that there is an external world. We know that there is a table in the real world if our perceptions either correspond (or cohere) with the table; or pragmatically by using the table. However our conscious apprehension of the table has a particular phenomenal character and is subjective. Nagel makes this point by saying that we can describe what it is like to be a bat, but we simply cannot know what it feels like, because we cannot access the bat’s consciousness. The objective nature, he says, is out there but the conscious experience of someone else is unknown. He uses the example of a Martian who sees lightning and can describe it to another Martian (but not perhaps to a human or bat!) but we cannot know what s/he feels. Generally, we felt that consciousness was related to the brain, and it has a physical nature. We thought it is at present impossible to say exactly what it is. And this points towards reductive physicalism, not being wrong, but rather incomprehensible with respect to explaining the nature of the mind. We described the conscious experience and four conscious states: sleep, dream, lucid dream, and full waking. Other properties of consciousness we identified were: a feeling of ‘what it is like’, intentionality, the phenomenal nature (redness) narrative nature (stream of consciousness), instrumental nature of things remembered. We thought that many animals were conscious and possibly, that there were degrees of consciousness. We know personally what it is like to be conscious, but we only seem to be able to say what it is through some analogy and when making this analogical statement we lose the phenomenological aspects of the actual experience.
The discussion started with a discussion of how we can know what is right and how much we accept that we know things to be right through science. As example of alternative worldviews Chinese medicine, Homeopathy, Ayurvedic medical systems were suggested. We realise that science operates within a particular paradigm as do these others and it becomes difficult to say clearly that one is right and another is not. We then moved to notions of objectivity and subjectivity. We accepted the realist scientific approach and that there is an external world. We know that there is a table in the real world if our perceptions either correspond (or cohere) with the table; or pragmatically by using the table. However our conscious apprehension of the table has a particular phenomenal character and is subjective. Nagel makes this point by saying that we can describe what it is like to be a bat, but we simply cannot know what it feels like, because we cannot access the bat’s consciousness. The objective nature, he says, is out there but the conscious experience of someone else is unknown. He uses the example of a Martian who sees lightning and can describe it to another Martian (but not perhaps to a human or bat!) but we cannot know what s/he feels. Generally, we felt that consciousness was related to the brain, and it has a physical nature. We thought it is at present impossible to say exactly what it is. And this points towards reductive physicalism, not being wrong, but rather incomprehensible with respect to explaining the nature of the mind. We described the conscious experience and four conscious states: sleep, dream, lucid dream, and full waking. Other properties of consciousness we identified were: a feeling of ‘what it is like’, intentionality, the phenomenal nature (redness) narrative nature (stream of consciousness), instrumental nature of things remembered. We thought that many animals were conscious and possibly, that there were degrees of consciousness. We know personally what it is like to be conscious, but we only seem to be able to say what it is through some analogy and when making this analogical statement we lose the phenomenological aspects of the actual experience.
20th September 2016 Philosophy of Mind - Introduction
This was first of what is expected to be a series of studies of the philosophy of mind. We focused on an introductory guide (content similar to the first chapter of Simon Blackburn's "The Big Questions") and found it re-visited forward a number of concepts and philosophical ideas that the group has addressed in the past. Cartesian Dualism holds that mind and matter are different things, and we discussed why this idea was held and the difficulty of any other position, given the concept of an immortal soul. A significant problem for substance dualism is explaining how body and mind interact, whereas monism has to explain the difference in kind we see between mind and matter. We looked at qualia, the “what is it like” sensation and Wittgenstein’s private language argument, touching on whether our thinking process is entirely learnt or partially hereditary. Gilbert Ryle’s category mistake argument (“now show me the university”) supports the view that we are not ghosts in the machine. The various forms of materialism led us to Searle’s biological naturalism, closely related to property dualism.
This was first of what is expected to be a series of studies of the philosophy of mind. We focused on an introductory guide (content similar to the first chapter of Simon Blackburn's "The Big Questions") and found it re-visited forward a number of concepts and philosophical ideas that the group has addressed in the past. Cartesian Dualism holds that mind and matter are different things, and we discussed why this idea was held and the difficulty of any other position, given the concept of an immortal soul. A significant problem for substance dualism is explaining how body and mind interact, whereas monism has to explain the difference in kind we see between mind and matter. We looked at qualia, the “what is it like” sensation and Wittgenstein’s private language argument, touching on whether our thinking process is entirely learnt or partially hereditary. Gilbert Ryle’s category mistake argument (“now show me the university”) supports the view that we are not ghosts in the machine. The various forms of materialism led us to Searle’s biological naturalism, closely related to property dualism.
16th September 2016 Aesthetics - Hume
We continued our studies of Aesthetics and the Oxford Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art lectures by James Grant https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/aesthetics-and-philosophy-art-lectures, We discussed lecture 3 on Hume. It is interesting that Hume, who famously claimed that you can't deduce an 'ought' from an 'is' in ethics is exploring taste, what we 'ought' to find beautiful. Hume identifies good taste as the consensus or “joint verdict” over time of “true critics” , who are “free of certain obstructions" They must be healthy, delicate, practiced at looking at the object of attention and with other objects of beauty, free from (cultural) prejudice and capable of judgement. This proposal could be seen as a circular argument, and Hume’s counter is that there are universally beautiful objects. We discussed whether this was necessarily true, or whether beauty was- maybe broadly recognised – but essentially culturally dependent.
We discussed the subjectivity of beauty, and the idea that beauty is not a property of the object.
We continued our studies of Aesthetics and the Oxford Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art lectures by James Grant https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/aesthetics-and-philosophy-art-lectures, We discussed lecture 3 on Hume. It is interesting that Hume, who famously claimed that you can't deduce an 'ought' from an 'is' in ethics is exploring taste, what we 'ought' to find beautiful. Hume identifies good taste as the consensus or “joint verdict” over time of “true critics” , who are “free of certain obstructions" They must be healthy, delicate, practiced at looking at the object of attention and with other objects of beauty, free from (cultural) prejudice and capable of judgement. This proposal could be seen as a circular argument, and Hume’s counter is that there are universally beautiful objects. We discussed whether this was necessarily true, or whether beauty was- maybe broadly recognised – but essentially culturally dependent.
We discussed the subjectivity of beauty, and the idea that beauty is not a property of the object.
15th July 2016 National Identity?
We met to discuss what it means to be English / British / a Citizen of the World. As well as papers on the nation state and other resources including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity and http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/stability-unity-and-nonchalance-what-does-it-mean-to-be-english, several of us had heard Roger Scruton on “A Point of View” on Radio 4. He stressed the importance of the accountability of the government to the electorate and of the nation state, which, he argued, since the treaty of Westphalia had provided a framework for stability in Europe. We looked in some more detail on the treaty and some of its wording, which sounded impressively progressive and relevant. That said, there are many other levels of authority and “the first person plural” from the family through the parish, the city, and beyond to the federation and the global community, so the question of what constitutes nationality comes under focus.
Wikipedia lists tradition, culture, language, politics and symbols. The role of a common language was stressed, though India provides a counter example. From “Blut und Boden” (“Blood and Land”) the idea of having capital in a country was put forward (or an inheritance through being born there). This would include the emotional capital of culture built up through facing threats and hardship together. This gives some explanation of resistance to immigration, unless the incomers can show they are likely to add to the capital rather than draw on it (we didn’t get to refugees). We discussed the difference between an individual’s self identity with a nation and how that may differ from the perception of others.
We met to discuss what it means to be English / British / a Citizen of the World. As well as papers on the nation state and other resources including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity and http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/stability-unity-and-nonchalance-what-does-it-mean-to-be-english, several of us had heard Roger Scruton on “A Point of View” on Radio 4. He stressed the importance of the accountability of the government to the electorate and of the nation state, which, he argued, since the treaty of Westphalia had provided a framework for stability in Europe. We looked in some more detail on the treaty and some of its wording, which sounded impressively progressive and relevant. That said, there are many other levels of authority and “the first person plural” from the family through the parish, the city, and beyond to the federation and the global community, so the question of what constitutes nationality comes under focus.
Wikipedia lists tradition, culture, language, politics and symbols. The role of a common language was stressed, though India provides a counter example. From “Blut und Boden” (“Blood and Land”) the idea of having capital in a country was put forward (or an inheritance through being born there). This would include the emotional capital of culture built up through facing threats and hardship together. This gives some explanation of resistance to immigration, unless the incomers can show they are likely to add to the capital rather than draw on it (we didn’t get to refugees). We discussed the difference between an individual’s self identity with a nation and how that may differ from the perception of others.
4th July 2016 Science & Phenomenology
We read Chapter 50 of Southwell and the key philosophers discussed were Husserl, Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. Husserl’s project – though eventually abandoned, was to apply Descartes methods of doubt to experience to try to establish a basis for science in terms of the nature & structure of conscious experience itself. The application to how we experience music: a succession of notes and some expectation of future notes was helpful. He noted that there is no entailment either way between the logic of a fact, our belief or our duty. Heidegger asked not what it is to be human but what does it feel like? He used the hermeneutic approach to interpret experience. All our perception is influenced by our intention towards any object. Being in the world allows no room for skepticism. He had a distrust of modern technology, which does not seem insuperable. Merleau-Ponty asserted that the mind is purely physical – refuting Descartes.
We read Chapter 50 of Southwell and the key philosophers discussed were Husserl, Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. Husserl’s project – though eventually abandoned, was to apply Descartes methods of doubt to experience to try to establish a basis for science in terms of the nature & structure of conscious experience itself. The application to how we experience music: a succession of notes and some expectation of future notes was helpful. He noted that there is no entailment either way between the logic of a fact, our belief or our duty. Heidegger asked not what it is to be human but what does it feel like? He used the hermeneutic approach to interpret experience. All our perception is influenced by our intention towards any object. Being in the world allows no room for skepticism. He had a distrust of modern technology, which does not seem insuperable. Merleau-Ponty asserted that the mind is purely physical – refuting Descartes.
28th June 2016 Epistemology of Science
In what sense is a scientific theory or explanation "true" ? We started from Realism and discussed whether admitting that any theory may be wrong and subject to later revision could differentiate such Realism from Instrumentalism that holds our theory of unobservables is no more than an explanation and prediction of phenomena. This pragmatic approach generally had our sympathy. We discussed Feyerabend’s argument - from Kuhn’s observation that science moves in paradigm shifts - that anything goes, and we should embrace any viewpoint. This led to an affirmation of the role of creativity in science and of the art of science. The difficulty of teaching the rudiments of science as grounded in experimental demonstration while admitting theories could be modified or disproved was discussed.
In what sense is a scientific theory or explanation "true" ? We started from Realism and discussed whether admitting that any theory may be wrong and subject to later revision could differentiate such Realism from Instrumentalism that holds our theory of unobservables is no more than an explanation and prediction of phenomena. This pragmatic approach generally had our sympathy. We discussed Feyerabend’s argument - from Kuhn’s observation that science moves in paradigm shifts - that anything goes, and we should embrace any viewpoint. This led to an affirmation of the role of creativity in science and of the art of science. The difficulty of teaching the rudiments of science as grounded in experimental demonstration while admitting theories could be modified or disproved was discussed.
24th June 2016 Aesthetics: Plato & Arisstotle
The scope of the lectures in the podcasts https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/aesthetics-and-philosophy-art-lectures was noted: Definition of Art, Understanding and Appreciation of Art, and the Value of Art. Plato addresses the third question and we explored why he was hostile. On moral grounds he thought art, particularly poetry, could arouse the wrong emotions in the audience and the performers. On epistemological grounds he thought that for example a painter produces a representation of something which is in itself a copy of an ideal form, which he is not in a position to understand. We discussed art itself a s a source of knowledge, and while for example King Lear says something about the hazards of ageing, can a fiction give justification to a belief to make it knowledge? We considered the view that art may not teach but it may re-articulate knowledge in an engaging way: “True wit is nature to advantage dress’d, What oft was thought, but ne’er so well express’d” (Pope)
Our discussion of Aristotle’s Poetics centred on the problem of how we can enjoy the depiction of tragedy. What is meant by catharsis, its purging effect? We considered Guernica – a distorted image depicting pain and suffering – and this led on to a discussion of whether the appreciation of art is influenced by culture and education and how much is common across humanity.
The scope of the lectures in the podcasts https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/aesthetics-and-philosophy-art-lectures was noted: Definition of Art, Understanding and Appreciation of Art, and the Value of Art. Plato addresses the third question and we explored why he was hostile. On moral grounds he thought art, particularly poetry, could arouse the wrong emotions in the audience and the performers. On epistemological grounds he thought that for example a painter produces a representation of something which is in itself a copy of an ideal form, which he is not in a position to understand. We discussed art itself a s a source of knowledge, and while for example King Lear says something about the hazards of ageing, can a fiction give justification to a belief to make it knowledge? We considered the view that art may not teach but it may re-articulate knowledge in an engaging way: “True wit is nature to advantage dress’d, What oft was thought, but ne’er so well express’d” (Pope)
Our discussion of Aristotle’s Poetics centred on the problem of how we can enjoy the depiction of tragedy. What is meant by catharsis, its purging effect? We considered Guernica – a distorted image depicting pain and suffering – and this led on to a discussion of whether the appreciation of art is influenced by culture and education and how much is common across humanity.
20th May 2016 What is Art?
.We discussed some of the questions being addressed about art. These included "What kind of thing is a work of art?” “ Is art essentially connected with emotion?” or should there be an appeal to the intellect? Is art appreciation essentially subjective, and does it depend on education or explanation of the work? And what qualifies a critic to educate others? Can art be found in something useful, or is all art essentially useless? We distinguished art and craft or skill, and asked whether a forgery or reproduction is art. If not, how does the reproduction and interpretation of a composer’s score by a musician stand? One answer to “What is Art? is that it is propaganda for the good life. The history of ideas video on The Renaissance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1OeMmwYjU argued that the Medicis redirected art from its glorification of God to propaganda for beauty truth and wisdom. The propaganda idea was also propounded by Alan de Botton in a YouTube clip http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/video/2014/sep/10/what-is-art-for-alain-de-botton-guide-video Art also keeps us hopeful, makes us less lonely in feelings of pain, rebalances us filling in what’s missing in our world, helps us to see true glamour.
.We discussed some of the questions being addressed about art. These included "What kind of thing is a work of art?” “ Is art essentially connected with emotion?” or should there be an appeal to the intellect? Is art appreciation essentially subjective, and does it depend on education or explanation of the work? And what qualifies a critic to educate others? Can art be found in something useful, or is all art essentially useless? We distinguished art and craft or skill, and asked whether a forgery or reproduction is art. If not, how does the reproduction and interpretation of a composer’s score by a musician stand? One answer to “What is Art? is that it is propaganda for the good life. The history of ideas video on The Renaissance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1OeMmwYjU argued that the Medicis redirected art from its glorification of God to propaganda for beauty truth and wisdom. The propaganda idea was also propounded by Alan de Botton in a YouTube clip http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/video/2014/sep/10/what-is-art-for-alain-de-botton-guide-video Art also keeps us hopeful, makes us less lonely in feelings of pain, rebalances us filling in what’s missing in our world, helps us to see true glamour.
15th April 2016 What is Beauty?
Roger Scruton’s “Very Short Introduction” was somewhat useful. Beauty is an ultimate value together with Truth and Goodness, but beauty can be immoral, even if Thomas Aquinas argued not? Beauty is subjective: judgement has to be personal. Beauty is the subject matter of the judgement of “Taste”, which is about the object not the subject. We discussed attempts to set rules to achieve beauty, including golden means and Hogarth’s Line of Beauty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analysis_of_Beauty#Six_principles. Taste is culturally dependent: natural beauty has been accessible to all. Here we distinguished the comfortingly beautiful with the awe-inspiring sublime – and also compared the lesser “pretty” and “elegant”. We discussed what makes a good critic and one principle is “disinterested interest”: As Wilde said, “All art is essentially useless” and Plato explored erotic love as the tension between desire and the transcendence to the contemplation of the eternal idea. Perhaps that is one way to contemplate how “Beauty is Truth and Truth is Beauty”.
Roger Scruton’s “Very Short Introduction” was somewhat useful. Beauty is an ultimate value together with Truth and Goodness, but beauty can be immoral, even if Thomas Aquinas argued not? Beauty is subjective: judgement has to be personal. Beauty is the subject matter of the judgement of “Taste”, which is about the object not the subject. We discussed attempts to set rules to achieve beauty, including golden means and Hogarth’s Line of Beauty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analysis_of_Beauty#Six_principles. Taste is culturally dependent: natural beauty has been accessible to all. Here we distinguished the comfortingly beautiful with the awe-inspiring sublime – and also compared the lesser “pretty” and “elegant”. We discussed what makes a good critic and one principle is “disinterested interest”: As Wilde said, “All art is essentially useless” and Plato explored erotic love as the tension between desire and the transcendence to the contemplation of the eternal idea. Perhaps that is one way to contemplate how “Beauty is Truth and Truth is Beauty”.
12th April 2016 Truth
We had watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfsPnUUCHEA, a presentation by David Makinster.
of three theories of truth: Correspondence, Coherence and Pragmatic. Correspondence theory works for a “state of affairs”, Coherence perhaps better for more abstract truths (1+1=2), Pragmatic truth meets the purpose of the statement. The usual objections to each theory are to challenge what correspondence means (just pointing seems circular). A set of propositions could be coherent, but all false. A pragmatic “truth” may be a lie (Santa Claus persuades children to behave). Makinster presents Russell’s arguments for Correspondence theory, citing his theories of knowledge by acquaintance versus knowledge by description. He demands that truth be anchored in reality, arguing that the further away we get from direct sensory experience, the more chance there is we will be in error. CS Peirce originally applied pragmatism to the ability of a theory to enable good predictions. William James applied it to the moral sphere, and Makinster says it can have applications in moral philosophy, while being mindful of its pitfalls. We briefly looked at non-propositional truths – how a beautiful work of art can convey something fundamental – and considered in what sense “truth is beauty and beauty is truth”
We had watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfsPnUUCHEA, a presentation by David Makinster.
of three theories of truth: Correspondence, Coherence and Pragmatic. Correspondence theory works for a “state of affairs”, Coherence perhaps better for more abstract truths (1+1=2), Pragmatic truth meets the purpose of the statement. The usual objections to each theory are to challenge what correspondence means (just pointing seems circular). A set of propositions could be coherent, but all false. A pragmatic “truth” may be a lie (Santa Claus persuades children to behave). Makinster presents Russell’s arguments for Correspondence theory, citing his theories of knowledge by acquaintance versus knowledge by description. He demands that truth be anchored in reality, arguing that the further away we get from direct sensory experience, the more chance there is we will be in error. CS Peirce originally applied pragmatism to the ability of a theory to enable good predictions. William James applied it to the moral sphere, and Makinster says it can have applications in moral philosophy, while being mindful of its pitfalls. We briefly looked at non-propositional truths – how a beautiful work of art can convey something fundamental – and considered in what sense “truth is beauty and beauty is truth”
18th March 2016 The Good Life?
An article:
“The search for happiness is all Greek to me” by Oliver Moody appeared in The Times 6 February. The article raises the questions “what makes for a happy life?” and “what makes a good life?” Is there a difference? We started by looking at the Office for National Statistic Measure of Well-Being at http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc146/wrapper.html This has direct measures of our subjective feelings of well-being, and also measures of factors that might influence this – our health, personal finances, relationships, the environment, what we do. our responses were that the measures were somewhat self indulgent and reflected middle class values. We discussed the Epicurean equation of pleasure with happiness – and consumerism, and John Stuart Mill’s hierarchy of pleasures. and discussed other factors, particularly attitude, the effect of norms and our acceptance of aspirations, and the place of service to others and altruism. This latter pointed out we are social animals as well as individuals. Does not John Rawls principle of justice – that social & economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged – goad us to help others more? We have an existential choice to make. We discussed the transcendental good life and how this might be approached by meditation.
An article:
“The search for happiness is all Greek to me” by Oliver Moody appeared in The Times 6 February. The article raises the questions “what makes for a happy life?” and “what makes a good life?” Is there a difference? We started by looking at the Office for National Statistic Measure of Well-Being at http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc146/wrapper.html This has direct measures of our subjective feelings of well-being, and also measures of factors that might influence this – our health, personal finances, relationships, the environment, what we do. our responses were that the measures were somewhat self indulgent and reflected middle class values. We discussed the Epicurean equation of pleasure with happiness – and consumerism, and John Stuart Mill’s hierarchy of pleasures. and discussed other factors, particularly attitude, the effect of norms and our acceptance of aspirations, and the place of service to others and altruism. This latter pointed out we are social animals as well as individuals. Does not John Rawls principle of justice – that social & economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged – goad us to help others more? We have an existential choice to make. We discussed the transcendental good life and how this might be approached by meditation.
15th March 2016 Space
We started with Simon Blackburn’s paper and chapter on “What fills up Space”, with the ideas of powers and dispositions (we only see the effects of things, not “things in themselves”, so does the concept of things in themselves have any meaning or is it necessary – and what can we know of things in themselves? This linked in well to the scientific approach, essentially pragmatic and inductive – can it take us to reality?
Space itself turns out to be difficult to comprehend, because it is so different from our intuitive ideas. It isn’t Euclidean and infinite, it is closed and distorted by the matter in it, according to Einstein. the idea of a “rubber membrane” of space is supported by the very recent detection of gravity waves from the coalescence of two black holes a billion years ago. Space isn’t empty, but made of of tiny (even on the atomic scale) quanta of space time. The space we experience may be an emergent property of the interactions of these tiny elements. Stephen Hawking holds that the energy to create the matter of the universe was “borrowed” from the gravitational energy of the universe, linking space intimately with the matter it contains. has science gone beyond the boundaries where its theories can be tested? Are they coherent? Can they take us beyond pragmatic truth?
We started with Simon Blackburn’s paper and chapter on “What fills up Space”, with the ideas of powers and dispositions (we only see the effects of things, not “things in themselves”, so does the concept of things in themselves have any meaning or is it necessary – and what can we know of things in themselves? This linked in well to the scientific approach, essentially pragmatic and inductive – can it take us to reality?
Space itself turns out to be difficult to comprehend, because it is so different from our intuitive ideas. It isn’t Euclidean and infinite, it is closed and distorted by the matter in it, according to Einstein. the idea of a “rubber membrane” of space is supported by the very recent detection of gravity waves from the coalescence of two black holes a billion years ago. Space isn’t empty, but made of of tiny (even on the atomic scale) quanta of space time. The space we experience may be an emergent property of the interactions of these tiny elements. Stephen Hawking holds that the energy to create the matter of the universe was “borrowed” from the gravitational energy of the universe, linking space intimately with the matter it contains. has science gone beyond the boundaries where its theories can be tested? Are they coherent? Can they take us beyond pragmatic truth?
12th February 2016 Existentialism
We discussed Jean-Paul Sartre’s Essay “Existentialism is a Humanism”. We also had Nigel Warburton’s critique of this text. There was universal agreement with the sentiments of the essay – that existentialism denies determinism and asserts that we always have a choice and must take responsibility for our actions. That said, there are some logical shortcomings in his argument. “God is dead” as Nietzsche said, but that does not justify his argument that humanity has no designer. Evolution, though a blind watchmaker has given us certain very effective survival mechanisms, including social organizations and cultures. Ok, we should not just accept these, but they are our heritage. If we can make choices, why should we act with responsibility? We discussed the role of religion and also the existentialist response of Kirkegaarde. Sartre’s declaration that the only truth is “I think therefore I am” led to a discussion of Cartesian dualism and Platonic Idealism versus the monism of Spinoza, for example.
We discussed Jean-Paul Sartre’s Essay “Existentialism is a Humanism”. We also had Nigel Warburton’s critique of this text. There was universal agreement with the sentiments of the essay – that existentialism denies determinism and asserts that we always have a choice and must take responsibility for our actions. That said, there are some logical shortcomings in his argument. “God is dead” as Nietzsche said, but that does not justify his argument that humanity has no designer. Evolution, though a blind watchmaker has given us certain very effective survival mechanisms, including social organizations and cultures. Ok, we should not just accept these, but they are our heritage. If we can make choices, why should we act with responsibility? We discussed the role of religion and also the existentialist response of Kirkegaarde. Sartre’s declaration that the only truth is “I think therefore I am” led to a discussion of Cartesian dualism and Platonic Idealism versus the monism of Spinoza, for example.
9th February 2016 Time
Time is known to be difficult to imagine. We differentiated subjective time and objective time. We did talk about different senses of “now” analogously to “here” for me being “there” for you. We cannot meaningfully express the rate at which time “passes” second by second. Linking to consciousness, we noted that subjective time moves at different rates: it stretches out just before an inevitable collision, stops altogether while we sleep and passes more quickly with age! There seems to be a relation to the intensity of brain activity. We think of time as a river, but is it carrying us along, or does it flow towards us, carrying the future? Is this metaphor misleading? McTaggart’s contradiction – that “now” exists in the present but also in the past and future may be countered by a “block universe” view, that all moments in time exist but in a similar sense to the way that a film strip captures movement. This could link to objective time: the theory of relativity links time (through the velocity of light) to space. It shows that simultaneity is lost if two observers are moving relative to one another. Stephen Hawking discusses the arrow of time - the seeming impossibility of going back in time, even though physical processes are all said to be reversible in time*. He gives one simple if non too helpful definition that time moves in the direction of increasing entropy (disorder). There was plenty left to discuss on Scruton’s comparison of the temporal and the eternal – a future session perhaps?
Time is known to be difficult to imagine. We differentiated subjective time and objective time. We did talk about different senses of “now” analogously to “here” for me being “there” for you. We cannot meaningfully express the rate at which time “passes” second by second. Linking to consciousness, we noted that subjective time moves at different rates: it stretches out just before an inevitable collision, stops altogether while we sleep and passes more quickly with age! There seems to be a relation to the intensity of brain activity. We think of time as a river, but is it carrying us along, or does it flow towards us, carrying the future? Is this metaphor misleading? McTaggart’s contradiction – that “now” exists in the present but also in the past and future may be countered by a “block universe” view, that all moments in time exist but in a similar sense to the way that a film strip captures movement. This could link to objective time: the theory of relativity links time (through the velocity of light) to space. It shows that simultaneity is lost if two observers are moving relative to one another. Stephen Hawking discusses the arrow of time - the seeming impossibility of going back in time, even though physical processes are all said to be reversible in time*. He gives one simple if non too helpful definition that time moves in the direction of increasing entropy (disorder). There was plenty left to discuss on Scruton’s comparison of the temporal and the eternal – a future session perhaps?
22nd January 2016 Liberty
We discussed Isaiah Berlin's essay "Two Concepts of Liberty". We sought the question he was addressing and found it to be that of obedience and coercion: “Why should anyone obey anyone else?”, and “May I be coerced?” His two concepts of liberty are negative and positive freedom. Negative freedom would allow anyone to do whatever they wish, but immediately realizes that the freedom of each must be constrained so that others are not oppressed. The difficulty is in defining which freedoms are at an inviolable core. Positive freedom has a solution to the good life, and tries to persuade, even coerce men to do those things they would choose for themselves if only they already saw the light. But he quotes Kant: paternalism is “the greatest despotism imaginable.” He also categorizes another type of activist as seeking status or recognition for his country or culture, but is at pains to distinguish this from the fight for freedom. An attempt was made to look at ISIS / Daesh and our response from Berlin’s standpoint. Daesh can be identified as seeking status or recognition, albeit they see themselves as fighting for the positive freedom of Islam. Our response to take action is justified insofar as we are sure we are defending negative freedom for ourselves and others outside and within Daesh, but we should be sure we are not imposing the positive freedom of democracy or oppressing others with our economic strength for our own needs.
We discussed Isaiah Berlin's essay "Two Concepts of Liberty". We sought the question he was addressing and found it to be that of obedience and coercion: “Why should anyone obey anyone else?”, and “May I be coerced?” His two concepts of liberty are negative and positive freedom. Negative freedom would allow anyone to do whatever they wish, but immediately realizes that the freedom of each must be constrained so that others are not oppressed. The difficulty is in defining which freedoms are at an inviolable core. Positive freedom has a solution to the good life, and tries to persuade, even coerce men to do those things they would choose for themselves if only they already saw the light. But he quotes Kant: paternalism is “the greatest despotism imaginable.” He also categorizes another type of activist as seeking status or recognition for his country or culture, but is at pains to distinguish this from the fight for freedom. An attempt was made to look at ISIS / Daesh and our response from Berlin’s standpoint. Daesh can be identified as seeking status or recognition, albeit they see themselves as fighting for the positive freedom of Islam. Our response to take action is justified insofar as we are sure we are defending negative freedom for ourselves and others outside and within Daesh, but we should be sure we are not imposing the positive freedom of democracy or oppressing others with our economic strength for our own needs.
12th January 2016 What is Mind?
We watched (/are watching!) a MOOC: “What is a Mind” led by Mark Solms of University of Cape Town, details at https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/what-is-a-mind Our discussion started from Paul Davies' "God & the New Physics", which describes a progress from life through mind to self. Mind is emergent from complexity as the anthill lives by the unconscious action of individual ants. Some dates noted were: life 525 million years ago, vertebrates 200 million, thinking (intentionality & agency) a mere 200,000 years ago, and 12,000 years ago we found an alternative to living as hunter- gatherers. We discussed consciousness and Tononi's theory that it correlates with complex interconnected networks. We discussed the unconscious, including confabulation to compensate for a painful emotional state and depression as failure of the social bonding system.
We watched (/are watching!) a MOOC: “What is a Mind” led by Mark Solms of University of Cape Town, details at https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/what-is-a-mind Our discussion started from Paul Davies' "God & the New Physics", which describes a progress from life through mind to self. Mind is emergent from complexity as the anthill lives by the unconscious action of individual ants. Some dates noted were: life 525 million years ago, vertebrates 200 million, thinking (intentionality & agency) a mere 200,000 years ago, and 12,000 years ago we found an alternative to living as hunter- gatherers. We discussed consciousness and Tononi's theory that it correlates with complex interconnected networks. We discussed the unconscious, including confabulation to compensate for a painful emotional state and depression as failure of the social bonding system.
8th December 2015 Some Issues for Science
We discussed some criticisms of or objections to scientific method and how science progresses. We discussed Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and accept that as in maths there may be elements of science which though true cannot be proved. There are several objections to Popper’s Falsification theory: claims that scientists “prop up” existing theories until they are no longer tenable, that experiments cannot show that it is the variable of interest that is the cause, that experiments throw doubt on the whole set of scientific theories, etc. We enjoyed discussing and in turn criticizing these objections, particularly the attack on experimental method, which, properly understood, addresses many variables in a series of tests. We accept that phenomenology has a wide application beyond science, but within its critique of science the complaint that technology is no longer comprehensible and thus alienating seems defeatist , and an engineering “intension” to make use of what is around us to improve our lives seems perfectly respectable.
We discussed some criticisms of or objections to scientific method and how science progresses. We discussed Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and accept that as in maths there may be elements of science which though true cannot be proved. There are several objections to Popper’s Falsification theory: claims that scientists “prop up” existing theories until they are no longer tenable, that experiments cannot show that it is the variable of interest that is the cause, that experiments throw doubt on the whole set of scientific theories, etc. We enjoyed discussing and in turn criticizing these objections, particularly the attack on experimental method, which, properly understood, addresses many variables in a series of tests. We accept that phenomenology has a wide application beyond science, but within its critique of science the complaint that technology is no longer comprehensible and thus alienating seems defeatist , and an engineering “intension” to make use of what is around us to improve our lives seems perfectly respectable.
20th November 2015 Tools for Conceptual Distinctions
We discussed topics from the second half of Chapter 4 of Baggini & Fosl. We looked at 4.11 Knowledge by Acquaintance & Description and how we know descriptors, at 4.16 Sense & Reference, including trying to follow Frege’s argument that sentences reference only “the true” and “the false” (we will have to look at Truth again sometime), and at 4.17, Syntax and Semantics - and we also got onto Quantum Entanglement!
We discussed topics from the second half of Chapter 4 of Baggini & Fosl. We looked at 4.11 Knowledge by Acquaintance & Description and how we know descriptors, at 4.16 Sense & Reference, including trying to follow Frege’s argument that sentences reference only “the true” and “the false” (we will have to look at Truth again sometime), and at 4.17, Syntax and Semantics - and we also got onto Quantum Entanglement!
18th November 2015 Philosophy of Science - Causation & Universals
Universals are basically predicate words in sentences that apply to Particulars, generally the subject. Universals may be adjectives like “red”, or nouns like “a horse”. The big question is whether universals are real or, as Nominalists claim, just words for talking about individuals. The “extreme realism” of Plato, who said that Universals are not only real, they exist outside the world as ideal forms has generally been abandoned in favour of a more Aristotelian view that the qualities do really exist in various individuals – strong realism. The main Nominalist contender is trope nominalism, where a trope is a sort of token of the type indicated by the universal word. So individuals are described by bundles of (individual) tropes. While we saw the value of such a concept, it was thought that universals such as “red” and “horse” could be real, because they could be explained in scientific terms (so only insofar as science reflects reality – see below!), but maybe words like “tasty” were culture dependent and perhaps better described by tropes.his topic arose fro the discussion of metaphysics.
One main tenet of causation is that causes are events rather than facts. “He threw the stone and it broke the window”. Bertrand Russell was a flamboyant Eliminatvist, declaring that “the notion of causation is seen as a scientifically retrograde relic of Stone Age metaphysics. Science gives us laws: “in the motions of mutually gravitating bodies there is nothing that can be called a cause.......merely a formula.” We felt more sympathy with causation based on facts, and the events route leads clearly to Hume’s position that all we see is events in succession. We acknowledged Kant’s view that we impose causation on the world to make sense of it, and that science can only be a pragmatic truth.
Universals are basically predicate words in sentences that apply to Particulars, generally the subject. Universals may be adjectives like “red”, or nouns like “a horse”. The big question is whether universals are real or, as Nominalists claim, just words for talking about individuals. The “extreme realism” of Plato, who said that Universals are not only real, they exist outside the world as ideal forms has generally been abandoned in favour of a more Aristotelian view that the qualities do really exist in various individuals – strong realism. The main Nominalist contender is trope nominalism, where a trope is a sort of token of the type indicated by the universal word. So individuals are described by bundles of (individual) tropes. While we saw the value of such a concept, it was thought that universals such as “red” and “horse” could be real, because they could be explained in scientific terms (so only insofar as science reflects reality – see below!), but maybe words like “tasty” were culture dependent and perhaps better described by tropes.his topic arose fro the discussion of metaphysics.
One main tenet of causation is that causes are events rather than facts. “He threw the stone and it broke the window”. Bertrand Russell was a flamboyant Eliminatvist, declaring that “the notion of causation is seen as a scientifically retrograde relic of Stone Age metaphysics. Science gives us laws: “in the motions of mutually gravitating bodies there is nothing that can be called a cause.......merely a formula.” We felt more sympathy with causation based on facts, and the events route leads clearly to Hume’s position that all we see is events in succession. We acknowledged Kant’s view that we impose causation on the world to make sense of it, and that science can only be a pragmatic truth.
23rd October 2015 Tools for Conceptual Distinctions
We discussed sections 1-10 of Chapter 4 of Baggini & Fosl. We looked at Internalism and Externalism, firstly on motives. this lined up well with the argument about Utilitarianism in the Refugees paper: just because you see some action as logically correct, are you bound to take that action? We moved onto a discussion of personal responsibility. On whether ideas are internal or external, we returned to the debate whether pain is just a feeling or a concept in language. This led to a debate of the range of language – not just words but body language and emotional intelligence. On Essence / Accident we first checked the definition of Accident here. We noted that “philosophers have moved on” from essence and looked at the path from essence moving to language and then being targeted by existentialism for its power to constrain. Is there still a notion of the soul in philosophy? We briefly looked at Modal Logic and Biconditional, just to check these concepts and their definition. We struggled with De Re / De Dicto – not so much the concept as Baggini’s examples. The idea of Indefeasible / Defeasible links to the concept of Falsification in Science, and here we found “Corrigible” to be a better word that Defeasible.
We discussed sections 1-10 of Chapter 4 of Baggini & Fosl. We looked at Internalism and Externalism, firstly on motives. this lined up well with the argument about Utilitarianism in the Refugees paper: just because you see some action as logically correct, are you bound to take that action? We moved onto a discussion of personal responsibility. On whether ideas are internal or external, we returned to the debate whether pain is just a feeling or a concept in language. This led to a debate of the range of language – not just words but body language and emotional intelligence. On Essence / Accident we first checked the definition of Accident here. We noted that “philosophers have moved on” from essence and looked at the path from essence moving to language and then being targeted by existentialism for its power to constrain. Is there still a notion of the soul in philosophy? We briefly looked at Modal Logic and Biconditional, just to check these concepts and their definition. We struggled with De Re / De Dicto – not so much the concept as Baggini’s examples. The idea of Indefeasible / Defeasible links to the concept of Falsification in Science, and here we found “Corrigible” to be a better word that Defeasible.
13th October 2015 Philosophy of Science - The Metaphysics of Science.
We discussed Metaphysics. Physics and all science insists that theories be tested to see if they can be falsified. Metaphysical assertions cannot be tested. Metaphysics deals with ontological questions – the ultimate nature of reality, causation, theology and the nature of being. We discussed realism and anti-realism. given the difference between physics and metaphysics, what happens where they meet: when scientists try to explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics, for example? We all came down on the side of realism. While our view of reality is filtered by our senses – and we found useful Kant’s theory that causation, time and space are our constructed mental framework – we believed that science corresponds to a reality out there rather than being merely “convenient fictions” to explain predictions. The most likely explanation is that our complex minds have evolved to help us deal with the reality of our world– and might not work as well for things that are very small or move very fast! So is a metaphysical approach to science just not worth doing? Richard Feynman might suggest we just understand the equations and use them for practical predictions? And isn’t thought beyond the pragmatically useful let alone demonstrable not worth the effort? But we are driven to explain the next level of causation, and some speculations have then been developed and verified long after. Perhaps most important is to recognize the difference between scientific explanation and speculation and what can and cannot be demonstrated.
We discussed Metaphysics. Physics and all science insists that theories be tested to see if they can be falsified. Metaphysical assertions cannot be tested. Metaphysics deals with ontological questions – the ultimate nature of reality, causation, theology and the nature of being. We discussed realism and anti-realism. given the difference between physics and metaphysics, what happens where they meet: when scientists try to explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics, for example? We all came down on the side of realism. While our view of reality is filtered by our senses – and we found useful Kant’s theory that causation, time and space are our constructed mental framework – we believed that science corresponds to a reality out there rather than being merely “convenient fictions” to explain predictions. The most likely explanation is that our complex minds have evolved to help us deal with the reality of our world– and might not work as well for things that are very small or move very fast! So is a metaphysical approach to science just not worth doing? Richard Feynman might suggest we just understand the equations and use them for practical predictions? And isn’t thought beyond the pragmatically useful let alone demonstrable not worth the effort? But we are driven to explain the next level of causation, and some speculations have then been developed and verified long after. Perhaps most important is to recognize the difference between scientific explanation and speculation and what can and cannot be demonstrated.
25th September 2015 Refugees: a Moral Question
We were scheduled to discuss more sections of Baggini & Fosl, but instead we addressed Ed Link’s challenge to apply moral reasoning to the current and pressing refugee problem. Julian Baggini’s “Ethics The Big Questions” has chapters on “Should we favour our families and friends?” and “How much should we give to charity?” that directly address Ed Link’s questions. Baggini sets out some arguments to justify why we fall short of the self-sacrificial demands of utilitarian morality. We do not serve the best interests of everyone by treating them the same. We may see ethics grounded in the need to co-operate, or as the outcome of feelings of empathy, and these motives are more easily directed at those closer to us. We noted that it took the picture of a child’s body on a beach to trigger any groundswell of empathy for the plight of the refugees. We agree with Baggini that all that said we could do a lot more than we do. We recognize that while we (mostly!) have behaved responsibly & prudently, we are still a most fortunate generation in a functioning community of choice. We recognize this good fortune goes with high aspirations, tempting us to see as necessities many luxuries that are beyond the desires of most people in the world. Maybe too we see the democracy we evangelize through the rose tinted spectacles of those it favours. It was agreed we would attempt a paper in response to the challenge, remembering and applying eight(?) moral frameworks.
We were scheduled to discuss more sections of Baggini & Fosl, but instead we addressed Ed Link’s challenge to apply moral reasoning to the current and pressing refugee problem. Julian Baggini’s “Ethics The Big Questions” has chapters on “Should we favour our families and friends?” and “How much should we give to charity?” that directly address Ed Link’s questions. Baggini sets out some arguments to justify why we fall short of the self-sacrificial demands of utilitarian morality. We do not serve the best interests of everyone by treating them the same. We may see ethics grounded in the need to co-operate, or as the outcome of feelings of empathy, and these motives are more easily directed at those closer to us. We noted that it took the picture of a child’s body on a beach to trigger any groundswell of empathy for the plight of the refugees. We agree with Baggini that all that said we could do a lot more than we do. We recognize that while we (mostly!) have behaved responsibly & prudently, we are still a most fortunate generation in a functioning community of choice. We recognize this good fortune goes with high aspirations, tempting us to see as necessities many luxuries that are beyond the desires of most people in the world. Maybe too we see the democracy we evangelize through the rose tinted spectacles of those it favours. It was agreed we would attempt a paper in response to the challenge, remembering and applying eight(?) moral frameworks.
15th September 2015 Philosophy of Science - Science and Gender, Postmodernist Criticism
We discussed the postmodernist and feminist criticisms of science. Postmodernism in summary points out that language is a closed system – the definition of any word is just more different words – and as well as the meaning, a word carries a whole baggage of metaphors and meanings, power values and marginalizing statements that the individual has absorbed from his / her culture: indeed it is almost as if the individual is merely a “node” in the on-going existence of a language or culture. Postmodernists deny that language represents reality and reject explanatory “metanarratives” such as religion, history – and science. They attack the claims made by scientists that they can (1) describe accurately, truthfully and universally the physical reality that surrounds us, and (2) that scientific enquiry is a disinterested pursuit of knowledge. We disagreed with the attack on scientific facts (that can be empirically demonstrated), but this position does provide a critical framework for examining scientific beliefs (see below) and the motives for scientific investigations and projects. The postmodernist approach has underpinned much feminist philosophy, and we considered whether science has a masculine bias. Four propositions from “Science – Key Concepts in Philosophy” by David French suggest that gender bias influences (1) the proportion of men & women in science, (2) what science investigates, (3) how science investigates and (4) the content of scientific beliefs. We could appreciate factors inhibiting women progressing in science – the competition to publish to get on, and inhibiting girls studying science at school. An example of male interest prioritizing scientific investigation was the comparison of the contraceptive pill and Viagra in their launch and attention to side effects. Science should have a discipline, but the male dominated organization often sanctions a “seat of the pants” approach. Excellent examples of gender bias in beliefs was provided by primatology studies by men & women and whether human evolution was driven by man the hunter or woman the gatherer.
We discussed the postmodernist and feminist criticisms of science. Postmodernism in summary points out that language is a closed system – the definition of any word is just more different words – and as well as the meaning, a word carries a whole baggage of metaphors and meanings, power values and marginalizing statements that the individual has absorbed from his / her culture: indeed it is almost as if the individual is merely a “node” in the on-going existence of a language or culture. Postmodernists deny that language represents reality and reject explanatory “metanarratives” such as religion, history – and science. They attack the claims made by scientists that they can (1) describe accurately, truthfully and universally the physical reality that surrounds us, and (2) that scientific enquiry is a disinterested pursuit of knowledge. We disagreed with the attack on scientific facts (that can be empirically demonstrated), but this position does provide a critical framework for examining scientific beliefs (see below) and the motives for scientific investigations and projects. The postmodernist approach has underpinned much feminist philosophy, and we considered whether science has a masculine bias. Four propositions from “Science – Key Concepts in Philosophy” by David French suggest that gender bias influences (1) the proportion of men & women in science, (2) what science investigates, (3) how science investigates and (4) the content of scientific beliefs. We could appreciate factors inhibiting women progressing in science – the competition to publish to get on, and inhibiting girls studying science at school. An example of male interest prioritizing scientific investigation was the comparison of the contraceptive pill and Viagra in their launch and attention to side effects. Science should have a discipline, but the male dominated organization often sanctions a “seat of the pants” approach. Excellent examples of gender bias in beliefs was provided by primatology studies by men & women and whether human evolution was driven by man the hunter or woman the gatherer.
28th August 2015 Conceptual Distinctions - Analytic / Synthetic
We started with 4.3 Analytic / Synthetic and spent most of the meeting on the topic. It took some discussion and examples to understand the concepts and how to distinguish them. An analytic sentence adds nothing to its subject: it defines or expands on the subject – whether the proposition was known or not. A synthetic sentence adds something that can be shown to be true or false empirically. These concepts are different from a priori / a posteriori and are part of Kant’s project to demonstrate that we cannot know “things in themselves”, but we do have the capacity to make sense of impressions using our inbuilt faculty to structure them with space, time and causation. So for Kant, as quoted in 4.1, “all experienced events have causes” is a synthetic statement, but we know it a priori. The discussion led on to knowledge : that which is “Justified True Belief”. We considered whether revelation is knowledge which took us towards modal logic, and we will discuss that further next meeting. During the meeting we were referred to the “History of Philosophy without any Gaps” http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/, by Peter Adamson – 236 episodes going through the classical to mediaeval periods; and a MOOC on The Science of Everyday thinking at http://think101.org/ covers Stephen Pinker, Daniel Kahneman & others.
We started with 4.3 Analytic / Synthetic and spent most of the meeting on the topic. It took some discussion and examples to understand the concepts and how to distinguish them. An analytic sentence adds nothing to its subject: it defines or expands on the subject – whether the proposition was known or not. A synthetic sentence adds something that can be shown to be true or false empirically. These concepts are different from a priori / a posteriori and are part of Kant’s project to demonstrate that we cannot know “things in themselves”, but we do have the capacity to make sense of impressions using our inbuilt faculty to structure them with space, time and causation. So for Kant, as quoted in 4.1, “all experienced events have causes” is a synthetic statement, but we know it a priori. The discussion led on to knowledge : that which is “Justified True Belief”. We considered whether revelation is knowledge which took us towards modal logic, and we will discuss that further next meeting. During the meeting we were referred to the “History of Philosophy without any Gaps” http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/, by Peter Adamson – 236 episodes going through the classical to mediaeval periods; and a MOOC on The Science of Everyday thinking at http://think101.org/ covers Stephen Pinker, Daniel Kahneman & others.
4th August 2015 Philosophy of Science - Science & Ethics.
We discussed Science and Ethics, helped by a paper concerning a patient paying for her cancer to be replicated on mice to test possible treatments. There were plenty of issues to go at: the ethics of the providers asking patients to pay for their research through to animal rights. We concluded first that science cannot exclude itself from ethical considerations: We noted the various ethical criteria on the BBC website Shri cited: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/, and this appears to prompt good questions about any scientific activity . That said, we recognised that actually answering the questions is not trivial in many cases: while the engineering of gas chambers is a chilling reminder of the consequences of refusal to look at the moral issues involved, it can be too easy to give in to the simplistic popular demands. GM food crops are perhaps not anathema to the starving, and good weapons are unfortunately essential to defence against aggressors. We accepted that science has moved us far more positively in the direction of Utopia than into Dystopia, but there is still the need for careful anticipation of outcomes. We did start to consider whether Science can tell us anything about ethics, and concluded there is maybe a whole discussion thread here?
We discussed Science and Ethics, helped by a paper concerning a patient paying for her cancer to be replicated on mice to test possible treatments. There were plenty of issues to go at: the ethics of the providers asking patients to pay for their research through to animal rights. We concluded first that science cannot exclude itself from ethical considerations: We noted the various ethical criteria on the BBC website Shri cited: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/, and this appears to prompt good questions about any scientific activity . That said, we recognised that actually answering the questions is not trivial in many cases: while the engineering of gas chambers is a chilling reminder of the consequences of refusal to look at the moral issues involved, it can be too easy to give in to the simplistic popular demands. GM food crops are perhaps not anathema to the starving, and good weapons are unfortunately essential to defence against aggressors. We accepted that science has moved us far more positively in the direction of Utopia than into Dystopia, but there is still the need for careful anticipation of outcomes. We did start to consider whether Science can tell us anything about ethics, and concluded there is maybe a whole discussion thread here?
14th July 2015 Philosophers Toolkit - Necessary & Sufficient Conditions
The discussion of necessary and sufficient conditions occupied the whole of the meeting. We started with considering the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a person. Does someone become a person at conception when the gametes fused to form the embryo or was it when they became intellectually capable? If we are not intellectually capable at conception, when does this capability "arrive"? Does the intellectual capability question exclude babies and children or people who are asleep? Having the ‘normal’ physical properties (two arms two legs two eyes etc.) of a human might be a sufficient condition for being a person but again we would be confronted with people who have the necessary conditions for being human (intellectual capability) but not sufficient ones. This would include groups such as amputees, The idea of sufficient and necessary conditions was then applied to the NHS and the conditions for receiving health care. Should anything be included - cosmetic surgery, fertility treatment? What duty or obligation is there to follow a healthy lifestyle to reduce the burden of heathcare provision? At the end of life, what could be the necessary & sufficient conditions to allow assisted suicide?
The discussion of necessary and sufficient conditions occupied the whole of the meeting. We started with considering the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a person. Does someone become a person at conception when the gametes fused to form the embryo or was it when they became intellectually capable? If we are not intellectually capable at conception, when does this capability "arrive"? Does the intellectual capability question exclude babies and children or people who are asleep? Having the ‘normal’ physical properties (two arms two legs two eyes etc.) of a human might be a sufficient condition for being a person but again we would be confronted with people who have the necessary conditions for being human (intellectual capability) but not sufficient ones. This would include groups such as amputees, The idea of sufficient and necessary conditions was then applied to the NHS and the conditions for receiving health care. Should anything be included - cosmetic surgery, fertility treatment? What duty or obligation is there to follow a healthy lifestyle to reduce the burden of heathcare provision? At the end of life, what could be the necessary & sufficient conditions to allow assisted suicide?
16th June 2015 Philosophy of Science - Science & God
We set out to discuss Science and God, though the discussion was more about God than Science! We reviewed teleology and discussed various types of “purpose”; “designed-in” (or evolved), ascribed (e.g. farm animal) ultimate (? keeping the species going) and personal – either ordained or constructed (existential position). This last led us to Zen Buddhism (Japanese Existentialism) and with the thought that this might equate to prayer, we moved to religious and philosophical systems. Routes to enlightenment or God include Priests, Scripture, Meditation. In Hindu practice, the route may be any of devotion, action, knowledge. Element of Religion (from Ninian Smart?) include Doctrine, Religious Experience, Myth, Ritual, Morals an Organisation (maintenance and training). On Science and teleology and Religion, “Stargazers: Copernicus, Galileo, the Telescope and the Church” by Alan Chapman argues that the Church did not actually persecute Copernicus and Galileo as history tells us. CEM Joad’s “Guide to Modern Thought” was actually written in 1933, when Vitalism and indeed Spiritualism were seriously studied and analysed. We discussed Dualism as an alternative to materialism and the argument that life is a phenomenon like the weather that emerges from a complex chaotic system. We noted we need to get into the differences between self mind, soul, consciousness, essence.....sometime. In discussing why science is displacing religion, it was suggested that science adapts: if a theory is falsified, it is actually necessary to seek a different explanation. Even Science is not immune from the tendency to resist change, but religious bodies find particular difficulties in changing – a problem when the objective is to convey eternal truth. So while science can never prove or disprove religious belief its explanations in its domain are perhaps generally seen as more relevant.
We set out to discuss Science and God, though the discussion was more about God than Science! We reviewed teleology and discussed various types of “purpose”; “designed-in” (or evolved), ascribed (e.g. farm animal) ultimate (? keeping the species going) and personal – either ordained or constructed (existential position). This last led us to Zen Buddhism (Japanese Existentialism) and with the thought that this might equate to prayer, we moved to religious and philosophical systems. Routes to enlightenment or God include Priests, Scripture, Meditation. In Hindu practice, the route may be any of devotion, action, knowledge. Element of Religion (from Ninian Smart?) include Doctrine, Religious Experience, Myth, Ritual, Morals an Organisation (maintenance and training). On Science and teleology and Religion, “Stargazers: Copernicus, Galileo, the Telescope and the Church” by Alan Chapman argues that the Church did not actually persecute Copernicus and Galileo as history tells us. CEM Joad’s “Guide to Modern Thought” was actually written in 1933, when Vitalism and indeed Spiritualism were seriously studied and analysed. We discussed Dualism as an alternative to materialism and the argument that life is a phenomenon like the weather that emerges from a complex chaotic system. We noted we need to get into the differences between self mind, soul, consciousness, essence.....sometime. In discussing why science is displacing religion, it was suggested that science adapts: if a theory is falsified, it is actually necessary to seek a different explanation. Even Science is not immune from the tendency to resist change, but religious bodies find particular difficulties in changing – a problem when the objective is to convey eternal truth. So while science can never prove or disprove religious belief its explanations in its domain are perhaps generally seen as more relevant.
22nd May 2015 More Tools for Assessment & Conceptual Distinctions
We started with 3.23 Saving the Phenomenon. this led back to ideas from the Science studies and Richard Feynman’s observation. In 4.13 necessary / Sufficient we discussed the conditions for knowledge: we need to believe x is true, x to be true and there to be justification for the belief. The last condition was illustrated with the example of a stopped clock which we look at when it happens to show the correct time. We noted the need for testability in science and the idea of falsification. Again we discussed Islam and the case of religious belief: is the Quran a justified reason, containing as it does the word of Allah and at the least the best of ancient scholarship? If we accept that it depends whether you are a believer or not, we then get to 4.10 Internalism / Externalism and ask whether or not there is absolute knowledge to be discovered. If there is external reality, but some part of it is hidden from us, then maybe the limit of ultimate reality is God to some? In 4.14 Objective / Subjective, Nagel’s idea that these are not opposites but ends of a scale was noted. In 3.22 Regress we noted the argument against Relativism, and this led to a discussion of 4.2 Absolute / Relative. It is possible to be an absolutist in some situations and not others – thinking of “poverty” made this clear.
We started with 3.23 Saving the Phenomenon. this led back to ideas from the Science studies and Richard Feynman’s observation. In 4.13 necessary / Sufficient we discussed the conditions for knowledge: we need to believe x is true, x to be true and there to be justification for the belief. The last condition was illustrated with the example of a stopped clock which we look at when it happens to show the correct time. We noted the need for testability in science and the idea of falsification. Again we discussed Islam and the case of religious belief: is the Quran a justified reason, containing as it does the word of Allah and at the least the best of ancient scholarship? If we accept that it depends whether you are a believer or not, we then get to 4.10 Internalism / Externalism and ask whether or not there is absolute knowledge to be discovered. If there is external reality, but some part of it is hidden from us, then maybe the limit of ultimate reality is God to some? In 4.14 Objective / Subjective, Nagel’s idea that these are not opposites but ends of a scale was noted. In 3.22 Regress we noted the argument against Relativism, and this led to a discussion of 4.2 Absolute / Relative. It is possible to be an absolutist in some situations and not others – thinking of “poverty” made this clear.
15th May 2015 Philosophy of Science - Teleology & Vitalism
We discussed some questions around Teleology and then Vitalism. We started by trying to ascribe a purpose to various natural things: for example bees pollinate flowers – though from their own point of view they gather nectar. We looked at the conflict of teleology with evolution, and discussed William Paley’s idea of God as a watchmaker and David Hume’s refutation – and refutations of Hume’s argument by a Christian apologist. There was some consensus that living things could be ascribed a purpose only at some point in time and in the stochastic process of evolution. This ascribing of purpose is “internal” to us rather than the discovery of some external truth. We came on to the question whether a belief that life has a purpose affects the lives of humans, and this is a question that philosophers have answered in many ways, from Aristotle’s “final cause” through Camus’ otherwise depressing belief that we should embrace the meaninglessness of life. On Vitalism, it was generally accepted that science has shown that life is explained by material processes, albeit complex ones – and indeed there is not a clear boundary between animate and inanimate things. The idea again goes back to Aristotle and earlier, and shares a root with the Christian belief of the immortal soul. It was suggested that while Vitalism might not apply in science, perhaps it is too reductionist in some arguments, and it is a language that addresses the urge to life, the “life-force” we observe, just as Lovelock’s Gaia theory is not scientifically true, but may be useful in advocating ecological issues. The question of alternative medicines was also discussed.
We discussed some questions around Teleology and then Vitalism. We started by trying to ascribe a purpose to various natural things: for example bees pollinate flowers – though from their own point of view they gather nectar. We looked at the conflict of teleology with evolution, and discussed William Paley’s idea of God as a watchmaker and David Hume’s refutation – and refutations of Hume’s argument by a Christian apologist. There was some consensus that living things could be ascribed a purpose only at some point in time and in the stochastic process of evolution. This ascribing of purpose is “internal” to us rather than the discovery of some external truth. We came on to the question whether a belief that life has a purpose affects the lives of humans, and this is a question that philosophers have answered in many ways, from Aristotle’s “final cause” through Camus’ otherwise depressing belief that we should embrace the meaninglessness of life. On Vitalism, it was generally accepted that science has shown that life is explained by material processes, albeit complex ones – and indeed there is not a clear boundary between animate and inanimate things. The idea again goes back to Aristotle and earlier, and shares a root with the Christian belief of the immortal soul. It was suggested that while Vitalism might not apply in science, perhaps it is too reductionist in some arguments, and it is a language that addresses the urge to life, the “life-force” we observe, just as Lovelock’s Gaia theory is not scientifically true, but may be useful in advocating ecological issues. The question of alternative medicines was also discussed.
24th April 2015 Tools for Assessment - continued
We discussed more topics from Chapter 3 of Baggini & Fosl: Tools for Assessment, but wWe actually started with 4.7 Defeasible / Indefeasible. The example of the argument against capital punishment does show the distinction the terms try to make: there is that possibility that a conviction for a capital crime could be overturned: the guilty verdict is defeasible. It is generally accepted that all a posteriori knowledge is defeasible, so only a priori knowledge can be indefeasible – but is it? To examine this further we turned to ..... 4.1 A priori / a posteriori. The main problem identified was that even learning that 1 + 1 = 2 is a posteriori. But the point is that once learned it is recognisably an abstraction from the real world. Even so, such knowledge has its own concepts and axioms and we could have revisited 1.9 here.
3.22 Regression. From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument .... The Regress argument is that any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned. This can be countered by Foundationalism - claim that some things (basic beliefs) are true in and of themselves. Or by Coherentism.. In one form the chain of reasoning may loop around on itself, forming a circle. In this case, the justification of any statement is used, perhaps after a long chain of reasoning, in justifying itself, and the argument is circular. Alternatively, Coherentism denies that justification can only take the form of a chain. Coherentism replaces the chain with a holistic web. We also mentioned Pragmatism: William James suggests that, ultimately, everyone settles at some level of explanation based on one’s personal preferences that fit the particular individual's psychological needs. People select whatever level of explanation fits their needs, and things other than logic and reason determine those needs.
3.15 Is / ought Gap. This perhaps originates with Hume’s writing, where he points out the disjoint between what is and what ought to be. We discussed the logic aspect – the missing premise in the jump from is to ought. The suggestion that many concepts express elements of value as well as fact (“proficient”, “murder”, “philosopher”) was useful.
We discussed more topics from Chapter 3 of Baggini & Fosl: Tools for Assessment, but wWe actually started with 4.7 Defeasible / Indefeasible. The example of the argument against capital punishment does show the distinction the terms try to make: there is that possibility that a conviction for a capital crime could be overturned: the guilty verdict is defeasible. It is generally accepted that all a posteriori knowledge is defeasible, so only a priori knowledge can be indefeasible – but is it? To examine this further we turned to ..... 4.1 A priori / a posteriori. The main problem identified was that even learning that 1 + 1 = 2 is a posteriori. But the point is that once learned it is recognisably an abstraction from the real world. Even so, such knowledge has its own concepts and axioms and we could have revisited 1.9 here.
3.22 Regression. From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument .... The Regress argument is that any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned. This can be countered by Foundationalism - claim that some things (basic beliefs) are true in and of themselves. Or by Coherentism.. In one form the chain of reasoning may loop around on itself, forming a circle. In this case, the justification of any statement is used, perhaps after a long chain of reasoning, in justifying itself, and the argument is circular. Alternatively, Coherentism denies that justification can only take the form of a chain. Coherentism replaces the chain with a holistic web. We also mentioned Pragmatism: William James suggests that, ultimately, everyone settles at some level of explanation based on one’s personal preferences that fit the particular individual's psychological needs. People select whatever level of explanation fits their needs, and things other than logic and reason determine those needs.
3.15 Is / ought Gap. This perhaps originates with Hume’s writing, where he points out the disjoint between what is and what ought to be. We discussed the logic aspect – the missing premise in the jump from is to ought. The suggestion that many concepts express elements of value as well as fact (“proficient”, “murder”, “philosopher”) was useful.
13th March 2015 Tools for Assessment
We discussed topics from Chapter 3 of Baggini & Fosl: Tools for Assessment.
3.24, Self-defeating arguments are charges leveled at relativism and logical positivism. The discussion took us to genes via Plantinga’s criticism of ”natural” evolution. 3.3 Bivalence and the Excluded Middle showed how rigorous logic is a different “language game” in Wittgenstein’s terms from common speech. We looked at examples countering the excluded middle and discussed Sorites paradox (how many hairs have to be lost until a man is “bald”?) as well as vagueness, and we touched on fuzzy logic.
3.13 The Genetic Fallacy, that it is not valid to cite the origins of an argument as a refutation, though it may be helpful to use the origins as an explanation. The genetic fallacy is a common method of attempting to influence opinion.
3.6 Circularity quoted some interesting examples: Descartes argument that God give us clear ideas and we have a clear idea of God so he must exist; the inductive fallacy and Popper’s idea of falsification – and we took in 3.25, the concept of sufficient reason here. The discussion then touched on some of the history of scientific ideas, and a maxim that scientists should “treasure the abnormalities” in experiments.
3.18 The Principle of Charity seemed one subset of 3.1 Alternative Explanations. As well as respecting the views of someone proposing an idea that seems biased or wrong headed, the principle of maximizing the soundness of others’ arguments may well lead to a more effective refutation or middle ground. The wisdom of this principle was appreciated.
We discussed topics from Chapter 3 of Baggini & Fosl: Tools for Assessment.
3.24, Self-defeating arguments are charges leveled at relativism and logical positivism. The discussion took us to genes via Plantinga’s criticism of ”natural” evolution. 3.3 Bivalence and the Excluded Middle showed how rigorous logic is a different “language game” in Wittgenstein’s terms from common speech. We looked at examples countering the excluded middle and discussed Sorites paradox (how many hairs have to be lost until a man is “bald”?) as well as vagueness, and we touched on fuzzy logic.
3.13 The Genetic Fallacy, that it is not valid to cite the origins of an argument as a refutation, though it may be helpful to use the origins as an explanation. The genetic fallacy is a common method of attempting to influence opinion.
3.6 Circularity quoted some interesting examples: Descartes argument that God give us clear ideas and we have a clear idea of God so he must exist; the inductive fallacy and Popper’s idea of falsification – and we took in 3.25, the concept of sufficient reason here. The discussion then touched on some of the history of scientific ideas, and a maxim that scientists should “treasure the abnormalities” in experiments.
3.18 The Principle of Charity seemed one subset of 3.1 Alternative Explanations. As well as respecting the views of someone proposing an idea that seems biased or wrong headed, the principle of maximizing the soundness of others’ arguments may well lead to a more effective refutation or middle ground. The wisdom of this principle was appreciated.
3rd March 2015 Philosophy of Science - Realism and Anti-Realism (Group 2)
We covered Explanations (Chapter 3 in the “Very Short Introduction” book). We looked at Hempel’s Covering Law Model: an explanation that is a logical deductive argument with true premises where at least one of the premises is a general law. We discussed the asymmetry issue and its relation to causation (which itself was discussed in depth). The height of a flagpole and the length of its shadow was a useful case. The discussion returned to the problem of induction and how we get to the axioms necessary to learn from deductive argument. This brought us back to Chapter 4 and our topics list via empiricism versus rationalism. Thence to the realism debate: is a scientific concept true (does it correspond to reality) when it is not observable but only detectable? We discussed the boundary and the consensus was that observable has a wide scope. Then is reality independent of us? Or is it personal, or does everything depend on there being an observer? There may be other routes to reality – mysticism for example. Science provides us with a way of predicting how things will operate, but, as we asked last time, does it tell us any more?
We covered Explanations (Chapter 3 in the “Very Short Introduction” book). We looked at Hempel’s Covering Law Model: an explanation that is a logical deductive argument with true premises where at least one of the premises is a general law. We discussed the asymmetry issue and its relation to causation (which itself was discussed in depth). The height of a flagpole and the length of its shadow was a useful case. The discussion returned to the problem of induction and how we get to the axioms necessary to learn from deductive argument. This brought us back to Chapter 4 and our topics list via empiricism versus rationalism. Thence to the realism debate: is a scientific concept true (does it correspond to reality) when it is not observable but only detectable? We discussed the boundary and the consensus was that observable has a wide scope. Then is reality independent of us? Or is it personal, or does everything depend on there being an observer? There may be other routes to reality – mysticism for example. Science provides us with a way of predicting how things will operate, but, as we asked last time, does it tell us any more?
13th February 2015 More Arguments and Fallacies
In Chapter 2 of Baggini & Fosl we looked at logical constructions, e.g. “The Internet”, “The average Briton”, “The Catholic Church”, and recalled Gilbert Ryle’s “category mistake”. We discussed reduction and Occam’s razor and whether it might not sometimes be better to prefer a more complicated explanation. We started fallacies by comparing the valid arguments modus ponens and modus tollens with fallacies with similar looking forms: assuming the consequent and denying the antecedent. in thee “Red Herring” fallacies we noted argumentum ad hominem and appeals to authority, and discussed the conditions justifying the latter. Amphiboly or double arrangement is pulling the meaning of a sentence through ambiguity (“two pizzas for one special price”) or which word is stressed (“all men are created equal”). We noted begging the question and circular arguments, and applied the “slippery slope” to euthanasia and mitochondrial transplants (three parent babies). We recognized the historian’s fallacy – assuming people living in a different age have the same thoughts and outlook as we do. We looked at some probabilistic / statistical fallacies – the gambler’s fallacy and some from Daniel Kahneman – failing to recognise the underlying a priori probability in a situation (is a “Goth” more likely to be a Satanist than a Christian?), overestimating very small probabilities, and being conservative in taking risks (two to one ratio regularly observable in “deal or no deal”).
In Chapter 2 of Baggini & Fosl we looked at logical constructions, e.g. “The Internet”, “The average Briton”, “The Catholic Church”, and recalled Gilbert Ryle’s “category mistake”. We discussed reduction and Occam’s razor and whether it might not sometimes be better to prefer a more complicated explanation. We started fallacies by comparing the valid arguments modus ponens and modus tollens with fallacies with similar looking forms: assuming the consequent and denying the antecedent. in thee “Red Herring” fallacies we noted argumentum ad hominem and appeals to authority, and discussed the conditions justifying the latter. Amphiboly or double arrangement is pulling the meaning of a sentence through ambiguity (“two pizzas for one special price”) or which word is stressed (“all men are created equal”). We noted begging the question and circular arguments, and applied the “slippery slope” to euthanasia and mitochondrial transplants (three parent babies). We recognized the historian’s fallacy – assuming people living in a different age have the same thoughts and outlook as we do. We looked at some probabilistic / statistical fallacies – the gambler’s fallacy and some from Daniel Kahneman – failing to recognise the underlying a priori probability in a situation (is a “Goth” more likely to be a Satanist than a Christian?), overestimating very small probabilities, and being conservative in taking risks (two to one ratio regularly observable in “deal or no deal”).
3rd February 2015 Philosophy of Science - What is Science? (Group 2)
The study of the Philosophy of Science will be base on the two books “50 Philosophy of Science Ideas You Really Need to Know” (50 Ideas You Really Need to Know series) by Gareth Southwell & “Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction” by Samir Okasha. The first meeting essentially asked what science is, or in Wittgentein’s approach – what are the “rules of the game” for doing science? We looked at the development of science from natural philosophy. From the earliest times the pre-Socratics were concerned with matter and form, and even before Plato and Aristotle preferred to trust their thoughts over their sensations. Only with the renaissance did empiricism come to the fore, and experiment and demonstration became key properties of scientific method. We noted Popper’s observation that a scientific experiment should be designed to falsify a theory rather than demonstrate it: scientific theories rely on inductive logic – the generalization from what has been observed to happen to a prediction of what will happen - and falsification might be claimed to get round this problem by substituting a deductive argument. We noted falsification has its more general application in philosophy in logical positivism. We discussed experimental method: the importance of measurement systems, the problem of finding the truly relevant variables and probability. We discussed the language necessary to science – both ordinary language and mathematics. We debated the place of creativity in science – and compared it with the arts. One useful proposition was that science addresses the question of how things come about, rather than why. Are its truths just pragmatic, i.e. useful, or something more?
The study of the Philosophy of Science will be base on the two books “50 Philosophy of Science Ideas You Really Need to Know” (50 Ideas You Really Need to Know series) by Gareth Southwell & “Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction” by Samir Okasha. The first meeting essentially asked what science is, or in Wittgentein’s approach – what are the “rules of the game” for doing science? We looked at the development of science from natural philosophy. From the earliest times the pre-Socratics were concerned with matter and form, and even before Plato and Aristotle preferred to trust their thoughts over their sensations. Only with the renaissance did empiricism come to the fore, and experiment and demonstration became key properties of scientific method. We noted Popper’s observation that a scientific experiment should be designed to falsify a theory rather than demonstrate it: scientific theories rely on inductive logic – the generalization from what has been observed to happen to a prediction of what will happen - and falsification might be claimed to get round this problem by substituting a deductive argument. We noted falsification has its more general application in philosophy in logical positivism. We discussed experimental method: the importance of measurement systems, the problem of finding the truly relevant variables and probability. We discussed the language necessary to science – both ordinary language and mathematics. We debated the place of creativity in science – and compared it with the arts. One useful proposition was that science addresses the question of how things come about, rather than why. Are its truths just pragmatic, i.e. useful, or something more?
16th January 2015 More Arguments
We reviewed the exercises on deductive and inductive logic from last meeting and went through the remaining questions together. The exercises showed we are reasonably competent at spotting the different types of argument and really good at questioning premises – and aware of the difference between spin and commercial / self-interest and academic logical argument! We then checked what we had covered in Baggini & Fosl Chapter 1 and talked through refutation, axioms and tautologies and the law of non-contradiction. In Chapter 2 we looked at Abduction and compared it with Induction. It was illuminating to look at the debate as to which of these is more basic. The hypothetico – deductive method showed how Popper tried to get round the induction problem in science (and will be discussed again in philosophy group 2!). We examined dialectic and we discussed analogies and their closely related Intuition pumps, thought experiments and useful fictions. Throughout it was good to revisit particular philosophers’ ideas as illustrations.
We reviewed the exercises on deductive and inductive logic from last meeting and went through the remaining questions together. The exercises showed we are reasonably competent at spotting the different types of argument and really good at questioning premises – and aware of the difference between spin and commercial / self-interest and academic logical argument! We then checked what we had covered in Baggini & Fosl Chapter 1 and talked through refutation, axioms and tautologies and the law of non-contradiction. In Chapter 2 we looked at Abduction and compared it with Induction. It was illuminating to look at the debate as to which of these is more basic. The hypothetico – deductive method showed how Popper tried to get round the induction problem in science (and will be discussed again in philosophy group 2!). We examined dialectic and we discussed analogies and their closely related Intuition pumps, thought experiments and useful fictions. Throughout it was good to revisit particular philosophers’ ideas as illustrations.
28th November 2014 Arguments
Our preparation was to read Chapter 1 of The Philosopher’s Toolkit by Julian Baggini and Peter Fosl and to look at http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/. We went through some notes and exercises at the meeting. We looked at the difference between arguments and explanation – and questions, commands, etc. We distinguished deductive from inductive arguments, and worked on the difference between validity and truth. (By the way, here is a further example of the dangers of not spotting an assumed premise – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXn2QVipK2o). We differentiated categorical and truth-functional deductive arguments and learnt that the latter involve logical operators – negation, conjunction, disjunction (or – this conventionally means inclusive unless specified as exclusive or)and conditional (if....then). There are three kinds of inductive arguments: analogical, inductive generalization and causal.
Our preparation was to read Chapter 1 of The Philosopher’s Toolkit by Julian Baggini and Peter Fosl and to look at http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/. We went through some notes and exercises at the meeting. We looked at the difference between arguments and explanation – and questions, commands, etc. We distinguished deductive from inductive arguments, and worked on the difference between validity and truth. (By the way, here is a further example of the dangers of not spotting an assumed premise – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXn2QVipK2o). We differentiated categorical and truth-functional deductive arguments and learnt that the latter involve logical operators – negation, conjunction, disjunction (or – this conventionally means inclusive unless specified as exclusive or)and conditional (if....then). There are three kinds of inductive arguments: analogical, inductive generalization and causal.
17th October 2014 Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein's first book was the Tractatus. The world is the totality of facts (rather than things). The possible interaction of things constitutes a state of affairs and the obtaining of a state of affairs is a fact. We make a representation or (possibly auditory) picture of a state of affairs. So our language reflects the world and propositions are true if they correspond to facts. If we cannot make a verifiable picture of something – because it is transcendental, mystical, etc., then it cannot be discussed. For example, we can picture “God in Heaven”, but we cannot picture “I believe that God is in heaven”, so that is something we cannot discuss. This thinking influenced the Logical Positivists, the emphasis on the necessity of discussing only that which can be verified is the scientific approach. The question was raised how far science has since advanced and the effect on this line of thought. This gave rise to a comparison with the modern “Scientism” of Richard Dawkins and similar thinkers. It was noted that Wittgenstein himself did not reject the mystical or transcendental as later thinkers have, he just thought such things best contemplated in silence. The meaning of Wittgenstein’s work is still debated, and a text of the Tractatus with two parallel translations shows how difficult it is to capture Wittgenstein’s ideas. Wittgenstein rejected his own ideas, and his only later work published posthumously was Philosophical Investigations. The meaning of a word is not the thing it stands for. Language is a tool we use working for what we want to achieve, and the rules depend on what sort of “game” we are playing. We have to know what game we are playing to “let the fly out of the bottle”. The idea of language games may be expanded. The whole language is a game, but there are subsets: essays, conversations, jokes, poetry , religion. We need to know the game to understand and use language gainfully. The Private Language Argument, according to Roger Scruton is an attack on the Cartesian “I think therefore I am” (begs the question anyway), by casting doubt on whether we can claim knowledge of our own subjective experience: we cannot assume a sample for comparison. Apart from the “beetle in a box” game (or the call my bluff definition of a “stulg”!) we may consider pain: I am or am not in pain, but unless I am a zombie, I cannot not know I am in pain. Therefore it makes no sense to say “I know I am in pain”, unless to emphasise that I am in pain. We understand pain and maybe calibrate our pain in a public language, not a private one. So similarly , I can say “I am thinking”, but not “I know I am thinking” (“I have a mind”). Scruton says that this approach works towards a Kantian “philosophical anthropology”, which denies the sceptical position not by trying to prove we can know the real world, but just by asking questions like “what kind of being could have knowledge of an objective world?” through to a conclusion that only beings of a certain kind can have such sceptical doubts. The meeting concluded with some thoughts on Chomsky on the structure of language and truth. This led to further discussions and more references to Steven Pinker!
Wittgenstein's first book was the Tractatus. The world is the totality of facts (rather than things). The possible interaction of things constitutes a state of affairs and the obtaining of a state of affairs is a fact. We make a representation or (possibly auditory) picture of a state of affairs. So our language reflects the world and propositions are true if they correspond to facts. If we cannot make a verifiable picture of something – because it is transcendental, mystical, etc., then it cannot be discussed. For example, we can picture “God in Heaven”, but we cannot picture “I believe that God is in heaven”, so that is something we cannot discuss. This thinking influenced the Logical Positivists, the emphasis on the necessity of discussing only that which can be verified is the scientific approach. The question was raised how far science has since advanced and the effect on this line of thought. This gave rise to a comparison with the modern “Scientism” of Richard Dawkins and similar thinkers. It was noted that Wittgenstein himself did not reject the mystical or transcendental as later thinkers have, he just thought such things best contemplated in silence. The meaning of Wittgenstein’s work is still debated, and a text of the Tractatus with two parallel translations shows how difficult it is to capture Wittgenstein’s ideas. Wittgenstein rejected his own ideas, and his only later work published posthumously was Philosophical Investigations. The meaning of a word is not the thing it stands for. Language is a tool we use working for what we want to achieve, and the rules depend on what sort of “game” we are playing. We have to know what game we are playing to “let the fly out of the bottle”. The idea of language games may be expanded. The whole language is a game, but there are subsets: essays, conversations, jokes, poetry , religion. We need to know the game to understand and use language gainfully. The Private Language Argument, according to Roger Scruton is an attack on the Cartesian “I think therefore I am” (begs the question anyway), by casting doubt on whether we can claim knowledge of our own subjective experience: we cannot assume a sample for comparison. Apart from the “beetle in a box” game (or the call my bluff definition of a “stulg”!) we may consider pain: I am or am not in pain, but unless I am a zombie, I cannot not know I am in pain. Therefore it makes no sense to say “I know I am in pain”, unless to emphasise that I am in pain. We understand pain and maybe calibrate our pain in a public language, not a private one. So similarly , I can say “I am thinking”, but not “I know I am thinking” (“I have a mind”). Scruton says that this approach works towards a Kantian “philosophical anthropology”, which denies the sceptical position not by trying to prove we can know the real world, but just by asking questions like “what kind of being could have knowledge of an objective world?” through to a conclusion that only beings of a certain kind can have such sceptical doubts. The meeting concluded with some thoughts on Chomsky on the structure of language and truth. This led to further discussions and more references to Steven Pinker!
19th September 2014 Language
19th September 2014 Language
In the DK book we looked at de Saussure, Wittgenstein and Quine, and on the internet or elsewhere at Chomsky and Steven Pinker
Here is the definition of semiotics: semiotics is the general theory of signs, and is usually divided into three fields semantics, syntactics and pragmatics. We didn’t discuss semiotics, but perhaps it offers one possible framework to describe some aspects of what we did discuss, C S Peirce whom we studied under pragmatism apparently worked in this field, and classified signs as icons (naturalistic pictures), natural signs (clouds signify rain) and conventional signs (red for danger) as well as “the majority of words”. In our discussions of language we did consider both the spoken and the written word and language beyond words, such as body language and indeed sign language – and also the deep meaning of silence! Semantics is the study of meaning: its pioneer de Saussure pointed out that, for example, there is nothing particularly “doggy about the word “dog”, but that any message is a system of of signs, a system of relationships and concepts. We noted that the relationship is not constant – the same words are used in many different ways. We discussed Quine’s assertion that language is a social art, and his example of “gavagai”, that might mean rabbit, dinner or pest in a different culture. Pragmatics is the study of language that focuses on users and contexts, and Quine is in the pragmatism tradition. On syntactics, which is grammar and the structure of language, we noted Chomsky’s development of a generative grammar to explain how children learn their native language to such a sophisticated level in a very short time. Stephen Pinker takes the idea that such an ability to learn language must be innate in his book “The Language Instinct. We discussed some aspects of Wittgenstein’s life and work, but will return to him next time.
In the DK book we looked at de Saussure, Wittgenstein and Quine, and on the internet or elsewhere at Chomsky and Steven Pinker
Here is the definition of semiotics: semiotics is the general theory of signs, and is usually divided into three fields semantics, syntactics and pragmatics. We didn’t discuss semiotics, but perhaps it offers one possible framework to describe some aspects of what we did discuss, C S Peirce whom we studied under pragmatism apparently worked in this field, and classified signs as icons (naturalistic pictures), natural signs (clouds signify rain) and conventional signs (red for danger) as well as “the majority of words”. In our discussions of language we did consider both the spoken and the written word and language beyond words, such as body language and indeed sign language – and also the deep meaning of silence! Semantics is the study of meaning: its pioneer de Saussure pointed out that, for example, there is nothing particularly “doggy about the word “dog”, but that any message is a system of of signs, a system of relationships and concepts. We noted that the relationship is not constant – the same words are used in many different ways. We discussed Quine’s assertion that language is a social art, and his example of “gavagai”, that might mean rabbit, dinner or pest in a different culture. Pragmatics is the study of language that focuses on users and contexts, and Quine is in the pragmatism tradition. On syntactics, which is grammar and the structure of language, we noted Chomsky’s development of a generative grammar to explain how children learn their native language to such a sophisticated level in a very short time. Stephen Pinker takes the idea that such an ability to learn language must be innate in his book “The Language Instinct. We discussed some aspects of Wittgenstein’s life and work, but will return to him next time.
29th August 2014 Pragmatism
As Aristotle said, “To say of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not, is to speak truly.” So why would anyone want to abandon the idea of the truth of a statement and just consider whether it is practical? Scruton (in “Modern Philosophy”) explains that the difficulty with this and other Correspondence Theories is that in identifying a proposition with a fact, it is impossible to avoid using a proposition – the very proposition to be validated. Philosophers who dismiss Correspondence Theory say that the best we can do is ensure all our truths are coherent: no truth is contradicted by another. CS Peirce, the founder of Pragmatism cut through this academic debate and declared a statement useful if it provide valid predictions – an idea in alignment with Popper’s explanation that scientific method sets out to falsify a theory: in both cases an idea found lacking is to be rejected for a better one. Pragmatism was taken up and broadened (Peirce said corrupted!) by William James. He was interested in behaviour rather than physics, and looked to pragmatism for how to live. This does not permit us to act on just any idea: to be true there must be evidence in its favour and it must withstand criticism – a universal property of truth. This shift caused our discussion to cover right versus wrong as well as true versus false. John Dewey built on these ideas and emphasised learning by doing ad involvement, thus to support democracy – again a practical rather than theoretical approach. William Du Bois applied pragmatism to the civil rights movement, urging beliefs that facilitate the “eudaemonia” of human flourishing. This led to a discussion of the rise and fall of communism, touched on by Scruton in his appraisal of Rorty, who takes pragmatism firmly into the Coherence Theory camp – rejecting the possibility of relating truth to an external reality. One consequence is that truth is a function of the society we live in “what society will let us get away with”, though Rorty is seeking to make society as inclusive as possible. Scruton does not resolve the conflict between Correspondence and Coherence theories, though he does offer Kant’s theory that while we cannot know “things in themselves”, the phenomena we work with do correlate with reality. This seems to help the Correspondence Theory in the world of Physics, but perhaps a Coherence Theory makes more sense in the sphere of Ethics. Then again, he presents the redundancy theory (used by Blackburn): any proposition may be asserted, and to add “and that’s true” does not get the debate any further, except perhaps to assert that pursuance of the proposition and its truth conditions would lead to agreement to accept the proposition. As Blackburn says, maybe important ideas do need to be treated specifically and argued through. Our considerations of the practical versus the academic perhaps suggest that philosophy may not provide many direct practical answers, but it does make us aware of a range of concepts and viewpoints we can bring to bear on issues.
As Aristotle said, “To say of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not, is to speak truly.” So why would anyone want to abandon the idea of the truth of a statement and just consider whether it is practical? Scruton (in “Modern Philosophy”) explains that the difficulty with this and other Correspondence Theories is that in identifying a proposition with a fact, it is impossible to avoid using a proposition – the very proposition to be validated. Philosophers who dismiss Correspondence Theory say that the best we can do is ensure all our truths are coherent: no truth is contradicted by another. CS Peirce, the founder of Pragmatism cut through this academic debate and declared a statement useful if it provide valid predictions – an idea in alignment with Popper’s explanation that scientific method sets out to falsify a theory: in both cases an idea found lacking is to be rejected for a better one. Pragmatism was taken up and broadened (Peirce said corrupted!) by William James. He was interested in behaviour rather than physics, and looked to pragmatism for how to live. This does not permit us to act on just any idea: to be true there must be evidence in its favour and it must withstand criticism – a universal property of truth. This shift caused our discussion to cover right versus wrong as well as true versus false. John Dewey built on these ideas and emphasised learning by doing ad involvement, thus to support democracy – again a practical rather than theoretical approach. William Du Bois applied pragmatism to the civil rights movement, urging beliefs that facilitate the “eudaemonia” of human flourishing. This led to a discussion of the rise and fall of communism, touched on by Scruton in his appraisal of Rorty, who takes pragmatism firmly into the Coherence Theory camp – rejecting the possibility of relating truth to an external reality. One consequence is that truth is a function of the society we live in “what society will let us get away with”, though Rorty is seeking to make society as inclusive as possible. Scruton does not resolve the conflict between Correspondence and Coherence theories, though he does offer Kant’s theory that while we cannot know “things in themselves”, the phenomena we work with do correlate with reality. This seems to help the Correspondence Theory in the world of Physics, but perhaps a Coherence Theory makes more sense in the sphere of Ethics. Then again, he presents the redundancy theory (used by Blackburn): any proposition may be asserted, and to add “and that’s true” does not get the debate any further, except perhaps to assert that pursuance of the proposition and its truth conditions would lead to agreement to accept the proposition. As Blackburn says, maybe important ideas do need to be treated specifically and argued through. Our considerations of the practical versus the academic perhaps suggest that philosophy may not provide many direct practical answers, but it does make us aware of a range of concepts and viewpoints we can bring to bear on issues.
25th July 2014 Phenomenology
In a wide ranging discussion, we started us off with a compilation of notes from various sources on Phenomenology. As a reaction against the quest for knowledge of things as they are (Nuomena), Phenomenology brings philosophy back to the first person experience of everyday life, and this was well illustrated by the “girl meets boy” narrative – though it was later pointed out that “Queer theory” would require us to ignore (bracket?) the assumptions of gender, romance, etc. Heidegger points out that rather than thinking about a hammer, we need to use one. We were led to consider the sensation of the colour red as distinct from its explanation as a response to a particular frequency of electromagnetic radiation, and noted we experience everything through such filters. Some discussion whether we could achieve knowledge of any general theory of subjective experience, and some parallels with science were drawn (relativity); but as Heidegger (again) said, when we think scientifically, we are just using the tools for “doing science” and our experience is still of phenomena. The topic brings out the difference between continental philosophy and its search for interpretation, meaning and value; and analytical philosophy with its logical and linguistic approach to truth and knowledge. From an analytical view, we touched on the nature of the mind – whether it is like a computer (Turing test, Searle’s Chinese room) even as a neural network; and whether artificial intelligence can learn “common sense”. We questioned the use of phenomenology and it was identified as the basis of psychiatry, where diagnosis may be through the nature of hallucinations. It was interesting to learn that psychosis – and also sex – are more of a continuous variable than either / or discrete states! Heidegger’s direction to study ourselves means we consider the “otherness” of others, and we traced how this leads through the ideas of choice and alienation through Sartre to Existentialism and then through Simone de Beauvoir to Feminism. We considered whether we were a single self, or whether we rather select the appropriate “mask” for the situation. We considered consciousness and the mind / body problem, and it is perhaps more helpful to think of awareness rather than the ambiguity of consciousness. We discussed meditation and the attainment of different levels of consciousness, whether used therapeutically or to focus on the divine.
In a wide ranging discussion, we started us off with a compilation of notes from various sources on Phenomenology. As a reaction against the quest for knowledge of things as they are (Nuomena), Phenomenology brings philosophy back to the first person experience of everyday life, and this was well illustrated by the “girl meets boy” narrative – though it was later pointed out that “Queer theory” would require us to ignore (bracket?) the assumptions of gender, romance, etc. Heidegger points out that rather than thinking about a hammer, we need to use one. We were led to consider the sensation of the colour red as distinct from its explanation as a response to a particular frequency of electromagnetic radiation, and noted we experience everything through such filters. Some discussion whether we could achieve knowledge of any general theory of subjective experience, and some parallels with science were drawn (relativity); but as Heidegger (again) said, when we think scientifically, we are just using the tools for “doing science” and our experience is still of phenomena. The topic brings out the difference between continental philosophy and its search for interpretation, meaning and value; and analytical philosophy with its logical and linguistic approach to truth and knowledge. From an analytical view, we touched on the nature of the mind – whether it is like a computer (Turing test, Searle’s Chinese room) even as a neural network; and whether artificial intelligence can learn “common sense”. We questioned the use of phenomenology and it was identified as the basis of psychiatry, where diagnosis may be through the nature of hallucinations. It was interesting to learn that psychosis – and also sex – are more of a continuous variable than either / or discrete states! Heidegger’s direction to study ourselves means we consider the “otherness” of others, and we traced how this leads through the ideas of choice and alienation through Sartre to Existentialism and then through Simone de Beauvoir to Feminism. We considered whether we were a single self, or whether we rather select the appropriate “mask” for the situation. We considered consciousness and the mind / body problem, and it is perhaps more helpful to think of awareness rather than the ambiguity of consciousness. We discussed meditation and the attainment of different levels of consciousness, whether used therapeutically or to focus on the divine.
20th June 2014 Existentialism
Kierkegaarde is regarded as the first existentialist, because of his response to Hegel’s world view that history was proceeding by dialectic to and end point of one spirit, perhaps the collective human mind. Kierkegaarde objected that this took no account of the individual, and that each individual is responsible for their own choice and actions. He used the story of Abraham being called on by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, and described the anguish attached to having to make our decisions and take a leap of faith. A lighter take on the (impending) angst came from the plight of our mythical ancestors the Golgafrinchans! The idea of choice is linked to our capacity for self consciousness and reflection on the cause and effect of our actions, a faculty perhaps not unique but certainly far more developed in man than in any other species. We questioned how much choice is really open to different people – Maslow’s hierarchy of needs helps here, prioritising the need for food, shelter and security before love and self fulfilment, but we heard from Frankl’s “Man’s search for Meaning” of concentration camp prisoners who would give what little they had to others, showing the power of the existential position. We recognised that the environment for an existentialist view was favourable at the end of WW2: society had been literally shattered, but there was some freedom for intellectuals to develop theories and new ideas of a politics of protest and individual freedom and sufficient education for people to respond to these ideas. We noted that the ideas spread so that so many things are called “existentialist” that it is hard to track the meaning of the term. Sartre clamed that Existentialism could still be a position for the religious or the atheist, and we debated whether our “choices” would depend on our view of our existence as transient or eternal – but then that in itself is an act of faith for each of us to examine and embrace or reject. In his essay he claims to be a humanist, and suggests that we should create ourselves as we believe all mankind must be – but what is the basis of this, when there is no external purpose or rule? Presumably Kierkegaarde would be pleased when people chose faith in God. Are there rules or at least some assumptions guiding this subjective approach? There is opportunity for the Existentialist to be – or to be seen as – selfish. Scruton discusses the problem of alienation ( a Marxist concept) which for the existentialist is to avoid objectifying or being objectified by others (“Hell is other people”, he quotes from one of Sartre’s novels). The Existentialist’s freedom is dearly bought if it means keeping everyone else at arm’s length. We discussed this postulate that there is no purpose - no essence. Perhaps there is no discernible goal for the universe, but we can argue that evolution has given us a “revealed strategy”: to survive and to propagate our genes. Is it better to ignore this possibility, as Camus proposes? If not to the degree of ants, we are a social species, and maybe Alain de Botton’s “Religion for Atheists” gives a possible way out of these issues. Nevertheless, Existentialism gives a very positive message that our lives are what we make of them through our actions, and an encouragement to question the objectification of ourselves or others.
Kierkegaarde is regarded as the first existentialist, because of his response to Hegel’s world view that history was proceeding by dialectic to and end point of one spirit, perhaps the collective human mind. Kierkegaarde objected that this took no account of the individual, and that each individual is responsible for their own choice and actions. He used the story of Abraham being called on by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, and described the anguish attached to having to make our decisions and take a leap of faith. A lighter take on the (impending) angst came from the plight of our mythical ancestors the Golgafrinchans! The idea of choice is linked to our capacity for self consciousness and reflection on the cause and effect of our actions, a faculty perhaps not unique but certainly far more developed in man than in any other species. We questioned how much choice is really open to different people – Maslow’s hierarchy of needs helps here, prioritising the need for food, shelter and security before love and self fulfilment, but we heard from Frankl’s “Man’s search for Meaning” of concentration camp prisoners who would give what little they had to others, showing the power of the existential position. We recognised that the environment for an existentialist view was favourable at the end of WW2: society had been literally shattered, but there was some freedom for intellectuals to develop theories and new ideas of a politics of protest and individual freedom and sufficient education for people to respond to these ideas. We noted that the ideas spread so that so many things are called “existentialist” that it is hard to track the meaning of the term. Sartre clamed that Existentialism could still be a position for the religious or the atheist, and we debated whether our “choices” would depend on our view of our existence as transient or eternal – but then that in itself is an act of faith for each of us to examine and embrace or reject. In his essay he claims to be a humanist, and suggests that we should create ourselves as we believe all mankind must be – but what is the basis of this, when there is no external purpose or rule? Presumably Kierkegaarde would be pleased when people chose faith in God. Are there rules or at least some assumptions guiding this subjective approach? There is opportunity for the Existentialist to be – or to be seen as – selfish. Scruton discusses the problem of alienation ( a Marxist concept) which for the existentialist is to avoid objectifying or being objectified by others (“Hell is other people”, he quotes from one of Sartre’s novels). The Existentialist’s freedom is dearly bought if it means keeping everyone else at arm’s length. We discussed this postulate that there is no purpose - no essence. Perhaps there is no discernible goal for the universe, but we can argue that evolution has given us a “revealed strategy”: to survive and to propagate our genes. Is it better to ignore this possibility, as Camus proposes? If not to the degree of ants, we are a social species, and maybe Alain de Botton’s “Religion for Atheists” gives a possible way out of these issues. Nevertheless, Existentialism gives a very positive message that our lives are what we make of them through our actions, and an encouragement to question the objectification of ourselves or others.
16 May 2014 Politics.
Some questions:-
1. What are the questions asked by political philosophers? How do they go about finding answers to these questions?
2. What is democracy? What are the strengths of the democratic system? Why are they strengths in your opinion? Clarify the criteria by which you are making your judgments.
Where political power comes from, and what makes it legitimate? The first answer was simply that a strong individual or group could simply seize and hold power, but we also saw it could be consent of the ruled – a social contract. This led to thoughts that this justified universal suffrage, and we discussed the “Putney Debates”, when the victorious Roundheads got together to talk out how they were going to run the country. A paper by Gilens & Page suggests that while we might think we live in a “Majoritarian Electoral Democracy”, the model is more probably “Biased Pluralism”, ruled by the struggles of interest groups and powerful corporations. We recognised that the legitimacy of power can be called into question: we could have cited Thoreau’s option of civil disobedience, but we didn’t – though we recognised that the more extreme step of revolution could be the outcome.
We recognised the acceleration in the development of political philosophy from the Renaissance and its threat to sovereignty. The shift in ideas and growth and transition from compact city states to nations meant some re-thinking and some problems. Hobbes set out the obligations on the citizens and also the ruler of the state and enshrined the right to defend one’s life. Lock, Adam Smith, Rousseau and others developed the idea of the Social Contract (we liked Edmund Burke’s idea that the contract was with our forebears and descendants, not just those living now)and rights to liberty – and Marx pointed out that property can give one class liberty at the expense of the un-propertied proletariat. It was interesting that Abraham Lincoln seems to have shared Marx’s sentiment that capitalism oppressed the capitalist as well as the worker when he said “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master”. We briefly noted Isaiah Berlin’s observation that one man’s freedom is another’s oppression, and John Rawls’ proposal that the rules of society should be drawn up before considering one’s place within it.
We learnt of Aristotle’s scientific approach to politics: he collected 158 constitutions of various states of the then known world and compared them. He concluded that the best form of government depended on the state being governed (which does make some sense!). Comparing Aristotle’s democracy with other possibilities, we proposed that democracy would work better where there was a reasonable uniformity of views. Consideration of this further brought out a concern that a majority could impose its will on a minority, and we asked whether it was possible to run different legal systems within one society (e.g. Sharia law for Muslims).
Steven Pinker asks two questions to categorise political thinking: 1. Do you think of the state as something more than the individual members – with Plato, Hegel and Marx; or do you think of the state as a social contract between individuals for their common benefit – with Rousseau, Hobbes, Burke, etc.? 2. Do you take the “tragic” view of human nature with Hobbes and Burke; or do you take the utopian view with Rousseau, Mill, Marx (after the revolution), etc.? Pinker chooses social contract and tragic view, and cites several issues of human behaviour to show why democracy is best – but these issues do need to be addressed by democracies too. He includes:- -The primacy of family ties leading to nepotism and inheritance -The limited scope of communal sharing and the concept of reciprocity (example – disdain for “scroungers”) -The universality of dominance and violence. Individuals use violence and states make war: i) because they can take something by force ii) in self defence – as a pre-emptive strike iii) for “honour” -The heritability of capability leading to inequalities and the need to trade off freedom -The prevalence of defence mechanisms and self-serving biases by which people deceive themselves about their autonomy, wisdom and integrity Several of the philosophers in the D-K book pick up on this last point: -Said says that every empire is convinced it is bringing civilisation to the world -Fanon agrees that the winners set the norms, so that the escape route for the black man is to adopt the white culture. - Perhaps Chomsky is right to say we should be on our guard: cut through the rhetoric and look at the evidence to see how a state actually behaves. Apply the principle of universality to the state as well as to the individual.
Some questions:-
1. What are the questions asked by political philosophers? How do they go about finding answers to these questions?
2. What is democracy? What are the strengths of the democratic system? Why are they strengths in your opinion? Clarify the criteria by which you are making your judgments.
Where political power comes from, and what makes it legitimate? The first answer was simply that a strong individual or group could simply seize and hold power, but we also saw it could be consent of the ruled – a social contract. This led to thoughts that this justified universal suffrage, and we discussed the “Putney Debates”, when the victorious Roundheads got together to talk out how they were going to run the country. A paper by Gilens & Page suggests that while we might think we live in a “Majoritarian Electoral Democracy”, the model is more probably “Biased Pluralism”, ruled by the struggles of interest groups and powerful corporations. We recognised that the legitimacy of power can be called into question: we could have cited Thoreau’s option of civil disobedience, but we didn’t – though we recognised that the more extreme step of revolution could be the outcome.
We recognised the acceleration in the development of political philosophy from the Renaissance and its threat to sovereignty. The shift in ideas and growth and transition from compact city states to nations meant some re-thinking and some problems. Hobbes set out the obligations on the citizens and also the ruler of the state and enshrined the right to defend one’s life. Lock, Adam Smith, Rousseau and others developed the idea of the Social Contract (we liked Edmund Burke’s idea that the contract was with our forebears and descendants, not just those living now)and rights to liberty – and Marx pointed out that property can give one class liberty at the expense of the un-propertied proletariat. It was interesting that Abraham Lincoln seems to have shared Marx’s sentiment that capitalism oppressed the capitalist as well as the worker when he said “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master”. We briefly noted Isaiah Berlin’s observation that one man’s freedom is another’s oppression, and John Rawls’ proposal that the rules of society should be drawn up before considering one’s place within it.
We learnt of Aristotle’s scientific approach to politics: he collected 158 constitutions of various states of the then known world and compared them. He concluded that the best form of government depended on the state being governed (which does make some sense!). Comparing Aristotle’s democracy with other possibilities, we proposed that democracy would work better where there was a reasonable uniformity of views. Consideration of this further brought out a concern that a majority could impose its will on a minority, and we asked whether it was possible to run different legal systems within one society (e.g. Sharia law for Muslims).
Steven Pinker asks two questions to categorise political thinking: 1. Do you think of the state as something more than the individual members – with Plato, Hegel and Marx; or do you think of the state as a social contract between individuals for their common benefit – with Rousseau, Hobbes, Burke, etc.? 2. Do you take the “tragic” view of human nature with Hobbes and Burke; or do you take the utopian view with Rousseau, Mill, Marx (after the revolution), etc.? Pinker chooses social contract and tragic view, and cites several issues of human behaviour to show why democracy is best – but these issues do need to be addressed by democracies too. He includes:- -The primacy of family ties leading to nepotism and inheritance -The limited scope of communal sharing and the concept of reciprocity (example – disdain for “scroungers”) -The universality of dominance and violence. Individuals use violence and states make war: i) because they can take something by force ii) in self defence – as a pre-emptive strike iii) for “honour” -The heritability of capability leading to inequalities and the need to trade off freedom -The prevalence of defence mechanisms and self-serving biases by which people deceive themselves about their autonomy, wisdom and integrity Several of the philosophers in the D-K book pick up on this last point: -Said says that every empire is convinced it is bringing civilisation to the world -Fanon agrees that the winners set the norms, so that the escape route for the black man is to adopt the white culture. - Perhaps Chomsky is right to say we should be on our guard: cut through the rhetoric and look at the evidence to see how a state actually behaves. Apply the principle of universality to the state as well as to the individual.
11 April 2014 Feminism. Does Mind have No Gender? Is it all about domination?
We had studied a list of questions and a list of potential (proto-) “feminists”. After some debate about the meaning of the word "feminism” (advocate / philosopher or icon), we debated the contributions of Elizabeth 1st which helped to make her a successful and powerful Queen. [We also mentioned and compared Bess of Hardwick]. Marie Curie was single minded in her focus on her work and defied the social conventions of her time by pursuing her career in Science. Malala Yousafzai is the young Pakistani girl who was shot by a member of the Taliban because she had spoken out for the right of girls to receive an education. Simone De Beauvoir stressed it is a mistake to judge women insofar as they are like men. This ignores the fact that men and women are different. Her book the Second Sex was placed on the Vatican's index of forbidden books. Mary Wollstonecroft in 1792 stressed that women should be given the same education as men and they would aquire the same good character and rational approach to life. However, "The hand that rocks the cradle cannot rock the board room?" was the topic for discussion at the International Womens' day in Hong Kong recently. It was recognized that present day women who are very successful have to have excellent child care, which is unfortunately not available for many working women. We also mentioned Gertrude Bell, Oonah King and Theresa Wallach , who with Florence Blenkiron was the first person (male or female) to ride a motorcycle across Africa north to south. She reportedly said she would rather grapple with the sands of the Sahara than contemporary society.
A discussion of why and when there should be women’s events in sport led to discussions of equal pay and economics. Gerda Lerner has applied the Marxist concept of Exchange value versus Use value of women (mother virgin & prostitute). Evolutionary biology (Steven Pinker)suggests there is a genetic difference between the sexes rather than a totally social construct. He strongly notes that this is no justification for discrimination, and that variation within the sexes means there is overlap in ability. He does point out that men are stronger than women and are able to physically dominate them. Jo quoted Jean Genet - The prisoner accepts the language of the aggressor, and pointed us to Sojourner Truth “Ain’t I a woman?” and bell hooks who took the phrase as a title of one of her books on the historical impact of sexism and racism on black women.
Overall we recognised despite some progress that there is a long way to go to the proper right of women to equality of opportunity, and men and women must be encouraged to take it. Looking at a quote from Sheryl Sandberg: “A world with more females leading it could be more productive, more peaceful and happier.”
We had studied a list of questions and a list of potential (proto-) “feminists”. After some debate about the meaning of the word "feminism” (advocate / philosopher or icon), we debated the contributions of Elizabeth 1st which helped to make her a successful and powerful Queen. [We also mentioned and compared Bess of Hardwick]. Marie Curie was single minded in her focus on her work and defied the social conventions of her time by pursuing her career in Science. Malala Yousafzai is the young Pakistani girl who was shot by a member of the Taliban because she had spoken out for the right of girls to receive an education. Simone De Beauvoir stressed it is a mistake to judge women insofar as they are like men. This ignores the fact that men and women are different. Her book the Second Sex was placed on the Vatican's index of forbidden books. Mary Wollstonecroft in 1792 stressed that women should be given the same education as men and they would aquire the same good character and rational approach to life. However, "The hand that rocks the cradle cannot rock the board room?" was the topic for discussion at the International Womens' day in Hong Kong recently. It was recognized that present day women who are very successful have to have excellent child care, which is unfortunately not available for many working women. We also mentioned Gertrude Bell, Oonah King and Theresa Wallach , who with Florence Blenkiron was the first person (male or female) to ride a motorcycle across Africa north to south. She reportedly said she would rather grapple with the sands of the Sahara than contemporary society.
A discussion of why and when there should be women’s events in sport led to discussions of equal pay and economics. Gerda Lerner has applied the Marxist concept of Exchange value versus Use value of women (mother virgin & prostitute). Evolutionary biology (Steven Pinker)suggests there is a genetic difference between the sexes rather than a totally social construct. He strongly notes that this is no justification for discrimination, and that variation within the sexes means there is overlap in ability. He does point out that men are stronger than women and are able to physically dominate them. Jo quoted Jean Genet - The prisoner accepts the language of the aggressor, and pointed us to Sojourner Truth “Ain’t I a woman?” and bell hooks who took the phrase as a title of one of her books on the historical impact of sexism and racism on black women.
Overall we recognised despite some progress that there is a long way to go to the proper right of women to equality of opportunity, and men and women must be encouraged to take it. Looking at a quote from Sheryl Sandberg: “A world with more females leading it could be more productive, more peaceful and happier.”
7 March 2014 Continuing into Modern & Contemporary Philosophy from the Dorling Kinnersley Philosophy Book:-
The Interaction of History and Culture and the Way We Think - second session.
p259 Marcuse p260 Gadamer p292 Midgley p298 Lyotard p302 Foucault p306 Habermas.
We discussed History and Culture further. Starting to discuss Mary Midgley, we soon realized we needed to define Culture. She said (according to the D-K book) that culture is not of a different order to nature, but that we have evolved to be the kind of creatures who have cultures. Perhaps we can think of culture as the “muscle memory” of a group – the unconscious notion of who we are and how we solve problems collected from the experience of the past, i.e through our history. While we can be aware of different cultures in today’s world, our culture has been so ingrained into our minds, it can be very resistant to change. The culture versus genetics debate rages – we looked at a newspaper article suggesting we are born with moral values –and see below- but again perhaps we could look on Human Nature as a similar outcome over a much longer timescale: early humans also had problems to solve, and those with better solutions – and minds and brains better suited to addressing these problems – are the ones more likely to survive and pass those genes on to us. We looked at Gadamer’s contribution through Hermeneutics. We discussed this mediaeval approach to the interpretation of religious texts at the four levels: literal, allegorical, moral and transcendental; and compared it with the protestant fundamentalist approach. Then we noted Gadamer’s contribution: our understanding is always from the view of our point in history. Lyotard gave us two thoughts: one was the externalisation of knowledge, and whether the internet has brought us closer to his concern that knowledge will become a commodity – and this led us to revisit Habermas’s emphasis on the need for public spaces. The other idea was Lyotard’s caution against meta-narratives, which we could keep in mind as a caution against the neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School philosophers we have read, but also leading into Steven Pinker’s attack on The Blank Slate, The Ghost in the Machine and The Noble Savage (perhaps we should not have been so surprised at the Anthropology of the tribe described as being brought up to be suspicious and regard everyone as a possible enemy. But then again, is Pinker a white American male liberal, or a self-promoting academic – or does he have a point? We read a critique of Pinker - and no doubt we will return to this debate in the next meeting on Feminism!
The Interaction of History and Culture and the Way We Think - second session.
p259 Marcuse p260 Gadamer p292 Midgley p298 Lyotard p302 Foucault p306 Habermas.
We discussed History and Culture further. Starting to discuss Mary Midgley, we soon realized we needed to define Culture. She said (according to the D-K book) that culture is not of a different order to nature, but that we have evolved to be the kind of creatures who have cultures. Perhaps we can think of culture as the “muscle memory” of a group – the unconscious notion of who we are and how we solve problems collected from the experience of the past, i.e through our history. While we can be aware of different cultures in today’s world, our culture has been so ingrained into our minds, it can be very resistant to change. The culture versus genetics debate rages – we looked at a newspaper article suggesting we are born with moral values –and see below- but again perhaps we could look on Human Nature as a similar outcome over a much longer timescale: early humans also had problems to solve, and those with better solutions – and minds and brains better suited to addressing these problems – are the ones more likely to survive and pass those genes on to us. We looked at Gadamer’s contribution through Hermeneutics. We discussed this mediaeval approach to the interpretation of religious texts at the four levels: literal, allegorical, moral and transcendental; and compared it with the protestant fundamentalist approach. Then we noted Gadamer’s contribution: our understanding is always from the view of our point in history. Lyotard gave us two thoughts: one was the externalisation of knowledge, and whether the internet has brought us closer to his concern that knowledge will become a commodity – and this led us to revisit Habermas’s emphasis on the need for public spaces. The other idea was Lyotard’s caution against meta-narratives, which we could keep in mind as a caution against the neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School philosophers we have read, but also leading into Steven Pinker’s attack on The Blank Slate, The Ghost in the Machine and The Noble Savage (perhaps we should not have been so surprised at the Anthropology of the tribe described as being brought up to be suspicious and regard everyone as a possible enemy. But then again, is Pinker a white American male liberal, or a self-promoting academic – or does he have a point? We read a critique of Pinker - and no doubt we will return to this debate in the next meeting on Feminism!
21 February 2014 Continuing into Modern & Contemporary Philosophy from the Dorling Kinnersley Philosophy Book:-
The Interaction of History and Culture and the Way We Think.
p259 Marcuse p260 Gadamer p292 Midgley p298 Lyotard p302 Foucault p306 Habermas and p242 Ortega y Gasset
The meeting showed that studying modern and contemporary philosophy is a fair bit trickier than older philosophers where we have a longer and more stable historical perspective. We discussed the impact – or otherwise – of philosophy on aspects of contemporary life, particularly responses to modern warfare and genocide and on community versus self interest. (we noted a paper on the advantages of co-operation –and The Prisoners’ Dilemma. We picked up on Adorno’s attack on the media as degrading our critical faculties, and the power of the owners of the media as highlighted by Lyotard. We debated the feeling of political powerlessness – and related that to Habermas’s emphasis on the need for public spaces. Despite that feeling, we can relate to Ortega y Gasset’s call for philosophers to expose the assumptions that lie behind our beliefs , look at our own existence and change the world. We did get the idea that history shapes us and our culture, and that it is difficult to break free from our culture when the world changes – at it does at an accelerating pace. We are aware of other cultures – we looked at a diagram showing a study of cultural differences across nationalities.
The Interaction of History and Culture and the Way We Think.
p259 Marcuse p260 Gadamer p292 Midgley p298 Lyotard p302 Foucault p306 Habermas and p242 Ortega y Gasset
The meeting showed that studying modern and contemporary philosophy is a fair bit trickier than older philosophers where we have a longer and more stable historical perspective. We discussed the impact – or otherwise – of philosophy on aspects of contemporary life, particularly responses to modern warfare and genocide and on community versus self interest. (we noted a paper on the advantages of co-operation –and The Prisoners’ Dilemma. We picked up on Adorno’s attack on the media as degrading our critical faculties, and the power of the owners of the media as highlighted by Lyotard. We debated the feeling of political powerlessness – and related that to Habermas’s emphasis on the need for public spaces. Despite that feeling, we can relate to Ortega y Gasset’s call for philosophers to expose the assumptions that lie behind our beliefs , look at our own existence and change the world. We did get the idea that history shapes us and our culture, and that it is difficult to break free from our culture when the world changes – at it does at an accelerating pace. We are aware of other cultures – we looked at a diagram showing a study of cultural differences across nationalities.
17 January 2014 The last topic from the Warburton menu - “Politics”:-
Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau & Marx.
We did well to get through this agenda in the morning as there seemed to be so many important elements in each philosopher to cover. We must be getting good at this, because as the discussion progressed you brought out issues the group had noted I found I was ticking off the points that I had in mind and the questions Rosa sent (we checked at the end that we had addressed them). Hopefully you agree we are achieving this skim through, and getting a grasp of the subject across its range.
Machiavelli comes out as a an experienced politician who had lost his job who used the basis of the classical writers to produce a manual of how to achieve the aims of a Prince or a Republic. He’s set aside any ethical ideals of “virtue”, to put it mildly, and it is therefore perhaps a wrong question to ask if he is evil – though his methods are calculated to minimize strife, so could be seen as a political utilitarianism. Some of his maxims and advice were quoted: to Princes - “Know when to be brave as a lion, when to be cunning as a fox”. “Treat fortune like a woman” (i.e. roughly!), “It is better to be feared than loved”, “Do the harsh dirty work early”; to Republics – “you needed a strong founder”, “Use good religion and good laws”, encourage some strife between balanced factions” (e.g. patricians & plebs), “have strong laws against slandering the leaders”, prevent citizens from getting over-wealthy”, keep (military command) appointments short –term”, “encourage immigration”, “in your quest for empire, have short, big wars”. Some of these still resonate, and we discussed the currency of the need for a dirty side to politics in the real world.
I learnt this time round the consistency of Thomas Hobbes Philosophy and the way he built his political theory on one underlying assumption. He was a Renaissance man, a scientist, materialist, empiricist and atheist. He noted that we cannot know what the world is really like, we have only our sense perceptions. Extending these ides to ethics, again, we don’t have a fundamental set of rules, only what we each believe to be true – he was a relativist. One concept he thought universal was that we all have the right to protect our own continuing existence – though even here he thought we would all respond differently to any possible threat. therefore best to give up our freedom to “the sovereign” (we might say “the government”, or “the state”) to decide on the rights and wrongs of everything. And that includes religion and beliefs as well as when to go to war and the law. This sounds totalitarian, but it is tempered because the sovereign is bound by the same contract, and can act only to protect the life of his subjects. So wars must be defensive, not to aggrandize the monarch; welfare for the poor is desirable to prevent riots and revolution (what was George Osborne saying about raising the minimum wage?), but the imposition of equality of wealth or the abolition of property would be beyond the sovereign’s rights.
Rousseau seemed to attract the greatest collective suspicion. OK, we could see that man in the state of nature would be well content – conflict shouldn’t arise when there is an abundance of territory and resources. It was observed that his theory that citizens should be educated to understand and be free within “The General Will” could lead to state control, and the Cultural Revolution in China is still in our minds.
It is difficult to see how we could deal with Marx in a short session (and we can’t – see below for the next session). It was good to look at his philosophy: how he adapted Hegel’s idea of the progress and inevitability of history to demonstrate the inevitability of the revolution of the proletariat; his challenge to liberal ideas of freedom, encompassing the “free market” by his economic analysis and argument that capitalism pushed wages to starvation level. We examined reasons why communism has failed (so far?!!). It was noted that both Russia and China missed out capitalism , going straight from feudalism to communism. We read an article from The Times on Bangladeshi clothing factories. We read Peter Singer’s list of where Marx was wrong written in the 1985 (another in the OUP Very Short Introductions series), and thought that maybe the jury is still out on some: “The income gap between capitalists and workers will increase”, More and more independent producers will be forced down into the proletariat”, “Workers’ wages will remain at subsistence level”, “The rate of profit will fall”, “Capitalism will collapse because of its internal contradictions”, “Proletarian revolutions will occur in the most industrially advanced countries”.
Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau & Marx.
We did well to get through this agenda in the morning as there seemed to be so many important elements in each philosopher to cover. We must be getting good at this, because as the discussion progressed you brought out issues the group had noted I found I was ticking off the points that I had in mind and the questions Rosa sent (we checked at the end that we had addressed them). Hopefully you agree we are achieving this skim through, and getting a grasp of the subject across its range.
Machiavelli comes out as a an experienced politician who had lost his job who used the basis of the classical writers to produce a manual of how to achieve the aims of a Prince or a Republic. He’s set aside any ethical ideals of “virtue”, to put it mildly, and it is therefore perhaps a wrong question to ask if he is evil – though his methods are calculated to minimize strife, so could be seen as a political utilitarianism. Some of his maxims and advice were quoted: to Princes - “Know when to be brave as a lion, when to be cunning as a fox”. “Treat fortune like a woman” (i.e. roughly!), “It is better to be feared than loved”, “Do the harsh dirty work early”; to Republics – “you needed a strong founder”, “Use good religion and good laws”, encourage some strife between balanced factions” (e.g. patricians & plebs), “have strong laws against slandering the leaders”, prevent citizens from getting over-wealthy”, keep (military command) appointments short –term”, “encourage immigration”, “in your quest for empire, have short, big wars”. Some of these still resonate, and we discussed the currency of the need for a dirty side to politics in the real world.
I learnt this time round the consistency of Thomas Hobbes Philosophy and the way he built his political theory on one underlying assumption. He was a Renaissance man, a scientist, materialist, empiricist and atheist. He noted that we cannot know what the world is really like, we have only our sense perceptions. Extending these ides to ethics, again, we don’t have a fundamental set of rules, only what we each believe to be true – he was a relativist. One concept he thought universal was that we all have the right to protect our own continuing existence – though even here he thought we would all respond differently to any possible threat. therefore best to give up our freedom to “the sovereign” (we might say “the government”, or “the state”) to decide on the rights and wrongs of everything. And that includes religion and beliefs as well as when to go to war and the law. This sounds totalitarian, but it is tempered because the sovereign is bound by the same contract, and can act only to protect the life of his subjects. So wars must be defensive, not to aggrandize the monarch; welfare for the poor is desirable to prevent riots and revolution (what was George Osborne saying about raising the minimum wage?), but the imposition of equality of wealth or the abolition of property would be beyond the sovereign’s rights.
Rousseau seemed to attract the greatest collective suspicion. OK, we could see that man in the state of nature would be well content – conflict shouldn’t arise when there is an abundance of territory and resources. It was observed that his theory that citizens should be educated to understand and be free within “The General Will” could lead to state control, and the Cultural Revolution in China is still in our minds.
It is difficult to see how we could deal with Marx in a short session (and we can’t – see below for the next session). It was good to look at his philosophy: how he adapted Hegel’s idea of the progress and inevitability of history to demonstrate the inevitability of the revolution of the proletariat; his challenge to liberal ideas of freedom, encompassing the “free market” by his economic analysis and argument that capitalism pushed wages to starvation level. We examined reasons why communism has failed (so far?!!). It was noted that both Russia and China missed out capitalism , going straight from feudalism to communism. We read an article from The Times on Bangladeshi clothing factories. We read Peter Singer’s list of where Marx was wrong written in the 1985 (another in the OUP Very Short Introductions series), and thought that maybe the jury is still out on some: “The income gap between capitalists and workers will increase”, More and more independent producers will be forced down into the proletariat”, “Workers’ wages will remain at subsistence level”, “The rate of profit will fall”, “Capitalism will collapse because of its internal contradictions”, “Proletarian revolutions will occur in the most industrially advanced countries”.
EARLIER BLOG ENTRIES
|
15th NOVEMBER 2013
World Views: from Warburton: Voltaire & Leibnitz, Hegel, Schopenhauer |
| ||
|
11th OCTOBER 2013
Scepticism & Epistemology: from Warburton: Pyrrho, Descartes, Locke & Berkeley, Kant |
| ||
|
20th SEPTEMBER 2013
Logic & Language: from Warburton: Pierce & James, Russell, Ayer, Wittgenstein, Popper |
| ||
|
16th AUGUST 2013
God: From Warburton: St Augustine, Anselm & Aquinas, Pascal, Spinoza, and Hume |
| ||
|
19th JULY 2013
The Ancients: from Warburton: Socrates & Plato, Aristotle, Epicures, Stoics |
| ||
|
21st JUNE 2013
Justice: From Warburton: Bentham, Mill, Arendt, Dilemmas, Rawls, Singer. |
| ||
|
17th MAY 2013
Mind and Evolution: From Warburton:- Locke, Darwin, Freud, Turing and Simon Blackburn Big Questions "Am I a Ghost in a Machine" |
| ||
|
19th APRIL 2013
The Consolations of Philosophy: From Warburton:- Boethius, Kirkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre. |
| ||
