About us
You may sometimes wonder about fundamental things. Philosophers incline to it non-stop. At their best, they make trouble in the world of ideas. They open worm cans. Bring your can openers!
We have explored — or will (or will again) — age-old topics like God's existence, the nature of people and things, truth, justice, knowledge, free will, determinism, fatalism, birth, death, the right way to live or die... as well as theories in the major divisions of philosophical thought such as logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. Exploring these core areas can help with understanding what is at stake in the more concrete topics we also address, which include controversies around abortion, infanticide, capital punishment, suicide (physician-assisted and otherwise), economic and social equality, criminality, genetic engineering, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, technology, over-population, depopulation, war, terrorism, racism, sexism, feminism, transhumanism, antinatalism, procreation ethics, speciesism, sexuality, human "rights," animal rights, the "rights" of (or to) anything whatsoever!,... as well as important issues in medical ethics, political philosophy, environmental ethics, bioethics, philosophy of law, of art, of literature, of religion, of science and its methods; and the nature, history, and methods of philosophy itself... not to exclude philosophical topics as yet uninvented.
In fact, "inventing topics" is a side effect of asking hard questions, which inevitably lead to still harder questions. Often enough, "new" topics are not really "new" but old, even ancient, unsettled concerns resurfacing. And it is those unsettled issues that are the real philosophical problems. As one philosopher once said, "If it has a solution, it was probably just science anyway." Any important subject whose fundamental ideas invite critical examination is ripe for our can opener... eventually we may work our way up to the really big can: the point of it all! (But don't expect pat answers — we don't do self-help.)
This club is open to serious approaches to philosophy — analytic, "Continental," and otherwise. Philosophy in the Anglo-American world (for better or worse) is still dominated by some form of conceptual analysis. What characterizes the analytic approach to philosophy is attention to clarity and as much rigor as we can muster in our concepts and arguments — while, hopefully, keeping one foot in reality. (It's not "clear" that "reality" has anything to do with "clarity" or "rigor.") We ply "belief systems" with questions framed against such values. But you may know better! Philosophical traditions, no less than individual philosophical views, are error prone. Any "philosophy" worthy of the name should be comfortable with this.
We will try to stay focused on the topics under discussion, realizing that this is difficult. If one thing doesn't connect with another, it can't be that important. We draw on the insights of some of the brightest thinkers we know, both living and dead. Celebrated authority is no guarantee of being right. In fact, we already know at least half of the great philosophical thinkers must be wrong because the other half disagrees with them. But which half? (Even to assume only half are wrong is being more than a little optimistic. Why would any of them be right?)
Though we range widely in the topics we cover, we try not to let anything go in our discussion. The point is to rise above the level of BS that too often passes in informal discussions for philosophy. Beyond a certain respect for clarity and rigor, we do not have an axe to grind. You may bring your own axe, we may sharpen it for you... or we may grind it to a stump. We mostly open worm cans, remember? You decide what to do with the worms!
Skepticism and disagreement are to be expected, even encouraged. We should try to make the best case we can for our side and attend to what others say. We should expect that expressions of conviction may be forceful and that’s fine, as long as they are respectful of others and rational, which, in the context of a philosophy club, means to attempt to offer reasons to believe — reasons that are thought out and not themselves more controversial than the claims they are meant to support. These are aspirations, of course, not actual descriptions of what happens in even earnest philosophical discussions. We should nevertheless try...
A word about etiquette, again: philosophy, by its nature, is contentious. Expect disagreement and treat each other respectfully. Failure to do so may be cause for removal.
See the collection of archived writeups for perspective on the topics we have and may cover. Check out recorded sessions.
The group is international and mostly online. Formal membership is not required to attend and participate. Contact us for the video link if you just want to try it without membership. Our meetings and resources are free and open to the public. Auditing is perfectly fine.
Recording policy
Online meetings hosted by me may be recorded and posted publicly on our Youtube channel. However, if an attendee has any concerns about this, please let me know, and either the recording will not be posted at all or a link to the recording will only be available privately, and by request, to club members. You are free, of course, to attend anonymously or without your mic and/or camera on. Other hosts may set their own policies.
Finally, if you know something about a topic and would like us to address it or you would like to present and host it yourself, let us know. You don't have to be an expert. We will work with you. So long as we can make out a philosophical angle — it addresses fundamental questions about an important subject, we would love to explore it.
Contact us with any questions.
— Victor Muñoz, organizer
Upcoming events
5
Philm Series | The Jack Bull | 1999 Western
·OnlineOnlineThis film is a great precursor to the debate on Philosophy of Law on 12th April.
The Jack Bull (1999), starring John Cusack, is a Western film that explores the conflict between three aspects of law: a) codified but corrupt "positive law" b) innate, moral "natural law" and c) the powerful, who consider themselves above both. This film brilliantly explores these tensions.
The film is inspired by the German novel Michael Kohlhaas by Heinrich Von Kleist (born 1777), published in 1810.
Both book and film portray a protagonist whose finest horses were unfairly confiscated and mistreated. He takes justice into his own hands when the formal legal system fails him.
Link to Jack Bull film: https://youtu.be/m1ebSacnw-k?si=Kh_SKOT97e1uGPAd
Link to short book review of Michael Kohlhaas https://youtu.be/t20gpSf7waw?si=olBTKFART9e6tSkj
Link to book: https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Michael-Kohlhaas-by-Heinrich-von-Kleist-author-Michael-Hofmann-translator/9780811228343
Link to the Philosophy of Law event on Sunday 12 April: https://www.meetup.com/the-philosophy-club/events/312988009/With thanks to Ed for suggesting the film, and Victor for the book review.
This event will not be recorded.12 attendees
Philm | One Battle After Another | 2025
·OnlineOnlineWe will discuss this film which was made last year and echoes revolutionary themes of the 1960s. There are anticipations of current social disruption in the U.S. involving government forces and increasing public dissidence.
The first ten club members who RSVP yes will be sent a private link to the film.
From Wikipedia:
"One Battle After Another is a 2025 American black comedy action-thriller film produced, written, and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. It is inspired by the 1990 novel Vineland by Thomas Pynchon. The film’s ensemble cast is led by Leonardo DiCaprio, Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro, Regina Hall, Teyana Taylor, and Chase Infiniti (in her film debut). The story follows an ex-revolutionary who is forced back into his former combative lifestyle upon getting pursued by a corrupt military officer...
"One Battle After Another garnered widespread acclaim and numerous accolades. These include three wins at the 31st Critics’ Choice Awards (including Best Picture), four wins at the 83rd Golden Globes (including Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy), one win and a record seven nominations at the 32nd Actor Awards (including Outstanding Performance by a Cast), six wins at the 79th British Academy Film Awards (including Best Film),[30] and thirteen nominations at the 98th Academy Awards (including Best Picture). The film was also listed by the American Film Institute as one of the top ten films of 2025 and won five awards from the National Board of Review (including Best Film)."
4 attendees
Democratic backsliding | possible remedies
·OnlineOnlineThis is a follow-up to our last topic,
“Pitting devils, democracy, and ‘executive aggrandizement’ | 2026’”The last time we discussed “democracy”: we asked what it is, what it is not, why it is desirable, and why it does not exist at the national level in most countries who use the term to describe themselves, in particular, the U.S. – and hasn’t for a long time. Please check out the description and resources for that event if you missed it.
This time the presentation and discussion will focus on what, if anything, may be done about it – on the assumption something ought to be done about it. We will discuss possible remedies. There aren’t that many. To the best of my knowledge, there are only two fundamentally distinct ways to fix democracy (assuming you aren’t content with it as is).
The first is not new. We have all heard it before: reform the system we have. We will review briefly what stands in the way, and why many experts are losing faith in the possibility. Most of this was addressed last time but we review it below.
On this occasion, we will focus on a re-visioning of democracy, a proposal suggested by serious thinkers from various disciplines, but most recently and prominently by Rutgers political philosopher Alexander Guerrero. It preserves the most morally defensible aspect of democracy, the participation of the governed in the making of laws that govern them, and the practical necessity of some form of representation given the size of modern states – but abandons elections as the principle mechanism of representative democracy. Voting, at scale, it turns out, has a proven record of failure at preserving democracy.
Seventeen years in the making, following decades of observation, analysis, and review by political scientists, political philosophers and historians, Guerrero’s book Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections published in late 2024 proposes ideas in political philosophy that will rank as among the most innovative of the century. (A simplified picture of the development can be derived by listening to Martin Gilens’ 2014 “democracy in name only” lecture, followed by presentations by Guerrero here or here on lottocracy.) It is a well documented fact that democracy does not exist at the national level in the U.S.
Brief review of the problem with democracy as currently implemented
Economic capture
- Money and the concentration of power it fosters is nothing new, but the scale today is historic.
Problems with voting, motivation: why vote when…
- Your individual vote cannot count statistically in the real world (statisticians and historians agree); whatever you might have been taught in school, it can never be the case that your vote makes a difference in a national election. (Consider Bush/Gore.)
- Your vote as part of a bloc might count but at the price of extreme compromise. A choice between two is as close to no choice at all as one can get without actually having no choice at all. This robs motivation, and goes a way toward explaining why voter turnout is so poor relative to the population that is supposed to be affected by the result. It undercuts the supposed gravitas we are supposed to bring to the act of voting: that it has something to do with our preferences as individuals as opposed to affiliation with a group, a team, a party, a community, some corporate body less than the full field of all those we have social and moral obligations to – but always never just you. You don’t matter. If you matter, it is only through your sublimation or dissolution into this medium, midway between the universal and the individual… All of which should make us wonder why anyone bothers to ask our opinion when it could be inferred from our position in society.
- Your vote may amount to a gesture of frustration (possibly), it may serve a therapeutic purpose, like pounding your fist against a wall or ritualistically tossing a virgin into a volcano in the hope of propitiating the gods… but it can hardly be politically efficacious.
- Perhaps, most people don’t risk overthinking the act of voting. They do it from habit, from tradition, because of social pressure… if that is enough to motivate you, no wonder we get the governments we get.
Problems with representation
U.S. politicians at the federal level are not and cannot be like us:- They are mostly lawyers or businessmen.
- Mostly male.
- Mostly multi-millionaires.
The system does not permit it to be otherwise. Most ordinary citizens are not any of these, let alone all of them. The prevailing notion that we are being “represented” can only be described as “gas-lighting.”
Problems with politics itself
The supposed reason we have politicians at all is because individuals in the governed community cannot be expected to have the time, resources, and education to make governmental decisions, therefore, we must select from among us those who can meet those requirements and entrust them to carry out governance for us. Is this “trust” necessary? The fact is that politicians chosen from among us can only be as incorruptible as we are. Are we – the demos, the electorate, ordinary people, the governed... incorruptible? Immanuel Kant answered that we must presume not:"As hard as it may sound, the problem of setting up a state can be solved even by a nation of devils (so long as they possess understanding). It may be stated as follows: ‘In order to organise a group of rational beings who together require universal laws for their survival, but of whom each separate individual is secretly inclined to exempt himself from them, the constitution must be so designed that, although the citizens are opposed to one another in their private attitudes, these opposing views may inhibit one another in such a way that the public conduct of the citizens will be the same as if they did not have such evil attitudes.’"1
It is too easy to blame politicians for not being saints. We must address the conditions that make it impossible for them to come anywhere close.
Possible solutions
Reform: Though it may have helped short term in the past (in the U.S. in the late 19th Century, in the 1920s), present prospects for meaningful reform seem dim because the underlying causes of corruption have magnified beyond band aids: major surgery – difficult and careful Constitutional surgery – is called for. Otherwise, we are asking the wolves to redesign the hen house. (As I write, the Democratic and Republican parties are vying with each other to see who can be the most corrupt. They are conducting an orgy of gerrymandering. Consider the “ordinary” citizens who sat behind the current executive at his inauguration...)Lottocracy (aka sortition): We are going to focus the discussion on a solution that preserves democracy but re-imagines representation and ditches elections, thereby, addressing the problems listed above. The lottocratic project could be reduced to:
- Preventing capture,
- educating the demos, and
- the elimination of politics as we know it.
We will describe how the project might work, according to Guerrero.
Could it work? Is it hopeless?
More on lottocracy:
- Lottocracy: Democracy Without Elections, Alexander Guerrero, Oxford University Press, 2024.
- “Alex Guerrero | Lottocracy: A New Kind of Democracy,” Wolf Humanities Center, 2020-1.
- “Reimagining Democracy as Lottocracy | Alexander Guerrero (With Travis Timmerman),” (podcast interview).
- “‘Democracy Without Elections’: Alexander Guerrero in conversation with Michael Hannon,” (podcast interview).
You are not expected to agree with anything said in the presentation; in fact, civil, honest, and thoughtful reactions, not consensus, are the most we should expect from a genuine philosophical discussion. That’s how we approach understanding. But, if you are not comfortable questioning assumptions we have all grown up with, this event may not be for you.
I have written extensively about ideas of governance. If the topic interests you, see the five part discussion, “Magical thinking about democracy,” which, along with related writings, can be accessed at pph.aporia.net.
1. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, (1795), First Supplement: On the Guarantee of Perpetual Peace, Section 1. The older Hastie translation is online here.
7 attendees
Past events
143
