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 but will not be publicly shared except by request to club members who could not attend or wish to review an event. However, if an attendee has any concerns about this, please let me know, and either the recording will not be shared at all or your participation edited out. 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
2

Philosophy of dance + playlist
·OnlineOnlineI would only believe in a god who knew how to dance.
And when I saw my devil, there I found him earnest, thorough, deep,
somber: it was the spirit of gravity – through him all things fall.– Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, section “On Reading and Writing.”
Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that deals with normativity or judgment outside the narrower realms of behavioral interaction (ethics) and permissible and impermissible reasoning (logic). In general, aesthetics is far less restrictive than ethics and logic. But aesthetic judgment still attempts to insert order on what is more – or less – preferable. On the basis of what? The urgency for imposing order is clearer in the case of ethics and logic…
Aesthetics compasses the philosophy of art (and much more besides, but regarding the fine arts it has much to say). We touched on the plastic arts here, and will eventually get around to music. This time we do dance.
Dance1 as art invites philosophical questions and reactions such as:
What is dance? How is it different from other movement?
Is it merely biophysical? Or expression at a earlier evolutionary stage than language? Occurring even in animals, even in entities that may only give the appearance being alive?
Is it a form of body-to-body communication, bypassing cognitive involvement? Perhaps more basic than the other arts? But “communication” already implies cognitive involvement. Some thing is being communicated, what precisely? To the extent it is involuntary, like a sneeze (which may only communicate microbes), it is not art.
What aspects of dance ground its appeal to others?
- grace
- athleticism
- agency over body (or the reverse: the body grounding cognition)
- visceral expressiveness
As art, how is dance like and unlike other art forms? What is essential about its manifestation along the external dimensions of time and space, and the internal ones of emotion and cognition?
- dance – occurs essentially in time, space, and emotively
- music – occurs essentially in time and emotively
- plastic arts – occur essentially in space
- theater – occurs emotively and cognitively
- film – occurs emotively and cognitively
- literature – is essentially cognitive
- performance art – open to all the above
These attempts to state what is basic about an art aside, nothing stops an art form – dance, for instance – from incorporating cognitive content, thereby spiking its punch with commentary, while remaining art and, as such, not prescribing anything. Nevertheless, the visceral means of expressing that dance (along with music) offers, when coupled with cognitive content may be especially potent. (Yoann Bourgeois.)
Why would Nietzsche say that only a god who could dance could win him over?
A collection of dance and motion art shorts for entertainment and consideration
- Roland Petit, Bolero (16:36)
- Hellzapoppin’ 1941 (5:45)
- Angelica Bongiovonni – Beautiful Cyr Wheel Dance (5:38)
- AMA – a short film by Julie Gautier (6:36)
- Jiri Kylian | Birth-Day | Nederlands Dans Theater (2:56)
- Ana Luisa Negrão , 314 – Prix de Lausanne 2023 Prize Winner – Contemporary (2:13)
- Ireneusz Krosny – Historia tańca/The Evolution of Dance (2016) (7:34)
- Rameau, Les Boréades: Entrée from Act IV (4:47)
- Pulp Fiction Legendary Dance Scene (John Travolta + Uma Thurman) (3:29)
- Rita Hayworth & Fred Astaire dance to Led Zeppelin (4:19)
- Pablo Verón, Sally Potter & co. dance Libertango (3:00)
- New York Philharmonic at Steinway Factory, Featuring Conrad Tao and Caleb Teicher (3:51)
- Bob Fosse dance numbers – “The Rich Man’s Frug ” (5:51)
- “Do You Love Me?” Boston Dynamics robots (2:54)
- AI Surreal Dance Video | Play It Late, Play It Loud - Kelly Boesch AI Art (2:58)
Yoann Bourgeois series
- Showreel (2:35)
- Approach 5. Metamorphosis • Trampoline Performance by Yoann Bourgeois (6:25)
- Notre Musique • Yoann Bourgeois (7:07)
- Celui qui tombe / the one who falls (5:39)
- La 7° symphonie de Beethoven (5:29)
Bent and cathartic
- Gilbert and George, “Bend It” (2008), Ponystep Magazine - Gilbert & George Warp Dance (warping the bent), and “Re: Gilbert & George Bend It” (learning to bend).
- “Katharsis” scene from the award-winning road film by Óliver Laxe, Sirāt (2025), whose story takes Rave culture and trance dance into the desert of southern Morocco. PLUR – Peace, Love, Unity, and Respect – confronts the legacy and prospect of war... each ecstatic step perhaps the last. “Dancing with mines” is commentary in a sense “dancing with wolves” is not.
Philosophical resources
“Dance as Philosophical Literature | Interview with Renee Conroy” (video), The Calumet Roundtable, Conroy, a dancer and philosopher, attempts answers to some basic questions about dance.“The Philosophy of Dance” (article), Renee Conroy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2025. Dance approached from a mostly analytic perspective.
“The Importance of Dancing like an Idiot,” (video), The School of Life, Alain de Botton’s “free-range” philosophy view.
“Roger Scruton: Why You NEED to Dance (the Philosophy Explained),” (video), Cultural Consolation, comments on the Nietzschean concepts on the Dionysian and Apollonian and the place of dance within them.
1. For purposes of this discussion, we define dance as motion manifesting agency without clear goal. It is not accidental, but not utilitarian, not therapeutic either physically or mentally, except incidentally, and not confined to humans either as performers or as audience. It is fundamentally expressive, which entails the presence of an audience to appreciate the communication but not necessarily to cognitively interpret it.
15 attendees
Philm series
·OnlineOnlineThis is not a post for a specific future event but a follow up to suggestions about scheduling film discussions. Here is a list of proposals from me and others. Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments. The idea is to settle on a film, each of us watch it independently, then come together online to discuss it. The film should be engaging and provocative. Of course, each of us may have different ideas of what that means. And pretty much all great films can be that...
I think another requirement is that it be freely accessible online. The ones listed below, I think, are. (If they are not where you are, let us know. We may find another way to make them accessible.)
You are invited to vote for or give a rating (say, 1 to 10) on any of these films in the comments to help us choose. This could be a regular ongoing series, depending on interest, so it might not be either/or, we may do all of them eventually. (This is not the first time we have had a film discussion. A number of years ago, just before the pandemic, when the club was still meeting in person is Seattle, we did Dogville, Lars von Trier's cinematic provocation.)
The Last Man on Earth (1964) with Vincent Price [interesting in light of the recent pandemic]
Russian Ark [a cinematic tour de force]
Lars von Trier's Dancer in the Dark [Bjork's performance is legendary in this musical tragedy]
Carlos Reygadas' Silent Light [I think this is one of the most powerful and sublime films I have ever seen but I am still looking for a free version with English subtitles]
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? [Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton show how to do dysfunctional relationships right]
17 attendees
Past events
150


