What we’re about
Café Philo is a way of meeting interesting, inquiring people who enjoy talking about life's big issues and conundrums in a convivial atmosphere in the Bristol and Bath area.
We discuss all manner of topics. Some are profound, others are decidedly not. We aim to have one topic per month, we hold events to discuss this topic in a number locations, often with two separate discussions in each venue - we limit numbers to 12 for each discussion (usually less in practice). Each discussion goes in its own direction, depending on the people around the table. A facilitator gently steers the discussion to help keep things moving, interesting and balanced.
Our discussions are non-party-political and free of religious or ideological dogma (most of the time at least). We encourage a healthy mix of the serious and humourous, so you can be guaranteed a lively, stimulating evening.
We're not academics or experts - just ordinary people from a variety of backgrounds who share a common interest in exchanging ideas about things which matter in life and meeting like-minded people.
If you're a heavy-duty philosopher you may find this group a bit lightweight. For anybody else, come along and get stuck into a decent conversation over a coffee or beer.
In addition to our discussions we hold some social events and occasionally arrange to meet for public talks.
Upcoming events (2)
See all- Are we living in a more polarised society?Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4LH
Note: Café Philo is a way of meeting interesting, inquiring people who enjoy talking about life's big issues and conundrums in a convivial atmosphere, rather than a heavy-duty philosophy seminar. Read more about our approach here.
Are we living in a more polarised society?
One of the most pressing questions for contemporary democracies is whether we are becoming increasingly polarised as a society, and if so, what this means for our collective future.Polarisation refers to the process by which public opinion divides and moves toward opposite extremes. We can distinguish two crucial types: Ideological polarisation occurs when people's actual policy positions become more extreme and further apart. Affective polarisation happens when people maintain similar policy views but develop stronger negative feelings toward those they perceive as political opponents.
Evidence suggests we may be experiencing more of the latter—while policy preferences haven't dramatically shifted, our emotional reactions to "the other side" have intensified significantly.Why might this be? We increasingly live in separate information ecosystems ("bubbles"), consuming news and social media that reinforce existing beliefs. Geographic sorting means we're more likely to live among people who share our political views. Social and political identities have become more aligned, creating "mega-identities" where party affiliation correlates strongly with race, religion, geography, and lifestyle choices.
Perhaps most concerning, partisans increasingly view political opponents not merely as wrong, but as threats to the nation's well-being. This shift from policy disagreement to identity-based conflict has profound implications.
Some of the questions we might explore are:
- What does "polarisation" really mean in a social and political context, and is it measurable?
- Is polarisation necessarily harmful to society, or can it serve positive functions?
- Are we experiencing genuine ideological polarisation, or is it primarily affective polarisation (dislike of the other side)?
Historical and comparative perspectives
- There is a tendency to see one's own era as historically exceptional, but how does current polarisation compare to other periods in history, such as the rise of fascism in the 1930s, or the social upheavals of the 1960s?
- Is this (for now?) primarily an American phenomenon? Conversely, are there societies today that seem less polarised than ours, and what can we learn from them?
- Is polarisation an inevitable feature of democratic societies, or can it be avoided?
Causes and mechanisms
- To what extent do social media and algorithmic content curation contribute to polarisation?
- How do economic inequality and geographic sorting influence political and social divisions?
- What role do media fragmentation and partisan news sources play in creating separate information ecosystems?
Psychological and social dimensions
- How do cognitive biases like confirmation bias and motivated reasoning fuel polarisation?
- Is polarisation primarily driven by elite political actors or by grassroots sentiment?
- How does group identity formation contribute to an "us versus them" mentality?
Consequences and solutions
- What are the practical consequences of polarisation for governance and social cohesion?
- Can deliberative democracy and structured dialogue help bridge divides?
- What individual and institutional changes might reduce harmful polarisation?
Resources
Kris De Meyer, The genie of polarisation - how can we get it back in the bottle? (TEDxLondon)
Divided Britain? Report by KCL Policy Institute
Jonathan Haidt, The moral roots of liberals and conservatives (TED talk)
Britain Connects: reducing political polarisation and fostering dialogue during national lockdown
Affective Polarization in the Wealthy, Democratic World (NBER) - Is Truth Relative?Westbury on Trym, Westbury on Trym
Note: Café Philo is a way of meeting interesting, inquiring people who enjoy talking about life's big issues and conundrums in a convivial atmosphere, rather than a heavy-duty philosophy seminar. Read more about our approach here.
As famously stated in the film “A few good men”: “You can’t handle the truth!” In the film Col. Jessop was referring to the actual order of events which had been covered up by the military.
- This implies that there is a true account of events. Do you believe this is so?
- Is there an account of events that is true? For every observer?
- Does the perspective of the observer alter the truth?
- Can we all have different Truths about events, ideas, science?
- How should we test if a statement/account/explanation is true? Some popular approaches are Occam’s razor, and the scientific method. Are there others?
The context of this conversation will be influenced by whether you believe reality is objective (standing apart from, and external to the observer) or subjective (generated by and dependent on the observer).
- Can there be any universal truth in a subjective universe?
- Does an objective universe imply universal truths, waiting to be discovered?
- Are scientific representations of the objective universe truth?
- Are mathematical concepts, equations and functions universal truths?
- If these are truths in an objective universe do they apply to the subjective?
- Does the belief in a subjective universe allow a person to subvert “laws” of physics? For example could a person decide gravity is untrue, and therefore escape it? If this is possible, why are people still grounded and bounded by gravity?
- Are there shades of truth or is it simple true or false?
Does the truth change with time?
Is truth simply a reflection of the relative power of its holder? ("truth is what I say it is"). In 1984, the government believes they control the truth through their power, can make 2+2=5 and even stop bullets by their power alone. Is this possible?
Why are people embracing cognitive relativism, the idea that truth is subjective and that we can have different truths? Is this more than a mere wish to escape reality?
Please join us for what is likely to be a lively discussion and remember “The truth is out there”
Resources
What is relativism and truth? (YouTube, 2 mins)The fallacious move from different perspectives to relativism about truth. (YouTube, 11 mins)
Relativism is Self-Refuting (just section 5a – 4 paragraphs)
The clash of civilisations (Guardian article)
