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- Is Truth Relative?Bristol Old Vic , Bristol BS1 4ED
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)
- Paranoia, Trust, and the Allure of ConspiracyWestbury 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.
“Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”
This well-worn phrase captures a central tension in modern life. History provides cautionary tales for those who offer unconditional trust. Had you told the average person in the 1960s that their government was secretly conducting mind-control experiments (Project MKUltra), or later, that the intelligence used to justify the 2003 Iraq War would be profoundly misrepresented, you might have been dismissed. This history confronts us with a fundamental question:
* Where do we, as citizens, draw the line between healthy scepticism of power and corrosive, baseless paranoia?This challenge is amplified today. The recent Post Office scandal in the UK, a 20-year cover-up that ruined hundreds of lives, shows how institutions can deny truth with impunity. When events like these occur, it is no surprise that official narratives are met with deep suspicion. When institutions designed to protect us are proven to have failed,
* how can they ever hope to regain public trust, and what fills the void when they don’t?We now live in a world where these alternative narratives can be shared, debated, and monetised at unprecedented speed. The internet provides fertile ground for both genuine inquiry and deliberate disinformation. When belief can translate directly into influence and income, the lines blur. This raises a distinctly modern dilemma:
* How are we to navigate an information ecosystem where the sincere search for truth is so often entangled with the business of building an audience?Perhaps the cause is not only external–in untrustworthy institutions or biased algorithms–but also internal. These explanations for a confusing world are undeniably popular. We should therefore also ask:
* What fundamental human needs for order, control, or a sense of community do these alternative beliefs fulfill?Ultimately, this may lead to the most challenging question of all about our own minds:
* Are we truly ‘rational’ beings who occasionally believe irrational things, or are we fundamentally narrative-driven creatures for whom pure rationality is more of an effort than a default state?Please join us to discuss the causes behind these compelling, and often irrational, beliefs.
Further reading & videos
The enduring appeal of conspiracy theories (BBC Futures)
Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories (Psychology Today)
How to talk to someone about conspiracy theories in five simple steps (The Conversation)
Everything Is a ‘False Flag’ Now (Wired)
Why we believe conspiracies (Dan Ariely, YouTube 14mins)
