Philosophy Circle

This Sunday we will be exploring the ideas of French existentialist philosopher, writer, social theorist, and feminist activist Simone de Beauvoir. Simone de Beauvoir is best known for her work, The Second Sex (1949), which explores the oppression of women and lays the foundation for modern feminist theory. Beauvoir’s ideas emerged from her existentialist philosophy, influenced by her lifelong partner Jean-Paul Sartre.

She argued that women have historically been relegated to the status of "the Other," defined and limited by patriarchal structures rather than recognized as autonomous beings. This concept of "otherness" suggests that women’s identities are constructed in opposition to men, denying them the freedom to define themselves. Beauvoir emphasized that gender is not an inherent essence but a social construct, shaped by cultural and historical forces. She famously wrote, "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman," highlighting the role of socialization in shaping gender roles.

We will be meeting at the Captain Melville, 34 Franklin St in Melbourne CBD at 2:00pm.

There is no pre-requisite materials, however please find texts and videos closer to the event in the discussion if you would like to acquaint yourself.

Note these events are a roundtable format, often with vigorous debate, so please come ready to challenge assumptions and have your own assumptions challenged!

See below discussion points to ponder, but note these are merely a springboard into deeper waters unknown...

• How does Beauvoir’s concept of "the Other" apply to modern gender dynamics?
• Is gender truly a social construct, as Beauvoir argues, or are there biological influences?
• Can women achieve full autonomy without economic independence?
• How does Beauvoir’s existentialism shape her feminist philosophy?
• Is the rejection of traditional motherhood roles liberating or alienating?
• How relevant is The Second Sex in the context of 21st-century feminism?
• How does Beauvoir’s personal relationship with Sartre influence her ideas?
• How do Beauvoir’s ideas address intersectionality with race and class?
• Does Beauvoir’s philosophy leave room for transgender and non-binary identities?
• How might Beauvoir view the impact of technology on gender roles today?
• Is the pursuit of individual freedom compatible with family structures?
• Can societies ever fully eliminate the "becoming" of gender roles?
• What are the limitations of applying Beauvoir’s theories in non-Western cultures?

Hope to see you there!

This week, we turn to one of the most controversial and influential texts in political philosophy: The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. Often misread as a ruthless guidebook for tyrants, The Prince is better understood as a provocative meditation on the realities of power—its acquisition, use, and loss.

Machiavelli challenges the classical view that rulers should be virtuous above all else. Instead, he argues that effective leadership often requires morally questionable actions. Is Machiavelli endorsing cruelty, or exposing political hypocrisy? Is he a realist, a cynic, or something more complex? We’ll explore The Prince not just as a manual for rulers, but as a deeper statement on human nature, morality, and the unavoidable tension between ethics and effectiveness.

We will be meeting at the Captain Melville, 34 Franklin St in Melbourne CBD at 2:00pm. There is no pre-requisite reading or watching but please find some resources to better prepare yourself in the discussion. Note these events are a roundtable format, often with vigorous debate, so please come ready to challenge assumptions and have your own assumptions challenged!

Guiding Questions:

1. Foundations of Power:
   • Who was Machiavelli?
   • Does The Prince assume that human nature is fundamentally corrupt? Why might this matter for how power must be exercised?
2. Morality vs. Effectiveness:
   • Should leaders prioritize being moral or being effective? Can they be both, or are they often in conflict?
   • Is Machiavelli arguing that the ends justify the means? Are there limits to this logic?
3. Fear and Love:
   • “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” Why does Machiavelli make this claim, and do you agree?
   • In modern leadership (political or otherwise), where do we still see this principle in action?
4. The Image of the Ruler:
   • Machiavelli writes that a prince must appear virtuous, even if he is not. What does this suggest about the role of image and perception in power?
   • Can genuine virtue survive in positions of power, or must it always be compromised?
5. Modern Relevance:
   • Is Machiavelli’s view of power still relevant today? How might it apply to modern political figures, corporate leaders, or media influencers?
   • Has society shifted more toward—or away from—Machiavellian politics in recent decades?

Hope to see you there!