
What we’re about
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.
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
3
•OnlinePhilm | Dancer in the Dark | “In a musical, nothing dreadful ever happens...”
Online...except in Lars von Trier’s musical tragedy (2000). The “bad boy” of cinema, pulled off one of the most jarring genre juxtapositions in the history of film. The Icelandic singer/composer, Björk’s performance is a tour de force in this song and dance travesty of justice set in Washington State in 1964. (Von Trier fears flying so most of the film was shot in Sweden and Denmark, with a few outdoor scenes set in Sedro-Wooley, Arlington, and the Walla Walla State prison.) The film also stars Catherine Deneuve and Peter Stormare (coincidentally, Stormare was also in our last film selection, Birth).
Von Trier is notorious for pressing hard on his actors’ and audience’s sensitivities. His films attract some of the world’s finest talent because they will likely stand to be enduring provocations. Many of his leads chafe at the experience of working within his rules. He does not really want his actors to merely “act” or his audiences merely to be “entertained”: he at least wants the actors to perform traumatized and his audiences to be witnesses to trauma – not Hollywood style. (It may be asking too much to expect much more than that only some in the audience will walk out before the end.) You may not like the film but, if you can stand to sit through it, you won’t forget it.
His female leads are complex but “golden hearted” victims in three films, including The Idiots (Bodil Jørgensen) where the difference between the abled and the disabled is subverted, Breaking the Waves (Emily Watson) a dialectic between undying love and sexual debasement, and in this film, Dancer in the Dark (Björk)… which we discuss at this meeting.
Not all victims stay victims: how much abuse may a woman take and yet forgive? If God had sent his only begotten daughter, what would she have forgiven? – Dogville (Nicole Kidman) brutally asks.
In a later series of three films, women are used to probe depression via the banality of sex as in Nymphomaniac (Charlotte Gainsbourg), as oracles on how to face the end of the world in Melancholia (Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg), and The Antichrist (Charlotte Gainsbourg and Willem Dafoe) in which grief becomes demonic.
Von Trier’s films are deeply psychological and always morally challenging, at the bleeding edge of what can be imagined – as in the almost unwatchable The House that Jack Built (Matt Dillon), where serial murder figures in performance art and sculpture.
Though there are obvious political subtexts in Dancer in the Dark (as in Dogville) the anti-Americanism is a facile reaction. Von Trier’s cinematic provocation runs deeper recalling his fellow Dane, Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophy. Like SK, von Trier is obsessed with the necessary tension between the aesthetic, moral, and religious ways of being in the world.
...
The film is in English. An unsubtitled version existed at Youtube but appears to have been taken down. A high resolution version of the film is here in English with Spanish subtitles. If you have trouble viewing it, let me know and I will send you a private link to a version on my server. Trailer.
Resources
Favorable:
- “Dancer in the Dark,” Daniel Kieckhefer, The Cinematograph.
- “Almost There: Björk in ‘Dancer in the Dark’,” Cláudio Alves. The Film Experience, 2021.
Critical:
- “Lars von Trier’s Dancer in the Dark,” Dennis Cooper, ArtForum.
Analysis of von Trier and his films:
- “Lars von Trier: Making You Uncomfortable | Video Essay”
- “The Christ Figurine of Dogville,” Jürgen Pessoa, aporia, 2004.
7 attendees
•OnlineImmortality and apeirophobia
OnlinePhilosophers who say: “after death a timeless state will begin”, or: “at death a timeless state begins”, and do not notice that they have used the words “after” and “at” and “begins” in a temporal sense, and that temporality is embedded in their grammar. (1932)
– Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, 22e (Winch trans, 1980).
Apart from whether it will ever be possible to live forever or even indefinitely – some people think it is or will be – would it be desirable?
If so, why? If not, why not?
Resources
- “Philosophy and Death | Bernard Williams,” Dave Egan Philosophy (video).
- “The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality,” Bernard Williams, from Problems of the Self, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
- “Bernard Williams | The Makropulos Case: reflections on the tedium of immortality,” Victor Gijsbers (video).
- “We Should Want Immortality | John Martin Fischer,” Mark Oppenheimer and Jason Werbeloff, Brain in a Vat, (video).
- “The frightening infinite spaces: apeirophobia,” Anders Sandberg, Andart II, 2017.
- “A stealthy Harvard startup wants to reverse aging in dogs, and humans could be next, biologist George Church says the idea is to live to 130 in the body of a 22-year-old,” MIT Review, Antonio Regalado, 2018.
- “Philosophy 2465 Survey | Death and the Meaning of Life,” what people say about living forever, OSU.
10 attendees
•OnlinePhilm series
OnlineThis 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.)
Herzog's Nosferatu
Koyaanisqatsi
Wise Blood
Seventh Seal
My Dinner with Andre
Waking Life
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]15 attendees
Past events
139

