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. See also Philosophical Resources Online.
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 (2)
See all- Philm series | depopulation and antinatalism | two provocative documentariesLink visible for attendees
In philosophy, in logic, an aporia is a puzzle, a form of paradox, a problem arising when two claims on our attention, each as evident as the other, counter each other leaving us at a loss as to what to think. In ethics, it is a situation that leaves us at a loss as to what to feel or do. The two film documentaries below appear to present an ethical dilemma. We have addressed the topics of depopulation and antinatalism in the past here, here, and here, but this event will be a discussion of two engaging, well-made films motivated by seemingly opposed concerns – which is the greater? Where we choose to target our compassion is unclear.
1. Birthgap - Childless World PART 1
By Stephen J. Shawhttps://youtu.be/A6s8QlIGanA?si=Ym6nrI43ow2RZx1s
“The era of ultra-low birthrates has begun. But why are people having so few children these days? And what are the consequences? Come on a journey of discovery across 24 countries to find the reason and also the future consequences for young and old alike.” Recent Q&A by Shaw.
2. I Wish You Were Never Born - A Documentary
By Jack Boswellhttps://youtu.be/tnjC4GCHvA8?si=RP4xYn2jSXP-VmXY
“Life is a gift, isn't it? Or perhaps it's actually pretty awful? In this documentary, I explore the fringe philosophy of Antinatalism: the belief that having children is morally wrong because life contains mostly suffering.
“How has the movement spread and found new followers? What impact does it have on antinatalists' lives for them to hold such an extreme belief? How does it cross over with issues including climate change, abortion rights, mental health and assisted suicide? Join me, as I travel from London to the far-flung corners of America to find out.
“When all is said and done, is the kindest thing you can do for someone... not bring them into existence in the first place?”
...
I want to focus our discussion on the moral/existential aspects of the dilemma, or perhaps trilemma, of the problem, not the political. Though, as the NYT article below shows, the problem invites political opportunists... By "trilemma," I mean there are traumatic consequences for policies no matter whether they are pronatalist, antinatalist, or whatever vision of a sustainable population equilibrium one might entertain. If you think there's a way out, let's talk...
Related
1. "White House Assesses Ways to Persuade Women to Have More Children," Caroline Kitchener, The New York Times.
2. In his Substack essay "Antipronatalism," Jason Anthony proposes a middle path between pronatalism and antinatalism. He is skeptical of pronatalist tendencies largely on the same political grounds as the NYT article above. He suggests a sensible sustainable population, balancing human survival needs and resources on this planet. He is right to point to the one-dimensional capitalist interest in raising the depopulation alarm, but wrong in not fully thinking through the likelihood of his proposal and the consequences, should it, against all odds, come to pass. An annotated copy of his article with my critique is here.
3. "The Vanishing of Youth: The precipitous decline of birthrates throughout the world poses a serious threat to humanity. What is to be done?" Victor Kumar, Aeon, May 2025. Depopulation is a threat for progressivism as well. "Every major advance in human history – technological, cultural, moral – has been driven by youth." Old people get set in their ways, become risk-averse. If you have any kind of hope for enlightened human progress, it should be placed in the young. Fewer of these means what?
4. In their long video essay, "Should People Exist? Antinatalism and the Politics of Pregnancy," The Leftist Cooks offer a counterargument to Benatarian antinatalism. Whether you find their case convincing, I think, depends on whether you place the demands of life above the moral dualist, harm/benefit, analysis that informs Benatar's argument. The Leftist Cooks reject the idea that we can definitively separate joy from suffering, or pain from pleasure. We are so constructed as humans that we cannot live within those dichotomies. The keyword is "live." If they are saying that whenever the demands of life and truth clash, life wins almost every time, they are right. That we are here at all is proof. At least heretofore, this has been the case. But will it always be the case? Is there a consciousness-raising afoot that is moving us away from the idea that life should triumph? If The Leftist Cooks are making a normative claim, i.e., that life should prevail, they are begging the question: assuming the very thing they seek to prove or at least move us to accept. Again, they are right that life has never needed objectivity, truth, logic, critical reasoning, etc. to justify itself. The business of justification has no biological basis. The demand for it is the byproduct of an evolved reflective consciousness. Self-deception is healthy, The Leftist Cooks say explicitly, if it serves the interests of life... but should the pursuit of life and everything conducive to it trump every other conceivable value? To some, the answer seems obvious. But do we all agree? There seems to be a growing number of us who don't. Why is that?
Image from Aporia (2023) film. Thanks to Mike and Olivia for some of these references.
- Philm seriesLink visible for attendees
This 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]
