About us
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 anglophone 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.
Recording policy
Online meetings hosted by me may be recorded but will not be publicly shared except by request to club members who could not attend or wish to review an event. However, if an attendee has any concerns about this, please let me know, and either the recording will not be shared at all or your participation edited out. You are free, of course, to attend anonymously or without your mic and/or camera on. Other hosts may set their own policies.
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
Philm | Melancholia (Lars von Trier – 2011)
·OnlineOnline“a beautiful movie about the end of the world” - von Trier
The complete film: Melancholia.
“Derived from the Latin astrum, the term ‘disaster’ connotes a misfortune that befalls us on account of a malevolent star.” - Christopher Peterson
Most disaster films leave us with the consolation that at least a small contingent survives, that it’s not all over: there will be survivors to tell the story, to appreciate what happened, maybe to learn from it, but, at any rate, to start up again and go on.
In 2013, Samuel Scheffler published a book called Death and the Afterlife. (1) By the title, he wasn’t referring to heaven or hell but the life that we expect will still be here after we, specifically, are gone. He makes the case that for all our evident concerns for our individual lives we also identify with those who will go on with theirs after we are done with ours. It matters to us that they will go on even if we are not around to witness. He conjures a thought experiment: suppose somehow you were assured that the world would end thirty days after you are dead. The duration and physical quality of your life will be full and unaffected, only that of everyone who survives you will be cut short. You know this. Would this make a difference to you? How you went about your business and projects? How you faced each day?
Scheffler thinks it would fundamentally change the way you view the world. It would drive home a profound futility that you would not experience if you did not have this knowledge – even if, unknown to you, the world did, in fact, end thirty days after you are dead. Ignorance, maybe, isn’t bliss, but it leaves space for it. The mere possibility of the total annihilation of the world as you have known it2 is not enough to trigger this reaction. It is significant for the thought experiment that it’s thirty days or some fathomable period. Hearing that it will be four billion years off won’t, unless you are Alvy Singer, ruin your day.
The ultimate disaster is the one that ends not only your experience but every memory, every trace of it anywhere in the universe. You would die twice over. No one asks for existence, but having been granted it, it created space for desire, at least for its meaning, if not always for its duration.
It is still an open question in astrobiology whether life like ours exists anywhere else in the universe. On the one hand, the vastness of the universe seems to invite the possibility. On the other, ever since Enrico Fermi asked “where is everybody?” the reasons why we are likely alone in the universe (or will forever be left wondering) have piled up.
In von Trier’s film, Justine, ex-bride, states with cold conviction that the world is evil, and that life on this planet is the only life there is or has ever been – “and not for long” – as she waits with her distressed sister Claire and young nephew, Leo, for the end of it.
Astropsychology
Dispositionally prepared for disaster by her depression before everyone else in the film seems to get it, Justine suggests to her nephew they build a magical cave made of sticks that will save them. Her life ended sometime before. There remains only compassion for those whose illusions still torment them – still tease them like the rogue planet Melancholia did as it flew by so close, then backed away, only to boomerang back with mathematically elegant vengeance for the kill.3 As though all of this was a mistake and should never have happened, or as if there are no mistakes because whatever you conceive as the opposite of a mistake isn’t either. The magical cave would be the last story needing telling.Resources
- “Lars von Trier - MELANCHOLIA - Ego & Extinction - Film Analysis,” (video) an inspired and exhaustive meditation by science fiction writer James Reich: “This analysis of Lars von Trier’s beautiful ‘Melancholia’ is the first episode in a series of videos based on the work I’m doing toward a book on the psychology, philosophy, and ecopsychic content of science fiction film. In this episode I talk about ‘Melancholia’ through the work of Schopenhauer, Freud, Jung, Kierkegaard, and others, and offer some thoughts on the breakdown of Friedrich Nietzsche, the nature of science fiction catastrophe narrative, the will, and nature.”
- “Hauntingly Accurate Portrayals of Severe Mental Illness at a Theater Near You,” Richard LeBeau, Psychology in Action, 12 December, 2011. The view from clinical psychology.
- “The Magic Cave of Allegory: Lars von Trier’s Melancholia,” Christopher Peterson
Discourse, Volume 35, Number 3, Fall 2013. The view from philosophical psychology.
Notes
1. Podcast interview with Scheffler. The core of the book is expressed in the free Tanner Lectures given at Berkeley, or can be listened to here.
2. Absent some quirk of personality like that of Justine in the film.
3. “New Supercomputer Simulation Sheds Light on Moon’s Origin” NASA Ames Research Center, how the moon was born, according to the latest science (2023)... Justine may have been wrong in a curious way. Maybe the world we know is the only one with life ever, but it was the catastrophic impact of a planet size rock called Theia that reorganized and supplemented the earth’s elemental composition and permitted life here in the first place – birthing the moon on the side. But is taking consolation in such cosmic trauma rational or just something we do?... Coincidentally, the asteroid Apophis is due to flyby the earth on Friday the 13th in April of 2029. An asteroid this big only passes by the earth this close every 7,000 years. It is not “supposed” to be more than a scientific opportunity for study.We are used to the idea that we ourselves will not be a part of the future after our deaths. In the doomsday scenario, we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that nobody we care about will be a part of the future either, and that fact, I have suggested, makes the future itself seem more alien, forbidding, empty.
– Samuel SchefflerThe desire of the moth for the star
– Percy Bysshe Shelley, To —13 attendees
Philm series
·OnlineOnlineThis 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]
19 attendees
Past events
152
