
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 (4)
See all- Philm series | Dr. Strangelove | Stanley KubrickLink visible for attendees
The obvious parallel with what is happening now in the White House and certain persons "overreaching" their roles make this classic Kubrick film especially relevant. Some in the US government are considering war with China and nuclear war with Iran...
- Entire film at Internet Archive
- The official trailer (says next to nothing about the film)
- Long, fascinating discussion and analysis on "how to love the bomb" (tells you more than you can imagine about the film)
"Gentlemen, you can't fight here. This is the war room."
Join us for a discussion.
From Wikipedia:
"The film is considered one of the best comedy films and one of the greatest films of all time. In 1998, the American Film Institute ranked it 26th in its list of the best American films (in the 2007 edition, the film ranked 39th), and in 2000, it was listed as number three on its list of the funniest American films. In 1989, the United States Library of Congress included Dr. Strangelove as one of the first 25 films selected for preservation in the National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"... The film received four Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Actor for Sellers. The film was also nominated for seven BAFTA Film Awards, winning Best Film From Any Source, Best British Film, and Best Art Direction (Black and White), and it also won the Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation."
- Plato's RepublicLink visible for attendees
Alfred North Whitehead famously said "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists in a series of footnotes to Plato." Plato’s long dialogue, the Republic, is a 2500 year-old classic because it raises questions and suggests answers that are as relevant now as they were then. Current events in the U.S. illustrate.
The central question of the dialogue is “what is justice?”
Plato is ultimately concerned with how best civilized societies ought to organize themselves. He takes it for granted that we do best in communities. We are not solitary animals. The benefits of what we call "civilization" cannot happen without order and stability. Some shared notion of justice or fairness seems necessary for people to live well together, he thought. So, we need to ask "what is justice?" Near the start of the dialogue, the character Thrasymachus offers Socrates (Plato's mouthpiece) a simple, straightforward answer.
Justice is obedience to laws.
Who makes the laws?
Those empowered to make them.
What empowers them?
Power does, obviously.
Who has the power?
The stronger.
How does one get to be stronger?
Ultimately, by having and using the ability to control what others do.
How does that come about?
At the level of societies, it means having or acquiring substantial resources.
How does that work?
With more resources than others, you can make the others needy relative to you.
You mean by being or getting rich relative to these others?
Yes.
One can’t be or get rich just by being just, right?
Absolutely, not. Justice is what happens when you obey the laws. It is a byproduct of obedience. It is what happens after you obey the laws. Obedience to the laws serves the interest of those with the strength to make them. The laws are made by those empowered to do so. Those empowered to do so are empowered by their relative strength to force outcomes. Strength, of course, comes about by having the resources to acquire it. Therefore, it comes down to amassing resources. In other words, being or getting rich.
This is the order of things. Only in this way can there be peace and harmony in society. Obey the resourceful.
In short, might makes right and wealth makes might.
[The above is a highly compressed paraphrase of the dialogue relating to the discussion with Thrasymachus.]
Thrasymachus would view with approval who is making headlines today everyday.
Plato does not like this answer... for some reason. He really didn’t want to believe that was all there was to justice. He didn’t actually have a quarrel with wealth per se. After all, he was among the privileged class himself. (Having found time to worry yourself over “philosophy” already means you have enough to eat and are not too afraid you won’t tomorrow.) But it is hard to fathom what could have troubled him if he didn’t see something problematic about wealth. Wealth is good, surely. Enough is. And that it is distributed to forestall envy is important. Important to social harmony. In the end, that is what he is going to show the point of justice is… or ought to be.
But it is harder than one might think to show this. He spends the whole rest of the dialogue finding fault with Thrasymachus’ answer and that of others. It’s hard, that is, if you don’t like Thrasymachus’ answer and if you don’t want to get too dreamy (i.e., too divorced from reality). But, in the course of his critique, Plato develops ideas about how society should be structured to promote a certain understanding of justice that leads to harmony, the end goal of justice, he thought. We are going to look closely at these ideas to see how they fit together and if they still apply...
Resources
“Plato’s Insane Political Philosophy | The Republic,” a brief overview of the Republic by Unsolicited Advice.
- Philm series | aporia: depopulation and antinatalism - two docsNeeds location
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.”
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
"White House Assesses Ways to Persuade Women to Have More Children," Caroline Kitchener, The New York Times.
Image from Aporia (2023) film
- 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]