What we’re about
If you're new to the area or are looking to expand your social circle with like minded people who enjoy thinking about life a little more deeply, then this is the group for you.
Each week we choose a topic based on philosophy, psychology or sociology, to informally discuss and debate in a central Cambridge location (in summer by the river, and in winter in a coffee shop or pub). During the summer, the topic and venue are announced on Tues or Weds, once we have an idea of Sunday's weather forecast.
Example areas we discuss include:
How we construct our identity, consumerism, time, what is right or wrong, how to lead a good life, how society forces us to conform and 'fit in'
We're always looking for interesting subjects to discuss, so do make suggestions. You don't have to lead the discussion but you're welcome to if you'd like.
Upcoming events (2)
See all- Can we balance the demands of negative and positive liberty? (A: Caffè Nero)Caffè Nero, Cambridge
THE VENUE: Caffè Nero
Rain is currently forecast for Sunday (again), but things may change. So, the default is to meet indoors but please look out for updates before you leave home.
When we meet inside, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.
We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.
An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.
Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.
WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)THE TOPIC: Can we balance the demands of negative and positive liberty?
"Freedom from" and "freedom to" represent two distinct but related concepts of liberty. "Freedom from" (or Negative Liberty) refers to the absence of constraints, restrictions, or external forces that limit an individual's actions. "Freedom to" (or Positive Liberty) emphasises the capacity or ability to pursue one's goals and desires, often requiring resources or opportunities. Essentially, "freedom from" is about being unconstrained, while "freedom to" is about having the power to act.
At first glance, the two seem to be in opposition. How could we have both at the same time ? Negative and positive liberty are not merely two distinct kinds of liberty; they can be seen as rival, incompatible interpretations of a single political ideal. Since few people claim to be against liberty, the way this term is interpreted and defined can have important political and social implications.
Our everyday freedoms are limited by the existence of laws which dictate what we may and may not do. We seem to accept this state of affairs as the laws also limit the ability of others to harm us, or at least hold them responsible for their actions. You might say we have the freedom to go about our daily lives because we are (relatively) free from the risk or harm.
Does my neighbour's right to play his music loudly carry greater weight than my right to peace and quiet ?
Is it right that we deprive some people of the freedom to spend their wealth as they wish, by imposing taxes, so that others may have the resources to do what they wish ?
We should not kill, but does not our right not to be killed carry heavier weight when defending ourselves from an attacker ?
Is it counter-productive to invoke these rights ? Should we instead navigate shared social spaces by a process of continuous negotiation ? The existence of laws seems to suggest we're not very good at this. Where do social norms and values (and socially deviant behaviour) fit into this equation ?
Do we sometimes limit our own freedoms ? Perhaps when we say: 'I could never do that', or when we make choices that limit subsequent choices: you can't spend your limited funds on both cake and beer.
Is the solution to limit our desires to what is reasonably achievable or to free ourselves from wanting those things ? As Isaiah Berlin put it, if I have a wounded leg ‘there are two methods of freeing myself from pain. One is to heal the wound. But if the cure is too difficult or uncertain, there is another method. I can get rid of the wound by cutting off my leg’. He has freed himself from the burden of the wounded leg by no longer desiring the things that the healthy leg would gain him. "I must liberate myself from desires that I know I cannot realise."
(In English, we have two words, freedom and liberty, which are used pretty much interchangeably. This is not the case in some other languages which have only one to describe this concept).
Links:
SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
Full text of Berlin's paper: https://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/published_works/tcl/tcl-e.pdf - Can we balance the demands of negative and positive liberty? (B:Starbucks)Starbucks Coffee, Cambridge
THE VENUE: Starbucks
Rain is currently forecast for Sunday (again), but things may change. So, the default is to meet indoors but please look out for updates before you leave home.
When we meet inside, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Starbucks location.
We meet upstairs at Starbucks. An organiser or regular attendee will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.
An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.
Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.
WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)THE TOPIC: Can we balance the demands of negative and positive liberty?
"Freedom from" and "freedom to" represent two distinct but related concepts of liberty. "Freedom from" (or Negative Liberty) refers to the absence of constraints, restrictions, or external forces that limit an individual's actions. "Freedom to" (or Positive Liberty) emphasises the capacity or ability to pursue one's goals and desires, often requiring resources or opportunities. Essentially, "freedom from" is about being unconstrained, while "freedom to" is about having the power to act.
At first glance, the two seem to be in opposition. How could we have both at the same time ? Negative and positive liberty are not merely two distinct kinds of liberty; they can be seen as rival, incompatible interpretations of a single political ideal. Since few people claim to be against liberty, the way this term is interpreted and defined can have important political and social implications.
Our everyday freedoms are limited by the existence of laws which dictate what we may and may not do. We seem to accept this state of affairs as the laws also limit the ability of others to harm us, or at least hold them responsible for their actions. You might say we have the freedom to go about our daily lives because we are (relatively) free from the risk or harm.
Does my neighbour's right to play his music loudly carry greater weight than my right to peace and quiet ?
Is it right that we deprive some people of the freedom to spend their wealth as they wish, by imposing taxes, so that others may have the resources to do what they wish ?
We should not kill, but does not our right not to be killed carry heavier weight when defending ourselves from an attacker ?
Is it counter-productive to invoke these rights ? Should we instead navigate shared social spaces by a process of continuous negotiation ? The existence of laws seems to suggest we're not very good at this. Where do social norms and values (and socially deviant behaviour) fit into this equation ?
Do we sometimes limit our own freedoms ? Perhaps when we say: 'I could never do that', or when we make choices that limit subsequent choices: you can't spend your limited funds on both cake and beer.
Is the solution to limit our desires to what is reasonably achievable or to free ourselves from wanting those things ? As Isaiah Berlin put it, if I have a wounded leg ‘there are two methods of freeing myself from pain. One is to heal the wound. But if the cure is too difficult or uncertain, there is another method. I can get rid of the wound by cutting off my leg’. He has freed himself from the burden of the wounded leg by no longer desiring the things that the healthy leg would gain him. "I must liberate myself from desires that I know I cannot realise."
(In English, we have two words, freedom and liberty, which are used pretty much interchangeably. This is not the case in some other languages which have only one to describe this concept).
Links:
SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/
Full text of Berlin's paper: https://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/published_works/tcl/tcl-e.pdf
