Previous Discussions

November 2017
Wednesday, 15th November 2017 at 7pm.
 
Topic
Do universal good and bad exist?
 
Stimulus
Zhubin
 
 
     
Moral Luck - can justice allow for circumstances beyond our control? (3:2:0)
Do universal good and bad exist? (2:2:2)*
What is the point of sport? (2:0:1)
Determinism and Free Will - are they compatible? (1:2:0)
If there is no God .. do we agree there’s no basis for morality? (0:0:3)
Is the disenchantment with politics justified and a good thing? (0:1:1)
Is evolution amenable to direction? (0:1:1)
How important is wealth to prosperity? (1:0:0)
The Life of the Spirit (0:1:0)
Is sexual orientation genetic or social? (0:0:1)
* (3:1:1) translates to 1st preference for 3 people : 2nd preference for 1 person : and 3rd preference for 1 person.
     
Wednesday, 1st November 2017 at 7pm.
 
Topic
In a world of machines where do people fit in?
What limits to software teaching, diagnosing, advising .. ?
 
Stimulus
Steve
 
Given the prevalence of privation getting more stuff done using less resources seems like a great idea. Our success in this over the last 200 years could be attributed to a form of extended intelligence, i.e. people specialising and then trading the results of their increasingly intelligent work with other’s results of their very intelligent work.
The relatively new information technology is introducing radically new ways of sharing and bottling intelligence, and the prospect of meeting more keenly felt but as yet unfulfilled human need.
However just as two and a half centuries ago technology was introduced in a ham fisted inhumane and alienating manner could we inadvertently introduce new forms of unhappiness this time round. What is special about our current economic connection to others and what is people friendly IT? Our conversation could take many directions but if a focus is needed we may consider how our brain works (https://www.wired.com/2011/07/is-google-ruining-your-memory/) and autonomy.
 
October 2017
Wednesday, 18th October 2017 at 7pm.
 
Topic
Is loyalty a commodity?
 
Stimulus
Mary
 
 

Wednesday 4th : 7 pm


topic:     Is there such a thing as inspiration?

stimulus:   Steve



September 2017

Wednesday 20th : 7 pm


topic:     Conspiracy Theories

stimulus:   Keith



September 2017

Wednesday 6th : 7 pm


topic:     Is our universe real?

proposer:   Jubin

August 2017



Wednesday 16th : 7 pm


topic:     Is Democracy a success?

proposer:    the Group


Wednesday 2nd : 7 pm

  topic:     How should we judge educational success?

proposer:    the Group


Feedback forms updated ..

Topic Suggestions:

The life of the spirit
Is sexual orientation genetic or social?
Is the universe real?

Topic preferences from recent PIPs meetings:

Judging educational success ?1st choice for 3 people
Is Democracy a success ?1st for 1; 2nd for 3
Religion2nd for 3
Do we want to live forever ?1st for 1; 2nd for 1
How can we bring people together ?1st for 1
Assessing Anarchy ?2nd for 1
The future of the West ?1st choice for 3 people

Preferred initial discussion group size ? (4 / 8 / all / other):

4 people chose size of 4; 1 chose size of 5



July 2017

WEDNESDAY 19th 7PM
  Topic Title: The Future of the West ?
 Proposed by: the Group 




July 2017


WEDNESDAY 5th 7PM
  Topic Title: Recording life & living in the moment
 Proposed by: Steve 


Do diaries, photographs, mementos, etc.. make our lives more or less special?

Many promote being in the moment, being constantly appreciative of and awestruck by our existence. We rarely seem to be so until life’s temporality can no longer be ignored.  But what of the role of a sense of identity in such an awareness. How much of our identity is based on past rather than current experiences and choices?  Has the future a part to play in our love of life?


June 2017
WEDNESDAY 7th 7PM

  Topic Title: Does Authenticity matter?
 Proposed by: Paul W

Can we make some general agreements about what "Authenticity" is? 
Can a good argument be made that says "Authenticity doesn't matter"?



May 2017

WEDNESDAY 17th 7PM
  Topic Title: Open Forum.
Proposed by: Group

Come along and bring your curiosity with you.

WEDNESDAY 3rd 7PM
           Topic Title: Is 2 + 2 = 4 a justified true belief?
Proposed by: Michael K


April 2017


WEDNESDAY 19th 7PM
           Topic Title: "Ethics in Practice".
A discussion around the moral dilemmas presented by everyday situations.
Proposed by: Paul C

We are going to use a slightly different format on this occasion. Paul C will provide two real-world examples which address moral and ethical issues. We will discuss each one either side of our break. There is no pre-reading needed.



WEDNESDAY 5th 7PM


           Topic Title: "Population ethics".
Proposed by: Paul 



March 2017


WEDNESDAY 15th 7PM
           Topic Title: "Instinct and Intuition"
Proposed by: David

A brief video by way of an introduction to intuition:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_FfypyFsGhk

Also being referenced will be Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink"
and Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow"



WEDNESDAY 1st 7PM
           Topic Title: "In view of the unreliability of memory,
               how do we go about evaluating or even judging past key events?"



February 2017

WEDNESDAY 15th 7PM
Topic Title: The Gender Revolution?

Being a Man?

In our day we had a choice,

man or woman, female or male.

You could tell the difference by sight or voice

by crewcut or by ponytail.


If you had a willy you were one thing,

if you didn’t, then you were t’other.

It obviously wasn’t a real choice

and you wouldn’t swap one for the other.


Male or female, woman and man,

often the twain would meet;

we knew what we were and what we wanted,

but now it seems it’s obsolete.


Things are so very, very different

I really don’t know just what I should do.

There seems to be an awful lot of genders

and I honestly thought that there were only two.

There’s the demigirl, transgirl, transwoman

the demiboy, transboy, transman.

The bisexual, the intersexual, the transexual

the greysexual and the metrosexual fan.

Things are indeed so very different,

these genders are multiplying fast.

There’s agender, bigender and trigender

demigender, transgender, pangender .

There’s nullgender, greygender, third gender,

intergender, other gender, and allgender.

There’s genderless, genderflux, gender fluid,

gender neutral, gender binary, gender queer,

gender nonconforming, gender variant, gender

questioning.

If you ask me It’s very cavalier.
And none of them are me. I’m Cisgender.

Cisgender?

You can almost understand what these new terms mean

and some of them I know I’ve seen before.

The words I know are androgyne and epicene;

words for men that weren’t, like, so cocksure.


But others seem completely supramental.

Two spirit and boi (with an i) seem transcendental,

cadogirl and cadoboy just leave me cold,

enby makes me think I’m going mental,

perhaps it’s just that I am getting old.


Confusing as It is, I’m going to sort it;

I could join the biggest group of my career, that’s

QUILTBAG

for the Questioning Undecided Intersex Lesbian

Trans* Bisexual Asexual and Genderqueer,

but as that doesn’t sound like I’m included -

and I only hope I don’t end up in gaol –

but . . . considering these multiplying options

I think . . . oh yes . . I think I’ll stay

. . .

a male.

Mx (not Mr or Mrs) Andy Williams

April 2016

WEDNESDAY 1st 7PM
Topic Title: Transgender kids: Who decides?
Proposed by: George and Paul
Someone (children, parents, doctors "society") has to decide if/when children undergo gender realignment. This life changing decision is far more difficult after puberty.





January 2017

WEDNESDAY 18th 7PM
Topic Title: How do I know I exist?
Consider this: With every passing moment, we get closer to creating intelligent machines, maybe even conscious ones. If we can do this, could someone-or something else do it too?

Proposed by: Zhubin

WEDNESDAY 4th 7PM
Topic Title: Empathy, Compassion and Kindness.
where do the differences lay?
Proposed by: Paul

WEDNESDAY 21st  7PM
Topic Title: Christmas Questions from SAPERE
Proposed by: Paul

 SAPERE is  the Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education.
This year they have produced "Christmas Ponderland", a booklet aimed to get children and adults to ask themselves and others philosophical questions about Christmas.
Questions like:
"Would you like Christmas if there weren't any presents?"
and
"Are we happier at Christmas than at any other time of the year?"

You can take a look at the booklet by clicking HERE

or click the link on the sidebar of this blogspot to take you to SAPERE's website.

Hope to see you at the meeting if you can make it.
December 2016
WEDNESDAY 7th  7PM
Topic Title: Why do we tell stories (and why do we read them)?
Proposed by: Group

October2016

WEDNESDAY 19th  7-9PM
Topic Title: Medical advances/Ethical concerns
Proposed by: Paul W

September 2016


WEDNESDAY 21st  7PM
Topic Title: Why does belief in God persist, and what do we think the future holds?
Proposed by: Paul W

"The practice of philosophy, especially in the analytic tradition, places emphasis on precision of terms and clarity of concepts and ideas. Religious language is often vague and imprecise, and couched in mystery"

Links:







WEDNESDAY 7th  7PM
Topic Title: Can some machines think?
Proposed by: Trevor B

August 2016

WEDNESDAY 17th  7PM
Topic Title: What is the  relationship between philosophy and science?
Despite their differences,can science and philosophy complement and reinforce each other or should they remain in isolation and negation of one another?
Have both disciplines,in practice, knowingly or unknowingly been entertaining each other without the respective acknowledgement of doing so?

Proposed by: Jubin

WEDNESDAY 3rd 7PM
Topic Title: How closely can we see things "through one anothers eyes"?
Proposed by: Group Proposal

Looking forward to seeing you there.
*********************************************
It is with deep regret and sadness that I have to announce the recent death of Phil Smith, or "Phil the Hat "as he was known by some.
Phil..may your molecules find their way to peace.

You will be missed much and often by all who knew you.

July 2016
WEDNESDAY 20th  7PM
Topic Title: What is free will?
Proposed by: Ray/Jubin


WEDNESDAY 6th  7PM
Topic Title: What would you have on your epitaph and why?
Proposed by: Group Proposal

June 2016
WEDNESDAY 1st  7PM
Topic Title: Has politics lost its purpose? If so can it/should it be restored? How?
Proposed by: P.Carter

There is a lot of evidence, not least from voting turnout, that people are disenchanted with our politics and our politicians. One result is that we have, and are likely to continue to have, governments who rule without the votes of the majority of our electorate. Consequently our government's ability to govern with authority is weakened.
Is this a passing phase?

Is there some other way we can better capture consensus in the future?



May 2016

WEDNESDAY 18th 7PM
Topic Title: Forgive and forget?
and is it ultimately in our best interests to do so?
Proposed by: Group proposal

WEDNESDAY 4th 7PM
Topic Title: What should (and shouldn't) be taught in schools?

Proposed by: Group proposal



April 2016

WEDNESDAY 20th 7PM
Topic Title: How do I "surrender"?
Proposed by: Group proposal


If by "Surrender" we mean a giving over of the self, then most religious beliefs and traditions can be said in some way to advocate  "dieing to the self" or to lose the self into something greater than oneself.  Is this the meaning of surrender?

Looking forward to seeing you there.


WEDNESDAY 6th 7PM
Topic Title: Can knowledge ever be truly objective?
Proposed by: Keith

"Objective knowledge, we can argue, should be knowledge of how things (really) are. All knowledge uses concepts – ‘mountain’, ‘highest’, ‘electron’, ‘table’ and so on. Concepts only identify ‘how things are’ if there is a correlation between reality and the set of concepts. A claim can only amount to objective knowledge if the concepts it uses are concepts that correspond to reality. Claims employing concepts that don’t correspond to reality, e.g. ‘witch’, can’t give us knowledge because the concept has no application. So objective knowledge is only possible if we have the concepts which correspond to how reality is. We can then argue that it is impossible to claim that there is a single set of concepts which describes reality ‘as it is’ and better than any other set of concept, or that our concepts are part of such a perfect set. Therefore, the knowledge we have is relative to our conceptual scheme, and not objective."

 "The idea of ‘objective and absolute’ knowledge is the idea of knowledge that is not conditional or qualified. In particular, it is knowledge that is not relative to a system of beliefs, practices or concepts".
Further reading of the text:
March 2016

WEDNESDAY 23rd 7PM-9PM
LIGHTNING PIP's
We are throwing in an extra one!

OPEN FORUM

ALL WELCOME


Looking forward to seeing you there.

WEDNESDAY 16th 7PM
Topic Title:  Is anger the golden mean between apathy and rage?
(Or simply the opposite of being calm?)

Proposed by: Group proposal

"Dogs don't bite when they are calm"
Anon
"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"
Yoda

Anger - (link to Aristotle's Rhetoric)

On justifying anger as a way of life philosophically

Why-you-get-so-angry-even-though-you-are-nice

As Mad as Hell (youtube)

WEDNESDAY 2nd 7PM
Topic Title: Do dreams have meaning or purpose?
Proposed by: Group proposal

I was out for a stroll late in the afternoon," said Chuang Tzu. "I went to one of my favorite spots under a tree. I sat there, thinking about the meaning of life. It was so warm and pleasant that I soon relaxed, dozed off, and drifted into a dream. In my dream, I found myself flying up above the field. I looked behind me and saw that I had wings. They were large and beautiful, and they fluttered rapidly. I had turned into a butterfly! It was such a feeling of freedom and joy, to be so carefree and fly around so lightly in any way I wished. Everything in this dream felt absolutely real in every way. Before long, I forgot that I was ever Chuang Tzu. I was simply the butterfly and nothing else."

Looking forward to seeing you there.

February 2016

WEDNESDAY 3rd 7PM
Topic Title: Issues around Forgiveness
Proposed by: Val/Paul

Last Saturday, Channel 4 showed holocaust survivor Eva Kor - one of Mengeles twin experiments in the nazi death camps showing forgiveness at the trial of a 92yr old prison camp guard.
What do we think?
What do YOU think about Forgiveness?
Are there limits?
Or not?

January 2016

WEDNESDAY 20TH 7PM
Topic Title: OPEN FORUM
Proposed by: All
This weeks PIPS will be a chance to propose a topic and discuss it on the night! We will take a few suggestions , have a vote on the subjects and see what we can get through on the evening.
If you have a mini-topic, something you want to explore but don't want to "present" then this is the time.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

WEDNESDAY 6TH 7PM
Topic Title:  Private Affluence-Public Squalor
Proposed by: Paul C

Private Affluence-Public Squalor is a phrase coined by John Kenneth Galbraith, possibly the most prominent economist since the war.
He predicted that as private affluence grew in western society, there would be a decline in support and respect for those services provided communally. We would legitimise selfishness, and be increasingly reluctant to provide funds and time for communal activities. Those services would increasingly be used by the poor, who have no choice, and the people who work to provide them would be viewed negatively.
Is this happening in our society? As we look around us in Southport, at scenes of litter and neglect, are we seeing those who can afford to retreating to their safe havens? Was there some point in our history where we made this shift ( for example, did the Thatcher years legitimise 
"me first"? )Should we resist this, and if so, how?
Information on JKG
Seminal work
"The Affluent Society"
                                        December 2015
WEDNESDAY 16TH 7PM
Topic Title: "Do some nations have the right to retain artifacts acquired - even in good faith - from other nations?"
Proposed by: Trevor B

The forthcoming lecture (Monday 7th December) by the Director of the Atkinson prompted thoughts about the collection of 1,000 Egyptian artifacts acquired by Anne Goodison and donated to the Atkinson. What if Egypt asked for these items to be returned?
In general, wealthier (usually formerly colonising) nations display artifacts in well-kept museums. This is often not the case in poorer countries, where the items were found. Does this alone justify retaining such items, if the country of the artifacts’ origin requests their return?

What is the role of current / ancient national borders? (“Imagine there’s no countries…”) How do we reconcile issues raised by historical nationhood? (Extinct cultures such as the Inca.)

What role could UNESCO play in mediating between nations which are in dispute about artifacts? (e.g. UK & Greece: Elgin Marbles)

What impact on this topic does the illicit trade in antiquities have?

Does the recent destruction of ancient monuments and artifacts by ISIL impact our thinking?

Do ancient items “belong to everyone?” If so, should museums display such items for free?

Can we reconcile cultural demands (Maoris, Australian Aboriginals, African tribes and others) with current reality? Is an “apology” (à la Japonaise) ever enough?

If a new archeological discovery were made, for example in Croatia, would a European / American offer of expertise justify a deal along the lines of “partage?” If so, what proportion of any artifacts found should the “experts” demand?

Would a new focus on the “common ownership” of ancient artifacts be a useful tool in educating younger people along the rocky road to “world citizenship?”

Does this Topic imply the possibility of a “common humanity” or merely highlight the impossibility of such an ideal, however desirable in theory?


Looking forward to seeing you there



WEDNESDAY 2ND 7PM
 Topic Title: Rights and Wrongs - taking human rights seriously
Proposed by: John C
Human Rights today

In 2016 the Conservative government are planning to "fundamentally change the way human rights laws work in the United Kingdom" so that the European Courts of Human Rights will no longer be binding over the UK Supreme Court and will become an advisory body only.

Do we think human rights have "gone too far?"  Will the UK be better off without being held to account by the ECHR? Is an appeal to an external authority necessary to hold a democracy to account? What are "natural rights" Do we believe that "all men are created equal" and that all peoples should have equal rights?

Join us for discussion, come and add your view and hear what others think

Click here for the Conservatives Proposals.

read on for further interest:

Human rights have assumed great importance in Britain in recent years, and more especially since the 1998 Human Rights Act. However this is something which has not been without controversy. While they have been thought to afford greater protection to vulnerable people, human rights have been criticised for privileging some people’s rights over others and also for neglecting other legal and moral considerations.
One example of this is when the human rights of people suspected of plotting terrorist actions are weighed against the interests of public safety. Another is when the police may feel inhibited in publishing pictures of offenders in case this would breach their human rights. Again, sometimes it seems that human rights are invoked in the pursuit of frivolous claims – for free ballet lessons, for example. This is not to deny that certain things are desirable – but only whether they should gain high enough status to qualify as a human right.

What are rights?

While the expression ‘I know my rights’ may be used by a person confronted by authority and other problems, it is unlikely that people really appreciate what rights are. Although the idea of rights might seem to be indispensable to how we think about people, law and society, the idea of rights really seems to have originated in the early modern period. Prior to that period the idea of duties was pre-eminent. 
It is really only with the development of the modern stress on individualism that rights come to be of importance. Indeed, individuals are sometimes defined essentially as bundles of rights or as right-holders in establishing their status. In this respect rights can be seen as according dignity to the individual and as expressing the need for respect by others. 

Types of Rights?

It might help, to make a rough distinction between two types of rights – even if they overlap in practise.
Rights in effect say that there are certain things which must not be done to a person, thereby calling for restraint by others. An example would be not to torture someone or imprison them without trial.
At the same time they say that there are certain things which a person must have in order to lead a proper dignified life, thereby calling upon others for the provision of certain things. An example would be the provision of a minimum standard of housing. As such these rights call on economic resources in a way that the other type of rights do not.
What qualifies as a basic right seems to develop and change over time. For example we would probably want to include access to a certain standard of medical care as an essential right in a way that would have been impractical in previous centuries. 
Rights also connect to the idea of consent. They imply that a person’s consent ought to be obtained on certain occasions if their interests or integrity is threatened. An example would be a right to be consulted about medical procedures and to give explicit consent before undergoing an operation. 
Rights have played an essential role in the protection of individuals and minority groups against the incursions and abuses of political power. This has been so even, or especially, when that power is democratically supported (when we might think that the risk was lessened). This is so because it is always possible that majorities, as well as dictatorships, can act tyrannically over individuals and minorities. One way of curbing this tendency is to insist on the rights of minorities against the majority. 
Hence there is tension in the term liberal democracy where liberalism and respect for individuals and minorities is pitched against democracy. This tension is mediated by rights.
Indeed Ronald Dworkin in Taking Rights Seriously (1977) expressed this in the phrase ‘rights are trumps’ which means that rights should override the greater power of numbers which democracy entails.
Correlation
This principle says that for every right there is a duty and that for every duty there is a right. For example, my right to free speech is a duty on others not to censor me. My right to education is a duty on others (chiefly the government?) to provide the institutions and resources that this would require. Conversely, if I have a duty not to take your property without your consent, then this means that you have a right to your property against my predations - and against any others so minded. Roughly speaking, if there really is a right there must be corresponding duties on someone somewhere – and vice versa.
Reciprocation
The principle of “reciprocity” says that if I expect others to respect my rights, I ought to respect theirs. In other words it implies equality and mutual respect. And my respect for their rights means that I accept that I have corresponding duties towards them. Obviously this acceptance is entailed by the previous relationship of correlation. Put more cynically I might think that respecting your rights is simply a price I have to pay to get you to respect mine. There may be social systems where this moral equality is absent. Slaves have many duties but few, if any, rights. Tyrants have many rights and few, if any, duties.
Claiming rights
Rights are a strong claim on others. If I said that it would be nice if someone did something for me that would be a very weak claim. If I said that I needed something from someone that would be stronger (since the idea of need has moral weight).But if I say that I have right that someone do something then that means that they should feel morally compelled to do it. In the case of law, they will not only feel morally compelled, they will actually be compelled by law on threat of sanction.
One more oddity about rights is that the best way to gain a right is to claim that you already have one. For example when the Suffragettes campaigned for the right to vote they assumed that they morally had this right and that the law, and male society in general, ought to accept that ‘fact’ and institute the necessary electoral changes.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

 further reading

What are Human Rights?
According to John Locke.

1. They are natural in the sense that they have a source and status independent of law and society

2. They are fundamental in the sense that they are more important than/override other moral considerations and other types of rights, such as legal and moral ones.

3. They are self-evident in the sense that you simply know that you have them if you reflect or reason.

4. They are inalienable in the sense that they cannot be taken away or given away. Even if someone deprives you of your liberty physically, they cannot deprive you of your right to liberty.

5. They are universal in the sense that all human beings have them equally - whatever their condition.

6. They are the criterion and purpose law and government in the sense that law and government are legitimate only if they embody and enforce natural rights. That is what law and government are instituted for.

These characteristics can be seen expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence.

The point of the Declaration was that the British Government was not legitimate (6) and to lay down certain principles (2) which should govern the matter at issue.

‘We hold these truths to be self-evident (3), that all men are created equal (5), that they are endowed, by their Creator (1) with certain inalienable (4) rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men (6).’

The list of natural rights almost follows that of Locke whose list was Life, Liberty and Property. Property became the Pursuit of Happiness in the Declaration although this might be seen as equivalent given that Locke was saying that one had a right to pursue property and have it protected (and not that you had a right to be given property) and the Declaration was saying that one could not be happy without property.

Some of the problems with natural rights surface when we consider that, despite the ringing tones, the signatories of the Declaration did not literally mean all men have equal natural rights. They did not intend this to apply to women and children. The indigenous population of so-called Red Indians were also excluded and, in practice, so were the very poor. Furthermore, many of the signatories were slave holders who had no intention of freeing people whose labour afforded the economic status of owners.
The Declaration does not explicitly refer to natural rights and, within the same period, the term natural rights was supplanted by that of the Rights of Man. Apart from the stronger rhetorical force of the new term, the difference was substantially one of intending to extend them to all men in practice, and of including political participation and, thus, that all should have a say in the making and enforcement of laws.

Tom Paine’s Rights of Man (1791) even went so far as to suggest, in its later chapters, welfare rights – something which, along with other rights, would entail the provision of resources. Paine was ahead of his time since welfare rights only came into effect in the twentieth century.

Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) emphasised that the term ‘Man’ was not to be literally restricted as the Declaration had done.

The United Nations of Human Rights (1948) marked a watershed in modern times in the development of the original conception of natural rights.

The need for such a Declaration was especially pressing in the aftermath of the genocide of World War II. The Declaration was to apply to the entire population of the world and required all governments to respect the rights specified .

November 2015
WEDNESDAY 18TH 7PM
Topic Title: "Are psychological terms a help or a hindrance?"
Proposed by: George T

The world has been psychologized!
Today we are all amateur psychologists, going around making sense of our behaviour, and the behaviour of others, using a battery of psychological terms.
So familiar are these terms that they have become ‘matters of fact’ and so are seldom questioned. We possess ‘emotion’ as surely as we possess a heart, and we possess ‘intelligence’ (IQ) as surely as we possess a brain.
Any one who questioned such self-evident terms would be an idiot. Or would they…?
The plan for the evening is that after an introductory talk (based on Kurt Danziger’s book ‘Naming the mind: How psychology found its language’), we split up into groups each group discussing a critical psychological term of their choice. Options will include not just ‘emotion’ and ‘intelligence’ but terms often associated with mental health such as ‘depression’ and ‘autism’.
Then, after our group discussions, we bring our combined wisdom together.
Join us to question the taken for granted at 7pm at The Guest House on the 18th of November.

Looking forward to seeing you there.


Topic Title:  Do animals have rights?
Proposed by: Keith M

1. Is this question the same as or different from 'Should animals have rights ?'
2. What considerations should we take into account in attempting to decide whether or not animals have rights :
- the respective levels of biological complexity exhibited by humans and non- human animals, or
- whether the difference between humans and non-human animals is one of degree or one of kind, or
- the capacity of humans and non-human animals for self-awareness, moral judgement and/or suffering ?
3. Can we conceive of rights without responsibilities ?
4. Should our view of these matters be influenced by the consequences for human conduct of a 'yes' or a 'no' answer ?

Link to BBC ethics guide page :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml

Further links (not necessarily from Keith)
Human exceptionalism (video)
Seaworld-facing-class-action-lawsuit-filed-by-deceived-park-patrons (news article)

Looking forward to seeing you there




Is gender equality getting closer?
Do females in our society suffer gender inequality? Are they as a group dominated by the opposite gender?

In her writings, the radical feminist Andrea_Dworkin writes;
"Any social subordination of one group to another can be recognised as containing four elements:
Objectification
Hierarchy
Submission
Violence."

Regardless of any reasons, do we agree that such a thing as social subordination exists in the first place, and can we all agree that females carry an unequal share of those four elements outlined by Dworkins?

Do the words Shelter , Safety , Rules , Love have different meanings for men than they do for women? What role can and does the Rule of Law have? ( in setting the context into which social equality norms operate ) And what norms, if any, does the Rule of Law allow that may oppose female equality?

Socially, what, if any, are the elements of persuasion and/or influences that come into force? From the Press, the family, peers groups,t.v? And what might be some of the cultural/ideological barriers that make it more difficult for girls and women to thrive?

Fnally what about gender equality globally?
What difficulties are faced by females right across the world?
Sunday October 11th saw Unicef host the International Day of the Girl Child. Unicef argues that girls are uniquely impacted in terms of secondary education and protection issues and that targeted investments are needed to address inequalities. And the UNESCO monitoring report "Education For All" goes into fine detail relating to gender inequalities across several countries and continents.

So, is gender equality getting closer?

Looking forward to seeing you there

Paul

If you have an interesting link relating to the topic,put it in the comments box and I will post it up.
Links you might like:
un.org.sustainabledevelopment. The Worlds Women 2015/
10mins discussion equal pay/social roles (youtube)
"Not the Fun Kind" Rae Langton (youtube)
Right-Wing-Women-The-Politics-of-Domesticated-Females
Some quotes from the book:
 "From father’s house to husband’s house to a grave that still might not be her own, a woman acquiesces to male authority in order to gain some protection from male violence. She conforms, in order to be as safe as she can be"
And
"There is a rumor, circulated for centuries by scientists, artists, and philosophers both secular and religious, a piece of gossip as it were, to the effect that women are “biologically conservative. ” While gossip among women is universally ridiculed as low and trivial, gossip among men, especially if it is about women, is called theory, or idea, or fact. This particular rumor became dignified as high thought because it was Whispered-Down-The-Lane in formidable academies, libraries, and meeting halls from which women, until very recently, have been formally and forcibly excluded".



Personal Responsibility 

Harvard professor Steven Pinker, writing about his emotional response to the recent Amy Whitehouse documentary, Amy, asks the question: To what extent should we hold people responsible for their self-destructive choices, and to what extent are they victims of circumstances or other people?
Previously, Pinker has cautioned against biological determinism. He has addressed the concern that, as understanding of neuroscience and the roots of behaviour develop, the concept of moral responsibility might become obsolete. His view is that personal responsibility and an increased knowledge of neural functioning can coexist as long as "the science is not used to eliminate the notion of personal responsibility".
As the NHS considers whether to refuse treatment to those who refuse to enter rehab or get other help offered to them to overcome their addictions, how should we respond? Are there occasions when brain science frees someone from blame and other occasions when it doesn't? Who will decide?

Thanks go to Aileen for the topic stimulus (above) and the links (below).
On-my-radar-Steven-Pinker
Did my brain make me do it? Neuroscience-and-moral-responsibility.html?
Will Neuroscience Challenge the Concept of Criminal Responsibility?
                               *
The Marshmallow Test & Delayed Gratification.
Skepticule..The Free Will episode


Privacy

"We should compromise our privacy for the sake of security"
This quote got me thinking about the nature of privacy in the modern world. Is it a human right, a psychological need or a human need? Is oversharing or obsessive privacy damaging? How much can we really keep private?

Thanks go to Fran for the topic and stimulus piece.

Don't forget its Chips and Butties night!

Interesting links:
State-snooping-is-a-price-worth-paying-for-security                           (podcast/video from "Intelligence Squared")
cybersecurity-that-protects-freedom-of-speech.
is-it-justifiable-to-violate-certain-civil-liberties-in-the-name-of-national-security

What is it about Music?

Nearly everybody has a piece of music or song that will straightaway bring to mind certain persons or events in their life. What would yours be?
Music and song has an uncanny ability to link with our memories and become placeholders for the events or persons themselves.
For this upcoming PIPS meeting we are asking questions about music; it's functions and ability to act as a conduit through which our mental and emotional lives find expression. Why can music stir us in such deep ways? Does it matter why we listen to what we do? Is there a difference to liking a piece of music or song and appreciating it. What actually IS music anyway?

Below are some links to pieces of music and song sent by PIPS members. We want as many people as possible to send in their links to music that stirs them or reminds them of something personal to them or just because they like it! To send me a link either use the comments box or email me. By the way, you can send more than one..
Hang Massive                   
 Brindisi                                         
Infinite Dream                     
Albido 0.39                                 
Witchita Lineman
Waltz from the Masquerade Suite
Imagine
Zorba The Greek                 
Islands In The Stream           
The Crow                           
Triumphal March from Aida 
 Those Were the Days           
"Our  world is a shared experience, fractured by individual perspectives" Brian Miller.
Geeky links and a podcast for further reading/listening:
Music_psychology
The Philosophy of Music
The expression of emotion in music (podcast)

Do Religions inhibit rational thought?

In it's Key Principles  Atheism UK states the following:
  • Religion is based upon irrationality, superstition and unsubstantiated beliefs.
  • Religion encourages and perpetuates prejudice, ignorance and intolerance.
  • Religion inhibits critical thinking, discourages scientific enquiry and restricts human progress.
Atheism at its most basic is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Anti-theism,however, takes the view that religions are harmful to mankind and need to be exposed.  Is an anti-theist agenda understandable if the above assertions can be found to have validity?
 And do religions really inhibit rational thought?
Reclaiming Reason from Atheism
www.reasons.org
Rethinking Pascal-s Wager
Thanks go to "Tuna Sandwich" for the following list of problems when trying to deal with humankind as rational creatures:
1) Dunning-Kruger_effect 2) Psychological_projection. 3) Primacy_effect 4) Need for cognitive_closure 5) Fundamental_attribution_error 6) Hallucination 7) Misinformation_effect 8) Confirmation_bias
We are more like clouds than clocks.

Can contemplating our Death dramatically enhance our enjoyment of Life?
To what extent can the technique of contemplating what is called "negative realisations" contribute to our well-being.The Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher Marcus_Aurelius suggested disciplining ourselves to spend time reflecting on the good things we have and how much we would miss them if they were not ours anymore.Thus he found a useful mind-trick to help counter "misliving", or simply wasting your life in a state of what might be termed nowadays as "enlightened hedonism".Seneca_the_Younger spoke not only of living each day as if it were your last, but living each moment as if it was your last.
And finally Epictetus says that when parting from a friend "we should silently remind ourselves that this may be our final parting".
Would focusing on these negative thoughts bring happiness and tranquility or just constantly drill home a depressing reality from which there is no escape? In one sense it is not life that is precious, it is time.

Leadership and Charisma

Keith will be introducing the topic as we explore the relationship between these two compelling attributes.
Philosophical Pragmatism and Moral beliefs

"Pragmatism is an approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application."
Does it matter what we believe?
If it's in society's best interests to behave morally, does it matter where we say we get those morals from? As long as we are all singing from the same moral hymn book, surely it wouldn't matter which actual hymn we prefer to sing.
Notes
Questions concerning certain faculties claimed for man Ch. S. Peirce has asserted that:
1.we have no ability for intuition, all knowledge flows from the former knowledge,
2.we have no ability for introspection; all knowledge about the inner world is produced by hypothetical reasoning on the basis of observation of outer things, and
3.we cannot think without signs.

"Pragmatism is a rejection of the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Instead, pragmatists consider thought to be a product of the interaction between organism and environment. Thus, the function of thought is as an instrument or tool for prediction, problem solving and action".

"Consider what effects we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object."
Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (CP) v. 5, paragraphs 388–410.)

Notes (updated) :
"Meaning is a triadic relationship between the object, a sign, and the interpretant"
"Any primitive biological organism interacts semiotically with its environment when it selects or avoids energetic materials in its environment for the purpose of its survival (Noth: Ecosemiotics and the Semiotics of Nature 2001)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
http://philpapers.org/browse/cartesian-skepticism
A biosemiotic perspective (youtube)
Pragmatism and Umvelt theory

Does Facebook rot the brain?

I/we run the risk here of dealing with a dodgy question (which is not that unusual for me). The word "rot" may be a bit too emotive.  Didn't they say telly would rot the brain?
Are there instances where evolution actually allows body parts to rot? I'm not sure. Something that performs one particular function at present may become useful in other ways over time  (see Exaptation) . Or can diminish (like our sense of smell for instance).
Perhaps the question "Does Facebook atrophy the brain?" may be a more focused question. Or "Does Facebook change the way we think?" a more philosophical one.

Beyond the present and particular...what is education for?

This is a question to which everyone has an answer. Some people believe that education exists to benefit society as a whole e.g. to create a more competitive economy, to socialise children into the roles they will perform as adults, to inculcate socially acceptable values and attitudes or to maintain the stability of society. Others think that education exists to benefit individual members of society e.g. to enable them to acquire the skills and knowledge they will need to function effectively in adult society, where effective functioning is generally defined in terms of participation in the job market. All of the above standpoints may be described as ‘instrumental’ in nature : they assert that education is a means to some kind of external (and objectively measured) end, rather than being an end in itself.

The opposite idea, that the purpose of education should be to enable the individual to grow as a person and become a more accomplished individual, with no ulterior or extrinsic benefits (at least not immediate ones), is unfashionable today. It has been largely expunged from public policy and from the practice of educators (certainly in the state sector). Beyond the present and particular is the title of a book by Charles Bailey which sets out the essentials of one version of this now-unfashionable approach to education. This version is generally known as ‘Liberal Education’. A liberal education emphasises education for personal enrichment rather than for instrumental purposes. It involves the deep study of a wide range of disciplines. It encourages analysis, critical thinking and a focus on values, without teaching these things directly. It seeks to prepare the individual to lead the best life he or she can, by encouraging independence of thought, a wide knowledge of the world and the application of transferable skills.
We might ask whether, in today’s outcome-obsessed culture, the time has come to rediscover these values and to restore them to a central role in the English education system.
Thanks go to Keith for providing the topic stimulus above.

To what degree can we choose our happiness?

Nearly everyone wants to be happy. In fact happiness can be seen as ‘an end in itself’ – if we ask why we do things we ultimately arrive at a desire to be happy. We cannot simply choose to be happy. If it were that simple then everyone would simply make that choice and yet different people can be very unhappy or relatively happy under remarkably similar circumstances– for example in the face of serious illness or natural disasters.
So what is ‘happiness’? Buddhists would argue that it arises form an internal state of mind. That misery results from grasping at objects of attachment in both the enteral and internal world – including our illusory sense of self. There may be some truth in this, but most Buddhists would also say that it can take thousands of lives to achieve a total escape of from suffering – a state of enlightenment. A fairly practical Buddhist perspective can be found at:
https://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_happiness
There is no shortage of self –help books with apparently quick answers. There are websites which attempt to encompass all the best approaches to achieving happiness. One such site is:
www.actionforhappiness.org
 It is based around 10 keys:
Do things for others
Connect with people
Take care of your body
Notice the world around
Keep learning new things
Have forward goals to look forward to
Find ways to bounce back
Be part of something bigger
Be comfortable with who you are
Take of positive approach

TED provides a collection of videos on happiness:
https://www.ted.com/read/ted-studies/psychology
https://www.ted.com/talks/benjamin_wallace_on_the_price_of_happiness
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_norton_how_to_buy_happiness
Thanks go to David for the stimulus and links.

How do you cope with the world?

"When I look at the world, it's a place of breathtaking beauty and awe inspiring complexity and this can be the source of a deep pervasive joy, pleasure and satisfaction. But it also seems to me, sadly enough that the universe is utterly, utterly indifferent to us. Not just to humans but to other sentient creatures at all. It just doesnt care about how it crushes us. It doesnt care about the suffering, misery it causes us. It doesnt care if it cuts us down and tramples on our dreams. More horrifyingly still its not just nature that often has this attitude, we have this attitude to one-another. Other humans are indifferent about others suffering or even worse contribute in a malicious,vindictive, sadistic fashion compounding the misery. Given all of this, what can we do?"
Shelly Kagan Living Well in the Light of Death

"Take God out of the picture, and all you seem to be left with is an ape-like creature on a tiny spec of dust beset with delusions of moral grandeur". William Lane Craig Is God necessary for morality?
"Today is the first day of the rest of your short, brutish existence as a sentient creature before being snuffed out into utter nothingness for all eternity." Matt Groening Dealing with Mortality
"Most mud isn't lucky enought to sit-up" Kurt Vonnegut Quoting Vonnegut
Comments welcome

Of what value is a human?

What are we, we humans, when all that we own, both inwardly and outwardly has been taken away; what is our value? I remember now what it was that came to me, all those weeks ago, and what I hope will inform this evening's discussion. Is it possible to leave out all forms of 'otherness', spirit, God and the rest of it and to discuss things from the point of view of what we know, not from what we do not know..... or would that be far too boring? Perhaps we could use this quote to help us begin.....

"...Then there is the question of dying, which we have carefully put far away from us, as something that is going to happen in the future – the future may be fifty years off or tomorrow. We are afraid of coming to an end, coming physically to an end and being separated from the things we have possessed, worked for, experienced – wife, husband, the house, the furniture, the little garden, the books and the poems we have written or hoped to write. And we are afraid to let all that go because we are the furniture, we are the picture that we possess; when we have the capacity to play the violin, we are that violin. Because we have identified ourselves with those things – we are all that and nothing else. Have you ever looked at it that way? You are the house – with the shutters, the bedroom, the furniture which you have very carefully polished for years, which you own – that is what you are. If you remove all that you are nothing."  (J. Krishnamurti)

Just because we can, should we?

And thoughts on the cost to value ratio of medical treatments in particular (though it can also be relevant to other areas).
A new drug will cost £30,000 per treatment for a possible 2 months of life which seems hard to justify, but what if it was £10,000 or 6 months. The cost of developing drugs is huge and the companies need to fund it, but our resourses are limited. However, we need these companies working in the UK. Is it possible to balance the various financial implications? At what point does a drug become viable financially?
Can we reduce the cost and time of developing new drugs, eg testing on willing terminal patients?
Our thanks go to Fran for the topic and written stimulus.

Our beloved pets: are they better understood as miniature human beings or as very elaborate machines?
Do we go too far when attributing human characteristics such as complex thought,feelings and symbolic understanding to our domesticated pets? Do they operate at the purely mechanical level  relying only on stimulus, response and conditioning for their behaviour, any adaptation being restricted to a single target?
If the use of language and symbols are two of the precursors to a highly complex emotional life do our pets exhibit these qualities to the extent that we would recognise as being human?
Thanks go to Keith for allowing me to canabalise his written stimulus for this topic.
 Here's a thought provoking link: Human and animal emotions: Are they the same? (video)
and another: it's time to declare animal sentience proven
and another:  Human and animal cognition: Continuity and discontinuity
and one more: The Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness
and one more: Spindle_neurons
and this for a bit of serious fun: World animal protection Interactive Map
Here's an interesting thought: Empathy has only one triggering condition: an individual in distress.
Happy New Year

Profit: How much is enough?
Ray writes:
Profit: to realise additional value from the sale of either a service or an item. Usually specified in terms of a financial gain.

The question seemed a simple one. Only when trying to provide a stimulus for it did I find myself struggling in having to define the terms being used within the question. It seemed impossible to consider the term 'enough' until first understanding what profit was, as (at least in my own mind) it first demanded an appreciation of the 'what', the 'who' and the 'why' i.e. the purpose it serves. So I thought that if we could clarify our understanding of what is being produced, the benefit it brings, we'd then be able to assess if in creating it it is (or is not) meeting the need it was created to fulfil. 'Enough' would then somehow emerge from that discussion. Looking at profit in purely financial terms seemed to have no limits in that regard, which almost certainly formed the initial reasoning behind the question.
So the fact that I have struggled with this is perhaps what makes it a good question for a PiPs enquiry?
Finally, the other reason behind the question is my own involvement in what is termed a 'not for profit' company. I find it more meaningful to use the term 'surplus' when speaking of the additional value that the company produces but, perhaps this is more a reaction against a tendency for people to revert always to the financial aspect of profit? What we could call 'breadth of value', i.e. the financial gain just seems to accumulate, then gets ploughed back into the machinery simply to generate more, with many of 'profit's benefits then being targeted as simply another cost to be reduced, whereas as a not-for-profit we must think far more in terms of the 'depth of value' or benefit a surplus can produce, always aiming to produce more of that benefit, which gives the whole impetus for making a profit a far deeper meaning."

Breaking down Authority.

What is the best way to begin to think about authority?
How should we approach the complex and complicated subject of Authority?
I would think it an impossible task to unpick every thread, smooth out every exception and create a seamless understanding of the “How and the Why”.
But then, I'm no authority.
But I do believe there are ways to break down our understanding of what authority is and as a consequence, aim to harness for ourselves at least an illusion of choice in what we accept or reject.
Appeals to authority are all around us. We are asked to believe in their devices, accept their versions of reality. Even appeals to authority from legitimate sources are always open to question. A scientist or, for that matter a priest speaking in his or her area of expertise may affirm a falsehood. So whether the appeal is from the State, or individuals, what criteria should we use when assessing appeals to authority?
The Classical account of knowledge says that:
One can know a proposition is true, only if:
a) That proposition is true
b) One believes that proposition
c) One's belief is justified
So this means how the proposition was justified (justification, here meaning to give good reasons for your position) determines the truth of a proposition which in turn leads to true knowledge. Belief that a proposition is true is not enough to have knowledge about something. So if we want to think analytically or critically about authority we need to look at how that authority justifies itself or accepts others justification of itself.

Paradoxes of War.

Whilst war is destructive, it can bring about great feats of social cohesion, coordination and cooperation.War can serve as a moment to claim  new positions in society as an avenue of mobility, a chance to establish different social behaviour.
But upon their return, the hero that  people like us applaud, may be responsible for ending the lives of many "people like us" in another part of the world. Does it all just depend on from whose side you are looking? People seem to ascribe very different meanings to the same event depending on where their allegiances lie.
Something that caused outrage was when video stills of U.S. Marines urinating onto the dead bodies of Taliban fighters emerged. The Marines were accused of rude and inhuman behaviour by everyone, no matter whose side you saw it from. Why was it acceptable for the Marines to have imposed death by violence, to have killed the fighters but it was not acceptable to urinate on them?  Is it perhaps a paradox that whilst we train soldiers to kill, to blow up the enemy, we also expect them to maintain a moral sense? What is it about war that seems to be able to bring out the very best and worst in human behaviour?
Many thanks to Keith for writing this weeks topic.

Scientific knowledge : objective knowledge or just another point of view

Many people regard scientific knowledge as objective or absolute. Such knowledge is often contrasted with understandings based on emotion, feeling, superstition or prejudice. But is this contrast correct ? Might we argue that scientific knowledge, on closer examination, also turns out to be based on emotion etc. If so, then scientific knowledge is no more objective than superstition.
The model of the universe developed by Aristotle and Ptolemy dominated western thinking for nearly 2000 years. This pagan, earth-centric model was appropriated by the Roman Catholic Church in medieval times as proof of the glory of God. It thus became infused with enormous emotion and earthly significance. People embraced it as 'truth' or else..... When Galileo made observations that disproved the classical model, he was persecuted. Gradually, however, his explanation was accepted and became a new 'truth'. Newton's model of gravity, based on the attraction of objects, was the orthodoxy for nearly 300 years. Then, almost overnight, it was replaced by Einstein's model of gravity as the curvature of space. Evidence suggests that Einstein's model may be substantially revised in the near future. In the first quarter of the twentieth century, Freud's theories of the conscious and unconscious mind were accepted as factually true; today they are almost totally discredited.
It has even been suggested that the most basic concepts of scientific enquiry, those of number, time and space, are not natural or eternal, but arose in the minds of the earliest humans when they started to band together in groups larger than the extended family.
So, the question arises, is scientific truth really truthful ?

What Shouldn't we be talking about?

A thought provoking title...lets see what comes out on the night.

The Good Life

What have we all got in common? We all want to live "The Good Life"
But what exactly is it and  is it the same for everyone in all times and places?
 Doesn't everyone have their own personal idea of "good"?
More to follow
And here's more :)
It is self evident that humans are far better equipped to think lofty thoughts of good and evil, right and wrong, pleasure and pain than any other animal around here.
To guide, gain insight and to an extent mastery over our lofty potentials we sometimes look either to a religion or a set philosophy of life. Doing this helps provide a framework within which we can contrast and develop our personalities,our individual journey.
The word Virtue is often associated with living the good life. Virtue comes with a whole host of concepts under it's umbrella (morality, temperance, ethics, honesty, loyalty etc).
SO:
Is it possible to uncover any core similarities between differing cultures and religions relating to aspects of virtue and by extension, a core meaning of what it means to live The Good Life?
Can any moral principle really address our honest condition? That of an evolved organism, sitting (or standing) on a rock, spinning through space?

Mass Hysteria/Crowd Delusion

Partly described by the term Mass Sociogenic Illness, what might be the mechanisms that trigger such events?
With one eye on Evolutionary Development, another on Physics and the third looking inward toward Our own experiences, can we come to an understanding of the thresholds and forces that act within/without us to produce this well attested phenomena?

And is it a purely (only) human phenomena? Could we see similar patternicity develop in other classes of living things if we knew how to look?

What Should We Be Worried About?

The first question prompted by this title is 'What kind of thing should we be worried about ?' In other words should we as human beings be worried about only those immediate issues that confront us in our here and now, or should we think and worry about wider issues that may have no direct impact on our lives ?

If the former, then I should be worried about the length of the grass in my garden, the spendthrift habits of my offspring, the noise our washing machine is making, my car's impending MOT and my expanding waistline.

If the latter, then I might be worried about fracking in Surrey, house prices in London, the impact of climate change on the weather in Australia, growing inequalities in the USA, Islamic radicalism in Iraq, the rapid accumulation of debris in space....etc.

Clearly, it can be argued that any of these distant issues may have a direct impact at some point in the future. The world's dinosaurs, chewing the cud 65 million years ago, were not worried about the possibility that an asteroid might crash into the earth. But when one did, it still wiped them out.

Perhaps the question is 'Should we be worried about eventualites which never will or could affect us directly ?' If so, why ?

Back to Basics
So what ARE "The Basics" anyway?
Thanks due to Fran for the following:
The phrase 'back to basics' is used by many people and organisations, esp politicians, but no one ever gives a definition of what they mean by it. I think we would all accept that food, water and shelter are the basic necessities of life but this is not usually what the phrase is about. If you asked a room full of people for a definition, every answer would probably be different. Does it matter that we all hear something different or is the confusion a problem. Is 'back to basics' just the middle class version of 'the poverty line'?


SEXUAL HARASSMENT: WHAT IS IT, WHO DEFINES IT?

Reports of sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence have dominated the media recently. Are these incidents on the rise or are they being reported more often.
While sexual violence is more easily defined and universally condemned, sexual harassment seems more open to interpretation. Is sexual harassment subjective? Are the experiences of men and women variable and open to to alternative explanations?
Is there a relationship between sexism, sexual harassment and sexual violence? Does a sexist environment facilitate sexually harassing behaviours? A 2007 report from the Department of Social Work and Center for Policy Studies at the University of Texas, San Antonio, suggests there is a such a relationship, or at least an overlap.
Is sexual harassment predominately male on female? Why? Is it about power, control, sex, aggression - all of them and more?
Is there a type of man who is more likely to sexually trangress? What role does culture play?
Is the sexual domination of women inevitable?
What do women need to do? What do men need to do? Do we need to do anything?
Thanks go to Aileen for the topic stimulus.

What questions are you asking yourself?

There are questions and there are Questions. Some need no more than the usual problem-solving thought techniques and can be regarded as little "thought-hurdles" to be jumped over.
If the quality of an answer is dependent upon the quality of the question that precedes it then the skill of framing questions becomes of interest.
Here's a link to something interesting and relevant:
http://edge.org/responses/what-questions-are-you-asking-yourself

Is there an Authentic Self?

I have a feeling that the phrase "the authentic self" Means Something,or is at least worth thinking about and discussing. What would it mean to "realise your authentic self?" I like the idea of there being a cultural self and a sort of intrinsic self, a self beyond (or beneath?) culture. But I dislike and am wary of the idea of having the "authentic self"as a perfect goal to aim for.
So I'm thinking about words like Honesty and Integrity and Connection. Authenticity in artistic expressions; music,painting,poetry and what it means to" be real"
I like this:
"Being serious about anything is not a question of eating your cultural greens until you acquire a taste for them, it is about eating as many things as possible in order to ensure that (A) you have tasted everything that there is to be tasted and that (B) when you decide that you don’t like something, it is despite trying your best to find the beauty in it and the understand what other people like about it.  Seriousness and intelligence are not about what you like but about the way in which you like it". http://ruthlessculture.com/2011/07/14/aesthetic-authenticity-and-not-being-a-good-cultural-citizen/
Further topic link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)

Can a Brain heal Itself? (or should we buy a book)

In recent years, here in "The West" the rise of so called "self-help" books have flooded and flourished in a market-place where taking control of ones life and "getting the most out of it all" is seen as being of primary importance.
This in turn has spawned a sub-group which may be called "Californian coffee-table spirituality",(enter the latest glossy self-help guru with good looks and a sharp eye on the bestseller's list)
But do we need 'em?
Anyone had experience in this?

Is Atheism merely wishful thinking?
Thanks to Keith for the following stimulus to the topic.

Is atheism just wishful thinking ?

A useful approach to this question might be to start with the opposite : is religious belief just wishful thinking ?
In his 1952 article Is there a God?, Bertrand Russell asserted the principle that the burden of proof in relation to the existence of God rests with believers not with disbelievers. He also introduced his ‘flying teapot’ analogy. Essentially this argues that unless a belief in the existence of something is supported by logic and evidence, that belief should be rejected.
According to Richard Dawkins, ‘religious apologists’ as he calls them, will often assert that their belief stands above mundane considerations of logic and evidence; it is simply an act of faith. The absurdity of this attitude may be illustrated by the following analogy (mine not Dawkins’).
I am a member of the lunar cheesiest faith. The essence of my belief system is that the moon is not made of rock and stone – it is made of cheese. I am of course aware that astronomers have studied the moon for hundreds of years and have found no evidence of cheese, that astronauts have visited the moon and have discovered not a trace of stilton, brie or wensleydale, and that the copious samples they have brought back to earth bear a stubborn resemblance to rock rather than to coagulated milk products. However, I still believe that the moon is made of cheese because this is my faith, irrespective of evidence.
If I said this to you, you would reject it as absurd. Why, then, does belief in the existence of God not qualify for rejection on the same basis ?
It might seem from these points that belief in God (rather than atheism) is just wishful thinking. However, if we reverse the argument and assert that faith is valid then a number of implications seem to follow.
The first relates to the kind of intellectual imperialism of which scientists like Dawkins are clearly guilty. It is comforting to assert, and to accept the assertion when made by others, that the scientific method, with its emphasis on proof, evidence and logic, is the only means of identifying truth. But is it? The scientific method as we know it has dominated for less than three hundred years. Some thinkers (e.g. Foucault) have argued that it merely one belief system among many. They argue that the dominance of the scientific method has led to a kind of puritanical intimidation of people who do not choose to embrace it (for instance in my analogy above).
The second relates to the argument that progression from ‘molecule to man’ over billions of years simply cannot have occurred by accident; there must have been a divine force and/or intelligence operating behind it. Clearly, to believe this is very disempowering. It means that humans are not in charge. If like me, you cherish an almost pathological desire to be in control of your own life and destiny, you will not want to encourage this belief. Atheism enables humanity to assert that it, not a higher divinity, is in charge.
A third point relates to the infinite regress argument. Atheists will ask ‘Who created God?’ implying that infinite regress defeats religious faith. However, infinite regress also defeats atheism. No one has explained how the ‘singularity’ that preceded the big bang originated. The only comprehensive theory in cosmology that might offer an explanation, the ‘steady-state’ theory of Hoyle and Bondi, has been thoroughly discredited.
So, having begun with the suspicion that religious belief may be wishful thinking, we now aren’t so sure. I feel sure next Wednesday’s discussion will result in absolute certainty on these matters.
What do you come here for?

Thanks go to Ray for the following stimulus:
Abandon all opinion all yea who enter here!
It was once said that PiPs could be just another form of entertainment; Something to take one out of oneself.... but should PiPs really be something to take us out of ourselves or rather something to take us into ourselves, carried inward by the views of others? A distraction or a focus? We must decide which. Do we come here so that our opinions may be reinforced or for our opinions to be changed, widened, perhaps even effaced?
Suspend all opinion all yea who enter here!
We bring with us our experience our life lived, our memories formed and held to make us what we are. Such a narrow view of life however can surely never give us breadth nor depth of understanding. To learn we must suspend thinking, suspend what we are, even for a while, and listen to that which we have never heard before, nor could ever have known before nor experienced, that is, within the boundary of ourselves.
Question all opinion all yea who enter here!
Should we question our own opinions, or at least allow the space for others to do so? Build upon what we know or even begin again and rebuild what we know? Could we be that open to change; approach each and every topic as if it was totally new to us, that we knew nothing? Could we for two hours, forget everything, forget ourselves? It seems impossible.

Morality and Culture.

Thanks go to Fran for the stimulus written below:
"We see killing as wrong, yet  Honour killing exists in some cultures. Sharia Law governs some Muslim communities even in our country. How do we judge whose Moral Code is right? Can we impose our moral code on others, however certain we are of our viewpoint?"
Here's an on topic interesting link:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf
And how about the recent Birmingham Faith Schools controversy:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/04/faith-school-allocation-infringes-human-rights
Should we be allowing the Witch-hunting Christian Helen Ukpabio into the U.K.?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/call-to-ban-witch-hunter-helen-ukpabio-who-poses-risk-to-children-9259872.html


Ghosts, Phantoms and Apparitions....who is scaring whoooo?

For many many people the belief in the immortality of human life is central to their existence. And the "fact" that ghosts, apparitions and the like are real seem (to them) to substantiate their claims regarding the reality of a  life after death.
For the British  philosopher G.E. Moore, extraordinary claims must need support from extraordinary evidence. The argument to the best explanation is crucial.
In establishing the "truth" about any assertion whether it be ghosts or immortality or flying spaghetti monsters here is what Moore says in a nutshell:

"Whenever two beliefs are in conflict, it is rational to reject the less
plausible belief and accept the more plausible one".
Simple isnt it.
So we are looking for rational reasons to either believe or disbelieve in ghosts and life after death.

For a truly excellent philosophical introduction to ideas surrounding death and immortality check out Shelley Kagans set of lectures here:
http://videolectures.net/shelly_kagan/

For a short TEDX talk by Neuropsychiatrist and believer in Near Death Experiences (N.D.E.'S) Peter Fenwick go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-CXpReUpiM
For a study into brain chemicals possibly linked to why people see strange things go here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2589-paranormal-beliefs-linked-to-brain-chemistry.html#.U1tVHlVdWSo
and here:
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2009.21313#.U1tVq1VdWSo
and for a good,quick handy guide for the would-be rationalist go here:
http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/why-people-see-ghosts.pdf







Comments