The London Group of the Philosophical Society of England
Contents
Philosophy In London -- details of philosophy events accessible to Londoners
In 1913 a number of scholars and enthusiasts founded the Philosophical Society of England to promote the study of practical philosophy among the general public. The Society brings together academic and non-academic philosophers and encourages wide discussion of philosophical issues. Membership is open to all. The cost of ordinary membership is £12 per annum: this includes receipt of The Philosopher, which is normally published twice a year.
If you would like further information about the society contact Michael Bavidge E-mail M.C.Bavidge@Newcastle.ac.uk
In 1997 Justin Woods re-formed the London Group of the Philosophical Society. The London Group meets on a regular basis, normally on the first Monday of each month. A talk given by a member or guest speaker is followed by a discussion. All are welcome - a small voluntary donation (£1 for members) is suggested to cover costs .
All joint meetings of PSELG & South Place Ethical Society (SPES) are in the library at South Place Ethical Society, Conway Hall , Red Lion Square near Holborn W1
Meetings in italics and marked by asterisks* are joint meetings with South Place Ethical Society and will take place in the library at Conway Hall.
Future Meetings
For details (time, location and date) of future meetings please contact Ben Basing (ben.basing@virgin.net) for more details
All meetings are on the first Monday of the month at 19.00 until 21.00 at the Bung Hole, 57 High Holborn unless otherwise stated. Please contact Ben Basing (ben.basing@virgin.net) for more details
Ravi Ramanujam Philosophy of Religion on 7 February
Richard Baron Dream Sceptics 6 March.
Jenni Jenkins The Role of Reason and Feeling in the Arts:"They're only false Emotions?" 3 April
Martina Appich How Real is reality? 2 May
Nick McAdoo What is Phenomenology when it is at Home (Conway Hall) June 5th
Rob Wheeler What is it like to be a Bat (Discussion) July 5th
To join the PSE and become eligible for free admission to events and receive The Philosopher twice a year send a cheque for £12 ( made out to the Philosophical Society of England) to
Michael Bavidge
Centre for Continuing Education
University of Newcastle
Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU
Pathways to Philosophy - correspondence course in philosophy, for all. Contact Geoffrey Klempner ( e-mail G.Klempner@sheffield.ac.uk) Director of Studies PSE Dept of Philosophy University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN
Monday Feb 1st Neil Munro A Darwinian view of philosophy
Monday March 1 * Geoffrey Klempner Is it possible to teach philosophy ?
Monday April 12th Carlo Rossi Objective reality or projective reality ?
Sat May 8th Tim LeBon What is philosophical about Philosophical Counselling ?
Monday May 10 Pub Philosophy discussion Free Will
Monday June 7th Pub Philosophy discussion Evil
This meeting was preparation for Adam Morton's talk in July
Monday July 5th * Adam Morton Is there room for evil in a secular morality? ( at Conway Hall)
Professor Adam Morton is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Bristol and has previously taught at Princeton and the University of Ottawa. His most recent book is the highly recommended introduction to Philosophy, "Philosophy in Practice" and his previous publications include "Frames of Mind".
Recommended reading
Mary Midgeley Wickedness, Colin McGinn Ethics, evil, and fiction, Adam Morton Philosophy in Practice chapter 13.
Monday August 2nd Ben Basing What ? An Atheist thinks God is !
PREAMBLE
Ever since my mornings in assembly at primary school I have been aware that God is very important to some people's lives, and yet others of us seem to live without Him. As I got older I became aware of a general confusion over what God is, like Bryan Magee in Confessions of a Philosopher I felt unwilling to just let these questions slip by as most adults seem to. If God is all powerful and good why does He allow evil. If He wants me to behave in such and such a way, why doesn't He say so in an unambiguous way?
The playground arguments still fascinate me; "If you and I both agree that a pillar box is red that's just because we have been told that red is the name of that colour, I might recognise what is going on in your head as 'blue'". What matters is what colour it "really" is, that is, what colour would God call it.
Even as a teenager I was tempted by Pascal's argument that if I could get comfort or satisfaction in believing in God I ought to try to believe. If there is an afterlife, and only believers go to heaven, then I ought to believe; because going to heaven would be better than the proposed alternative! The inconvenience of believing in a non-existent afterlife would be trivial whilst I remained alive.
We do all seem to have very clear ideas of right and wrong, which would be fine if we agreed, or at least agreed on a method of resolving disputes. But the Protestant God would not seem in total harmony with the Roman Catholic God from the world political point of view, even though they are both Christian. Heaven help the Jews and the Moslems, the Buddhists and … well here we have to be politically correct, there are too many for me to remember, please don't take offence if your beliefs are being ignored, but I hope you get my point. To an outsider who has done his time on the playground it does sometimes sound like "If I thump you it's because God made me do it".
Different people (different peoples) have different religions, we seem to inherit religions even more than we inherit voting habits or social class. Doesn't this suggest that God is a social construct, rather than a "real thing". Back in the playground wouldn't this mean that from God's point of view - rather than our human perspective- God doesn't exit?
My basic message to the society, because it's probably easier for me and less likely to go wrong, is that I intend to carry on as we are - that's why we're all here anyway! But I am open to suggestions, particularly from potential speakers. Knowing that speakers are sometimes nervous about putting their ideas before the public, and remembering the word "Society" implies a social element I would encourage joint efforts, maybe one person writes for someone else to read or, and I did this once to great effect, a deliberate argument can be created - philosophers who disagree are more fun! (and less violent than those with no philosophical understanding!!). This kind of double act is probably best rehearsed to some extent (maybe by email or writing rather than face to face). As philosophical arguments seldom reach a conclusion there would be no ignominy of defeat! Any comments or contributions to:
Ben.Basing@Virgin.Net
I am also more than willing to "moderate" a philosophical discussion by email, just email me to be added to a list of lurkers and I'll keep shoving provocative half thought out ideas at the group until someone takes the bait. People without email can send me an SSAE and I'll print out the month/week's discussion to let them join in.
Also, if anyone likes the idea of a conference, that is a Friday and Saturday night in a B&B wildly off season miles from anywhere, with maybe a guest speaker or two, I'll be looking for a conference organiser!
Ben
What? An atheist thinks God is!
First of all I must explain my rather curious title. I knew more or less what I wanted to say, but in the course of our email discussions Tim's original suggestion; What an atheist thinks God is became distorted by punctuation, partly because I don't think philosophy should be entirely humourless, but mostly because I describe myself as an atheist, but I don't really know what God is. It strikes me as bizarre to describe my beliefs in terms of what I do not believe, rather than what I do. Doubly so when humanity as a whole seems to have no agreed idea of what the word "God" means, though we do use it quite a lot!
In philosophy (and I would suggest elsewhere too) any argument about the existence or otherwise of anything, requires a clear idea of what it is that we are discussing. I have yet to find a definition of God, clearly this is a major flaw in any argument that He/She/It does not exist. If I were to insist that He is an Elderly Gentleman with a long white beard in a state of gravitational exemption sitting, forever, amongst the clouds chatting to the angels then I suspect even the most devout religious followers would tend to disagree with me if I were to insist that He exists.
One definition, with a familiar wording, I have proposed myself seems pretty immune to the atheist stance. "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." This could, to me quite reasonably, be re worded as "God is that which created the heaven and the earth", and "The Beginning" is the time (or place) when he, she or it performed the creation. One could, of course, then merely state that the word God thus defined simply refers, in a needlessly provocative, way to an accidental combination of sub atomic forces or particles, a Big Bang or any other theory one might wish to consider.
We do, in any case have to acknowledge that the word "God" does mean something, and that God therefore exists in some sense even if only as a subject of conversation. I doubt any atheist is quite so blasé about other people's beliefs as to limit his discussion to merely "a topic of conversation". One cannot say that "God is an illusion" or "God is a political method to control the masses" (forgive the pun!) if God does not exist. I submit that God does exist, and "God" is the name we give to the cause of the creation. (Not creation in general, ants create anthills, bees create honey etc. etc. but God did it first!). Steven Hawking, in A Brief History of Time explains large chunks of creation, but he is still stumped with his very first, most basic equations. Why this particular set of numbers? It might have been an accident, but the crucial conditions for the world as it is, rather than something radically different, seem to have sprung from nowhere, or from the mind of God.
I wrote that paragraph some time ago, and thought, before misattributing ideas to Hawking I had better check my sources. To prove I was right the last words of A Brief History of Time are "However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of the question why is it that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God. (With a capital G). I have several times been frustrated by people who argue that, as a physicist, Hawking is an atheist. He and I have a lot in common here, and I call myself an atheist because, well because one's religion needs a label I suppose!
I can accept a definition of God along these lines. God created all the animals and plants that ever lived, but we are no told how, and if Darwin's natural selection is an effective method of populating a planet surely God would be free to use it. Maybe he did?
Traditionally though God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knows everything, and is all powerful. But is this possible? Imagine a trivial case, a spinning coin; it will land heads or tails. If I am omniscient I know which, if I am omnipotent I can chose my own preference. If I know which way the coin will fall, this information must be knowable, and if it is knowable I cannot change it. If I know that the coin will land heads I cannot make it land tails without destroying my own knowledge. You cannot know whether I will turn left or right as I leave this room whilst I have the ability to chose either. Whilst I have the power the knowledge cannot exist, so I can't have it. If I have the knowledge then analogously the power can't exist. This argument relies upon the concept of knowledge of the future, which in turn logically depends upon the existence of the future.
As one or two of you might know I do not believe in the future, nor can I believe in Time in an objective sense, that is Time beyond my own understanding of my own life in time created by my brain to make sense of all the information I have or will have amassed in my life. Grammar becomes difficult when one can't allow for tenses!
In my introductory blurb, which some of you might have seen! I mentioned the familiar argument about the perception of colours. If I experience a certain mental state as a result of light rays falling on my retina - maybe reflected from a pillar box, and I call this phenomenon "red" the social construction of language means that you, as a part of the same society (and presumably not colourblind) will also call this experience "red". The problem here is that what we are in fact discussing is an experience purely within our own minds, not a part of an outside world. All I know of the "outside world" is that it causes this redness phenomenon in certain circumstances and various other phenomena in my mind under other circumstances. I do not know anything at all about the nature of "that which causes" but I think I can reasonably call it God without actually contradicting many religious beliefs, even if those subscribing to the religions might not agree with me.
The crucial point about God that I, as an atheist, cannot accept is the idea of a universal viewpoint. The only viewpoint I can reasonably accept is my own. Even if there are other viewpoints I cannot live life on the assumption that what I am experiencing is an illusion or "not really so". As an example of mine which has often been seen as provocative, so I shall deliberately word it so, runs thus: I would define "an idiot" as someone who does not believe that the sun goes round the earth. That is an idiot does not believe the Sun orbits the Earth. As an immediate exclusion to the class of "idiot" I would allow those who believe that we have a new sun every day, or that the sun goes out at night and sneaks back the way it came a possibility of non-idiot hood.
Why do I describe these people as idiots - beyond merely being provocative? Well, how could one come to such a belief? We see (if we are awake early enough) the sun rise every morning and we see, or can readily deduce, that it moves across the sky to set in the west in the evening. What would induce me to give up my belief in my own perceptions, every day whether sober or drunk, at home or abroad under any medication I have ever experienced the same thing happens. If someone tries to tell me that this is not the case I feel I would need pretty strong evidence, or a spectacularly convincing argument for him to succeed.
Yet people often do try to tell me that sunrises are an illusion. The sun, apparently, does not really move it just appears to. Given our inability to determine anything about reality, beyond our perceptions Why do people feel that sun movement is an illusion? The answer, of course comes from Galileo, who pointed out that the earth orbits the sun, and that, seen in this way the movements of the planets in the solar system are much more easy to predict. We no longer need the complex series of epicycles and epicycles on epicycles that used to be necessary to give an approximation of a planets location. Galileo did not say that the sun did not orbit the earth, he said the earth orbits the sun. The two statements "The Earth orbits the sun" and "The Sun orbits the Earth" are describing the same state of affairs, the do not contradict one another. Indeed if one is true the other is necessarily true.
This is a philosophical question, not an empirical one. No matter what is actually happening, either the sun and the earth orbit one another or they do not, we don't need, and could not devise an experiment to check which body orbits which we simply need to recognise what the words mean.
What Galileo did effectively say, and why he was a threat to religion and its political hangers on, was that there is no objective, universal viewpoint. Which does, of course, imply that God does not have such a viewpoint. We can decide as earth based humans, that our Earth is the unmoving centre of the universe. But as Galileo pointed out, this way of describing the world gets complex when a wider viewpoint is needed. Like a milometer, it is easier to tell how far along the motorway we are if the counter is set to zero when we start. In neither case does describing home as the foundation point actually imply that there is a real foundation.
Many people have a feeling that the end of humanity would be a disaster, there is also a minority who believe it would be a good thing given the damage we are doing to the world. I cannot really subscribe to either view, as each requires this godlike viewpoint that neither I nor anyone else has. You might call me selfish if say I don't care whether you live after I've died or not, but I think this is a grammatical point; it all depends on the way the brackets are perceived in the sentence. I do not mean that I, as a living person, am unconcerned about your welfare; but that once I am dead I will not care… about you or anything else due solely to my medical condition. If the whole of humanity were wiped out then we would all care equally little about each other. If someone (something?) is left to care in this situation then we might have a useable definition of God.
Following The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy (which people strangely often do!) if we humans are here as part of some kind of experiment - or even game, then I can imagine whatever set up the experiment might be less than chuffed at our destruction. I only say, "might be", because we don't know what the purpose of the experiment was.
But is it reasonable, or (as Pascal might suggest) personally satisfying to think of one's life this way. I have a purpose, but I don't know what it is. Surely if God were all powerful He could let us have a clue? Or maybe he just wants to see how long we'll last, like fairground goldfish in a plastic bag. Either way it doesn't say much for God, and (again I am grappling with the lack of a suitable definition) surely God ought to be the sort of thing we can rightly look up to. Even if not perfect He must be better than us, and not have flaws we can readily see?
From a logical positivist viewpoint Imagine there were two worlds, identical in all respects except that in one world there was a god, and in the other there was not. Obviously everything that follows from the existence of God as a logical necessity would be so on the first world but not on the second. Now imagine that we live on one of these worlds, which one is it? If you are not able to tell, and mankind as a whole does not seem to be able to tell, surely God is not achieving a lot, especially if he really is all powerful. If he is achieving something, positive or negative, then what is it, and how would an atheist explain this achievement without referring to a deity. To exist means (though I can't remember my source here) to be susceptible to cause and effect. A presumed entity that neither causes any change in the world, nor is changed by anything else, surely cannot be said to exist
[If I could remember my source I'd know whether Last Thursday and Anna Karenin exist or not! I'm pretty sure the basic concept comes from Aristotle and the excluded middle. If all propositions are either true or false and no proposition is both or neither then is it true to say "Mr Pickwick was fat" - or even "Mr Pickwick is fat" but I digress!]
If anyone is curious about Logical Positivism I would recommend following Roger Scruton's advice and read Language Truth and Logic, of which Scruton says "This book is a kind of classic, and should be read if possible, provided it is read quickly and inattentively. I have only read 100 of the 500 pages of Scruton's Modern Philosophy so far but I think I would recommend it, even to those squeamish about Scruton.
Despite claiming to be an atheist I believe there is a lot of truth in many, probably most, religions. Science has developed considerably in the last 2000 years and, not surprisingly, many of the ideas current when Christ was alive are no longer held in the esteem they once were. The scientific, rational form of knowledge is now pretty well developed in human civilisation now, though no one would say it is complete. If God does exist we know He does not allow physical impossibilities. The way the world operates might have been designed and built by an omnipotent entity, but He no longer has power to change things. He might have put this jigsaw together, but he can't change the picture. If God were to allow the laws of physics to be broken life would be Hell.
There is, however, more to life than rational explanations for planetary movements and biological processes. There is more to the question "Who am I?" than genetics and my CV can tell. There are philosophical questions like "Is killing always wrong?" or "What makes Mozart's music beautiful?" that do not require an answer in the logical, calculable manner we have been discussing. When we understand the mechanism by which such questions might be answered we might be closer to identifying this god thing as an illusion, or as what He is. Our grasp of God's ethical and aesthetic contributions to the world are far behind the understanding we have developed of the physical mechanical parts of our existence. We do not even know how many aspects of the world we are looking for so we are not in a position to say that God does not exist, given the vast mass of unanswered questions to which God might yet be an answer.
But I will say that God does not exist, because I cannot carry on a life taking into consideration the unknown wishes or objectives of an entity that might not be able to interact with me in any way at all, and even if He did I could well fail to notice.
Following a sharp-eyed reader of my email flyer for this evening I shall have to answer the question "Does God exit?", "Yes, God exits here!"
Monday September 6th Discussion Equality
What do we mean by equality - equality of opportunity, equality of renumeration or something else ?
Is equality always a good thing ? Is it more important than other ends such as justice, well-being and liberty ?
Can we lead a morally good life if we are not conerned about equality ?
These are some of the questions we might consider in this two hour pub philosophy discussion. It starts at 7.00 pm at the Bung Hole, downstairs function room. All welcome - hope to see you there !
What some philosophers have said about equality ...
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program"
"The weaker are always anxious for justice and equality. The strong pay no heed to either" (Aristotle, Politics)
"All inequality that has no special utility to justify it is injustice ( Bentham, Economic writings)
Monday October 4th Discussion Punishment
Monday November 1st * John Vorhaus Punishment, degradation and the European Convention on Human Rights ( at Conway Hall)
Monday December 6th Pub Philosophy New Millennium Resolutions for the world
Feb 1st Neil Munro A Darwinian view of philosophy
How does a Darwinian approach affect thoughts on the big questions of philosophy ?
1) How did we get here ?
2) Why are we here ?
3) Is there a God ?
4) What happens after death ?
5) Have we separate souls?
6) What about eternity and infinity ?
7) How did it all start ?
8) Why did it all start ?
Next meeting of PSE (London Group)
Mon March 1 Can Philosophy be Taught ? Talk by Geoffrey Klempner (Pathways to Philosophy) followed by a discussion. Organised by Philosophical Society of England London Group & SPES, 7-9 pm at Conway Hall, South Place Ethical Society, Red Lion Square near Holborn.
CAN PHILOSOPHY BE TAUGHT?
by Geoffrey Klempner
[Read to a joint meeting of the London Group of the Philosophical Society of England and the South Place Ethical Society, Conway Hall, London Monday, March 1st 1999]
I
WHAT is philosophy? I seem to have spent most of what I laughingly refer to as my 'philosophical career' searching for an answer to that baffling question. What I have found are ancient ruins, some absorbing puzzles, and an awe-inspiring obsession with the fact that I exist. Whichever way you place them, the jig-saw pieces don't quite fit.
Some persons search for God, and find philosophy. Others search for philosophy and find God. And some make the foolish mistake – I sincerely hope it's not one I've ever been tempted to make – of making a God out of philosophy. I am mentioning religion, even though I know it will make some of you feel a little uncomfortable (I promise I won't mention it again) because one theme that seems to emerge is the questing philosopher's lack of faith. The knights who sought the Holy Grail were infused with faith. The philosopher demands that everything be reasoned out, made plain. 'How will I know when I've found what I'm looking for', Meno complains to Socrates, 'if I don't even know what it is?'. In Plato's dialogue Meno, Socrates makes the young aristocrat Meno look like a buffoon, but to me he sounds like a typical philosopher.
To say that one doesn't know what philosophy is might seem a shocking admission from someone who professes to teach the subject. Those of you who think you know the answer to my question will be ready with your commiseration – or your scorn. When I've finished my talk you can tell me all about it.
On second thoughts, don't bother. I suspect that if someone told me the answer to the question what, or where philosophy is, and it was a beautiful answer, a text book answer, it still wouldn't make any impression on me. The Good Word means nothing in the ears of the ignorant unbeliever. Each of us has got to discover the answer for ourselves.
This talk could be over sooner than I'd anticipated! It looks as though what my paper is shaping up to say is, 'Philosophy can't be taught. The only way you can become a philosopher is by teaching yourself.' I did think that once, but I don't now. In my philosophical youth, I used to imagine that no-one had ever really taught me anything. Everything of consequence that I had learned, I taught myself. – It was not true. I had some excellent teachers, which I am grateful for. I am proud of my early influences. We all go through an ungrateful phase, it's part of growing up.
One needn't quibble over the supposed difference between being a philosopher and being a mere student of philosophy. That's a matter of status in the eyes of the world. Months before I even attended my first undergraduate lecture my mother was telling her friends, 'My son, the philosopher!' I won't say she was wrong.
You can learn to do the activity – do what philosophers do – and do it very well. No-one is arguing with that. Admittedly, it's harder to play the part convincing in a seminar than in your own living room, but that's only a matter of degree. I suspect that academic departments are full of people who do the subject 'very well', but don't really understand what it is that they are doing, or why.
Let's start with the present. No-one hired me to do the job I do now. I invented my own job description. 'I run my own school of philosophy.' That sounds like bragging. I don't mean it to. 'I advertise for business over the Internet' is closer, though I worry about being put in the same category as purveyors of erotica and get rich quick schemes.
One of the lecturers at Sheffield perceptively remarked, 'So you're a Sophist, then.' Yes, I thought. The Sophists of Ancient Greece were itinerant teachers of oratory and rhetoric, history, poetry, philosophy, as well as all the arts and skills you needed to make you into an all-round man or woman of arete – accomplishment, or virtue to give the nearest English translations. Those at the top of their profession earned fame and fortune. (In The Presocratic Philosophers [Routledge 1982, p 448] Jonathan Barnes lists the 'outstanding individuals' Protagoras, Gorgias, Hippias, Prodicus, Antiphon, and Thrasymachus.)
As with many a profession, the few at the top charged whopping fees, while many of those further down the ladder struggled – like myself, like Socrates too, by all accounts – to make ends meet. Could it be that Socrates' famed antagonism towards the Sophists was borne of nothing more than professional envy? Banish the thought.
There is one obvious difference between what the Sophists did and Pathways to Philosophy. Unlike the Sophists, I very rarely get to meet my students. The postal service being what it was, you could grow old and die doing a distance learning course in Ancient Greece.
(The wonderful age of computers and e-mail. You can talk to someone without ever seeing their face or hearing their voice. That's something that would have worried Protagoras, or Socrates. I'll come back to that question later.)
Am I a Sophist? On reflection, there's a second difference, and a rather important one. The Greek Sophists looked upon the efforts of the philosophers from Thales onwards with an attitude of ironic detachment. By the time the Sophists came on the scene, it had become accepted wisdom that philosophy couldn't prove its conclusions, that one speculation about the ultimate nature of the universe was as good as another. Philosophers were ripe for lampooning, as Aristophanes did so brilliantly in his comedy, Clouds. What the Sophists took on board were the methods of philosophy, the use of reason and logic to analyse the case for and against. The tools of the philosopher where an ideal weapon in a court of law or the Assembly.
And here we come to the nub of my dispute with my former teacher Roger Scruton. In a vituperative piece in The Times a couple of years back (August 11 1997) he attacked the work of philosophical counsellors using all the epithets Socrates had used against his old arch-enemies. Philosophical counsellors pandered to the vanity of their clients, preached the relativist doctrine that the truth was whatever you wanted to believe. The mark of the Sophist, Scruton said – the most damning indictment of all – is accepting money from your client for services rendered.
This makes me smile. Are all the lecturers and professors in philosophy departments up and down the country Sophists, then? Or does the fact that the money paid comes indirectly, and to a considerable part out of the purse of tax payers, somehow sanctify the financial arrangement? I think not. The temple of academia is open for business. The respected dons know how to sniff out where the grant money is coming from like pigs searching for truffles.
Scruton is partly right. The issue is about concern for the truth. It is a bad philosophical counsellor who tells their client only what they want to hear. The Sophists of Ancient Greece had given up on the search for Truth, with a capital 'T'. 'Man is the measure of all things,' said Protagoras. What I believe is true for me, what you believe is true for you, and that's all we can say. The Sophists would have been completely unmoved by my quest for philosophy. That is why, though I am full of admiration for what they did, I cannot call myself a Sophist.
So my question is, what is there to philosophy other than the techniques and methods of philosophy? Or, what amounts to the same thing, what does the teacher of philosophy strive to teach, other than mere proficiency in applying those methods? This is where my story begins.
Before all this started, before Pathways to Philosophy was ever conceived, I was teaching evening classes for the Workers' Educational Association, the WEA. It was a hearts and minds exercise. These were people who could just have easily opted for Herbal Remedies or Microwave Cookery, Folk Guitar or Flower Arranging. The need to put bottoms on seats is a powerful incentive. If you fail to attract sufficient numbers, your class folds.
Here then was an excellent incentive for playing the part of the Sophist. I could put on a performance. Spice my lectures up. Perhaps after all I could find a way to smuggle in the philosophy of herbalism or folk music, anything that would hold my students' attention. I gave the idea more than a passing thought, but the fact is I'm no stand-up comedian. If I wanted to hold on to my students, I realised I would have to find another way.
One question that students had repeatedly pestered me with was, 'What is philosophy?' 'Why are you here,' I would respond, 'if you don't know the answer to that already? Microwave Cookery is down the hall!' I told my class that I didn't know how to define philosophy, but that it didn't matter anyway. What we were doing was philosophy. 'What are we doing?' one student asked, and there were nods and murmurs of agreement.
Then it dawned on me that it did matter. It mattered very much. I began to wonder why I was here, standing in front of all these people. What good was I doing? What were my students learning from me? Did I have anything to teach them?
I shall now put on record three attempts that I made, three seminal ideas that began with the struggle to resolve this issue in my own mind, and which developed into WEA courses (and later still into three of my six Pathways programmes). Right up to the present, they still seem, for all their shortcomings, the best attempt to answer the question. These are the three jig-saw pieces I mentioned at the start of this talk.
II
Ancient ruins
My first idea came about like this. The reason it is so difficult to capture the essence of philosophy, I thought, is that Western Culture is the product of philosophy. Philosophy is everywhere and we are all philosophers. Through lack of proper training, we naturally tend to be rather bad philosophers. That's a well-worn justification for studying the subject I've fallen back on many a time! However, as I, and some of my students too had begun to suspect, the formula answer begs the question. Might there not have been any philosophy? What would things have been like if there had been no philosophy? Might we not have been better off after all?
The obvious answer is to look at how philosophy first came about. There was a time when there was no philosophy. Then someone came along and invented it. That's the picture you get when you study the first Greek philosophers, called the 'Presocratics' because they came before Socrates.
It was Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Xenophanes and Pythagoras, Parmenides, Zeno and Melissus, Empedocles and Anaxagoras, Democritus and Leucippus who gave us the concepts, 'logic', 'theory', and most importantly of all, 'Being'. In a nutshell: the philosopher uses reason and logic to construct theories about the nature of Being. Maybe you're not very moved by that bare-bones account. It was the finer details, the details I uncovered when I began to investigate the fragments and testimonia of the Presocratics that blew my mind, and I hoped would blow my students minds.
The thrill of the discovery that we possess in our own minds, in our capacity to reason, the key to unlock the mystery of the universe, the mystery of Being, is something I cannot convey to those who haven't experienced it. One has to make the discovery for oneself. We think we already know what theorising is, or what it is to reason, and that's the big obstacle. These notions have become corrupted and soiled through over-use. Worst of all – as Heidegger notoriously lamented – the Being of the universe has sunk back into the obscurity from which the Presocratics first rescued it. The triumph of science has been the ruin of metaphysics.
What is it to investigate Being? In insisting on the relevance of this question I am taking a stand. When I first looked at the Presocratics, I was already sold on the idea that the core activity of philosophy is metaphysics, or the study of 'Being qua Being', to use Aristotle's formula. The question of the why and wherefore of philosophy was, for me, the why and wherefore of metaphysics. That's not an answer. Its a specification of the form that any acceptable answer should take. What it's really saying is, 'Philosophy has its own unique subject matter. It is not just a useful critical tool for evaluating other areas of knowledge or human activity.'
The subject matter of philosophy is Being. What is that? My students were most amused by the thought that the Being of things might be water, or air, or fire, or the odd and even numbers. They were perplexed by Zeno's paradoxes concerning the infinity of Being, aghast at the thought that everything in the universe, space, time and themselves included, might disappear into the dark homogeneity of Parmenides' One Being. In short, the classes were a success. I put bottoms on seats, and kept them there. But I don't think my students ever perceived the underlying point.
I have my own theory about Being. I'll spare you the details. I am not even sure that the theory is true. It might be. True or not, though, one theory about Being is not an answer to the question what it is, what it means to theorise about Being. To use the language of Socrates in the Meno, to give an example of X is not to give a definition of X. Until we have our definition, we are not even sure what to make of the example, or even whether its a good example.
I'll going to leave things at that rather unsatisfactory point. It's time to get on to the second piece of the jig-saw.
Assorted puzzles
'We are all philosophers'. That doesn't sound quite as convincing when translated as, 'We all have views about Being.' Do we? Do you? Wouldn't it be nearer the mark to say that most person's lives are not touched by the question of Being in any way, shape or form? It is as if the Presocratics had never existed.
In the gloom of such scepticism, another seminal idea was born, just in time to rescue me for another round of WEA classes. My mistake, I now decided, had been to look for the wood, when all we're really interested in are the trees. Forget about defining philosophy, or giving 'necessary and sufficient conditions', to use the philosopher's jargon. You can define a thing – if you really need to define it – simply by giving examples, and adding, 'That kind of thing'.
There was no need to speculate about history or our cultural roots. The fact is that there are philosophical problems. Philosophers have given them names, like 'Freedom of the will', 'Knowledge and scepticism', 'The reality of time', 'The relation between mind and body'. You can only name what belongs to a common understanding, something you and I can share. As I had known all along, the same problems that gripped me were capable of gripping others, just as I had first studied those problems by reading the works of philosophers who were gripped by them.
History was of little or no importance because the problems were perennial. One didn't have to inquire about where they came from. It wasn't relevant to their solution. If I am genuinely worried about scepticism, or the mind-body problem, I'm not going to be impressed by someone telling me, 'You are only worrying about that problem because so-and-so thought of it first.'
But how do you present the problems so that people will be gripped by them? The standard text books didn't do a very good job, I felt. So I had the idea of writing science fiction stories. I called them 'thought experiments'. (The idea had been tried before, in a book by Miller and Smith called Thought Probes [Prentice Hall], which used the work of famous science fiction writers such as Arthur C. Clarke, Robert Heinlein, Roger Zelzany and Frederik Pohl.) The stories were fun to write, and provided a perfect launch pad for the discussion of the problems of philosophy. My audience was soon hooked. (My weekly talks became the basis for the Pathways programme The Possible World Machine.)
Towards the end of the course, the first cracks began to appear in the brightly coloured fresco. It had never been intended as a deceptive facade. We knew there were bricks underneath, but that was something we had chosen not to look into. Yet despite, or perhaps because of, my efforts to focus attention on the surface, some of the class members began to voice their anxiety. 'Why are we gripped by these problems? What is it about the human mind, or reason, that trips us up in this way?' I'd set out with the intention of deliberately turning my back on that sort of question. Now the question returned to ambush me.
I don't know of any works in the history of philosophy that come as close as Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations to attempting to answer the question where the perennial problems come from. According to Kant, the nature of reason leads it to attempt to overstep its finite limits. According to Wittgenstein, we fall into confusion because we misunderstand the logic of our own language. In the end, however, both explanations are unsatisfactory. One would be more impressed if the diagnoses offered of our philosophical ills led to a permanent cure, which evidently they have not.
I can imagine you saying at this point rather impatiently, 'Look, if you've found the problems of philosophy, you've found philosophy. What are you worrying about?' My reply is that it's not enough just to be gripped by the problems. The anxiety about why we are gripped points to something. Even if Kant and Wittgenstein failed to hit the nail on the head, that doesn't mean there isn't something there, at the centre of it all. – I still had no idea what that 'something' might be.
The trail had once more grown cold. I put the second jig-saw piece in my pocket and moved on.
I exist, therefore...what?
What was the underlying theme running through all of this? I was attempting to recapture the beginners' mind. That was the real purpose, it now seemed to me, of returning to the dawn of philosophy, and the point also of presenting science fiction stories with little or no philosophical background, so that the problems could speak for themselves. I was doing this for my students, and also for myself. I wanted to be a beginner again, like them.
If you're looking for an example of a radical beginning for philosophy, Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy is the one obvious choice. I had avoided it, partly because it is so obvious. As philosophy texts go, it is also pretty hard going for beginners. Anyway, I wasn't going to try to persuade my class to go away and study a book. My voice would have been drowned in storms of protest.
This is how the idea of Searching for the Soul came about. Together, my class and I would search for a radical beginning to philosophical inquiry inside our own minds.
In Plato's dialogue Phaedo, Socrates describes how in his youth he was captivated by the speculations of the early philosophers concerning the nature of the universe around us. Then he came to realize that man himself, far from being just another of the multitude of things to be found in the world, was in fact the central problem, and the only reason for doing philosophy in the first place.
Descartes, and I, were doing more, however, than simply retracing the steps of Socrates. The focus of Socrates' concern was moral and political. My interest was metaphysical. 'Descartes and I'! I didn't actually go so far as to put a picture of Descartes on my desk, but he did become a kind of imaginary mentor. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I didn't want just to understand Descartes, I wanted to be him.
To cut to the chase, my class and I together pursued the soul through all the labyrinthine complexities of the mind-body problem – eventually leaving Descartes and his theory of an 'immaterial soul substance' far behind – and the further we pursued it, the more philosophical problems that we had studied were dragged up in its wake. Knowledge and scepticism, freedom of the will, personal identity, other minds, the reality of time, the foundations of morals – the familiar list, in fact.
We were finally looking at the bricks behind the fresco, and 'I exist' was written on every brick. I told you I wasn't going to talk about my theory, and I'm not going to. Let's just say that the fact that I exist, the Being of my subjective point of view on the universe, emerges as not so much the ultimate starting point as the ultimate sticking point, the one stubborn fact that cannot be fitted in to a Presocratic, or Aristotelian, account of the Being of the Universe 'as such'. As I had stated in the Preface to my book Naive Metaphysics, 'The world is and will always remain something absolutely other than I.'
But that's going back all the way to where I first started. In relation to my quest for the essence of philosophy my book was old hat. No mere 'theory', however finely wrought, could ever be a satisfactory answer to my question. I'd known that from the start.
What did my students learn? What did I learn? I had discovered three pieces of a jig saw. There might be other pieces, I don't know. If the pieces didn't exactly fit, at least one could say roughly where they were supposed to go. Philosophy starts with radical wonderment about the Being of the universe; it starts with the problems of philosophy; it starts with the self. Whichever base you take as your launching point, you will eventually cover all three.
III
So what? What does that prove?
It's all history now. Along came Pathways and my life changed forever. I still have my WEA classes. This term, we are studying Roger Scruton's An Intelligent Person's Guide to Philosophy.
It's been three years since I last had a genuinely new philosophical idea. I am too busy now playing the role of the mentor, the philosophical critic, to have much time to do any philosophy for myself. Yet in this fallow period, I have discovered something. If not an answer, it is a reason for hope.
Philosophy, I have discovered, is all about dialogue, the dialogue that seeks to build a bridge between one subjectivity, one 'I exist' and another. In the paper I gave at the 1998 Shap Conference, entitled 'The Ethics of Dialogue', I talked about the possibility of human dialogue as the central question of moral philosophy. Yet there is something more that I am only now beginning to discern, something that the very attempt to teach philosophy at a distance has made apparent. What so amazes me is the very fact that wherever my students happen to be in the globe, we are able to meet .
You can do philosophy in solitude, as Descartes amply demonstrated. You can carry on a lively dialogue with yourself. Yet in soliloquy one vital ingredient of the philosophical enterprise is missing. For all our best attempts to communicate, philosophical vision is always something essentially idiosyncratic, peculiar to each and every individual. Perhaps because philosophy is so much a struggle with language, or against language, you always seem to see more than you can say.
In philosophical dialogue, we can never get completely clear about our disagreements and differences, because we never get to the point of being about to state what precisely it is that each of us believes, or the difference between our respective standpoints. There is always more, in the background, that one struggles to articulate. Yet in the search for a meeting point, something new is created that is neither yours or mine – something neither of us could have created by our own unaided efforts – the dialogue itself as it takes on an independent life of its own.
The gap between what each of us sees and what we can say acquires a special significance when one of us is the teacher, the other the pupil. In the teaching dialogue, the pupil is, through trial and error, and the oft repeated retracing of steps, brought by degrees into a community of fellow inquirers founded upon dialogue. The process can be likened to one of initiation. It is the initiation into the tradition of philosophy. I would argue that teaching is the life blood of the philosophical tradition, in a way that is unique amongst all forms of human knowledge and inquiry.
Within the broad tradition that traces back to the Presocratics, the dialogue between so-called 'schools of thought' is no less relevant than the dialogue between individuals. One notable example is the way, in the mid-60's, analytic philosophers would travel to the Continent to teach their counterparts about analytical philosophy, while Continental philosophers would travel to Britain and the USA to teach English-speaking philosophers about existentialism and phenomenology. In the early days, the misunderstandings were comic. Thirty years on, talk of different 'traditions' sounds somewhat old-fashioned. The dialogue has moved on.
What is new in all this? What is there to get so excited about? Whitehead famously commented that the history of philosophy is nothing but a series of 'footnotes to Plato'. In emphasising the centrality of dialogue I am not saying anything new. To allude one last time to Plato's very useful dialogue Meno, our new discovery is merely the recollection of something we knew all along.
OBJECTIVE REALITY OR PROJECTIVE REALITY ?
by Carlo Rossi
[Read tothe London Group of the Philosophical Society of England on Monday, April 12th 1999]
The aim of this talk is to explore the range of various theories and ideas about the relationship between consciousness and physical reality.
At one end of the spectrum we have the extreme materialist point of view that consciousness is just the result of physical processes in the brain, so what you have is matter in the form of a group of presumably individually unconscious atoms getting together and becoming aware of themselves as a group of atoms. A curious thought perhaps but not impossible I suppose. Then we move on to the concept of dualism, made popular by René Descartes, which suggests that physical matter is completely different and separate from mental events. Many people blame Descartes for causing us to have a fragmented view of ourselves and the universe which can have serious consequences as we shall see. Dualism still has followers despite having a number of problems that make it a difficult position to defend. And occupying the other end of this particular spectrum is the idealist position that holds that whatever exists is purely the perception of minds, or a mind, and has no separate reality of its own. To be is to be perceived, and all matter is reduced to a collection of ideas in a mind.
With such a wide range of perspectives on the nature of reality is it possible that there is a position that is an objectively correct one? I would suggest that there probably isn’t and my reasons for this view should become apparent. Throughout the world and throughout history philosophers, theologians and more recently scientists have taken their positions and put forward their theories and ideas. If there is one position that is the "true" position then presumably all those greatly respected figures who occupy different positions are in error. I think that this highlights the difficulty of arguing for any objective truth.
My own view at present is that there is no objectively true position to be found in the debate between materialism, dualism and idealism. To me the mystery of the existence of the universe transcends any attempt to describe, classify, define or categorise it.
Despite this philosophers, theologians and scientists have, through the ages, tried to tell us that there is a truth and that it can be found either by rational, dispassionate thought, acceptance through faith, or by objective scientific enquiry. I would suggest and hope that philosophers have attempted to find truth with more humility and open-mindedness than the dogmatic approach of the others.
I would like to offer two reasons for the desire to arrive at the truth which could apply to us all.
One is the yearning for the security that certainty brings - perhaps it is part of the human condition that we have the ability to project into the future and with that ability comes the fear of uncertain events to come. So just as some people liked to think that the sun was pulled across the sky by a team of horses, elephants or giant turtles we seek an explanation for the world we seem presented with in order to find security. But being locked in a prison is also a secure, predictable place. The obvious danger with seeking and believing we have found explanations for things is that we tend to view ourselves and the world with that explanation in mind. So whatever theories we have, we interpret our experiences based on those theories. We describe reality from our position of observation.
Another aspect of seeking security in certainty is that once you have found a position you are comfortable with you tend to want to stay there. It’s far easier to stay in a comfortable chair than to risk sitting in one which doesn’t look as comfortable. Then there is the apparent need to defend a position one feels secure with. We all know what mayhem is unleashed when religious dogma is challenged and I would suggest that much harm is also caused by the arrogant defending of scientific dogma. Perhaps this seeking for security and the need to defend it are genetic hangovers from our animal ancestors - the need to establish one’s own territory and the impulse to defend it DOGgedly.
Which brings me to the second reason for the seeking of certainty. I would suggest that it was in various religious authorities’ interests to claim a monopoly on the truth in order to maintain their privileged position by controlling vast numbers of people for their own selfish ends and perhaps to maintain social order. It is highly probable that scientists, despite their claim to be objective truth seekers, have their own similar agenda. Much scientific research is funded by powerful commercial interests and this inevitably will bias any experimentation and subsequent theorising. We live in a very MATERIALISTIC society where people are kept happy and quiet by the constant stream of consumer goods that science and the technology it spawns offers them. I am reminded of the Roman idea of bread and circuses and the decadence and ultimate social collapse that followed. But enough of this paranoid conspiracy theory.
For the benefit of this talk I would like to make an assumption. I think it is quite a reasonable one even if it may sound a little prejudiced. I don’t necessarily believe it to be universally true and I am quite prepared to have it questioned as much as I hope you are prepared to question your own beliefs.
The assumption is that there has been, certainly within the last 400 years, a tremendous shift towards a materialistic view of the world. A world which is increasingly seen as being able to be comprehended by rational thought, revealed by scientific observation and experiment, and manipulated for our own ends by technology. Is this a fair assumption? If so, I would like to talk about how and why this came about and what the potentially impoverishing effects of holding this view are. I would also like to offer my interpretations of the thoughts of selected philosophers, other new ideas, and personal observations in order to suggest other alternative, complementary, and perhaps more complete perspectives on the riddle of consciousness and existence.
How did we come to arrive at the position where the universe is seen as mechanical and deterministic? Until about 1600 religious authority maintained that the universe was created by an all-powerful God. Whether theologians actually believed their own doctrine or whether it was a convenient method of maintaining a position of power and control is open to question. Either way their position was threatened by the arrival of figures such as Galileo and Kepler who simultaneously and independently formulated the principle that the laws of the creation could be revealed by observation and measurement. The influence of the philosophy of Rene Descartes during the same period cannot be underestimated. Descartes based his view of nature on a fundamental division between two separate and independent realms, that of mind and matter. The Cartesian division allowed the material world to be seen as a multitude of discrete objects assembled into a huge deterministc machine, and it was this model of the world that enabled Newton to construct the foundation of classical physics. From then on there has been no stopping us.
Our desire for power and control over the world and each other has escalated, and the apparent success of science has both fuelled this desire and promised to deliver ever more means to satisfy it. I don’t want to get too heavily religious here but our obsession with science does seem to have provided us with the opportunity to give more expression to what have been called the seven deadly sins. Pride in the form of arrogant control over nature, the environment, and our own destiny. Sloth in the form of technological labour saving devices. Anger in the form of ever more destructive weapons for warfare. Gluttony in the form of greed for material possessions and more consumer goods. And so on.
Before I talk about my objections to what I believe is the current restrictive and impoverished view of the world, I must first give a brief personal history as a background to my current position.
When I was offered the chance to give a talk for this meeting I gratefully accepted as for twenty years I have had a burning desire to communicate and discuss certain philosophical ideas that have arisen since a particular life changing experience.
As a young child I believed almost religiously that science could eventually explain everything - mathematics could describe the universe, physics could explain it, biology would come to understand the complexities of life, and psychology would be able to account for the phenomenon of consciousness.
I have always been curious and interested to discover as much as I could about the world I found myself in. My head was often to be found in books about astronomy, mathematics, dinosaurs and so on. As I reached adolescence, and became more self-conscious, in both senses of the term, I became more curious about my own personal experiences. Having no where else to turn for guidance I looked to psychology for an explanation as to why I was thinking and feeling certain things, and what and who I was as a separate individual. For a while I found psychology very interesting and helpful - it seemed to provide possible reasons and causes of my intensifying inner thoughts and feelings.
At that time in my life there were enough distractions in my life to keep the need for an explanation from being too urgent. There were examinations at school - significantly A levels in Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Physics. Then there was the possibility of a degree course in psychology which was quickly passed by for an opportunity to start a career in the then new computer industry. There was music, football, pubs and women all occupying my time and energy. But the burning questions could not be ignored.
As an aside here, I think that some people are successful in burying this desire for meaning, but I also think that however far away people try to push it, it always remains waiting for an opportunity to have expression. Anyway for me the questions were too loud and insistent to be ignored.
At that time I had everything that I was told I should want - a comfortable life, a promising career, more money than I could spend and the freedom from any responsibility that could stop me from indulging myself to my heart’s content. But it was my heart, perhaps the metaphorical location of the spirit or soul, that wasn’t fulfilled.
Then about twenty years ago I was given the opportunity to awaken into a wonderful, awe-inspiring realm that perhaps I always felt existed but I could never have imagined the magnitude of. To use clichés it was like a door being opened and waking from a dream. I must allay your suspicions now and say that it wasn’t a religious conversion or a drug-induced experience. I believe that everyone has this potential inside them no matter how much they ignore it. Without going into too much personal detail it was the result of the giving of a particular "energy" ( the only way to describe it) with the freedom to choose how to use it. It was, and up to now is, the most beautiful experience of my life. It transformed me completely.
I could spend hours talking about this particular experience, how it enriches my experience today and how it would be wonderful if everyone could realise the beauty and wonder that is available to them. But the point of it all for the benefit of this talk is that the way we live and think at the moment does not give us the opportunity to receive nourishment for that part of ourselves which I have come to believe is just as real as our material bodies and which we often neglect, if not ignore. All I will say is that having rejected religious and scientific authority, I am able to find nourishment for that part in very unlikely sources, but important sources for me have been Buddhism, Eastern mysticism, a spiritual rather than religious interpretation of Christ’s teachings, and currently philosophy. Although there is a lot of philosophy out there which still focuses on the academic, rational and intellectual levels rather than the emotional, inspirational and passionate levels.
Before I move on to what I perceive are the limitations and restrictions of our present world view, I must stress what I consider to be a vital point. Despite how it may appear I am not criticising or belittling the achievements of our science and technology per se, I think they are wonderful accomplishments in themselves. I just think that we may be able to live a more balanced, healthy, fulfilling and complete life if we considered the possibility that we are more than just our bodies and minds. If we did pay attention to another side of ourselves that may be neglected. If we didn’t over indulge and desensitise our bodies and minds which may be sensitive and wonderful instruments for a more complete experience. That we don’t try and lose ourselves in a deluge of sensory gratification because we are led to believe that everything depends on our bodily existence alone.
OK. I’d like to say something about the restrictions and disadvantages of a purely materialistic view of, and scientific, rational approach to, our existence, and the implications of holding such a view, and having such an approach..
Much is made today of the importance of gaining knowledge of the world. That’s why science is held in such esteem - it can provide (or appear to provide) vast amounts of knowledge about the world. I have at least two objections to this. Firstly there seems to be less importance attached to experiencing and appreciating the world rather than knowing about it. Secondly, the way we approach gaining knowledge of the world is often with the thought "What does this knowledge mean for us - how can we use it for our own benefit and pleasure?"
At this point I would like to mention one of the ideas of that well respected philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Although I have known of Kant for a while it is only just recently that I became aware of this particular aspect of his philosophy, which is that, in his opinion "we can never know anything about the world independently of our own cognitive apparatus". Which means that the way our physical senses and brain operate might make us predisposed to viewing the world in a certain way and not necessarily how it actually is. By concentrating on using our senses and brain to know about the world we only see part of the whole picture, and I would suggest that if we develop other faculties that I believe we may have at our disposal, we may gain a more complete experience.
If, as I have come to suspect, there is a realm which is beyond, separate from, or complementary to, the physical, how can we ever become aware of it if we rely solely on objective scientific observation and experiment to prove its existence? I’m thinking here mainly of scientific attempts to investigate telepathy, premonition, the existence of ghosts etc..
If there exists a world which is beyond logic and rationality how could we hope to entertain its existence if we only accept as true things that conform to logic and reason?
There is an assumption that given the same circumstances of a cause the same effect should always follow. Apart from the fact that no two circumstances can ever be identical, it may be the case that an unexpected result is ignored, put down to experimental error or is considered to be purely unexplainable, rather than considering it to be a glimpse into a world which is not bound by eternally changeless laws. If such a world were to exist how would we ever be able to pin it down or define it by repeatable experiments? And if such a world only shows itself by looking at it in a different way should we consider questioning our current way of seeing things?
It is very easy to be arrogant and think that our way of thinking is the only way, and if we do consider other ways then we often like to stubbornly defend our own way and view it as superior. We call ourselves a civilised society and we like to think that we are living correctly. The alternative is to think that we are living incorrectly and it takes a lot of humility and courage to face up to that. Apparently more than we can muster at present.
I feel that philosophy is important for society because it can question assumptions that become habits, that become beliefs, that become truths. The Romans were called a great civilisation but the focus was on their material achievements and their conquests and not on their ability to live in a morally responsible way that would prevent their collapse into decadence, greed and selfishness. Sound familiar? I would propose that while we are busy congratulating ourselves for all the marvellous things our brains and our hands have enabled us to accomplish, and indulging our grosser senses, we are neglecting our hearts and souls, and ignoring our subtle sensitivities. We can send a man a quarter of a million miles through a deadly environment while controlling fantastically complicated machines at that distance and yet we can’t stop ourselves from crying at the death of a loved one. We can understand complex formulae and operate all sorts of technology that can challenge the forces of nature in the physical world yet we are often helpless to understand the origin and effects our own desires and passions, falling victim to drug addiction, anger, greed and lust. Even those that we choose to become the most powerful people on earth, as opposed to the most respected, are still subject to human weaknesses that we have not yet learned to live with safely, and that we pay less attention to than trying to control the world.
Science seems to have gained the status once held by religion. It use to be the divine right of religious authorities to explain how the world came into existence, how it operates and what our place in it is. Now science is assumed to be able to do all this but in addition it apparently allows us to make predictions and wrest some of the control over nature and our own continued existence away from any all powerful deity.
It seems strange, but before the rise of science people had faith in the religious authorities who told them to lead a good life now so that the could earn a better life when they die. This may have had something to do with the control and exploitation of those who God decided to place in inferior positions in society. They would put up with all sorts of suffering if their acceptance of God’s plan would bring them a greater reward in the next life. Now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme and we are told that there is no scientific evidence for an afterlife so we should selfishly grab what we can and enjoy ourselves as much as possible now, which normally means overindulging our senses and gratifying our basic natural urges to the extreme. The only thing in common with the previous state of affairs is that it may still be in someone’s interest to exercise control over us. Probably the heads of multinational concerns who want us to consume as many of their scientific and technological toys as we can take.
Now while we all wonder at and revel in the so called benefits that science has provided us with I think that we are neglecting the possibility that there is another side of human nature that may need attention. Indeed I think that it is the lack of attention to the emotional, intuitive, artistic and spiritual aspects of our nature that is causing a sense of imbalance in ourselves and the world. The world is becoming more industrialised, technological, complex and dehumanised that we should not be surprised that is also becoming more violent, more divided and unequal, changing ever more rapidly, and apparently more and more unstable.
At this point I would like to comment briefly on a few selected thoughts of Plato and George Berkeley, two philosophers whose ideas may shed some light on some of the issues in this talk, and hopefully lend some credibility to my views on them.
I have selected the following idea of Plato as, for me, it is a good analogy of how I see our present situation.
Plato was one of the first major philosophers to put forward the idea that there exists a realm separate from that of material appearances. A realm of which the perceived physical world was an imperfect shadow, and in which existed ideal and perfect forms that material objects were imperfect imitations of.
To use Plato’s famous analogy, people who believe that the physical world is the only reality are like prisoners chained in a cave with their backs to the entrance and forced to gaze at the cave wall. Behind them is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners people carrying various objects pass by, and their shadows are projected onto the back wall seen by the prisoners, who come to believe that the shadows are real. They are oblivious to how the shadows are created by the fire and indeed ignorant of the wonders outside the cave. I suspect that science may have chained us in darkness and that scientists convince us of the realities of the shadows by coming up with various theories to explain the form of the shadows, equations to describe their motion and interaction, and explanations as to their source. I’m not comfortable with all of Plato’s ideas and their implications, but for me the important point is that what we encounter and experience may be the result of a limited, restricted view and more significantly that we may not be aware of our own restrictions and hence limitations.
The first philosopher whose ideas had a significant effect on me was George Berkeley. I’ll always remember sitting on a park bench in Whetstone in 1981 reading The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell and being totally amazed by the fact that a respected philosopher, Berkeley, could have such unusually radical views. For me they introduced a spiritual and almost mystical aspect into the intellectual nature of philosophy I had so far encountered.
The main thrust of Berkeley’s idealist philosophy is that there is no such thing as matter, and that all the objects we perceive and ordinarily take to exist in the world outside ourselves, are simply collections of ideas existing only in minds. This reminded me of what I think is originally a Zen Buddhist riddle which some of you may have heard before - "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there, does it make a sound". Incidentally Zen Buddhism often uses riddles like this, called Koans, to confound logical thought in order to transcend it and reach a level of experience which engages a higher level of conscious awareness.
Berkeley’s ideas also made me consider the possibility that reality is completely subjective and that we are free to make of the universe, and the experiences it offers us, whatever we will. I find it hard to accept that there is an objective reality and that there is a correct way of knowing it. It seems more plausible to consider each one of us as experiencing it in our own unique way and finding our own truths - if we want to. Personally, I abandoned long ago the desire for certain truths and prefer to courageously and joyfully explore as many possibilities as I can. As I suspect that existence does not depend on a finite span of bodily
functions, indeed that time itself is only a state of mind, I probably have an eternity to explore. For inspiration on these matters read the quotes in the handout and The Wisdom of Insecurity by Alan Watts.
I had always been mentally stimulated by the consideration of philosophical issues but Berkeley’s ideas moved me on a more fundamental level. The idea that physical reality could be seen as purely mental impressions without an independent existence of it’s own was particularly liberating and inspiring, considering that I had recently had an experience that seemed to go beyond matter, time and space
OK. Let’s finish off with some tricky stuff.
At the heart of quantum physics is the Uncertainty Principle which boils down to the proposition that at the microscopic level there is an indeterminacy in the physical world and that the act of observation and measurement plays an important part in the outcome of any experiment.
At the subatomic level one cannot say with any certainty anything about one property of a particle without losing certainty of other properties. For example one can measure exactly the position of an electron but not know anything about the speed with which it is moving and vice versa - you can measure the speed at the expense of knowing where it is. It appears that it is the act of observation and measurement which fixes these properties. So after years of pursuing the fundamental workings of a supposed mechanistic universe, science has discovered that we cannot separate ourselves as detached observers from what is observed.
At last we may have finally come to the point where we have to reject this dualistic model of the world and focus on the possibility that the universe is a united whole with every aspect of it inextricably linked with every other.
Now for something that I’m sure we all have direct experience of.
If we see by light (however science chooses to conceive of it) entering our eyes, striking our retinas, exciting light sensitive cells that transmit electro-chemical messages to the brain where they are processed and interpreted, how do we see in our dreams? Where do the images come from? How and why are they formed? The same can be asked about other sensory and emotional experiences in dreams.
If we looked through a microscope or telescope in a dream, what would we see?
I would suggest that unless we are having a lucid dream, which I suspect is a rare event, we take whatever is happening to be real at the time. We do not question whether we are having a dream or whether there is another level of consciousness into which we will awaken. The point is obviously that the same might be true of our waking state. If our dreams are subconscious reflections of repressed fears or frustrated desires in our waking life, maybe our conscious awareness is the reflection of a higher level of consciousness that we are normally unaware of because we don’t question whether or not there is another level.
Because we are so busy indulging ourselves in the physical world of the senses we don’t consider that it all might not be as real as we like to think it is. We may be like the people who believed that the earth was only two-dimensional and didn’t want to explore for fear of falling off the edge. They were more comfortable with the known, no matter how uncomfortable it actually was, than listening to the madmen who said that the earth may be round.
Finally I would now like to consider whether human consciousness is evolving. It is often difficult to see changes happening as they occur. If you haven’t seen someone for many years, especially a young person, then you notice any changes much more than if you saw them everyday. Would it be safe to say that our mentality, if not our consciousness, is different to how it was say fifty years ago? Things like the exploration of space and the development of our capability to instantly destroy our own species, if not all others, might not seem to affect our personal day to day awareness. But surely at some level, even in the last fifty years, the human perception of the world has changed dramatically. Does this affect human consciousness?
Do we see the world differently to how it was perceived a thousand years ago when it was generally considered to be flat? Do we see the world differently from human beings that lived in the Stone Age? I believe that there was a time, perhaps when we were developing form our animal ancestors, when we didn’t have the same level of self-consciousness that we appear to have now. Is a gorilla self conscious in the same we are? How about a cat? How about a fish? How about an insect? The point I am trying to make is that I do believe that consciousness is evolving. Now how does that evolution occur? Do we have any influence over our own development, or are we just passive, and helpless bystanders in this development? Do we have the freedom to affect the course of our own evolution or are we victims of inevitable material processes or the will of an all-powerful deity? And If we do have some control over our own destiny is it on a collective basis or can we affect change on an individual basis?
Almost everyone I speak to seems to sense that there are things wrong with the world - war, pollution, injustice, greed and inequality, arguably the result of our own actions, but where does the responsibility lie? If the majority of people are unhappy with what we are doing to each other and the world we share, how do these things happen? Although there is this general disappointment and disagreement with what is happening, as individuals people feel helpless to have an effect. Is the collective human spirit that is at fault? If so, what makes up the collective human spirit if not our own selves?
Maybe there is the feeling that if you can’t beat them, join them. Maybe we should just ignore these things that seem beyond our control, and just enjoy our lives the best we can. Is ignorance bliss? I would suggest not. I sense that deep down at some shared level, perhaps at the level of Jung’s collective unconscious, this disappointment with ourselves as a species and the feeling of helplessness as individuals is profoundly distressing and damaging to our continued development.
Throughout our history great spiritual figures have shown us how things could be, and most people when asked would wish for an ideal world where there was equality, liberty, peace and unity. So after all this time why are we still so far from it? Unfortunately throughout our history the spiritual message has been initially corrupted by religious authority and subsequently dismissed and ignored by the scientific approach to life.
I feel that as we approach the New Millennium it is a wonderful opportunity for us all, collectively and individually, to reflect on how far we have come, where we are now and if we have the will both collectively and as individuals to reach our highest ideals. I also feel that as individuals we can all have an effect. Just as the new Chaos theory popularly proposes - "A butterfly stirring the air today in Peking can transform storm systems next month in New York"
So, finally, I’d like to propose that we all stop staring at the wall of Plato’s cave and emerge as butterflies into the light.
Monday May 10 Pub Philosophy discussion Free Will
The problem
We seem to be creatures of the physical world, where cause and effect reign. e.g. if you drink 10 pints of bitter tonight, this will cause you to have a hangover tomorrow.
We also believe that there are some free actions. For example, choosing to come here tonight was a free choice you made.
Yet if we are really creatures of the physical world, then coming here tonight was caused as surely as having a hangover tomorrow would be. It seems that we must give up either the claim of universal causation or our claim to freedom.
Glossary
Determinism
The view that every event in the universe is dependent on other events that are its causes. This includes those human actions we think of as "free". Hard determinists conclude that human freedom does not exist ( see soft determinism below)
Indeterminism
Not every event has a cause. Human actions are not caused. Hence free will exists.
Compatabilism ( sometimes called soft determinism )
All events are caused but this does not mean we are not, in a sense, free. We must distinguish causes which are internal to us and those that are external. It has been suggested that an act is unfree if done under compulsion or through ignorance ( Aristotle). It is free if it is caused by from someone's character (Hume) or perhaps if done for a reason ( as opposed to just being caused)
Questions
1) Does free will exist ?
2) What sort of free will is worth having ?
Monday June 7th Pub Philosophy discussion Evil
This meeting was preparation for Adam Morton's talk in July
Questions
(1) Can people rationally or willingly choose evil ?
( c.f. Socrates' question: Can we do wrong willingly ?)
(i) Are evil people like the villains in "Superman" or "Batman", people with horns who laugh while knowingly causing harm ? (e.g. sadists)
(ii) Or is evil caused more by misguided idealists, people who think they are doing good, but whose vision of the good causes much harm to many people. ( e.g. terrorists)
(iii)Or maybe evil is caused not by evil people so much as by ignorant people, people who are unaware of the harmful consequences of their actions ( for example, the person who started the AIDS epidemic, or shot Archduke Ferdinand thereby starting World War I)
(2) In each of the above cases, what is the best way to reduce the amount of evil in the world ?
(3) Are people intrinsically good or bad ?
(i) Is there such a thing as human nature at all ?( existentialists think not, evolutionists would say there is)
(ii) If there is such a thing as human nature, is it good or bad ?
(4) God and "The Problem of evil"
(a)God is wholly good
(b) God is omnipotent
(c) Evil exists
The above three propositions are inconsistent - how can an omnipotent and good God allow evil ?
(i) Is evil the necessary price we pay for free will ?
(ii) Could we have free will and a "nicer" human nature ?
Glossary
Human evil
The suffering which results from morally wrong human choices.
Natural Evil
The suffering which results from natural disasters ( e.g earthquakes)
Reference: The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Honderich ed)
Wickedness
"Not primarily a positive, definite tendency like aggression, but rather a general kind of failure to live as we are capable of living" ( Mary Midgley, Wickednesn, page 7)
.
To join PSE and become eligible for free admission to events and receive The Philosopher twice a year send a cheque for £12 ( made out to the Philosophical Society of England) to
Michael Bavidge
Centre for Continuing Education
University of Newcastle
Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU
1999 Meetings
Report on The value and uses of philosophy (Monday Jan 18th at the Slurping Toad)
The group started the new year at our new regular venue - our own room at The Slurping Toad public house situated between the Old Bailey and St Pauls. This meeting was pub philosophy with a difference - we decided the topic in advance, thus combining the conviviality of a pub setting with a topic of interest to all attendees.
We began by going round the table introducing ourselves and offering our initial thoughts on the subject. This revealed a variety of opinions that as it turned out led to a lively discussion. On the one hand, philosophy was compared to a work of art, something that was valuable in itself. It was also suggested that it could be useful on a personal level, that ir can have practical value ( e.g. practical ethics) and that it was intellectually challenging. Other participants revealed a less positive attitude to philosophy. Tibor Fischer's character from "The Thought Gang" was quoted approvingly as saying "after two and a half thousand years of philosophy we are not a gnat hair's closer to finding the answers". Others thought that philosophy was better at asking questions than giving answers, and this was its unique value.
So the stage was set for the battle to commence ( in the friendliest possible sense). Battle lines started to be drawn between scientists and philosophers. If, as Bertrand Russell suggested, philosophy occupies the middle ground between science and religion, then it was conceded that this area was getting smaller as science took over what had been previously philosophical questions. The first philosophers had propounded a primitive atomic theory - but now we have a scientific atomic theory, there is no room for philosophical speculation in this area. The suspicion was voiced that if everyone knew all the answers there would be no philosophy. We recalled the philosophers' disquiet in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy when the computer was built which is meant to answer the problem of "Life, The Universe and Everything".( Douglas Adams would perhaps disagree with one participant's view that "Philosophy stops us asking silly questions"). So if science delivers facts, is philosophy a sort of science fiction ? This question led to a hugely enjoyable ( for me, anyway) reminiscence of Star Trek episodes with philosophical overtones until we remembered that we were perhaps straying a little from the topic under discussion .... The notion that philosophy didn't do any good was challenged by bringing in political philosophy - hadn't philosophers brought about revolutions for example in the area of feminism ? But hadn't philosophy had a disastrous impact through the works of Karl Marx ?
At this point it was time to recharge our glasses and much fun was had by seeing the double meaning in my suggestion that we should patronise the bar ( and reminded us of the trouble Socrates got himself into - luckily the Toad's ample stock doesn't stretch to hemlock). After the break some latecomers joined us, making our number a healthy eleven. I suggested we might try a thought experiment - what if no philosopher's had ever existed, what would the world be like ? The first answer given was that the world wouldn't exist, an opinion that was soon amended to the view that human beings as we know them would not exist - because our nature makes us ask questions about the nature of the universe and ourselves, and as soon as we do this we are philosophers. That begged the question of whether the world was a better place for this practice. Perhaps there were advantages in getting on with life rather than asking questions. The closed mindsets of some philosophers was criticised -as evidenced by Plato's banishment of the poets from his Republic. This attitude was likened to some western philosopher's dismissal of the more mystical ideas to be found in Eastern Philosophy. Continental philosophers were praised as exemplifying a more open attitude.
Our time came to an end, and going round the group revealed a shift in some views, as confirmed by some e-mails I got over the next few days. For many, the real value of these evenings is the thought it stimulates over the coming days. None of us could be certain of a final answer for ourselves, so there was little hope of us agreeing on one. The evening had though in its own small way itslef been an example of the use and value of philosophy. We had come in search of an answer to an important question, and had had no problems coming up with potential answers ( Philosophy was valuable in itself like art, it was useful for helping thinking skills, it helped with ethical problems etc). Examining these answers philosophically raised further questions ( what is philosophy ?, what is valuable ? what was the difference between philosophy and science ?). So we had demonstrated two of the uses of philosophy, in providing answers and in asking important questions. Perhaps though the only thing we could agree on was that we had enjoyed a stimulating and challenging evening, reminding us of perhaps the most universal value of philosophy. It is - or can be - intellectual fun.
| March 2nd | Why this talk has no title |
Teoman Duruturk |
||
|
April 6th |
Discussion on Kant |
Discussion led by Justin Woods |
||
|
May 11th |
Kant's world perspective |
Stephen Priest |
||
|
June 1st |
Discussion of the Paranormal |
All |
||
|
July 6th |
A skeptic's view of the Paranormal |
Wendy Grossman |
||
|
August 3rd |
Rekindling the Enlightenment |
David Wedgewood |
||
|
September 7th |
Pub Philosophy evening * |
All |
||
|
October 5th |
Philosophical Counselling - Is Plato better than Prozac |
Tim LeBon |
||
|
November 2nd |
Making Philosophy Fun |
Gerald Jones & J. Hayward |
||
|
December 7th |
Personal Statements and Psychiatry: Dialogue versus Empathy. |
Michael Bavidge |
||
An unforgettable experience for all the 10 members of the London Group present. Mr Duruturk gave us his own unique theory of - well, of everything. I hesitate to paraphrase his theory, because I am certain to get it wrong. I am confident though in asserting that Mr Duruturk spoke for over half an hour with a passion rarely equalled at the society. One member asked him if he was influenced by Hegel - to which he replied yes, but he has gone beyond Hegel, Marx and dialectical materialism. Another member thanked Mr Duruturk for his learned and esoteric talk, but say he got lost after the first word. An experience shared by many, I suspect, but this did not stop a very lively, even heated, debate, to follow the talk. The meeting seemed divided largely between those perplexed by Mr Duruturk's attempt to define everything in abstract terms and those who resented his doing so. Needless to say, we did not reach agreement on the ultimate nature of reality - or much else for that matter - but we did conclude the meeting with a civilised drink at a local pub.
An interesting evening.
In preparation for Stephen Priest's talk in May Justin Woods gave a well-informed talk on Kant, especially his world perspective - now we all know our synthetic from our analytic a-prioris and our antinomies from our appendices.
May 11th Stephen Priest - talk on "Kant's world perspective".
A tour-de-force on Kant and philosophy since Kant. I don't imagine any one of the 50 or so members of the London Group or South Place Ethical Society were disappointed by Stephen Priest's stimulating talk, presented without notes. Priest, author of the best-selling "Theories of the Mind", argued that the Critique of Pure Reason's influence on philosophy could hardly be underestimated. Its connections with phenomenology, Hegel & Marx, linguistic analysis, logical positivism, structuralism and post-structuralism were all described in a manner that cast light on each as well as on Kant. We eagerly await Priest to publish his thoughts on all of this.
A lively question-and-answer session followed the talk. One questioner disputed the connection of Logical Positivism with Kant, arguing that Kant's belief in the possibility of the synthetic a-priori diverged from Logical Positivism. Priest answered persuasively that without the synthetic a-priori Logical Positivism appeared to be self-refuting - for what was the status of the principle of verifiability if it wasn't synthetic a-priori. Another questioner asked Priest to evaluate the benefits of Kant's influence, rather than the size. "Catastrophic" came the reply - since Kant in effect told philosophers to stop tackling the traditional philosophical questions - about God, the meaning of life etc . The Critique could be seen as the longest and most complex suicide note in history. Other questioners wondered if Kant's influence was direct -Priest clarified that his position was not that the influence was direct - but rather that traces of all the subsequent movements could be found in Kant.
One long-standing philosophical society member commented that it was the best lecture he'd ever heard. Some praise !
June 1st Discussion on the Paranormal
Seven or so members contributed to an interesting discussion in preparation for Michael Hutchinson's sceptical view to be given on July 6th. The discussion began by searching, like true philosophers, for a definition of the paranormal. It was to be distinguished from the occult and from the religious, but just how was not immediately clear. This led first to a discussion of the origin of the word, and then to a search for examples. All in all I counted over 30 candidates for the paranormal, ranging from mind-reading to polterguist, levitation, reincarnation and crop-circles. It was agreed that even if the paranormal could be limited to a subset of these phenomena, for the purposes of this discussion we would use a broad definition to encompass that which could not be explained by science, and was in contradiction to it.
The debate moved on to the question of how you could test the paranormal. Issues of wishful thinking and fraudulence were both raised. Sceptics in the group suggested that the lack of people getting rich by betting implied the absence of paranormal powers - others countered that maybe they were doing this, but keeping very quiet about it. Uri Geller's lack of positive effect on the Reading soccer team ( relegated last season) seemed to suggest that at least this well-publicised visionary powers lie more in the marketing department than other areas.
It was pointed out that some phenomenon can have more than one explanation e.g. if I can pick horse race winners it could be because I am subconsciously processing information I already have, it could be that I can see into the future, or it could be that I actually cause the results to happen. Controlled experiments were necessary, which ruled out fraudulence and alternative explanations. Alfred, our oldest member, made the distinction between evidence as accepted by science and that which would be accepted in a court of law. He argued that the paranormal fits more into the latter category and is not always repeatable. Hume's argument against miracles was then introduced to oppose this view, suggesting that one would rather believe that the witness was mistaken or lying than in the breach of a universal law of nature.
A suspicion was voiced that the paranormal represented wishful thinking on mankind's part. Name a limitation for mankind - in space, time, powers of causation, ability to communicate, knowledge, meaninglessness, mortality- and you can also name a paranormal phenomenon that denies it. The paranormal makes man more like God. It was felt by some that this was perhaps the major insight of the evening, and could be developed into a thoroughgoing debunking of the paranormal as humanity's attempt to overcome its limitations. Again though, others countered that some people's faith in science was similarly denying our lack of knowledge and that even if someone believed something for the wrong reason, it did not mean it was wrong.
The meeting concluded with each participant saying what they found most interesting in the discussion, followed by a swift half at the pub.
July 6th Wendy Grossman of UK Skeptic's society on A Skeptic's view of the Paranormal
At very short notice Wendy Grossman, founder of the Skeptic’s Magazine, gave us a Skeptic’s view of the Paranormal. She began by recounting her own personal journey into skepticism, which she traced to a lecture by James Randi, the magician and debunker of paranormal claims. For the first time she realised that phenomena like Transcendental Meditation which were all the rage in the States at the time could be a subject for rational enquiry. The presence of such admired figures as Martin Gardiner and Isaac Asimov in the Skeptic’s movement increased her curiosity.
Investigating the paranormal was likened to a murder mystery – how do you explain the seemingly impossible ? One example was the Case of the Miraculous Weeping Statue in Ireland. The religious claimed it was indeed a miracle. Sherlock Holmes turned out to be an Irish plasterer, who explained the tears were produced as the result of a perfectly normal chemical process.
Skepticism faces an uphill struggle though , because people believe what they want to believe rather than the evidence. There was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that smoking be re-classified as a religion. Just think of the benefits . Smokers could smoke in public places or claim religious discrimination. And like other religionists, they wouldn’t have to attempt to defend their belief that smoking does no harm to them in a rational way. The point was that smokers do not want to believe that smoking will do them any harm, so they choose not to believe it.
We moved on to a question and answer session. Some of the questions revealed a degree of skepticism about skepticism. Are there more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in a skeptic’s philosophy ? Were skeptics too unquestioning about the scientific world view ? Shouldn’t that be questioned to ? Our resident skeptic countered that at least science has a self-correcting mechanism. If science is not one hundred percent correct now, at least its hypotheses are accepted as provisional, and when new evidence appears it is willing to change its theories. There remained for some the suspicion that skepticism might throw out the baby with the bath-water. What was the skeptic’s view of love, for example ? If love was not scientifically explicable, was this to be debunked in the same way as ESP, telepathy and the like ? It was countered that skepticism does not deny the importance of the imagination - as long as this was distinguished from factual claims.
Others saw interest in the paranormal as part of the post-modern malaise, where one persons views are as acceptable as anyone else’s. Although some of the paranormal claims seem harmless enough Ms Grossman pointed out that they are a background noise which interferes with the truth. The teaching of creationism alongside evolution and the claim that there is as much scientific evidence for each was cited as one harmful example.
The relationship of skepticism to philosophy was raised. Wendy Grossman admitted she had no time for some of the hair-splitting she saw in academic philosophy, but suggested this was more a question of her temperament than skepticism per-se. Indeed one of the great skeptics of all time was David Hume, and modern empiricists undoubtedly have much in common with skeptics.
The evening closed with the traditional trip to the pub for a few of us – but not before we all distinctly heard a spooky knocking sound outside. Could it have been a ghost choosing this of all Philosophical Society meetings to make an appearance? Personally, I’m skeptical.
Wendy Grossman is a freelance writer, former folk-singer and founder of The Skeptic magazine. For more details see her web site.
Farewell to Justin ...
In August we said a fond but hopefully temporary farewell to Justin Woods who returned to the Antipodes. If it wasn’t for Justin, there wouldn’t be a London Group at all, and over the last 18 months we have had successful meetings each month with speakers such as Mark Sainsbury, Rick Lewis and Stephen Priest. Let’s wish Justin all the very best for the future and hope to see him back soon.
Pub Philosophy evening at the Slurping Toad, Ludgate Hill
A dozen of us supped ale in the hospitable surroundings of the Slurping Toad, conveniently ( and symbolically) located between the Old Bailey and St Pauls. We began by democratically deciding on a topic to discuss. Rob Wheeler's two suggestions topped the bill "Is the Pursuit of Moral purity morally corrupting ?" narrowly winning over "Is Death a misfortune ?". We took a vote before the debate started, and we were split down the middle. So everything was to play for. Rob was invited to start the discussion, since it was his question. He said he was inclined to answer the question in the affirmative but would like to be persuaded otherwise. He cited the example of the Catholic bishop in the news last year who had an illegitimate child, dumped his girlfriend, and was later found to have embezzled money too. Was it the case that having too high a standard meant that it was easier to give up morals altogether ? Would it be better to set a lower standard we could all keep ?
Another train of thought soon emerged - was it possible also that the pursuit of moral purity leads inexorably to an unhealthy "holier than thou" attitude ? Martin Bell's hounding of Neil Hamilton was brought up though we later decided that vigilantes were perhaps a better example. Someone suggested that morality imposed on other people was the problem here - if we minded our own business we would be OK. A Kantian in the group objected that morality was all about legislating for all, and that morality inevitably involved legislating for others.
At this point the patience of Alfred, our oldest member, wore out. How on earth could purity be corrupting ? If we thought about the words we were using ( or should be using) we would realise what arrant nonsense it was. John, a newcomer who brought a touch of Ustinov-like eloquence and wit to the proceedings, fully supported this view.
We then broke for a well-earnt pint. As facilitator I tried to summarize the discussion briefly. I also suggested that perhaps we should distinguish the empirical question of whether the pursuit of purity is morally corrupting with the philosophical question of what we mean by "purity" and "morally corrupting" and whether there is any necessary link between the two.
Both these themes were taken up. Advocates of the motion associated purity with a holier than thou attitude - opponents took it to mean being able to love and appreciate others. It was agreed that perhaps a more neutral description of purity was "completely untainted". Perhaps "decency" was required more than purity - if this was more attainable people would be less inclined to give up on morality. We then tried to define moral corruption. A paradigm case was given - that of a therapist exploiting a patient. We didn't actually go as far as trying to define "Is", "the" and "of" ( this was before the Clinton video !) but given enough time and pints we might well have done. We did wonder though if it was the pursuit of purity that was potentially harmful - just being pure was OK, but trying to be pure, and be seen to be pure, was dangerous. At this point we began to worry whether we had overstepped the mark - we weren't really saying that a moral code wasn't necessary, were we ? Somehow we ended up citing Shula Archer as an example of moral corruption - though I thought it was pursuit of the the good doctor that got her into trouble, not the pursuit of purity.
The final vote reflected the ambiguities inherent in the question. We required clarification as to whether the motion was saying that purity was inevitably morally corrupting or whether it could be morally corrupting. We were unanimous that purity it was not necessarily corrupting, but that it could be in some circumstances. We still disagreed over whether it was on the whole likely to be corrupting - indeed no-one changed their mind during the evening, including the abstainers. Oh well, another problem of philosophical left unsolved - but a good and stimulating night was had by all.
Oct 5th Philosophical Counselling - Is Plato better than Prozac ?
The Times and other nationals have recently proclaimed that "The way forward is Plato not Prozac", but is this true ? What is Philosophical Counselling, anyway ? Below is a very brief outline of the talk.
1) What is philosophical counselling ?
History - Socratic roots, modern movement started in 1981 by Gerd Achenbach in Germany.
i) Socrates ( 5th C BC) similar in a number of striking ways
- dialogue, practical aims, S professed ignorance ( like counsellors), bringing our knowledge already there , philosophical argument
BUT
- leading questions, tricks with language, partner in dialogue usually did not feel benefited - perhaps more akin to education than counselling
ii)C20th - philosophy more specialised at same time counselling movement rises - idea that just by being listened to in the right way people can solve problems for themselves.
Definition "An approach to counselling that uses philosophical insights and techniques to help you improve your life."
i)Form of counselling - not same as consultancy or education
ii) Improve your live - not just be wise or gain truth as philosophy does
2) How is philosophical counselling done - Four strands
1)Counselling - "tell me" phenomenology "being with the client"
Letting the client tell their own story, so they understand it better.
Entering into the client's world.
2) Worldview analysis - developing and evaluating client's personal philosophy as applied to their life
We all have our own beliefs about the nature of good and bad, right and wrong, the meaning of life, free will, the existence of God etc. Put these together and you have your own philosophy. Most of us -even philosophers - aren't very aware of it most of the time.
3) Philosophical thinking tools - the analysis of concepts, thought experiments, criticism of assumptions, brainstorming etc
What is X ? , different types of X, necessary and sufficient conditions
Thought experiments "what would you like written on your gravestone", "what would be ideal solution" -> get to values -> What emotions would you feel - emotions tell us about our values too - they embody our values e.g. anger
What assumptions are you making ? Are they too black and white ? Are they valid ?
What other information do you need ? What is likely outcome ? Any win-win solutions ?
Separate out issues of fact from issues of judgement. They tend to all get mixed up.
4)Bringing into the dialogue what other philosophers have thought ( where appropriate !)
b) Hypothetical case studies
i) Sartre's student in occupied France who had to choose between escaping to England to fight for the free French or staying put to look after his sick mother
ii) A client is in their 30s and wondering whether they will ever find the
right person.
Start by getting them talk about it, nudging them towards talking about their personal philosophy- eg. by thought experiment - what would your perfect partner be like ?
See what values were implicit e.g. beauty, wealth, being loved, being in love, loving them, Then analyse and clarify them .eg love difference between being in love ( short-term feeling) and loving ( caring for them). Might not have made this distinction explicitly before. May talk about philosophers views
Sartre, at least in his early writings ( "Being and Nothingness"), thinks that relationships always involve conflict, we always try to use people for our devices. Other people merely infringe our freedom, try to make us into what they want, instead of encouraging what we want. He even goes so far as to have one his characters in a play say "Hell is other people".
In contrast the Greek comic poet Aristophenes approvingly recalls a myth of how humans were originally created with four legs and four arms. Too happy and proud for their own good, they offended Zeus who divided each human into two to teach them a lesson. Ever since, the severed halves have wandered the earth searching for their other half. Like them, according to Aristophanes, we are all looking for our perfect match in order to become whole once again. The intended moral is that only in relationships can we be fully realised and fulfilled.
3) Why is Philosophical Counselling a good thing ?
1. Comparison with Prozac
2. Comparison with Counselling
3."The Unexamined life is not worth living "
Nov 2nd Making Philosophy Fun Gerald Jones & Jeremy Hayward
Jeremy Hayward and Gerald Jones teach philosophy at various Further Education Centres in London including the Mary Ward Centre and Morley College. What is distinctive about their approach is the incorporation of philosophical activities into classes. Hence the title - Philosophy For Fun – and the consensus was that the evening was both fun and enlightening.
Gerald was teaching that night, and joined us halfway through the evening, so it was left to Jeremy to provide a brief description of their teaching methods before actually demonstrating them at work. It soon became clear that, like many of us, Jeremy is evangelical about philosophy. Part of the idea of using games is to make philosophy as accessible to as many people as possible. Another advantage of using games is the more pragmatic aim of breaking up the formal part of lectures ( essential since most people "time out" after less than 20 minutes talk, myself included !). Practising what he preached, Jeremy kept his preamble to less than 20 minutes so we could get on with the main business of the evening - for tonight the play was the thing.
We started with a type of activity called an "Opening gambit". Thirteen statements were given, and we split into groups with the task of deciding whether each situation described was good, bad or morally neutral. For example the statement "A tree falls in a forest crushing a cute deer " was readily be agreed to be morally neutral. The main benefit was to be found in extracting the principle we subconsciously use to make our decision - in this case we decided that the rule was that "a moral act requires a moral agent". Other situations illustrated other features of moral acts, such as "a moral act requires a moral patient." Some of the scenarios saw a division between those who thought that the agent’s intention was the most important factor in determining rightness and others who thought that consequences were more critical. Perhaps the most entertaining statement we had to consider was "A builder shouts "Nice legs" to a person walking past". This not only brought out the issue of whether political correctness was more morality or fashion but also tested the prejudices of participants ( who said the builder was male or the legs were female ?). The whole exercise was very interesting and useful - as one participant pointed out, many books start straight off with what is right or wrong without dealing with the prior question of what puts a situation in the ethical domain in the first place. As to be expected this activity – which Jeremy calls an "intuition pump" - led to some heated discussion amongst the audience, but then as someone said "We are the most argumentative society in London" ( to which another in the audience inevitably replied "Oh no we’re not!).
The second activity involved us trying to decide whether qualities such as smoothness, heaviness and value were primary or secondary. The group I was in found this exercise harder and less fruitful than the first, but this may have been because there wasn't time to fully explain the differing theories of Locke & Berkeley. The moral for me was that the games should not be used as the only teaching method – but neither Jeremy and Gerald would not claim they should. Games are however very useful in illustrating a theory and allowing students to engage with the material if combined with more traditional methods
We finished with a role-playing game, "the Util game",. Participants had to imagine they were act-utilitarian administrators of a hospital. We had $4200 to spend over the two rounds and had to decide which patients to spend the money on. Would we save the poor chap needing a leg operation, or splash out on a fur operation needed to keep the Blue Peter cat and millions of children happy ? The dilemmas proved to be far from easy - how do you compare the pleasure gained from watching soap-operas to that gained from poetry ? Could you justify saving four lives if it meant actively ending one life ? The exercise certainly succeeded in its goal of making us think about the difficulties of utilitarianism.
A short but lively question and answer session followed, by which time Gerald had joined us. Questions and comments ranged from bemoaning the lack of philosophy in the national curriculum to controversies over how points were awarded in our games. All in all a stimulating evening – I for one eagerly await our speakers’ forthcoming book on the use of games in teaching philosophy.
Tim LeBon
Dec 7th Personal Statements and Psychiatry: Dialogue versus Empathy
Michael Bavidge(University of Newcastle)
Below is the full paper delivered by the Chair of the PSE in the library at Conway Hall
The First Person in Psychiatric Diagnosis
Michael Bavidge
The problem
Interviews with patients play an important role in psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. In interviews patients normally contribute first person statements about what they feel, think, remember, intend, expect etc. This paper raises some questions about the implications of having first person statements irremovably at the centre of the discipline.
The implications for scientific psychiatry of relying on first person statements are not taken seriously enough. Most psychiatrists think that they can be circumvented by eclecticism and a dose of sound common sense. But the proble