There are two groups: one group discusses general topics in philosophy and the second looks at topics with scientific theme. The groups meet monthly, usually on the third Friday and the second Tuesday of the month respectively, starting at 10:30. You can see dates & details of the next meetings and what we have been discussing on our Interest Groups page, or just contact Richard Batchelor. New members always welcome - most of started with no previous formal education in philosophy and you are welcome to just look in (within Covid guidelines of course) and see what it's like if you might be interested.
We meet monthly to discuss Philosophy. We read about what questions various philosophers have addressed, the subject areas of philosophy and tools and methods. We have some set basic texts, but everyone is encouraged to explore other books or the internet and bring anything further of interest to share at the discussion.
ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE
.We watched and discussed a series of podcasts on Ethics by Marianne Talbot of Oxford University. Then we decided we wanted a broad if fairly shallow study of philosophy, so we chose to work through Nigel Warburton's "Little History of Philosophy". We then identified "The Philosophy Book" published by Dorling Kinnersley and read from that to take our studies into the modern and contemporary era. We moved on to "The Philosophers Toolkit" by Baggini and Fosl, and then we read and discussed various philosophical topics and gravitated through Aesthetics and the philosophy of beauty and art to Identity and Personhood. We completed a MOOC on Modernism and Postmodernism and are now looking at Indian Philosophy. A second group studied the Philosophy of Science and then discussed various science oriented topics - The Mind, Time, a scientific approach to religion, and various issues in Bio-Ethics. We revisited the basics of philosophy of science in "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell, We have read to Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". We have been exploring Indian Philosophy, and completed a Coursera course on political philosophy. We've worked through a book on the Philosophy of Maths. We have now gone back to the beginning and are studying Ancient Greek Philosophy, and we're reading Carlo Rovelli's "The Order of Time".
FORTHCOMING MEETINGS
SUMMARY OF OUR MEETINGS TO DATE
28th September 2021: "The Order of Time" 4 We discussed the last chapters (10-13) of Carlo Rovelli's “The Order of Time”. Again, difficult going, though Rovelli does give a concise summary of his book in Chapter 13 pp167 - 171. We could see that space is granular - going down to quanta, and in another work Rovelli describes the quanta of space as interconnecting loops, and this structure is deformed by local masses and under relative velocity to what we perceive: Newton was wrong! Relativity, specifically the Lorenz transformation, would link time to space - it should be real and quantised in the same sense, but this seems much more difficult to understand, and to link to Rovelli’s claim that our experience reflects our "blurred" knowledge of quantum states and the disorder as measured by entropy. We also debated whether time is indeed real, or just a construct of our limited senses, particularly recognising we have evolved to survive at the scale we are, not at the minuscule quantum level nor at the scale of the whole cosmos, nor even at the scale of our region, that where entropy is increasing - or where we see entropy increase.
28th September 2021: "The Order of Time" 4 We discussed the last chapters (10-13) of Carlo Rovelli's “The Order of Time”. Again, difficult going, though Rovelli does give a concise summary of his book in Chapter 13 pp167 - 171. We could see that space is granular - going down to quanta, and in another work Rovelli describes the quanta of space as interconnecting loops, and this structure is deformed by local masses and under relative velocity to what we perceive: Newton was wrong! Relativity, specifically the Lorenz transformation, would link time to space - it should be real and quantised in the same sense, but this seems much more difficult to understand, and to link to Rovelli’s claim that our experience reflects our "blurred" knowledge of quantum states and the disorder as measured by entropy. We also debated whether time is indeed real, or just a construct of our limited senses, particularly recognising we have evolved to survive at the scale we are, not at the minuscule quantum level nor at the scale of the whole cosmos, nor even at the scale of our region, that where entropy is increasing - or where we see entropy increase.
28th September 2021: "The Order of Time" 4 We discussed the last chapters (10-13) of Carlo Rovelli's “The Order of Time”. Again, difficult going, though Rovelli does give a concise summary of his book in Chapter 13 pp167 - 171. We could see that space is granular - going down to quanta, and in another work Rovelli describes the quanta of space as interconnecting loops, and this structure is deformed by local masses and under relative velocity to what we perceive: Newton was wrong! Relativity, specifically the Lorenz transformation, would link time to space - it should be real and quantised in the same sense, but this seems much more difficult to understand, and to link to Rovelli’s claim that our experience reflects our "blurred" knowledge of quantum states and the disorder as measured by entropy. We also debated whether time is indeed real, or just a construct of our limited senses, particularly recognising we have evolved to survive at the scale we are, not at the minuscule quantum level nor at the scale of the whole cosmos, nor even at the scale of our region, that where entropy is increasing - or where we see entropy increase.
20th August 2021: Social Meeting Many of us had commitments elsewhere so we just met socially - and talked about identity.
17th August 2021: "The Order of Time" 3 We discussed chapters 7-9 of Carlo Rovelli's “The Order of Time”. This was difficult going. In chapter 7, Rovelli is trying to emphasise that there is no universal “now”, but each observer (or interacting entity) experiences space-time that depends on speed and local gravitational forces. Having dismissed Presentism, he rejects Eternalism and the “block universe”, perhaps surprisingly, though on the grounds it implies nothing changes. He asks what really exists, then sys that there are many definitions of reality. In chapter 8 he argues that Newton’s idea of a privileged variable called “time” was a wrong move, and all we need is to find variables that enable us to sequence events. He introduces his theory of loop quantum gravity to account for the quanta of space-time. Very hard to understand, but here is a link to his lecture series on this. In chapter 9 he reverses the idea that at a particular time a system’s energy levels define its macroscopic state and says that a “blurred vision of the world”, i.e. a macroscopic state, preserves an energy and this generates a time. He concludes by linking quantum time with the non-commutativity of quantum variables.
20th July 2021: "The Order of Time" 2 We discussed Carlo Rovelli's “The Order of Time”, chapters 4-6. Chapter 4 dismantled our concept of independent time marching on regardless, drilled into us since Newton, and noted that Aristotle couldn’t conceive of time without change to senses it. We were led to Einstein’s explanation of time as part of the spacetime gravitational field. Chapter 5 showed time is discontinuous - quantised like anything else. We suppose if particles “jump” from one state to another with no in-between existence possible, they may well need quanta of time to make the jump. His paper on Relational Quantum Mechanics referenced under note 7 to chapter 5 looks interesting - and is explained in his latest book. Having spent five chapters explaining why we have got time all wrong, Rovelli starts in chapter 6 to tell us what time is, and proposes we see the world not as things but events, and “they do not form an orderly queue like the English, they crowd around chaotically like Italians”!
16th July 2021: Altruism We really because we could - and enjoyed the summer weather. We did look at Altruism on the Stanford Encyclopaedia to ask ourselves whether we should be altruistic and why. According to the article, there are three reasons: the ancients would have said it is in our own interest to aim for “Eudaimonia”, the highest good, which is the good of the community, so a win-win there. “Modern” philosophers take an impartial and impersonal, consequentialist view of how we should act” Kant’s moral imperative, or the Utilitarians’ greatest good of the greatest number. A third approach, championed by David Hume (1739), Adam Smith (1759), and Arthur Schopenhauer (1840), gives sympathy, compassion, and personal affection—rather than impartial reason—a central role to play in the moral life. This may well be supported by what we know of genetics: sure the gene is “selfish”, but humans are social animals.
25th June 2021: Social Meeting With so much to catch up on, and being depleted, we didn’t get round to Ancient Philosophy: in fact we decided to put this topic on hold for a while.
22nd June 2021: "The Order of Time" 1 We discussed the first three chapters of Carlo Rovelli's “The Order of Time”. His project in the first part of the book is to show how modern physics has undermined our accepted concepts of time. At the top of a mountain, time passes faster (i.e. people who live up there get older than people in the valley (though very slightly). The twin who flies off to a distant star and returns is younger than the twin who stayed at home. Following the maths of special relativity is difficult partly because it is difficult to take in these concepts. Heat transfer is the only physical process that cannot be reversed in time: entropy within a closed system never decreases, and the “quality of heat”, i.e its entropy, S = ∆Q / T, always degrades. We did have problems understanding his point in saying that in Boltzmann’s entropy, S = ln kW, is a statistical view of the many possible configurations of the energy states of the particles in the system. He seems to say that if we could track them all, then the time dependence and therefore our idea of time would disappear. His destruction of simultaneity across space time made sense and the effect of black holes on time, though Gödel’s proposal that time loops are possible is still disconcerting.
11th May 2021: Philosophy of Maths 10 We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”, Chapter 10 “Structuralism”, perhaps supplemented by the IEP pages on Structuralism. Structuralism is Shapiro’s declared position. Structuralists don’t start with numbers but at the next level up, claiming it is easier to grasp the pattern of a counting system as fundamental, so that numbers become simply the place holders in the mathematical structure. Inevitably they cannot escape the fundamental realist question: do structures exist as abstract entities or are they just identifiable in the appropriate example systems? We returned again to the general question of the existence of abstract ideas. We questioned why this issue seems to arise in the case of mathematics more than stay with logic or language or music. We appealed to Kant’s ideas of noumena and phenomena in the context of sensation and experience. Is maths one of the tools we have for dealing with the phenomenal world, or does it have its own nuomenal or ideal independent form? We accept this is one of those philosophical questions we cannot answer, but the exploration has enriched our understanding of maths and its status.
13th April 2021: Philosophy of Maths 9 We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”, reading Chapter 9 “on Fictionalism, which denies that numbers and sets exist. Fictionalists do find maths useful though, and we discussed how a work of fiction can convey to us a meaningful message about the real world, but at the same time we fully realise that the characters in the work never existed and the situations (specific to the story) never happened. Fictionalists attack Platonists (or more generally Mathematical Realists) on the premise in their argument that maths is essential to science - which does convey truths about the real world. Their project is to provide a Nominalist explanation for a scientific theory and show that maths is just perhaps an easier route to get to the theory, but is thus not necessary - and doesn’t add anything extra that couldn’t be explained otherwise. Hartry Field explained gravity using space-time points, rather like Euclid did geometry without needing Descartes’ translation into numbers. Charles Chihara dispensed with sets by using open sentences with attributes (“x is a cat” instead of the set of cats). Then we found that Burgess & Rosen show how each side of the debate push the burden of proof to the others, and Mark Balaguer offers both an invincible version of Platonism / Realism and an invincible version of Anti-Platonism / Nominalism. His conclusion is that there is no fact of the matter! We later found an alternative presentation of these ideas on the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
9th April 2021: Ancient Philosophy - 3 Plato's Meno and Republic We noted Socrates’ method. He claims that there is something he does not know. He then asks someone who claims to know the meaning of that thing, and follows this by showing how that is wrong. He continues like this until it there is some impasse, and the relevant definition is not achieved (aporia). We discussed the Meno and had a brief discussion on the idea of virtue. We noted that unlike the mathematical examples of Socrates it is uncertain because it is a value judgement. We moved forward to a discussion on belief and knowledge. We didn’t think that knowledge was innate, although accepted that we had the potential to do certain things. We discussed the notion of Knowledge and its constituents of belief truth and evidence or justification extensively, and in a variety of contexts. We noted that the ideas of ‘knowledge’ and ‘facts’ were used in different situations. On the Republic we considered some of the points with respect to their relevance and applications to current affairs. The ideally functioning city was like medicine which benefits the individual similarly the guardians to rule the city to benefit the citizens. The functioning of a just city related to the functioning of an individual. We noted the separation of ‘jobs’ in the city and we compared these to some of the systems around the world. We discussed the requirements of each individual to do their job and do what duties and obligations they owe the city as well as the happiness of individuals with respect to the work they do in the modern societies.
19th March 2021: Ancient Philosophy - 2 We discussed the Coursera course from Penn University: Ancient Philosophy: Plato & His Predecessors week 2. We saw a move on from the ontology of natural philosophy to questions of language and ethics. Parmenides held that change was impossible, because something cannot come from nothing, but that paradox arises from a failure to distinguish the use of the verb “to be” to mean to exist or to indicate a property. We read Socrates’ (Plato’s) Euthyphro and Apology. The Eutyyphro question - whether piety is good because the gods love it, or whether the gods love piety because it is good demonstrated not only the Socratic dialogue but also something of Socrates’ claim to know nothing: he well knew that there were questions with no simple answers - philosophy still discusses them! The Apology, his defence at his trial led to a discussion of high principles and how they can lead as far as martyrdom. We discussed the possibility of living the examined life and its development with experience, leading to a thought that old heads are respected paradoxically when they know that change is necessary. A summary of the ideas and lessons from the Apology are: Ideas: Do not betray your own philosophy, even if death is on the line; Hold the laws of the land in high regard; Resilience to stand firm for a higher qualitative way of life that is expressed in intellectual & moral virtue rather than live for such things as mundane thinking, popularity, power, wealth, & minimal goals. Lessons: Honour what is right and what is just regardless of possible outcome; Ensure that your soul feeds on truth and understanding: forsake pride and pretentious behaviour; No evil can befall a good person; The supernatural realm exists; Truth liberates; Humility is to be prized; Misery accompanies duplicity, misrepresentation, and injustice; Even when biases are entrenched, proclaim, pursue and advance truth; The presence and power of truth brings hope; Disciple others unto intellectual and moral excellence;The unexamined life is not worth living.
9th March 2021: Philosophy of Maths 9 We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”, reading Chapter 8 “Numbers Exist”. We looked at Gödel’s realism (as well as his incompleteness theorem, Quine’s “Web of Belief”, and Maddy’s realism based on our ability to recognise (sense?) sets. On the maths there are links to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem on Wikipedia and YouTube and for Cantor's Infinities and Riemann’s hypothesis. We discussed how it’s near necessity to science and the success of science argued for the reality of maths. The web of belief provides a good metaphor for empiricism, and also gives an alternative to a priori knowledge. We discussed the parallels between the problem of reality for maths compared with that for colour: there is no such thing as colour before biological life; and if colour is part of our evolution to detect predators and prey, then doesn’t the recognition of sets of predators complement that? We agreed the question needs looking at from many viewpoints: will the next chapter modify our perceptions?
17th February 2021: Ancient Philosophy - 1 We discussed the Coursera course from Penn University: Ancient Philosophy: Plato & His Predecessors starting with The Milesians & Heraclitus. We first noted that there are only fragments and comments on the early philosophers and their ideas have been reconstructed - and catalogued as a standard for reference. The Milesians were Natural Philosophers: not scientists because they did not experiment, but they sought to explain the substance and animation of the world around them without recourse to the supernatural. Thales thought the fundamental element was water, Anaximines earth, Anaximander fire. Heraclitus had a dynamic view: all is change and everything contains its opposite, but with a unity (reminiscent of Yin-Yang). The unity is one reading of logos (λογοσ). Here are links to a diagram and a summary
9th February 2021: Philosophy of Maths 8 We discussed Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”, reading Chapter 7 on Intuitionism: Brouwer, Heyting and Dummett. Intuitionism sides with Kant as opposed to Plato: numbers do not exist independently of the human mind. Kant held that numbers are part of our synthetic a priori way of making sense of the phenomenal world. As with geometry, we construct maths.Brouwer pursued this analogy: as geometry is to space, numbers are to time, thus explaining the discrete progression of numbers and the continuous. Because we construct maths, demonstration and proof are more appropriate concepts than truth. This leads to a problem with classical logic’s "undivided middle”: Either A or Not A must be true. Intuitive logic brings in the issue that the negation of “There is a proof that A” could be “There is a proof that Not A”, or “there is not a proof that A”. So the undivided middle - and “proofs” that rely on it - are invalid. Heyting requires the proof or demonstration to be constructed. Dummett relates logic to meaning, and this to manifestation, i.e. use of the knowledge demonstrated. Helpful videos were found for "does maths exist?" and Intuitionist Logic (Excluded Middle)
15th January 2021: The Reith Lectures: Mark Carney There were four lectures in the series, In the lectures Carney: assesses value - why have financial values come to be considered more important than human ones? reflects on the 2008 crash - more than a decade on, how much have bankers changed their ways? looks at the tensions between economic and human values during the Covid crisis. Can human life be assigned a monetary value? suggests the market can be redirected to alleviating climate change. It was interesting to hear a Banker arguing so cogently that monetising everything had corrupted our real values, and we should do well to note the lessons of the 2008 crash and the Covid pandemic to reset our goals and constrain and demand that a resilient finance sector enables the outcomes we want, particularly in combating climate change. But is he nevertheless coming from within the system? Will we forget all too quickly the lessons learnt, or can we make a difference and demand a fairer world?
12th January 2021: Philosophy of Maths 7 - Logicism The Logicism of Frege and Russell ran into the sand trying to make numbers some logically definable entity, so the Formalist approach takes numbers to be just symbols with no meaning outside mathematics, and the rules that govern their manipulation as similar to the definition of moves of chess pieces. Hilbert took the basic approaches of Term_ and Game Formalism through Deductivism, aiming to show that for any branch of mathematics, the rules are logical and consistent. This leads on to the project of removing the role of intuition in geometry, and further, to “meta-mathematics”, studying the formal languages of mathematics themselves. Back in arithmetic, Finitism restricts arithmetic to finite numbers only, avoiding the problem of seeking an example falsifying a theorem when the list of numbers is endless. Then any other arithmetic is just a theory, but it must work in the finite mode. Further, rules can themselves be enumerated and listed and analysed by a (reminiscent of Turing) computer. Then Gödel came up with his Incompleteness theorem and showed that the Deductivist project must fail - it is not possible to show the consistency of any system within itself. A proof sketch of the (first) theorem may be found here . Curry later proposed that various branches of mathematics emerge, and as they develop they become more rigorous and our confidence increases, enabling further progress.
11th December 2020: Moral Maze We discussed: Moral Lessons for a Post-Covid World Four panellists will propose one moral principle, relevant to the crisis, that they believe would serve us well in a post-Covid world. The Morality of the British Empire Most British citizens have for too long been ignorant of the dark and shameful parts of their history. But was the Empire, as many passionately contest, predominantly a system of racism, slavery and exploitation? It must be said we found both episodes disappointing: there was little to no dialogue, just speakers taking a position, and apart from Michael Burke once mentioning Utilitarianism, no reference to any recognisable ethical principle beyond :”Boo Hurrah”. This was particularly true of the first speaker on the empire: it was a bad thing and no possible merit in it could be countenanced. That said, more positive views can lead to a hubristic view of the superiority of the British. One point well made was that there have always been empires: perhaps questioning their morality is a category mistake? It might be better to analyse history and compare other empires and alternative possible scenarios and learn for the future. The first speaker on post-Covid told us to be sceptical of experts. We thought this showed a woeful lack of understanding of expertise and the languages and frameworks of different experts in science, economics and politics. The next speaker differentiated local communities from global, and balancing our responsibilities to each could be a good debate. The discussion on healthcare and individual liberties versus state intervention again could have been better - indeed we did better!
8th December 2020: Philosophy of Maths 6 We discussed Part 3 of Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”, reading Chapter 5 on Logicism: Frege, Russell, Carnap and Logical Positivism. The project of Logicism was to define numbers and derive mathematics from logical principles, thus showing Maths to be analytic without Kant’s claim for intuitive a priori synthetic knowledge. We had read Frege’s argument, helped by this video from the University of Chicago. The trick is to avoid including any idea within its definition, and we discussed how Russell’s library catalogue paradox concerning sets that were not members of themselves de-railed Frege’s analysis. We also discussed Russell’s own approach wherein he differentiated types of classes from each other and from objects, but he still had to postulate infinity (and the set of all sets cannot exist) and that classes could be reduced to objects. Spoiler alert - we know Goedel showed the impossibility of the stated Logicism project. We liked the pragmatism of Carnap’s “tolerance”: from a set of (presumably viable) rules, maths can be shown to be a priori if it can be derived logically from these definitions. But any claim by a logical positivist that cannot be verified is deemed therefore meaningless, and it is noted that any explanation of a theorem beyond its simple statement seems to require ideas beyond the basic axioms.
20th November 2020: Coursera Moral Foundations of Politics - Review Shapiro’s project is to show you “can’t wring the politics out of politics”. This is because power is monopolistic, and things change. So at present no world government could prosper. No scientific solution to turn government into administration exists, and there is no way to find or sit down and shape the general will. To control that power, democracy with its faults is still better than a benign dictatorship, because it won’t remain benign. A key problem with democracy is the tyranny of the majority, so minority interests need protection. This may be addressed by ensuring there are checks and balances through institutions, though he says this doesn’t really work, or by an effective opposition strong enough to be a government in waiting. Further key properties of a good democracy are decisions based on simple majority voting, representation of all parts of society that are affected and non-dominance over the minority. An acid test of a democracy is that the governing party has stepped down - twice! We could note that certain classes of issues are not determined by simple majority vote (change to a constitution, proportional representation) and contest or at least test the effectiveness of democracy around the world, but while his message is disappointing to idealists, it is helpful to understand how politics works.
17th November 2020: Philosophy of Maths 5 We discussed the second part of Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”. This covered the ontology and epistemology of numbers and geometric shapes: do they really exist and how do we know about them? He gives the views of four philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Mill. Plato said they were real: in the realm of being just below his ideal forms, but not in the practical world of becoming. Aristotle and Mill later said we know them by familiarity and Mill said we get to maths the same way as all knowledge - by extended induction. We discussed Kant’s view that we know them "synthetically a priori”. and that they are like space, time and causation part of our built in equipment for looking at the world. We explored why maths is “magic” and deserves all this study beyond other languages we use. Both involve abstraction, but whereas “cat” without any qualification includes all possible cats, numbers are very specifically about quantity and geometry about shape. We recognised that while the theorems of maths are eternal - once discovered - but maths does proceed in response to the scientific questions a society is asking at the time.
20th October 2020: Philosophy of Maths 4 We discussed the first part of Stewart Shapiro’s “Thinking about Mathematics”. We found this hard going, even realising this was just to set out the question and the project that a philosophy of maths should address. This video from the University of Chicago gave a parallel view. The first issues to be addressed are what are numbers (ontology) and how do we get knowledge of them (epistemology), and it turns out that explanations that address one part of the question run into problems in the other. Are numbers real, perhaps not as Plato certainly thought but as “abstract objects” not occupying time or space or causing anything in the physical world? ** If so, how do we know anything about them? If they are memes which are learnt (empirically) or understood innately (a priori)? then how do you get to a number from lots of examples of that number of things? It has been shown that as well as logic you need set theory - but with sets we are back to abstract nouns and an infinite number of sets. Logic itself is undermined if numbers don’t really exist as abstract objects. We can show that a proposition about a real object is either true or false: “all stags are male”. But “all unicorns are pink” is different: as Russell said with “ The King of France is (/ is not) bald”. Impredicative propositions are another problem - is “the least upper bound” equivalent to “the village idiot”? Is maths just a special language, with syntax and semantics? Given that maths pragmatically “works” and seems fundamentally rather than contingently true, and that mathematicians got where they are today without philosophy, is the problem to underpin mathematics and say how it should be done, or to describe what mathematicians do? ** Is “love” real? An abstract object or a meme (/gene?) we take in with our mothers’ milk?
16th October 2020: Coursera Moral Foundations of Politics - Democracy We discussed Democracy, the topic of week 8, We noted that it is difficult to define Democracy beyond there being a Wittgenstein “family resemblance” between democracies. Some litmus tests are that there should be a recognised effective opposition, and ruling parties must have lose elections and ceded power. Democracy has been more criticised than praised. Plato’s metaphor was a wild animal: you have to know what pleases it and what annoys it - an emotivist stance. Also the majority in a democracy can become tyrannical. These criticisms were said to be addressed by (American) Republicanism, where a constitution and higher institutions (such as the supreme court) can limit the power of the government. A Republican strategy to counter the tyranny of the majority is to create many split lines in the population, so that losing in one sphere of interest may well be compensated by winning in another. We discussed how far these ideas hold up in the SA now - and indeed here. We were attracted by the debate about Habermas’s enlightenment / Kantian theory that people could / should debate and reach agreements and even agee on the rationale - but that this again denies “politics” that just, hopefully, reaches a decision and moves on.
18th September 2020: Coursera Moral Foundations of Politics - Anti-Enlightenment Theories We discussed Anti-Enlightenment theories of Politics. The criticisms of Enlightenment theories are that that there is disagreement on which teleological direction is the right one; that these theories are not scientific - perhaps a case of The transition from “ought” to “is” in this case; and that the world is complex and radical changes can lead to dire consequences. Conservatives are distinguished from Reactionaries: we agreed that Lord Devlin’s appeal to “the man on the Clapham omnibus” would stifle change - what liberals see as progress - whereas Burke’s recognition of the need for change, coupled with his concept that any “contract” we have is with our forebears and our children, seems very apposite to the current climate - literally. MacIntyre’s argument that we learn our values from our social group, so cannot have the ethical outlook enlightenment theorists claim to be in our nature makes sense, but this does perhaps legitimise nationalism, tribalism and gang culture. His stance that the emphasis of Enlightenment theories on the individual had taken out the moral core of the long standing Aristotelian mindset is compelling, and it is at first sight disappointing he did not advocate a return to Aristotle’s ideas such as moderation between extremes in ethics as a counter to the “Boo-Hurrah” mentality that has destroyed debate, but perhaps he has precluded advancing yet another goal for politics through his attack on earlier theories.
15th September 2020: Philosophy of Maths 3 We read the remainder of “Mathematics A Very Short Introduction” by Timothy Gowers , plus his paper Does mathematics need a philosophy. We reviewed the mathematical concepts the book, looking at multi-dimensional space and hyperbolic geometry. Having clarified these ideas, we noted he included them to show how maths is about abstracting ideas and building coherent structures from a minimal set of axioms. So multi-dimensional space shows we can progress from numbers to ordered pairs and on to n-tuples and the linking idea is distance between points in the Pythagorean sense. Spherical and hyperbolic geometry result when the axiom of plane geometry that parallel lines never meet is modified. This led to a discussion contrasting the idea of abstraction with the need to visualise mathematical ideas, and thence to the link with the physical world and the interplay of maths and science: Stephen Hawking in “A brief history of time” notes that string theory requires that space-time really has ten or twenty six dimensions! So do numbers exist, as Platonists would argue, or are they just concepts in a language, having some public meaning Wittgenstein held?
21st August 2020: Coursera Moral Foundations of Politics :Modern Social Contract Theory We will discussed the last instalment and modern take on Social Contract theory, focusing on Nozick’s critique of Rawls. Nozick is a champion of individual freedom and a minimal state. He acknowledges the monopoly nature of power which means the state must swallow or destroy all dissenters within its sphere of influence, and it may (but never actually seems to) compensate them for their loss of independence. He does not believe the state should redistribute power or wealth, indeed even if it did, freely entered transactions would soon corrupt the distribution. We felt that this was a very American viewpoint and challenged his assumption of transactions being freely entered into. Money is power, and the state even according to Hobbes exists to protect its citizens, so protection from the rich is important as well as protection from the physically strong. His theory of the disparity of views on redistribution does help emphasise the tension between protecting the week while discouraging the freeloaders and taxing the privileged without risking them burning their crops.
Philosophy of Maths 2 11th August: Models, Abstraction, Profs, Infinity We discussed the first four chapters of “Mathematics A Very Short Introduction” by Timothy Gowers. From the points he was making we examined real as opposed to rational numbers. We tried to understand them beyond their approximate values, and this led to a discussion of the concept of infinite and how infinities could be different sizes. A good question was why there is such an emphasis on proofs. This is because all of mathematics is built on axioms which are assumed to be true, and any theorem has to link back logically to a minimal set of axioms and no further assumption. So rather than saying a mathematical theorem / statement / construction is “true” rather say it is proven - it does depend on nothing more than the axioms. This axioms are purportedly self evident, but it is more important that they are consistent than that they are true. Gowers is keen to present mathematics as an abstraction: it abstracts a model of the essence of a problem, but also he asks us to go with the abstract and just follow the rules. He is dismissive of philosophy, holding that maths is what it does - he refers to the later Wittgenstein here, and we concluded that maths is a structure, like architecture, and a form of language - like language itself and music. We wonder that maths seems to reveal so much of the observed physical world, but then language and music are also composed of simple elements, yet they can convey deep truths or feelings.
14th July 2020: Philosophy of Maths 1: Scope We had read six chapters of 50 Maths Ideas you really need to know. This was to level up, and those present were happy to go through the book in due course and raise and discuss any concepts we found difficult. We also considered Timothy Gowers’ Mathematics a very short introduction. His approach is rather hostile to philosophers “who take seriously the question of whether numbers exist, and this distinguished them from mathematicians, who either find it obvious that numbers exist or do not understand what is being asked.” He takes a functional approach, explaining how maths proves useful in modelling the world. is Michael Frayn’s approach in his philosophical work The Human Touch is both helpful and entertaining. His thoughts led us to see Maths as one of the modes we have of communicating - an alternative to language, art and music, each being more appropriate to different situations. That said, we are left to puzzle how it is that mathematical ideas developed as abstractions later turn out to be really insightful models of physical, chemical even economic and social phenomena.
Indian Philosophy: Knowledge & Causality 10th July (on Zoom): Jain Theory of Knowledge Less well known outside India than Hinduism (which it may well predate) or Buddhism, Jains are fewer in number but influential through their ethic of duty and works, and through similar pressures to the Quakers, they are active in business. Knowledge may be direct or transcendental (unless mired by Karma) and their theory of knowledge premises that the object is viewed from many perspectives. There are seven standpoints; three are about the range: non-distinguished, generic, particular (like the Carvakas), in time it is of the moment (like the Buddhists), and may be verbal, etymological (through experience) or actual (by use). Thus knowledge is tempered or qualified by the standpoint taken.
Indian Philosophy: Knowledge & Causality 12th June (on Zoom): Induction We learnt about the Nyaya logic of induction. In Western philosophy induction was exposed by Hume as logically insupportable and Kant’s solution was that causation was something we impose on the world to make sense of it. What we saw was another approach, a logic of establishing and verifying a cause and effect inductively.
May 2020 In the time of Coronavirus! Philosophy of Science - The Case Against Reality We discussed the IAI course, "The Case Against Reality" by Donald Hoffman "Is reality how it appears? Or nothing like it seems? Professor of Cognitive Science and author of the forthcoming The Case Against Some challenging concepts to get to grips with, as our responses brought out. He does seem to cross the boundary drawn by Kant between things as we sense and interpret them and "things as they are". Science is a disciplined approach to the former and cannot penetrate the latter - thought metaphysics of contemporary science does tempt us to guess what's beyond the curtain
10th March 2020 Philosophy of Science - Consciousness We discussed David Dennett’s lecture to Google on Evolution and “Unintelligent Design”,Paola Arlotta on Brain Development and related materials on consciousness in the BBC Science Focus Magazine. After we had acknowledged the Corona Virus situation (is it Gaia self regulating the ecosystem?), we explored Dennett’s exposition of evolution and it’s timescale and mechanics, and his contrasting them with the development of human culture and targeted design. He took the discussion on into the “post intelligent design” of AI and some of its ethical implications - a good development and extension of our reading of Dawkins. Paola Arlotta’s amazing description of the time taken for the human brain to grow and its adaptability informed our discussion of consciousness. We looked at theories of consciousness, some concerned with how it relates to brain structure and / or activity, some debating whether it is an emergent property, even an illusion, but we noted the Attention Schema theory, the brain modelling the outside world and its own internal states.
14th February 2020 Indian Philosophy: Buddhism We looked at Buddhism. From the Khan Academy video we learnt the history of Buddhism and the story of Prince Siddhartha and then the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka (273–232 BCE) under whom Buddhism gained royal support and spread across India and further East, though it was later prohibited in India. We noted the Four Noble Truths: there is suffering (dukkah), it has a cause (our craving for the impermanent), this suffering can be stopped - by following the eight-fold path. Buddhism asserts that everything is impermanent, but, unlike other religions, also asserts that there is no permanent self or soul in living beings. This follows from the idea of momentariness in the five aggregates (skandhas). This convey that nothing is permanent, everything is in flux. Heraclitus captured this for the material world but Buddhism goes further. one metaphor offered is that reality is like a movie: each frame is only visible for an instant, but it follows from the previous frame and “causes” the next frame, constrained by, for example, not only physical laws but the intent of the director (though there is no director, no God). The momentary dharmas evolve in response to karma, ethical causation, which may be wholesome or unwholesome. The enlightenment of the third noble truth is that karma can be eradicated, leading to the cessation of suffering and the cycle of rebirths.
11th February 2020 Philosophy of Science - Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Chapers 10-11 We discussed the last two chapters (12, 13) of “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. Chapter 12 discussed game theory, specifically “The Prisoners’ Dilemma”, but as a repeated game with no known last round. The point was to show that altruism, or at least “kind” strategies were more profitable than cheating strategies and could form a (quasi) environmentally stable strategy (ESS). The last chapter is an introduction to his later book “The Extended Phenotype”, probably worth noting for further reading. The extension he addresses is the reach of the gene beyond its host - e.g. a beaver’s dam. He also discusses “bottleneck” organisms: for example we might contrast plant propagation by root division or cuttings with growing from seed. The latter gives life an opportunity to go “back to the drawing board” to face the current environment. We feel we have learnt about the mechanisms of genes and there may be lessons for us ethically if we understand some of the underlying forces that drive us, though we are still struggling with the insistent consciousness fallacy of the "selfish gene" metaphor
24th January 2020 Indian Philosophy: Paths to Enlightenment We were to look at the ethical theories of Carvakas, Jains and Buddhists. From a remark that these theories seemed to belong to an earlier age, we got into a discussion of the effort it takes to disengage from contemporary culture to examine a different world view - it possibly helps to consider that future ages will look back on our beliefs and ethics as strange and incredible. One stark example was the difficulty of comprehending “soul” resulting from the concept of dualism, which is harder to accept now. The Carvakas were simple to understand (perhaps they are closest to our current ethos!). They are pure materialists. They believe and accept only what their senses tell them. There is no soul, no karma, so they are sceptics and hedonists. priests are charlatans making an easy living. That said, they seem to be more cited by other sects and schools to be criticised than advancing their own philosophy. Jains accept perception but also testimony from a reliable source. Indian philosophy considers other sources of knowledge : inference, analogy, presumption, reductio ad absurdum, non-cognitive, tradition, rumour and gesture , and we will study these further. Jains are also non-violent, to the extent of wearing masks to protect insects and sweeping in front of them. All things, down to ecosystems and stones. All souls are capable of consciousness, which cannot be material and is necessary to animate matter. The desires of souls attract matter and that weighs them down. Souls may be freed from desires by three things: right belief - in the teachings of Jain saints; right understanding of these teachings; and right conduct - abstinence from injuring life, lying, stealing, sensual indulgence.
14th January 2020 Philosophy of Science - Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Chapers 10-11 We discussed the next two chapters (10, 11) of “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. Our discussion was wide-ranging, and to summarise it is simpler to start with the discussion of memes. Dawkins refutes the theory that we studied at length a while back that religion has arisen to bind societies together. He is an atheist and is determined to refute group selection as a theory. It does seem clear that while memes inhabit individual minds, they do “belong” to groups, tribes and organisations and contribute strongly to their identity. We discussed how to differentiate the effects of genes and memes on behaviour: what is instinctive and what is learned? Perhaps a meme can exist only where there is a mind capable of some level of imagination or foresight - though this does not limit memes to humanity. The chapter on herds and parasites, and the discussion of reciprocal altruism and environmentally stable strategies accommodating cheats and freeloaders led us to examples in human social behaviour, via litter to climate change - taking in Lovelock’s theories and the wide effects humanity is having despite its low weight in the earth’s biomass and our short existence in the time-span of life on earth - and as far as democracy and whether our form of democracy is capable of addressing the challenge.
17th December 2019 Philosophy of Science - Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Chapers 7-9 We will read three more chapters of “The Selfish Gene”: chapter 7 Family Planning, asks how brood sizes come about, chapter 8 is "Battle of the Generations” and chapter 9 “Battle of the Sexes”. We again agreed that it is very easy to understand “the selfish gene” too literally as a scheming, conscious entity. We re-affirmed it is just a metaphor: genes are propagated through reproduction, and those individuals best fitted to meet the challenges of their environment out-survive those less well endowed, so those genes that give advantage are propagated in greater numbers. We then discussed interaction between genes and the environment, where the environmental conditions trigger an otherwise dormant gene behaviour. From the text we focused on Dawkins' observation that in humans it is the males rather than the females who are drab. Does this really mean that in contrast with other species women compete for men? We did recognise that power is an aphrodisiac: perhaps we are not so different from Walruses or lions where the powerful males dominate? We wondered whether there were more matriarchal societies before agriculture was developed, and this then of course led to higher sophistication in human society. From there we moved to the challenges of climate change and over-population and whether mankind would be able to think its way through these problems - and what would be left if it doesn’t?
29th November 2019 Indian Philosophy: Paths to Enlightenment We learnt about the different Indian Philosophical Schools. There are nine of them, six being Orthodox, meaning they accept and follow the teachings as well as the rituals and sacrifices of the Vedas (the Vedantas are more speculative and their texts are the Upanishads); and the other three being Heterodox, that is they do not follow the teachings of the Vedas. All the schools developed before their philosophies were written down in the Sutras. The Heterodox schools include the sceptical Buddhists and the Jains and the materialist Carvacas. The Orthodox Schools all share common beliefs in Rta, the cosmic laws governing not only the physical universe but Karma, the consequences of our actions - i.e. cause and effect. They all recognise Brahman as the ultimate reality. They all believe in that life is suffering and repeats through reincarnation, but there is a path to salvation or release. Release comes through realised knowledge and is approached by good actions, devotions or yoga. All believe in the existence of the soul in some sense, and in re-incarnation, which is a difficult concept for us to accept, but maybe it can be a simile for passing on our genes and more importantly our memes to our unborn descendants, leaving the world a better place than we found it? That said, space is boundless and time is cyclic through improving and deteriorating times.
12th November 2019 Philosophy of Science - Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Chapers 4-6 We discussed three more chapters of “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. Chapter 4 deals with how genes influence their “hosts”, chapter 5 explores aggression and how behaviours can coexist stably in a population, and chapter 6 does the maths of altruism and survival of the gene. We reviewed all of the book and noted that Dawkins is an academic with a theory to promote and he anticipates and addresses objections to his argument. We also found it very simple to forget that “the selfish gene” is not a conscious “ghost in the machine”, but a metaphor for the idea that successful genes survive many generations of their hosts and their success breeds success. That said, the idea that we are mere temporary vehicles for genes contrasts with our emphasis on the individual. We discussed the idea that genes “programme” our brains and our behaviour, conscious or instinctive. We explored this in the example of once carnivorous pandas responding to the lack of food in the ice age and adapting to eat bamboo. We noted we carry many dormant genes and wondered if these were called Back into play in this evolution. We looked at the idea of an evolutionary stable strategy and the levels of kinship based on the fraction of shared genes between individuals.
18th October The Bhagavad Gita (Critical Analysis) In reading this epic, it must be understood that one’s duties or Dharma, assigned by caste must be carried out to the best of one’s abilities without regard to the outcome (win or lose). Lord Arjuna as a Kshatriya or warrior prince is obliged to fight those who have wronged him (we infer his princely Dharma makes war inevitable); but his dilemma is that the fight is against his relatives. Krishna’s debate with him serves as a metaphor for the path to true knowledge. Enlightenment includes the realisation that the material, including our bodies, is just a temporal housing for the spirit - and unlike the christian soul, for example, there is but one Brahman in all. In this story, enlightenment may be achieved by turning one’s energies, the inevitability of always doing, to prescribed duties, and a path to this is karma-yoga.
8th October 2019 Philosophy of Science - Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Chapers 1-3 We started “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins. We discussed the first three chapters, which gave us some introduction - setting out his project to show that evolution is best looked at as selection at the lowest level - and a lot of science. He traces life back to the formation of replicators - molecules that can copy themselves, and these have become genes. He then places genes between chromosomes and their constituent cistrons, which are themselves strings of nucleotide letters which are the instructions for making a specific protein. Chromosomes are copied (mitosis) every time a cell divides, so every cell can have its copy, and the formation of egg or sperm cells by meiosis, a crossing over of genes between the maternal and paternal given chromosomes explains the gene pool. We felt we need more detail on these processes - how do the chromosomes make copies? Stay the right length? Given these processes, why does he emphasise the gene level and not look further at the proteins enabling them? A problem with his title is to remember that “the selfish gene” isn’t actually conscious, but he is presenting a metaphor that describes the outcome of evolution. Philosophically, we see the ontological demolition of the idea that we are the pinnacle of creation: we are throwaway survival machines - the product of the interaction of the most successful genes with their environment. He will argue that genes influence our behaviour, so that we can see whether they support or conflict with desirable ethical responses.
27th September The Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 2) This is a (25 min) summary, and This is a background to the story (along with a bit of ‘advice’at the start!) . We recalled some aspects of the Vedas especially Rta the inviolable law of the cosmos. We discussed the development of the idea of rebirth from the immortal aspect of Brahman; the body is merely temporary. We discussed the nature of Karma as any action; physical, mental, small or large that exerts a causal effect on our future lives, just as our current life has been determined by our past actions. We further discussed Dharma as ‘doing what is right’ but the nature of how we should act is multifaceted and depends on our individual class, stage of life and our position in society; indeed it changes as we progress in our life. Rta has changed into karma and dharma and these support the individual, the family, the social class, and society, keeping it well ordered. The Gita involves a family feud which has resulted in the two branches of the family facing each other in a war. Arjuna facing his family and honoured teachers loses hope and falters in his duty as a prince and warrior and refuses to fight. He points out his dilemma in carrying out his duty as a warrior to fight and the his duty to avoid evil in killing his family and so disrupting the order of society. Krishna (the material incarnation God and Arjuna’s charioteer) engages him in dialogue and explains why he should fight. Krishna says he must carry out his duty as a warrior and gives him four reasons. 1) The body is a manifestation of Brahman; ‘embodied self’ is immortal and is not destroyed when the body is destroyed (12-25); 2) what is born must die and what dies must be born again (26-29); 3) it is the duty of the warrior to fight in a just war (31-33); 4) Arjuna would lose face in backing out of the battle at the last moment and would be accused of cowardice (34-37). It is only by fighting this can Arjuna take the steps to escaping the cycle of rebirth. In the Gita Krishna further offers three different ways of escaping rebirth: by the path of action (fighting) by the path of knowledge and by the path of devotion. .
20th September BBC Radio 4 "The Moral Maze "The Morality of Fashion" We discussed the issues raised in the BBC Radio 4 “Moral Maze” episode on The Morality of Fashion, Three main issues emerged: the exploitation of workers in the industry particularly in contrast with the low prices of their products; the effect on the environment; and the values we put on clothes and our self image. On exploitation there is a case that the sweat shops do provide a step towards a modern economy and improved prosperity for less developed societies, but consumers should demand reasonable and progressive working conditions. Perhaps a solution as happened with coffee could be a “fair trade” label? The fashion industry’s impact on the environment is enormous - causing pollution, using water in cotton production and contributing to land fill with polyesters that take 200 years to decay. A family in the western world throws away an average of 30 kg of clothing each year. Again perhaps a labelling of products as “responsibly sourced” may help. Our discussions of the effects of climate change took us to social and external costs. We recognise that clothes are an essential part of our appearance and how we present ourselves, but that this is corrupted by consumerism and a fear of failing to be on trend.
10th September 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (17) - Special Relativity Phenomenology We discussed Chapter 49, Special Relativity. While it is easy to accept that you can’t tell how fast you are travelling without looking at something external, it is difficult to conceive that it is the velocity of light that is fundamental and that space and time in a moving frame of reference shrink and slow down to fit. It is hard to understand relativity without going through the maths, and it is tough going, but for example Richard Feynman’s “Six Not So Easy Pieces” is a good guide. At another level, working through Maxwells equations with vector calculus leads to the wave equation for electromagnetic waves and relates the velocity of light to the fundamental constants of electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability. So we can understand the consternation caused: if the speed of light were not constant, then electrical & magnetic effects would change with velocity. We also discussed Chapter 50, Phenomenology, and linking this to relativity, we explored the idea that we cannot stand outside when we observe the universe - we are part of it and need to understand that it is from within that we experience sensations and even space and time. Michael Frayn’s “The Human Touch (Our Part in the Creation of The Universe)” is an exploration of these ideas.
16th August 2019 Indian Philosophy: Consolidation We watched the two Khan academy videos on the Vedas and Hinduism. We discussed the structure of the vedas being split up into two sections which are further split into two. The first two have prayers and sacrifices and the final two (forest treatises and Upanishads) move from prescriptions to greater degree of philosophical speculation. Prayers are to the many gods of nature. There is thought to be a match between the our life (parts of the sacrificial horse) and the observed cosmos and sacrifices enable repair of any faults in the natural order. There is a cosmic law (Rta) that governs all aspects of the cosmos as well as normative aspects of our lives. Society is divided into four castes and members of the castes are required to carry out their duties and their worldly actions will determine their status of rebirth in future lives. Reincarnation will continue and our goal is to achieve escape from this (moksha) by realising that our worldly perceptions are erroneous. In the Upanishads there is a shift from polytheism of the vedas to monism. The central message of the vedas is that there is an ultimate reality (Brahman) and we are simply material aspects of that reality. We watched a part of the video ‘who am i?’ and considered the idea that unlike western concept of being conscious (when we are wide awake) we are truly only conscious in deep sleep.
13th August 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (16) - Indeterminacy We discussed Chapter 47 Indeterminacy, essentially about Quantum Theory, Schrodinger’s Cat and the Copenhagen Explanation, and the problem of the apparent randomness of the universe. We discussed several ideas of quantum theory, particle wave duality, starting with photons and moving to electrons and all particles. We mentioned Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the interaction of the observer in determining the state being measured - and that someone or some thing needs to act on the system for the indeterminacy of its state to be resolved. We mentioned chemistry, the periodic table and electron shells, and talked about Schrodinger's Wave equation, noting it was about probabilities rather than waves. We felt that it was probably OK that God appeared to play dice, and accepted that we are not built on the small scale of elementary particles, so that our descriptions even of the phenomena must be in metaphors, and the “really real” is forever unattainable. We did accept that mathematics, given the skills in that discipline, could enable us to describe what was happening and appreciated the pragmatic understanding that has informed useful predictions and applications.
19th July 2019 "The Moral Maze": The Policing of Humour We started with the example of Jo Brand's joke about throwing battery acid over Nigel Farage. Our discussions soon brought out the importance of context in delivering and understanding humour. Does the audience understand they are hearing humour, not an incitement to violence? Are they culturally “in tune” with the performance (Americans don’t get pantomime), and does the performer understand the audience and its diversity ( a small club is very different from a national radio broadcast)? Some humour may be purely gentle entertainment, some may be a way to provoke or shock (as is the case with other genres of theatre and other art forms): but while humour may challenge convention, it has its own rules: it may “punch up” but not “punch down” at less empowered individuals or groups. That said we noted that subgroups may be less empowered, as the example of Les Dawson’s mother-in-law jokes being insulting to women, yet perhaps OK at a time when young men had to live with their wife’s parents and under their rules. And the butt of the joke can be the apparently more powerful character: we all agreed that Alf Garnett’s situations were always targeting his discomfort, rather than the gays or immigrants he railed against - but we recognised that this could be too subtle for some. We noted that laughter can be a response to fear. The comic’s intentions are important, and a professional should understand the make up of the audience, their customers. We agreed there should not be policing of humour as such - but is it right that comedy or any other art may set itself above the law against incitement to violence, for example?
16th July 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (15) - Non-Euclidean Space and Kant, Continuing "50 Philosophy of Science Ideas you really need to know" by Gareth Southwell, we discussed Chapter 46 Non-Euclidean Geometry. Spherical geometry is not too difficult once you realise that a straight line, being the shortest distance between two points, is a great circle, but we watched a YouTube video where the presenter explained that the angles of spherical geometry triangles add up to more than 180° whereas for hyperbolic geometry triangles they add up to less than 180°, and showed us how to crochet hyperbolic geometry! We also discussed Einstein’s explanation of gravity as the deformation of the geometry of space - where a mattress or rubber sheet provides a good model! We moved on to Chapter 48 Kant’s response to Hume’s scepticism that there could be any justification of our belief in cause and effect. Kant replaced a priori and a posteriori classifications of knowledge with the subtly different classes of analytical and synthetic metaphysical truths. Analytical truths depend on the meanings of the terms involved, for example “red is a colour”. Synthetic truths depend on experience: “a flame is hot”. However the proposition that “Effects have causes” is not (totally?) carried in the definitions of cause and effect, but its truth transcends being synthetic as a way we make sense of the world. Difficult concepts, but we could follow that we can only comprehend a phenomenal view of the world - that which our senses and minds allow us to perceive - and we cannot go beyond that to know what is “really real”. After the meeting this YouTube presentation was found
21st June 2019 "The Moral Maze": Compromise and Climate Change We discussed episodes from “The Moral Maze” from BBC Radio 4. We selected The Morality of Compromise (this focused on Theresa May’s Brexit deal), and Climate Change. Our discussions were wide-ranging, but we did identify some relevant ethical approaches and philosophical issues. The core question on compromise is identifying where concessions erode fundamental principles. But principles are simple in isolation: the dilemma arises when they conflict. It is necessary if difficult to identify and ensure the decision looks beyond short term self interest. This issue recurs in the problem of climate change. Utilitarianism would point to the greatest good of the greatest number, but how should we ( if at all) measure and balance the good of the privileged of the developed world, the poor of the Third World, the yet unborn generations - and the wider world? John Rawles’ Difference Principle may help: it only permits inequalities that work to the advantage of the worst-off. We recognised the problem of the aspirations of the poor and the unwillingness of (most of) the rich to make sacrifices (an example of The Prisoners’ Dilemma), and while we were optimistic that there are technological solutions, we were less confident that there will be sufficient directed political will to empower governments to tax carbon out and enable these developments.
7th June 2019 Eastern Philosophy 3; Upanishads We discussed the changes from the Hinduism of the Vedas to the philosophical approach of the Upanishads. We also watched Swami Sarvapriyananda explain the concept of self and consciousness in this mode of thought.. The transformation of Hinduism from the Vedas to the Upanishads in many ways mirrors how other religions (e.g. Judaism) have matured away from the primitive norms of polytheism, sacrifice and a priestly caste. What is striking about Hinduism is the shift of the concept of a God “out there” to the Brahman within - recognised but perhaps less openly declared by sages and scholars of other religions. Swami Sarvapriyananda explained the concept of Brahman as the true consciousness that we struggle to see yet must seek beyond our waking, dreaming and deep-sleeping selves.
21st May 2019 Philosophy of Science - the Basics (14) - Incompleteness, Epistemological Anarchism and Supervenience, We discussed Chapters 43-45, Incompleteness, Epistemological Anarchism and Supervenience. We took on the technicalities of Gödel’s Theorems with the help of videos by Marcus de Sautoy and by Cory Chang. We learnt that any mathematical system that is sufficiently expressive (i.e. useful) must be either incomplete (needs axioms), or (worse) inconsistent - and you can’t tell which. If this applies to carefully defined mathematical systems, what chance has any conceptual framework got? Our discussions took in Bertrand Russell’s problem in writing Principia Mathematica - essentially the library catalogue problem. We discussed supervenience, mostly through thinking about mind and consciousness supervening on neural activity in the brain and weather patterns arising from the interaction of the molecules of the atmosphere. We watched a Wikipedia audio article to get to grips with Feyerabend’s assertion that the rational approach claimed by science conceals a number of approaches making it in fact much closer to myth and religion. However, his form of cultural relativism is not “anything goes”, but an attempt to get an alternative understanding.
19th April 2019 Eastern Philosophy 2 We discussed the vedas and acquainted ourselves with salient relationships of the texts. We noted that there were many parallels with other world religions. The vedas are taken to be revealed to the sages and then orally transmitted but were finally written down in Sanskrit. These are taken to be infallibly true and contain an inviolable cosmological law (Rta) that covers all aspects of the universe. They comprise four sections which include recitations, methods for sacrifice as well as philosophical speculations in their later sections (arayankas – forest treatises) and most importantly the unpanishads. There seems a grey area between religion, theology and philosophy. The vedas are a basis for religious aspects worshipping gods originally based on nature earth, wind, fire, etc., as well as gods from the older civilisations. They include details of recitations and rituals such as sacrifices and the metaphysical aspects of the vedas are seen in these sacrifice: the various parts of the horse representing the four castes of people (scholars or priests, kings and warriors, merchants and labourers) and separate parts of the universe. These sacrifices are performed by the priests on behalf of the kings, warriors and other members of society to repair or rebalance the order of the universe as well as allowing the sacrificers to gain victories, wealth, health, large families and so on. A further importance is that the rituals and sacrifices must be performed correctly as laid out in the vedas, and in Sanskrit. The language is taken to correctly describe the external world. In addition, it enables us to connect the self with the ultimate reality, that according to the vedas is brahman, the foundation for all existing things, through the word Aum. They tell us what path to follow and how to live life; our duties and obligations. They prescribe the correct paths to follow a life that is separated into four parts: of learner, householder, ascetic and renunciant. According to the vedas, we live a life of suffering, and on death we are returned to this life in a cycle of rebirth. The aim of life is to overcome this reincarnation by following properly the injunctions of the vedas and achieving and enlightenment. We also briefly read the ‘hymn of creation’ and noted the many aspects such as existence, causation, a sense of curiosity, and the lack of a specific God.