The Russellian Society

Minutes of previous discussion groups

Thursday 21 December 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Topic was Timo Airaksinen's book The philosophy of the Marquis de Sade. Present were Joffre Balce, John Bentley, Tim Bradshaw, Karl C, Fred Flatow, Chris Jones, Luke Langtry, Sade was a pussy, Peter Smith, Adrian Tan, Robert Zenter, and Melanie. Discussion included: the definition of pedophilia; differences between Sade and Ayn Rand; whether Sade is simply about pursuit of pleasure; whether one should censor Sade; the definition of pleasure; whether Sade's concerns are passe; whether there is any point to discussing Sade; what sorts of things, if any, should be censored; whether the provocation of offensive ideas is inherently useful; whether it is "limiting" to depend on cruelty to others in order to further one's own well-being; whether it is better to be cruel to the self than to others from the point of view of self-interest; whether enjoyment of breach of values is contingent on individual psychology; whether schadenfreude is the only true humour; whether malice to others is inherently funny; whether wordplay jokes and puns depend on malice; what theories of humour there are; in what ways, if any, humour has changed; whether 120 Days of Sodom can be read as a Sadean utopia; whether Sade is correct that we still are in a state of nature given the disparity in "social power" between people; whether having a "mainstream" is a bad thing; what thoughts, if any, should be forbidden; the pleasure of BDSM; whether executions, bull-fighting, boxing, snuff films, and gladiatorial arenas indicate a natural tendency for humans to enjoy bloodshed; whether gladiators are more about the entertainment of challenge and skill or about the contestants being despised enemies receiving just deserts; whether films such as "Hostel" are entertaining because one knows that they aren't real; in what sense films aren't real given that, often, real emotion is involved; what it means to "suspend disbelief" while watching a film; whether Sade genuinely promoted immorality, or, rather, was critiquing it by illustrating it; what the effects are of reading Sade; in what senses Sade is or isn't "real" -- whether what he writes about can actually be done or portrayed, and whether it is in some sense "virtual" or "hyperreal", with elements of the real removed; whether there is always a conflict between the good life and the prudential life; whether any normative claims follow from positing that the world is meaningless; whether one can create one's own meanings; whether libertines are the dark side of liberty; whether celibacy is the worst sexual perversion. Meeting closed at 8.30pm, and various parties went to the Madison for dinner.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 6 December 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Topic was John Rawls' A theory of justice, in particular part 3 on the sense of justice. Present were: Joffre Balce, Judith Clarke, Fred Flatow, Luke Langtry, Edward Neylan, and Adrian Tan. Discussion included: whether Rawls' ideas of justice are far too simplistic for large and complex societies; whether Rawls is overly idealistic; whether there is no room in a world of real politics for such ideals; whether the basic nature of a capitalist and media society is antithetical to developing a sense of justice, especially given its drives towards competition; whether Rawls wrongly starts from a position of sameness whereas he ought be more sensitive to difference; whether it's a better idea to build in difference into the original position; whether Rawls genuinely makes room for diversity between individuals; whether Rawls' three psychological laws of moral development are empirically false or are open to huge variation depending on circumstances; whether the "golden rule" is all that's required for justice; whether the principle "get the bastards before they get you" is an application of the "golden rule"; whether societies of violence and fraud obey the golden rule; problems in Rawls' notion of rationality; whether the "Aristotelian principle" is necessarily the rational choice; whether there is anything to the Marxist/Critical Legal Studies criticisms of rights; whether a basic principle of justice should be to consult the people who are most affected; whether the idea of imagining what it's like to be in someone else's shoes is ultimately insufficienct -- it's no substitute for actually asking them; whether Rawls underplays evil in human nature; whether it's easy for people to "turn off" their guilt and shame; whether the Rawlsian political system is vulnerable to outside pressures and internal exploitation; whether the only practical way to determine what's fair (say, with respect to industrial relations laws) is to take a vote -- instead of philosophy that goes nowhere, one should use a decision procedure; what procedures are used in schools to increase social awareness; whether existing education procedures fail; whether "being more human" should explicitly be taught as part of an education system; and the value of debate about right and wrong in education. Meeting closed at 8.15pm, and, for a change of venue, we went to the pub across the street.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 22 November 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Topic was Derek Parfit's writings on future generations in Reasons and persons. Present were: Judith Clarke, Fred Flatow, Luke Langtry, The Absurd Conclusion, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, and Robert Zenter. Discussion included: whether Parfit's basic project is "taking Marxism and making it English"; whether Parfit combines two levels of morality -- individual and policy; whether there are two distinct levels of morality, and how these interract; whether Parfit, intentionally or otherwise, is asking unanswerable questions; whether, once we start building in a future persons level of consideration into our decision-making, things become overly complex; whether it's a mistake to believe that the effect we have on future generations is particularly predictable, especially in light of the rate of change in society; that Depletion isn't only a matter of policy, but also of mindset; whether consequentialism as a moral principle is neutralized by the bewildering and unpredictable complexity of result; whether effects on future generations are too indirect to oblige us; whether any government should be permitted to control a population's choices about reproduction; whether people should have the right to have as many children as they want; whether Parfit has anything to say on matters of eugenics; whether Parfit's focus is too policy-level and insufficiently individual-level; what principles there are behind judgments of overpopulation; whether an increase in population is harmful; whether it's frightening to move towards a principle of overall good trumping individual good; whether Parfit's approach sidelines questions of distribution and priorities of production; that questions of freedom should pertain not only to governments but also to corporations; whether the imposition of a global two child policy would favour the West; whether it's true that an increase in wealth correlates (usually or necessarily) with a decrease in birthrate; Costello's motivation for wanting to increase the birthrate; whether Parfit is more agent-focused, or more policy focused; whether Parfit deals with issues of sustainability. Meeting closed at 8.30pm, and various parties moved next door to the pub.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 8 November 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Topic was Sartre's writings on the Other, from Being and Nothingness. Present were Pam Aitken, "Mr Y", John Bentley, Judith Clarke, Fred Flatow, Luke Langtry, Meret MacDonald, "John Bentley", "I am John Bentley and so is my wife", Adrian Tan, Robert Zentner, and two others. Discussion included: whether we're in the Matrix (whether it's provable that other minds exist); whether "common sense" solves the problem of other minds; problems with common sense; whether the existentialists wrongly conflate ontology, epistemology, and ethics; whether there can be no argument from probability to argue for other minds; whether what Mary Warnock identifies as "genuinely existentialist forms of argument" are good arguments; whether Sartre is doing psychology and not philosophy; whether animals can be embarrassed; whether the other minds question is nonsensical because talk of knowledge is only appropriate where talk of doubt is intelligible; whether the question of other minds makes no difference one way or the other; whether an assumption of other minds is necessary for language; whether Hegel was right to think that the ego in the cogito implies a community; whether Occam's razor can be applied to the other minds question; in what respects early Sartre differs from later Sartre; the shift in attitude involved in treating a human as a material, as forensic science does; the social constructedness and historicity of "mentally ill"; regarding homosexuality as an illness; whether Sartre misinterprets the caress -- whether there are many types of caress, with different meanings and feelings attached to them -- and the meaning needn't be appropriation or shaping, but can include reaching out and uniting; what sense of another person you get from touch that you don't get from talking; whether one becomes conscious of one's own consciousness in becoming conscious of another; whether there are many ways to collaborate with others -- interpersonal relations needn't be limiting; whether it is important to objectify other people in the course of sex. Meeting closed at 8.45pm, and various parties migrated to the pub next door.

Thursday 25 October 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Topic was Derrida and deconstruction, based on the Usyd course reader. Present were: John Bentley, Judith Clarke, Fred Flatow, Jackie Derry Da, Stephen Premeier, Adrian Tan, Ian Woolf, and Robert Zenter. Discussion involved: whether deconstruction can apply to science; that we should not be complacent about scientific theories; the connection between paradoxes of capitalism and deconstruction; whether the world has an elusive appearance of harmony; whether theory choice is simply a matter of pragmatism; whether there are any other guidelines than pragmatic ones for arriving at the truth; whether Derrida believes in truth; whether Derrida, despite his protestations, is a relativist; the problems of relativism; whether there is a rigorous concept of context; whether context is determinable; whether meaning always has the possibility of changing between contexts; whether the majority of people are not sensitive to historical contingency; the relative benefits of being closed and open-minded, of questioning and not questioning; the extent to which the "man on the street's" impressions of "postmodernism" are justified; whether the question of which scientific theory holds sway is a matter of fashion; whether one is entitled to pick whatever "working fable" one likes for events about which one can know nothing; and the difference between "deconstruction" and "analysis". Meeting closed at 8.30pm, and the group moved next door to the pub, whereupon such matters were discussed as whether there are any emergent properties, and the difference between quantitative and qualitative.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 11 October 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Topic was moral psychology, based on the USyd course reader. Present were: John August, Joffre Balce, John Bentley, David Bofinger, Judith Clarke, Daniel Coorey, Matt Hammerton, Luke Langtry, Marc Marusic, Unfortunately I am just Edward today, Stephen Premeier, Unfortunately I am just James today, Adrian Tan, Ellen Watson, Michael Zenter, and Robert Zentner. Discussion included: whether empirical psychology is relevant to conceptually defining the moral and in answering any related ontological questions; what role intuitions play in ethics; whether, and in what way, moral facts are reducible to naturalistic facts; whether moral judgment is purely descriptive; whether questions about inherent goodness and inherent evil are overly simplistic and don't take into account individual variation; which of the internalist claims are the most dubitable; analogies between the assumption of rational agency in economics and the problem of immorality; whether, just as ships exist though they are reducible to the planks and nails, but some descriptions are properly applied to the ship rather than to its constituent parts, people could be called "good" or "evil" even if their constituent parts are determined; whether organizations can be called good and evil, and can be held to praise or blame instead of the people in them; the main moral principles or maxims that contend with each other in society; whether altruism is idiotic behaviour; what's so good about altruism; whether, though there might be just wars, any act of killing someone can be described as "altruisitc"; whether there is not only Wall Street self-interest but also "enlightened self-interest", where one profits oneself by helping others; whether discussion of moral psychology is useless and too distant from the concerns of everyday life; whether it's true that eroding blame erodes moral fibre; whether, when you're in the process of doing a wrong, you're not thinking in terms of right and wrong, and are unable to start thinking in this way without external pressure to restore you to that norm; the distinction between desires we're conscious of, and "interests" we have that guide our behaviour at the sub-conscious level; whether "irrationalities" of action appear because we're focused on conscious desires; whether there are behaviours that can't be explained by any interest; whether principles can motivate or drive people; whether the realism/anti-realism divide should be rejected; whether, ethically speaking, we should simply talk about what serves the general interest; the definition of realism; whether the person who does a wrong thing because it's wrong is simply using the word "wrong" to mean "right"; that we are more generous than naive game theory predicts we would be; whether it is better to speak of a system of justice than a system of morality; whether there are any situations where rape is permissible; whether, instead of speaking of thought experiments, one should preface a hypothetical with the claim that "I was actually in this situation" or respond to the allegation of bad thought experiment with "But it wasn't a thought experiment -- it actually happened"; when the reality of thought experiments is questionable; whether, when one is forced, one can bear any responsibility; whether the question of responsibility in extreme thought experiments is resolvable; and whether conscientious objectors should be honoured as much as, and are as brave as, war veterans. Meeting closed after 8.45pm, and most of the group crowded into the pub next door.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 27 September 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Judith Clarke presented on Donna Harraway and cyborgs. Present were: Mallory Allsopp, John August, Joffre Balce, Judith Clarke, Fred Flatow, Darryn King, Laura King, Luke Langtry, Raamy Majeed, A man eating a kebab, trying not to spill too much + negotiating this fact with a cockroach crawling across the floor, Stephen Preimeier, James Roberts, Robe Sensis, Adrian Tan, and Ian Woolf. Discussion included: whether Harraway can talk about cyborgs as well as support "feminism" (do cyborgs break down the man/woman dualism); the application of Harraway's ideas of boundary transgression and transformation to aging; the definition of feminism; varieties of feminisms; how new or original Harraway's ideas are; whether "cyborg" is just a metaphor, or describes anything real; whether Harraway was thinking of full sci-fi cyborgs; whether, and if so in what sense, Harraway sees technology as a solution; senses in which we might be connected to machines (whether a person and a bicycle form a cyborg; whether one is symbiotically connected to computers, mobile phones, watches); whether there is anything intrinsically valuable about biological life that Harraway risks discarding; whether Harraway is "objectifying" life; how to define the natural; the difference between good and bad category systems; whether increase in automation has resulted in anything qualitatively new; whether automation can rectify social inequality; whether Harraway's ideas can be expressed without cyborg-talk; whether cyborg-talk is helpful; whether gender inequality can be solved by restructuring the political system; whether the Internet extends existence or consciousness; whether the Internet counts as a Harraway cyborg; "trans-humanism" and cybernetic enhancements; whether cybernetic technology and the possibility of transcending natural biology make traditional conceptions of gender redundant; whether change in attitude, rather than technology, is the solution to inequalities; whether vagueness between two concepts means that there are is no difference between those concepts; whether cyborgs blur rather than destroy differences; whether it is undesirable to disassociate ourselves from "nature"; whether one will always know that a mechanical pet is not a "real" pet; whether one can love a computer pet (eg the "huge emotional energy" people put into Tamagochi pets); whether one can "love" their car; definition of love; definition or defining characteristics of life; whether artificial intelligence can count as life; whether we need to expand our concepts of possible relationships to machines; what responsibilities come with creation of artificial or cyborg life; what motivates us to create artificial life; whether the rise of the computer has resulted in a devaluing of the human; whether the rise of the computer has led to a modification of humans (for instance, that they must now be shaped to handle machines); definition of "man" and "woman"; whether boundary-breakdown is going on, and whether we do want it to happen; whether everything after the first ape used a tool counts as a "cyborg"; whether tools that are built into you change your gender; whether there are any useful lessons to be drawn from a robot, alien, or any other sci-fi society; whether it is possible to leave our evolutionary heritage behind; the prevalence of "carbon fascism", prejudice against silicon life; whether, if one cannot tell the difference between a mechanical and a carbon dog, there is no relevant difference; whether it's true that one knows at the back of one's mind that there's a difference; that people project human relationships and reactions onto their pets (cats aren't affectionate: they're marking their territory), and that robots would be no different; whether there is an in-principle restriction on replication of "living" pets; whether it's possible to imagine what it's like for non-human societies (is "A bug's life" an example?); co-evolution of humans and dogs (eg dogs that require c-sections to give birth), and humans and plants; whether cyborgs would lead to harmony and to humans becoming "more human"; whether online personas lack race and gender; whether online personas in turn alter or create the human sitting at the keyboard; the possibilities that online personas open; whether, if we're not conscious of ourselves, we're effectively robots; whether, even if we're conscious of ourselves, we're robots; whether the difference between humans and chimps is minimal; whether we have a right to control what's lesser or inferior. Meeting closed at 8.30pm, and various parties lingered on in the pub next door till 11.30pm.

Thursday 13 September 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Ellen Watson presented on material eliminativism. Present were John August, John Bentley, Judith Clarke, Daniel Coorey, Fred Flatow, Matt Hammerton, Alex Livingston, someone who didn't have a pseudonym, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, Ellen Watson, "John C", and another. Discussion included: whether there is such a thing as mental illness; the qualities of good theories; whether reductive materialism has substantially failed (for instance whether "pain" is a better candidate for identity than "consciousness", or whether functionalism is a viable project); what reason we have to believe that our current vocabulary or folk theories are sufficient; whether functionalism is compatible with eliminativism; whether the Churchlands deny subjective experience and/or introspection; whether folk psychology is still a useful theory ("sometimes pride doesn't come before a fall, but so what"); whether eliminativists are throwing out the baby with the bathwater; whether words like "belief" and "knowledge" are poorly defined; whether it is self-evident that we have qualia; whether folk psychology could be viewed as instrumental rather than ontological; whether the folk will report that they are making ontological commitments; whether, if something substantially reduces (like "fluidity"), then it is not ripe for elimination; whether value talk is tied up to mental talk; whether the Churchlands help themselves to folk theory in their writings; whether the Churchlands propose a viable alternative; whether it's impractical to talk about ourselves without a notion of belief; whether folk theory is really a theory, or a philosophers' invention ("the majority of people don't reflect or go deeper than sheer use of the terms"); whether the child has a worse experience of music than the conductor; whether eliminativism is a form of Vulcanism; whether it is true that neuroscientific vocabulary opens the way to richer experience; whether raising a child as an eliminativist exposes them to social ostracism; whether multiple discourses can co-exist in a complementary fashion; whether it is delusional to await a mature science and to give up on folk theory now; whether anything is lost in holding a scientific understanding of an object; whether folk psychology is better viewed as in a continuous process of change (words do change their meaning, words like "subconscious" are added, etc); whether people ought to be interested in becoming neuroscientists; whether "consciousness" is unified; whether it's only science that can reveal anything about ourselves; whether more knowledge is always better; whether our experience of love is enhanced by understanding of brain chemicals (for instance that one can individuate and control various aspects of the brain much better). Meeting closed at 8.30pm, and the group went next door to the pub with good food.

Thursday 30 August 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Topic was Heidegger's Basic writings and in particular his "Letter on humanism" and "Question concerning technology". Present were: Pam Aitken, John Bentley, Judith Clarke, Scott C, Joan Deguerre, Marc Marusic, The Monkey Steals the Peach, Tamara Pallos, Stephen Preimeier, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, and Nicola. Discussion included: whether John Howard believes in a human nature, and whether he's right to do so; the difference, if any, between human essence and human biology; in what sense we might be free; whether socialization limits freedom; how much scope there is for freedom and self-determination; that we should study objects from multiple perspectives, technological and otherwise; whether Heidegger is practical; what Heidegger's method is and whether it is a good method; whether Heidegger provides a good account of human experience; whether it is a failure of Heidegger's not to have provided an ethics; whether ethics is the most interesting branch of philosophy; the definition of "humanism"; the difference between "ontic" and "ontological"; whether Heidegger's investigation of the everyday is to be admired; whether thinking need be useful; what place there is for useless thinking; "Before enlightnment, chopping wood and carrying water: after enlightenment, chopping wood and carrying water"; whether subject/object is an insufficient way to look at things; whether Sartre's notion of authenticity commits him to human nature talk; whether Luddites are cool; the difference between Heidegger's use of "authentic"/"inauthentic" and Sartre's; whether one is justified to scoff at the idea that art is the answer to a technological mindset; the role and use of art; whether a computer screen can give an aesthetic experience as useful as a painting; whether a computer screen can entrance in the same way as a painting; what Heidegger means by claiming that art reveals; whether those who lose a sense of self still count as persons; that we need to develop new relationships to machines and are merging with machines; how our relations with other people are shaped by technology; online personas; "Second life"; whether it's possible or desirable to reverse technology; in what sense our technology might be regressing; and whether technology "reveals" anything. Meeting closed at 8.30pm, and the group moved to the pub next door, where numerous Nazi cards were played.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 16 August 2007. Cancelled due to lecture by Stephen Gaukroger on phantom limbs.

Thursday 2 August 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.50pm. Ian Bryce presented on the ethics of the secular party. Present were John Bentley, Ian Bryce, Judith Clarke, Joan D, Fred Flatow, "I am not a philosopher, I am a free man", James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Discussion included: normativity in science and economics; whether it is possible to derive an ethics from scientific evidence; whether Ian is making an is-ought error; whether Ian's procedure was scientific or purely scientific; the difference between science and scientific principles; whether science disproves religion; whether a Bayesian equation can be used to disprove God, and what sort of subjectivities might be involved in the calculation; whether the mind has any extension in space or time outside the brain; whether science solves the problem of other minds; whether there is an argument to convince the psychopath to be ethical; whether ethics can be reached through a priori reasoning; whether respect for sentience as a starting point leads via consequentialism to straightforward answers to political and moral problems; whether such a position is the same as "the golden rule"; whether such a position justifies hanging Saddam; the difference between sentience and consciousness; whether ethics is a "human invention"; whether one needs a purpose to be happy; the value of Wikipedia; whether we should not respect non-sentient beings; whether utilitarianism conflicts with self-determination; whether there are any gaps in physics; whether there is just one science; whether consciousness could cause brains rather than vice versa; whether one can speak of degrees of sentience. Meeting closed at 8.20pm, and most of the group went next door for dinner and poker.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 19 July 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Judith Clarke presented on Habermas. Present were Pam Aitken, John Bentley, Judith Clarke, someone who didn't sign his name, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Discussion involved: the difference between "lifeworld" and the private sphere; whether the ideals of communicative action are impractical; in what sorts of contexts they could apply; the distinction between communicative and instrumental rationality; the ideal conditions for activist and discussion groups, and which of the Habermasian criteria should be junked; whether people's intuitions should be respected; whether Habermas' model favours rhetoricians; whether all power inequalities can be removed from a communicative context; whether the sheer presence of stakeholders at a meeting will sufficiently protect their interests; whether minorities are sufficiently protected; whether the veto power of the UN security council, and the consensus juries are required to reach, approximate to Habermasian ideals; whether it's possible to find a single ideal structure for communication; and whether Habermasian structures could protect against fascism or government power. Meeting closed after 8pm, and some of the group migrated next door for dinner, to examine and play Nazi cards, and to talk further about things fascist.

Thursday 5 July 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. James Roberts presented on Richard Dawkins' The God delusion. Present were John August, John Bentley, David Bofinger, Judith Clarke, Joan D, Fred Flatow, Luke Langtry, Garganta the giant ape of the universe, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, and Vince Vozzo. Discussion included: the definition of "polemic"; whether polemic is a bad thing; whether "strategy" counts as a justification for polemic; what the good is in Dawkins, and what is the shit; the definition and nature of belief; Russell's teapot, and whether Dawkins should change from "band 6" unbelief to "band 7"; whether the priest and the scientist have non-overlapping spheres; what arguments for deity are convincing; the importance of overturning the God delusion; what our main delusions (about the world generally) are; whether the problem of evil is convincing as a god refutation; that hell is harder to refute than heaven; whether Dawkins is arrogant; whether religion leaves any gap to be filled; what remains after religion; the definition of religion; whether religion has benefitted humanity more than it has cost; whether humanity's achievements were possible without religion; whether we ought to have a society without religion; whether one should oppose God even if He existed; whether Dawkins' book is better entitled "The organized religion delusion"; the basis on which probability is gauged; in what sense people believe contradictory things and how this is possible; whether people "doublethink" themselves (ie claim to believe in a religion, but act as if they don't, or vice versa) -- and whether this shows hypocrisy; why people ever abandon belief in Santa Claus; the significance of the fact that children don't question prior to a certain age; whether intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo; the worth of reading Dawkins; the definition of intelligence; the role of insult in debate; what's required of a complete explanation; whether religion, as opposed to deity, is good or bad; whether religions provoke the imagination and provide new ways of generating concepts; whether being spiritual aids creativity; whether one reaches a point where it's just questions of faith and there's nothing more to say; whether there is a psychological need for religion. We got pushed out of the room at 8pm by Toni Collette, and meeting closed at 8.30pm, whereupon various irregulars lingered on at the pub till midnight.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 21 June 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Topic was Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Present were: Judith Clarke, Matt Hammerton, Luke Langtry, a sinister servant of Satan, Tamara Pallos, Adrian Tan, and another. Discussion involved: whether our use of words like "truth" can be explained by appeal to the community; whether all beliefs are open to question; whether ethical norms should be derived from the community (Nazi card played); the interpretation of Two dogmas; the origins of morality; whether words constrain thought; whether it is foolish to search for certainty; whether admitting an entity to the ethical community is always a choice; whether the concept of knowledge varies across different communities; whether Rorty relies on a disputable historical narrative to make his case; whether there was no problem of mind before Descartes; whether Descartes' problem is worth pursuing; the processes by which ideas become mainstream; whether Quine's approach to epistemology is preferable to Rorty's; the definition of scientism; authority and power; the definition, attractions, and problems of relativism; the limits and endpoints of reason; whether truth can vary over time; the prudential and epistemic attractions of pluralism. Meeting closed at 8.30pm, and discussion at the pub afterwards touched on, inter alia, the philosophy of dancing.

Thursday 7 June 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were: John Bentley, Judith Clarke, John McIntyre, I represent myself here, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, and Ali. James Roberts gave a talk on intentionality and representation. Discussion involved: whether there is a problem to be resolved at all; the purpose of a theory of intentionality; whether "iconic" representation is objective and unrelated to social factors (Nelson Goodman: a photo of a building resembles paper more than it resembles a buiding); what other types of representation are imaginable; whether a car speedometer represents; the interpretation of cases of misrepresentation; seeing that vs seeing as; whether intentionality without consciousness is possible (sleepwalking; blindsight); and problems of consciousness. Meeting closed at 8.30pm.

Thursday 24 May 2007. Meeting cancelled due to Joseph Berkowitz's talk on economics and ethics.

Thursday 10 May 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were Karen Burton, Judith Clarke, tonight I will be Edward, Luke Langtry, Marc Marusic, John McIntyre, Leon M, David O, Tamara Pallos, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, and Ian Woolf, and diverse others. Topic was early hermeneutics (Dilthey and Schleiermacher). Discusssion included: whether, and in what sense, we can know the author better than themselves; degrees of certainty in one's interpretation; how one knows when one has misinterpreted or "projected" an interpretation; whether words have "intrinsic" meaning, or whether they're always dependent on and relative to context; whether the idea of definitive interpretation makes sense, or whether the audience's relationship to text is better understood as conversation; what an author can be responsible if one accepts the possibility of multiple interpretations ("I was quoted out of context"); what it would involve to fully reconstruct context; whether a Freudian or Jungian analysis counts as knowing the author better than they know themselves; the definition of "intention"; the notion of "death of the author"; what it means to know anyone better; whether you can make words mean anything you like; the factors on the basis of which interpretations are made; the difference between "literal" and "symbolic" interpretations; the limits of figurative speech; the relation between meaning and agreement; euphemistic words like "detention"; the factors and processes that change the meanings of words; whether people ever really understand each other; and the extent to which exegesis is part of everyday life. Meeting closed at 8.30pm.

Thursday 26 April 2007. Meeting cancelled due to Adrian Heathcote's talk on truth.

Thursday 12 April 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Topic was JL Austin. John Bentley MC'd.

Thursday 29 March 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were Pam Aiken, John Bentley, Rowan Blyth, David Bofinger, Laurel Bradshaw, Judith Clarke, Fred Flatow, Vicki Katsifis, Philip M, the one who shall be known as "I was not here this evening", James Roberts, Adrian Tan, Nadia Woodforde, Michael Zenter, and Robert Zentner. Topic was Baudrillard, especially with reference to Symbolic Exchange and Death. Discussion involved: whether we are more monopolistic than before; whether there are more things for sale, such as class, than there were before; the distinction between wants and needs; how wants might be created; the commonality of conspicious consumption; whether countries such as India still answer to Marxist analyses of production; whether the end of production is inevitable; whether we should want to improve our productive power, but also decrease our labour; the feasability of the idea that we value growth and production for their own sake; the meaningfulness and usefulness of labour; whether there is something to the idea of images being produced for their own sake, or advertising for its own sake; a Rolex watch as an example of meaningless production and fetish economy, and virtual worlds as an example of the hyperreal; literature as produced and unmeaningful; the difficulty of writing something that is not pastiche and already done; the waste of creativity on advertising; whether gods and fantasies are required by human nature; Baudrillard as science fiction; whether Baudrillard's ideas are already encompassed by a standard Marxist analysis of late-stage capitalism; the fragmentation of knowledge and tasks in the modern world (we don't know how plastic is made; we operate on one piece of the factory line); whether art is one, or the only, way out of alienated labour; whether the media depiction of the Gulf War had much to do with what went on; whether technology can solve the problems it's caused. Meeting closed at 8.30pm.

Thursday 15 March 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were John Bentley, Laurel Bradshaw, Judith Clarke, Fred Flatow, Matt Hammerton, Philip M, Tom Mozina, Edward Neylan aka Mr Mysterioso, Patrick Palwer-Thomas, James Roberts, Natalia Soeters, Adrian Tan, Vince Vozzo, and Stephen Whale. This was an open forum. Discussion included, among many other topics: when philosophers should speak and what they should say; when philosophers are morally obliged to speak; philosophers as useful gadflies; the definition of "philosopher", and whether everyone is a philosopher; the trickle down effect of rarefied philosophy into popular discourse; what to do about the God people, the erosion of the church and state line, and the undue influence of closed-shop religious beliefs on politics; whether philosophy as "vocation" is compatible with paid philosophy; the difference between philosophy, ideology, theology, and religion; the ancient origins of communism; whether theology, Santa Claus and philosophy are improper objects of study; whether the purpose of philosophy is clarity of thought; the dangers of divorcing theory from testing; whether philosophy suffers from insufficient empirical testing; what level of empirical testing might be needed; God-belief as revelatory of human nature; the definition of lying; the social conditions that encourage telling of truth; how to pursue objective investigation of truth without quashing unorthodox opinions; the optimum conditions for discussion and decision-making, particularly for large groups; whether decisions should be made by those affected; whether truth is subjective, partial, multiple, or relative to context; whether truth changes; whether absence of certainty makes truth meaningless; whether the policing of the boundaries of "philosophy" is interesting; whether one should give up on concepts of originality; whether any life is ever better or worse; whether there is any inherent good; the grounds for judging what one should do; what is involved in marrying abstract ideas to practice; whether structures, religions, laws, and institutions are necessary for this; whether the "golden rule" admits of exceptions or has self-referential paradoxes; whether September 11 counts as a counter-example to the golden rule; whether happiness is illusory -- the only happy people are insane or dead; whether children should watch porn; the definition of porn; whether porn is unstoppable or normalized; whether civilization would break down and people would run naked in the streets if children had access to porn; how time can be introduced into logic; whether statements are always time-stamped; whether time creates problems for the truth values of statements, particularly in terms of defining the word "now"; whether there is any freedom without limitation; whether freedom is mastery of limitations, or can only be meaningful against a backdrop of constraint; whether there would be any reason to care for other people in a world without objective good and bad; whether opinions without expertise have validity; whether ethics is hopelessly subjective; whether conscious discussion is generally false. Meeting closed at 8.30pm.

Thursday 1 March 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were Pam Aitken, John Bentley, Laurel B, Judith Clarke, Casey Durskovich, Fred Flatow, Matthew Hammerton, Yawei Huang, Edward Neylan aka Hugh Jass, Patrick Palwer-Thomas, Arshia Razavizadeh, Adrian Tan, Ian Woolf, Michael Zentner, and Robert Zentner. Topic was Kant's moral philosophy. Discussion involved: whether ethics is objective; whether Kant makes an is to ought move; whether ethics can or should be formulated such that there are "no exceptions"; that numerous moral laws are applicable at any point in time; whether guessing, rather than certainty, is enough for the practical use of consequentialism; whether Kant's ethics are only applicable in an ideal society; whether Kant oversimplifies in his lying to a murderer example, and real moral decisions are much more complex in terms of relevant factors; whether Kant was being a controversialist; whether Kant is an "absolutist"; whether ethics is possible at all; the definition of lying, and whether one can distinguish white lies from black; whether it's possible to lie to yourself, and, if so, whether lies to the self are always destructive; whether one can derive ethics from what is universally psychologically good or bad for humans; whether universal ethics requires a soul; whether Kant contradicts himself by wanting an ethics divorced from everyday sensibility but relying on arguments from everyday practice to ground his imperative; that the lack of objective facts about ethics needn't entail that we change any of our moral practices; what the meaning of "golden rule" is; whether universal ethics don't, can't, or shouldn't exist; whether human rights count as universals; whether rights-talk is separable from rule-talk; whether it would be better not to have a universal declaration of human rights, and whether this instrument is replaceable with something else; that free will needn't be an answer to the problem of evil; whether deontological and consequential approaches are commensurable; what it takes for something to be an end and not a means, or to treat people as ends and not only as means; that Habermas claims different "levels" to truthful communication depending on the scale of the audience being spoken to, and that to speak truth one needs to operate at all levels; whether what is important to the deontological/consequential divide is intentions; whether intentions should matter in moral evluations; whether all exceptionalism, for instance in the case of the US invasion of Iraq, is bad; that lies to the self are sometimes a good thing; whether ethical practice is a matter of becoming sensitive to many ethical rules rather than knowing the single right rule for any situation; whether most ethical systems aren't basically in contradiction; how one responds on any everyday level to lies; whether it is morally obligatory to reveal to liars that you know they're lying, and why it might be; in what cases one should show compassion to liars and allow them to lie; whether falsehood is wrong when it causes no harm; whether "lies of omission" are wrong; whether good intentions make an act good; whether not revealing you know a liar is lying is itself lying; under what circumstances self-deceit can be justified; the nature of universalizability; the distinction between lying and accidentally telling a falsehood; whether lies will always come out. Meeting closed after 8.30pm, and some of the group moved on to another pub for dinner.

Thursday 15 February 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were Prem A, Joffre Balce, Fred Flatow, Allan McCay, Edward Neylan aka Edward of Bexley, Timothy Scriven, Adrian Tan, Michael Zentner, and Robert Zentner. Topic was Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Discussion involved: whether, and, if so, on what basis, one should assume a thing-in-itself at all; whether one can talk about the thing-in-itself at all; whether the urge to systematize is problematic, and in what way; whether Kant's position on telling the truth to murderers is abhorrent or can be updated; whether the reality/appearance distinction need be maintained; whether Kant succeeds in saving free will; whether one has to think in terms of space and time; whether moral responsibility requires free will; relations between Kant and Chomsky; the similarity of reason going beyond itself to the Wittgensteinian view of language going beyond itself; whether one can have knowledge without language; the extent to which thought and knowledge are limited by language; whether animals have knowledge; whether Kant was a retributionist in terms of his theories on punishment; and the definition of communication. Meeting closed at 8.30pm, and various parties went to Strawberry Hills Hotel for dinner.

Thursday 1 February 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were Pam Aitken, Prue Allan, Joffre Balce, John Bentley, David Bofinger, Fred Flatow, Matthew Hammerton, Alex Harvey, Adrian Tan, Michael Zentner, and Robert Zentner. Topic was Hume's two enquiries. Discussion included: whether pragmatism is a sufficient answer to skepticism; the definition of reason; the definition of philosophy; whether Hume was a skeptical or a positive philosopher; whether Hume's definition of liberty is sufficient; the connection between Hume and Kant; whether there is a compromise between skepticism and dogmatism; whether actions can invalidate beliefs; different types of skeptics; what it means for anything to be knowable; that radical skepticism can be formulated as an attitude rather than as a positive claim; whether one should believe in cause and effect; definition of cause and effect; the desirability of a parsimonious ontology; whether there is an illusion of free will; problems in identifying causes; models of the universe that include alternatives to causation; whether a probabilistic account is the answer to skepticism; whether Lewis' counterfactual definition of causation is adequate; what a dropping of cause and effect would undermine; whether skepticism is a lazy position; whether an attitude of denial is the same as skepticism; whether "A causes B" is "rigorously meaningful" given that a number of conditions have to be in place for B; whether skepticism can be positive; whether risk management enhances trust; the difference between skepticism and hedging one's bets; whether identification of a cause and an effect is always arbitrary, and distorts reality; whether identification of any point of the chain as a cause or an effect is arbitrary; whether the burden of proof is on those who assert the supernatural; what a law of nature is, and the difference between laws and generalizations; whether belief in God is testable; whether "ought" is always conditional; and skepticism regarding other minds. Meeting closed after 8.30pm, and group moved on to the pub.

Thursday 18 January 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were John August, John Bentley, Fred Flatow, Albert Haig, Matt Hammerton, Garry Krimotat, Jurgen Lawrenz, Edward Neylan, Cathy P, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, Michael Zentner, and Robert Zentner. Topic was Spinoza's Ethics. Discussion involved: whether "should" makes sense under determinism; whether Spinoza represents the reductio ad absurdum of a certain way of thinking; how to reconcile a B-theory of time with the finitude of temporal experience; whether determinism undermines reason; whether it is necessary to speak of both God and substance; whether there is a price to developing one's rational abilities; whether emotion is necessary; whether emotions, such as fear, are useful; whether emotions play a part, or should play a part, in reasoning; emotions as informative and as intentional states; whether determinism is ever a consolation, or can cause despair; whether common sense is the answer to the free will question and free will is obvious; the difference between freedom and free will; how particular finite entities are demarcated from the infinite; the impact of determinism on ethics; whether science has increased the illusion of free will by way of options for bodily change; the validity of the reason/passion dichotomy; neurological effects of degrading the emotional centre in the brain; whether God is commensurable with free will if He doesn't know the future or is atemporal; whether neuroscientists should bud out of philosophy; the difference between determinism and fatalism; whether God has complete self-knowledge; the various ways in which determinism is conceded to operate; whether Spinoza's God is a "why bother" God; whether Matt was guilty of scientism; the extent to which we can control passions; whether quantum indeterminism provides room for free will; the difference between a correlation and an identity; whether it is desirable or possible to live without emotions; the distinction between emotions and thoughts; whether it is true that emotions are felt in the body and thoughts are felt in the head; a Wittgensteinian approach to emotions and language; whether subjective experience is a demarcation of what "anger" means; whether the difference between anger and fear could be learnt if there were no behavioural differences. Meeting closed after 8.30pm, and group moved on to the pub.

Thursday 4 January 2007. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were John Bentley, Bruce Hall, Matt Hammerton, Garry Krimotat, Peter Maniatis, Edward Neylan, Adrian Tan, Ellen Watson, Ian Woolf, Michael Zentner, and Robert Zentner. Topics were Epicurus and the ethics of Foucault. Discussion involved: whether desire can be curbed; how it might be curbed; whether it is desirable to curb desire or delay gratification; whether some pleasures are better than others; whether people can become desensitized to pleasure; whether death is an evil; whether it would be desirable to be immortal; whether all pain is negligible; whether it is desirable to remove a longing for immortality; whether the finitide of life adds to life; whether you can have pleasure without pain; what is meant by immortality; whether training of self and discovery of the self come to the same thing; whether identity and a fixed idea of self are evils; whether Foucault is a libertarian; whether homosexuality is genetic; to what extent the self is contingent. Meeting closed at 8.40pm, and various parties moved on to Strawberry Hills.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 21 December 2006. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.40pm. Present were Prue Allan, Tad Boniechi, John Bentley, Matt Hammerton, Edward Neylan aka Mr YNot, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, Ian Woolf, and Michael. This was an open forum. Topics were: meaning; philosophy in education; the morality of conversation. Discussion involved, among many other issues: the meaning of meaning; an attempt to catalogue the ways people acquire meaning; what exactly creates meaning; whether it's coherent to acquire meaning from something external to the self -- for instance, whether individual purpose can ever come from a divine plan; whether it's possible to speak of the meaning of a life at all, or this is a linguistic error; the distinction between meaning and purpose; the relation, if any, between meaning and emotions -- and, in particular, love; whether emotions are meaningless; whether emotions tell you what's meaningful; whether philosophy should be compulsory in school; the possible benefits of it; whether it is too abstruse or advanced; how it might be taught; whether it can be taught as method rather than as content; whether it teaches people how to think; whether the skills, if any, of philosophy are not already taught as part of other disciplines; what is specific to philosophy; whether children thirst for it; whether anything should be compulsory, including schooling; whether philosophy can be extracted from every children's story; whether philosophy is pointless; whether it has ever achieved anything or changed the world; whether it's more valuable than religion; what its relative value is compared with other subjects; what philosophy is; whether everyone is already philosophical; the extent to which philosophy underpins everyday life and governmental decisions; whether it is immoral to interrupt someone; whether there are situations in which it is immoral not to interrupt; whether morality applies to conversation at all; the discipline of listening; the conditions under which interruption is and isn't desirable; and whether conversation is about more than maximizing truth claims -- for instance, it might also be about giving people space to try to express themselves. Meeting closed at 8.45pm, and various parties went on to a Strawberry Hills eating establishment.

Thursday 7 December 2006. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were John Bentley, Will Introna, Adrian Mong, Edward Neylan, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, Ellen Watson, Michael Zentner, and Robert Zentner. Topics were Marcus Aurelius' Meditations and Robert Nozick's The examined life. Discussion included: whether it is possible or desirable to live your life completely rationally; the benefits of irrationality and randomness, and what you'd miss out on by living completely rationally; what it means to act rationally, what rationality is; whether more deliberation makes your life go better; the place of emotions in Stoicism; whether rational/irrational is an unnecessary dichotomy; whether personifying nature is a mistake; whether one can deliberate about ends, and not only means; whether Aurelius is purporting to deliberate about ends; whether you should be sorry when someone dies of AIDS or at one's child's death; whether one should not worry about what one can't control; whether there is any point in being sad; whether there is a danger in being dismissive of emotion; the importance of grieving; whether the infinity of time and space makes our lives insignificant; whether Nozick is wrong to suggest that reality is important; whether people actually would trade some amount of happiness for an upwardly sloping curve; the status of thought experiments; whether it's false that emotions make reality more vivid; whether it is right to pursue happiness; whether one can measure happiness; and whether emotions are intentional states, have aboutness and facticity, and can be right or wrong. Meeting closed at 8.45pm, and the group relocated to its usual after-meeting haunt.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 23 November 2006. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were Pam Aitken, Prudence Allan, Edward Neylan, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Topic was the Confucian Analects. Discussion included: whether Confucius is relevant; whether there is any sense in being deferential to the past, to elders, and to ancestors; how much deference is too much; forms of deference in modern society; the advantages of a sense of community; whether Confucius is simply about social control; why Confucius became prominent and where his originality lay; what's wrong with national pride; whether nations should apologize for the actions of past governments; whether there is value in maintaining a link with the past; whether self-actualization requires a community; the forms of modern-day sages and whether it is desirable to have them or to be one; whether it is desirable to become an "exemplary person"; what it means to become an exemplary person. Meeting closed at 8.30pm, and the group moved on to the Strawberry Hills Pub, to be later joined by Ellen Watson.

Handout available on request.

Sunday 12 November 2006. Bondi Pavilion. Group met at 12pm for the Sculpture by the Sea walk. Present were Prudence Allan, John Bentley, Alex Livingston, and Ian Woolf. Discussion involved, among many other things: whether a country can be held morally responsible; the nature of the sublime; and whether the sublime is always mysterious. Group left Bondi after 5.30pm.

Thursday 9 November 2006. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were: Prudence Allan, John Bentley, Rachel Keys, Tibor Molnar, Edward Neylan, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, Ellen Watson, Phil Wong, Michael Zentner, and Robert Zentner. Topic was Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. Discussion involved: the idea of a language of thought; whether a computer can learn languages; how languages might be acquired; ostensive definitions and whether Wittgenstein is compatible with Saussure; whether difference is key to meaning; why Wittgenstein is important; whether the therapy view of philosophy is apt; how many philosophical problems are problems of language; whether all language can be construed as games; whether meanings are in the head after all; whether it is meaningful to talk about subjective experience if it is inaccessible; what vagueness is; whether it is useful to think in terms of a "struggle" over words related to power interests. Meeting closed at 8.30pm.

Thursday 26 October 2006. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. Present were: John Bentley, Edward Neylan, and Adrian Tan. Meeting was an open forum, and discussion involved Europe, the short skirt defence of rape, the benefits of travel, the morality of prostitution, the definition of "value", the most pressing ethical matters. The group walked down to Hyde Park and Circular Quay, and parted around 10.30pm.

Thursday 12 October 2006. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. James Roberts MC'd. James spoke on honour and John Bentley spoke on virtue.

Thursday 28 September 2006. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.30pm. John Bentley MC'd a session on "what is the most important question?". James Roberts pointed out that most of the questions proposed were to do with the good life than with metaphysics or science.

Thursday 14 September 2006. The Gaelic Club. Meeting opened at 6.35pm. Present were: John Bentley, David Bofinger, Marco Crespo, Tibor Molnar, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Topic was philosophy of language from Frege to Putnam. Discussion involved: whether claims about pegasi are meaningful, false, or true; whether "sense" is sufficient for meaning; whether claims about bald French kings pass a threshold test of meaningfulness; the definition of fiction (a falsehood that doesn't pretend to be true?); whether nothingness can be an entity; whether we're free to give any word any meaning we like; Brandom on conceptual commitments; whether the analytical approach to language is too narrow -- whether language extends far beyond the traditional problematics; the conditions for a sentence being nonsense; how one can tell that a sentence is nonsense; how to parse "present king of France is bald" in javascript; whether the criterion of meaning for an utterance is that action can be taken on it; whether no sentence is nonsensical, and there is "meaning" to grunts; whether anything that gives rise to thoughts/emotions is meaningful; what language is; and to what extent one should be charitable in judging whether an utterance is meaningful. Meeting closed at 8.30pm, and participants moved on to the Strawberry Hills pub, to discuss what's at stake in philosophy of language, whether utilitarianism requires we defend the lion's prey from the lion, and whether populations will naturally tend to slow their rate of increase.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 31 August 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 6.10pm. Present were: Pam Aitken, John Bentley, Marco Crespo, Peter Farleigh, Simon Koreshoff, Tibor Molnar, and Adrian Tan. Topic was a number of papers by Quine, on empiricism, ontology, and epistemology. Discussion involved: whether physicalism and phenomenalism are separate or competing systems; what constitues a proof; whether democracy exists; definition of democracy; whether there is a hippopotamus in the room; the difference between empirical and logical questions; whether god or anything else can be proved not to exist; the ontological status of mathematics; whether mathematics is a "language"; whether we are born knowing logical laws; whether any belief can be held without exception; whether we need the concept of the innate; whether any (intentional) beliefs are innate, such as "I love my mother"; whether something must be doubtable to count as a belief; the difference between "belief" and "knowledge"; whether knowledge is simply a belief that's believed to be true; whether Quine makes a complete argument for naturalized epistemology; whether "square circle" is meaningful; and whether analytic philosophy suffers from "the fallacy of the perfect dictionary". Meeting closed after 8pm, and most stayed on till late discussing, among other things, innate intentionality and ethical leapings into the void.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 17 August 2006. Meeting postponed due to lecture by Michael Devitt.

Thursday 3 August 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 6.10pm. Present were: John Bentley, Marco Crespo, Reilly McCarron, Edward Neylan, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Topic was Shinto, based on Thomas P Kasulis' Shinto: the way home. Discussion involved: whether religion is always able, or indeed liable, to be used to reinforce state power or nationalism; whether a separation between church and state is essential; whether adulation of government/a monarch is inherently bad; whether state moral instruction is evil; whether Shinto is ecologically helpful; whether exclusive or state religions are predisposed to expansionism; the difference between "way of life" and religion; the factors that render a religion a fit object for syncretism; the definition of spirituality; whether "spirituality" is an unhelpful or confusing concept; the use and evil of tradition; the difference between religion and spirituality; what things generate awe; whether what generates awe is relative to the individual; what types of awe there might be; whether government requires awe; and whether Shinto can overturn mind/body dualism. Meeting closed at 8.10pm, and most of the group stayed on for dinner, discussing such topics as the definition of religion and significant innate psychological differences between the genders.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 20 July 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 6.10pm. Present were: John August, John Bentley, Rene Macquart, Peter Maniatis, Edward Neylan, Gary Sholler, Adrian Tan, Ellen Watson, and Ian Woolf. John Bentley presented a discussion of Mill's On liberty with respect to the topic of anti-paternalism. John's talk is available here. Discussion involved, among other topics: whether a psychiatric patient should be drugged against their wishes; how to define "mature faculties"; how to define "harm"; whether the harm principle should cover harm by the self to the self; whether any action the individual takes can avoid affecting others; whether absolute liberty is desirable, inside or outside a social context; whether one can speak of the liberty of the group as opposed to the liberty of the individual; whether public interest is a valid notion; whether society is necessary in order to have liberty or to maximize happiness; whether the self is really under the yoke of opinion; whether we should allow ourselves absolute freedom; whether liberty means absolute freedom; the benefits of restraint; whether a centralized government is the best way to promote and protect liberty; whether liberty should be an obligation; whether an anarchic form of organization is viable; and whether the state should help you "harm" yourself. Meeting closed at 8.15pm, and various parties stayed on till 11pm discussing such topics as good fascisms, goat starers, the ethics of playing chess, lock-picking, whether there is any interaction problem between subjective experience and material reality, the permissibility of the word "surely" in philosophical discussion, whether Peter Singer's writing should be taken as the model of philosophical writing, and the definition of linguistic meaning.

Thursday 6 July 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 6.15pm. Present were: John Bentley, Christopher Black, Christopher's companion, Simon Koreshoff, Skye Nettleton, Edward Neylan, William Paton, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Topic was continental philosophy, based on The continental philosophy reader, edited by R Kearney and M Rainwater. Particular passages discussed were by Levinas, Luxemburg and Lyotard. Discussion involved, among many other topics: whether poetry is philosophy; whether one requires an Other or a social environment in order to have or form or be aware of a self; whether other people are an important condition of self growth, a complete self, self knowledge, or the rich life; when solitude is desirable; whether language is required for thought or for self; whether it is possible to regard the environment as an Other; what it's possible for social organization to emerge from mass consciousness as opposed to being imposed by a central group; whether socialism is a failed experiment; to what extent individual freedom or respect is compatible with communism; how close communist Russia was to Marx's ideal; to what extent socialist principles are integrated into Western liberal democracies; whether China represents a successful combination of socialism and capitalism; the plausibility of a guaranteed living allowance; whether a guaranteed living allowance could be compatible with social affluence; whether centralised systems "have their own logic"; whether the idea of the unpresentable is intelligible; the defintion of the sublime; and the sublime as a worthwhile aim of life. Meeting closed at 8.20pm, and various parties stayed on till 11pm discussing such topics as Big Brother, the formats of Melbourne philosophy groups, the necessity of mental images for understanding, the continental/analytic line, and the balance between studying and creating.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 22 June 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.20pm. Present were: John Bentley, Edward Neylan, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Topic was ethics of critical theory and postmodernism, with reference to Marcuse and Foucault, based on The continental ethics reader, edited by M Calarco and P Atterton. Discussion involved: the prerequisites for eliminating work; the definition of "false need" and the appropriateness of the word "need"; how "false needs" might be challenged; whether capitalism will necessarily lead to false needs; whether advertising does "create" needs, and in what manner it might; in what ways a laissez-faire market should be regulated; whether there are any "needs" at all; whether the desire to live can be viewed as a "want" in view of the option of suicide; who should decide what needs are false, and whether the group could agree on any "false needs"; what counts as "self mastery"; whether it is meaningfully different from "know thyself"; whether Foucault was an existentialist after all; whether one should devote time to practices of self mastery; whether it is unethical to live a life of self mastery, or to devote any time at all to self-interest; whether it could ever be ethical to devote any time to self-interest; whether notebooks help form a relationship to oneself; the justification of "for itself"; what an "aesthetics of existence" might mean, and whether such a thing might be worth pursuing; and whether a "scientific" ethics is possible or desirable. Meeting closed at 7pm, and various parties stayed on till 10.30pm, discussing, inter alia, to what extent one should be open to being corrected; whether there is a concept of "true self" smuggled into Foucault; whether Nietzschean ethics cast any light on Foucauldian ethics; the repercussions of identifying oneself as "mad"; whether identifying oneself as x necessarily involves a desire for importance in the eyes of others; what sorts of unique experiences computer games can provide; and the transferability of skills learnt in games.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 8 June 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.20pm. Present were: John Bentley, Peter Maniatis, Edward Neylan, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Topic was ethics of phenomenology and existentialism, based on The continental ethics reader, edited by M Calarco and P Atterton. Discussion involved: whether phenomenology answers questions of other minds and the reality of an external world; whether these questions are unanswerable; whether these questions can be ignored; whether answering the question of other minds is a prerequisite to ethics; whether Sartre succeeds in giving existentialism an ethical dimension; whether every action has an ethical dimension to it; whether the concept of authenticity is strait-jacketing; whether one can move from an "is" to an "ought" given a "teleological is"; the nature of angst/anguish; whether existentialism need involve angst; and whether existentialism counts as a philosophy. Meeting closed at 7pm.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 25 May 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were: Jared Ball, John Bentley, Edward Neylan, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Topic was volume one of Foucault's History of sexuality. Discussion included: whether it is drawing a long bow to relate architecture to sex; whether the relevant discourse with respect to education is sexuality-based or gender-based; whether, and if so, how sexuality is repressed now; the definition of "repression"; whether Foucault was correct in his critique of the "repression"; whether repression creates sexuality or stamps it out; fucking in public and the "right not to be offended"; whether taboos about sex should be removed; the dangers of "cheapening" or devaluing sex; the anticlimax of sex; whether "sexuality" is worth discussing as compared to sex; and the justifiability and power-role of the age of consent. Meeting closed at 7pm.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 11 May 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were: Mark Avery, Jared Ball, Thea Kremser, Alan McCay, Edward Neylan, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Topics were paradoxes of time travel, nature of time, and free will, based on Nicholas JJ Smith's course reader "Reality, time and possibility". Discussion involved: whether it "makes sense" to talk of going back in time, the significance of making sense, whether sperm time travel when they're frozen, representation of time in film, the nature of "unmediated" or "pure" experience of time, eternalism vs presentism, the time lag in experience (so that we always experience the past), in what sense "being an admirer of Socrates" can be cashed out, whether moral responsibility is compatible with determinism, whether perfect predictability is compatible with free will, whether free will is testable, whether free will is a coherent notion. Meeting closed at 7.10pm, and the group stayed on till at least 8.30pm.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 27 April 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were: Prudence Allan, John August, John Bentley, Edward Neylan, Nigel Pedersen, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Topic was metaphysics, based on Introductory readings in metaphysics, edited by Richard Taylor. Discussion involved, inter alia: complications that Star Trek transporters pose for the concept of self; the definition of metaphysics; the relation of "predictable" to "caused"; the relation of free will to the justice system; revelatory knowledge of God; the divine watchmaker argument; and replies to the problem of evil. Meeting closed at 7pm, and the group stayed on till 9.30pm discussing topics such as the value of books over films, and the moral difference between act and omission.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 13 April 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were: Jared Ball, John Bentley, Hanna Hwang, Edward Neylan, Tuan Phvan, James Roberts, Ben Swanton, and Adrian Tan. Topic was philosophy of economics, based on The philosophy of economics: an anthology, edited by Daniel M. Hausman. Discussion involved, inter alia: whether everything (in particular, air and water) should become a commodity, whether there's more than one way of valuing things, whether honour and status are evaluable in cash terms, whether economics "leaves out" important concerns (like the quality of jobs), faith in the invisible hand of the market, whether economics is a solvable puzzle, whether we should strive for any utopia, whether any utopia is feasible, whether there's any sort of global consensus on values or on the elements of an ideal political system, conflicts in Vietnam between material and "philosophical" goals, whether there's any non-ideological economics, what sort of utopian or normative assumptions are smuggled into neo-classical economics (eg the idea of "growth", or insufficient treatment of quality of products and externalities), and whether the economic system is "teleological" or should be viewed as evolving without a fixed point. Meeting closed at 7pm, and various parties stayed on till 9pm.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 30 March 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.15pm. Present were: Prudence Allan, John Bentley, Owen Macindoe, Edward Neylan, James Roberts, Adrian Tan, and Zianhang Zhang. Topic was philosophy of law, based on Margaret Davies' Asking the law question. Presentation involved: natural law, positivism, formalism, legal realism, law and economics, critical legal studies, varieties of feminism, postmodernism and poststructuralism. Discussion involved: whether law requires organisation or government or power; whether there are areas of life it is inappropriate to legislate with respect to; whether there are any universal morals, natural laws, or conclusions that different ethical systems invariably come to; whether there is a minimal content to all legal systems; the difference, if any, between law and cricket; the justifiability of the adversarial system; whether juries or judges should be abolished; the legal profession's monopoly; problems with the incomprehensibility and complexity of law and legalese; whether lawyers should be permitted on juries; whether postmodernism is relativism; whether law is describable in economic terms; whether jurors should be allowed to profit from a trial; and whether the formalists were right. Meeting closed at 7.30pm, and various parties stayed on till 9pm.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 16 March 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.05pm. Present were: John Bentley, David Bofinger, Maria Chan, Catherine Jones, Edward Neylan, Nick Olsen, Tuan Phvan, John Rawson, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. This week was an open forum on ethical issues. Speakers were Adrian Tan (ethics of media), David Bofinger (which of our everyday practices will future generations look at with horror), Tuan Phvan (whether business and ethics are reconcilable), and Nick Olsen (what's wrong with relativism). Discussion involved, among many other topics: the promise of the Internet for freedom of opportunity, the accountability of journalists, whether commercial motives interfere with ethical reporting, Danish cartoons, cultural sensitivity, and rights to offend, liability for the consequences of speech, whether speech needs the power to influence in order to be free, the freedom to incite violence, whether Iraq will be regarded as a great atrocity, cultural trends in ethical attitudes, difficulties in social prediction, whether cooperative behaviour in business is ethically desirable over competitive behaviour, whether profit as a motivation is incommensurable with ethical behaviour, what truth there is to the market's invisible hand producing desirable results, whether the hierarchial structure of business leads to systemic unethical behaviour, and why we argue about ethics at all. Meeting closed at 7.45pm, and further discussion involved the evolution of punctuation, and the categorisation of thinking as visual, kinaesthetic, or auditory.

Thursday 2 March 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.30pm. Present were: John August, John Bentley, Owen Macindoe, Edward Neylan, Tir Retta, James Roberts, Heather ?Steven, and Adrian Tan. General topic was practical ethics (based on Caroline West's course reader). Particular topics were euthanasia, abortion, and pornography. Discussion involved: whether organ donation should be obligatory (eg, the extent to which people's interests should be allowed to reach past death to, for instacen, they way they're perceived by posterity, whether an individual can or should be viewed as a social resource, whether chopping someone up devalues them or humanity as a whole), whether intentions should be morally significant, what constitutes a morally significant characteristic, how to work out who has rights, how to resolve conflicts between rights, "pornography" vs "erotica", whether there is a moral obligation to learn more about sex (and therefore to watch porn), whether pornography teaches you or changes you, whether the restriction of liberty on the grounds of harm is applicable to porn, the nature of the harm done to the actors in a porn film, how desire is formed and norms of sex perpetuated, the nature of objectification (whether pornography causes it, whether any sexual arousal involves it), the consequences of criminalizing something, whether pornography is defensible on artistic grounds, and whether attention should be directed towards banning an act (eg murder in a snuff film) rather than to banning depiction of the act. Meeting closed at 7pm, and some of the group stayed on till late.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 16 February 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were: Andrew Bennett, John Bentley, David Bofinger, Peter Maniatis, Owen Macindoe, Tibor Molnar, Edward Neylan, Tuan Phvan, James Roberts, and Adrian Tan. Topic was Peter Singer's Practical ethics. Discussion involved, inter multa alia: how to define an "interest" and what qualities are required to have "interests"; how to actually perform the calculus, how to resolve conflicting interests; what it's like to be another creature; whether it's permissible to take into account the interests of potential people; the definition of "utilitarianism"; and whether the distinction between act and omission is morally irrelevant. Meeting closed at 7pm, and many of the group stayed on.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 2 February 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were Prudence Allan, John Bentley, Tibor Molnar, Derek Muller, Edward Neylan, Tir Retta, James Roberts, Luke Ryves, Sean Seefried, Adrian Tan, Arthur Torossita, and Xianhang Zhang. Topic was technology and sustainability. Discussion included: the definition of "technology", the treatment of technology as an attitude or an autonomous force, whether technology is "value neutral", whether there should be any restraints on inquiry, whether inquiry is able to be restrained, whether technophilic attitudes are nature or nurture, resource usage and limits to growth, long-term feasibility of recycling, whether a "reversion to the primitive" is the, or the best, solution, faith in technology, happiness and abundance, and the conditions of radical attitude change. Meeting closed at 7pm, and half the group stayed on till late.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 19 January 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.05pm. Present were Prudence Allan, John Bentley, Chris De Lima, Peter Maniatis, Tuan Phvan, Trent Reardon, Tir Retta, James Roberts, Stephen Rogers and Adrian Tan. Topic was Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. Discussion included: the difference between "eudaimonia" and "happiness"; the conflation of self-interest and morality in ancient ethics; whether happiness is definable or is purely subjective; the relation between Aristotle and Buddhism; whether friendship has anything to do with virtue; and whether friends are necessary for the good life (can one, for instance, be happy on an island of robots). Meeting closed at 6.35pm.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 5 January 2006. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were Prudence Allan, John Bentley, David Bofinger, Tuan Phvan and Adrian Tan. Topic was cosmopolitanism, based on Duncan Ivison's Usyd course. Discussion involved: the powers and efficacy of the UN, human rights vs national sovereignty, the definition of "international problem", the possibility of an open borders policy, the plausibility of comparing the divide between rich and poor countries to "feudalism", the reconcilability of universalist and particularist ethics, and national identity vs cosmopolitan outlook. Meeting closed at 6.45pm, and various parties stayed on talking about swear words, offence, shock, and cryogenics till 8.30pm.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 8 December 2005. The Royal. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were John Bentley, David Bofinger, Marc Inberg, Tibor Molnar, Edward Neylan, William Spaul, Adrian Tan, and Ian Woolf. This week the philosophy game was played. Discussion touched on: (1) the justifiability of torture (how to define it; why it's so objectionable; whether, and if so, why, it is a "special category"; whether morality is something that cannot be "done in solitude" and an atrocity changes the moral rules; whether the pro-torture argument assumes an absolute right to defend lives; and whether there aren't always alternatives to torture); (2) the possibility of a sixth sense (the definition of sense and whether we already know we have more than five; how to answer "is it possible" questions; seeing new colours; the role subjective experience plays in behaviour, especially given blindsight; the difficulty with treating sense data as direct, untouched information; the role of subjective experience in physicalist causation; the epistemological conditions required to demonstrate a sixth sense); (3) the provocation defense to murder (what counts as provocation; what's wrong with the eggshell plaintiff principle; whether there are limitations on individualizing law; whether provocation should be considered at all; whether the standard should be reasonable person in the street; what "lose control" means; the objectivity and subjectivity of the test). Adrian abandoned the group for Steki Taverna at 6.30pm, and John Bentley took over the reins.

Thursday 24 November 2005. Manning level 1. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were John Bentley, David Bofinger, Tibor Molnar and Adrian Tan. Topics were: communitarianism, citizenship theory, multiculturalism, and feminism. Discussion involved, among other things: the degree of specificity with which a government should structure civic life; whether good ideas will naturally rise to the fore in a free cultural marketplace; whether the notion of free speech requires attention to conditions of speaking such as the physical health of the speaker; whether speech is not really free unless your audience understands and reflects on what you say; whether it's possible to embrace a mix of political philosophies; whether the prerequisites for or demands of Australian citizenship should be more stringent; whether citizenship should be revoked from criminals; whether multiculturalism is fundamentally divisive; whether it's possible to avoid identifying yourself with a group. Meeting closed at 7.10pm.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 10 November 2005. Manning level 1. Meeting opened at 5.05pm. Present were John August, John Bentley, David Bofinger, Aston Kwok, Tibor Molnar, Adrian Tan, Chris Watkins, and Ian Woolf. Topics were utilitarianism, liberal equality, libertarianism, and Marxism. Dicussion included, among many other things: the possibility of getting rid of utilitarian calculations; moral obligations to intervene to protect animals; "command" vs "control"; the extent to which free riders are a problem for the welfare state; feasability of the nightwatchman state; whether many social problems, especially in an international context, are due to insufficient property rights; and the concept of meaningful work. Meeting closed at 7.10pm.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 27 October 2005. Manning level 1. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were John Bentley, Alex Livingston, Tilahun Retta, and Adrian Tan. This week was an open forum. Topics included: whether migration restriction is comparable to a feudal system, or to racial segregation, particularly when advocated on cultural or economic protectionist grounds; whether society should aim towards full unemployment (discussion involved the suggestion of a minimum allowance or dole for all citizens, problems with motivation, the possibility of abolishing work, the role of technology, possible benefits to work in itself, efficiency of invisible hands, and the desirability of utopias); whether people should be allowed to lead bad lives; whether the concept of good makes sense without any possible beneficiary; whether there must be things that are good for the sake of themselves; whether language is adequate to catch reality; and whether sci-fi examples that pose problems for our concepts demonstrate the inadequacy of our concepts. Meeting closed at 7pm, and various parties lingered in Glebe till 9pm.

Thursday 13 October 2005. Manning level 1. Meeting opened at 5.15pm. Present were Dan Addison, John Bentley, Tilahun Retta, Adrian Tan, and Xianhang Zhang. Topic was Dr Caroline West's lecture on "Illusions and delusions of happiness" the night before. John Bentley gave a short talk clarifying the issues. Discussion included: how to break the impasse between hedonist, desire fulfilment, and objective list theories; potential problems with idealized desire fulfilment (the main claim went to possible impracticality); whether and, if so, how prudential and moral good are connected; and whether attention to desire formation was being neglected. Meeting closed at 6pm, and half the group went on to Bob Brandom's talk on concepts as moves in an inferential game.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 29 September 2005. Manning level 1. Meeting opened at 5.15pm. Present were Dan Addison, John Bentley, Edward Neylan, Tilahun Retta, and Adrian Tan. Topic was definition of, nature of, and possible problems with democracy, as per Duncan Ivison's course reader. Discussion particularly revolved around democracy vs some form of meritocracy, with reference to: Plato's "philosopher-kings", legal moralism and paternalism, the role of the judiciary, the concept of objective good, and the possibility of identifying a specifically philosophical mode of thinking. Discussion also involved: politics of ideas vs politics of presence, the ability of one person to understand another, and political apathy and lack of engagement. Meeting closed at 7pm, and various parties stayed on in Glebe till 11.15pm.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 15 September 2005. Manning level 1. Meeting opened at 5.15pm. Present were John Bentley, Ian Jacobs, Edward Neylan, and Adrian Tan. Topic was the interviews with Habermas and Derrida in Giaovanna Borradori's Philosophy in a time of terror. John Bentley delivered a ten-minute talk on difficulties with the definition of "terrorism" (is the word meaningful or useful?), and on terrorism and free speech. Discussion involved: when is it right to kill non-combatants; whether (and if so, when) expressing an immoral view is an immoral act; the connection between speech, action, behaviour; why a terrorist action should be treated any differently to "ordinary" crimes; the "materialistic fallacy" involved in Habermas' claims; the strategy of focusing on "root causes"; the alleged "anarchy" of al-Qaeda's acts; the difference between tolerance and hospitality; the possibility of a world state; and why a world state might not be the last word of the political. Meeting closed at 7pm.

Background reading as first planned: None required, but feel free to check out the interviews with Habermas and Derrida in Philosophy in a time of terror by Giaovanna Borradori (about 70 pages).

Handout available on request.

Thursday 1 September 2005. The Royal pub. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were John Bentley, Barbara Burgess, Thea Kremser, Tibor Molnar, Jeff Ruffels, Adrian Tan, and Xianhang Zhang. Topic was the entirety of Alan Chalmers's What is this thing called science?. Discussion involved: defining science by subject matter or by methodology, the reliability of induction, especially statistics-based induction, the aptness of philosophy of science with respect to evolutionary science, progress in science, whether scientists should be taught philosophy of science, and the whole point of philosophy of science. Meeting closed at 7pm, and various parties stayed till 11pm, discussing the difference between Kuhn and Lakatos, John Brogden and whether people should always be told the truth, and the nature of the shocking.

Background reading as first planned: If you're keen, check out the first hundred or so pages of What is this thing called science?, third edition.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 18 August 2005. The Royal pub. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were John Bentley, Adrian Tan, and Celia from Wollongong. Topic was how to decide what's right. Discussion involved: natural law and Nazism, whether Kantian ethics can be criticized on intuitive grounds, the interplay between intuition and morality, the nature of "intuitions", utilitarianism and gang rape, contract theory and international law, rights for/duties towards plants, the bases on which rights are assigned, and whether it's possible to approach ethics in any other way than searching for the perfect system. Meeting closed at 7pm.

Background reading as first planned: No reading required, but, if you're keen, check out the last part of Singer's Ethics. Also, check out Will Kymlicka's discussion of utilitarianism in Contemporary political philosophy.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 4 August 2005. The Royal pub. Meeting opened at 5.10pm. Present were Aaron B, John Bentley, Katie B, Thea Kremser, Shane Maher, Tibor Molnar, Treat Reardon, and Adrian Tan. Topic was ultimate good. Discussion involved: concept of enlightenment, happiness in Christianity, states of "flow" in athletes, self-interest vs ethics, curiosity and life as goals distinct from happiness, pacifism, whether happiness is quantifiable, right/wrong vs good/bad, varieties of experience machines, whether desire-fulfilment theories are reducible to hedonistic theories, and the ambit of the term "moral". Half the attendees left at 6.40pm, half the remainder left at 8.40pm, and the rest stayed till 11.10pm.

Background reading as first planned: No reading required, but, if you're keen, check out the fourth part of Singer's Ethics. About 60 pages. And if you're keener, check out Will Kymlicka's discussion of utilitarianism in Contemporary political philosophy, and/or Robert Nozick's book, The examined life.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 21 July 2005. The Royal pub. Meeting opened at 5.15pm. Present were John Bentley, Tibor Molnar, Glen Pead and Adrian Tan. Talk on the role of reason in ethics. Discussion involved: the difference between descriptive and prescriptive ethics; ethics among non-human animals; the existence of moral facts; how an ethical system could be axiomatized; analogies between objectivity in mathematics and in ethics; resolving disputes between incommensurable ethical systems; sustainability and faith in science; and hypothetical psychopaths. Meeting closed at 8.15pm.

Background reading as first planned: No reading required, but, if you're keen, check out the the third part of Ethics, edited by Peter Singer. About 50 pages.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 7 July 2005. Wentworth level 5. Meeting opened at 4.45pm. Present were John Bentley, Thea Kremser, Tibor Molnar, Pedro Nunes, Trent Reardon and Adrian Tan. Discussion was on the origins of ethics, and inspired by the readings in Ethics, edited by Peter Singer. Discussion included: the difference between "ethics" and "morals", whether ethics are normative or descriptive, whether ethics are social or genetic in origin, whether animals can be said to have ethics, the role of self-awareness, the evolutionary advantage of ethics, moral relativism, and determinism. Meeting closed at 6.10pm, and half of the group proceeded to The Royal.

Background reading as first planned: The first part of Ethics, edited by Peter Singer.

Handout available on request.

Thursday 23 June 2005. Wentworth level 4. Meeting opened at 4.30pm. Present were John Bentley and Trent Reardon. Discussion included bad ego, money and satisfaction, and desires to impress.

Thursday 9 June 2005. Wentworth level 4. Meeting opened at 4.50pm. Present were Karen Crighton, Thea Kremser, Trent Reardon and Adrian Tan. The philosophy game was played, and the questions were: "Should human engineering be banned or encouraged?" (whether, in our current society, genetic research is done responsibly; redefining the "human", the extent to which we already intervene in what evolution hands us); "Do we each have a soulmate?" (whether belief in soulmates commits you to belief in souls, the point of romantic relationships, whether you require such a relationship to be happy or fulfilled, the nature of such fulfilment, being spoiled for choice, variety of possible relationships), "Why do we dream?" (discussion about subconsciousness and interpretation of dreams), and "Are you worried about bird flu?" (apocalyptic thinking, moral and ethical ramifications of impending disaster, volatility of civilization). Meeting closed at 6.30pm.

Thursday 26 May 2005. Wentworth level 4. Meeting opened at 4.30pm. Present were John Bentley, Karen Crighton, Trent Reardon and Adrian Tan. The philosophy game was played, and the questions were: "What is the point of travel?" (the information one gains about humans in general or about one's own society, the ways in which you're changed or not changed, escape and freedom, the possibility of genetic dispositions to travel, possible ethical or moral dimensions to the question); "What should we do and how should we do it?" (meaningfulness of the question in the abstract, goal-setting, collective purposes, determinism and ethics, what counts as good decision-making, self-interest vs morality); "Should torture be legalised?" (inviolable rights, rights-based vs value-based, maximising happiness and minimizing suffering, practical effects of torture, slippery slopes, whether it is ever wrong to use force); "Is there such a thing as spirit?" (non-physical vapours vs emergent intentionality and consciousness). Meeting closed after 6.30pm.

Thursday 12 May 2005. Wentworth level 5 and then 4 when we were dislocated by the Student Life people. Meeting opened at 4.30pm. Present were John Bentley, Thea Kremser, Trent Reardon, Adrian Tan and Peter. The philosophy game was played, and the questions were: is there an observable, absolute reality (everyone agreed on an "absolute reality", but there was difficulty in saying what this means and justifying it; discussion tended to focus on the question of epistemic access); is there a purpose to life; if so, what is it (existential answer, theistic answer, love, interconnectedness of people, and some examination of what concepts might be involved in "purpose"), why go to the concert when you can buy the CD (replies tended to focus either on the relationship between audience and performer, or on the experience of being a member of an audience); what is the most important question ("what should we do and how should we do it?", ethics of the psychopath, and the basis for morality). Meeting closed after 7pm.

Thursday 28 April 2005. Tripod Cafe closed at 4pm, so we relocated to the Royal. Meeting opened at 4.30pm. Present were John Bentley, Karen Crighton, Thea Kremser, Adrian Tan, and Peter. The questions were -- "How is rape determined?" (grey issues of consent were explored); "What do we mean when we say something is 'more beautiful'?" (discussion involved evolutionary explanations of beauty, a distinction between "subjective" and "objective" beauty, and the relationship between beauty and what is "pleasing" or "rewarding"); "What is a thought?" (ontology and different types of description, functional characterization of mind, subjective experience); and "Ought we to live for the moment?" (the beliefs and values involved in answering the question, how to distribute happiness, Buddhism and awareness of the present). Meeting closed at 6.30pm.

Background to meeting:

The next meeting will involve a game of "extempore philosophy". Each round of the game is played as follows:

A sacrificial lamb volunteers to be the player.
Each person, other than the player, writes a question and drops it into a hat. The question may be on any topic of intellectual interest, or anything that may elicit something of intellectual interest -- political, psychological, aesthetic, ethical, epistemological... The question may be simple or complex, answered or unanswered. The question may also be absurd, whimsical, or nonsensical, provided there is the possibility for the play of nonsense to lead to something of interest.
The player draws a question randomly, or selects a question to answer, or may choose to answer a question already addressed in a previous round.
The player then has up to 10 minutes in which: (a) to engage in the process of answering the question from whatever are regarded as first principles (it's not necessary to arrive at an answer -- it's the attempt that's interesting, and any accidental discoveries); (b) if an answer is reached, to justify it; and to justify any claims made along the way; (c) to remark on anything of interest en route to the answer.
No one else in the room may speak unless asked a question by the player or invited to speak.
The audience are encouraged to silently formulate their own answers.
The player may stop the ten minutes at any time, and use of the ten minutes is at the player's discretion -- the player may employ any of the resources in the room in the course of the answering. Examples of formats: the player could simply lecture for ten minutes; the player could speak aloud his or her reasoning process, and what evidence or epistemological grounds are relied upon, and make transparent the dead ends and uncertainties, and why a position x is favoured over a position y; the player could simply look the answer up in any philosophy books at hand, then declare the ten minutes over; the player could spend nine minutes in thought, and one minute speaking; the player could open up the floor to free discussion; the player could cross-examine an audience member in Socratic style; the player could think visually, using whiteboard or paper.
At the conclusion of the ten minutes, there will be one or two rounds of "two-minute soft limit, three-minute hard limit" discussion.

The game is more fun for the player, more entertaining for the audience, the more seriously it's played, even if the question might initially seem obvious, or trivial, or nonsense.
The game was inspired by: (i) Socrates; (ii) Derrida, who was a marvellous answerer of questions -- people were always asking him very stupid things, and he always managed to extract something of philosophical interest; (iii) a practice in mediaeval seminaries where (if I remember properly) a section of the week was devoted to "quaestiones", and any question could be asked; (iv) the Wittgenstein movie, and the surreal lecture there ("This is a very pleasant pineapple", etc); and (v) descriptions of Wittgenstein's classes: "The chosen few who were permitted to attend Wittgenstein's lectures were required to bring their own deck chairs. They would sit in silence while Wittgenstein held his head, 'thinking.' Occasionally, with every appearance of extreme effort, the philosopher would deliver himself of a 'thought.' With anyone else but Wittgenstein, this would have been a farcically pretentious demonstration of 'original thinking.' But all who were present agree that the atmosphere was electric. Occasionally Wittgenstein would grill one of his 'students,' who included some of the best brains in Cambridge, the usual lonely intellectual young men, and in later years a black U.S. air force man who wandered in uninvited one day and was asked to stay because of his 'cheery face.'" (Wittgenstein in 90 minutes, by Paul Strathern).

Thursday 14 April 2005. Tripod Gallery Cafe. Meeting opened at 4.30pm. Present were John Bentley, Karen Crighton, Russell Downham, Thea Kremser, Alex Livingston, Adrian Tan. John Bentley spoke about commending and condemning a person's "ego" and argued that a desire to feel self-important is contradictory to self-interest. Discussion touched on many themes, including: how to determine what is or is not in a person's self-interest, the nature of desirable experiences, the nature of selfishness, the social context of human existence, the nature of a desire to feel self-important, receptiveness to other people's opinions, and to what extent a desire to feel self-important is undesirable. Meeting closed at 6pm, and half of the group proceded to the Landsdown Hotel, then on to Tim Rayner's talk on Antonio Negri.

Thursday 31 March 2005. Tripod Gallery Cafe. Meeting opened at 4.30pm. Present were John Bentley, Adrian Emilsen, Thea Kremser, Trent Reardon, Adrian Tan and Emma. The Philorum "two-minute soft limit/three-minute hard limit" format was adopted. Discussion touched on many themes, including: what is an apology; the difference between trivial and profound and sincere and insincere apologies; reasons why people might ask for or accept apologies; what is forgiveness; prerequisites of forgiveness; impossibility of forgiveness; benefits of forgiving or being forgiven; consequences of saying sorry; the relationship between apology and compensation; the implications of apologising to the indigenous population; "structural" discrimination; and the nature of responsibility. Meeting closed at 6pm.

Thursday 17 March 2005. Tripod Gallery Cafe. Meeting opened at 4.30pm. Present were John Bentley, Thea Kremser, and Adrian Tan. Discussion involved: to what extent laughter can be viewed as defensive, the relationship between laughter and power, the funniest jokes in the Simpsons, and the difference between absurd and simply unusual or strange. Meeting closed at 6.30pm.

Background reading as first planned: None necessary. But you might care to try: "The philosophy of laughter and humour" by JD Morreal, "The argument of laughter" by DH Monro, "Jokes: philosophical thoughts on joking matters" by Ted Cohen, "Laughter: an essay on the meaning of the comic" by Bergson, or "Jokes and their relation to the unconscious" by Freud. Also, a good overview at this website: http://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/monro.html.

Tuesday 19 October 2004. Adrian Tan's house. Meeting opened at 5pm. Present were Maikel Annaley, Paco Bahamonde, Rita Liddle, Adrian Tan, Brian, and another. The movies screened were The Unbearable Lightness of Being, The Andalusian Dog, and the last scene of Through a Glass Darkly. Meeting closed at 9.30pm.

Tuesday 5 October 2004. Wentworth level 5. Meeting opened at 5pm. Present was Adrian Tan on his lonesome. Talk was planned to be on the feminist "ethic of care" and ramifications for political philosophy. Adrian read Wittgenstein in 90 minutes, then left in 45.

Background reading as first planned: The presentation will be based on Carol Gilligan's 1970 book, In a different voice.

Tuesday 21 September 2004. Adrian Tan's house. Meeting opened at 5pm. Present were Maikel Annaley, Rita Liddle, and Adrian Tan. The Derek Jarman movie Wittgenstein was screened. Discussion was wide-ranging, and, among many other things, touched on the nature of philosophy and the assertion that any meaningful question can be answered. Meeting closed at 9.20pm.

Tuesday 7 September 2004. Wentworth level 5. Meeting opened at 5pm. Present were John Bentley, Cressida Gaukroger, Rita Liddle, and Adrian Tan. Cressida gave a report on Tim Crane's Russoc lecture, which concerned physicalism, Mary's black-and-white room, and consciousness. Adrian summarised some ideas about connections and disconnections between Nietzsche and Nazism. Discussion revolved around the separability of authors from their ideas, whether authors are responsible for the consequences and misreadings of their writings, and Nietzsche's popularity or otherwise. Meeting closed at 6.30pm.

Tuesday 24 August 2004. Wentworth level 5, room 4. Meeting opened at 4pm. Present were John Bentley, Cressida Gaukroger, Nick Olsen, and Adrian Tan. Discussion revolved around: nature of "meaning" in the phrase "meaning of life", experience of loss of meaning, and the extent to which one is free to determine meaning; the circumstances under which one would choose to enter a Nozick experience machine and why one would want to leave such a machine; consciousness and whether science can explain phenomenal experience; and the definition of "art" and whether it's creator's intention or audience's response that makes something art. Meeting closed at 6.20pm.

Background reading for discussion as first planned: (1) For the art and cinema topic, just think about the use or point of art, or whether it has any use or point. (2) For libertarianism, the talk will probably be based on Will Kymlicka's discussion in chapter 4 of Contemporary Political Philosophy, which in turn is based on Robert Nozick's book, Anarchy, State and Utopia. To do some online reading, simply type "Nozick and libertarianism" into any search engine.

Tuesday 10 August 2004. Holme courtyard. Meeting opened at 4pm. Present were Paco Bahamonde, John Bentley, Peter Farleigh, Cressida Gaukroger, Frances Massey, Nick Olsen, Adrian Tan, Brad Weslake, Albert Haig, and Phillip Haig. Meeting included: a talk by Brad Weslake on the common cause principle in Reichenbach and causal asymmetry; a discussion of John Bacon's argument against "family values" and for the lifting of prohibitions on incest (see Proceedings of the Russellian Society, 2004), particularly with reference to the Kantian aspect of the argument; a very brief discussion of the idea of Noel Tinton (of the Continental Philosophy Group) that self-reflexivity has brought culture into a post-postmodern era; and a very brief discussion on the positive and negative duties of philosophers, particularly with respect to Julien Benda and Alain Finkielkraut (based on a Philosophy Cafe talk from a fortnight ago: see http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/11/dec92/treason.htm). Meeting closed at 5.30pm.

Background reading for discussion as first planned: (1) A draft copy of John Bacon's talk can be found here (right click and "save as"). (2) For the Philosophy Cafe presentation, look at: http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/11/dec92/treason.htm. The speaker had combined a number of reviews (including this one I think) to discuss Julien Benda and Alain Finkielkraut. (3) For Brad Weslake's talk, it's probably best to do some background reading. The extract of the paper can be found here (right click and "save as"), and he has suggested the following site: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/, especially http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/#AsyP and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-Rpcc/. If you're really keen, try "Explaining Causal Asymmetry", available from Brad's website http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/weslake/, though it's more difficult. (4) For Noel Tinton's paper click here. The paper is entitled, "A Current Controversy: Is There a Contemporary Sea-Change? Does the Last Wave of a Postmodernist Signal Their Re-Arrival or a Final Departure?".

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws