This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 17 December 2008.
We have two newcomers, so I open with a preamble:
"Welcome to philosophy cafe. This is an event where participants engage in the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth and right. This is unlike ordinary discussions, where people jump to the first answer they can think of; and unlike academic philosophy discussions, where people refuse to come to any answer at all. Our discussions are aimed at arriving at answers, and we achieve rationality and rigour by adhering to a simple algorithm that I've created -- and call Automated Thought Machine."
A popular vote decides the evening's topic: "What should be the aim of education?"
Three answers are proposed:
1. To liberally open the individual's mind.
2. To prepare people for society (a simulation for actual life).
3. To subjugate the masses into one world order.
We activate Automated Thought Machine.
Ask question.
What should be the aim of education?
State position.
To liberally open the individual's mind.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a good (thing).
Do reasons imply conclusion (position)?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
It is a good (thing) for the individual, but not always good for society.
We decide to narrow the reason to: Liberal mindedness is a good (thing) for the individual.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a good (thing) for the individual.
Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
We decide we cannot answer this unless we define "good". We define "good" as "maximum happiness". So, our reason becomes: Liberal mindedness is a maximum happiness for the individual.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a maximum happiness for the individual.
Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
A counterexample is offered. Introduction of endorphins into the body (eg. via consuming dark chocolate) can cause a greater happiness than that caused by liberal mindedness. So, the answer to this question is "no".
We try to save the argument by confining the term "happiness" to Aristotelian eudaimonia -- a uniquely human happiness achieved through the exercise of reason. This obviates endorphins as a counterexample, since it is incapable of causing eudaimonia.
The reason now is: Liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.
Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.
Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.
Are reasons true?
Yes.
Accept position.
The argument has passed both tests of a good argument. We accept the argument.
The aim of education should be to liberally open the individual's mind, because liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.
We have an answer (it is not impossible for education to have several aims) to the evening's question.
We have no time to consider the other two proposed answers. Discussion ends. It has been a good session.
Readers interested to engage in philosophical discussions are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome (prior knowledge of philosophy is not required). The next philosophy cafe session is on 21 January 2009. [If Gone Fishing Cafe happens to be closed, look for the bearded Chinese guy at the nearby Al Ameen Restaurant.]
Wednesday 24 December 2008
Tuesday 16 December 2008
Will Tokyo's new package work?
Source: The Straits Times, 13/12/8, p.A5
Headline: Tokyo unveils new help package
Quote1:
TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso yesterday announced a new stimulus package to shore up his country's economy. ... The additional package ... "may help slow the pace of a worsening economy but it doesn't have enough power to buoy the economy," said Mr Mamoru Yamazaki, chief Japan economist at RBS Securities Japan in Tokyo.
Comment1:
Mr Yamazaki has made an assertion, but offers no argument (at least none is reported) to support it. We are told one credential, that he is chief economist at RBS Securities Japan. That's all we have to go on. Is that enough?
Quote2:
"This is a desperate attempt by Mr Aso to recover support," said Mr Minoru Morita, an independent political analyst and author of a book on Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party. "He's falling deeper into a quagmire by announcing various measures that aren't backed up by budgets." -- AP, Bloomberg.
Comment2a:
The charge of "desperate attempt" offers a psychological cause or political motive behind Mr Aso's announcement of a new stimulus package. It does not amount to saying the package will be ineffective. It is logically possible for a desperate attempt to nonetheless be effective.
Comment2b:
We are told two credentials: "independent political analyst" and "author of a book on Japan's ruling LDP". Are they enough?
Comment2c:
An enthymeme (partial argument) is offered. We complete the argument, providing the hidden parts in square brackets.
Premiss1: [If (measures not backed up by budgets), then (fall deeper into quagmire)]
Premiss2: Measures not backed up by budgets
Conclusion: Hence, fall deeper into quagmire
The argument has the form Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q), which is valid. We accept Premiss2 as a statement of fact. The remaining test is whether Premiss1 is true. Intuitively, it is not. The fact of a measure not being backed up by budgets does not seem sufficient on its own to guarantee an economy falling deeper into quagmire. Since the argument fails this final test, we must reject the argument.
Headline: Tokyo unveils new help package
Quote1:
TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso yesterday announced a new stimulus package to shore up his country's economy. ... The additional package ... "may help slow the pace of a worsening economy but it doesn't have enough power to buoy the economy," said Mr Mamoru Yamazaki, chief Japan economist at RBS Securities Japan in Tokyo.
Comment1:
Mr Yamazaki has made an assertion, but offers no argument (at least none is reported) to support it. We are told one credential, that he is chief economist at RBS Securities Japan. That's all we have to go on. Is that enough?
Quote2:
"This is a desperate attempt by Mr Aso to recover support," said Mr Minoru Morita, an independent political analyst and author of a book on Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party. "He's falling deeper into a quagmire by announcing various measures that aren't backed up by budgets." -- AP, Bloomberg.
Comment2a:
The charge of "desperate attempt" offers a psychological cause or political motive behind Mr Aso's announcement of a new stimulus package. It does not amount to saying the package will be ineffective. It is logically possible for a desperate attempt to nonetheless be effective.
Comment2b:
We are told two credentials: "independent political analyst" and "author of a book on Japan's ruling LDP". Are they enough?
Comment2c:
An enthymeme (partial argument) is offered. We complete the argument, providing the hidden parts in square brackets.
Premiss1: [If (measures not backed up by budgets), then (fall deeper into quagmire)]
Premiss2: Measures not backed up by budgets
Conclusion: Hence, fall deeper into quagmire
The argument has the form Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q), which is valid. We accept Premiss2 as a statement of fact. The remaining test is whether Premiss1 is true. Intuitively, it is not. The fact of a measure not being backed up by budgets does not seem sufficient on its own to guarantee an economy falling deeper into quagmire. Since the argument fails this final test, we must reject the argument.
The World Bank predicts ...
Source: My Paper, 11/12/8, p.A8
Headline: East Asia will suffer less than other regions
Quote:
WASHINGTON: Mr Vikram Nehru, World Bank's chief economist for East Asia and Pacific Region, warned that downside risks to the region's growth remained, citing the fallout from the global financial crisis. "The situation is changing so rapidly, literally from day to day," he said at a news conference in Tokyo. "Things could very easily get worse than we projected, and the slowdown could last longer." -- AFP, Reuters.
Comment:
What does the word "could" in "could very easily get worse" and "could last longer" mean? It certainly must mean "not impossible", as in "not impossible to get worse" and "not impossible to last longer". It does not mean "impossible to get better". It does not mean "impossible to be shorter". Most important, the word "could" must not be read as "definitely will happen". That is, we must not read "things could very easily get worse" as "things definitely will get worse", or read "the slowdown could last longer" as "the slowdown definitely will last longer".
Headline: East Asia will suffer less than other regions
Quote:
WASHINGTON: Mr Vikram Nehru, World Bank's chief economist for East Asia and Pacific Region, warned that downside risks to the region's growth remained, citing the fallout from the global financial crisis. "The situation is changing so rapidly, literally from day to day," he said at a news conference in Tokyo. "Things could very easily get worse than we projected, and the slowdown could last longer." -- AFP, Reuters.
Comment:
What does the word "could" in "could very easily get worse" and "could last longer" mean? It certainly must mean "not impossible", as in "not impossible to get worse" and "not impossible to last longer". It does not mean "impossible to get better". It does not mean "impossible to be shorter". Most important, the word "could" must not be read as "definitely will happen". That is, we must not read "things could very easily get worse" as "things definitely will get worse", or read "the slowdown could last longer" as "the slowdown definitely will last longer".
Thursday 20 November 2008
Is consistency good?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 19 November 2008. We have a record turnout of 10 persons. A popular vote decides our question for the evening: Is consistency good?
We begin by defining the key words:
Consistency =df. The same action or thought in the same person, in the same context, in the same life.
Good =df. Desirable by society and the individual. (Here, we decide that it cannot be desirable only by the individual, as that would reduce everything to pure subjectivity, and thereby obviate all discussion.)
Desirable =df. Ought to be desired.
A first suggestion is that consistency is not good because it would make the world boring. We object that it will not make the world boring -- for two reasons. The first reason is that one can be consistently creative, and hence be not boring. The second reason is that while our definition of consistency specifies the same action or thought in the same person, our definition does allow variety across individuals -- thus making the world not boring. This first suggestion is defeated.
The second argument is two-pronged. First, if one is consistently good eg. being kind, then that is a good thing. Second, if one is cosistently evil, there can still be some eventual good. For example, if a serial rapist commits the crime evey full moon, that consistency of action allows women to know to stay indoors each full moon, and allows the police to know to be alert for him each full moon (and eventually capture him). So, since both possibilities are covered, we can conclude that consistency is good, even if only eventually.
We object that we can just as easily find examples to show that consistency is bad. If poker players consistently fold when they get dealt a poor hand, there will be no poker games. If all similar movies have consistently similar endings, and never any surprise twist endings, then movies would be extremely boring.
We wonder if constantly conjuring up examples pro and con is the way to approach this question. We wonder if we can address the question without using examples.
We come up with a "Kantian" suggestion, making use of his famous Categorical Imperative.
[Some background is needed here for readers not acquainted with academic philosophy. According to the famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804), a rule qualifies as a moral rule if and only if it can be applied to everyone without self-contradiction. The rule "always tell the truth" satisfies this test, and is a moral rule. The rule "always tell a lie" would, if extended to everyone, result in social chaos -- and thus does not satisfy this test, making it nor a moral rule. This test for a moral rule is known as Kant's Categorial Imperative.]
Here's the argument:
1. The Categorical Imperative is needed to create a moral world.
2. The Categorical Imperative requires consistency.
3. Therefore, consistency is good.
We notice that this argument can be expanded to morality in general, making the argument more powerful.
1. Morality is needed to create a moral world.
2. Morality requires consistency.
3. Therefore, consistency is good.
Then, disturbingly, we notice that egoism is also a recognised system of morality. Egoism is the principle that what is good is what is good for each subjective "me" regardless of any or all others. But this cannot be desirable by society, and hence by our definition is not good.
We end our discussion here. It has been a fantastic session.
Readers who are interested to engage in the rational pursuit of truth and right (which is how I define philosophy) are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome (prior knowledge of philosophy is not required). The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 17 December 2008. See you there!
We begin by defining the key words:
Consistency =df. The same action or thought in the same person, in the same context, in the same life.
Good =df. Desirable by society and the individual. (Here, we decide that it cannot be desirable only by the individual, as that would reduce everything to pure subjectivity, and thereby obviate all discussion.)
Desirable =df. Ought to be desired.
A first suggestion is that consistency is not good because it would make the world boring. We object that it will not make the world boring -- for two reasons. The first reason is that one can be consistently creative, and hence be not boring. The second reason is that while our definition of consistency specifies the same action or thought in the same person, our definition does allow variety across individuals -- thus making the world not boring. This first suggestion is defeated.
The second argument is two-pronged. First, if one is consistently good eg. being kind, then that is a good thing. Second, if one is cosistently evil, there can still be some eventual good. For example, if a serial rapist commits the crime evey full moon, that consistency of action allows women to know to stay indoors each full moon, and allows the police to know to be alert for him each full moon (and eventually capture him). So, since both possibilities are covered, we can conclude that consistency is good, even if only eventually.
We object that we can just as easily find examples to show that consistency is bad. If poker players consistently fold when they get dealt a poor hand, there will be no poker games. If all similar movies have consistently similar endings, and never any surprise twist endings, then movies would be extremely boring.
We wonder if constantly conjuring up examples pro and con is the way to approach this question. We wonder if we can address the question without using examples.
We come up with a "Kantian" suggestion, making use of his famous Categorical Imperative.
[Some background is needed here for readers not acquainted with academic philosophy. According to the famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804), a rule qualifies as a moral rule if and only if it can be applied to everyone without self-contradiction. The rule "always tell the truth" satisfies this test, and is a moral rule. The rule "always tell a lie" would, if extended to everyone, result in social chaos -- and thus does not satisfy this test, making it nor a moral rule. This test for a moral rule is known as Kant's Categorial Imperative.]
Here's the argument:
1. The Categorical Imperative is needed to create a moral world.
2. The Categorical Imperative requires consistency.
3. Therefore, consistency is good.
We notice that this argument can be expanded to morality in general, making the argument more powerful.
1. Morality is needed to create a moral world.
2. Morality requires consistency.
3. Therefore, consistency is good.
Then, disturbingly, we notice that egoism is also a recognised system of morality. Egoism is the principle that what is good is what is good for each subjective "me" regardless of any or all others. But this cannot be desirable by society, and hence by our definition is not good.
We end our discussion here. It has been a fantastic session.
Readers who are interested to engage in the rational pursuit of truth and right (which is how I define philosophy) are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome (prior knowledge of philosophy is not required). The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 17 December 2008. See you there!
Monday 22 September 2008
Should religion be separated from the state?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 17 September 2008.
This problem arises in a heterogeneous society. Religion should be separated from the state for two reasons. First, to prevent conflict between the different religions. Second, because we can't be sure which religious claim is true.
No, we want to put this position on KIV status until we consider other alternatives on which to base the state.
How about culture? Well, culture is not clearly defined. Also, people differ on how much importance to place on different parts of culture. No, culture cannot be the base for the state.
How about history? That what has worked, or failed to work, in the past be the base for the state. Well, history can change with context. What has worked previously may no longer work, and vice versa. This context sensitivity can apply to both time and place. Also, history is variously recorded; there is no single authoritative version. So, we can't use history as the base for the state.
How about pragmatism? What is pragmatism? It is a method, a matter of things that work. How do we judge if something works? By reference to some truth or values. But what truth or values? Whatever truth or values that the majority find acceptable.
This is a viable alternative base for the state. So we can reject religion as the base.
Conclusion: Religion should be separated from the state.
Our next philosophy cafe session is on 15 October 2008. Venue: Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission. All are welcome.
This problem arises in a heterogeneous society. Religion should be separated from the state for two reasons. First, to prevent conflict between the different religions. Second, because we can't be sure which religious claim is true.
No, we want to put this position on KIV status until we consider other alternatives on which to base the state.
How about culture? Well, culture is not clearly defined. Also, people differ on how much importance to place on different parts of culture. No, culture cannot be the base for the state.
How about history? That what has worked, or failed to work, in the past be the base for the state. Well, history can change with context. What has worked previously may no longer work, and vice versa. This context sensitivity can apply to both time and place. Also, history is variously recorded; there is no single authoritative version. So, we can't use history as the base for the state.
How about pragmatism? What is pragmatism? It is a method, a matter of things that work. How do we judge if something works? By reference to some truth or values. But what truth or values? Whatever truth or values that the majority find acceptable.
This is a viable alternative base for the state. So we can reject religion as the base.
Conclusion: Religion should be separated from the state.
Our next philosophy cafe session is on 15 October 2008. Venue: Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission. All are welcome.
Wednesday 27 August 2008
The great illusion
Source: The Straits Times, 18/8/8, p.A17
Headline: The great illusion
Author: Paul Krugman
Comment:
This article presents a negative thesis: that something is not the case. What is this something?
Quote:
Shortly before World War I another British author, Norman Angell, published a famous book titled The Great Illusion, in which he argued that war had become obsolete, that in the modern industrial era even military victors lose far more than they gain. ...
Comment:
The thesis to be disproved is: Globalisation prevents wars.
Quote:
But war kept happening anyway.
Comment:
This is disproof by counterexample. Just as we disprove "All swans are white" by producing a single black swan, we disprove "globalisation prevents wars" by citing examples where wars [in particular, World War I] occur despite globalisation. Faced with a counterexample, we must draw the conclusion: not-(globalisation prevents wars).
Quote:
So are the foundations of the second global economy [what we have now, as compared to before WWI] any more solid than those of the first? In some ways, yes.
Comment:
This is an attempted reply to the counterexample. The reply is by way of making a [not explicitly stated] distinction between today's "more solid" globalisation and the globalisation of before WWI. What's the difference?
Quote:
For example, war among the nations of Western Europe really does seem inconceivable now, not so much because of economic ties as because of shared democratic values.
Comment:
Today's globalisation is stronger because of shared democratic values.
Quote:
Much of the world, however, including nations that play a key role in the global economy, doesn't share those values. ...
Comment:
This difference between today's globalisation and pre-WWI globalisation cannot be sustained. Therefore, the two globalisations are not different. Therefore, the counterexample stands -- and the thesis falls.
Quote:
... the belief that economic rationality always prevents wars is an equally great illusion.
Comment:
To capture the argument:
Thesis: Globalisation prevents wars.
Counterexample: World War I occured despite globalisation.
Conclusion: Therefore, not-(globalisation prevents wars)
Headline: The great illusion
Author: Paul Krugman
Comment:
This article presents a negative thesis: that something is not the case. What is this something?
Quote:
Shortly before World War I another British author, Norman Angell, published a famous book titled The Great Illusion, in which he argued that war had become obsolete, that in the modern industrial era even military victors lose far more than they gain. ...
Comment:
The thesis to be disproved is: Globalisation prevents wars.
Quote:
But war kept happening anyway.
Comment:
This is disproof by counterexample. Just as we disprove "All swans are white" by producing a single black swan, we disprove "globalisation prevents wars" by citing examples where wars [in particular, World War I] occur despite globalisation. Faced with a counterexample, we must draw the conclusion: not-(globalisation prevents wars).
Quote:
So are the foundations of the second global economy [what we have now, as compared to before WWI] any more solid than those of the first? In some ways, yes.
Comment:
This is an attempted reply to the counterexample. The reply is by way of making a [not explicitly stated] distinction between today's "more solid" globalisation and the globalisation of before WWI. What's the difference?
Quote:
For example, war among the nations of Western Europe really does seem inconceivable now, not so much because of economic ties as because of shared democratic values.
Comment:
Today's globalisation is stronger because of shared democratic values.
Quote:
Much of the world, however, including nations that play a key role in the global economy, doesn't share those values. ...
Comment:
This difference between today's globalisation and pre-WWI globalisation cannot be sustained. Therefore, the two globalisations are not different. Therefore, the counterexample stands -- and the thesis falls.
Quote:
... the belief that economic rationality always prevents wars is an equally great illusion.
Comment:
To capture the argument:
Thesis: Globalisation prevents wars.
Counterexample: World War I occured despite globalisation.
Conclusion: Therefore, not-(globalisation prevents wars)
Thursday 21 August 2008
An eclectic conversation II
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 20 August 2008.
There was no single question used for discussion. Instead, an eclectic conversation ensued. Here are two highlights.
SEXY YOUNG GIRLS
Some parents doll up their young daughters, even as young as under 10 years of age, for singing, dancing and other contests. Often, these girls are physically similar to older girls. Thus, to an onlooker, they appear to be sexually attractive (and sometimes mature) young women, with their real ages becoming apparent only if identity documents are checked. Say some man responds to this presentation in a sexual way; has he done anything wrong? The immediate response is "paedophile!" Consider an alternative response. Parents voluntarily, willingly and deliberately present their young daughters to the world, sometimes even on national television, as sexually attractive (and sometimes mature) young women; this invites a sexual response -- and it's only natural to get such a response. Our discussion of this question stops here.
RESIGNATION BEHAVIOUR
An employee is badly treated by his employer. His talents and contributions are neither recognised nor rewarded. He decides to resign. The question is how should he behave while serving out his period of notice? One response: He should continue to do his work conscientiously, even making sure to do a proper handover to the person taking over his job. For two reasons. First, he is a professional. Second, if he is derelict, the market will speak ill of him, and this will adversely affect his prospects at other companies. Another response: The company has mistreated him; there is no reason to continue to be good to his company. He is entitled to return the favour. Just do nothing and sit tight till the final day. There is no intelligence network in the market. There is no third response: Nobody suggests doing criminal acts.
Our next philosophy cafe session is on 17 September 2008. Venue: Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission. All are welcome.
There was no single question used for discussion. Instead, an eclectic conversation ensued. Here are two highlights.
SEXY YOUNG GIRLS
Some parents doll up their young daughters, even as young as under 10 years of age, for singing, dancing and other contests. Often, these girls are physically similar to older girls. Thus, to an onlooker, they appear to be sexually attractive (and sometimes mature) young women, with their real ages becoming apparent only if identity documents are checked. Say some man responds to this presentation in a sexual way; has he done anything wrong? The immediate response is "paedophile!" Consider an alternative response. Parents voluntarily, willingly and deliberately present their young daughters to the world, sometimes even on national television, as sexually attractive (and sometimes mature) young women; this invites a sexual response -- and it's only natural to get such a response. Our discussion of this question stops here.
RESIGNATION BEHAVIOUR
An employee is badly treated by his employer. His talents and contributions are neither recognised nor rewarded. He decides to resign. The question is how should he behave while serving out his period of notice? One response: He should continue to do his work conscientiously, even making sure to do a proper handover to the person taking over his job. For two reasons. First, he is a professional. Second, if he is derelict, the market will speak ill of him, and this will adversely affect his prospects at other companies. Another response: The company has mistreated him; there is no reason to continue to be good to his company. He is entitled to return the favour. Just do nothing and sit tight till the final day. There is no intelligence network in the market. There is no third response: Nobody suggests doing criminal acts.
Our next philosophy cafe session is on 17 September 2008. Venue: Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission. All are welcome.
Friday 18 July 2008
What makes a question important?
This is a report of my philosophy cafe session on 16 July 2008.
Our question for the evening is "What makes a question important?"
This immediately raises the question: "What is importance?" We turn to the dictionary for help (this is a tool much neglected by philosophers). Our dictionary tells us that something is important when (a) it makes a big difference or influence in our lives; or (b) we care a lot about it.
What sort of disjunction (or function) is this? We reflect on it, and decide that it is an inclusive disjunction. This means that the two conditions may be true at the same time, but they don't have to be. So long as one condition is met, the matter at hand is important.
Do the two conditions exhaust the possibilities? Can something be important on a third criterion? How do we know we have covered the ground?
We apply the test of counterexample. That is, we try to think of something that is important, but which does not fall under either of the two criteria. We cannot. Does this mean we have indeed covered the ground? Or not? We can't be sure either way. We can go only as far as our imagination and intelligence takes us. This is the best we have so far. This is what we will work with.
What about apparent importance? Can we think something important when it is not? Intuitively, there is this distinction. But what's the difference? How do we establish true importance?
We suggest that true importance is when an event further propels one towards one's goals without the influence of any external factor. The part about an event further propelling one towards one's goals seems to fall under criteria (a) and (b) above -- it makes a big difference or influence, and we care about it. So the distinguishing feature must be that there's no influence from external factors. But we cannot be under no influence from external factors. Even Robinson Crusoe has memories of people, events and beliefs from when he was surrounded by external factors. So this third condition is nullified.
Thus, we return to the difference between apparent importance and true importance. Unable to find a difference, we can only say they are the same.
Someone suggests that what is important is up to the individual to decide. This is open to two elaborations.
The first elaboration is that each person is existentially responsible for his own beliefs and actions -- and for what he considers important. There is no dispute on this elaboration.
The second elaboration is that each person is correct in his assessment of importance. This raises two questions. Assuming this elaboration to be the case, why do we hold discussions? We can just let it be that each person is correct in his view. Also, on this elaboration, how do we make communal decisions about anything? We make such decisions on the basis of true and false, right and wrong. But if what every person says is the truth and the right, how can we decide anything?
Time forces us to end the discussion here. It has been a good session.
Readers who are interested to engage in the rational pursuit of truth and right (which is how I define philosophy) are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome. For more information, kindly visit my website at http://philocafesg.tripod.com/. The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 20 August 2008.
Our question for the evening is "What makes a question important?"
This immediately raises the question: "What is importance?" We turn to the dictionary for help (this is a tool much neglected by philosophers). Our dictionary tells us that something is important when (a) it makes a big difference or influence in our lives; or (b) we care a lot about it.
What sort of disjunction (or function) is this? We reflect on it, and decide that it is an inclusive disjunction. This means that the two conditions may be true at the same time, but they don't have to be. So long as one condition is met, the matter at hand is important.
Do the two conditions exhaust the possibilities? Can something be important on a third criterion? How do we know we have covered the ground?
We apply the test of counterexample. That is, we try to think of something that is important, but which does not fall under either of the two criteria. We cannot. Does this mean we have indeed covered the ground? Or not? We can't be sure either way. We can go only as far as our imagination and intelligence takes us. This is the best we have so far. This is what we will work with.
What about apparent importance? Can we think something important when it is not? Intuitively, there is this distinction. But what's the difference? How do we establish true importance?
We suggest that true importance is when an event further propels one towards one's goals without the influence of any external factor. The part about an event further propelling one towards one's goals seems to fall under criteria (a) and (b) above -- it makes a big difference or influence, and we care about it. So the distinguishing feature must be that there's no influence from external factors. But we cannot be under no influence from external factors. Even Robinson Crusoe has memories of people, events and beliefs from when he was surrounded by external factors. So this third condition is nullified.
Thus, we return to the difference between apparent importance and true importance. Unable to find a difference, we can only say they are the same.
Someone suggests that what is important is up to the individual to decide. This is open to two elaborations.
The first elaboration is that each person is existentially responsible for his own beliefs and actions -- and for what he considers important. There is no dispute on this elaboration.
The second elaboration is that each person is correct in his assessment of importance. This raises two questions. Assuming this elaboration to be the case, why do we hold discussions? We can just let it be that each person is correct in his view. Also, on this elaboration, how do we make communal decisions about anything? We make such decisions on the basis of true and false, right and wrong. But if what every person says is the truth and the right, how can we decide anything?
Time forces us to end the discussion here. It has been a good session.
Readers who are interested to engage in the rational pursuit of truth and right (which is how I define philosophy) are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome. For more information, kindly visit my website at http://philocafesg.tripod.com/. The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 20 August 2008.
Friday 4 July 2008
Anselm: Does God exist?
St. Anselm (1033-1109) put forward a fairly straightforward argument in answer to the question: Does God exist? It is one of the classical arguments in Western philosophy. Just follow the cues to discover what his argument is.
1.
Start. Go to 2, 3, 4.
2. (from 1)
When an artist plans a work, the work exists in his understanding. When the artist executes his plan, the work exists in reality.
Go to 5.
3. (from 1)
God is a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived". [conceived = thought]
Combine with 5, go to 6. Also go weakly to 8.
4. (from 1)
A being that cannot be thought not to exist is greater than a being that can be thought not to exist.
Combine with 7, go to 8.
5. (from 2)
[Therefore] There is a difference between an object being in the understanding, and an object being in existence.
Combine with 3, go to 6.
6. (from 3 & 5)
Once one hears and comprehends this, God exists in the understanding.
Go to 7.
7. (from 6)
If God exists only in the understanding, then it is possible to think of a being that exists also in reality.
Combine with 4, go to 8.
8. (from 4 & 7)
This makes God not a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived". This is impossible (by hypothesis in 3).
Go to 9.
9. (from 8)
Therefore, a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist both in the understanding and in reality. This is God. God exists.
Go to 10.
10. (from 9)
End.
Primary source:
"Saint Anselm of Canterbury: The Ontological Argument" in Nicholas Capaldi (ed) et al, Journeys Through Philosophy, Prometheus Books, 1982, pp. 369-70.
[St. Anselm was the Italian-born Archbishop of Canterbury.]
Postscript on method
Most philosophy is written in prose. While this makes for fluent reading, it also makes the argument extremely opaque in both content and flow. Presenting the argument in syllogisms is fully transparent, but is extremely tedious both to write and read. This is my compromise mode of presentation. I call it "programmed philosophy".
1.
Start. Go to 2, 3, 4.
2. (from 1)
When an artist plans a work, the work exists in his understanding. When the artist executes his plan, the work exists in reality.
Go to 5.
3. (from 1)
God is a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived". [conceived = thought]
Combine with 5, go to 6. Also go weakly to 8.
4. (from 1)
A being that cannot be thought not to exist is greater than a being that can be thought not to exist.
Combine with 7, go to 8.
5. (from 2)
[Therefore] There is a difference between an object being in the understanding, and an object being in existence.
Combine with 3, go to 6.
6. (from 3 & 5)
Once one hears and comprehends this, God exists in the understanding.
Go to 7.
7. (from 6)
If God exists only in the understanding, then it is possible to think of a being that exists also in reality.
Combine with 4, go to 8.
8. (from 4 & 7)
This makes God not a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived". This is impossible (by hypothesis in 3).
Go to 9.
9. (from 8)
Therefore, a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist both in the understanding and in reality. This is God. God exists.
Go to 10.
10. (from 9)
End.
Primary source:
"Saint Anselm of Canterbury: The Ontological Argument" in Nicholas Capaldi (ed) et al, Journeys Through Philosophy, Prometheus Books, 1982, pp. 369-70.
[St. Anselm was the Italian-born Archbishop of Canterbury.]
Postscript on method
Most philosophy is written in prose. While this makes for fluent reading, it also makes the argument extremely opaque in both content and flow. Presenting the argument in syllogisms is fully transparent, but is extremely tedious both to write and read. This is my compromise mode of presentation. I call it "programmed philosophy".
Thursday 22 May 2008
An eclectic conversation
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 21 May 2008.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held on the third Wednesday of each month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road. Participation is free of charge. All are welcome. The next philosophy cafe session will be on June 18.
The great misfortune of the evening is that it clashed with the "Final 2" of American Idol. Attendance is minimal. So we just had an eclectic conversation. Here are some snippets.
Near death experiences
"I trust my aunts. And they've had near death experiences, where they saw white lights, people calling out to them etc."
"Have you considered the possibility that their interpretation of their experiences is a function of their beliefs? And now they're using these experiences as proof of their beliefs? It's all rather circular. Also, what about revelatory experiences of people of other belief systems?"
"But in one such experience, one of the visions said he was God. Surely God does not lie?"
"How do you define God? Do you define God as Someone who always tells the truth? If so, then any vision calling itself God will be accepted as God. On the other hand, if God is not defined as Someone who always tells the truth, then certainly God can tell a lie. For example, Zeus is a god, and Zeus can tell lies."
Materialism vs Idealism
"Is materialism or idealism true?
"What are these?"
"Materialism is the belief that everything is matter; whereas idealism is the belief that everything is ideas."
"If everything is matter, than what is an idea? Neurons and electrical impulses? We are looking at this cup. Do we have the exact same electrical impulses firing?"
"Seems rather hard to believe. Then it's idealism? But where do ideas exist?"
"Plato says ideas exist in the World of Being; whereas we exist in the world of Becoming. We have ideas when we remember the World of Being and the perfect Forms that exist there."
Scientific disproof
"What does it mean to say science works by disproof?"
"That is based on the argument form known as Modus Tollens. Say we have a Theory P. From this theory, we derive some experimental implication Q. We perform the experiment. The results are not as expected. We conclude that Theory P is false. This is what is meant by science works by disproof. This view of science was first put forward by the philosopher Karl Popper.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held on the third Wednesday of each month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road. Participation is free of charge. All are welcome. The next philosophy cafe session will be on June 18.
The great misfortune of the evening is that it clashed with the "Final 2" of American Idol. Attendance is minimal. So we just had an eclectic conversation. Here are some snippets.
Near death experiences
"I trust my aunts. And they've had near death experiences, where they saw white lights, people calling out to them etc."
"Have you considered the possibility that their interpretation of their experiences is a function of their beliefs? And now they're using these experiences as proof of their beliefs? It's all rather circular. Also, what about revelatory experiences of people of other belief systems?"
"But in one such experience, one of the visions said he was God. Surely God does not lie?"
"How do you define God? Do you define God as Someone who always tells the truth? If so, then any vision calling itself God will be accepted as God. On the other hand, if God is not defined as Someone who always tells the truth, then certainly God can tell a lie. For example, Zeus is a god, and Zeus can tell lies."
Materialism vs Idealism
"Is materialism or idealism true?
"What are these?"
"Materialism is the belief that everything is matter; whereas idealism is the belief that everything is ideas."
"If everything is matter, than what is an idea? Neurons and electrical impulses? We are looking at this cup. Do we have the exact same electrical impulses firing?"
"Seems rather hard to believe. Then it's idealism? But where do ideas exist?"
"Plato says ideas exist in the World of Being; whereas we exist in the world of Becoming. We have ideas when we remember the World of Being and the perfect Forms that exist there."
Scientific disproof
"What does it mean to say science works by disproof?"
"That is based on the argument form known as Modus Tollens. Say we have a Theory P. From this theory, we derive some experimental implication Q. We perform the experiment. The results are not as expected. We conclude that Theory P is false. This is what is meant by science works by disproof. This view of science was first put forward by the philosopher Karl Popper.
Monday 21 April 2008
Should childbirth be outsourced?
This is a report of philosophy cafe session #51 on 16 April 2008.
The question for the night is as in the heading: Should childbirth be outsourced?
No, it should not be outsourced, because pregnancy is a joy and a privilege. But this is a selfish reason. Selfishness is ok, so long as it benefits me.
No, it should not be outsourced, because then there will be no bonding of mother and child. This is also the case in adoption, so this is not a good reason. Indeed, in the case of adoption, the case is even further removed, as there is no genetic heritage.
Yes, it should be outsourced, because it is more convenient for the couple. Indeed, many other events should also be outsourced, such a birthdays, schooling, bedtime stories. Then why have a child? For tax reasons.
An observation: Adoption is also oursourcing of childbirth, except that it occurs after the fact. The difference in outsourcing childbirth here is the child takes its genetic heritage from its adoptive parents. So outsourcing childbirth (that is, surrogacy) is better than adoption.
Yes, childbirth should be outsourced, as it provides employment for the surrogate mothers (clinically referred to as incubators).
No, childbirth should not be outsourced, as this will make the husband respect the wife less. The comparison is with a layabout husband, who is then not fulfilling his duty of bringing home the bacon.
Post-cafe reflection
The temptation here is to consider the above as three arguments against outsourcing childbirth, and two arguments in favour of it. This is the wrong perspective. In evaluating moral questions teleologically (by reference to its consequences), the correct approach is to consider all the consequences, and to judge if there is a nett of benefits over harms. If there is a nett of benefits over harms, it is a moral act; if there is a nett of harms over benefits, it is an immoral act.
Philosophy cafe is held every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free (and so is parking). All are welcome. (For more information, please follow link to my website.) The next philosophy cafe session will be on 21 May 2008.
The question for the night is as in the heading: Should childbirth be outsourced?
No, it should not be outsourced, because pregnancy is a joy and a privilege. But this is a selfish reason. Selfishness is ok, so long as it benefits me.
No, it should not be outsourced, because then there will be no bonding of mother and child. This is also the case in adoption, so this is not a good reason. Indeed, in the case of adoption, the case is even further removed, as there is no genetic heritage.
Yes, it should be outsourced, because it is more convenient for the couple. Indeed, many other events should also be outsourced, such a birthdays, schooling, bedtime stories. Then why have a child? For tax reasons.
An observation: Adoption is also oursourcing of childbirth, except that it occurs after the fact. The difference in outsourcing childbirth here is the child takes its genetic heritage from its adoptive parents. So outsourcing childbirth (that is, surrogacy) is better than adoption.
Yes, childbirth should be outsourced, as it provides employment for the surrogate mothers (clinically referred to as incubators).
No, childbirth should not be outsourced, as this will make the husband respect the wife less. The comparison is with a layabout husband, who is then not fulfilling his duty of bringing home the bacon.
Post-cafe reflection
The temptation here is to consider the above as three arguments against outsourcing childbirth, and two arguments in favour of it. This is the wrong perspective. In evaluating moral questions teleologically (by reference to its consequences), the correct approach is to consider all the consequences, and to judge if there is a nett of benefits over harms. If there is a nett of benefits over harms, it is a moral act; if there is a nett of harms over benefits, it is an immoral act.
Philosophy cafe is held every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free (and so is parking). All are welcome. (For more information, please follow link to my website.) The next philosophy cafe session will be on 21 May 2008.
Monday 31 March 2008
Which road do I take?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 19 March 2008. We again use the Instrument.
1. What do we wish to do? We wish to address a question.
2. Write down our question in under 10 words. Which road do I take?
3. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
4. Write down our new question in under 10 words. What are the roads?
5. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
6. Write down our new question in under 10 words. What is meant by roads?
7. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? No.
8. Do we have an answer? No.
9. What is our question form? What is P?
10. Define P lexically, stipulatively, ostensively, or denotatively. We do not understand.
11. Find the word in a good dictionary. Does the definition suit our needs? No.
12. Can we just say what P shall mean? Yes.
13. Define P to suit our purpose. "Roads" is "a series of life choices".
1. What do we wish to do? We wish to address a question.
2. Write down our question in under 10 words. Which life choice do I take?
3. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
4. Write down our question in under 10 words. What are the life choices?
5. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? No.
6. Do we have an answer? Yes.
7. Write down our answer, and reasons, using "therefore" and "because".
Therefore: Advance in my career.
Because: I'm afraid of having no income later in life.
8. Identify key words and phrases. Advance, career, afraid, no income, later in life.
9. List any repeated word or phrase. None.
10. Shall we test for informal fallacies? No, go directly to rigorous test.
11. Recall our answer. Let this be Q. Q = Advance in my career.
Recall also our reason. Fear of no income later in life.
12. What is our argument type? We do not know.
13. Does our answer involve Q and an alternative P? Yes.
14. An argument involving alternatives is a disjunctive argument. The alternatives are disjuncts.
15. Let P represent the other disjunct. P = No income later in life.
16. Do Q and P have undesirable consequences? Yes.
17. This is a dilemma.
18. Can we prevent, reverse or remedy the undesirable consequence of one disjunct?
Yes: No income later in life.
19. Choose that option. Our question is answered.
Reflection
The Instrument continues to function well, but it offers little entertainment value and hence will not be conducive to greater attendance. We may have to revert to a more free for all approach -- and offer only sporadic guidance on the techniques of clear thought.
Philosophy cafe is held every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, Singapore, 8-10pm. No prerequisites. All welcome.
1. What do we wish to do? We wish to address a question.
2. Write down our question in under 10 words. Which road do I take?
3. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
4. Write down our new question in under 10 words. What are the roads?
5. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
6. Write down our new question in under 10 words. What is meant by roads?
7. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? No.
8. Do we have an answer? No.
9. What is our question form? What is P?
10. Define P lexically, stipulatively, ostensively, or denotatively. We do not understand.
11. Find the word in a good dictionary. Does the definition suit our needs? No.
12. Can we just say what P shall mean? Yes.
13. Define P to suit our purpose. "Roads" is "a series of life choices".
1. What do we wish to do? We wish to address a question.
2. Write down our question in under 10 words. Which life choice do I take?
3. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? Yes.
4. Write down our question in under 10 words. What are the life choices?
5. Does our question assume anything doubtful or include anything vague? No.
6. Do we have an answer? Yes.
7. Write down our answer, and reasons, using "therefore" and "because".
Therefore: Advance in my career.
Because: I'm afraid of having no income later in life.
8. Identify key words and phrases. Advance, career, afraid, no income, later in life.
9. List any repeated word or phrase. None.
10. Shall we test for informal fallacies? No, go directly to rigorous test.
11. Recall our answer. Let this be Q. Q = Advance in my career.
Recall also our reason. Fear of no income later in life.
12. What is our argument type? We do not know.
13. Does our answer involve Q and an alternative P? Yes.
14. An argument involving alternatives is a disjunctive argument. The alternatives are disjuncts.
15. Let P represent the other disjunct. P = No income later in life.
16. Do Q and P have undesirable consequences? Yes.
17. This is a dilemma.
18. Can we prevent, reverse or remedy the undesirable consequence of one disjunct?
Yes: No income later in life.
19. Choose that option. Our question is answered.
Reflection
The Instrument continues to function well, but it offers little entertainment value and hence will not be conducive to greater attendance. We may have to revert to a more free for all approach -- and offer only sporadic guidance on the techniques of clear thought.
Philosophy cafe is held every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, Singapore, 8-10pm. No prerequisites. All welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)