How is an argument vertically enlarged?
An argument is vertically enlarged when we either seek proof if its premisses, or use its conclusion in further arguments. In the first case, the premisses then become the conclusions of further arguments, for which new premisses must be provided. In the second case, the conclusions then become the premisses of further arguments. And so on -- to form a mega-argument. One caveat: The backward enlargement cannot go on indefinitely. Arguments cannot be allowed to regress forever. It must stop at some assumptions.
Why can't we allow infinite regress?
We cannot allow infinite regress because that would mean we can never return to the present argument and conclusion. We will never be able to prove anything. So at some point premisses must be assumed to be true.
Does this mean all arguments ultimately rest on quicksand?
No, because these ultimate assumptions are made only when we reach the limit of our scepticism, so we can be confident it does not rest on quicksand.
But everything can be questioned!
Of course, we can persevere and demand ever further proof, but it would not serve any useful purpose. The point of asking a question is to answer it, and not to raise interminably more questions.
Next: How is an argument horizontally developed into a case?
Readers are invited to pose questions (use comment feature to do this) to move this course along -- and to check out my website for details of the course (NOUS: A Practical Guide to Clear Thought) that I conduct on this subject.
Friday, 27 March 2009
Do we still need ideology today?
Source: The Straits Times, 20/3/9, p.A24
Headline: The case for ideology
Writer: By Anu Saksena
Quote1
Questions have been asked once again about the relevance of ideology, understood as a coherent set of ideas about the existing socio-economic order and offering a blueprint of the future. ...
Comment1
The topic is introduced. The term ideology is defined.
Quote2
In 1960, the sociologist Daniel Bell argued in his seminal work End Of Ideology that ideology was dead, at least in the advanced, industrialised societies of the West. ... In part, this belief came naturally to a generation that had lived through World War II and the holocaust and had concluded that ideological politics was at the root of all misery.
Comment2
The Holocaust experience led many to conclude that ideology is a necessary and sufficient cause of all misery. In formal terms:
(have ideology) = (misery)
This permits Argument #1
Argument #1
Premiss1: (have ideology) = (misery)
Premiss2: reject-(misery)
Conclusion: Hence, reject-(have ideology)
We have one argument for rejecting ideology.
Quote3
In some ways, the "end of ideology" debate was based on a highly limited understanding of "ideology". It was viewed as an indication of an intolerant and limited perspective. ...
Comment3
We have a second argument.
Argument #2
Premiss1: If (have ideology), then (intolerant and limited)
Premiss2: Reject-(intolerant and limited)
Conclusion: hence, reject-(have ideology)
This argument also rejects ideology.
Quote4
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the thesis was revived in Francis Fukuyama's End Of History. The term "end of history" ... means ... that one set of ideas -- Western liberalism, in particular -- had triumphed, thus bringing to a conclusion the historical contestation of ideas.
Comment4
This argument has a slightly different thrust.
Argument #3
Premiss1: If (one ideology triumphs), then (ideology contest ends)
Premiss2: One ideology triumphs
ConclusionL Hence, ideology contest ends
Quote5
The 21st century, however, has witnessed the revival ... of religious fundamentalism and ethno-nationalism. Also, environmentalism or ecologism has emerged as the most cross-cutting ideology in the world today.
Comment5
Other ideologies are revived. Premiss2 in Argument #3 is no longer true. Argument #3 collapses.
Quote6
All ideologies are the result of crises of one kind or another. The crisis that looms largest today is the global economic recession. ... It has raised fundamental questions about free market capitalism and the role of government in the economy.
Comment6
The global economic crisis raised fundamental questions. Premiss2 in Argument #3 is again no longer true. Argument #3 again collapses.
Quote7
There is a need to reorient the existing liberal capitalist model. In the past it has responded to the changing needs of time in a dynamic manner. ...
Comment7
The conclusion is (need to reorient existing liberal capitalist model). The argument for this conclusion is complex, hidden behind the simple second sentence. Let me try to present the complex argument formally (this being the clearest way to present an argument).
Argument #4
Premiss1: If (no proof ideology contest end), then (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model)
Premiss2: (No proof ideology contest end) [from Comment5 and Comment6]
Conclusion: Hence, (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model)
This opens the door for Argument #5.
Argument #5A
Reason: In past, If (changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [Sentence2 in Quote7]
Conclusion: Hence, now, If (changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [to #5C,P1]
Argument #5B
Premiss1: If (fundamentalism & economic recession), then (changing needs) [implied]
Premiss2: Fundamentalism & economic recession [from Quote5 and Quote6]
Conclusion: (changing needs) [to #5C, P2]
Argument #5C
Premiss1: If ((changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [Argument #5A]
Premiss2: (changing needs) [Argument #5B]
Conclusion: Then (reorient liberal capitalist model)
The first problem in Argument #5 arises in #5A. Just because something has been a certain way in the past does not imply that it must continue to be that way in the present or future. Examples: Foot-binding, slavery. To argue this way commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum (Tradition). Such an argument must be rejected.
The second problem in Argument #5 is in #5C, P1. All that Argument #4 had shown was (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model), it did not compel it. Back to Argument #5C: it remains possible that the current liberal capitalist model continues to be adequate to the ideological contest with (fundamentalism & economic recession).
Argument #5 fails.
Quote8
No one knows when the current crises will end and what the future holds for us, but we can be quite certain that ideologies and ideological debate will continue to transform the world. We need ideologies to make sense of the complex world we live in. ...
Comment8
A position is taken that "ideologies and ideological debate will continue to transform the world". The argument offered is one of necessity.
Argument #6
Premiss1: If (make sense of world), then (need ideology)
Premiss2: Make sense of world
Conclusion: Hence, need ideology
Quote9
Far from shying away from ideological debates, we should embrace them for they can offer us different visions of a changing world and how best to cope with it.
Comment9
(Need ideology) [from Argument #6] does not entail (embrace ideology debate) [position in Quote9]. That requires the further steps of saying:
1. We wish to have the best ideology.
2. Having the best ideology allows us to best cope with the changing world.
3. Ideology debate results in the best ideology.
These steps are not taken.
Also, Argument #1 and Argument #2 for rejecting ideology have not been rebutted. They still stand.
Conclusion
Ideology is something we need [Argument #6], but should not have [Argument #1, Argument #2].
Headline: The case for ideology
Writer: By Anu Saksena
Quote1
Questions have been asked once again about the relevance of ideology, understood as a coherent set of ideas about the existing socio-economic order and offering a blueprint of the future. ...
Comment1
The topic is introduced. The term ideology is defined.
Quote2
In 1960, the sociologist Daniel Bell argued in his seminal work End Of Ideology that ideology was dead, at least in the advanced, industrialised societies of the West. ... In part, this belief came naturally to a generation that had lived through World War II and the holocaust and had concluded that ideological politics was at the root of all misery.
Comment2
The Holocaust experience led many to conclude that ideology is a necessary and sufficient cause of all misery. In formal terms:
(have ideology) = (misery)
This permits Argument #1
Argument #1
Premiss1: (have ideology) = (misery)
Premiss2: reject-(misery)
Conclusion: Hence, reject-(have ideology)
We have one argument for rejecting ideology.
Quote3
In some ways, the "end of ideology" debate was based on a highly limited understanding of "ideology". It was viewed as an indication of an intolerant and limited perspective. ...
Comment3
We have a second argument.
Argument #2
Premiss1: If (have ideology), then (intolerant and limited)
Premiss2: Reject-(intolerant and limited)
Conclusion: hence, reject-(have ideology)
This argument also rejects ideology.
Quote4
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the thesis was revived in Francis Fukuyama's End Of History. The term "end of history" ... means ... that one set of ideas -- Western liberalism, in particular -- had triumphed, thus bringing to a conclusion the historical contestation of ideas.
Comment4
This argument has a slightly different thrust.
Argument #3
Premiss1: If (one ideology triumphs), then (ideology contest ends)
Premiss2: One ideology triumphs
ConclusionL Hence, ideology contest ends
Quote5
The 21st century, however, has witnessed the revival ... of religious fundamentalism and ethno-nationalism. Also, environmentalism or ecologism has emerged as the most cross-cutting ideology in the world today.
Comment5
Other ideologies are revived. Premiss2 in Argument #3 is no longer true. Argument #3 collapses.
Quote6
All ideologies are the result of crises of one kind or another. The crisis that looms largest today is the global economic recession. ... It has raised fundamental questions about free market capitalism and the role of government in the economy.
Comment6
The global economic crisis raised fundamental questions. Premiss2 in Argument #3 is again no longer true. Argument #3 again collapses.
Quote7
There is a need to reorient the existing liberal capitalist model. In the past it has responded to the changing needs of time in a dynamic manner. ...
Comment7
The conclusion is (need to reorient existing liberal capitalist model). The argument for this conclusion is complex, hidden behind the simple second sentence. Let me try to present the complex argument formally (this being the clearest way to present an argument).
Argument #4
Premiss1: If (no proof ideology contest end), then (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model)
Premiss2: (No proof ideology contest end) [from Comment5 and Comment6]
Conclusion: Hence, (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model)
This opens the door for Argument #5.
Argument #5A
Reason: In past, If (changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [Sentence2 in Quote7]
Conclusion: Hence, now, If (changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [to #5C,P1]
Argument #5B
Premiss1: If (fundamentalism & economic recession), then (changing needs) [implied]
Premiss2: Fundamentalism & economic recession [from Quote5 and Quote6]
Conclusion: (changing needs) [to #5C, P2]
Argument #5C
Premiss1: If ((changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [Argument #5A]
Premiss2: (changing needs) [Argument #5B]
Conclusion: Then (reorient liberal capitalist model)
The first problem in Argument #5 arises in #5A. Just because something has been a certain way in the past does not imply that it must continue to be that way in the present or future. Examples: Foot-binding, slavery. To argue this way commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum (Tradition). Such an argument must be rejected.
The second problem in Argument #5 is in #5C, P1. All that Argument #4 had shown was (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model), it did not compel it. Back to Argument #5C: it remains possible that the current liberal capitalist model continues to be adequate to the ideological contest with (fundamentalism & economic recession).
Argument #5 fails.
Quote8
No one knows when the current crises will end and what the future holds for us, but we can be quite certain that ideologies and ideological debate will continue to transform the world. We need ideologies to make sense of the complex world we live in. ...
Comment8
A position is taken that "ideologies and ideological debate will continue to transform the world". The argument offered is one of necessity.
Argument #6
Premiss1: If (make sense of world), then (need ideology)
Premiss2: Make sense of world
Conclusion: Hence, need ideology
Quote9
Far from shying away from ideological debates, we should embrace them for they can offer us different visions of a changing world and how best to cope with it.
Comment9
(Need ideology) [from Argument #6] does not entail (embrace ideology debate) [position in Quote9]. That requires the further steps of saying:
1. We wish to have the best ideology.
2. Having the best ideology allows us to best cope with the changing world.
3. Ideology debate results in the best ideology.
These steps are not taken.
Also, Argument #1 and Argument #2 for rejecting ideology have not been rebutted. They still stand.
Conclusion
Ideology is something we need [Argument #6], but should not have [Argument #1, Argument #2].
Is Joanne Peh for real?
Singapore actress Joanne Peh claims her bust size increase is natural. Experts comment.
Source: The Sunday Times, 22/3/9, p.10
Headline: Busted
Quote1:
Local actress Joanne Peh has caused a storm in a D-cup after claiming that her breasts always swell up by one whole cup size at that time of the month, ... claiming that her mammaries usually become bigger when she is having her period due to hormones.
Comment1:
This is the claim: Menstrual hormones cause cup-size increase.
Quote2:
Dr Beh Suan Tiong, an obstetrician and gynaecologist at Thomson Medical Centre, said: "There is usually some fluid retention when a woman has her period due to hromonal changes. This fluid retention will make her breasts bigger."
Comment2:
One expert confirms that the claimed cause can indeed lead to swollen breasts.
Quote3:
But he was adamant when he said: "Having their breasts increase by a cup size during their period does not happen for most women. The change would not be so drastic.
Comment3:
The problem is the degree of swelling. Here is the argument.
Argument #1
Reason: For most women, no cup-size swelling
Conclusion: Hence, for Ms Peh, no cup-size swelling
This argument is inductive, which means the conclusion is less than certain. From (most women), we can conclude only (likely also Ms Peh) -- but not (certainly Ms Peh). She could be the exception to the rule. Ms Peh's claim is not ruled out as impossible.
Quote4:
"Otherwise, they [most women] would need to have two different sets of bras with different cup sizes."
Comment4:
Now a deductive argument is offered.
Argument #2
Premiss1: If (cup-size increase), then (two bra sets)
Premiss2: Not-(two bra sets)
Conclusion: Hence, not-(cup-size increase)
This argument has the valid Modus Tollens structure (If P then Q, not-Q, hence not-P). Premiss1 can be accepted as intuitively true. It is intended that the consequent (two bra sets) be rejected as absurd in Premiss2. This would make the argument the special case of Modus Tollens known as Reductio ad Absurdum (reduce to absurdity). But the consequent (two bra sets) is not absurd. A lazy dieter, for example, will also have a wardrobe of various size clothes. Since Premiss2 cannot be taken as true, Argument #2 must be rejected. Ms Peh's claim is again not ruled out as impossible.
Quote5:
Dr Christopher Chong, who owns Chris Chong Women and Urogynae Clinic at Gleneagles Hospital, agreed: "For a woman's breasts to be significantly enlarged during her period is very unusual.
Comment5:
This is Argument #1 repeated -- with the same evaluation.
Quote6:
"My patients have not complained of their breasts increasing by one cup size before."
Comment6:
This is also Argument #1, but this time the inference is from a smaller group -- his patients. Is this a representative sample of women in general? Is a cup-size increase something that would drive a woman to consult her gynaecologist? The great number of advertisements offering cup-size increase treatments would suggest not.
Conclusion:
Ms Peh's claim is not rebutted.
The prose version of this post
Ms Joanne Peh claims that her breasts enlarge due to hormonal changes during menstruation. Dr Beh says that while menstrual hormonal changes do cause fluid retention and thereby enlarge breasts, in most women this enlargement does not occur to the extent of a cup-size increase. Well, "most women" does not mean "all women". Ms Peh could be the exception to the general rule. Dr Beh also says that a woman who has a cup-size breast enlargement will need two sets of bras, and implies that this is an absurd situation, thereby refuting the claim of a cup-size increase. But, in the same way as a lazy dieter has a wardrobe of various sized clothes, it is not absurd for a woman to have two sets of bras. Dr Chong repeats the "most women are not like this" argument. The same objection applies. Secondly, Dr Chong says his patients don't complain of cup-size increases. We wonder if a woman with a cup-size increase will see it as a problem, and consult a gynaecologist. The great number of advertisement offering precisely such treatments suggest that women do not see this as a problem requiring medical attention.
Source: The Sunday Times, 22/3/9, p.10
Headline: Busted
Quote1:
Local actress Joanne Peh has caused a storm in a D-cup after claiming that her breasts always swell up by one whole cup size at that time of the month, ... claiming that her mammaries usually become bigger when she is having her period due to hormones.
Comment1:
This is the claim: Menstrual hormones cause cup-size increase.
Quote2:
Dr Beh Suan Tiong, an obstetrician and gynaecologist at Thomson Medical Centre, said: "There is usually some fluid retention when a woman has her period due to hromonal changes. This fluid retention will make her breasts bigger."
Comment2:
One expert confirms that the claimed cause can indeed lead to swollen breasts.
Quote3:
But he was adamant when he said: "Having their breasts increase by a cup size during their period does not happen for most women. The change would not be so drastic.
Comment3:
The problem is the degree of swelling. Here is the argument.
Argument #1
Reason: For most women, no cup-size swelling
Conclusion: Hence, for Ms Peh, no cup-size swelling
This argument is inductive, which means the conclusion is less than certain. From (most women), we can conclude only (likely also Ms Peh) -- but not (certainly Ms Peh). She could be the exception to the rule. Ms Peh's claim is not ruled out as impossible.
Quote4:
"Otherwise, they [most women] would need to have two different sets of bras with different cup sizes."
Comment4:
Now a deductive argument is offered.
Argument #2
Premiss1: If (cup-size increase), then (two bra sets)
Premiss2: Not-(two bra sets)
Conclusion: Hence, not-(cup-size increase)
This argument has the valid Modus Tollens structure (If P then Q, not-Q, hence not-P). Premiss1 can be accepted as intuitively true. It is intended that the consequent (two bra sets) be rejected as absurd in Premiss2. This would make the argument the special case of Modus Tollens known as Reductio ad Absurdum (reduce to absurdity). But the consequent (two bra sets) is not absurd. A lazy dieter, for example, will also have a wardrobe of various size clothes. Since Premiss2 cannot be taken as true, Argument #2 must be rejected. Ms Peh's claim is again not ruled out as impossible.
Quote5:
Dr Christopher Chong, who owns Chris Chong Women and Urogynae Clinic at Gleneagles Hospital, agreed: "For a woman's breasts to be significantly enlarged during her period is very unusual.
Comment5:
This is Argument #1 repeated -- with the same evaluation.
Quote6:
"My patients have not complained of their breasts increasing by one cup size before."
Comment6:
This is also Argument #1, but this time the inference is from a smaller group -- his patients. Is this a representative sample of women in general? Is a cup-size increase something that would drive a woman to consult her gynaecologist? The great number of advertisements offering cup-size increase treatments would suggest not.
Conclusion:
Ms Peh's claim is not rebutted.
The prose version of this post
Ms Joanne Peh claims that her breasts enlarge due to hormonal changes during menstruation. Dr Beh says that while menstrual hormonal changes do cause fluid retention and thereby enlarge breasts, in most women this enlargement does not occur to the extent of a cup-size increase. Well, "most women" does not mean "all women". Ms Peh could be the exception to the general rule. Dr Beh also says that a woman who has a cup-size breast enlargement will need two sets of bras, and implies that this is an absurd situation, thereby refuting the claim of a cup-size increase. But, in the same way as a lazy dieter has a wardrobe of various sized clothes, it is not absurd for a woman to have two sets of bras. Dr Chong repeats the "most women are not like this" argument. The same objection applies. Secondly, Dr Chong says his patients don't complain of cup-size increases. We wonder if a woman with a cup-size increase will see it as a problem, and consult a gynaecologist. The great number of advertisement offering precisely such treatments suggest that women do not see this as a problem requiring medical attention.
Is keeping wild animals in captivity a good idea?
This is the report of a special philosophy cafe session on 25/3/9.
Many answers (positions) are proposed.
Yes, it is a good idea, because:
1. It makes possible scientific research.
2. Visitors can see those animals. This produces commercial benefit. This allows people to form compassionate links with the animals.
3. The animals are safer in captivity than in the wild.
No, it is not a good idea, because:
4. It is inhumane.
5. Animals lose their freedom.
6. It encourages people to collect animals (like stamps).
We make some brief comments on some of these arguments.
Argument #1
Yes, keeping wild animals in captivity makes possible scientific research. It is also possible to do animal research in the wild. This does not refute the argument (that research in captivity is possible).
Argument #4
It is inhumane to keep wild animals in captivity. This relates to the idea of animal rights. But animals do not claim these rights; it is we humans who give animals these rights. Animals don't know about these rights.
Argument #5
Animals lose their freedom. Are animals aware of this?
We decide to test an argument. We pick Argument #2, specifically the second version.
Argument #2
Reason: Keeping wild animals in captivity allows people to form compassionate links with the animals.
Conclusion: Therefore, keeping wild animals in captivity is a good idea.
We apply the first test: Does reason imply conclusion?
We agree that it does. The argument passes the first test.
We apply the second test: Is the reason true?
We decide that some people do form compassionate links, and some people do not. The argument passes the second test in a weakened form.
We next turn our attention to Argument #4.
Argument #4
Reason: Keeping wild animals in captivity is inhumane.
Conclusion: Therefore, keeping wild animals in captivity is not a good idea.
We apply the first test: Does the reason imply the conclusion? We answer "yes".
We apply the second test: Is the reason true? Is keeping wild animals in captivity indeed inhumane?
We decide we need to define captivity before we can answer this.
Here we experience some difficulty, considering various examples and counterexamples eg. cages, zoos, nature reserves, parks. We arrive at:
Captivity =df. roam freely in man-made constrained space that simulates their [animals'] natural environment.
We are not entirely satisfied with this. We are bothered by cases of eagles and Artic terns -- which in nature uses more space than man can ever provide.
But we run out of time. We end the discussion. It has been an excellent session.
Readers who are interested to engage in the rational and rigorous 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 Nook, 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 on 15 April 2009.
Many answers (positions) are proposed.
Yes, it is a good idea, because:
1. It makes possible scientific research.
2. Visitors can see those animals. This produces commercial benefit. This allows people to form compassionate links with the animals.
3. The animals are safer in captivity than in the wild.
No, it is not a good idea, because:
4. It is inhumane.
5. Animals lose their freedom.
6. It encourages people to collect animals (like stamps).
We make some brief comments on some of these arguments.
Argument #1
Yes, keeping wild animals in captivity makes possible scientific research. It is also possible to do animal research in the wild. This does not refute the argument (that research in captivity is possible).
Argument #4
It is inhumane to keep wild animals in captivity. This relates to the idea of animal rights. But animals do not claim these rights; it is we humans who give animals these rights. Animals don't know about these rights.
Argument #5
Animals lose their freedom. Are animals aware of this?
We decide to test an argument. We pick Argument #2, specifically the second version.
Argument #2
Reason: Keeping wild animals in captivity allows people to form compassionate links with the animals.
Conclusion: Therefore, keeping wild animals in captivity is a good idea.
We apply the first test: Does reason imply conclusion?
We agree that it does. The argument passes the first test.
We apply the second test: Is the reason true?
We decide that some people do form compassionate links, and some people do not. The argument passes the second test in a weakened form.
We next turn our attention to Argument #4.
Argument #4
Reason: Keeping wild animals in captivity is inhumane.
Conclusion: Therefore, keeping wild animals in captivity is not a good idea.
We apply the first test: Does the reason imply the conclusion? We answer "yes".
We apply the second test: Is the reason true? Is keeping wild animals in captivity indeed inhumane?
We decide we need to define captivity before we can answer this.
Here we experience some difficulty, considering various examples and counterexamples eg. cages, zoos, nature reserves, parks. We arrive at:
Captivity =df. roam freely in man-made constrained space that simulates their [animals'] natural environment.
We are not entirely satisfied with this. We are bothered by cases of eagles and Artic terns -- which in nature uses more space than man can ever provide.
But we run out of time. We end the discussion. It has been an excellent session.
Readers who are interested to engage in the rational and rigorous 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 Nook, 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 on 15 April 2009.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Does technology affect the quality of a relationship?
Good news. Philosophy cafe has been reborn. The new format works. Participants are given a short primer on the dynamics of argument, then let loose on the question for the night. I step in only when discussion stymies or goes haywire. Here is a summary of the evening's answer. (The point of asking a question is to answer it, not to generate endless other questions.)
Technology is defined as telecommunication media eg. telephone, Internet, morse code, telegram, Skype.
Affect is defined as change, both for the better and for the worse.
Quality is defined as the way a relationship works eg. degree of honesty, time invested.
Relationship is defined as non-business human relationship, with an emotional stake.
Technology removes the need for face-to-face interaction. This has positive effect eg. allowing people half a world apart to keep in easy contact. This also has negative effect eg. office neighbours communicate via Messenger. The answer to our question is yes.
Technology is a distraction. Positive effect eg. incoming message interrupts a quarrel. Negative effect: the same interrupts a conversation. The answer is yes.
Technology is an obsession or compulsion. Clearly a negative effect. The answer is yes.
This is not an inevitable answer. The answer can also be no.
Technology will not affect the quality of a relationship if the persons concerned consciously decide to hold priorities that supercede technology eg. by switching off all communication devices while enjoying a candlelight dinner.
Technology will not affect the quality of a relationship if the persons concerned are unaware of the technology eg. if we observe a primitive tribe only via satellite.
Answer: Technology can be absent or ignored, in which cases it does not affect the quality of a relationship. Otherwise, it can have positive and negative effects.
Note to readers: This answer appears to be obvious when so clearly stated. But did you know this answer when you read just the heading to this post?
Enthusiastic first-time participants requested another session in a week's time. So the next philosophy cafe session is on Wednesday, 25/3/9, 8-10pm at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. All are welcome.
Technology is defined as telecommunication media eg. telephone, Internet, morse code, telegram, Skype.
Affect is defined as change, both for the better and for the worse.
Quality is defined as the way a relationship works eg. degree of honesty, time invested.
Relationship is defined as non-business human relationship, with an emotional stake.
Technology removes the need for face-to-face interaction. This has positive effect eg. allowing people half a world apart to keep in easy contact. This also has negative effect eg. office neighbours communicate via Messenger. The answer to our question is yes.
Technology is a distraction. Positive effect eg. incoming message interrupts a quarrel. Negative effect: the same interrupts a conversation. The answer is yes.
Technology is an obsession or compulsion. Clearly a negative effect. The answer is yes.
This is not an inevitable answer. The answer can also be no.
Technology will not affect the quality of a relationship if the persons concerned consciously decide to hold priorities that supercede technology eg. by switching off all communication devices while enjoying a candlelight dinner.
Technology will not affect the quality of a relationship if the persons concerned are unaware of the technology eg. if we observe a primitive tribe only via satellite.
Answer: Technology can be absent or ignored, in which cases it does not affect the quality of a relationship. Otherwise, it can have positive and negative effects.
Note to readers: This answer appears to be obvious when so clearly stated. But did you know this answer when you read just the heading to this post?
Enthusiastic first-time participants requested another session in a week's time. So the next philosophy cafe session is on Wednesday, 25/3/9, 8-10pm at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. All are welcome.
Monday, 16 March 2009
Philosophy cafe reborn
I have been conducting philosophy cafe sessions for the past five years at Gone Fishing Cafe. Over these five years, I have been trying to refine my format for conducting these discussions. Just as I was settling on a workable format, Gone Fishing Cafe underwent a change of management.
Today, I am glad to announce that I have managed to obtain permission from the new management of the cafe to continue conducting my philosophy cafe sessions at the venue. The cafe has had a change of name. It is now called Nook. Here are the logistical details.
Venue: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road.
Time: Every third Wednesday of the month, from 8-10pm (next session: 18 March 2009)
Charges: Free admission. Individual expenses on food and drink.
Topic: To be decided by participants. All are welcome (no prerequisite).
Interested readers can refer to "Philosophy cafe reports" to read summaries of previous sessions. Hope to see you there.
Today, I am glad to announce that I have managed to obtain permission from the new management of the cafe to continue conducting my philosophy cafe sessions at the venue. The cafe has had a change of name. It is now called Nook. Here are the logistical details.
Venue: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road.
Time: Every third Wednesday of the month, from 8-10pm (next session: 18 March 2009)
Charges: Free admission. Individual expenses on food and drink.
Topic: To be decided by participants. All are welcome (no prerequisite).
Interested readers can refer to "Philosophy cafe reports" to read summaries of previous sessions. Hope to see you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)