A regular visitor to my philosophy cafe asked me this question after a session, saying knowing this will help him formulate questions to offer at future philosophy cafe sessions. Coincidentally, I had also thought about this very question during my Introduction to Philosophy course last year. Here is the answer I came up with.
A question is philosophical if it satisfies three conditions:
1. The question has not yet been answered by science.
2. There is more than one possible answer.
3. The question cannot be answered by conducting an experiment.
However, it does not follow from this that every philosophical question will be philosophically addressed. A very common practice is to immediately jump to an answer, and to tightly hold on to it against all objections. To philosophically address a question, one must:
1. Assume that the question can be answered.
2. Examine only the argument offered to support any proposed answer.
3. Separate the argument from the arguer.
I hope this will help all future participants of my philosophy cafe -- as well as everyone attempting clear thought.
END
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Friday, 22 January 2010
Do beer ladies need a career path?
This is a report of my philosophy café session on 20 January 2010.
The question of the evening, selected as usual by a popular vote, is: “Do beer ladies need a career path?”
We begin by recognizing that the phrase “beer lady” does not refer to a specific person or job, but rather is a representative of a type of job, namely one whose shelf life is in concept limited by certain generally well known parameters. Another example of this type of job is “child star”. In both cases, the parameter is age.
Next, we define “career path” as “a set of jobs in a logical progression within the same industry or profession”.
Finally, we define “need”. A person needs a job when he or she would, if deprived of that job, languish in a state of despair.
Consider an entrepreneur. This job has a short shelf life, even though the entrepreneur cannot be fired from the job. If the business fails, the entrepreneur is no more. If the business succeeds, the entrepreneur becomes a manager. In either case, the entrepreneur has reached the end of his or her shelf life. There is no possible career path. Hence, the question must refer to an employee.
Employment occurs in an organization with a hierarchy, which makes career paths possible.
What about a lateral movement? Does it count as movement along a career path? Generally it does not, since there is no progression. However, if the lateral movements are part of a management plan for the given employee, then it is a career path.
An organizational hierarchy is needed to provide a rank, which is what enables an employee to do his or her job.
An employee needs a career path to provide motivation.
Beer ladies are not part of a hierarchy, hence they have no motivation. Not so.
First, in certain establishments, even beer ladies can be part of a hierarchy. They can become senior beer ladies, or even managers of beer ladies. We have in mind especially F&B establishments.
Second, it is possible to have motivation without a hierarchy. Increased cash revenue is also a strong motivator. Hence, a hierarchy is not needed; a career path is not needed.
So, where do beer ladies go when they hit their job parameters? They can take advantage of unplanned opportunities. There is no set path for them to follow; instead they travel a flexible path that responds to the moment in time.
Beer ladies do not need a career path; a series of jobs will serve them just as well.
Our question is answered.
Philosophy café sessions are held every third Wednesday of each month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. All persons with enquiring minds are welcome. It’s free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. Oh, also free parking. Our next philosophy café session will be on 17 February 2010.
The question of the evening, selected as usual by a popular vote, is: “Do beer ladies need a career path?”
We begin by recognizing that the phrase “beer lady” does not refer to a specific person or job, but rather is a representative of a type of job, namely one whose shelf life is in concept limited by certain generally well known parameters. Another example of this type of job is “child star”. In both cases, the parameter is age.
Next, we define “career path” as “a set of jobs in a logical progression within the same industry or profession”.
Finally, we define “need”. A person needs a job when he or she would, if deprived of that job, languish in a state of despair.
Consider an entrepreneur. This job has a short shelf life, even though the entrepreneur cannot be fired from the job. If the business fails, the entrepreneur is no more. If the business succeeds, the entrepreneur becomes a manager. In either case, the entrepreneur has reached the end of his or her shelf life. There is no possible career path. Hence, the question must refer to an employee.
Employment occurs in an organization with a hierarchy, which makes career paths possible.
What about a lateral movement? Does it count as movement along a career path? Generally it does not, since there is no progression. However, if the lateral movements are part of a management plan for the given employee, then it is a career path.
An organizational hierarchy is needed to provide a rank, which is what enables an employee to do his or her job.
An employee needs a career path to provide motivation.
Beer ladies are not part of a hierarchy, hence they have no motivation. Not so.
First, in certain establishments, even beer ladies can be part of a hierarchy. They can become senior beer ladies, or even managers of beer ladies. We have in mind especially F&B establishments.
Second, it is possible to have motivation without a hierarchy. Increased cash revenue is also a strong motivator. Hence, a hierarchy is not needed; a career path is not needed.
So, where do beer ladies go when they hit their job parameters? They can take advantage of unplanned opportunities. There is no set path for them to follow; instead they travel a flexible path that responds to the moment in time.
Beer ladies do not need a career path; a series of jobs will serve them just as well.
Our question is answered.
Philosophy café sessions are held every third Wednesday of each month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. All persons with enquiring minds are welcome. It’s free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. Oh, also free parking. Our next philosophy café session will be on 17 February 2010.
Friday, 18 December 2009
What does it mean to be cheating in a relationship?
This is a report of the philosophy café session on 16 December 2009. The topic for the evening is: What does it mean to be cheating in a relationship?
Is “cheating” only physical? We cannot separate the physical from the non-physical. The thought of cheating is already cheating. Let’s be specific, thoughts of what? Thoughts of dinner, dating, sex – are these all physical?
Our first try at defining “cheating”: It is the undermining of the exclusiveness of a romantic relationship.
Is a relationship confined to two persons? No, it can be more than two.
Exclusiveness is a state of mind, the thought of being exclusive, of belonging to the group (may be two, or more). Belonging means not having any intimate physical relationship outside the group. Intimate physical relationship means touch, including sex and holding hands; but not flirting (because no touch involved).
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship.
What if a couple uses a third person to have a child?
One husband is allowed to have extramarital sex provided he uses condoms, pays for the sex, and is home by 7am the next day. This arrangement is with the wife’s agreement – even though she is unhappy about it.
Is agreement important in cheating? If there is agreement, then the relationship is not undermined. Therefore, there is no cheating.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without agreement from the group.
Some Hong Kong millionaires maintain several mistresses, with their wives’ agreement. It is economic circumstances that force the wives to agree. It is not a freely granted agreement.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group.
Is knowledge of the act important? If the other persons in the group know about it, then it is not cheating. It is cheating only if the other persons in the group do not know about the alleged cheating act.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, and without the other persons in the group knowing about it.
What about intention to start another relationship? Yes, if there is such an intention, then it is cheating; if there is not such an intention, then it is not cheating.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, without the other persons in the group knowing about it, and with the intention to start another relationship.
What about people who engage in wife swapping? There is freely granted agreement, there is knowledge, and there is no intention to start a new relationship. Is such wife swapping arrangements cases of cheating? On the present definition, it is not cheating.
What about colleagues who like, even “love”, each other, but who never touch each other? Is this cheating? On our present definition, it is not cheating.
What if a member of the group gets raped? Has she (or he) cheated? We run through the criteria. There is touch, it is with someone outside the group, there is no freely granted agreement, the group do not know about it, and there is no intention to start another relationship. By the current definition, the rape victim is guilty of cheating.
We are aghast at this result. The definition needs to be further improved, specifically the criterion of touch (captured in the criterion of exclusivity).
It is not cheating if the touch is forced upon the person being touched.
Cheating is the undermining of the unforced tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, without the other persons in the group knowing about it, and with the intention to start another relationship.
What about internet liaisons? There is no touch involved. It is not cheating.
But it is cheating! We have to change the “touch” criterion. Exclusivity should be defined as “behaviours or thoughts that fulfill romantic or sexual desires”. This will make internet liaisons instances of cheating.
This definition will also make cheating include the reading of romantic novels, having crushes on someone, becoming fanatical over movie characters in films like Twilight, and even autoeroticism.
This result is absurd! This amendment must be rejected.
It is 10pm. Discussion stops here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held on every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. I define philosophy as "the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth". Participants choose the topic by a popular vote. There is no prerequisite, educational or otherwise -- except for that of a curious mind. It's free admission, with personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome. Our next philosophy cafe session is on 20 January 2010. I hope to see you there.
Is “cheating” only physical? We cannot separate the physical from the non-physical. The thought of cheating is already cheating. Let’s be specific, thoughts of what? Thoughts of dinner, dating, sex – are these all physical?
Our first try at defining “cheating”: It is the undermining of the exclusiveness of a romantic relationship.
Is a relationship confined to two persons? No, it can be more than two.
Exclusiveness is a state of mind, the thought of being exclusive, of belonging to the group (may be two, or more). Belonging means not having any intimate physical relationship outside the group. Intimate physical relationship means touch, including sex and holding hands; but not flirting (because no touch involved).
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship.
What if a couple uses a third person to have a child?
One husband is allowed to have extramarital sex provided he uses condoms, pays for the sex, and is home by 7am the next day. This arrangement is with the wife’s agreement – even though she is unhappy about it.
Is agreement important in cheating? If there is agreement, then the relationship is not undermined. Therefore, there is no cheating.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without agreement from the group.
Some Hong Kong millionaires maintain several mistresses, with their wives’ agreement. It is economic circumstances that force the wives to agree. It is not a freely granted agreement.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group.
Is knowledge of the act important? If the other persons in the group know about it, then it is not cheating. It is cheating only if the other persons in the group do not know about the alleged cheating act.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, and without the other persons in the group knowing about it.
What about intention to start another relationship? Yes, if there is such an intention, then it is cheating; if there is not such an intention, then it is not cheating.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, without the other persons in the group knowing about it, and with the intention to start another relationship.
What about people who engage in wife swapping? There is freely granted agreement, there is knowledge, and there is no intention to start a new relationship. Is such wife swapping arrangements cases of cheating? On the present definition, it is not cheating.
What about colleagues who like, even “love”, each other, but who never touch each other? Is this cheating? On our present definition, it is not cheating.
What if a member of the group gets raped? Has she (or he) cheated? We run through the criteria. There is touch, it is with someone outside the group, there is no freely granted agreement, the group do not know about it, and there is no intention to start another relationship. By the current definition, the rape victim is guilty of cheating.
We are aghast at this result. The definition needs to be further improved, specifically the criterion of touch (captured in the criterion of exclusivity).
It is not cheating if the touch is forced upon the person being touched.
Cheating is the undermining of the unforced tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, without the other persons in the group knowing about it, and with the intention to start another relationship.
What about internet liaisons? There is no touch involved. It is not cheating.
But it is cheating! We have to change the “touch” criterion. Exclusivity should be defined as “behaviours or thoughts that fulfill romantic or sexual desires”. This will make internet liaisons instances of cheating.
This definition will also make cheating include the reading of romantic novels, having crushes on someone, becoming fanatical over movie characters in films like Twilight, and even autoeroticism.
This result is absurd! This amendment must be rejected.
It is 10pm. Discussion stops here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held on every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. I define philosophy as "the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth". Participants choose the topic by a popular vote. There is no prerequisite, educational or otherwise -- except for that of a curious mind. It's free admission, with personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome. Our next philosophy cafe session is on 20 January 2010. I hope to see you there.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Should laws on Federal Reserve be changed?
US Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke and others comment on proposed legislation covering the central bank. We analyse the comments.
Headline: Fed fix flawed: Bernanke
Source: Today, 30/11/9
Quote1
WASHINGTON: In a commentary in the Washington Post yesterday, he [chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke] sharply criticised a Senate provision that he said "would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers" and a House provision to repeal a 30-year-old law "to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence". "A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions," he said. The measures "would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US". ...
Comment1
We here see the start of a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument.
Argument A
If (pass new laws), then the following consequences:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions
4. seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US
The unsaid part of the argument is that these consequences are all undesirable, and hence the proposed laws should not be passed. The problem now is that even when these are said, the argument is still incomplete. A complete teleological argument must consider all consequences to all affected parties, and only then should a decision be made, based on the nett benefit or pain caused by the proposed action (in this case passing the new laws).
Quote2
The 55-year-old Fed chairman has presided over the most expansive use of Fed powers since the Great Depression. While he has averted a financial meltdown, lawmakers and voters have voiced concern about taxpayer-sponsored bailouts and proposed the most sweeping dismantling of Fed authority since the creation of the institution in 1913. ...
Comment2
It turns out that the proposed laws are precisely designed to dismantle Fed authority. This being the case, Consequences 1, 2, 3 identified by Bernanke in Quote1 above are precisely the intended consequences. All Bernanke has achieved with his comments is confirm that the proposed laws will achieve their aims. What he needed to do was show that these three consequences are undesirable, and this he has not done. However, Bernanke's alleged Consequence 4 (seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US) is not affected.
Quote3
"Now more than ever, America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation," he [Bernanke] argued.
Comment3a
Now Bernanke strongly implies that the above Consequences 1, 2, 3 are undesirable. Since "America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank", we clearly cannot:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions.
Comment3b
But this raises a philosophical question: If the central bank is to be "non-political", then to whom is it answerable? Surely a central bank must answer to the government, and a government must, by definition, be political.
Quote4
Senate Banking Committee [sic] Christopher Dodd and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank have, however, criticised the Fed for lax supervision and want to create a single bank regulator -- a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Comment4
We have a new argument:
Argument B
Premiss1: If (Fed performs lax supervision), then (create new agency)
Premiss2: Fed performs lax supervision
Conclusion: Therefore, create new agency
This is a Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument. It is valid. All that remains is to prove the two premisses true. No proof to this effect is offered.
Quote5
As economist Allan Meltzer, a Fed historian and professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in an interview: "Congress has a lot of public support for an attack on the Fed ... They bailed out everybody in sight."
Comment5
"Public support" boils down to popularity. This is not an issue that should be settled by popularity. Here there should be a consideration of right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Hence, the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum has been committed, and this argument should be rejected.
Quote6
However, Mr James Glassman, senior economist ad JPMorgan Chase noted that while "the political pressure on the Fed is out there", the Fed "has done a very remarkable job managing the financial crisis and the recovery of the financial markets is a testimony to that. Of all the things to 'fix', why would we tamper with the one that actually has worked well?" -- The New York Times, Bloomberg.
Comment6a
"The political pressure on the Fed is out there" again refers to popularity, and is correctly ignored.
Comment6b
Here is the next argument:
Argument C
Premiss1: If (Fed is done a good job), then (no need to change laws)
Premiss2: Fed has done a good job [from Conclusion2]
Conclusion1: Hence, no need to change laws.
Premiss3: If (financial markets recover), then (Fed has done a good job)
Premiss4: Financial markets recover
Conclusion2: Hence, Fed has done a good job [to Premise2]
Both arguments have the Modus Ponens form, and are therefore valid. The premisses seem intuitively to be true. The arguments are sound, and therefore succeed.
Case analysis
Argument A: Consequences 1, 2, 3 rebutted. Consequence 4 stands. But the argument is incomplete, and raises the philosophical question of to whom should a central bank be answerable. In limbo.
Argument B: The argument is valid, but premisses not shown to be true. In limbo.
Quote5 commits the Argumentum ad Populum. Rejected.
Argument C succeeds.
Verdict: No need to change Federal Reserve laws.
END
Headline: Fed fix flawed: Bernanke
Source: Today, 30/11/9
Quote1
WASHINGTON: In a commentary in the Washington Post yesterday, he [chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke] sharply criticised a Senate provision that he said "would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers" and a House provision to repeal a 30-year-old law "to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence". "A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions," he said. The measures "would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US". ...
Comment1
We here see the start of a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument.
Argument A
If (pass new laws), then the following consequences:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions
4. seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US
The unsaid part of the argument is that these consequences are all undesirable, and hence the proposed laws should not be passed. The problem now is that even when these are said, the argument is still incomplete. A complete teleological argument must consider all consequences to all affected parties, and only then should a decision be made, based on the nett benefit or pain caused by the proposed action (in this case passing the new laws).
Quote2
The 55-year-old Fed chairman has presided over the most expansive use of Fed powers since the Great Depression. While he has averted a financial meltdown, lawmakers and voters have voiced concern about taxpayer-sponsored bailouts and proposed the most sweeping dismantling of Fed authority since the creation of the institution in 1913. ...
Comment2
It turns out that the proposed laws are precisely designed to dismantle Fed authority. This being the case, Consequences 1, 2, 3 identified by Bernanke in Quote1 above are precisely the intended consequences. All Bernanke has achieved with his comments is confirm that the proposed laws will achieve their aims. What he needed to do was show that these three consequences are undesirable, and this he has not done. However, Bernanke's alleged Consequence 4 (seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US) is not affected.
Quote3
"Now more than ever, America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation," he [Bernanke] argued.
Comment3a
Now Bernanke strongly implies that the above Consequences 1, 2, 3 are undesirable. Since "America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank", we clearly cannot:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions.
Comment3b
But this raises a philosophical question: If the central bank is to be "non-political", then to whom is it answerable? Surely a central bank must answer to the government, and a government must, by definition, be political.
Quote4
Senate Banking Committee [sic] Christopher Dodd and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank have, however, criticised the Fed for lax supervision and want to create a single bank regulator -- a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Comment4
We have a new argument:
Argument B
Premiss1: If (Fed performs lax supervision), then (create new agency)
Premiss2: Fed performs lax supervision
Conclusion: Therefore, create new agency
This is a Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument. It is valid. All that remains is to prove the two premisses true. No proof to this effect is offered.
Quote5
As economist Allan Meltzer, a Fed historian and professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in an interview: "Congress has a lot of public support for an attack on the Fed ... They bailed out everybody in sight."
Comment5
"Public support" boils down to popularity. This is not an issue that should be settled by popularity. Here there should be a consideration of right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Hence, the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum has been committed, and this argument should be rejected.
Quote6
However, Mr James Glassman, senior economist ad JPMorgan Chase noted that while "the political pressure on the Fed is out there", the Fed "has done a very remarkable job managing the financial crisis and the recovery of the financial markets is a testimony to that. Of all the things to 'fix', why would we tamper with the one that actually has worked well?" -- The New York Times, Bloomberg.
Comment6a
"The political pressure on the Fed is out there" again refers to popularity, and is correctly ignored.
Comment6b
Here is the next argument:
Argument C
Premiss1: If (Fed is done a good job), then (no need to change laws)
Premiss2: Fed has done a good job [from Conclusion2]
Conclusion1: Hence, no need to change laws.
Premiss3: If (financial markets recover), then (Fed has done a good job)
Premiss4: Financial markets recover
Conclusion2: Hence, Fed has done a good job [to Premise2]
Both arguments have the Modus Ponens form, and are therefore valid. The premisses seem intuitively to be true. The arguments are sound, and therefore succeed.
Case analysis
Argument A: Consequences 1, 2, 3 rebutted. Consequence 4 stands. But the argument is incomplete, and raises the philosophical question of to whom should a central bank be answerable. In limbo.
Argument B: The argument is valid, but premisses not shown to be true. In limbo.
Quote5 commits the Argumentum ad Populum. Rejected.
Argument C succeeds.
Verdict: No need to change Federal Reserve laws.
END
Saturday, 21 November 2009
What is marriage?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 18 November 2009.
Marriage is defined as "a union of two persons who have decided to live their lives together for various reasons". This definition is not challenged. The discussion immediately shifts to the reasons for marriage.
Humans invented marriage -- to regulate procreation, lineage and inheritance; and to pass on values. All these are to keep social order. Also, the incest taboo is to prevent genetic defects in children.
Marriage is selfish, possessive and competitive. There is an urge to declare to the world: "This is my spouse." Along the same lines, marriage is invented so that beta males can have a chance to mate. Were it not for marriage, all the women would go to the alpha males. No, it also benefits the beta females, who otherwise would lose all the men to the alpha females.
Gender imbalance also plays a part. Polygamy emerges in societies where there is great gender imbalance; whereas where the genders are in rough equivalence, monogamy prevails.
But variety is also important. An US experiment with bulls and cows found that when a bull and a cow were "married", after a time the bull lost interest in mating, and the cow stopped producing milk. When the bull and cow were "divorced", they soon resumed mating interest and milk production respectively. But this need not transfer to human beings.
Marriage is about being kings and queens -- albeit of just a family. It's about acquiring power, albeit only over spouse and children. This is as a sort of consolation prize after being unable to grasp real power as real kings, queens, and other types of rulers.
One can also get married to acquire a companion for life, to cohabit (at a time when this is socially disapproved if done outside marriage), to make parents happy, to grow up, to have someone see you grow up.
The definitive question to be answered is: what specifically does marriage produce, that otherwise cannot be produced?
In the old days, these were permission to have sex, and to produce children. But today, these are no longer exclusive to marriage. Sex between unmarried consenting adults is acceptable, as is single parenthood.
In closing, we conclude that marriage is a man-made construct, with no intrinsic value or function.
The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 16 December 2009. Place and time: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free, with personal expense for food and drink. All are welcome. No prior knowledge of philosophy is required. Just bring along curiosity and a rational mind (this is more difficult to achieve than you may imagine).
Marriage is defined as "a union of two persons who have decided to live their lives together for various reasons". This definition is not challenged. The discussion immediately shifts to the reasons for marriage.
Humans invented marriage -- to regulate procreation, lineage and inheritance; and to pass on values. All these are to keep social order. Also, the incest taboo is to prevent genetic defects in children.
Marriage is selfish, possessive and competitive. There is an urge to declare to the world: "This is my spouse." Along the same lines, marriage is invented so that beta males can have a chance to mate. Were it not for marriage, all the women would go to the alpha males. No, it also benefits the beta females, who otherwise would lose all the men to the alpha females.
Gender imbalance also plays a part. Polygamy emerges in societies where there is great gender imbalance; whereas where the genders are in rough equivalence, monogamy prevails.
But variety is also important. An US experiment with bulls and cows found that when a bull and a cow were "married", after a time the bull lost interest in mating, and the cow stopped producing milk. When the bull and cow were "divorced", they soon resumed mating interest and milk production respectively. But this need not transfer to human beings.
Marriage is about being kings and queens -- albeit of just a family. It's about acquiring power, albeit only over spouse and children. This is as a sort of consolation prize after being unable to grasp real power as real kings, queens, and other types of rulers.
One can also get married to acquire a companion for life, to cohabit (at a time when this is socially disapproved if done outside marriage), to make parents happy, to grow up, to have someone see you grow up.
The definitive question to be answered is: what specifically does marriage produce, that otherwise cannot be produced?
In the old days, these were permission to have sex, and to produce children. But today, these are no longer exclusive to marriage. Sex between unmarried consenting adults is acceptable, as is single parenthood.
In closing, we conclude that marriage is a man-made construct, with no intrinsic value or function.
The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 16 December 2009. Place and time: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free, with personal expense for food and drink. All are welcome. No prior knowledge of philosophy is required. Just bring along curiosity and a rational mind (this is more difficult to achieve than you may imagine).
Monday, 26 October 2009
Is it fair to pay bankers more than road sweepers?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 21 October 2009.
Bankers get paid more than road sweepers because of scarcity, that is, supply and demand. But what about hardship (the road sweeper is in the sun all day)? What about education (the banker is better educated)? Both these factors feed into scarcity.
We amend the question: Is it fair to pay bankers so much more than road sweepers?
We again mention hardship. Bankers suffer mental hardship, which often includes sleep deprivation (working overnight on big deals). Road sweepers suffer physical hardship. As a comparison, which would one choose to be: A $28,000 road sweeper, or a $850 banker. Everyone chooses the road sweeper.
How do we establish a fair dollar difference?
It is established on the basis of hardship, industry structure, talent and skill. But all these again boil down to scarcity: how many will endure the hardship, how many vacancies does the industry have, how many have the required talents and skills.
There is also a social issue involved here: How should a person live? How should a person be treated? This brings us to the question of a minimum wage.
Many oppose the idea of a minimum wage because it makes things difficult for companies, and even governments. But there is the nagging idea that people, as persons, are entitled to a minimum level of comfort in life.
Suppose we establish a floor salary to meet this minimum comfort, and allow any salary increase from this floor to be decided by scarcity (ie. market forces)? How can such a floor salary be established?
By referendum. Poll the entire population, and take the modal answer as the floor salary.
This is harder than it sounds. Everyone will respond with some huge number. Where will the money come from to meet this minimum? Will industry still be efficient if it has to pay such salaries? How often should the referendum be refreshed? Who will be eligible to vote?
Yet it is not impossible. There are countries with minimum wage systems -- and high tax rates.
Discussion ends here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. All are welcome. Admission is free, with individual expenses for food & drink. The only prerequisites for participation are curiosity and an open & rational mind. Our next session will be on 18 November 2009. We hope to see you there.
Bankers get paid more than road sweepers because of scarcity, that is, supply and demand. But what about hardship (the road sweeper is in the sun all day)? What about education (the banker is better educated)? Both these factors feed into scarcity.
We amend the question: Is it fair to pay bankers so much more than road sweepers?
We again mention hardship. Bankers suffer mental hardship, which often includes sleep deprivation (working overnight on big deals). Road sweepers suffer physical hardship. As a comparison, which would one choose to be: A $28,000 road sweeper, or a $850 banker. Everyone chooses the road sweeper.
How do we establish a fair dollar difference?
It is established on the basis of hardship, industry structure, talent and skill. But all these again boil down to scarcity: how many will endure the hardship, how many vacancies does the industry have, how many have the required talents and skills.
There is also a social issue involved here: How should a person live? How should a person be treated? This brings us to the question of a minimum wage.
Many oppose the idea of a minimum wage because it makes things difficult for companies, and even governments. But there is the nagging idea that people, as persons, are entitled to a minimum level of comfort in life.
Suppose we establish a floor salary to meet this minimum comfort, and allow any salary increase from this floor to be decided by scarcity (ie. market forces)? How can such a floor salary be established?
By referendum. Poll the entire population, and take the modal answer as the floor salary.
This is harder than it sounds. Everyone will respond with some huge number. Where will the money come from to meet this minimum? Will industry still be efficient if it has to pay such salaries? How often should the referendum be refreshed? Who will be eligible to vote?
Yet it is not impossible. There are countries with minimum wage systems -- and high tax rates.
Discussion ends here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. All are welcome. Admission is free, with individual expenses for food & drink. The only prerequisites for participation are curiosity and an open & rational mind. Our next session will be on 18 November 2009. We hope to see you there.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Am I meant to be here?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 16 September 2009. The question of the night is "Am I meant to be here?"
What do we mean by the word "meant"? We take it to mean "do I have a choice". So the question becomes: Do I have a choice in being here? How can this question be addressed? The only way we can answer this question is if we know about the I before here. But we do not know this. So there is no way for us to address this question. All we can do is accept the fact that we are here.
And so, we reinterpret the question to be asking whether we are controlled or free.
Are we controlled by God, by emotion, by logic? We decide not to open any discussion on God. Emotion and logic are internal to us. We decide to focus on external controls.
We are subject to physical laws of nature, such as gravity and the need for nutrition. This is not disputed. There is no controversy here. What we want to discuss is freedom in our actions.
It is suggested that just as there are laws of physical nature, there are also laws of psychological nature. Our thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, decisions (and hence actions) too are subject to the law of cause and effect, just as physical events are subject to laws of cause and effect.
In which case, why then should we ever reward or punish anyone? Everything he or she thinks, says and does is determined. There is nothing that comes from him or her. Analogically, if a machine were built that could compute its own decisions and actions, we could consider that machine "free" too -- but it is still subject to cause and effect.
Well, we can reward or punish someone just because it is precisely he or she who thinks, says and acts that way. It's not about original contribution; it's just about identity.
In this case, should I feel happy? What is happy? Happy is a chemical reaction in the body. It can be triggered by, for example, consuming dark chocolate (and certain drugs). We reward ourselves by releasing these chemicals eg. serotonin, endorphin. This too is subject to cause and effect.
So, we cannot speak of whether we should or should not be happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc. We simply are happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc.
The discussion ends.
What do we mean by the word "meant"? We take it to mean "do I have a choice". So the question becomes: Do I have a choice in being here? How can this question be addressed? The only way we can answer this question is if we know about the I before here. But we do not know this. So there is no way for us to address this question. All we can do is accept the fact that we are here.
And so, we reinterpret the question to be asking whether we are controlled or free.
Are we controlled by God, by emotion, by logic? We decide not to open any discussion on God. Emotion and logic are internal to us. We decide to focus on external controls.
We are subject to physical laws of nature, such as gravity and the need for nutrition. This is not disputed. There is no controversy here. What we want to discuss is freedom in our actions.
It is suggested that just as there are laws of physical nature, there are also laws of psychological nature. Our thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, decisions (and hence actions) too are subject to the law of cause and effect, just as physical events are subject to laws of cause and effect.
In which case, why then should we ever reward or punish anyone? Everything he or she thinks, says and does is determined. There is nothing that comes from him or her. Analogically, if a machine were built that could compute its own decisions and actions, we could consider that machine "free" too -- but it is still subject to cause and effect.
Well, we can reward or punish someone just because it is precisely he or she who thinks, says and acts that way. It's not about original contribution; it's just about identity.
In this case, should I feel happy? What is happy? Happy is a chemical reaction in the body. It can be triggered by, for example, consuming dark chocolate (and certain drugs). We reward ourselves by releasing these chemicals eg. serotonin, endorphin. This too is subject to cause and effect.
So, we cannot speak of whether we should or should not be happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc. We simply are happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc.
The discussion ends.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Questions from a reader
I was just doing some housekeeping of this blog, when I saw an old response to a post. David asks some very interesting questions, which I will try to address.
So much talking about thought or clear thought (mental activity), so what's the seed of "thought"? And what's "mental activity" do you mean here?
Indeed. I have an experience of "thought". The French philosopher Rene Descartes based his entire philosophy on his "clear and distinct" experience of thought. But what exactly is thought? The philosophy debate rages. The idealists (read as idea-lists) say it is a separate realm entirely from the material world; whereas the materialists (not in the sense of money-mad) say it is just some form of brain activity (electrical impulses etc.). I am not addressing that debate here. All I refer to is our subjective experience of thought -- which I analogically presume that others experience too.
When you say thought is "clear", what does it mean to you with the word clear in respect to your thought?
My use of the word "clear" is mainly to contrast it with "muddy" or "confused".
Why do human beings have thoughts?
Well, this is another fascinating question. Are thoughts merely a result of our more complex (as compared to other species) brains? Do other species also have thoughts (which they cannot communicate to us?) And again, back to the first question: are thoughts real?
Does thought(s) has/have its/their limitation?
Definitely. The limit of our thoughts is our intuitions. We cannot go further back than that.
What is TRUTH or REALITY? Are you talking about "relative truth" here? Is TRUTH within our human being language communicative expression?
Here, again the philosophy debate rages. Is there absolute truth, or are all truth relative? Platonists believe there is absolute truth (for example, in the World of Forms). Kantians believe that our access to truth is limited by our physical and mental capacities; that there is a truth (the noumemal world) that we can never know. Wittgenstein says our expression of the truth is indeed limited by our communication capacities.
What's basic nature of human being?
Here again the philosophy debate rages. Aristotle says the basic human nature is our ability to think. Confucius says basic human nature is good. Hobbes and Hsun Tsu say basic human nature is evil. I think basic human nature is laziness, both physical and mental.
Thank you, David, for your questions. I hope other readers also find such philosophical questions interesting. We can also discuss such questions at my philosophy cafe sessions.
So much talking about thought or clear thought (mental activity), so what's the seed of "thought"? And what's "mental activity" do you mean here?
Indeed. I have an experience of "thought". The French philosopher Rene Descartes based his entire philosophy on his "clear and distinct" experience of thought. But what exactly is thought? The philosophy debate rages. The idealists (read as idea-lists) say it is a separate realm entirely from the material world; whereas the materialists (not in the sense of money-mad) say it is just some form of brain activity (electrical impulses etc.). I am not addressing that debate here. All I refer to is our subjective experience of thought -- which I analogically presume that others experience too.
When you say thought is "clear", what does it mean to you with the word clear in respect to your thought?
My use of the word "clear" is mainly to contrast it with "muddy" or "confused".
Why do human beings have thoughts?
Well, this is another fascinating question. Are thoughts merely a result of our more complex (as compared to other species) brains? Do other species also have thoughts (which they cannot communicate to us?) And again, back to the first question: are thoughts real?
Does thought(s) has/have its/their limitation?
Definitely. The limit of our thoughts is our intuitions. We cannot go further back than that.
What is TRUTH or REALITY? Are you talking about "relative truth" here? Is TRUTH within our human being language communicative expression?
Here, again the philosophy debate rages. Is there absolute truth, or are all truth relative? Platonists believe there is absolute truth (for example, in the World of Forms). Kantians believe that our access to truth is limited by our physical and mental capacities; that there is a truth (the noumemal world) that we can never know. Wittgenstein says our expression of the truth is indeed limited by our communication capacities.
What's basic nature of human being?
Here again the philosophy debate rages. Aristotle says the basic human nature is our ability to think. Confucius says basic human nature is good. Hobbes and Hsun Tsu say basic human nature is evil. I think basic human nature is laziness, both physical and mental.
Thank you, David, for your questions. I hope other readers also find such philosophical questions interesting. We can also discuss such questions at my philosophy cafe sessions.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
What should be done about those swimsuits?
Recently, "super" swimsuits were used in international swim meets, and world records tumbled. Many competitors and swim coaches complained about an "unfair advantage".
We posed the question "what should be done about these swimsuits?" at our philosophy cafe session on 19 August 2009. This is a brief report of our discussion.
Why are these swimsuits considered as an "unfair advantage"?
Because it enabled its wearers to obliterate the competition.
But everyone is free to wear one of these suits. It is not unfair.
Not true, some swimmers are bound by sponsorship contracts to use only their sponsors' suits -- which happen to be not "super".
Well, they entered into these sponsorship contracts of their own free will, and they are free to change sponsor once their contracts expire.
Let's approach this from the other direction: what is fair competition?
A fair competition is where the winner is the one who is physically superior to all the others; not where the winner is the one using the best equipment.
All sports use equipment, and not all equipment are equal.
Surely it is possible to standardise the equipment, so that the competition is fair.
No, specifying using only one brand of equipment is not fair to other equipment makers.
We can rotate equipment makers among the various sports meets.
This will make records set specific to those equipment makers. We will have "100m freestyle Brand A", "100m freestyle Brand B" -- which is ridiculous.
We can equalise the competition by returning to the original Olympic format, where all competitors are nude.
This is even more absurd. Competing in the nude is today a non-starter, never mind how it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, while this is physically possible in swimming, it is even conceptually impossible in sports where equipment is required eg. in archery.
We can specify the features of the equipment used. For example, in swimming, we can specify the swimsuit material, the buoyancy level, the drag, the coverage of the body etc. This will equalise the competition.
Discussion ends here. It has been a good discussion.
The next philosophy cafe session is on 16 September 2009. The venue: Nook (cafe), 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Free parking and admission. Personal expense for food and drink. Prior to the event, I will post on this blog possible topics for discussion at the philosophy cafe session. I hope to see you there.
We posed the question "what should be done about these swimsuits?" at our philosophy cafe session on 19 August 2009. This is a brief report of our discussion.
Why are these swimsuits considered as an "unfair advantage"?
Because it enabled its wearers to obliterate the competition.
But everyone is free to wear one of these suits. It is not unfair.
Not true, some swimmers are bound by sponsorship contracts to use only their sponsors' suits -- which happen to be not "super".
Well, they entered into these sponsorship contracts of their own free will, and they are free to change sponsor once their contracts expire.
Let's approach this from the other direction: what is fair competition?
A fair competition is where the winner is the one who is physically superior to all the others; not where the winner is the one using the best equipment.
All sports use equipment, and not all equipment are equal.
Surely it is possible to standardise the equipment, so that the competition is fair.
No, specifying using only one brand of equipment is not fair to other equipment makers.
We can rotate equipment makers among the various sports meets.
This will make records set specific to those equipment makers. We will have "100m freestyle Brand A", "100m freestyle Brand B" -- which is ridiculous.
We can equalise the competition by returning to the original Olympic format, where all competitors are nude.
This is even more absurd. Competing in the nude is today a non-starter, never mind how it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, while this is physically possible in swimming, it is even conceptually impossible in sports where equipment is required eg. in archery.
We can specify the features of the equipment used. For example, in swimming, we can specify the swimsuit material, the buoyancy level, the drag, the coverage of the body etc. This will equalise the competition.
Discussion ends here. It has been a good discussion.
The next philosophy cafe session is on 16 September 2009. The venue: Nook (cafe), 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Free parking and admission. Personal expense for food and drink. Prior to the event, I will post on this blog possible topics for discussion at the philosophy cafe session. I hope to see you there.
Monday, 17 August 2009
Announcement to readers
Dear readers,
Thank you for visiting this blog. If you like what you read, please tell others about it.
I will soon again be teaching Critical Thinking, and also Introduction to Philosophy. These engagements will keep me very busy, and I expect that my rate of posts will drastically drop. Rest assured, however, that I fully intend to resume active posting after the teaching engagement ends. In the meantime, I will continue to post as and when I find the inspiration and time.
My philosophy cafe sessions will continue as usual. The next philosophy cafe session will be on 19 August 2009. Place: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome; just bring an open mind. [In general, we meet every third Wednesday of the month, same time and place.]
This time, I would like to try something new. I want to try fixing the topic ahead of time. So, on 19 August, I propose to address the controversy on the new-fangled swimsuits that are breaking world swim records all over the world. Should they be allowed, or banned? And why?
See you at on the 19th.
Cheers,
Singaporephilosopher.
Thank you for visiting this blog. If you like what you read, please tell others about it.
I will soon again be teaching Critical Thinking, and also Introduction to Philosophy. These engagements will keep me very busy, and I expect that my rate of posts will drastically drop. Rest assured, however, that I fully intend to resume active posting after the teaching engagement ends. In the meantime, I will continue to post as and when I find the inspiration and time.
My philosophy cafe sessions will continue as usual. The next philosophy cafe session will be on 19 August 2009. Place: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome; just bring an open mind. [In general, we meet every third Wednesday of the month, same time and place.]
This time, I would like to try something new. I want to try fixing the topic ahead of time. So, on 19 August, I propose to address the controversy on the new-fangled swimsuits that are breaking world swim records all over the world. Should they be allowed, or banned? And why?
See you at on the 19th.
Cheers,
Singaporephilosopher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)