Welcome everyone! Please feel free to continue your conversations from the Café you attended on this blog.
posted by Administration @ 1:57 PM
Welcome everyone! Please feel free to continue your conversations from the Café you attended on this blog.
posted by Administration @ 1:57 PM
4 Comments:
Comments:
- I have forwarded the following to the blog site in advance of, rather than after the meeting in part because it concerns the way in which the initial question has been posed, as opposed to issues that are raised in the debate and in part because I fear that to raise this in the meeting would be disruptive.
- The question, as posed, is problematic because it begins the discussion by giving us a choice of classifying the concepts of God, freedom, and immortality either as useful fictions or dangerous illusions. The implicit assumption that these two views represent the only choices of possible essential realities automatically denigrates the value of any other viewpoint to something less, vis a vis the idea of “essential reality”. This assumption should not have been used to frame the question amongst a gathering of a group of individuals who don’t make their living as philosophers and who would have widely varying amounts of experience at participation in philosophical discussion as it sets up the discussion to more or less preach to the converted (and turn off those who are not).
- Why? These concepts would, at least from the perspective of psychology (particularly its contemporary moral development understandings), be considered universal issues for consideration. That is, to varying degree they lie at the heart of what it is to be human. Accordingly, from the onset, if the room was composed of a subset of individuals typical of the general population, any of a number of people in the room might take exception to the categorization of one or more of these concepts in such absolute terms, because for those persons at least, the concept(s), in their view, hold at least some degree of truth, if not absolute truth. Many of these individuals simply might not appear on the scene (kept away by the apparent intolerance of the question), thereby limiting the value of the discussion, as those who appear would either share the question’s promoted viewpoint, or would, at best, include the rare individual who possesses the extraordinary amount of courage and/or contrariness and/or leadership qualities necessary to make the trip to the gathering and endure the disproportionately closed minds of the de facto by default majority, as determined by the loaded question. However, because this is Port Moody’s first ever effort, and the venue is great, it may be that, for some, curiosity would win out in any event.
-The approach might escape discouraging broader dialogue in the case of more peripheral questions than those which define meaningful existence, but if the goal is to encourage moral debate in a philosophical setting for the everyman, then such deeper universal questions need be approached with a lighter hand. Because the formulation itself (in addition to the presumed essential question) can be automatically contentious, the approach frustrates the ability of any group with diverse life perspectives to get a civil debate off the ground. It will tend to polarize any broadly representative group from the onset, simply because the moderator poses the question from a biased perspective.
- Clearly, my first main assumption is that part of the objective of organizing these community-oriented philosopher’s cafes is to stimulate moral debate. My second assumption is that a moderator should appear open to consideration of a wide variety of views in order to promote it effectively. My experience is that there are endless opportunities for the application of a deft guiding hand through its course. However, my observation is that there frequently is not enough time in these meetings to enable those people who are emotionally agitated and then polarized by the initial question to right themselves, or find an even emotional keel, so that a more civil, less polarized discourse can be had.
- Postmodernist thought has its place and considerable value, but my understanding is that generally, western philosophy has taken the best of the postmodernist paradigm and has moved ahead with its thoughts. As always, changes in practice tend to lag behind changes in thought. The postmodernist thoughts which absolutely deny both the existence of an objective, in the moment reality and the existence of universal human qualities have been partly refuted in the process of the realization of the moral relativistic conundrum they create and the fact that, in real world operations (particularly some of those related to scientific discovery), at least some objective reality can be irrefutably observed to exist. Having said that, examination of history reveals that something that looks for a time like a “belief” or that some may consider a “fiction” may prove with new developments in human understanding and knowledge, scientific and otherwise, to contain far more truth and objective reality than ever imagined. Accordingly, these newer understandings of balance should be incorporated into the business of organizing philosophical debates, particularly those designed for general public participation.
- In this vein, the question’s wording might look something like:
God, freedom, immortality: Useful considerations, or dangerous illusions?
Some may think that some of the larger themes in life may be useful themes for consideration and/or bases for belief, passed on from one generation to another. Some may consider them fictions. Do some broad themes actually help us to survive, regardless of whether they are rooted in “reality”? Or, do we need to shatter them in order to achieve reality? Or is essential reality simply too hot to handle?
Rather than like:
God, freedom, immortality: Useful fictions, or dangerous illusions?
Some of the larger themes in life may be useful illusions passed on from one generation to another. Do some fictions actually help us to survive? Do we need to shatter these illusions in order to achieve reality? Or is essential reality too hot to handle?
- My guess is that, in this case, there is moderator opportunity at the onset of discussion to offset the problem of balance, however it wouldn’t turn back the clock to change the problem of the question having the potential to discourage a broader, more representative attendance. It would seem that would be a matter for future questions, unless, of course, that was the intention in the first place.
- Luckily, one particularly potent potential universal truth specifies that simply because nothing is perfect except in so far as something is assumed to be so, there is always room for improvement. Isn’t critical thought wonderful?
Dear anonymous.
Much apologies from the Philosophers' Café but due to a glitch in the system your comment was not posted on this blog until today. The problem is fixed now and we hope that you keep posting and checking our blogs.
Just an administrative note. I noticed that this Philosopher's Cafe has scheduled times of 5PM on the "At a Glance Calendar" (which is, I presume, what most people would use). Only after attending at the 5PM time and finding noone there, did I learn that a 7PM time is mentioned on the Coquitlam Philosopher's Cafe's detailed site. So, which time is the correct one? For the future reference of others as well as myself, could you please correct any incorrect time references on the Philosopher's cafe site, as well as, where appropriate, references in The Straight, Queue Magazine, etc.? Thanks.
Posting again, seeking to clarify:
Please respond here to clarify re the conflict in times between the At-a-glance calendar time (5PM) and the Coquitlam cafe site time (7PM)for upcoming Coquitlam (Starbucks) Philosopher's Cafes.
Thank you
Post a Comment
<< Home