An Encouraging Story from NPR

Hello all,

Here is a story I stumbled upon that might prove encouraging to some of you:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/04/132633254/philosophy-valued-at-one-community-college

The Philosophy Club at SMC has been inactive for quite some time now. If you are a Philosophy student at SMC and would like to keep the club going and take control of the blog, shoot me an email at: nadershb [at] gmail [dot] com. Also, I am sure you can talk to Prof. Katherine to figure out a way to revive the spirit of philosophical enquiry at the college.

All the best,

-Nader

Last Spring Semester Meeting

Hey, we are having our last meeting this Thursday. There is no specific topic of discussion, so it is an open topic meeting. There will be pizza, beer, and intelligent women and men…okay, there won’t be any beer.

Please stop by, and share what’s on your mind.

When/where: Thursday, June 3rd, 11:15/ by the Clock Tower.

Topic: Which is more important, the Whole or its Parts?

In his principle work, Metaphysics, Aristotle summarized the principle of holism as, “the whole is more than the sum of its parts.”

Holism (which comes from the Greek word holos, meaning “whole”) is the idea that a system cannot be explained by its component parts alone, but that instead the system as a whole determines how the parts behave. It is the prime underpinning of numerous philosophies, among these being it’s ethical cousin, collectivism.

Collectivism is the moral outlook which emphasizes the interdependence of every member within some prescribed measure of society and which prioritizes group goals above those of its individual members. Collectivism is again related to the political ideology of communitarianism. Rousseau’s communitarian concept of the general will reaches as far as the Preamble of the United States Constitution, in which, among other reasons listed for its establishment, is “[the promotion of] the general welfare.”

Holism is diametrically is opposed to the reductionist approach to understanding the nature of complex things as nothing but the sum of its parts. The reductionist approach is then tied to the notion of individualism, the belief that the parts are what matter most, in opposition to external interference with their interests. Reductionists, placing greater importance on the properties of a thing rather than the whole thing itself, find themselves like company in the political ideology of libertarianism.

Whereas Rousseau has a minor influence on our Constitution, libertarian philosopher John Locke declares the presence of inalienable rights in each man, those to life, liberty and property; his individualist understanding of the state of nature, opposed to Rousseau’s, dominates the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution and the Declaration, two very different documents resulting from opposite aims, argue with each other on the topic of our next discussion, carrying the respective torches handed to their causes by the bickering fathers of their respective world views, Locke and Rousseau. Some may alternately call this a debate between holism and reductionism, collectivism and individualism, or libertarianism and communitarianism; in a sense, though, the argument framed behind these arguments is that of the weight of the Whole when measured against that of the Sum of its Parts–namely, which is of greater importance and value?
-Karim Delgado

Join us Thursday May 27th by the clocktower @ 11:15 for our meeting! We enjoy the intellectually stimulating conversations/debates. All are welcome!

Note: the meeting location has changed in respect of the bad weather. Escape the rain to join our discussion in HSS-152.

Is Utilitarianism a Philosophy That We Use?

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialsim ethical philosophy that helps us decide what we ought to do in moral dilemmas. Initially developed by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, it was later refined by John Stuart Mill. The decisions that ought to be made are the ones that create the most happiness. Bentham explained that calculating a decision’s potential for producing “happiness” for people is essential in making morally righteous decisions. The concept is known as the “greatest happiness principle,” and it is summed up with the saying, “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Later on, Mill took the liberty of distinguishing the qualities that might make a particular happiness better than another type of happiness.

 How prevalent is Utilitarianism in our society? It is certainly an applicable theory, but how/when/where is it applied? Our meeting will examine those questions. Peter Singer has been on the forefront of using utilitarian arguments for advancing his ideas, and validating such ideas such as charity.

When/Where : Thursday, 04/29/10, 11:15. HSS-152.

What about God?

Each semester we approach the subject regarding God’s existence. This discussion is usually very rich with passionate ideas and arguments. Students with science backgrounds are encouraged to attend because they often ask pointed questions that stimulate thought. This meeting is not intended to persuade or dissuade anyone into taking a certain position. The meeting goal is to draw more understanding from an influential belief that greatly affects people’s behavior in the society that we all share.

Here are some blog entries from past meeting regarding the topic:

http://smcphilosophy.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/does-god-exist/

http://smcphilosophy.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/recap-does-god-exist/

Hope to see you at the meeting.

When/Where: If it’s wet outside, then we will meet in HSS-152. Otherwise, we’ll meet by the clock tower. Thursday April 22, 2010.

Paternalism: To What Extent Should the Government Interfere With Our Liberties?

As California residents, we have been stricken with the restriction of not holding a cell phone while operating an automobile. Recently passed legislation has forced us to use a hands-free device while driving if we want to avoid a fine. Personally, I just don’t allow any phones in my car because I don’t want to risk an encounter with any law enforcement officials, especially the LAPD. I wonder if Mr. Rodney King was stopped for holding his cellphone.

The aforementioned paragraph concerning the cell phone law is an example of Paternalism. In a very general way paternalism can be
understood as: the interference of an individual’s liberties warranted by the intention to increase good. In other words: restriction of
one’s liberties for their own good. The cellphone law is interesting because we can see how this law can increase the welfare of those
whose liberties have been taken away (victims of legislative coercion), and those who do not fall into that group i.e., pedestrians.
This law is justified by arguing that automobile accidents caused by holding a cell phone will be reduced. In short,
restricting the liberty of one particular group will serve to benefit multiple groups.

This is just a small facet of Paternalism. We are affected by many more paternalistic motivated laws and policies. Should we worry
about these laws encroaching on our liberties? After all, a state enacts these laws for our own good; they say its in the interest of citizen.

Come to the Philosophy club meeting to talk about this topic in more depth.

Points to consider:

• Should anti-drug laws exist?

• Are anti-marijuana laws motivated by paternalism? If they are, then what good does the prohibition of marijuana incur for an individual?

• Do city curfews on minors cause more harm than they actually is supposed
  to prevent it?

• Do you think legislators use paternalism as a way to disguise less moral motivations?

• What’s the difference between” Pure Paternalism” and “Impure Paternalism?

Where / When: Thursday 04/08/10, 11:15 by the clock tower.

Beauty

Our next meetings topic is Beauty:
A word we use to describe loveliness, allure and appeal. But by what scale of measurement do we base our judgments? Who’s “standard” do we follow? Is there a scientific way to evaluate beauty? Physiognomy; which is derived from the Greek “for judgment(gnomon) on nature(physis)”, is historically recorded as an activity which seeks to understand personality and identity by analyzing the body and, above all, especially the face. Followers of this ancient practice believed that the human body emanates the very contours of the soul, much like a glove shows every curve and crevice of the hand it is containing. On this premise one concludes that beautiful souls would naturally reside in beautiful bodies. Does this mean only those who are deemed as physically attractive are just as virtuous? What would this mean for those deemed unattractive? Does this imply they are bad people lacking morality? I was always taught looks can be deceiving, and never to judge a book by it’s cover, it is what is on the inside that is important and has substance.

Join the Philosophy Club Thursday at 11:15 by the clock tower, we enjoy the intellectually stimulating discussions, all are welcome!

Think about it:

• What moves you to behold a person or inanimate object as beautiful or not beautiful?

• Do we unknowingly base our judgments on others character by purely physical attributes?

• Should there be a “standard” for measuring beauty?

-Mitra

Individuality

At our final meeting we will discussing the topic of individuality in contemporary American society.
What does it mean to be an individual in an environment saturated by media influence and popular
culture, where we are programmed to adopt a herd-mentality and become docile robots. From a sociological
perspective, individualists act on the principle of being autonomous and self reliant, but you can take
that notion farther and say that they are ones who think and behave independently of conventional
thought in a progressive way to develop the self, which is in stark contrast to how most live their lives today. Another
interesting facet is, what is my life purpose, do I just want to graduate, get a good job and make a lot of money?
If not, then what accomplishments in my life will make me happy and how do I want to live my life? These are integral
parts of individuality.

Somethings that might be worth considering beforehand are: in what ways do you live your live independent
of your friends, family, society, institutions and country? Do you think, dress, communicate and behave in the same
ways that you find in your own immediate environment? What are the costs and benefits when you conform to or
reject what is deemed as “acceptable and expected” behavior by the people around yourself? Does it even matter, or is it
beneficial when we examine our culture around us and ask ” am I living the life I want to be living or the way I am
expected to?” Do you adopt the dominant values and ideals of contemporary society or shun them?

These might be important and interesting questions to reflect upon as we approach the end of the academic year
and enter the next decade. You could entertain the question of where you are at in in the development of your own
life and where you would truly like to be in the immediate future and farther down the line.

Feel free to stop by the Philosophy Club this Thursday at 11:15, by the clocktower to add your own opinions to the discussion.

Recap on Feminism

What is feminism? On Nov. 12, we discussed feminism as we understand it: the idea that women should be treated equally to men and deserve the same rights and opportunities as are afforded to men.

We began our discussion by arguing the tenets of equal opportunity incentives in order to leverage against the injustices of male-dominated society. Early on we realized it necessary to distinguish between sex and gender (i.e. women and men versus the feminine and masculine.) There was some dispute regarding whether or not gender associations are inherently sexist, or merely a result of biological ancestry.

The biological argument for gender goes as follows: we were born biologically different, with physical differences that made women better suited to stay in the cave to rear children and men better suited to be the hunter-gatherers. It was generally agreed that by virtue of industry, the associations of such gender classifications with a specific sex were rendered irrelevant—that is to say, advancements such as birth control and the expansion of “white collar” jobs wherein physical strength was no longer a primary determining factor lessened the impact of biological differences on a person’s ability to produce.

We were able to agree at least that whether or not gender roles have vanished totally, we are at least at a point where they are not strictly controlled by biological factors. A man can be a “stay-at-home dad” (historically considered to be a female role) just the same as a woman can, and a woman can enter the workforce and thrive equally to men (especially if given the same opportunities for advancement and equal pay to men in similar positions.) While someone should be at home, or homemaking responsibilities should be shared, it is not necessary for women specifically to be the ones to assume all or even any homemaking responsibilities.

It is important to separate notions of feminism with fringe elements that, more than demanding equality, determine to place the role of homemaking on a tier beneath contribution to the workplace. We discussed the origin of this thinking in capitalism and also its legacy so far as the vilification of child rearing and homemaking. It is through such a disjunction that the current generation of youth, having been raised in the era of post-feminism, has been left to fend for itself, leaving children with a severely reduced understanding of family and its attachments (e.g. values systems, knowledge of right and wrong, discipline, etc.) We ultimately agreed that the issue at hand is not homemaking itself, but the consideration that one sex should be restricted from doing anything but.

Overall, we agreed that the feminist movement has done good by undoing antiquated views of professional work and homemaking as sex-linked, but there were some unresolved issues regarding equal opportunity as a means to enact equality: should we relax standards for women to “level the field” after centuries of male-dominated policy and perspectives or expect them to be as capable as their male counterparts according to the needs of their professional mission? The example brought up was that of the firefighter – if a man, with his typically superior upper body strength, is expected to carry a 180 pound man down a flight of stairs, should the same be required of a woman in the same field? Perhaps, it was suggested, we should utilize workers based on their individual strengths instead of predicating potential for success on historically masculine and feminine considerations.

—

Karim

Pacifism

Our next meeting is on Pacifism. 

 There are tons of kids (and adults) that strap themselves with a Peace emblem, and they really don’t know why they endorse such an idea. This is nothing  new, it is just probably more prevalent as huge corporations use it to sell clothing accessories.

 Here is the shocker: The Peace emblem that we have all come accustom to seeing actually has a more precise meaning. The symbol was originally developed as a logo to represent the political push to disarm nuclear weapons. Over the years the symbol has been seen to connote a general hippie ideology, an opposition to war, and the moral principles involving Pacifism.

What is Pacifism? Well, it is a practical ideology that makes a case against the use of violence—the practice of non-violence. Now, Pacifism gets a little but tricky because there are varying degrees of Pacifism. Some views deem violence to be legitimate in particular situations, while another view advocates the aversion of violence by any means necessary (excluding violence).

Religions serve as a powerful platform for Pacifism. Jehovah Witnesses, world-wide, do not engage in any military efforts, directly or indirectly. Buddhism has historically carried strong pacifist ideas. Religions usually do not invoke a pragmatic reason for encouraging peace and straying away from violence, rather, their metaphysical assumptions of mankind’s place in the order of the universe is what brings substance to their beliefs.  For the hyper-rational Atheist there are intricate theories that attempt to explain the derogatory nature of war/violence.

 Things to consider:

• Is violent conflict among humans natural because we are evil by nature?
• Do nations operate in a different moral realm than individual persons?
• Can I punch a violent attacker, and still be a Pacifist?

 Where / When: Thursday 11/05/09, 11:15 by the clock tower.

Terrorism

Terrorism is one of the most prevalent issues in the world today. It is essentially the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion, though there is currently no internationally agreed upon definition of what terrorism is exactly. So this raises the question, philosophically, of what is terrorism? Obviously, as Americans have experienced, it can be a personal attack on a country, its citizens, and values. But would these people call themselves terrorists? Typically they are idealists or religious zealots, and would most likely consider themselves something akin to freedom fighters. Also terrorist groups today may have caused the cultivation of prejudice and stereotyping against the very people they claim to be fighting for (look at racial profiling and the prevailing anti-Muslim sentiment in parts of America today–or are these people just as ignorant and unjustified as the alleged terrorists?).

Does any cause, no matter how reightous it may see itself, warrant the use of terror and violence on innocent civilians? Is terrorism ever a legitmate means to an end? Is it effective? Undoubtedly, to most violent action is not justified. But what does this do to the cause for which terrorists may be fighting for? Do acts of terrorism automatically devalue or delegitmize the cause for which these people support? And consider the reasons and rationale behind the acts that groups themselves give. Should they and their perspectives be considered? Perhaps it would be setting too dangerous a precedent to submit to violence. How should states be approached that knowingly harbor terrorist groups? Can a country be considered hostile for this? State terrorism has huge philosophical implications for international policy.

A final point to consider: the victors tend to write history. If “terrorists” succeed in having goals and demands met (whether or not this is even possible is grounds for debate), surely in recounting their exploits they would hail themselves as courageous warriors and not violent criminals. Has there ever been a case in history where if a group may have been considered terrorists at the time, but are now praised as revolutionaries? Will (can) there ever be?

There is much to be discussed. No one would ever outwardly support the killing of innocent civilians, but perhaps who we call terrorists have a point a view to be considered as well. Are Americans too unwilling to see things any other way? What this comes down to is fundamental issues of right and wrong, whether morality is innate and given or somehow constructed (socially or otherwise).

Where / When: Thursday 10/22/09, 11:15 by the clock tower

Philosophy Concerning Water

Water is an easily accessible resource in the United States, and what follows is that most of us take it for granted. Now, how would you react if the water companies/departments decided to increase the water rates so much, that attaining water became a burden?  This scenario is an actual concern in many countries across the world. People in countries like Venezuela have a tradition of dealing with water hardships. Life on our planet is so sensitive to water that it can be used as a means of destruction. Which poses more danger to life: nuclear arms, or restrictions on clean sources of water? Well, they are different means to the same end. As the public becomes more interested in environmental- affairs it becomes clear that environmental philosophy needs to be examined in order for righteous progress to be made.

 Here comes that iconic environmentally conscious question, “what can you do about the problem?”

 Some answers include:

• Attend the next Philosophy Club meeting on the ethics and implications of the ways humans use water.
• Go speak to Prof. Amber Katherine.
• Educate yourself by visiting these links: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/, http://www.blueplanetproject.net/, http://www.h2oconserve.org/home.php

 Here are some things to consider for our next meeting:

• Should companies have the right to own and sell water?
• Who should monitor/control water: the Govt. or the private sector?
• Is manipulation of water resources an ethical form of warfare?
• Is Global Citizenship the right path towards the ethical treatment of water?

Where / When: Thursday 10/15/09, 11:15 by the clock tower.

Meeting on Vegetarianism

 We live and go to school in an area that is, for the most part, vegetarian friendly. The concept is not a foreign idea for us Socal residents. Many carnivores are accepting of the herbivore’s diet practices as long as it does not violate a precious rule. What is the rule… “eat want you want, just don’t try to convert me .” Okay, maybe that is a bit of an overgeneralization. Personally, I have encountered quite a few carnivores that are excitedly interested in the many reasons of being a vegetarian.  If you want to know more about some of the reasons why so many people decide to be vegetarians, then you should stop by the meeting on Thursday. We will be discussing the philosophy behind vegetarianism.

There are many reasons why people feel the need to emulate the eating habits of a rabbit. This ethical decision can be based on concern for animal rights, eastern philosophy, combating world hunger, and even egoistic reasons. Here are some thoughts to consider for the meeting:

• If eating meat is bad because of factory farming , then is it okay to eat an animal that was not intentionally killed?
• What is the difference between eating a human and a non-human animal?
• Do we have rightful dominion over non-animals?
• What legitimate reasons do we have for eating meat?
• What is the metaphysical difference between humans and non-human animals.
• What, if any, good comes from vegetarianism?

Warning: This meeting is not intended to condemn the consumption of animals. So, all are encouraged to come share and listen to the thoughts from all sides of the argument.

Where / When: Thursday 08/08/09, 11:15 by the clock tower.

Abortion Recap:

Last week’s meeting was focused on abortion. We started the meeting by casually sharing our thoughts on abortion, and then we moved to analyzing J.J. Thomson’ Violinist thought experiment. There was an interesting shift in thought. While many of the members found abortion to be morally permissible under a wide array of circumstances, they also felt that unplugging the violinist would be an immoral act. If you are not familiar the violinist thought experiment you should review it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(thought_experiment) . One person was very adamant on having a certain standard of living afforded to a child, and if that standard could not be met then an abortion would be justified. Towards the end of the meeting our co-advisor, Prof. Steven Kaufman provoked discussion by having the group consider the idea of a national abortion council being implemented as the final authority on authorizing abortions (however he would/not not endorse that idea) . One member took issue with the council idea, claiming that it would not be practical. He likened the council to America’s overburdened judicial system. We ended the meeting early to attend a seminar on water conservation given by our co-advisor, Prof. Amber Katherine.

Abortion

A moral dilemma that most of us encounter in our adult life is deciding to be either on the pro-life or pro-choice side of the line. Abortion is probably the most debated issue in this arena of ethics. Many people feel so passionate about this issue that their perspective on abortions will often dictate their political affiliations.

Abortion is the human induced termination of a fetus or embryo. Some cultures are very comfortable with abortion as it is a method used to ensure survival. Other cultures condemn abortion as an abominable action against society, God, and potential persons. There are many concerns that are raised when analyzing the issue of abortion, here are a few to consider:

• Can a pro-life advocate accept abortion if the a woman is impregnated under circumstances involving incest or rape?
• Are the pro-choice advocates ready to slide down that slippery slope to the point of using abortions as a casual form of contraception?
• Do embryos and fetuses count as persons?
• What are the criteria for persohood?
• Do laws forbidding abortion infringe on a woman’s rights?

• What role should a potential father have in the decision of having an abortion?

We are looking forward to having a nice discussion. Please bring all your opinions and arguments because we want to hear them. Oh, and do not fret, we left the pictures of aborted fetuses at home.

The SMC Philosophy Club

Where: By the Clock Tower on SMC Campus.

When: 11:15-12:30 Thurs. October 1st, 2009.

What is the best form of government?

Greetings Philosophy Club Members,

The last topic of discussion was on the existence of God. Though it was a
stimulating debate, we look forward to next week’s topic of ” the ideal form of
government.” A couple of questions to consider coming into next Tuesday’s
forum would be:

1. Is democracy the best form of government and is capitalism healthy for mankind?

2. If not, what is preferable… communism, socialism, a dictatorship or anarchy?
The list goes on and on…Too many to list, you get the idea.

3. Where and when did the concept of government originate and why is it
necessary?

All of these topics and more will be open for debate at next week’s
philosophy club meeting. Bring your intellectually thirsty friends over
as well, because the more people we have have involved, the more
perspectives we will have the opportunity to learn from.

We are currently meeting from 11:15 to 12:15, Tuesdays and Thursdays
by the clock tower just south of the cafeteria and west of the science building.
It’s is a great environment to people watch, so why not get a fully portion of
intellectual stimulation and eye candy all at the same time. Can’t beat that.

Hope to see you there.

Philosophy Club

Recap: does God exist?

Our last meeting’s intended focus was the questioning of God’s Existence. We had a nice mix of beliefs held by the participants in the discussion, ranging from rigid atheism to fully devoted monotheism. One member kept Ockham’s Razor in his back pocket, and refused to posit God as the creator of the universe. Clearly, there would be an infinite amount of worries as soon as someone were to ask, “well who created God?” So, after avoiding the problem of infinite regress we moved on to evidence in the form of miracles. Several of us wanted to know why God only spoke to those raised in a Christian rich environment.

There was a second part of the discussion that was not planned for. The latter half of the meeting centered on the moral repercussions of practicing organized religion. Most, but not all of us, agreed that organized religion is inherently immoral— historically used as a tool of manipulation, greed, and tyranny. However, religion has seen its share of noble days. Missionaries regularly step in front of the face of danger in an effort to support many humanitarian causes. When examined for practical application, the divine texts teach us to promote harmonious community living. The meeting ended with this idea: Religion is a neutral system that can be used for either good or evil.

Does God Exist?

So, does God exist? This is a question that has concerned humankind for the majority of our existence. There is still considerable debate surrounding the existence of God, and that is why philosophy still has a hold on the issue. While God continues to elude empirical revelation (or maybe you think not) we will try to come to some understanding of why there are so many contrasting beliefs among us.

 

Here are some related ideas:

• What do we have to lose in by believing that God exists (worshiping included)?
• Is their scientific evidence proving God’s existence?
• If God did not create the universe, then who did?
• This discussion will often time lead into Ethics, so this will take care of that: Can there be morality without God?

If you think you have the answer to this question figured out please come to the meeting to let your fellow students know what is really going on. This is our first meeting so we encourage all who are interested to come for an exchange of ideas, and to meet some like-minded students.

 

The SMC Philosophy Club

Where: By the Clock Tower on SMC Campus.

When: 11:15-12:30 Thurs. September 17th, 2009.

What You Should Know About a “Revolution within the Revolution”

End of Semester Report

During the past month and a half the Santa Monica College Philosophy Club Blog has been amazingly successful: It has had more than 1,100 hits. We have rarely failed to post a teaser for a meeting and the recaps were published regularly. I think this number and the effort that we have all put into running the blog are directly correlated. I also have to add that this level of enthusiasm has been, by far, more than what I expected to see.

Now that the semester is over and we would not be holding anymore meetings, I would like to invite and urge you to continue supporting the blog. You can do that in a number of ways:

• I imagine many of us have one or two papers stored somewhere on our computers that we consider deserving enough to be peer reviewed by a few intellectual people like ourselves. The blog can be an ideal place to showcase your past work.
• Continue publishing links, audio, and video that you come across that seem intellectually engaging.
• Announce upcoming local events that may be of interest to the members.

Create a wordpress.com username and let me know through smcphilosophy@gmail.com. You will be added as an author of the blog and you would be able to publish your own posts and leave comments.