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

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

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

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

 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.