New Philosophy Club Blog!!!!

There's a new Philosophy Club Blog:

http://luphilclub.blogspot.com/

Everyone is welcome. If you want to be in the club, check out the new blog. Our new President will be posting a very important message there soon. We need to have a meeting ASAP and settle some official club business.

So check the new blog often for important messages from our new leader!

Feeling Puzzle

Suppose that on Saturday, Harry sincerely says, "I have mostly feelings of love for Keanu." Suppose that on Sunday, Harry sincerely says, "I have don't have mostly feelings of love for Keanu." Is there some way of accounting for what happened, other than accounting for it by supposing that Harry's feelings toward Keanu have simply changed between Saturday and Sunday. If there is another explanation, what could it be?

Also, if you wish, comment on the following: Is this "puzzle" philosophical?

Philosophy Club Gets New President!!!

Ashley Rodriguez is our new president!!!

She has boldly accepted the burden of leadership. So she is bold. And she's smart and courageous. She's also going to go to one of those meetings mentioned in the last post.

All hail Ashley!!!

After she attends the required meeting with the administrators and eats her free pizza, Ashley will start acting presidential and organize a meeting, or delegate that responsibility to someone lower on the food chain, like any one of the other club members.

We need to get Ashley posting rights on this blog. Ben, maybe you can set that up.

All hail our new leader!!!

Is the Philosophy Club dead? Or is it just half dead? It seems totally dead!!!

Ben!!! Are you or are you not the new club president?!?
Richard!!! Are you or are you not the old club president?!?
Glass!!! Are you half full, half empty, or both?!?

But seriously folks,

I've had numerous new students ask me about the club. They want to know obvious things like where the club meets, and when.

CLUB MEMBERS!!!!! GET YOUR S#@T TOGETHER!!!!

Comment on the following:

1. When is the best time for you to meet? (If everyone makes a suggestion maybe we'll be able to figure out a good time for all of us to meet)
2. Who the hell is our president? Vice president? Secretary? Etc…?
3. Should we just give up and admit that we're all too dumb and lazy to keep something simple like a philosophy club going?

Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty? It's both.

Consider these two sentences:

HE: The glass is half empty.

HF: The glass is half full.

Let us imagine that both of the above sentences are seriously and sincerely uttered in a context in which it's clear that the words "the glass" refer to an 8-ounce glass containing exactly 4 ounces of lemonade. Let's even say that (HE) and (HF) are each uttered by a different person.

You should quickly be able to see a clear answer to the age-old question, "Is the glass half full or half empty?" To answer the question, we need not even consider the perspectives, perceptions, beliefs, or feelings of the persons who uttered (HE) and (HF) in this case. Without knowing their perspectives, perceptions, belief, or feelings, we know that what is said about the glass in this case is simply true. It's clear that (HE) and (HF) both express a true statement in the case I described. In fact, it's not too hard to see that both (HE) and (HF) express the exact same statement about the glass. They are just two different ways of making the same (true) point. And, furthermore, it's facts about the glass and the lemonade that determine the truth of this statement, not facts about the speakers of these two sentences.

I realize that (usually) the purpose of the question is to make some point about the difference between an optimistic point of view and a pessimistic point of view, and it may be that a lot of people realize that, in such cases, the glass is in fact both half full and half empty. But, in my experience, people frequently state the question as a (strange) way of asserting some form of subjectivism or relativism - as though the fact that some are inclined to use (HE) to describe the same glass that others are inclined to use (HF) to describe somehow gives us good reason to accept subjectivism or relativism. It clearly doesn't. Right?

Quantum Reality and Identity

So earlier today I was perusing some of the magazines we have here at the Greenwood Library, and I came across a few sort of interesting topics that reminded me of some of our club discussions. I probably won't remember most of them, but the one that I definitely do remember had to do with quantum reality and identity.

The article I was reading was actually about trying to create "quantum internet" (which to me sounds like a pretty dumb idea), but the part that interested me was a paragraph in which examples of unexplainable and unpredictable quantum behavior were described. Taken from Science News Magazine: "Quantum information is notoriously wobbly. An object tends to live in a superposition of states — for example, an electron can spin in two directions at once, or an atom can be simultaneously in two different places — until interaction with the rest of the world forces the object to pick one state. Quantum reality is a limbo of coexisting possibilities."

One good way of establishing a given physical object's identity, as we discussed on occasion, is to observe its spatial relationship to other physical objects. We can say that two physical objects, even nearly identical ones, are distinct from each other because they do not (and cannot) occupy the same space at the same time. Even two or more objects identical in every other way are distinguished simply by their spatial separation from each other. Similarly, two objects that do not occupy the same space are not the same object. In other words, I guess, if there are two spaces occupied by the same object, what you've actually got is two separate objects, not one.

What's interesting is that the quote above seems to directly claim that one single atom can simultaneously occupy more than one distinct space, and somehow not be two. I don't really understand the whole "interaction with the rest of the world" bit, but I don't even think that's all that relevant. The claim still stands that one single object can...well it can be two and one at the same time. This does seem to be qualified by the last sentence, which states that quantum reality is a realm of possibilities, but then in what sense can it be true that a single atom is actually occupying more than one distinct space at the same time?

I have similar problems with the idea of an electron spinning in two directions at once, especially since it's unclear whether there are smaller particles of which electrons are made, some of which could be spinning one way and some of which could be spinning opposite. Even if that were the case, though, the electron as a whole wouldn't really be spinning both directions at once.

In some of our talks on identity, the physical origins and locations of objects were fairly important factors in determining individuality. It looks to me like this idea of a "superposition of states" is sort of a blending of "A and not-A," or something like that. Do you guys see a way to reconcile this problem? How do we identify objects that transcend normal physical laws?

Wondering about the Philosophy Club

I wonder if any of the Philosophy Club survived Richard I's departure and the summer as well. If it did, I wonder if there will be another meeting. If there will, I wonder when and where it will be and what will be discussed. But philosophers are known to wonder about trivial matters too. I wonder if the matters about which I've here expressed wonder are trivial or not. I suppose only time will tell... Or maybe our next Philosophy Club President will tell. That mantle awaits.

Gripping Brainteaser to Kick Start 2008-9

The rule that no statement can be both true and false is sometimes called the Law of Noncontradiction. The separate, but related, rule that every statement is either true or false – one or else the other - is sometimes called the Law of the Excluded Middle.

These two Laws are thought by many people not only to be true, but to be the most fundamental principles of rational thought. But consider whether you think the following tirade from my old roommate Charlie Schmidlapp calls any of this into question.

Charlie says:

Consider the following statement:

H: It's hot outside now in Farmville.

This seems directly to contradict this statement:

C: It's not hot outside now in Farmville.

But can either (H) or (C) be said to be true? According to the above "Laws", at most one of them can be true, and exactly one of them is true. But isn't that nuts? Allow me to fill in some details if you don't see what I mean.

Imagine that two people are at the same location in Farmville, and one of them (call him "Harry") sincerely utters sentence (H) and the other (call him "Keanu") sincerely utters sentence (C). This isn't hard to imagine. In this case, Harry and Keanu seem to be disagreeing about the weather in Farmville; sentence (H) certainly appears to contradict sentence (C); if one of them is true, then the other is false. But some of us may perhaps be convinced that they both may be true. Others of us may perhaps want to say that sentence (H) is in some way true but also in some way false, and that the same goes for sentence (C).

Shouldn't these considerations make us reject any "Law" which says that every statement is either true or false but not both?

How shall we respond to Charlie?

Some Thoughts on an Annoying Conversation-Stopper

I cannot speak of other "cultures" because I simply am not familiar with them. But anyone who is even marginally familiar with American "culture" knows that one of the commonest phrases in discussions of ethical or political matters is "everyone has a right to their own opinion" or some variant of that. Because the meaning of the word "right" in this context is rarely reflected on, few who use or hear this phrase will wonder whether everyone has a right to their own opinion as to whether everyone indeed has a right to their own opinion about X (whatever is the topic in question). Surely this must be settled before we can agree with the original phrase?

I suppose the most sensible way of dealing with the phrase is to admit that everyone has a right to their own opinion about X, and then to ask, "Okay, now whose opinion about X is correct?" After all, one surely has a right to accept incorrect opinions? And surely the right isn't violated by questioning or even by refuting the opinions? Very few are prepared to deny that everyone has a right to their own opinion; so one might wonder why anyone bothers to make the point and what is its relevance to the matter under discussion. Surely the more interesting and relevant question - in fact, presumably, the main question in almost any discussion about ethics or politics - is which opinion being discussed is correct. The "everyone has a right to their opinion" phrase can, at most, be only a diversion.

I suspect that the usual purpose of the phrase is to avoid altogether discussions about which opinions are correct. Most people who use the phrase, I think, have decided that such discussions are generally or always bothersome and/or unproductive. This is fine. But the phrase, in my experience, is insidious: It tends, for some reason, to encourage people to accept – with little reflection and with less investigation – either the view that (somehow) anyone's and everyone's opinion is correct or the view that it is impossible to arrive at a correct opinion about X (either because there is no such thing or because of our inevitable limitations). At least some of the reason for this must lie in the fact that the phrase is intended to be a conversation-stopper. Very typically, I think, "ethical" conversations do not last long, especially when there is a serious disagreement and when this conversation-stopper is in the offing. When they are thus ended with no resolution, it can encourage the view that there was no resolution because everyone has a right to their own opinion. This in turn can lead to silly views about ethical "truth" simply because resolutions in ethics are not to be pursued in polite society, especially after one hears that "everyone has a right to their own opinion".

My guess is that much of the force behind the phrase comes from its conscious or unconscious association with the First Amendment, sacred writ for well-indoctrinated Americans. Another guess is that the authors of the Bill of Rights would not be happy with how this Amendment is thus construed; their express intention was to delimit Congressional power, not to stop intelligent conversation or the discovery of truths.

I am familiar with another phrase which is sometimes supposed to be an antidote to the "everyone has a right to their own opinion" phrase. It is: "No one has a right to their own facts." I suspect that this by itself does little to re-engage people in ethical conversations, simply because most are already convinced that no one has or can have the "facts" about ethics (because they are supposed not to exist or because we supposedly can't arrive at them anyway). Also, the proposed antidote probably does more to confuse the matter, as it suggests (though fairly clearly ironically) that there are facts all our "own", even though we may have no right to them.

There is some reason to think Socrates was tried and executed for examining critically and refuting ethical opinions which he found to be incoherent, mistaken, or groundless, and for causing young people to do the same (Plato's Apology of Socrates 21d-e, 23a, 23c-24a). Though modern American society might not execute a Socrates of that sort, they would likely find him or her to be intolerable (see, e.g., here).

Brain Makes Decisions On Its Own

Here's an interesting article. Apparently, researchers have found that the brain will "make up its mind 10 seconds before we become conscious of a decision". The obvious conclusion is that free will is impossible; right?....

Quantam Mechanics for Philosophers

I recently found this interesting paper by Michael Huemer. It doesn't seem that hard to follow. And, based on discussions with some of you at recent Club meetings, I thought a couple of you might be interested.

Ned Markosian Time

Anyone who was at the last Club meeting and who is interested in reading more about Time should check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on "Time", written by Ned Markosian, who actually was a teacher of both mine and Lukas' and who, as it turns out, is an expert on time. The article on "Being and Becoming in Modern Physics" by Steven Savitt looks interesting too.

Possible corruption?

For all those of us still remaining within the club could it be that one among us is destroying our internal workings? Perhaps instead of wondering who should have the power we should ban together in an attempt to find the perpetrator whom must be refusing entry to our club.

Recently Ousted VP Reinstated, Plans to Speak about Time

In another astonishing turn of events, recently ousted VP of Longwood's Philosophy Club has apparently been reinstated. (Not only could former club secretary Vonthi Musoonyaratglzin not be found for comment, but he could not be found at all.) Perhaps in a not-too-subtle allusion to his recent, yet-to-be-explained absenteeism, VP has announced plans to deliver a "small presentation on Time" at this week's Philosophy Club meeting.

Recently Ousted VP Attempts Counter-Coup, Fails

This afternoon, in an unexpected counter-coup attempt, Longwood Philosophy Club’s recently ousted VP rallied a small but determined band of absentee clubmembers in vicious attack against former secretary Musoonyaratglzin. Musoonyaratglzin’s junta, though far outnumbered by the absentee insurgents, narrowly escaped their doom by holding their ground in their usually meeting place, Ruffner 252. “We know that the insurgents will never set foot in this meeting chamber. They’ll just never come in here. Sure, they have once or twice in the past, but we expect that they just won’t show their miserable faces here again,” said the resolute Musoonyaratglzin from his gurney.
In a statement issued from the cramped confines of the insurgent's bunker, the defiant ex-VP stridently claimed, “I won’t let these consistent attendees take over so easily. Yes, they have taken over the Club. And yes, they come to meetings consistently. But it won’t be so easy. I can wield power and influence in spite of my inexplicable absenteeism! Let’s see how the consistent attendees feel after there’s just one or maybe two of them left! They'll soon learn that simply not showing up for meetings at all is much easier than consistently attending meetings! Fools!”

Philosophy Club VP Ousted Amidst Allegations of Absenteeism and "Rampant Corruption"

Following a day of dramatic protests club members took over the vice presidency of philosophy club at dawn today in a bloodless coup.

"This is a fight by the people who are rejecting the VP’s power," said Vonthi Musoonyaratglzin, former club secretary.

In recent days hordes of angry protesters have accused the club VP of corruption, mismanagement and employing a strong-arm governing style.

"Today, the dictatorship, the immorality, the absenteeism, the arrogance and the fear have ended," Musoonyaratglin said in a speech. "From today, we will restore a club with a government of the people. And our leaders will show up at meetings."

The ousted VP could not be found for comment.

What, Another Update Already?

Yes, that's right. This is an update.

Yesterday's meeting went very well. We started out with a tiny little presentation by me on belief in the external world and then moved on to have a stimulating discussion on things like the nature of perception and the identity of minds. It was a long but very interesting (at least to me) meeting. Next time we will probably be doing another "presentation" and discussion (we're still figuring out a topic), so everyone should come out and participate in the great discussion.

If there is a topic or area of discussion that is particularly interesting to you, or even if it's something you've been wondering about and just want to discuss, please, don't hesitate to bring it up. The discussions have been helpful to myself and others in the past, and at the very least it will be fun to talk about stuff, even if we don't come out with all the answers.

That's all I have for now, but I know that people like things with pictures, so I think I'll end this post with a picture of my choosing.



















Don't question it.

The Big Skinny

Hey again, everyone. Here's all the latest info regarding the philosophy club.

The time, frequency and location of the meetings will remain the same--Thursdays at 3:30 in Ruffner 252. There were a few really good ideas as far as what we actually do, such as the idea of 1 on 1 debates. The plan would be for two volunteers to research a given topic and debate it in front of the rest of the club, after which the floor could be opened up to general discussion. In the past, the debate days have been the most poorly attended, so hopefully this approach will alleviate some of the "pressure" that must have been felt by the people who skipped.

Another great suggestion was to have a volunteer or two research or otherwise prepare a little presentation that would be designed to generate discussion. Obviously, this presentation doesn't need to be a "lesson" or anything, simply a little bit of discussion of the topic to familiarize everyone with it, and hopefully some questions that we can all talk about. For this week's meeting, myself (Ben) and Matt Gilley will each be giving it a shot, so come and participate in the discussion.

We decided at the last meeting to make the Movie Night happen. We determined that the best time to have it would be at 7 p.m. on a Sunday, although we didn't decide on which Sunday. The first movie will be Memento, and we'll watch it either at Richard's house or maybe in the projector room of Wheeler. I suppose that once we decide on a date, we'll know for sure about the location.

Finally, some really, really great news: Dr. Senn has accepted a permanent position here at Longwood University, so if you haven't gotten to take one of his classes yet, you probably will in the future. Congratulations, Dr. Senn.

I think that's everything for now. See you Thursday.

Weekly Update

Alright, here's this week's update.

The topic for our last meeting was that of Ethical Relativism. To begin with, we established a solid definition of relativism, from which spawned a ton of tangents that were kind of related to the topic, such as objective truth, the existence of facts concerning ethics, cultural standards and the like. Somehow we ended up talking about ghosts, hauntings and the paranormal, with a little bit of the afterlife thrown in there. Even though the discussion wasn't as focused as it could've been, it was thought-provoking and interesting. In the end, nothing was resolved, but I think everyone present left with a lot to think about, at the very least. I don't know about you guys, but I haven't found that philosophy really yields definitive answers to every question; still, it's worth it to ask questions and explore possible answers.

For this Thursday's meetings, we'll be having a debate on a ridiculously broad topic: Materialism vs. Empiricism. We had an even number of attendees last time, so the teams are evenly matched (numerically at least):

Empiricists
Ben
Mitchell
Jennifer

Rationalists
Daniel
Amisha
Richard

Ok, there you have it. Of course, this is a really freaking huge topic, so the team members will need to do at least some amount of research. I know that when we left, 4 of the 6 people present promised to do some research, and I'd like to take this opportunity to threate--ahem, remind them of their commitment. So do your research. If you weren't there but still want to participate, I think you could leave a comment saying so, and then you'd be assigned by a coin flip, and notified in another comment or post on this blog. More participants are certainly welcome.

I can't think of anything else, so I'll end with a little paradox from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into A Bar...

There is a town in which the sole barber--a man, by the way--shaves all the townsmen, and only those townsmen, who do not shave themselves. Does the barber shave himself? If he does, he doesn't. If he doesn't, he does.

Don't forget to prepare for the debate. See you Thursday.

Where is the next weekly update?

Answer the question!

Weekly Update

Hello everyone. Here is this week's update.

Last week's meeting, although shamefully unattended by those to whom the club owes its foundation, was as productive as any other. Although at the preceding meeting no topic of discussion had been chosen, we still had a few things to talk about.

The president of the club, Richard, will be submitting a paper to one of the conferences mentioned a few posts ago. He will be discussing determinism and some of the problems that those who either advocate or condemn it should consider. I find that area of belief a very interesting and kind of disturbing one, as it almost always leaves me unwillingly (pun intended) accepting something that I can't logically deny. I think there's still a lot to be said about the topic, and I would recommend it for future discussion, even though we've already discussed it at length once before.

Speaking of discussion topics, the topic for this Thursday's meeting is Relativism. Very broad, I know, but I think that we'll have a sort of general presentation of the basics of relativism, and then we can discuss its applications and consequences and such. So if you're a relativist, or you know someone who is a relativist and hate losing all your arguments, come and help us figure out how to defeat them. Because everyone just can't be right.

You may remember that we were researching possible formats for debate. The format that we've decided to try out is the Parliamentary format, which consists of two presentations by each team followed by a series of rebuttals, after which the floor will be opened to general discussion (I think). This Thursday's meeting will not be a debate. Instead it will just be a discussion. I think that our discussions will be meaningful and lively if we all do at least a little bit of preparation before the meetings, even if that amounts to nothing more than just some preliminary thinking about the chosen topic. However, this does not mean that you shouldn't come if you haven't prepared. You can come and just watch, if you really want to.

Looks like that's all for now. The picture at the beginning has nothing to do with the post, in case you've been wondering.

Undergrad Philosophy Journals

Check it out: I found a convenient (maybe exhaustive) list of links to journals that publish philosophy papers written by undergrads.
http://www.mercer.edu/philosophy/PHILINKS.HTML#Undergraduate%20Philosophy%20Journals

BREAKING NEWS: Scientists Turn Marrow into Sperm!

Scientists Discover How to Turn Women's Bone Marrow into Sperm
"British scientists are ready to turn female bone marrow into sperm, cutting
men out of the process of creating life." Read on:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=511391&in_page_id=1965

CALL FOR PAPERS

The 2008 Undergraduate Conference on Philosophy at the

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

With Keynote Speaker: Professor Jesse Prinz

March 29, 2008

Conference Description:

The UNC Philosophy Club will be hosting an undergraduate conference on Saturday, March 29th. This event will gather undergraduate students from across the region and provide the opportunity to present and discuss significant and original academic work. Reflecting the pluralistic identity of the club, the conference will allow for the submission of all philosophical topics, in order to encourage the expression of diverse interests.

Our featured keynote speaker is distinguished professor, Dr. Jesse Prinz, whose research interests include cognitive science, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of language, moral psychology, and aesthetics. The planned event schedule will feature the keynote lecture, eight presenters, and a provided continental breakfast and lunch. It is tentatively scheduled from 8:00AM until 4:30PM, and will be open to all spectators.

Those authors whose papers are selected will have 20 minutes to present their paper, followed by 10 minutes for questions and discussion.

Deadline for Submissions:

February 29, 2008

Submission Details:

Please send submissions electronically to Vanja Antonijevic at antonije at email.unc.edu. Please type “Philosophy Conference Submission” in the e-mail subject line.

Papers should be 5-15 pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman 12 point font, with regular margins. The essays must include an abstract of no more than 300 words.

Furthermore, the papers should be suitable for blind review. Therefore, please attach a separate cover sheet to accompany submissions. The cover sheet must include the title of the paper, the author’s name, university affiliation, and contact information (address, e-mail, and phone number).

Authors will be notified concerning their acceptance to the conference by mid-March.

Website: http://philosophy.unc.edu/Workshops/2008undergradconference/

First Club Debate a Success

Hello again everyone.

Thursday's meeting was a success. The debate did happen, and Team 1, of whose members only one actually showed up, was demolished. It was an enjoyable meeting, if a little informal. The debate format was definitely a hit, and in the future we will be conducting more of them, as well as having meetings dedicated to just discussion. Hopefully for the next debate, all the team members will have the courtesy to show up. There was a greater turnout in general, though, so good job with the recruiting.

The approaching meeting will be a discussion day; the topic will be the nature of humor. "What makes something funny?" will be the question we hope to at least partially answer. I encourage everyone to do at least a little bit of outside research so that the discussion will be as lively as possible. However, that is not a requirement; even if you don't do any research, you should still come, and bring your friends too.

Another issue we hope to resolve this coming Thursday is the issue of preferred debate formats. All attendees are asked to take a look at a few possible debate formats, so that on Thursday we can hopefully all decide on one for future use. I'd like to take a moment to dispel a possible fear. I realize that some may read this and think, "Wow, a debate? I'm not prepared to go in there and compete with a bunch of intellectuals! I'm just not going to go." There is no need to worry about that. The teams are preselected the meeting before, and people who are not on teams can just watch, and even participate when the floor is opened up to questions. There is not a lot of pressure on participants, either, so don't be discouraged from attending. The debates are real debates, but there are no penalties or punishments. Just come and participate, I guarantee you will enjoy it.

As a final reminder, although I fear it might be too late now: make sure you send in your emails telling why you would like a philosophy major. You can send them to Dr. Moore, Dr. Lukas, or Dr. Senn. Thanks to all those who have already sent in their letters.

Dr. Senn's "Socrates Talk" on Wednesday also went very well. There was a very large turnout, which was encouraging. Dr. Senn spoke clearly and with confidence, and I for one gave him a great review. It would be fantastic for him to become a permanent member of the department here; if you've been in one of his classes I know you can't help but agree.

It looks like I've covered everything for now. Until next time, I'll leave you with a little philosophical joke that I got from the book Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar...

Abe: What is the object "X" that has the properties of greenness, wall-suspension, and whistling capability?
Sol: I can't think of anything that fits that description.
Abe: A herring.
Sol: A herring doesn't have greenness.
Abe: Not as an essential property, Solly. But a herring could be accidentally green, no? Try painting it. You'll see.
Sol: But a herring doesn't have wall-suspension.
Abe: But what if you accidentally nail it to the wall?
Sol: How could you accidentally nail a herring to the wall?
Abe: Trust me. Anything's possible. That's philosophy.
Sol: Okay, but a herring doesn't whistle, even accidentally.
Abe: So sue me.

Emails in Support of a Philosophy Major at Longwood

Anyone who thinks it would be good if Longwood had a philosophy major, please write an email explaining your thoughts and feelings about it, so it can be included in the proposal that the philosophy profs are preparing in order to get state-government approval for the major. The emails don't have to be long; they don't have to be formal. But it would be good to have several good ones as soon as possible. They should be sent to one of the philosophy profs (maybe with an address line like "To Whom It May Concern" or something). It would be good if we could show a lot of student-interest in a philosophy major. Thanks!

Thursday's Meeting

It has recently been pointed out to me that since I was the initiator of this blog, its upkeep is my responsibility. And so I will attempt to keep this blog more regularly updated.

The topic of today's post is Thursday's club meeting. As all attendees know, we will be debating the issue of capital punishment on Thursday. We've already sorted out teams by random selection, but if you weren't there last time we can probably just jam you in on one team or the other. In any case, if you're reading this, you should be at this Thursday's meeting.

I also thought I'd remind you that there is a Philosophy Club group in MyLongwood that you need to join to view articles and other postings of a philosophical bent. In case you're completely clueless like myself, there's a big button that says "groups" up in the right-hand corner once you login to MyLongwood, and you only have to click that. There is currently posted at least one article concerning Thursday's topic. Here's the current list of teams for the debate. If you're interested in participating, leave a comment or contact Richard Woody, who will somehow determine your position by a show of hands.

Team 1 (Against)
Matt Gilley
Jennifer Ribler
Brandon Worley
Melanie Goss

Team 2 (Pro)
Daniel Wood
Ben Patterson
Michelle Duda
Richard Woody

Moderator
Mark Lukas

On Wednesday the 30th, Dr. Scott Senn will be giving a "Socrates Talk" at 2pm in Ruffner 250, which, if your schedule allows, you should certainly attend. Even if you have a class, you should mention it to your professor and see if you can get an excused absence. Dr. Senn is gunning for a permanent position here, so come show your support and learn something about Socrates as well.

Finally, there is the matter of the philosophy major here at Longwood University. It is currently in the process of being approved by the state or something like that, but it's going to be a little while before it's ready. Basically this university has to somehow convince a bunch of utilitarian bureaucrats that something as materially insignificant as philosophy is worth studying. I know what you're thinking: "Gee, what can I do to speed up the process?" Actually there is something you can do: write a short (1-2 page) letter detailing why you think there should be a philosophy degree and how important it is to you, and give it to Dr. Senn, Dr. Lukas or Dr. Moore to be sent off to the state. You can also recruit as many people as possible to come to the philosophy club. The more student support there is, the better.


Well I think that's all for now. Until next time, then.

No, there's nobody out here....

Is there anybody out there...?

This past month has been quite a philosophical drought (insert frowney face.) We should talk about philosophy since this is the Longwood University Philosophy Club Blog.

Does anyone have something we could talk about?

If not, I'm sure I'll be able to come up with something before someone notices that there is a new post in the past month.