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!