Outline: What are the differences between passion, obsession, and addiction; to what extent are they healthy/destructive, meaningful/meaningless, life-affirming/life-denying? What makes for a passionate person and why aren't most people passionate?

We started with the question: "Why isn't a cokehead just someone who is really passionate about coke?" which led to whether there was any real difference between the cokehead and someone who is passionate painting which led to a discussion on the nature of addiction and the differences between a cokehead and someone who has to have their morning coffee. The discussion took an interesting turn when someone offered a scientific perspective of reducing addictions, passions, and obsessions to chemical processes - which take their cue from a combination of social inputs (e.g. one's environment) and, for lack of a better word, one's mettle. While this seems to satisfy some, others wondered whether this was the best was of describing what was actually going on when we talk about these concepts.

Outline: With all the chatter about capital punishment and why it should be completely banned, I think it's time to look at the other side of this coin: Isn't it too soft for some cases? Is life imprisonment more appropriate than death by lethal injection for extremely brutal crimes? And what's up with "no cruel and unusual punishment?" Why not?

Another was that capital punishment, while considered the harshest punishment available, is not harsh enough for victims of atrocious crimes. The argument here relies on Nietzsche's thought (which is admittedly taken out of context) that back when societies were in their early stages there would inevitably be creditors and debtors. Sometime when debtors were unable to repay their creditor, the creditor would extract what was owed to them in flesh. The point here is that there still seems to be a part of our psychology that resonates with accepting the pain and suffering of others as payment for wrongs done unto us (think about a colleague who you don't like or who has wronged you slipping on a patch of ice - this seems to have currency for us). In the same way, perhaps torturing a felon would, in some way, compensate victims in a way that would be psychologically healthy. The objections here are numerous - it's dehumanizing for everyone involved, it may offer a "quick fix" but doesn't really solve anything, it would lead to an unstable society, etc.

The discussion grew to be about torture and the example of torturing a known terrorist for information about other terrorist happenings also came up. While some thought this was a small price to pay for potentially valuable information, others thought torturing someone for information that may or may not be effective is unacceptable.

Using a recent journal article in Lancet's - which suggested everyone would be much better off if cigarettes were banned completely - we first discussed what the motivation for a cigarette ban would be. Part of this discussion centered around whether cigarettes would be banned to protect some from the second-hand smoke of others, or whether they would be banned to protect ourselves from ourselves. This led to a discussion about the recent NYC legislation banning cigarette smoking from bars and nightclubs. While some agreed with the law, others didn't like it because it had the effect of making life to "nerf-like." This discussion also turned to drugs where some asserted the real reason they are illegal is not because they represent health hazards, but because the addicts they create - with such singular focus and drive towards obtaining their next score - are like monkey wrenches in a giant, relatively well functioning, cog-like machine.

Some argue that, even though the divorce rate is approximately 50%, the legal bond of marriage still keeps many couples from running away from each other when times get tough, and acts as an incentive for couples to "work out" their difficulties, using counseling or therapy. Others argue that it is these mammoth industries of counseling, wedding planning, as well as the forementioned financial incentives, which turn marriage into an industry too critical to lose to "unofficial" bonds which might share the same loyalty and commitment.

Later we discussed whether it was possible to effectively "boycott" marriage, since it is an institution which arbitrarily allows straights to marry and reap its financial benefits, while gays cannot, in a majority of states.

It is generally agreed up that evil is understood as a sort of supernatural force, something big, unpredictable, a menacing cloud that hovers until it rains. There's a consensus in the group to resist labeling events and people as evil, insofar as it is an emotionally charged indictment which doesn't leave much room for reason and reflection. Calling something evil almost reduces it to something which cannot be satisfactorily challenged. George Bush's "Axis of Evil" takes a very simplistic view of countries and ideologies and appeals to our desire to lazily generalize.

However, there is disagreement as to whether the concept of evil is necessary in our approach to horrific events. Some claim that whether hard-wired or socialized, we have intuitive concepts of evil and it is the emotional charge of these concepts which help motivate the desires to approach horrific events with understanding. Evil cannot be wholly discounted as a sort of lazy man's blanket statement. We do not approach horrific crimes like, for example, a Long Island man who douses his own child with gasoline to set him on fire from a desire to "understand." It is an admittedly knee-jerk, basic response, but it is this sort of intuitive distinction of the act as fundamentally evil, bordering on supernatural, which motivates us to establish causes, describe contexts, which give that event features which we can potentially combat.

Others thought that the concept of evil is not integral to the understanding of events, and if anything, muddles those events. How can we approach something like September 11 by cloaking it in something supernatural, hard-wired, vague, unknowable? Evil is a subjective, primal feeling. While the concept exists, it is a very outdated way of explaining things and a relic from Judeo-Christian fundamentalism.

Philosophy was on the defense tonight, but luckily, being a philosophical discussion group, we were able to defend it quite successfully. First we tried to defend philosophy against the claim that it simply isn't practical enough to be useful. Generally when people think of philosophers they think of people sitting in arm chairs on a poarch somewhere thinking this and that but not really doing much. But this claim was dispelled by examining things like the foundations of our government, constitution, legal system, and civil rights and showing that at the bottom of these institutions are the philosophical ideas of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others. The other major theme in tonight's discussion was the role philosophical thinking should play in our lives. One important idea was that thinking philosophically, meaning, thinking in such a way that allows you to analyze correctly, deduce correctly, and generally 'cut through the crap', plays a very important role in aligning one's actions to one's deepest thoughts and desires, which is integral to a happy life. Closing thoughts were taken from Simon Blackburn's introduction to Think in which he describes philosophy as the study of the lens through which we see the world.

Tonight's meeting went well as we questioned what it would mean to say that someone/group is better than another person/group. some people thought that we are just not equipped to make such judgements while others were willing to offer possible value standards by which judgements can be made. What remained elusive, for most of the time, was the grounds on which such value standards could satisfactorily stand on. Some thought that a value standard that valued social utility was the best way to go while others thought that a standard that valued individual flourishing was a better way to go. Regardless of which value standard is deemed best, some maintained, after one is chosen one is for all intents and purposes an elitist as soon as one realizes that people/groups that manifest certain key values are better than those who do not. Though it should be said that many were not convinced by this line of reasoning and much discussion ensued.

This turned out to be one of the liveliest discussions we've had. First we started by outlining three competing theories about why we respond to music at all. The first being that it's just a happy accident that our brain is constituted in such a way that it "digs" music, the second being, as Darwin believed, that it played a role in sexual selection (those who could carry a tune were more attractive and fitter than those who couldn't) which is how it became deeply bound with intense emotional states, and the third being that its origins lie in keeping large social groups together (if they all share common sounds, which then developed into language). But discussion became heated when John Cage's music was brought into the discussion - particularly his piece consisting of 2mins, 33secs of silence. This centered the discussion squarely on the distinction, if there is one, between noise and music and whether noise can be music and vice versa. Some, such as myself, thought that while all music can be considered noise, not all noise is music - the distinction being that music is artistically crafted noise while noise is just noise. Others thought that the work should be evaluated in terms of its performance value while still others thought that the "silence," or background noise, constituted a piece of music.

Tonight's discussion revolved mostly around sex - who, when, and why. We started off with the question of what's so important about sex? Why is it such a weighty topic? Why is it that possibly the worst thing you can do to a friend is sleep with his/her boy/girlfriend? Answers revolved mostly around there being some connection between the physical intimacy associated with the act and the strength of the emotional bond it creates. Moving on we discussed the lives of the typical "player" and whether there was anything wrong with it. Most people thought that so long as the player is up front about his/her desires and expectations, all is well. Others thought that while the player lifestyle may be satisfying in a superficial way, there are more meaningful, and ultimately better, ways of pursing a relationships/pleasure. We ended by talking about the nature of pleasure in general and the best way to understand it. More specifically, we discussed why all actions do not just boil down to pleasure and pain (such as, Bill Gates gives money to charity because doing so provides him pleasure) but are better described by pinning the agent's actual motivation (such as, Bill Gates gives to charity because he thinks it's the right thing to do). Some people thought attempts to break such actions down to pleasure and pain is to oversimplify, misdescribe, and make-boring any talk of motivations.

Introduction/notes for this discussion: [download]  [view]  [a relevant ny times editorial.]

After starting by reading Nietzsche's fameous "madman" passage, we began discussing several ideas: What does it mean to say God is dead? When was God alive, and what made him so? What are the visible and concrete signs that God is dead and what factors contributed to his death? Following a Nietzschian bent, we more or less agreed that by "God" we really meant "God's influence" on people, society, and the degree to which he plays a motivating role in peoples' lives. After reflecting briefly on the human need for God, or some higher being/institution, to answer a question as basic (and fundamental) as "Why do I suffer?" we wondered whether God would ever truly die (meaning, humanity as a whole would no longer have a need for such a figure) and whether this would be a good or bad thing. Among the factors listed in God's alleged autopsy was the power/ability of science to explain events, the power of medicine to 'fix' God's will, and the rapid spread of ideas and books after the invention of the printing press. We also wondered that if, to some extent, God has died, what, if anything, has filled that void. Some of us wondered about the role of materialism in filling this void and whether it has recently become the force that drives most people.

Introduction/notes for this discussion: [download]  [view]

Tonight's topic drew some interesting thoughts about the nature of identity. Among them was the idea that, despite appearances, our identity is predominantly formed by outside forces (like other people telling us what kind of person we are, criticizing us for this and that, expecting us to fulfill a certain role, etc) and although it seems like we have some say in the matter (of deciding who we are), it is not nearly as much as we think. Along the lines of our identity being shaped by others was the idea that is, in a large way, shaped for others; i.e. so we can fit into groups. Extending this idea some arrived at the interesting conclusion that our identity serves the function of allowing us to relate to others in the name of eventual procreation.

Introduction/notes for this discussion: [download]  [view]

We started with Shakespeare's quote: "Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." In separating these three different ways individuals can become great we started to talk about the role the individual's "time" plays in their greatness. What if Joan of Arc had nothing to rebel against? What if Bill Gates had been born a decade earlier or later? These questions seemed to imply that an individual's greatness depends on much more than just his/her qualities.

We also explored the question of how best to measure greatness. Is it best measured by impact, the number of lives touched? Such criteria doesn't seem to do justice to someone like Einstein while making it easy to label Hitler and Stalin as great. Which brought up the idea of whether greatness is compatible with evil. Some thought it wasn't and thought great acts are those we truly admire, such as helping others and generally doing good. Others were quick to point out that while we may give lip service to such acts, at bottom when we think "great" we think "huge impact," good or bad. This led to the further thought that perhaps "greatness," as we conceive of it, is little more than a cultural notion that goes no farther than Western civilization. Others thought differently and supposed that despite cultural differences, all civilizations have commonalities and the idea of exceptional/largely influential individuals is one of them.

This turned out to be a great discussion. First we glossed over the primary argument for determinism (the view that we do not have free will, rather all of our actions are determined). The primary argument being that we consist of physical matter - even on the neurological level - and as such we are bound to the laws of nature, which are predictable. Just like we know that if we throw a ball against a wall at a 45 degree angle, it will bounce off at a 45 degree angle, so too with humans. If, determinists argue, we could know all prior/historical conditions of an individual (analogously: we know the ball is being thrown at a 45 degree angle, it consists of rubber, the wall is hard, etc) then we could predict the rest of this individual's life (analogously: that the ball will bounce off the wall at 45 degrees, that it will hit another wall in 4 seconds, it will bounce off that wall. . .). The ramifications of this view are serious - if our lives are determined, then we don't have free will. If we don't have free will, then we never choose our choices (you can't be said to choose to do x if it was already predetermined that you would do x). If we do not choose our choices, we cannot have responsibility for our actions (you cannot hold someone responsible for x if they did not choose to do x). Without responsibility all of morality becomes dubious.

Most of the discussion was spent trying to reconcile/combat this view. Some thought the best we could do was to be introspective. The reasoning being that once we are able to step back from our actions and truly understand our motives, we would be less prone to simply being subjects of causality. Others suggested that perhaps there's something fishy with determinism as a whole because it seems like the determinist could always retort, "Well, it was determined that you'd do that (i.e. become introspective)." Others agreed with (Frankfurt's view) that as long as we do not feel alienated from our actions we can be said to be acting freely. Others went so far as to suggest that even if free will is an illusion, it is one worth keeping as it makes all the truly great things in life possible: meaning, choosing one's goals, and self-satisfaction.

Introduction/notes for this discussion: [download]  [view]

This discussion focused mainly on the importance of meaning and purpose and how we ought to construct these features of our lives. After giving a basic run-down of existentialist thought pointing out how since man is born with nothing (no ideas, values, beliefs, character traits, etc), over time he gradually shapes himself by choosing to accept/reject certain values, beliefs, traits, etc. Since he is the one choosing, he alone bears complete responsibility for the person he becomes. And since no one will do it for him, it is up to him to give his life meaning and purpose. We then examined Neo, Morpheus, and Agent Smith to see the different ways in which their lives are meaningful/have purpose. Our ultimate goal, however, was to think about how we could construct meaning and purpose in our lives given that we are not faced with either the grandiose task of either saving all of humanity (Neo and Morpheus) or trying to become the most powerful person in the world (Agent Smith).

Introduction/notes for this discussion: [download]  [view]

This discussion focused on Cypher's choice to go back into the matrix rather than live in reality. Underlying this decision are questions about the value of truth and happiness and which we should choose when they stand in stark opposition to each other, as they do in Cypher's case. After presenting four different views of Cypher's decision (see notes), we tried to figure out what, if anything, is wrong about living the matrix. In trying to see whether we have any attachment to reality itself we asked which pill we would choose if Morpheus offered us only freedom from the matrix and a life as a regular citizen of Zion. Some people thought that there's something valuable about living in reality, others disagreed and saw the choice between the matrix and Zion as simply a choice between two different worlds, of equal value, and one should choose the one that allows the individual to flourish the most. Others were quick to point out that one shouldn't see these two worlds as being equal as there's clearly a power relationship between them where the matrix world is subservient to and dependent on the real world.

While most people tended to think it is possible to fight a just war, discussion focused primarily on the legitimacy of the phrase: "All's fair in love and war." While some tended to think the sparing of non-combatants was an integral part of what makes for a just war, others thought such constraints had no place in war. The reasoning behind the first position was essentially: if a nation is going to war to right a wrong, then committing injustices in the process would invalidate any right that nation's had to go to war. On the other side of the coin were people who thought sparing non-combatants is nothing more than a luxury powerful nations have over weaker nations, and if the playing field is equal and each nation is fighting for survival then such luxuries should promptly be put aside.

Another good discussion was had this week as we continued from where we left off. We ended up discussing how great art seems to be "in the eye of the beholder" and how there's little way around this. We touched on what this might mean for the artist - how perhaps he/she should think about targeting his/her work narrowly (to a small group of people, or even an individual) as it seems there's something to be said for the idea that the smaller the target audience, the harder the work can hit that audience.

The phrase "art for art's sake" was brought up and was talked about using the final scene from Edward Scissorhands (where he's in his castle, never to be seen or heard from again, and yet he's working furiously on an ice carving) as a possible example. Regarding this scene, people generally agreed that Edward was either creating art because either 1) he was using the artistic process as something like a catharsis - an emotional outlet, or 2) he was creating the work for an audience - an audience of one. Either way, we generally agreed he was not creating art for art's sake nor is it clear what this phrase could mean.