Meeting Details
| Frequency | Monthly |
| Time | 9.45 for 10.00 am, on Wednesdays: 3 March, 7 April, 5 May . . . |
| Duration | 2 hours |
| Location | Abbot Hall Social Centre |
| Coordinator | David Silk |
What we do
This is a study-group for interested amateurs, or retired professionals. We have a round-table discussion on a topic chosen at the previous meeting. A Note with suggested points for discussion is circulated beforehand (by email or post), or given out at the start of the meeting. The topic for 03-Mar-10 is ‘Our Approach to Philosophy’. We shall consider what philosophy actually is, and how we can approach it in a rational way.
Reports
February 2010:
On 03-Feb-10 we had a lively discussion on ‘The Limitations of Language’. This arose from our look at Wittgenstein on 14-Oct-09 (see report below). In his early work he had said there was an aspect of reality (the ‘noumenal’) of which we cannot speak meaningfully. We therefore asked ourselves whether there are aspects of our experience which are literally beyond words. Some types of thinking are done without words, although perhaps afterwards we can put them into words. Some perceptions (eg smell, colour) can only be described by indirect reference. Our emotional response to works of art (paintings, sculpture, music, etc) can be difficult to describe, and impossible to explain.
We discussed the power of different languages, and the cultural context in which they are used. This was seen as a limitation on their effectiveness in different areas of discourse, as well as giving problems for translation. Members described their practical experience of this. The formal notations of logic and mathematics are a way of overcoming these problems, provided we adhere to agreed usage and definitions.
We touched on the use of metaphor, especially in poetry. There is a view that metaphor can convey deeper truths and experience than can be conveyed in literal language.
Overall, I think we agreed that there are important limitations to language. Our difficulty in articulating some of them is itself evidence of that proposition!
David Silk
December 2009:
On 02-Dec-09 we completed our historical review of philosophy by looking at three topics from the 20th century: Existentialism (especially Husserl (1859-1938) and Heidegger (1889-1976)); Bergson (1859-1941) and recent French philosophy; and Popper (1902-1994). They were concerned, broadly, with finding a meaning and purpose to life, and to handling uncertainty in the emerging science and politics of a turbulent century.
Existentialism had been started by Kierkegaard (1813-1855), and had given rise to both Christian and humanist versions. It stressed the moral importance of the individual human; by our decision-making we create and become ourselves. In Germany, Husserl founded phenomenology, which studied the conscious experiences we have in life (these, at least, are certain even if we cannot be sure of the nature of wider existence). These ideas were developed by Heidegger, who was a pupil of Husserl and succeeded him in the chair of philosophy at Freiburg. His main work was published in 1927: Being and Time. He concluded that the most important aspects of our mode of being correspond to past, present and future thus ‘being is time’. Life is social, but meaningless and absurd (unless we allocate meaning ourselves). Heidegger became a Nazi, and repudiated Husserl; this undermined his reputation.
After World War 2, Paris became the centre of existentialist thought, which became widely influential. It was seen within a general literary culture, without the emphasis on science, logic and analysis seen in the English-speaking world. Bergson provided the intellectual base; he saw human beings in evolutionary terms, with a life-force, or élan vital, which drives us to greater individuality or complexity. These ideas were taken up by writers and philosophers: Sartre, Camus and Merleau-Ponty. Later, in the 1960s, structuralism became fashionable; it viewed any discourse as merely a structure in language, which could be analysed or ‘deconstructed’ in those terms. Many English-speaking philosophers found this approach merely rhetorical, appealing to those not used to logical analysis.
Popper was very different. He addressed the philosophy of science, following Einstein’s revolutionary theories of relativity (1905, 1915). These had overturned the old certainties associated with Newton’s Laws. In 1937 he was exiled from Vienna to New Zealand, and after the War came to the London School of Economics, where he devoted himself to his writing until his death in 1994. Popper saw scientific ‘laws’ as mere tentative theories. Theories are useful until they come up against limits, when they must be revised or replaced; thus certainty is not available. Theories cannot be proved, only disproved; thus criticism is the chief means of progress; a statement which no observation could falsify (eg ‘God exists’) cannot count as scientific. His main publications were: 1934 The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959 in English); and 1945 The Open Society and Its Enemies. The latter applied the same principles to the social sciences: the imposition of a single viewpoint is never justified; criticism is the chief way in which social policies can be improved; this happens in an ‘open society’ where critical discussion and opposition are allowed; we engage in perpetual problem-solving, to remove the worst, rather than aiming for the (uncertain) best. Popper was a strong critic of Marxism.
This meeting concluded our historical review of philosophy, based on Bryan Magee’s book The Story of Philosophy (2001). From January 2010 we start having monthly discussion-style meetings.
David Silk
October 2009:
On 14-Oct-09 we held the first of two meetings on 20th-Century Philosophy. The century was dominated by academic philosophers; this resulted in massive developments in logical analysis and linguistic analysis. Also, the developments of science caused the nature of knowledge to be reconsidered, and an increasingly secular view caused a re-examination of the human condition, and human purpose and morality. In this meeting, we looked at: Frege (1848-1925) and modern logic; Russell (1872-1970) and analytic philosophy; and Wittgenstein (1889-1951) and linguistic philosophy.
From the time of Aristotle, logic had been concerned with the process of human thinking and knowledge. Now it was seen as having an objective existence independent of human thought. Frege enlarged the scope of logic to embrace mathematics, and base both upon simple logical premises. He reached a stage where Russell pointed out a fundamental problem (now known as Russell’s Paradox, about self-referential statements). Russell continued the work until 1913, but was influenced by his new student Wittgenstein to see language as the key to understanding both mathematics and logic. The analysis of language then became a major theme of philosophy, in England, and with the Vienna Circle (who were dispersed to the USA and England in 1938). This led to logical positivism, which rejected assertions which could not be subjected to empirical verification. Russell eventually felt that linguistic analysis was a diversion from philosophy’s main task of understanding the nature of the reality external to ourselves.
Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein all interacted with each other, being concerned with mathematics, logic and language. In our meeting we had a useful discussion of some of the issues arising from their work. Finally, we discussed how the Group will operate from 2010; we shall meet monthly, to discuss a topic chosen at the previous meeting.
August 2009:
On 19-Aug-09 we started with a recap of philosophy since 1600, as we had studied it so far. Having concentrated on continental European philosophers for five meetings, we returned to British philosophers, who had been developing moral and political ideas based on Locke’s concept of liberty. So, our theme was Democracy and Philosophy. The English ‘Utilitarians’ Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) formulated and developed the ideas of “the greatest good of the greatest number” and “everybody is to count for one, and nobody for more than one”. This liberal approach was in sharp contrast to the ideas developed by German philosophers from the 1780s to the 1880s. Secondly we looked at the American ‘Pragmatists’ CS Peirce (1839-1914), William James (1842-1910) and John Dewey (1859-1952). They developed a distinctive liberal tradition of philosophy in the USA, which, from 1776, had become the first ‘democracy’ for 2000 years (since the city-states of ancient Greece). Their impact on politics, public policy and education was immense, across the world.
Finally, we discussed some ideas for the working of the Group after we complete our historical review of philosophy, in Dec-09. A majority of the Group wished to meet monthly from Jan-2010, and this has now been arranged.
David Silk
June 2009:
On 17Jun 09 we concluded our study of the seven major German philosophers active between the 1780s and 1880s, by looking at Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). We also considered how the Group will move forward after it completes its historical review of philosophy, at the end of 2009.
Both Marx and Nietzsche based their work on the philosophy of Hegel (see the Report of our 22 Apr 09 meeting). Hegel had identified the changing nature of reality; he believed the world was evolving towards a final, perfect state (represented politically by the the Prussian monarchy, and philosophically by his own work). Karl Marx interpreted Hegel’s ideas in terms of material development only, with an emphasis on the means of production and the related class-conflict. He believed that only one more step (the revolution) was needed to achieve the ideal harmonious world. Events proved him wrong on that, but his influence has been immense. Friedrich Nietzsche also focused on the real world of phenomena, and eventually rejected Kant and Shopenhauer’s view of the ‘noumenal’ world. He believed the decline of religion had highlighted a need for a morality based on philosophical principles. The morality he offered was elitist; the ‘will to power’ enabled natural leaders to excel, even at the expense of the weak. His views have been misrepresented as supporting German nationalism. Overall, the seven German philosophers active from the 1780s to 1880s established a firmer academic basis for philosophy and moved the subject forward at a time when science was making remarkable advances, notably about evolution.
David Silk
April 2009:
Following our 11-Feb-09 digression into the religions of East and West (see Report below), on 22-Apr-09 we continued our study of the seven major German philosophers active between the 1780s and the 1880s. We looked at Fichte (1762-1814), Schelling (1775-1854) and Hegel (1770-1831). All three based their approach on the work of the major philosopher Kant (see the report of our 03-Dec-08 meeting, below).
Fichte took an extreme Idealist view; he thought all reality consists in its moral character, and that we create our own empirical world as a realm for moral self-fulfilment. His views were adopted by theists and atheists, but his more lasting impact was as one of the founder-philosophers of German nationalism.
Schelling was quite different. He produced several philosophical systems, but the most influential was his ‘Philosophy of Nature’. He saw all life as a creation of Nature, which is continuously developing; this anticipated Darwin’s idea of evolution. The creativity of Nature culminates in man’s creative arts, which lead to greater self-awareness. These ideas appealed to the emerging Romantic Movement. In England, ST Coleridge quoted Schelling extensively (often without attribution).
Hegel was the most important philosopher of the three. He saw reality as a developing unity, of what he called (in German) ‘Geist’. In English this means something between ‘mind’ and ‘spirit’. This development leads to a unified and harmonious self-awareness which Hegel called ‘The Absolute’. This quasi-religious view was linked, for Hegel, with a Christian belief; but for others it offered a secular view. Hegel formalised the process of historical development in what he called ‘the dialectic’. This comprises: an initial view (thesis) whose inadequacies become apparent; a counter-proposal (antithesis) which addresses these inadequacies; and from these two a combination with the best features of each (synthesis). This synthesis then becomes the thesis for the next cycle of development. Thus reality itself is continuously evolving, and can be understood rationally by the dialectic. As individuals we live in a particular ‘Zeitgeist’ (spirit of the time). Hegel saw his own philosophy as the culmination of this historical process; in the political and social arena, he saw the Prussian monarchy as having almost achieved the harmonious ideal. Hegel was so influential that his successors comprised two groups: Right Hegelians formed the basis of German nationalism, and Left Hegelians (notably Marx) felt further change was necessary. Strangely, Hegel thus came to be seen as the intellectual grandfather of both Nazism and Communism.
David Silk
February 2009:
On 11 February 09 we looked at the mutual influence of ideas from the East and West. This followed naturally from our examination of Kant and Schopenhauer on 3 December 08 (see Report below). Schopenhauer, following the Western tradition of philosophy, had arrived at ideas remarkably similar to those of Eastern religions, especially Hinduism and Buddhism. We looked at three religions, from the outside and from a philosophical perspective. Christianity provides the religious and cultural background to much of the development of Western philosophy. It is the second of three monotheistic faiths which trace their roots back to Abraham (the others being Judaism and Islam). We noted the philosophical difficulties about their mutual compatibility, and of the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and all-loving God. This leads to many different styles of Christian belief, but the mainstream idea is that the individual soul has a linear progression through life to some form of immortality.
We then looked at Hinduism and Buddhism, which are much older faiths and are closely related. Hinduism has many Gods, which relate to different aspects of life. Buddhism is not dogmatic about a deity, and concentrates more on a Law of Life. Both faiths believe in reincarnation – with the opportunity for an individual to move towards a state of enlightenment, before being absorbed into the universal One (like a drop of water into the ocean). The Eastern idea is that the individual should rise above the cravings of the physical world, to enter a more blessed state. This links with Kant and Schopenhauer’s idea of the world of (perceived) phenomena, and the world of (unperceivable) noumena. The individual soul has a cyclic progression through a sequence of lives, but does not achieve immortality. Few Western philosophers since Pythagoras and Plato have believed in reincarnation.
Finally, we had a general discussion about the issues raised, and the impact of religion on philosophy.
David Silk
December 2008:
On 03-Dec-08 we turned to the golden century of German philosophy,which lasted from the 1780s to the 1880s. It was based mainly in the German universities, which now emphasised the generating of new knowledge as well as the preserving of old knowledge. We looked first at Kant (1724-1804), who many regard as one of most influential philosophers of all time. He brought together the disparate strands of earlier ideas into a single intellectual framework. He believed that there is one aspect of reality which our bodily apparatus (brain and senses) can apprehend; this is the scientific world of space, time and causality. However, there is another aspect of reality which contains what our bodily apparatus cannot apprehend; here, for example, is our freewill, which would otherwise be subject to the deterministic laws of science. Kant felt that this ‘noumenal’ world gave a rational basis for some of the ideas of religion and ethical duty.
Secondly, we looked at Schopenhauer (1788-1860). He accepted most of Kant’s work, but extended and (he felt) corrected it. He was very pessimistic about the world of experience, and felt that the noumenal world was more important. We can experience it only indirectly, through our own life-force or will, and also through aesthetic experience (especially music). He believed the noumenal world was One (singular), and this explained our natural compassion or empathy with other humans. He saw such compassion as the basis for ethics, whereas Kant had seen it as duty and reason. Schopenhauer found, late on, that his ideas of the noumenal world of the One had close similarities with Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism.
David Silk
October 2008:
On 22-Oct-08 we looked at the revolutionary French thinkers: Voltaire, Diderot and Rousseau. They were contemporaries, all living in the period 1694-1784. Voltaire and Diderot were French and received a formal education from the Jesuits. Rousseau was born in Geneva, converted to Roman Catholicism to live in Paris then reconverted to Calvinism to return to Geneva. He had a turbulent childhood, with no formal education. Voltaire and Rousseau both had periods of exile in England, where they assimilated the new science (represented by Newton) and the new liberal political theory (represented by Locke). Essentially, all three became great communicators of these new ideas, within France and more widely. Voltaire was the leading French playwright for 50 years; they all contributed to the seminal 35-volume French Encyclopaedia; and they all suffered persecution for their ideas, which upset both church and state. However, The Enlightenment which they started set the scene, and provided the inspiration, for the French Revolution from 1789. Rousseau’s ideas of the Social Contract (where the general will of the people can be imposed on all individual citizens) contrast with the liberalism in Britain, and (some feel) became the basis for later totalitarianism.
David Silk
August 2008:
Our 20-Aug-08 meeting was the third to look at the Rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz) and the Empiricists (Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Burke). They all lived in the period 1596-1797, which brought revolutions in scientific thought and in political structures. The Rationalists sought a deductive approach to knowledge, arguing logically from general principles to particular cases. Their arguments all depended, in part, on some concept of God. The Empiricists sought an inductive approach to knowledge, arguing from particular facts about the world to general principles. The trouble with induction is that you can never be certain of your result (all swans are white, until you find a black one!). The Empiricists were also concerned with the practical world of politics and economics; they adopted a pragmatic approach, recognising the limitations of philosophical reasoning. Burke also developed our ideas of aesthetics, leading to a shift from Classicism to Romanticism. We see this in art, literature and poetry.
David Silk