U3A Farnham, discussion board and forum

I am looking forward to proposing a book shortly. But first, do I remember someone suggesting we should have a review session of Mind and Cosmos after we finish it? It seems a good idea to me. Otherwise we go directly from the end of one book to the beginning of another without much time to reflect on our experience in a group. It might be objected that it would be difficult to fill a whole session with this kind of reflection. That could be true; but trying to fit it into the last 20 minutes of a session on a particular chapter is fatal - there just is not enough time to get a well-rounded view of the book before moving into the reflection stage. I think we would need to try to lay down some kind of structure and get someone to lead on it. I don't think this kind of closing session should only be for Mind and Cosmos but for all books we read. As an example of the kind of thing that could be included, as well as looking at our understanding of the book we have read, we could look at its connections with our previous books.

What do you think? It would mean having the review session in January.

Before I start researching possible candidate books, I'm curious where the energy of the group is with respect to type of philosophy to be studied.

My classification of philosophy is:

Metaphysics: the study of the most general features of reality, such as existence, time, the relationship between mind and body, objects and their properties, wholes and their parts, events, processes, and causation.

Epistemology: the study of the nature and scope of knowledge, such as the relationships between truth, belief, perception and theories of justification

Logic: the study of the principles of correct reasoning.

Ethics, or "moral philosophy," is concerned primarily with the question of the best way to live, and secondarily, concerning the question of whether this question can be answered.

Political philosophy: the study of government and the relationship of individuals (or families and clans) to communities including the state. It includes questions about justice, law, property, and the rights and obligations of the citizen

Philosophy of science explores the foundations, methods, implications, and purpose of science.

These categories overlap. Nagel for instance combines metaphysics and ethics (value) with a dash of epistemology, but not much logic.

Personally I'm interested in all areas except for Logic which I find a bit dry. I'm particularly interested in Metaphysics, Epistemology and Science but I'd be interested in where the centre of gravity of interest of the group lies.

I would like to propose Spinoza's Ethics as the next book. I read [MacGee] that it spreads into all areas of philosophy. It is a classic rationalist text and considered his masterpiece.

I'm pondering two very different books:

"Do llamas fall in love? - 33 perplexing philosophical puzzles" by Peter Cave.

"Quintessence - basic readings from the philosophy of W V Quine."

The former is an easy to read collection of philosophical puzzles that would form the basis of interesting discussions.

The latter is a more difficult collection of essays by Quine on the subject of truth about the real world, meaning etc. Nagel refers to him in passing.

More on "Do Llamas fall in love?"

Do Llamas Fall in Love? has almost nothing to do with llamas, but plenty to do with love, especially that love of wisdom that is philosophy. This smart and funny jaunt through philosophy's core issues serves as a fine introduction for the phi-curious and the wonderers about wisdom who may have had no prior exposure to philosophy. It is also a delightful read for those who may already have a bunch of philosophy under their belts.

The highly abstract nature of philosophy often leads to dry and inaccessible expositions. Attempts to overcome this problem often result in dumbing-downs that are effectively useless in accurately conveying what's really going on in the field. Peter Cave masterfully balances the need to inform and the need to entertain.

The 33 "perplexing puzzles" that he discusses in 33 short chapters manage to cover many, if not most, of philosophy's key topics: ethics, rights, knowledge, mind, rationality, aesthetics, logic, law, politics, metaphysics, language and religion. The chapter titles are quirky and intriguing, enticing one to keep on reading to find out what could possibly be intended. Here are a few: "A goat with gaps"; "Time for zoological investigations - from the bedroom"; "Creamy philosophers: who knows who knows..."; and "Preferences: avoiding the money pump".

Cave's conundrums range from the puzzle of what justifies certain religious-based legal exemptions (turban-wearing Sikhs are exempt from helmet laws in some countries) to the puzzle of whether some infinite sets can be bigger than others (how is it that the set of even whole numbers is the same size as the set of whole numbers?).

Each chapter ends with three or four pointers to other related chapters, encouraging a playful, browsing-friendly approach that further adds to the casualness of the reading experience. Many chapters also include amusing cartoons and illustrations.

So, what's the deal with the llamas? As explained in the chapter "Addicted to love", many non-human animals form monogamous pair bonds. In their outward behaviour at least, they resemble people who are deeply in love. And there are certain biochemical similarities between the nervous systems of humans in love and these animals. But are such similarities sufficient to ascribe similar mental states to humans and non-humans? And if such similarities don't suffice to justify treating animals as psychologically similar to humans, what similarities would suffice?

One of two main approaches to introducing philosophy, and the approach that Cave takes, is to focus on core problems. The other approach is historical and focuses more on the who-said-what-and-when. While the whos and whens take up less of Cave's focus, the reader for whom this matters will nonetheless receive some guidance, mostly in the form of the first two of the book's three appendices, which offer pointers to further readings. (The third appendix serves as a master index of the puzzles covered in this and other books by Cave.)

REVIEWER:
Pete Mandik is associate professor of philosophy and adjunct professor of psychology, William Paterson University, US. He is author of Key Terms in Philosophy of Mind (2010), co-author of Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Mind and Brain (2006), and co-editor of Philosophy and the Neurosciences: A Reader (2001).

I'm sticking with my suggestion of "Rawls  A Theory of Justice: A Reader's Guide" by Frank Lovett.

I've now flipped through the Kindle version of this and it seems clear, and gives some comment and criticism from other authors.  It does not seem to require that we have a copy of the original text as reference.  Usefully, I think at intervals it suggests "Study Questions" which could make good discussion points for us.

In some ways the original may be out-dated (published in 1971), in particular in its criticism of Utilitarianism which is now way out of fashion.  But compared with the Amartya Sen book that Harish proposes, it is 176 pages whereas the Sen (which I'm sure is excellent and is dedicated to Rawls) is 496 pages.  To me that's a strong point in favour of Rawls!  I attach below a review from Amazon.

I will miss both January sessions - so good luck with it all!  As a backup choice I'd go for the Hofstadter/ Dennett "The Minds Eye", which I think Ian L is proposing!

Simon

 

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com ^(beta)

Amazon.com: 4.0 out of 5 stars  5 reviews

28 of 28 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Read This Instead Of Rawls 14 Jun 2011

By Joe J. Kern - Published on Amazon.com

Format:Paperback

 

Or at least read it before you read Rawls.

This is much better than the average series-published readers guide or introduction, and infinitely better than the bad ones. (See my review of A Very Short Introduction To Socrates for an excellent example of a bad one.)

Lovett does basically two things for us. First, he gives us the meat of Rawls' theory in very clear language that any average intelligent reader starting from little or no knowledge could understand. If you can read something like The Selfish Gene, for example, then you can read Lovett's guide to Rawls. It reads like a book or argument in its own right, and you need not consult Rawls' original text at any point to understand what Lovett is saying. He also puts it all into context, and provides all the prefacing remarks and transitional connections that Rawls lacks, anticipating how the wheels are going to be turning in the reader's head and holding his or her hand at the moments when it is needed.

The second thing Lovett does is completely revamp Rawls' organizational structure. Rawls apparently was so immersed in his argument and in answering objections to it that it appears he was never able to step back far enough away from it to view it with fresh eyes and see how it would best flow as a single work. Lovett performs this function for us, using both versions of the text Rawls produced (the 1971 original edition and the 1999 Revised edition) and also including relevant portions from papers and other material Rawls published in his lifetime.

For example, on page 21 Lovett provides a what is basically a 5-step flowchart for which sections of A Theory Of Justice to read in which order: 1) 1-9; 2) 11-17, 68; 3) 20-26, 33, 29, 40; 4) 31, 34-37, 43, 47-48; 5) 44, 46, 18-19, 55-59, 87. That should give you some idea of how muddled the organization of Rawls' original was, and how much thoughtfulness and research Lovett brings to the table. (And note how not all of the sections are even included in Lovett's reading guide.) It might also explain why you may have tried and failed to make it through the text on your own in the past. Turns out it's not your fault!

And then, when we finally get to the main argument, which is 2/3 of the way into Lovett's book, Lovett gives us another priceless bit of insight: "[Sections 26-30] are both the most important, and probably the most difficult, in the entire book. Part of the difficulty stems from the fact that, although this is not made clear in the text, the main line of argument really has two distinct phases, which the reader must tease apart him or herself. Another difficulty stems from the fact that confounded with the main line of argument is a distracting side discussion ... This side discussion, it turns out, is much less significant that Rawls believed." He then presents us with a reconstruction with the goal of reducing these confusions and presenting the main argument "in its most persuasive and attractive light."

(I reckon Lovett should be given permission by Rawls' estate to edit together his own version of A Theory Of Justice from Rawls' original writings, annotated with necessary comments from Lovett himself.)

Lovett's book is exactly the sort of thing philosophy needs more of. He does for philosophy what writers like Richard Dawkins and Brian Greene have done for biology and physics. I hope to see much more of it in the coming years. Somebody (Mr. Lovett?) please write a book like this for A Critique Of Pure Reason or Being And Nothingness. I haven't even gotten past the first sentence of a guide to either of those, much less the original books themselves.

I'm sorry that I won't be able to join you for the January 7th session. My votes would be as follows:

1: Michael Sandel's "Justice - What's the right thing to do?" as proposed by Harit

2: Spinoza's Ethics as proposed by Richard

Happy New Year to one and all!


Steve