Afleveringen
-
This is it! End of the series. For the Patreon subscribers, there’s an index to the main posts of the podcast and I’ll be sending out a pdf version in March.
It’s been a busy year, busier that I intended. I started a PhD, I lost a much loved pet, and adopted a new one. I travelled across country three times (podcasting throughout, as you may have noticed) and taught classes in a variety of subjects.
As a radio broadcaster, I presented about 40 shows and podcasted with the Talk the Talk show (around 40 episodes too). I presented a few live shows, contributed to more philosophy resources than the ones here and was inspired by conferences and talks nationwide. I stayed home more often than went out though, I think. There’s a number of events I missed due to health reasons and that’s a good sign that things need to slow down for a while.
It’s time for a break. If you have any further questions, get in touch via tokenskeptic at gmail.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Here’s a mixture of extended answer or essay questions dealing with topics covered this year:
There’s no such thing as true altruism. Discuss.
Equality of the classes is unachievable until there’s equality of the sexes. Discuss.
Must utility ‘be grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being’?
What are the properties of God?
Could we be living in a simulation created by an advanced civilization? See video for an example.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
Here’s a mixture of extended answer or essay questions dealing with topics covered this year:
The criteria for art is consensus. Discuss.
What are the limits of faith? Discuss
Can you ever be ethically obliged to do the wrong thing? Discuss
There is no right solution to the trolley car problem. Discuss.
Is this cartoon a fair depiction of “what is good counsel”? Discuss.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Here’s a series that has appeared online and can be followed along as a very useful tutorial session — it’s a series of lectures delivered by Peter Millican to first-year philosophy students at the University of Oxford. The lectures comprise the 8-week General Philosophy course and were delivered in late 2009. More resources can be found at 365 Days Of Philosophy.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Here’s a mixture of extended answer or essay questions dealing with topics covered this year:
There is no true unified conception of god, therefore we should dismiss religion. Discuss.
What are the limits of skepticism?
Why do we care about the opinions of others when we have different identities, an ever-developing personality and different stages of life?
Advertising is to science as charcoal-rubbing is to art. Discuss.
Is this cartoon a fair depiction of “what is good”? Discuss.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Here’s a mixture of extended answer or essay questions dealing with topics covered this year:
Freedom of speech is in opposition to freedom of religion — discuss.
There is no such thing as a moral centre when it comes to making ethical judgements — discuss.
Is there such a thing as a truly free choice?
Conventions will always trump contracts. Discuss.
Is this cartoon a fair depiction of the sciences?
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png XKCD
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
It being Boxing Day, one of the traditions of the season is the Doctor Who broadcast, and this year there was a strong allusion to the philosophy of Bertrand Russell. It’s nothing particularly new; John Leeson was the actor who provided the voice for both the Nucleus and K-9. Leeson based K-9’s voice on that of philosopher, mathematician and historian, Bertrand Russell.
To recognise the very humanistic contributions of the series, here’s a documentary on “50 Years of Humanism” in Doctor Who, and a recent article reviewing (spoiler alert!) on the new Doctor.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Merry merry returns of the season! Today’s episode is the revision of content from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com.
If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess
Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas, edited by Ariane Sherine, is not a recent collection, such as a fairly dated but amusing essay on James Randi as a Santa Claus figure, but it’s still got some valuable contributions on the topic of celebrating the season from non-faith perspectives. There’s 42 essays included, to honour the memory of Douglas Adams, in categories like stories, how-to, philosophy and science.
Many of the contributors touch upon their loss of faith and how they then view Christmas, there’s views on the celebrations of the season and even a few short stories and movie reviews and literature. Some of the names like Dawkins are well-known but I think I enjoyed the views on science of “Christmastology” and the collective values that we can all hold regardless of religion. If you can still find a copy, or the audio version by the contributors, it’s an enjoyable seasonal read.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
To give this book its full title, Christmas — Philosophy for Everyone: Better than a Lump of Coal, it investigates the history of philosophy while delving into the different approaches to the festive season, such as the perspectives of Aristotle, Hume, Kant and Nietzsche. There’s a number of contributing essays in this collection edited by Scott Lowe, with religion, icons (both secular and otherwise), morality and commercialism.
Naturally the topic of religion arises often in this kind of book, but there’s a very strong sense of how Christmas has moved well beyond religious observance for many, leading to different ethical and social conundrums such as gift-giving and receiving, supporting traditions and even the stories, from as Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol to The Polar Express. Whether or not you think “Putting the “Yule” back in “Yuletide” is a necessary goal of Christmas, I enjoyed this book for the many different and creative approaches it took with the topic.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Here’s a talk by Nigel Warburton that is aimed at beginner students of Philosophy, but is also a very interesting broad discussion about what the value of Philosophy involves with a great Q&A at the conclusion. The relevance of study and the influence that undergrad level philosophy can have on education, verbal and analytic reasoning as well as mathematical. If there’s anyone who has been following the blog/podcast series, this resource gives you something to consider if you’re interested in studying philosophy in 2018.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
This discussion (as there are questions as to whether it constitutes a debate) was held in November 1979, hosted by Tim Rice, about the then-new film Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which had been banned by many local councils and caused protests throughout the world with accusations that it was blasphemous. To argue in favour of this accusation were broadcaster and noted Christian Malcolm Muggeridge and Mervyn Stockwood(the then Bishop of Southwark). In its defence were two members of the Monty Python team, who created the movie, John Cleese and Michael Palin. The content of the film and this discussion later became a part of a larger feature movie in 2011, called Holy Flying Circus.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
The Xmas Files — Philosophy of Christmas by Stephen Law was an unexpected find a few years ago, and it’s more than just ‘how do you deal with bad presents that you have to smile about?’ From Kantian advice on honesty being the best policy to Mill’s keeping the seasonal peace, there’s a range discussions on what peace really involves and how to deal with all the myths and mythology about the season, and not just the Santa Claus ones.
I particularly enjoyed the discussions about religion and the conflict with commercialisation of Christmas, and the range of ways that we can celebrate this time of year no matter what beliefs we hold. It has a casual, engaging style that is similar to the other works by Law like The Philosophy Files, and while it might seem an obvious present for this time of the year, it’s certainly a great addition to a beginner’s library on the subject regardless.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Analyse the following debate and identify how well the debate unfolds — are there any fallacies involved, and what are they?
Letty: Spiritual beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to philosophy. You can’t observe Santa Claus, and you can’t run a test for faith. I’ve never heard of a reasonable hypothesis test for faith, as it has to be investigated and evaluated. Philosophy is about testing and evaluating, so beliefs are not a part of philosophy. You either do Philosophy or you do navel gazing faith nonsense.
Joe: Why not? I’m happy to debate the ethics of believing in Santa Claus! Just because faith isn’t the same as science doesn’t mean we cannot observe certain things about it. You don’t have to use sight to observe. Therefore, using rational reflection is a method of observation.
Letty: But measuring a concept isn’t the same as measuring a real thing — an observation in terms of concept isn’t the same as that which is truly real in the world. For those reasons, scientific method applied to faith is just a mistake. If you start thinking faith and other unreasonable things are Philosophy, you’ll start thinking ghosts and fairytales are Philosophy and we might as well put Plato in the fiction section.
Joe: What about the social sciences? It’s a combination of methods, not just science, to investigate different parts, changes and the sources of change. Philosophy is often found in the social science departments of universities. I therefore don’t see how investigating concepts such as faith, something outside of empirical testing, can’t be a part of philosophy.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
It’s getting closer to that time of the year! Here’s a few last minute suggestions in case you’re wondering what might be a useful thought-provoking gift for the teen years and over.
There’s a number of popular publications that have gift subscriptions, such as Philosophy Now and New Philosopher, but you should also check out Womankind , Aesthetica and Monocle as well. Ethical Consumer, Peppermint and Sublime magazine were recommended by a friend as examples of the next generation of ethical publications; I’d also add Scientific American, Cosmos, New Scientist, Wired, and if you’re in Australia, there’s Double Helix for the younger years.
In Australia there’s The Monthly, Frankie and Yen magazine, the last two are also appealing to teen readers. If you have any more suggestions, let me know in the comments!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
For Patreon subscribers, there’s further revision questions by heading to www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess.1. What does it mean to ‘win an argument’?2. “There is no point in making a case unless you have argued all sides in preparation” — discuss.3. It is not enough to be rational, you also have to be sensitive to the impact of your argument. Discuss.4. “We should always question whoever makes the strongest argument.” Discuss.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Today’s episode is the revision on argument structures from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com.
If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess
Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Previous post on validity and sound arguments on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy site.
Are the following valid (V) or invalid (I) and then sound (S) or unsound (U)?
Most ballet dancers are over 5 feet tall. Joanna is a ballet dancer, therefore Joanna is five feet tall.
Joanna is a woman. If Joanna is a woman, then she is tall. Therefore Joanna is a tall woman.
The Queen is a woman, therefore Albert is a blonde, then Albert is a blonde.
If unicorns are real, then at least there’s one real fantasy creature. Unicorns are real, therefore at least one fantasy creature is real.
Answers tomorrow at Patreon.com/kyliesturgess.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
Analyse the following debate and identify how well the debate unfolds — are there any fallacies involved, and what are they?
Rachel: We should accept other’s opinions and if we really want a peaceful society, we should respect different beliefs. An inclusive, liberal society is the best way to live.
Phoebe: Well, I’ve never heard of anything so unrealistic. Tolerance of unethical or inhumane practices is hardly a good society, so you can either live in extreme brutality or deal with limited expression.
Rachel: I have no idea what you’re talking about. A liberal society is just about freedom to express your beliefs, it’s hardly about enforcing them. Most people don’t have issues with each other, so it shouldn’t be a problem.
Phoebe: What do you mean? If I express the belief that women should be enslaved, I should be charged with hate-speech. Enslaving women is denying their freedom; denying freedom is unethical and inhumane, so it’s the equivalent of making slaves of women. I’d rather have limitations that keep us free.
Put your comments here — answers for Patreons tomorrow at patreon.com/kyliesturgess.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. -
To start, here’s a revision of how to determine an argument’s validity and whether it is cogent or sound.Is it possible that both all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false?If yes — then it is invalid and unsound / not cogent.If no — then it is definitely valid. But are the premises actually true? If yes, then it is sound/cogent. If not, it is unsound / not cogent.
Are the following valid (V) or invalid (I) and then sound (S) or unsound (U)?
Monica is a brunette and is short, therefore she is a short brunette.
Chandler is blonde and all the blondes I know are from Finland, therefore Chandler is from Finland.
Answers tomorrow at Patreon.com/kyliesturgess.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. - Laat meer zien
