Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Articles

Drinks & Thinks

A roundup of news from the philosophy cafés.

Gale Prawda describes the very first Philosophy Café to be held in London. Institut français, South Kensington, 15 November 1997.

At first glance the topic chosen seemed to promise a no-issue dead-end street discussion. If we’re not alive then we can’t discuss the matter any further. Most people wanted to push the question under the table and choose another of greater interest. But with a bit of perseverance and patience we plowed on with this one. At times there were heavy silences and most people were a bit hesitant. Was it the subject that created this difficulty or the ‘firsttime’ syndrome, or the omnipresence of the media? Can’t really say. The question was attacked on several levels: a) as nonsense, for if one ceased to exist one wouldn’t be able to judge if it were better or not; b) ‘better’ infers a comparison – is it better than what to have been born?; c) others felt the question was ridiculous – what Wittgenstein would have called “idle talk.”

After these initial objections, the topic starting opening up into other areas. If we think that it might have been better not to have been born, then we are starting to look critically at our lives and the world we live in. What kind of world is it? One we want to pass on to our children, or is it better not to have children in this world? Can we change this world to make it better for those children we would like to bring into it, or is that just passing the buck? (“We made a mess of it – now it’s your turn!”) Is there a conscious thought-process going on prior to having children (propagating the species) or is it just bestial habit? Should we continue the species and why? These questions led to other avenues of thought and three main areas surged forth:

1) What does it mean to be human (hence to continue the species or not)? Here we discussed the idea of the thinking being, introduced into philosophy many years ago by Descartes with his famous maxim: cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore I am.” If man, as a thinking being must put his thoughts into action… should it not be to improve life and the world we live in? If so how good a job has he done?

2) If we look a bit closer at the notion of ‘being and nothingness’ and follow Sartre’s thinking, we come across free will in choosing to live one’s life and the question now becomes what can we do with this life we’ve chosen to live. There’s a certain responsibility attached to our acts and thus we assume the responsibility of our lives by the choices we make.

3) What is the future of humanity? If we stop reproducing, we put an end to the human species. The ethical questions of deciding on ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ fetuses and destroying the ‘abnormal’ during pregnancy raised further thoughts. Should life be terminated because of physical or mental disabilities? Who are we to judge? Who has the right to decide on life or death? The cloning issue came up as did the ethics of artificial insemination as we discussed how science has advanced its techniques to assure the continuance of our species. And yet we have seen the greatest destruction of mankind in our century based upon certain assumptions of superiority (under the Third Reich). Hence, there was a definite split in opinion over whether humanity’s evolution could be seen as an upwards progress or whether it was too early to tell.

Diversity and tolerance were discussed just as heatedly as the question of humanity’s future. Many people felt that these two notions were directly linked to that future. In the modern world there is a multiplicity of cultures and a certain necessity of tolerance for each. However, new social, economic and political elements constantly enter the arena, threatening certain groups. According to one speaker, if we wanted to create a Utopian society, all we’d have to do would be to change our ideas about Utopia.

As another speaker mentioned it’s inevitable that when you “get a bunch of intelligent people together… they will disagree”. Is this the fault or the beauty of the ‘café philosophique’ debate in action?

© Gale Prawda 1998

Barstool Philosophers Tackle Consciousness

Bryn Williams reports on the first two Philosophy Now Pub Philosophy meetings.

In Britain it is the pub, not the café, which forms a locus for sociable discussion; so we decided that our philosophy café should be a philosophy pub instead. That apart, we wanted to keep the aims, and format, relatively unchanged. After some enjoyable research in a wide selection of London pubs, we found a suitable venue in the shape of an upstairs room at The Glassblower, near Piccadilly Circus. All we needed now were philosophicallyminded people to participate.

Initially, our advertising was quite low-key; with Gale’s enthusiastic consent, we let the group at Café Philo know about Pub Philosophy, and wrote to many of our London subscribers. In addition, we sent out some press releases and awaited a flood of media interest. Unfortunately the flood turned out to be more of a trickle, but at least that resulted in the editor and me being interviewed by newspaper, radio, and cable television. Consequently, the first meeting was attended by a full-house of 60 people – not including those we had to turn away!

I act as host for the Pub Philosophy meetings, organising the voting at the beginning, chairing the discussion, clarifying any obscure points, and, on occasion, focusing the debate. The topic for debate is chosen democratically by the group from suggestions made by members of the group themselves. I only have one rule, which is that each participant respect the right of others to express their points without interruption and accept the corresponding responsibility to strive to make their own contributions as clearly and concisely as possible.

The topic of our first meeting was “Is there any real difference between the male brain and the female brain?” The group threw itself with enthusiasm into the task of clarifying the question. It soon emerged that what we were discussing was

a) do men and women actually think differently? and

b) If so, does this justify differential treatment? Surprisingly perhaps, it was a) which dominated the discussion, as most people felt that b) was not an issue. Equal treatment was broadly supported as a social and political ideal to be maintained regardless of any real or perceived differences in thought and behaviour between the two sexes.

The issue of whether men and women actually do differ was rightly flagged up early on as being an empirical, not a philosophical issue. As one participant pointed out, psychological and social studies could, at the very least, identify statistical differences in male and female behaviour, attitudes and thought. At this point it may have seemed that we had reached a dead-end, but what followed was a wide-ranging discussion of what kinds of evidence would count as establishing the claim that men and women differed in a real way.

Several standard claims were made about the differences between men and women such as men being more ‘rational’ and women more ‘emotional’, or men being more disposed to violence, and women more inclined to make peace. But for every generalisation of this sort came a flurry of counter-examples. So it was clear that appeal to intuitions proved nothing!

One woman mentioned the works of Virginia Woolf as exemplifying the female situation, another person piped up that Ernest Hemmingway occupied a similar role for men. It was only when a few biographical facts came up that we realised what a can of worms we had opened. Woolf, in her private life, was notorious for her remarkable masculinity. Hemmingway, someone recalled, had been dressed as a girl for the first few years of his life. This was clear illustration of the naiveté of our ‘common-sense’ intuitions, graphically exhibiting the inherent ambiguity of gender roles, and the assumptions we make about them.

It was no easier when empirical psychological research was appealed to, for two reasons. Distinct statistical regularities in male and female behaviour and thought are equally susceptible to the obvious counter-examples. Also, the statistics may simply point to conventional differences between men and women, attributable not to real differences, but socially constructed differences.

Evidence of actual neuro-physical differences between male and female brains was offered as a basis for saying that there were at least differences between the ways in which men and women think. It was also claimed that men are better at some types of thinking, women at others, but in reply it was observed that differences of this nature between individuals were so marked that it seemed unlikely that any general judgement could be made across, or between genders.

I then called a short break to allow people to get to know those around them, and sound out each others’ thoughts on what had been said. The noise level in the room suddenly escalated as everyone started chatting to those sitting at neighbouring tables, huddling in small groups to swap opinions or getting another round of drinks in at the bar.

When the meeting came back to order, I summarised the various positions which had been put forward and suggested we focused on just a few of them. In particular, some people had raised the possibility that male and female perception of the world might actually differ, which suggested that we needed to look not just at external behaviour, but subjective experience as well.

The attempt to focus the group wasn’t an unqualified success; many wished to pursue previous lines of thought, and I didn’t feel it was my place to insist that they concentrate on the subjects I found interesting. However some more points came up, and some previous ones were resurrected as the meeting became a debate between those gripped by the strong intuition that men and women are significantly different in their attitudes, and those who were already convinced that any cognitive differences between genders were an illusion, fostered mainly by social norms.

I drew the meeting to a close with no satisfactory resolution being achieved, but then I never expected there to be one. The pub is a place where competing views may meet and test themselves against the demands of rational inquiry. The evening had been a success if people were given food for thought, and encouraged to question previously unrecognised assumptions. This seemed to be recognised by everyone there, many of whom stayed to enjoy a few more drinks, and socialise/debate with each other. I am grateful to all of those who came up to me afterwards and declared our first Pub Philosophy meeting a pleasure and a success.

* * *

Our next meeting was a fortnight later, and the subject chosen for discussion was, “Is the brain the only cause of consciousness?” The implication being that if it was not, then there must be some other explanation of consciousness. Many people defended the materialist view that consciousness is a property of the brain, and that defence was surprisingly well-informed. Not only were many of the issues of the materialist/dualist debate brought up, but also the broader notion of consciousness was investigated. Much of this early delineation of the topic involved eager rehearsal of the better-known positions. One of us pointed out that treating the brain as a ‘cause’ of consciousness immediately sets up a (possibly) false distinction and suggested thinking of consciousness as a property and not a product of the brain.

By bringing attention to the form of the question itself, an ambiguity was detected. The question might equally mean either; “Is it the brain, and no other, immaterial substance which is responsible for consciousness?” or, “Is consciousness only a property of brains, and not some other material organisation (like a computer)?” Both questions were considered, along with discussions about how one would know if a computer (or anything) were conscious, and an in-depth debate concerning precisely what was meant by the term consciousness.

The first half was something like a guided tour around the central positions in the philosophy of mind, and I was pleasantly surprised at the degree to which this subject was so widely understood, and the degree to which people were interested in it. In particular the willingness to engage in critical analysis of the problem showed a general understanding, and enthusiasm, for genuine philosophical inquiry.

After the break we focused on the idea which was implicit in the original question, whether consciousness could exist in a void. The original consideration of whether more was required for consciousness than a brain, can be understood as asking what else is required, apart from a brain, for consciousness. One person suggested that perhaps consciousness is an entirely social construction, and that without a social context within which an individual can be defined, there could be no consciousness.

Although few were willing to contemplate such a radical role for social determination, this contribution directed people away from the brain for the necessary conditions of consciousness. It was as if everyone suddenly noticed that we had completely ignored the fact that consciousness is intentional, it is about things. This led to a round of comments concerning what role the world played in the production of consciousness, including a reference to Dennett’s theory concerning the evolutionary pressures which led to the emergence of consciousness.

The conversation warmed to the notion of the necessity of context for consciousness, and not only on the role of the environment over time, but more specifically the role of language in the emergence of consciousness.

Following this excursion into both biosemantics and psycholinguistics, we ended with people eager to restate their materialist credentials, although to be honest the dualist point of view had never been seriously entertained by any of the participants, other than as a possibility which could not be excluded.

The second Pub Philosophy meeting again succeeded in providing plenty to think about, and a range of interesting takes on both the problem of consciousness, and the mind/body problem.

* * *

What impressed me most of all, with both meetings, but in particular our second, was the degree of philosophy people were willing, and able, to do. There is an inherent difficulty in maintaining any kind of focus in a situation like Pub Philosophy. It is in the nature of the event that one person’s ideas will spark off other associated ideas, and the desire to express the new idea will often overcome the discipline needed to return to the original notion and give it the attention it deserves. There are always going to be good suggestions that are left to go begging as the conversational turn moves off in a largely unpredictable direction. This of course is part of the fun of Pub Philosophy. We all start from the same place, but no-one knows where we will end up. Despite the discussion being quite broad, and no single point of view getting any detailed attention, the participants displayed that quality of analytic skill, and genuine desire to understand, which lies at the core of philosophical inquiry.

It is unlikely that anyone will ever discern the meaning of life, provide a final proof/disproof of the existence of God, or even develop a tenable causal theory of perception in a pub. However it is unlikely that they’ll do it anywhere else either, so why not make the attempt in pleasant surroundings and a sociable atmosphere?

There is as much enjoyment in intellectual endeavour as there is to be found in sporting endeavour. No one thinks it strange for people to head down to the local park on a Sunday to congregate and play football. Certainly no-one asks “what for?” This is because the answer is obvious: it’s fun, and what’s more, its better than kicking a ball around at home on your own.

Pub Philosophy offers a pitch on which to play the game, teammates with whom you can play it, and even a referee to blow halftime. So come out and join us when the Spring Season kicks off.

© Bryn R Williams 1998

Next issue: more philosophy café news from around the world.

Philosophy Now Café

In the last issue of Philosophy Now, we trailed our intention to start up a British version of the philosophy café meetings which have revolutionised Parisian café society over the past five years. We are happy to report that we have now held several very enjoyable Pub Philosophy meetings in the heart of London’s West End.

Café Philosophique, the model for Pub Philosophy, grew from an informal meeting of friends at the Café des Phares in the Place de la Bastille. Although the group came from a variety of backgrounds, it was philosopher Marc Sautet’s distinct approach to discussion which shaped and informed the conversation. Before long, more and more people were turning up to the Café des Phares either to participate, or just to listen. As news spread, other informal discussion groups sprouted up in the French capital, and Sautet himself has developed a wide following, which has earned him national celebrity status. The past five years have seen philosophy cafés spread not only through Paris, but out to the French provinces and, more recently, world-wide, opening up as far afield as New York and Tokyo.

Although different groups have developed different styles, the underlying ethos of Café Philosophique has remained largely unchanged. The aim is to provide a relaxed and informal forum within which people may examine the big questions. The meetings are led by someone with experience in philosophical research and debate, but the role of the host, (or ‘facilitator’) is only to enable the discussion, not to defend any particular position, or preach at the participants.

Finally, on 15 November last year, Gale Prawda brought the first Café Philosophique to London. After just two sessions the demand for seats in the Institut français café was far outstripping availability, suggesting as healthy an appetite for general philosophical debate on this side of the Channel as elsewhere.

Because the whole Café Philosophique concept clearly fits so well with Philosophy Now’s aim of bringing philosophical debate into the public arena in the English-speaking world, we were keen to help Gale to establish the idea in Britain. This first roundup of news from the Philosophy Cafés includes Gale Prawda’s report on the very first London Café Philo meeting, and Bryn Williams’ report of the first two Pub Philo meetings held by Philosophy Now.

The Good Pub & Café Guide

Philosophy Now Pub Philosophy. Now at a new venue: The Clachan, 34 Kingly Street, London W1. Nearest tube: Oxford Circus. 14th April, 27th April 7pm-9.30pm. Admission £1. Further info from Bryn Williams on 0171-706 0461