Can we trust our perceptions?

 A classic problem with ancient (Greek) philosophy was the untrustabilty of direct experiences of the world around us.  There were many, many ways in which our perceptions seem to fool us into thinking what we see is real, when it is not.  Classically, the optical illusion of a stick in a glass of water comes to mind.  The refraction of the water makes the stick appear to have a bend at the point it enters the water, when it clearly does not if it is pulled out.  Another is that drinking wine makes the floor tip left and right, making walking difficult.  Heat waves make the distance look like it is wet, when it is not.  That sort of thing.

Empiricists believe that the world can be known from direct experience.  "Just look around", they say, "and see the world as it really is!"   Can we look at a sunset and understand what we are seeing without understanding about light's interaction with atmospheric particles and low angle refraction?  Can we see a human birth and understand all the biologic and physiological phenomena at work, all at once?  Experience gives us access to certain sorts of phenomenon, but at a sort of macro level, at least historically.  Science helps us to see progressively small things, aiding this perspective, but still, it all ends up as people seeing things they can understand and observe directly.

Rationalists say that they can know things just by thinking about them.  Certain logical and mathematical concepts are true because they must be true if the world conforms to the logical necessities of math and logic.  We don't need experience to know that 2+2=4.  Or that cause and effect are real.  Physicists seem to spend a lot of their energy in working out that certain cosmological phenomena must be this way or that, based on what we know of the fundamental principles of matter and energy.  Observation is so frustratingly difficult in these galactic spaces that logical evaluation is a much better course of action.  

Where has direct experience of the world around you failed you?  Can you say you can really trust your senses?  Is logic a better basis of understanding in some cases?  Come prepared to discuss these and other examples of your interaction with the world around you, and how you have been fooled from time to time.

Atheism in Modern Times

 I threw this topic up as a placeholder as it was suggested as a topic at the last meeting.  I have been busy enough with all the good weather of the past 2 weeks that I have not been able to do any research on this topic yet, and I don't have that time now, unfortunately.  I will be opening the Cafe on Zoom tonight at 7 pm and will be glad to curate a discussion of this topic,m or any others we come up with.  If anyone has time to look up links and commentary today, please add them in the comments section below and we can all share in them tonight.

Death With Dignity

 Before I get to this week's serious topic, I'd like you all to click on this link for a quick reminder of why Socrates is considered the greatest philosopher of all time.  Once you have a chance to read this comic, please come back for a real discussion.

Death with Dignity

Washington state has a Death With Dignity law, signed into law in 2008.  The state provides a website that deals with the law's provisions and parameters, and links to reports that detail how people have used the law to receive legal prescriptions that end life.  The reports show demographic data including ages of those who have used the drugs, types of diseases they may have had, and many more bits of data that provide insights into the motivations that informed the decisions to use the drugs.  Take a few minutes to explore the linked site above, and get familiar with the data provided there.

The decision to chose a time of death that an individual may make is not really a philosophical question in a Socratic sense, at least at first glance.  If, as a common example, a person has a cancer that causes chronic pain, and the best medical advice is that the disease will take the life of the person within a certain time period (the law requires such a diagnosis, with less than 6 months to live), a patient might want to end his/her suffering as soon as possible.  This was the intent of the law in the first place.  Gather friends and family, say goodbye, and take a pill.  The suffereing stops in the patient, and the greiving can start with everyone left behind.  The uncertainty is ended.  Importantly, the dignity of the patient is preserved, as they stay in control of their lives until the end.

Here is a link to a discussion of Physician-Assisted Death, comparing the philosophies used to pass laws into action for the State of Oregon, and Holland.  Oregon used a perspective that emphasised the autonomy of the individual at the core of their legislation, whereas Holland used easing pain and sufferning as the basis of their law.  Washington's law follows the example used by Oregon.  I prepared a summary chart that compares and contrasts the various issued raised in the paper.  It came out very small, so I hope you can read it.

We can discuss the various aspects raised int he paper during our meeting Friday night.  If you get a chance to look at the original paper, there is a Life Quality Questionairre on Pages 75-79.  16 simple questions that can help you assess your life.  For you writers out there, there is an essay section on the last page.

This looks like a good topic.  See you Friday!