Big Questions is back, meeting tonight at 7:00. Please join us if you want some friendly and supportive conversation on a topic we will jointly identify when we gather. Maybe it will be holiday related, maybe not. But I am sure it will be entertaining. See you tonight!
You can find the link the Weekly Update under Big Questions.
Hi Everyone! The Weekly Newsletter included a notice that BQ would be meeting on Friday, Nov. 25. I think what happened is that the twice monthly schedule was assumed. Not so fast! That is Thanksgiving Weekend, and no BQ is planned that Friday. On the website I showed an anticipated date of December 9, which is still my plan. Sorry for any confusion!
Hello Fellow Thinkers! Welcome back to Big Questions.
After a hiatus of several months, in which time absolutely nothing happened to me or to the world, it is time to get back into the saddle and restart our favorite philosophical discussion group (virtual version). In all these intervening days I'm sure a great topic has occurred to you from time to time, and I am very disappointed at how few of you have bothered to send me a notice as to what those topics were. Shame on you. Some did send in their thoughts, and for these I am very grateful.
As for myself I've been considering the nuances of my golf swing and my ability to find golf balls in the tall grass (which I need to do far too often), which I do not consider to be questions that are all that big. I know your lives are more philosophical than mine has become, so I count on you to bubble up with interesting topics.
I have books, of course, that I can plumb for insight and inspiration. The Philosopher's Gym comes to mind. Work out your intellect by chewing on the great questions of philosophy. Or maybe your jaw. Why is there something, and not nothing? Always a conversation stopper. What is the difference between Becoming and Being? And what do the existentialists mean when they say, become who you are? That is one of my favorites. These are Big Questions. Maybe BIG Questions.
A recent entry has to do with the deceptive allure of eternal happiness as a path to life's fulfillment, or would a person prefer to have absolute knowledge of all things? If you had to choose, which appeals more? Omnipotent knowledge, or eternal happiness? Flip a coin? Or is one included in the other? Think about it...
I propose we restart BQ on Nov. 11, at 7:00. See you then! And send me questions....
We have decided to suspend Big Questions until September. There is a lot going on this summer for all of us, so I hope you keep busy and stay thoughtfully philosophical.
I'm overwhelmed by national and world events, it seems. There remain too many decisions and activities going on in our larger world to pick a single one. Come to share in the chaos, and express your feelings in a safe environment.
June 24, 7:00
I have been thinking about what we might have as a topic tonight, but with all the things happening in our larger world, it has been hard to focus. I watched the January 6 Commission presentation last night, for example, which raised many questions for me, but not Big Questions-sort of of questions.
I have ben very busy lately with all the activity surrounding the EUUF Congregational Meeting that will be held on Sunday, at which time the congregation will be asked to vote to sell the building and grounds. Lots of meetings and discussions the past 2 weeks about that.
And I have been hired to do some consulting work with respect to chips and chipping, my speciality. This is still ramping up, but will take more time (like, hours working on data analysis and writing reports) in the next few weeks. I am excited to be doing something in my "field" again.
So, we generally do pretty well when we develop our own topics, so let's fly by the seat of our pants again tonight and find the question that interests us the most. I'm looking forward to seeing you all again.
May 27.
We are camping in Spokane this weekend. Sorry, but there is no meeting this week.
I remember when my kids started using the word "sick" to mean that they liked something, or that a thing was cool or good. At least that was what I thought they meant. So, when the work "woke" showed up I was prepared to ignore this as some kind of counter cultural phrase that served someone else's purpose, but not mine. What did it mean to be "woke"? I had no idea.
Something happened this week to change my understanding of what the current use of the word woke means, and how it applies to me. I've learned what being woke is, and how supporters and detractors of the phenomenon of being woke use the term to rally around with folks that think like they do, or how others use the term to denigrate and criticize those that think differently. As a cultural movement, being woke is associated with other movements like cancel culture, #metoo, and more. It has become the norm that speaking frankly about ourselves leaves an opening that others can criticize from many angles and perspectives.
I first went after the concept academically. I found an article written about Wendy Brown, a professor at Princeton University, discussing the idea that free speech and the free exchange of ideas in a university environment are under attack by society in general, and the politically right in particular, who use the ideas of white privilege and woke cultural norms as a way to bring political perspectives into a classroom. She argues that politics belongs outside on the quad grass, with university classrooms left for discovery of new ideas and arguments that will change your mind, not reinforce your preconceptions. The movement to restrict what is taught in schools has traction in the K-12 arena as states like Kansas and Florida ban books and dictate what can and cannot be taught in grade school classes. The politically right, Brown argues, is putting church into the early education classrooms, and are banning free thinking and new ideas.
I encourage you to look for other sources and writings that pertain to this topic. There are many. How has the term woke been weaponized by both sides of the debate? What does being woke mean with respect to cancel culture? What does being cancelled mean?
Hello BQ participants! Sorry, but I do not have a prepared topic tonight. Please come to share one of your questions.
One of the enduring questions of modern times is, why does anybody really fear the Russians? By all accounts they are inefficient, inept, poor planners, and their conscripted military is as unenthusiastic for combat as it is inept. Napoleon felt this way in the winter of 1812, and only lost because of the terrain, cold, and the length of time his push into Russia's harsh winter took. Ditto Germany's foray into the Motherland. Now we see the Russian military try to invade Ukraine, and falter in the attempt. A determined Ukrainian resistance has foiled the grand plans of the Russian military.
The answer, of course, is that the Russians have Nukes. Would a defeated, embarrassed, and struggling Russian military or political leadership succumb to using the Nuclear Option as a form of last resort? If Russia used Nukes on Ukraine (or others), would NATO and the USA be obligated to respond in kind? Would US targets be involved? I read in the paper that our local nuclear submarine base might be a prime target, putting all of us in Western WA potentially in the fall-out zone.
Where is James Bond when we need him?
With so much history happening right before our eyes, examining what is happening in Ukraine is an essential exercise in human affairs that we must do. We need to look at the big picture here, and consider why this is happening, and how can NATO and the west best respond to it. There are lots of angles to think about.
Any volunteers to lead the discussion? Please leave a note below.
OK, this is mostly last minute this time, since the meeting is tonight. Sorry about that, but I've been distracted but trying to come up with a good topic for tonight's meeting. I'll let you decide if this is a good one.
To find source material for tonight's meeting I pulled out my copy of Barnet and Bedeau's classic book, Current Issues and Enduring Questions, 4th Ed. I see the current copies are 10th editions. Lucky you. Anyway, there is a section called "What are the bounds of free speech?" which includes excerpts from Plato, John Stuart Mill, the reversal of a Vietnam war protester's "disturbing the peace" conviction in California for wearing a jacket with the words "F*** The Draft" by the US Supreme Court, and 2 sections on pornography as a form of free speech. I recommend reading all of them, but I will highlight a couple to get our discussion going.
Plato argues in "The Republic" that children not be taught stories about the gods that show their immoral or willfully evil natures, because this will form ideas in the minds of the children that immoral and nasty acts are OK. The gods do them, right? Rather, we should teach children stories of heroism, right actions and right relations, so they grow up knowing right from wrong and wanting to to do the right thing. It is a form of censorship that intends to improve the children involved. Plato specifically calls out poets and writers of plays who use stories or tales that glorify nastiness or treachery, torture and infidelity, etc.. The old tales, especially about the gods, where sons kill or castrate fathers, and more, are not good stories for children, especially. People should not be free to talk about such things. - Maybe this is mild stuff in today's world, but I get the feeling that this was very important to the Greeks.
In the case of the protester's suit, the decision by John Marshall Harlan, speaking for the 6-3 majority in this case, reverse the earlier CA convictions on the grounds of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
and 14th amendments (Section 1 shown):
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The court upheld the right of the defendant to peacefully display his jacket, inciting no disturbance or physical altercation, but only displaying his displeasure with the draft. In fact, the court papers report that he did nothing aggressive, and was actually verbally silent during his arrest. Granted this was in 1968, just as tensions were about to reach their peak, and he displayed his jacket in the San Francisco city courtrooms and hallways trying to provoke a response, which all played into the game he was playing.
The last section on pornography and obscenity is a reasoned discussion between 2 perspectives that are not totally at odds. Both respect the physical acts involved, with one stating that this is always the exploitation of the female participant (when present). The arguments include the idea that this behavior is intended to shock the viewer, but concludes that public sex has been around for millennia, and in many ways it has lost the shock value it might have had. The cure, they state, is when the viewer is bored and simply walks away. It is also political, since pornography is a socially subversive activity that works to break down our social institutions and norms. Calls for censorship come from many sides of the political spectrum, which touch on the idea of free speech and free acts.
The second article quotes Chief Justice Warren Berger, when he said:
To equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom. It is a misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press.
This came on the heels of calls for burning books like James Joyce's Ulysses, and works of Henry Miller, and many others. The author goes on to describe pornography as inherently degrading to women, and is in no way "art" or "free speech". She goes on to point out the many ways the justices on the Supreme Court have been conflicted and inconsistent in their interpretation of obscene materials, and their failure to adequately define what constitutes "hard core" and "patently offensive" obscene images, among others.
We have come through a recent season of political abandonment of facts and truth, in favor of imaginary facts and politically expedient statements. Can these be justified as "free speech" or are lies in another category of obscene dialogue?
I read a lot of science fiction literature. Some of it is escapist drivel, but not much. I prefer what is called "hard" science fiction, where the author takes pains to keep the developments and technology believable, with Einstein's laws mostly obeyed. Faster than light travel might be quicker if you need your protagonists to get from star system to star system in less than double-digit year timeframes, but movement through space should have some sort of limit, am I right?
One of the series I enjoy involves the development of a communication system that is instantaneous throughout the galaxy, or seemingly so. The story plays out over decades so the people can get far enough apart in space to make the story interesting, but the communications allow them to stay in touch in a sort of internet-like way. What this means is that trouble in one place can be shared with everyone everywhere, in real time. Ideas can be shared, with action taken by those close enough to do something about it. Maybe it is helping a sentient species out of an environmental problem, or how to thwart the evil intentions of a diabolical race of devils. The connectivity of everything makes it all work.
Which brings me to this week's BQ. In our modern global world where things are connected by images, video, and words, where we can see what is happening essentially everywhere as never before, people are connected in the same way. In the electronic world we live in, is shutting down an aggressor by denying them access to bank accounts, the commercial world of buying and selling things, including foodstuffs they make and buy, enough? Can we shut down an aggressor to the extent that the people will put a stop to the war? Can a corrupt government be stopped through isolation of this kind?
Could a wall of economic isolation put up around a nation be enough to defeat it?
Could denial of internet, banking, economic sanctions, travel, and so forth be enough to convince a dictator to stop his expansionistic plans?
Meeting Date: February 18
Two of our BQ regulars suggested we discuss the topic, Ambiguous Loss. Originally they referred me to a New York Times article on the subject, which discussed and quoted Dr. Pauline Boss, the originator of the idea, which I read. Now, I am not a mental health therapist or psychologist of any sort, only a simple philosopher. I was asked, however, to lead the discussion, so here is my attempt to do so.
The first link above is for a dedicated website to this topic supplied by Dr. Boss, and it includes a video of her explaining the idea, where it came from, and how it has formed the basis of her life's work. Additional tabs take the site visitor to different areas that explain and expand on the ideas she has developed, and some offer access to training and other resources if someone really wanted to take the Deep Dive into this topic. I have not taken the training, so I can't comment on it. You can suit yourself, I suppose.
The key idea is that some relationships end without a closure that allows an emotional end to the relationship. If a romantic relationship ends where one partner just walks away, that might be an example. Or if a parent dies in some distant place, of if they pass away from dementia or Alzheimer's, then the slipping away does not happen in a way that a final goodbye conversation can occur. The best way to wrap your head around the topic is to click on the links and read more about it.
(Note: Jane E. Brody is the author of several articles in the NYT on this topic, and she references conversations and resources from many sources. I signed up for a NYT account as several people have been sending me links to articles there, and I have exceeded my limit on free access. $1/week. I can afford that.)
Special Note: Scheduling. I apologize for moving this meeting forward a week, but it turns out that we have a conflict for 2/25. I hope we don't get to many folks missing the change.
In recent Sunday services the idea that everything we know about the Universe and all its contents arose at the time of the Big Bang, and with the expansion of matter into an empty cosmos, the flinging about of elements and energy has created the environment we see and experience. Stars, suns, planets, moons, galaxies, and so forth are all products of this original act of creation, so that the matter of which we are composed is just "the stuff of stars," hence we are made from stardust.
This Big Bang idea is on every philosopher's List of Big 10 Key Questions. Ethics, consciousness, meaning of life, life after death, and so forth make up the whole list, but first among them is the question, essentially, Where did we come from? If you click on the link just shared you will find a website where everyday people (non-philosophers) ask life's hard questions, and philosophy students and instructors answer them in as common a language as can be managed, to make the answers "understandable." In the Ivory Tower of the university the modes of speech can become quite jargonistic, especially so in philosophy, so the effort of making the key ideas accessible is welcome.
If you click through to the discussion of the Big Bang on this website there are a series of questions posed by people that are answered, and I think in a main-stream sort of way, exposing what is known and thought by most philosophers. Key ideas, for me, are the presumption that the expansion of the universe after the BB was into a nothingness of empty space, that the eternal expansion of the cosmos will continue (pending the influence of dark matter and expansion-curbing gravity), and the concept that there was no possibility of the existence of time before the BB. Many of these topics are addressed in a very accessible way in the novel mr. g by Alan Lightman, which I think I mentioned before. He uses the concept of god as an eternal, all powerful being who is behind it all, but he doesn't control its every action.
That we are made of the stuff of stars seems indisputable. What other stuff is there? That we inhabit a planet were life developed and grew is self evident. That some of us developed consciousness, which feels like something other than a purely physical thing (like most of life feels), which gives rise to philosophy. So there you have it - the circle of existence explained in a few simple sentences.
Meeting Date: 21 January 2022
Let's pick a question from the list below. I hope to see you there.
Desmond