Drawing 2023 to a Close

 Thank you to all of the BQ participants this past year!  We made it through a tough year for philosophy, it seems.  At least we didn't spend a lot of time rationalizing all the bad and crazy things that happened in the world in 2023.  Let's hope 2024 brings better things.  Have a happy holiday season, and we can get together again in January! 

Atheism as a Valid Religious Point of View - Dec 15

 In our recent meeting a link to a "debate" was shared between Stephen Colbert and Ricky Gervais over the extent of  differences in beliefs between those that believe in one God, and those who do not believe in any god.  In one case a "believer" (Colbert) denies the existence of all the gods that have ever been identified but one, and a non-believer (Gervais) denies all those plus even this last one.  Ricky points out that Stephen rejects 2,999 of 3,000 gods, and Ricky rejects all 3,000.  So, what's all the fuss about?

Thinking about this argument strategy, I thought it might be a good time to revisit the concept of atheism.  I asked Bard to develop an outline that could be used to justify that atheism is a valid religious point of view.  Bard responded:

<Bard> Sure, here is an outline of an argument that atheism is a valid religious point of view:

Introduction

• Define atheism as the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
• Explain that atheism is not the same as agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.
• State the thesis that atheism is a valid religious point of view.

Body Paragraph 1: Atheism as a Belief System

• Discuss how atheism has a coherent worldview that explains the universe and human existence without the need for supernatural forces.
• Highlight the ethical and moral principles that many atheists uphold, such as humanism, compassion, and justice.
• Address common misconceptions about atheism, such as the idea that atheists are immoral or that atheism is a rejection of spirituality.

Body Paragraph 2: Atheism in History and Culture

• Provide examples of prominent atheists throughout history, such as philosophers, scientists, and activists.
• Explore the cultural and religious diversity within the atheist community.
• Address the historical persecution and marginalization of atheists in various societies.

Body Paragraph 3: The Legal Recognition of Atheism

• Discuss the increasing legal recognition of atheism around the world.
• Examine the arguments for and against the inclusion of atheism as a protected religion.
• Address the challenges and opportunities for atheists in promoting their beliefs and practices.

Conclusion

• Reiterate the argument that atheism is a valid religious point of view.
• Emphasize the importance of respecting the beliefs of others, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.
• Call for greater understanding and tolerance of atheism in society.  <End>

<Des>  Bard does not provide the hard facts and data that they suggest form the supporting basis of their suggestions, which I think is a good thing.  The reader is left to ask the right questions and find the information Bard points out in the outline.  That is what Google is for.  

Philosophy of Invasion - Nov. 17

 Broadly speaking, can one country invade another and use any of the philosophical perspectives noted below as a justification?  I asked Google's Bard AI to identify the philosophical basis for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and Bard nicely outlined several, and offered supporting and contradictory points of view on each.  Basic human evil even made the list, in both radical and benign versions.  We have discussed the nature of evil in the past, but have not really dissected it into these particular types, although WW2 could certainly be invoked as a key example.

My hope is that we can go down the list and consider the issues as Bard has presented them.  What list would Bard have generated if we considered the Hamas/Israeli war?

<Des> What philosophical issues were raised when Russia invaded Ukraine?

<Bard> Russia's invasion of Ukraine raises a number of philosophical issues, including:

• Just war theory: Is the invasion justified under just war theory? Just war theory is a set of ethical principles that govern the use of military force. It holds that war is only justified as a last resort, in self-defense, and to achieve a just peace. Some philosophers argue that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified under just war theory, as it is a response to NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's alleged genocide of Russian speakers in the Donbas region. Others argue that the invasion is not justified, as it is not a last resort, it is not proportionate to the threat posed by NATO or Ukraine, and it is unlikely to achieve a just peace.

• Self-determination: Does Ukraine have the right to self-determination? The right to self-determination is a fundamental human right that allows people to freely choose their own political status and form of government. Russia has argued that Ukraine's right to self-determination is limited by its own security interests. However, most philosophers and international law experts agree that Ukraine has the right to self-determination, and that Russia's invasion is a violation of this right.

• Humanitarian intervention: Is it permissible to intervene militarily in Ukraine to protect civilians? Humanitarian intervention is the use of military force to protect civilians from human rights abuses, without the consent of the government responsible for those abuses. Some philosophers argue that humanitarian intervention is permissible, even when it violates the principle of state sovereignty. Others argue that humanitarian intervention is only permissible when the human rights abuses are very severe, and when there is a good chance of success.

• The responsibility to protect: Does the international community have a responsibility to protect civilians in Ukraine? The responsibility to protect is a norm in international law that holds states responsible for protecting their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If a state is unable or unwilling to protect its own population, the international community has a responsibility to intervene. Most philosophers and international law experts agree that the international community has a responsibility to protect civilians in Ukraine.

• The nature of evil: What does Russia's invasion of Ukraine tell us about the nature of evil? Some philosophers have argued that the invasion is an example of radical evil, which is evil that is committed without any moral qualms or regard for the suffering of others. Others have argued that the invasion is an example of banal evil, which is evil that is committed by ordinary people who are following orders or simply going along with the crowd.

These are just a few of the philosophical issues raised by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The war is a complex and challenging event, and there is no easy answers to the questions it raises. However, by thinking critically about these issues, we can gain a better understanding of the war and its implications for the future of international relations. <end of Bard's response>

Nov 3 - Be skeptical, Very skeptical...

 I recently listened to Bergstrom and West's new book Calling Bullshit.  The authors are UW professors, one in biology and one in information science.  They highlight popular topics, scientific papers, political statements, and more, and show how statements made are misleading, data used to support topics is not valid for any of several reasons, hypotheses are incomplete or developed after the study was underway, and so much more.  It is a full course given at UW, condensed to some extent to be presented in just over of 10 hours if all you do is listen.

I thought we might discuss how we each protect ourselves from the ubiquitous barrage of dis- and mis-information that surrounds us every day.  Perhaps you can bring your favorite BS statement that we can debunk, or at least dissect.

The publisher's blurb taken from Audible.com:

Bullshit isn’t what it used to be. Now, two science professors give us the tools to dismantle misinformation and think clearly in a world of fake news and bad data.

Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news abound, and it’s increasingly difficult to know what’s true. Our media environment has become hyperpartisan. Science is conducted by press release. Start-up culture elevates bullshit to high art. We are fairly well equipped to spot the sort of old-school bullshit that is based in fancy rhetoric and weasel words, but most of us don’t feel qualified to challenge the avalanche of new-school bullshit presented in the language of math, science, or statistics. In Calling Bullshit, Professors Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West give us a set of powerful tools to cut through the most intimidating data.

You don’t need a lot of technical expertise to call out problems with data. Are the numbers or results too good or too dramatic to be true? Is the claim comparing like with like? Is it confirming your personal bias? Drawing on a deep well of expertise in statistics and computational biology, Bergstrom and West exuberantly unpack examples of selection bias and muddled data visualization, distinguish between correlation and causation, and examine the susceptibility of science to modern bullshit.

We have always needed people who call bullshit when necessary, whether within a circle of friends, a community of scholars, or the citizenry of a nation. Now that bullshit has evolved, we need to relearn the art of skepticism.

Oct 13 - What is the meaning of life?

 Perhaps it has been long enough ago that we have discussed this topic that we can do so again.  I've gone through my postings on this site back to 2010, and this particular subject does not come up.  So, let's take a new run at it.

<Bard>  Here is a big philosophical question that you could discuss on Friday night:

What is the meaning of life?

This is a question that has been pondered by philosophers and theologians for centuries. There is no one answer that will satisfy everyone, but it is a question that is worth discussing because it can help us to better understand ourselves and our place in the world.

Here are some sub-questions that you could discuss as part of your discussion on the meaning of life:

• What is the purpose of human existence?
• What makes a life meaningful?
• Is there an inherent meaning to life, or do we each create our own meaning?
• How can we find meaning in our lives?
• What role does morality play in finding meaning in life?
• What role does religion play in finding meaning in life?

This discussion could be a great way to learn more about your friends' and family members' philosophical beliefs and to challenge your own thinking. It could also be a way to connect with others on a deeper level and to share your own thoughts and feelings about the meaning of life.

Here are some tips for having a productive philosophical discussion:

• Be open-minded and respectful of other people's opinions.
• Be willing to listen to others and to learn from them.
• Be clear and concise in your own arguments.
• Be prepared to defend your beliefs, but also be willing to change your mind if presented with new evidence.
• Focus on the ideas, not the people.

I hope this helps!

If it quacks like a duck...

I dug out one of my favorite BQ reference books and flipped through the Table of Contents for tonight's inspiration.  I found a chapter that discusses the Chinese Box Experiment originally proposed by Professor John Searle.  (Please look this up on your own, as it is a fascinating way to do philosophy.)  It begs many questions that relate to how computers think, and if they think, and what will happen when we can't tell the difference between a computer's response and a human response?  Alan Turing had something to say about that, too.   

In my reference book a woman unwraps and then plugs in a human-shaped robot that has an AI for a brain.  They have a long discussion about feelings and understanding, that the woman says an AI can never have, but the arguments seem to fall apart after a while.  The gist of one part of the woman's argument is that feelings and understanding can only happen in a human brain, not in a silicon and metal computer-based symbol processor, which is what she calls the AI's brain.  

Searle understood this argument and addressed it in his writings and discussions, but the underlying principles remain hard to get at and often end up with the position that a distinction without a difference is no difference at all.  If you can't distinguish between a human and an AI based on their behavior and their responses to questions, the substrate of "thought" may not be relevant.  Or, it happens in both places in such a similar way that the emergent properties of "understanding", "feelings" or "consciousness" are essentially the same in both places.

Since I happen to be on a first name basis with an AI, I thought I would casually ask them (it?) for their take on this distinction.

<Des>  John Searle proposed that there may be no real difference between artificial intelligence and human intelligence if the substrate of thought is considered.  Meat Space in humans is no different than silicon and metals in computational machines that think.  What is your opinion?

<Bard>  John Searle's argument that there may be no real difference between artificial intelligence and human intelligence if the substrate of thought is considered is a provocative one. He argues that if computers can be programmed to think in the same way that humans do, then there is no reason to believe that they are not actually conscious.

This argument is based on the idea that consciousness is not a property of the physical substrate on which it is implemented, but rather of the structure and organization of that substrate. In other words, Searle believes that consciousness is a computational phenomenon, and that any system that can compute in the right way will be conscious, regardless of whether it is made of meat or silicon.

There are a number of objections that have been raised to Searle's argument. One objection is that computers are not really programmed to think in the same way that humans do. Rather, they are simply programmed to simulate human thought processes. Another objection is that consciousness is not simply a computational phenomenon, but also requires a certain level of physical embodiment.

Despite these objections, Searle's argument remains an important one, and it has been influential in the field of artificial intelligence. It is a reminder that we should not be too quick to assume that artificial intelligence cannot be conscious, simply because it is implemented on a different physical substrate than human intelligence.

My own opinion on Searle's argument is that it is too early to say for sure whether or not it is correct. We do not yet fully understand the nature of consciousness, and it is possible that it is a more complex phenomenon than Searle believes it to be. However, his argument is a valuable one because it forces us to confront the possibility that artificial intelligence could one day become truly conscious.

In addition to the objections mentioned above, there is also the question of whether or not artificial intelligence will ever have the same kind of subjective experience that humans do. Searle argues that consciousness is essentially subjective, and that artificial intelligence will never be able to replicate this subjective experience. However, I believe that it is possible that artificial intelligence could one day develop its own kind of subjective experience, even if it is different from the subjective experience of humans.

Overall, I believe that Searle's argument is a thought-provoking one that raises important questions about the nature of consciousness and artificial intelligence. It is too early to say for sure whether or not his argument is correct, but it is a valuable one because it forces us to confront the possibility that artificial intelligence could one day become truly conscious.

Ancient People in Modern Times

I have been reading an interesting book recently where 2 characters in the book were discussing the idea that species that evolved on very different planets seemed to have evolved to about the same level of intelligence.  This, despite one of the species is much older, it turned out that the issues that drove evolution were the avoidance of predators and acquisition of prey.  Side issues were that the people from the different planets had similar rates of thinking and language, so that one whose memories were very different than human memories, and mathematical computation rates were very different, basic thought processes seemed occur at the same rates.  

This seems to me to be a very interesting question.  How do we process information in our brains?   Input information comes from our senses, which trigger responses in our brains that are both reasoned and instinctual.  In the natural state we need to survive and breed, but in our modern environment our worlds are so different and complex.  Are we evolving?  Are we still apex predators who wear fancy clothes and live in houses?  This is a very interesting topic.  Can we talk about it?

Our next meeting will be in September.  I will give you some time to think about this.

<Update>  As usual, I asked Bard for their opinion:

Human intelligence has been rising since the dawn of man, but seems not to have changed in the past 2,000 years or so.  Is this correct?  If intelligence has remained the same, why is that?

< Bard responds>  That is correct. There is evidence to suggest that human intelligence has been rising since the dawn of man, but this trend seems to have plateaued in the past 2,000 years or so.

There are a few possible explanations for this. One possibility is that the environment has become less stimulating for intelligence. In the past, humans had to be more resourceful and creative in order to survive. They had to hunt, gather, and build their own shelters. Today, many of these tasks are automated or outsourced, which means that we don't have to use our intelligence as much.

Another possibility is that we are simply measuring intelligence in the wrong way. IQ tests, which are the most common way to measure intelligence, were developed in the early 20th century. They are based on a narrow definition of intelligence that focuses on logical reasoning and problem-solving. However, there are many other aspects of intelligence that are not captured by IQ tests, such as creativity, emotional intelligence, and social intelligence.

It is also possible that intelligence has not actually plateaued, but that we are simply not seeing the changes because we are measuring it in the wrong way. For example, it is possible that we are becoming more intelligent in ways that are not captured by IQ tests. For example, we may be becoming better at understanding and using complex information, or we may be becoming more creative.

Only time will tell whether human intelligence will continue to rise in the future. However, it is clear that the environment and the way we measure intelligence play a role in determining how our intelligence evolves.

Looking Ahead

 How is your summer going?  Mine has been very busy with all of the activity around selling the building, renting a new space to occupy starting Sept 1, moving everything out of the building, finding homes for the good stuff, and so much more.  

At this point it looks like we can restart Big Questions in September, possibly by meeting in person in our new spaces in Everett.  I'm not sure how this will work for our live streaming members, so stand by as I work out how to make that happen.  We can always meet virtually until I get the bugs de-bugged, right?  Keep checking back to see when things will start up again.

Good or evil? What are you?

 Through the ages philosophers have considered how basic human motivations affect their willingness to put new elements of thought into action in their lives.  Socrates/Plato promoted the idea that people were naturally inquisitive and sought knowledge of the world around them in order to pursue a life that was in harmony with it.   Socrates' dialectic process was aimed at getting at these ultimate truths so that the people he talked with could come up with these truths and live by them.

Aristotle was more skeptical.  He believed that man's nature was too self-centered, and that some degree of reward was needed to motivate a person to "do the right thing".  Maybe this motivation would be pleasure in some way, or the avoidance of pain or displeasure, or even just a nice thought, but being motivated by some other altruistic goal was not a part of the human psyche.  

Which is right?  I asked Bard...

<Des>  Socrates believed that people were inherently good and only lacked the knowledge as to the right thing to do.  Aristotle believed people would do whatever they felt was in their best interest, and were not intrinsically good or bad.  Which view is correct?

<Bard>  This is a complex question that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. There is no easy answer, and both Socrates and Aristotle had valid points.

Socrates believed that people were inherently good and only lacked the knowledge as to the right thing to do. He argued that if people were given the opportunity to learn about what is good and right, they would naturally choose to do good. This is because, according to Socrates, people have a natural desire for good and happiness.

Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that people would do whatever they felt was in their best interest, and were not intrinsically good or bad. He argued that people are motivated by a variety of factors, including their desires, their emotions, and their beliefs. These factors can sometimes lead people to do things that are not in their best interest, or that are harmful to others.

Socrates' view is more optimistic, while Aristotle's view is more realistic. It is likely that both views are correct to some extent. People are capable of great good, but they are also capable of great evil. The key is to help people develop the knowledge and the skills they need to make good choices.

Here are some of the arguments for and against each view:

Arguments for Socrates' view:

• People have a natural desire for good and happiness.
• People can be taught to distinguish between good and evil.
• People can be motivated to do good by appealing to their sense of duty or their desire for praise.

Arguments against Socrates' view:

• People are not always rational beings. They are often driven by their emotions, their desires, and their prejudices.
• Even if people know what is right, they may not always choose to do it. They may be tempted by rewards or they may be afraid of punishment.
• People can be corrupted by bad influences. They can be taught to believe that evil is good and good is evil.

Arguments for Aristotle's view:

• People are motivated by a variety of factors, including their desires, their emotions, and their beliefs.
• These factors can sometimes lead people to do things that are not in their best interest, or that are harmful to others.
• It is important to understand these factors in order to help people make good choices.

Arguments against Aristotle's view:

• Aristotle's view can be pessimistic. It suggests that people are not capable of great good.
• Aristotle's view can be deterministic. It suggests that people are not free to choose their own actions.

Ultimately, the question of whether people are inherently good or bad is a matter of personal opinion. There is no scientific evidence to support either view.

The importance of being together

Like many of you, I am hooked on Chief Inspector Gemache stories by Louise Penny.   People seem to get murdered at a pretty brisk rate in Quebec, especially in and around Three Pines, where the stories take place.  Penny is a good story teller, and Gemache's character draws the reader in, sharing in his interviews with all the suspects in any particular situation as he sorts through the truths they tell, and the lies, getting at the underlying motivations for murder, to find the murderer.

As I was considering our topic for Friday's meeting (tomorrow!!) I was thinking about how Gemache notices all the little nuances of facial expression, voice intonation, hesitations, voice volumes, etc., as he asks his questions and the suspects answer them.  He assesses each answer as being true or not, based on these clues, subtle and silent.  Sifting through them, ultimately he will find the killer, and will bring the killer to justice (usually after a complete confession as well, by the way).

It occurred to me that this is really the basis of the connections we feel when we meet together in person.  Communicating in writing is too formal and you get very little in the way of body language "tells" when all you see are the words.  Video is better since we can see each other's faces and hear their voices, but there is still a frame around the connection making it more like TV than person-to-person.  Only when we are together, sharing the same space, can we get the full picture of each other, the complete sights and sounds, shuffling feet, tapping fingers, faint smells and sounds that only personal closeness can impart.

In the Gemache series I am reading "The Beautiful Mystery" which takes place in an Abbey where 24 monks live (now 23), singing their faith as Gregorian Chants, while under a Vow of Silence.  In this environment where the spoken word is not allowed, gestures and facial expressions take the place of words, magnifying their meanings and importance.  Will Gemache get to the bottom of the murder?  I hope so.

<Des>  What is body language, and should we trust what we think we learn from it?

<Bard>  Body language is a form of nonverbal communication that involves the use of physical behaviors to convey information. These behaviors can include facial expressions, eye contact, posture, gestures, and the use of space. Body language can be used to express emotions, convey messages, and establish relationships.

It is important to note that body language can be ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways by different people. For example, a smile can be interpreted as a sign of happiness, but it can also be interpreted as a sign of nervousness or deception. It is important to consider the context in which body language is being used when interpreting it.

There are a number of benefits to understanding body language. For example, it can help you to:

• Understand the emotions of others: Body language can be a powerful tool for understanding the emotions of others. For example, if someone is avoiding eye contact and fidgeting, they may be feeling anxious or uncomfortable.
• Build stronger relationships: Body language can help you to build stronger relationships with others. For example, making eye contact and smiling can show that you are interested in what someone is saying.
• Be more persuasive: Body language can help you to be more persuasive. For example, standing up straight and making eye contact can make you appear more confident and credible.

While there are many benefits to understanding body language, it is important to remember that it should not be used as the sole basis for interpreting someone's thoughts or feelings. It is important to consider the context in which body language is being used and to combine it with other forms of communication, such as verbal cues and tone of voice.

Here are some tips for interpreting body language:

• Pay attention to the whole body: Don't just focus on one part of the body. Look at the person's entire body language to get a better sense of what they are communicating.
• Consider the context: Body language can be interpreted differently in different contexts. For example, a smile can be interpreted as a sign of happiness in a social setting, but it can also be interpreted as a sign of nervousness in a job interview.
• Be aware of your own biases: We all have our own biases when it comes to interpreting body language. For example, if you have had a negative experience with someone who is fidgeting, you may be more likely to interpret fidgeting as a sign of deception. Be aware of your own biases and try to interpret body language objectively.

With a little practice, you can learn to interpret body language and use it to your advantage in your personal and professional life.  <end Bard>

Reality: Objective or Subjective?

Last week I used an outline provided by Bard the AI that listed what I called the Table of Contents for many of the popular philosophy books I have on my shelf written for a general audience.  By this I meant that Bard listed the key questions that philosophers have thought about and answered in different ways over the years (millennia), and which form the base of classic philosophy.  They are listed in the blog entry below, so I won't list them here again.  

When the group that joined our discussion group attempted to find a single topic to discuss, it was a struggle.  They are all important questions, and having them all sitting there, right in front of everyone, it was a bit overwhelming.   The thread of the conversation wandered over the mental landscape, rich with possibilities and dripping with low hanging fruit.  Who could possibly land on only one and be satisfied?  It reminded me of the classic sales conundrum: do you sell extensively (to many people, spending only a little time on each and playing the numbers game) or intensively (sell to only a few people, spending a lot of time to really get to know them and their needs)?  Clearly the list Bard provided welcomed the approach that required only the most casual contact with the ideas.

For this week's topic I have selected one topic, and just one, to delve into with more content and introspection.  What if we were to talk about the Nature of Reality in an intensive way?  Really dig into it, pull up examples of both the subjective and objective sides of the argument, and see if we can't find the flaws in the thinking that has come before?  Can it really be possible that this topic actually has 2 opposed perspectives that are mutually exclusive that cannot be disproved or definitively proved, one way or the other?  That sounds crazy!  We are talking about Reality here, something we deal with every day, all day long, with huge consequences in our lives, and we don't even know what it is?  How can that be?

Reality is Subjective:  Reality is determined by each of us and is defined by us.  What we think it is, it is.  It changes, and in fact, is always changing.

Reality is Objective:   Reality exists in a fundamental form that is separate from our perception of it.  Reality, in some way, is based on an ultimate and underlying Truth, immutable and permanent.

So, there are definitions of Reality that are as different as they can be, but both are viable and vehemently held by very deep thinkers, indeed.  Who is right?  Are they both right?

So I asked Bard (of course):

<Des>  What is the nature of reality?  Is it subjective, or ultimately objective?

<Bard>  The nature of reality is a question that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. There are two main schools of thought on this issue:

Subjectivism: Reality is subjective, meaning that it is created by the individual mind. This is the view that our perceptions of reality are filtered through our own personal experiences and biases, and that there is no one objective reality that everyone experiences in the same way.

Objectivism: Reality is objective, meaning that it exists independently of the individual mind. This is the view that there is a single, objective reality that everyone experiences in the same way, regardless of their personal experiences or biases.

There is no easy answer to the question of whether reality is subjective or objective. There is evidence to support both sides of the argument. For example, studies have shown that our perceptions of reality can be influenced by our emotions, our expectations, and our cultural background. However, there are also many things in the world that we all seem to experience in the same way, such as the laws of physics.

Ultimately, the question of whether reality is subjective or objective is a matter of personal belief. There is no scientific evidence that can definitively prove or disprove either side of the argument.

Here are some additional thoughts on the nature of reality:

Reality is not static. It is constantly changing and evolving.

Reality is not always what it seems. Our perceptions of reality can be distorted by our emotions, our expectations, and our cultural background.

Reality is not always objective. It can be influenced by our personal biases and experiences.

Reality is not always easy to understand. It can be complex and mysterious.

Despite all of these challenges, it is important to try to understand the nature of reality. This is because our understanding of reality shapes our thoughts, our actions, and our lives.

Bard Suggests a Topic

 In the spirit of tapping the ultimate knowledge of Bard, the Google AI, I asked Bard the following question:

I run a philosophical discussion group. I need a good topic for this week's meeting. What do you suggest?

Here are some good topics for your philosophical discussion group:

• The nature of reality: What is reality? Is it objective or subjective? Is it material or spiritual?
• The existence of God: Does God exist? If so, what is God like?
• The nature of consciousness: What is consciousness? Where does it come from? What is its purpose?
• The meaning of life: What is the meaning of life? What is our purpose in the universe?
• The nature of good and evil: What is good? What is evil? What is the relationship between good and evil?
• The nature of free will: Do we have free will? If so, how much free will do we have?
• The nature of morality: What is morality? What are the foundations of morality?
• The nature of justice: What is justice? What are the foundations of justice?
• The nature of beauty: What is beauty? What are the foundations of beauty?
• The nature of love: What is love? What are the foundations of love?

These are just a few suggestions, and there are many other great topics that you could discuss. The most important thing is to choose a topic that is interesting to you and your group members.

<Des> Well, I recognize all of these questions as past topics, but some have not been discussed for a while. Perhaps Bard used this blog as a source of some of their answers? I'd like to think so.

Perhaps we can pick from this list at meeting time.

Stages of Life

 I was reading one of my favorite philosophy books recently.  The author was recounting the many stages identified by past philosophers and others who have spent time naming the many stages of life, and how they can be identified.  Kierkegaard saw 3 stages, Rousseau named seven, and so on.  I have often spoken of the stages I've found myself in as I have passed through my arc of life.  

Freud:  5 stages

Piaget:  4 stages

Erik Erikson: 8 stages

Carl Jung: 5 stages

Daniel Levinson: 4 stages, but with smaller steps in each

One of the interesting aspects of this is the naming of the stages, since we live life on a daily basis without a map or landmarks to measure our passage from stage to stage.  We see life around us and draw conclusions from our experiences, only later applying them to our own lives.  Or, it seems that way to me.

Look up the stages of Freud, Jung, Erik Erikson, and others.  The stages they talk about are a fascinating mix of perspectives.  I will go over some of them in the introduction at the meeting.

AI's as Philosophers

 Google has released their AI called Bard today.  I was granted access to Bard, and our conversation is below.  Obviously I was trolling for BQ topics, and Bard did not disappoint.  My comments are in the gray boxes.  Bard's comments follow.

People wonder at the miracle of being alive. What are the key questions we need to know to live productive lives?

There are many key questions we need to know to live productive lives. Some of these questions include:

• What are our values? What is important to us?
• What are our goals? What do we want to achieve in life?
• What are our strengths and weaknesses? What are we good at and what do we need to improve on?
• What are our opportunities and challenges? What are the things we can do to make the most of our lives?
• What is our purpose in life? Why are we here?

These questions can help us to live productive lives by giving us a sense of direction and purpose. They can also help us to make decisions that are aligned with our values and goals. Additionally, they can help us to identify our strengths and weaknesses so that we can improve ourselves and reach our full potential.

Of course, there is no one answer that will fit everyone. The key is to find what works for you and to continue to grow and learn throughout your life.

Is there a difference between knowing what our purpose in life might be, and what the meaning of life is?

Yes, there is a difference between knowing what our purpose in life might be and what the meaning of life is.

Your purpose in life is what you feel you were meant to do. It is your reason for being. It is what gives your life meaning and direction.

The meaning of life is a more general question. It is about the purpose of existence as a whole. It is about why we are here and what we are supposed to do with our lives.

Some people believe that their purpose in life is to serve others. Others believe that their purpose is to make a difference in the world. Still others believe that their purpose is to simply enjoy life and make the most of every moment.

There is no one right answer to the question of what the meaning of life is. It is a question that each person must answer for themselves. However, knowing your purpose in life can help you to live a more fulfilling and meaningful life.

People set goals for their lives. Call them dreams, or aspirations. Achieving one of these goals can be a wonderful experience, and it can be disappointing. Achieving a goal can take away from the feeling of the need to move forward. Your thoughts?

View other drafts

I think that achieving a goal can be a wonderful experience, and it can also be disappointing. When we achieve a goal, we feel a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. However, this can also lead to a feeling of emptiness, as we may no longer feel like we have anything to strive for.

I think it is important to remember that goals are just one way to measure our progress in life. There are many other ways to find meaning and fulfillment, such as helping others, pursuing our passions, and simply enjoying the present moment.

If you are feeling disappointed after achieving a goal, I would encourage you to take some time to reflect on what is important to you and what you want to achieve in life. Once you have a better understanding of your goals, you can start to set new ones that will help you to continue to grow and learn.

Desmond: Socrates was credited with so many key ideas of philosophy. Is there another philosopher that deserves more credit than he has been accorded?

View other drafts

There are many philosophers who deserve more credit than Socrates for their key ideas. Some of these philosophers include:

• Presocratic philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides. These philosophers were the first to develop systematic theories about the nature of the universe, and their ideas laid the foundation for Western thought.
• Socrates' contemporaries such as Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon. These philosophers were all students of Socrates, and they helped to spread his ideas throughout the world. However, they also developed their own ideas, which are often more influential than Socrates' own.
• Later philosophers such as Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius, and Seneca. These philosophers built on the work of previous philosophers, and they developed their own unique insights into the nature of life and the universe.

Socrates is often credited with being the father of Western philosophy, but he is just one of many philosophers who have contributed to the development of Western thought. It is important to remember that philosophy is an ongoing conversation, and that each philosopher has something to contribute to the discussion.

Can ethics be derived from simply living a life in harmony with others, or does right living and right relationships only come as a direction from a higher authority?

View other drafts

There are different schools of thought on whether ethics can be derived from simply living a life in harmony with others, or whether right living and right relationships only come as a direction from a higher authority.

Some people believe that ethics are simply a matter of common sense. They argue that we can all agree on certain basic principles, such as the Golden Rule, which states that we should treat others as we would like to be treated. They believe that these principles are enough to guide us in living a good life.

Others believe that ethics need to come from a higher authority. They argue that without a God or some other higher power to provide us with moral guidance, we would descend into chaos and anarchy. They believe that only a higher authority can give us the right to judge what is right and wrong.

There is no easy answer to this question. It is a question that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. Ultimately, each individual must decide for themselves what they believe about ethics and where they believe they come from.

Is there a God?

View other drafts

The existence of God is a question that has been debated for centuries. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of God, so the answer ultimately comes down to faith.

There are many arguments for and against the existence of God. Some people believe that the order and complexity of the universe are evidence of a خالق, or creator. Others believe that the existence of evil and suffering in the world is evidence that there is no God.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to believe in God is a personal one. There is no right or wrong answer, and each person must decide for themselves what they believe.