Welcome to our Website !

-->

You can access details of our various activities by selecting from the menu on the right. Clicking on blue words will find more entries with the same content, but you can click on the banner at the top of any page to get back here.

Thankyou for dropping by.

________________________________________________________

A TIP; if you find the text a bit small, hold down [ctrl] and press [=] a few times. Or [-] for Übermensch.
Things that we do and document, like the philosophy in pubs and dropin, get posted and will appear below !

Forbidden Things

-->

Philosophy In Pubs – Cumberland Arms 24 Jan 2012
Introduced by Peter this discussion of the significance of sexual taboo started awkwardly, exposed some sharp philosophical differences and led to an interesting if unresolved debate.  Things some find repellent others seem to accept.  Are taboos learned social impositions?  Is there a more relaxed harmless state of nature?  Are some taboos universal?  Should we stand our ground or try to understand?  Is it enough to feel that something is wrong, or must we give reasons?  Do such conventions emerge to serve the greater good – does this make things right or wrong?  Are these just matters of taste?  Do taboos signal respect for acts which create others because (at some level) we feel that creation is a divine attribute?  Does the quest for pleasure explain everything?  This note is only a flavour, so please comment.

Next PIP – 6pm Cumberland Arms 14 Feb 2012
Andy will introduce the next topic – anyone is welcome to take part in the discussion, or just to listen and sup some very fine ales.

Only the Death of God Can Save Us

-->

Cafe Philosophique – 21st Jan, Bar Loco
Pete Wolfendale
gave the second talk in our God season.  ”Only The Death Of God Can Save Us” provided a definition of theism distinguishing between metaphysical and ethical elements, and then examined how these relate to one another. Focusing on the relationship between the Divine and the Good, Pete drew upon Plato’s argument in the Euthyphro to show that the Good must be independent of the Divine. Pete suggests that not only is it possible to be ethical without being a theist, but that we must reject theism (and thus be a-theists) in order to fully embrace the ethical life. Pete’s infectious fascination with rational revelation agitated the passions of our many and various NPS minds – the force of his thought is welcome to the mix. Who but the gods can claim to be free of contradiction? Pete fielded probing questions with thoroughness and good grace. You can view Pete’s talk on YouTube, and you can comment here or on his blog Deontologistics.

Next Cafe Phil – Saturday 4th February, 2pm, Bar Loco

Powerful Yet Elusive

-->

Philosophical Investigations – Lit & Phil, 14 Jan 2012
Newcomers Jonathan and Zoe joined us to discuss Energy, and (as it turned out) epistemology.  Science draws it to our attention, but do we notice and engage with it?  Energy was felt to be something.. but what exactly? “Whatness” started to predominate - the problem of knowing, understanding, and judging anything at all.  People, cultures and contexts differ, so whose to say what’s what?  Dragging ourselves back to “energy”, it seems to be at least something to do with matter, but a property rather than a thing - the physicalists if not the materialists count it as real, but it remains elusive.  The explanations of nuclear physics sometimes seem to enter the arcane territory of Aristotle’s Metaphysics… enough!  Too various and wide ranging to report without feeling unfair – if you were there (or even if you were not) please feel free to comment.

Next Investigation – 28 Jan 10.30 Lit & Phil: As the title suggests Philosophical Investigations aims to pursue a particular line of enquiry, dig deep and question basic assumptions.  Normally a topic emerges on the day.  Expressions of interest for future discussions include Beauty, Justice, Subjectivity, Belief, Concepts, and “How Many Questions Are There?”.

Philosophy in Film – Tilleys Bar- Tues 17 Jan 6:30pm

-->

Memento

‘The world doesn’t disappear when you close your eyes, does it? My actions still have meaning, even if I can’t remember them’

Memento (2000) is an American psychological thriller film written and directed by Christopher Nolan, adapted from his younger brother Jonathan’s short story, Memento Mori. It stars Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby, a man with anterograde amnesia, which impairs his ability to store new explicit memories.

The film has an unusual narrative structure. It has alternating time sequences one in black and white the other in colour. The B & W are in chronological order but the colour series is ordered in reverse. The B&W episodes of the film take place chronologically before any of the coloured sequences.

Philosophical Themes: Personal identity, memory, perception, grief, self-deception, and revenge.

Taken from :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_(film)
link to script: http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Memento.html

Mind Your Language In The Cumberland Arms

-->

Philosophy In Pubs – Cumberland Arms, 10th Jan 2012
David Dunscombe provided a succinct sheet of questions and quotes on the Philosophy & Language.� The subject lies at the heart of philosophy, and was perhaps too formidable for�our initial attempt in groups to identify�the big philosophical question�for discussion – it’s not easy to talk and think about the nature of talk and thought… �After recharging our glasses, the open discussion freewheeled nicely.. and then took off.� New faces emerged and us luck would have it some sound linguistic knowledge was on show.� Can we have thought without language?� Does linguistic culture and physiology circumscribe what we can think or say?� People from vastly different world do manage to communicate.� What about�the unspoken signs we make?� Are we like computers with an underlying universal source code of thought, or (as it seems) like other creatures do we feel something deeper before we speak.� We share through language, but don’t we also speak to ourselves?� This post can only give a flavour – please free to comment and give your afterthoughts

Redefining God

-->

Cafe Philosophique – 7th Jan 2011 - Mike Bell
Mike Bell launched our first Cafe Philosophique of 2012 with the first talk in our “God” season.  In the spirit of thinking the impossible Mike posited that culture evolves and that this evolution can be mapped; that each stage of cultural evolution has its own context dependent god or gods, and; that the current emergent culture is calling forth a redefinition of god for our context.  En route Mike took in Don Beck’s Spiral Dynamics, and Ken Wilber’s Pre/Trans Fallacy.  Strong feelings were invoked, and a lively and sometimes intense debate ensued – one of our best, Horace remarked.  Those who have had further thoughts about what was said may wish to leave comments (Mike’s text is the first comment).  This bodes well for this series on The Supreme Being – new territory for NPS.  Thanks to Star & Shadow for accommodating us at such notice – the theatrical setting was strangely appropriate.

Post Modernism – Same Old Same Old?

-->

Philosophical Investigations – Lit & Phil 7 Jan 2012
A mysterious question was posed – What do the Post Modernist’s ask of us, and how can we make ourselves do it?  We certainly got stuck into this rather overused term.  Is it simply a reaction to Modernism, the idea that the new is good, and that we can, should and will master nature?  Rather than saying something different about things, do they say that there is nothing to be said and indeed nothing to say anything about?  And isn’t this just the same old story?  Haven’t people always said that they know, whilst others said that we can never know?  Isn’t it just part of the dialectic?  And anyway, aren’t “schools of thought” just an easy way to understand the history of philosophy?  There seems to be no consistent Post Modern message, although perhaps we can speak of a zeitgeist, or a popular mood.  Yes there is scepticism, but not all Post Modern thinkers can be called sceptics.  The term is tossed around to win points.  Many other lines of enquiry sprang up, but  I don’t think we got to the heart of the matter.  There was a lot more in the  question than we got a chance to get to grips with; something more subtle about aesthetics which perhaps is for another day.  This post can only give a flavour – please feel free to post your own afterthoughts

Quizzing Christmas In The Cumberland Arms

-->

Philosophy In Pubs – 13 December 2011

The question “Does Christmas make you happy?” was settled upon. The run in can be a worry. Some of us embrace Christmas with gusto, and enjoy all the preparation and ritual. Some of us hold it at bay – we resist the pressure to conform. The meaning of happiness was touched on briefly (that’s a BIG subject!). Is it well-being? Is it measurable and known? Is it belonging? Is it getting what you want and feeling content for a while? Not all families are happy – some would say very few! Tales of family ructions emerged, although these often ended in laughter. Christmas can seem absurd and ridiculous. It is certainly contradictory – rivalry and affection, spending and giving, indulgence and charity. Perhaps this reminds us that we are human, and not meant to do everything properly and correctly – perhaps we can forgive ourselves for this at Christmas. Some people don’t get on in a ‘nice’ way. Quarrelling can be reaching out. There’s pressure to pretend to be happy – we hope that it will happen, and if we are lucky it does. For many things falls apart, and pretending is hard. The energetic American Christmas with scant time off was contrasted with the Continental, and maybe more religious approach. Religious and pagan traditions were mentioned. Is Christmas all that’s left of religion? We agreed Christmas is for children and families, and for some this has not always been a good experience. Does Christmas represent the gift of life which we open up with expectation hoping for the best? I guess the question of Christmas and happiness will always remain open. We started slowly, but gradually warmed to the subject – which is a bit like Christmas. This note aims to give a flavour and is just one point of view – if you were there or have further thoughts about this, please feel free to comment.

Slaves Of The Passions

-->

Philosophical Investigations – 10.30 Saturday 10 Dec 2011 Lit & Phil
The theme of thought versus emotion emerged – or was it knowing and feeling?  The terms have many meanings, and sometimes they overlap (e.g. we can feel that we know something).  What is knowledge?  What is thought?  What is feeling?  Has science had the last word?  Are thoughts and feelings processes, energies, forces, information, images, spirits, dynamics, or just concepts?  Is feeling the essence?   Why think at all?  Don’t we already know?  Don’t we feel it in our bones?  Does feeling obstruct understanding?  We can feel moved, so are our feelings our reasons or do we feel for reasons?   Does feeling get in the way of reason, or (as Hume seems to suggest) are reasons themselves felt things?  Is feeling the subjective, and reason the objective?  Must we stand aside from our feelings in order to think and to see the truth, or should we submit to our feelings without thinking.  Is reason repression?  Is passion truth?  It is hard to represent all that was said, because as it happens feelings ran very high.  We strayed from our main line of enquiry, and there was confusion for a time about what we were discussing.  The value of philosophical enquiry was questioned.  Are philosophers cold, unfeeling, and calculating?  Are they superior?  Do they alienate, and should they try not to?  Are all philosophers would-be aristocrats?  Things polarised.  There was no meeting of minds.  It happens, but not always.   In 2011 we have often managed to keep to our line of enquiry, to listen and to try to understand and not judge each other.  We have struggled to resist fear and anger.  On occasions we have been of one mind, which for some reason felt good!  A certain quality of thinking and feeling is required for this, which is perhaps not everyone’s cup of tea.  Here’s hoping we all get what we wish for in 2012!

Spirited Discussion

-->

Philosophical Investigations – Lit & Phil 26th Nov 2011
We discussed SPIRIT in an age of materialism (we did NOT pass over it in silence!).  If the body feels things – what feels the feelings?  If there is a watcher within, what watches the watcher?  Is spirit me – is there a me, or are we only ever a we?  Does science ignore spirit, or does it define the inaccessible?  If there are things and “no things” – is nothing a thing, and is this spirit?  Does existentialism transcend the problem – or does it just bypass it?  If there is a thread to pick up between discussions it’s a willingness to keep revisiting the basic questions of being and knowing, and to risk sounding ridiculous by trying to speak about things which language struggles to represent.  If this is your cup of tea, please join us!