365 Days of Philosophy

This is it! End of the series. For the Patreon subscribers, there’s an index to the main posts of the podcast and I’ll be sending out a pdf version in March. It’s been a busy year, busier that I intended. I started a PhD, I lost a much loved pet, and adopted a new one. I travelled across country three times (podcasting throughout, as you may have noticed) and taught classes in a variety of subjects. As a radio broadcaster, I presented about 40 shows and podcasted with the Talk the Talk show (around 40 episodes too). I presented a few live shows, contributed to more philosophy resources than the ones here and was inspired by conferences and talks nationwide. I stayed home more often than went out though, I think. There’s a number of events I missed due to health reasons and that’s a good sign that things need to slow down for a while. It’s time for a break. If you have any further questions, get in touch via tokenskeptic at gmail.

Here’s a mixture of extended answer or essay questions dealing with topics covered this year: There’s no such thing as true altruism. Discuss. Equality of the classes is unachievable until there’s equality of the sexes. Discuss. Must utility ‘be grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being’? What are the properties of God? Could we be living in a simulation created by an advanced civilization? See video for an example.

Here’s a mixture of extended answer or essay questions dealing with topics covered this year: The criteria for art is consensus. Discuss. What are the limits of faith? Discuss Can you ever be ethically obliged to do the wrong thing? Discuss There is no right solution to the trolley car problem. Discuss. Is this cartoon a fair depiction of “what is good counsel”? Discuss.

Here’s a series that has appeared online and can be followed along as a very useful tutorial session — it’s a series of lectures delivered by Peter Millican to first-year philosophy students at the University of Oxford. The lectures comprise the 8-week General Philosophy course and were delivered in late 2009. More resources can be found at 365 Days Of Philosophy.

Here’s a mixture of extended answer or essay questions dealing with topics covered this year: There is no true unified conception of god, therefore we should dismiss religion. Discuss. What are the limits of skepticism? Why do we care about the opinions of others when we have different identities, an ever-developing personality and different stages of life? Advertising is to science as charcoal-rubbing is to art. Discuss. Is this cartoon a fair depiction of “what is good”? Discuss.

Here’s a mixture of extended answer or essay questions dealing with topics covered this year: Freedom of speech is in opposition to freedom of religion — discuss.  There is no such thing as a moral centre when it comes to making ethical judgements — discuss. Is there such a thing as a truly free choice? Conventions will always trump contracts. Discuss. Is this cartoon a fair depiction of the sciences? https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png XKCD

It being Boxing Day, one of the traditions of the season is the Doctor Who broadcast, and this year there was a strong allusion to the philosophy of Bertrand Russell. It’s nothing particularly new; John Leeson was the actor who provided the voice for both the Nucleus and K-9. Leeson based K-9’s voice on that of philosopher, mathematician and historian, Bertrand Russell. To recognise the very humanistic contributions of the series, here’s a documentary on “50 Years of Humanism” in Doctor Who, and a recent article reviewing (spoiler alert!) on the new Doctor.

Merry merry returns of the season! Today’s episode is the revision of content from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas, edited by Ariane Sherine, is not a recent collection, such as a fairly dated but amusing essay on James Randi as a Santa Claus figure, but it’s still got some valuable contributions on the topic of celebrating the season from non-faith perspectives. There’s 42 essays included, to honour the memory of Douglas Adams, in categories like stories, how-to, philosophy and science. Many of the contributors touch upon their loss of faith and how they then view Christmas, there’s views on the celebrations of the season and even a few short stories and movie reviews and literature. Some of the names like Dawkins are well-known but I think I enjoyed the views on science of “Christmastology” and the collective values that we can all hold regardless of religion. If you can still find a copy, or the audio version by the contributors, it’s an enjoyable seasonal read.

To give this book its full title, Christmas — Philosophy for Everyone: Better than a Lump of Coal, it investigates the history of philosophy while delving into the different approaches to the festive season, such as the perspectives of Aristotle, Hume, Kant and Nietzsche. There’s a number of contributing essays in this collection edited by Scott Lowe, with religion, icons (both secular and otherwise), morality and commercialism.  Naturally the topic of religion arises often in this kind of book, but there’s a very strong sense of how Christmas has moved well beyond religious observance for many, leading to different ethical and social conundrums such as gift-giving and receiving, supporting traditions and even the stories, from as Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol to The Polar Express. Whether or not you think “Putting the “Yule” back in “Yuletide” is a necessary goal of Christmas, I enjoyed this book for the many different and creative approaches it took with the topic. 

Here’s a talk by Nigel Warburton that is aimed at beginner students of Philosophy, but is also a very interesting broad discussion about what the value of Philosophy involves with a great Q&A at the conclusion. The relevance of study and the influence that undergrad level philosophy can have on education, verbal and analytic reasoning as well as mathematical. If there’s anyone who has been following the blog/podcast series, this resource gives you something to consider if you’re interested in studying philosophy in 2018.

This discussion (as there are questions as to whether it constitutes a debate) was held in November 1979, hosted by Tim Rice, about the then-new film Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which had been banned by many local councils and caused protests throughout the world with accusations that it was blasphemous. To argue in favour of this accusation were broadcaster and noted Christian Malcolm Muggeridge and Mervyn Stockwood(the then Bishop of Southwark). In its defence were two members of the Monty Python team, who created the movie, John Cleese and Michael Palin. The content of the film and this discussion later became a part of a larger feature movie in 2011, called Holy Flying Circus.

The Xmas Files — Philosophy of Christmas by Stephen Law was an unexpected find a few years ago, and it’s more than just ‘how do you deal with bad presents that you have to smile about?’ From Kantian advice on honesty being the best policy to Mill’s keeping the seasonal peace, there’s a range discussions on what peace really involves and how to deal with all the myths and mythology about the season, and not just the Santa Claus ones. I particularly enjoyed the discussions about religion and the conflict with commercialisation of Christmas, and the range of ways that we can celebrate this time of year no matter what beliefs we hold. It has a casual, engaging style that is similar to the other works by Law like The Philosophy Files, and while it might seem an obvious present for this time of the year, it’s certainly a great addition to a beginner’s library on the subject regardless.

Analyse the following debate and identify how well the debate unfolds — are there any fallacies involved, and what are they? Letty: Spiritual beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to philosophy. You can’t observe Santa Claus, and you can’t run a test for faith. I’ve never heard of a reasonable hypothesis test for faith, as it has to be investigated and evaluated. Philosophy is about testing and evaluating, so beliefs are not a part of philosophy. You either do Philosophy or you do navel gazing faith nonsense. Joe: Why not? I’m happy to debate the ethics of believing in Santa Claus! Just because faith isn’t the same as science doesn’t mean we cannot observe certain things about it. You don’t have to use sight to observe. Therefore, using rational reflection is a method of observation. Letty: But measuring a concept isn’t the same as measuring a real thing — an observation in terms of concept isn’t the same as that which is truly real in the world. For those reasons, scientific method applied to faith is just a mistake. If you start thinking faith and other unreasonable things are Philosophy, you’ll start thinking ghosts and fairytales are Philosophy and we might as well put Plato in the fiction section. Joe: What about the social sciences? It’s a combination of methods, not just science, to investigate different parts, changes and the sources of change. Philosophy is often found in the social science departments of universities. I therefore don’t see how investigating concepts such as faith, something outside of empirical testing, can’t be a part of philosophy. 

It’s getting closer to that time of the year! Here’s a few last minute suggestions in case you’re wondering what might be a useful thought-provoking gift for the teen years and over. There’s a number of popular publications that have gift subscriptions, such as Philosophy Now and New Philosopher, but you should also check out Womankind , Aesthetica and Monocle as well. Ethical Consumer, Peppermint and Sublime magazine were recommended by a friend as examples of the next generation of ethical publications; I’d also add Scientific American, Cosmos, New Scientist, Wired, and if you’re in Australia, there’s Double Helix for the younger years. In Australia there’s The Monthly, Frankie and Yen magazine, the last two are also appealing to teen readers. If you have any more suggestions, let me know in the comments!

For Patreon subscribers, there’s further revision questions by heading to www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess.1. What does it mean to ‘win an argument’?2. “There is no point in making a case unless you have argued all sides in preparation” — discuss.3. It is not enough to be rational, you also have to be sensitive to the impact of your argument. Discuss.4. “We should always question whoever makes the strongest argument.” Discuss.

Today’s episode is the revision on argument structures from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

Previous post on validity and sound arguments on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy site.  Are the following valid (V) or invalid (I) and then sound (S) or unsound (U)? Most ballet dancers are over 5 feet tall. Joanna is a ballet dancer, therefore Joanna is five feet tall. Joanna is a woman. If Joanna is a woman, then she is tall. Therefore Joanna is a tall woman. The Queen is a woman, therefore Albert is a blonde, then Albert is a blonde. If unicorns are real, then at least there’s one real fantasy creature. Unicorns are real, therefore at least one fantasy creature is real. Answers tomorrow at Patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

Analyse the following debate and identify how well the debate unfolds — are there any fallacies involved, and what are they? Rachel: We should accept other’s opinions and if we really want a peaceful society, we should respect different beliefs. An inclusive, liberal society is the best way to live. Phoebe: Well, I’ve never heard of anything so unrealistic. Tolerance of unethical or inhumane practices is hardly a good society, so you can either live in extreme brutality or deal with limited expression. Rachel: I have no idea what you’re talking about. A liberal society is just about freedom to express your beliefs, it’s hardly about enforcing them. Most people don’t have issues with each other, so it shouldn’t be a problem. Phoebe: What do you mean? If I express the belief that women should be enslaved, I should be charged with hate-speech. Enslaving women is denying their freedom; denying freedom is unethical and inhumane, so it’s the equivalent of making slaves of women. I’d rather have limitations that keep us free. Put your comments here — answers for Patreons tomorrow at patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

To start, here’s a revision of how to determine an argument’s validity and whether it is cogent or sound.Is it possible that both all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false?If yes — then it is invalid and unsound / not cogent.If no — then it is definitely valid. But are the premises actually true? If yes, then it is sound/cogent. If not, it is unsound / not cogent. Are the following valid (V) or invalid (I) and then sound (S) or unsound (U)? Monica is a brunette and is short, therefore she is a short brunette. Chandler is blonde and all the blondes I know are from Finland, therefore Chandler is from Finland. Answers tomorrow at Patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

I don’t think I’d agree with the review that talks about the ‘secrets of Donald Trump’s savvy speechmaking’ (it may be because I have an earlier edition that leaves that chapter out) but as a book on oratory skills, Thank You for Arguing: What Cicero, Shakespeare and the Simpsons Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion by Jay Heinrichs is a useful pop-textbook style read. The title itself gives you a clue to the range; while not every discussion is about philosophy (although it covers basic fallacies, structure and delivery of an argument), argument is undeniably an element of philosophy. It’s being able to interrogate and investigate ideas with others, beyond paper exercises. I particularly liked how the book encourages a critical look at persuasive techniques and how to develop and present a speech for the public. While the emphasis is on American culture and the layout of the book itself is a little crowded (and perhaps it’s the footnotes on the side that distract me), the appendix is a really useful addition. I’d recommend this for upper high school, and anyone interested in the practical applications of argument.

Here’s some general revision questions: What are the three elements of an argument? What is a fallacy? What is the difference between cum hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc? What is the difference between a serial, a convergent and a linked argument? What is cogency/soundness in reasoning? Write your answer in the comments! Answer will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

Here’s some revision exercises on synthetic and analytic statements, covered earlier in the year on 365 Days Of Philosophy. Identify the following as either synthetic or analytic statements: A cat is an animal. Apple pie is made with apples. A cat can have stripes or spots. Apple pies can be found in New Zealand. All squares have sides. Some shoes have stripes or spots. Put your answers in the comments — solutions out tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

Today’s episode is the revision on fallacies from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy: weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum. See if you can identify some of them in the examples below: Four out of five chocolate eaters recommend chocolate bars! It must be the best chocolate to buy.  I’ve heard that chocolate bars are some of the best chocolate bars out there.  I’ve seen so many chocolate bars sold, so they must be the best chocolate to buy. I ate the chocolate bars and then I got pimples, so the chocolate must be the cause of pimples. I saw the queen eating these chocolate bars, so they must be the best chocolate bars. Answers tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess — put your answers below!

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy: weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum. See if you can identify some of them in the examples below: We don’t really know if environmental warming is due to elephants, but we cannot say that it is not due to elephants. I can therefore suggest that environmental warming is due to elephants. The problem with gun control isn’t the liberties that people can have with the use of guns, it’s the illiberal utilisation of personal freedoms that can lead to existence limitations. You may be worried about the environment but I don’t see people worrying about the limitations that companies have with building. No real environmental policy would put forward one species survival over another. There must be environmental problems at the lake because I’ve experienced what can only be defined as problems with the lakeside environment. Answers tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess — put your answers below!

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy: weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum. See if you can identify some of them in the examples below: People in the environment lobby probably just worry about stepping on ants, and let’s face it, that’s what pro-environment arguments are really on about, ant-stepping.  They were talking about ant-stepping the same time they were going to the environmental meeting, so the environmental meetings must be all about ant-stepping.  They were talking about ant-stepping after going to that environmental meeting, so environmental meetings must be about raising awareness of ant-stepping.  You’re worried about the environment, but I don’t see you worrying about ant stepping! Isn’t that part of the environment too?  We’re meant to care about the environment, but I don’t see the President talking about the environment, so it mustn’t matter as much.  Answers tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess — put your answers below!

Here’s all the major fallacies covered this year on the 365DaysOfPhilosophy: weasel words, slippery slope, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance, shifting the goalposts, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to popularity, ad hominem, tu quoque, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal fallacy, red herring, no true Scotsman fallacy, begging the question, hasty generalisation, false dilemma, and reductio ad absurdum. See if you can identify some of them in the examples below: Sure, you may be concerned about a rise in sea levels which you think is a sign of global warming, but where’s your donation to the children’s fundraiser?  You first claim there’s evidence of global warming, and then you’ll start claiming there’s evidence of more environmental destruction and then everyone will panic and start making children scared, is that what we want?  Anyone who really cares about the environment wouldn’t be spreading stories about how there’s environmental destruction happening, it’s just not caring about the impact of the news.  Anyone who really cares about the environment would either talk about it all the time, or shut up so not to make people panic about it.  You’re only talking about environmental destruction because you’re seeking attention for yourself and it’s really all about you and your attention needs.  Answers tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess — put your answers below!

I haven’t written much about graphic novels and their contribution to learning about philosophy, but released this year was Heretics! The Wondrous (and Dangerous) Beginnings of Modern Philosophy. It’s focused on “contentious and controversial philosophers”, which could mean a great many. However, it’s looking at the likes of Galileo and Descartes, Locke and Newton, who have certainly made an impact in terms of not only philosophy but the way we see the world.  It’s got a great overview of the history of philosophers, the period in which they lived in and the influence that they had (and the influences on each other). It helps to put into perspective why great thinkers can be a challenge intellectually as well as socially. It’s by a father and son team (Steven and Ben Nadler), and while some of the content is a little cartoonish at times, it’s a colourful and engaging style. I’d recommend this as a young teen introduction and certainly as an inspiration for introducing people to philosophy.

Today’s episode is the revision on argument structues from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

For the following argument, use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. Research has indicated that eating flour causes fatty deposits in the gut and flour is made of carbohydrates. Therefore, I propose that eating cake contributes to fatty deposits in the gut, because cakes contain flour. Write your answer in the comments! Answers will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess.  

For the following argument, use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. Only people with a dog license can own a dog and only people who live in a house rather than an apartment have the space for a dog. Therefore, only people in houses with dog licenses can legally own a dog. Write your answer in the comments! Answers will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

For the following argument, use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. The bottle smashed in the kitchen. Two party-goers saw the cat on the fence during the time of the party. The glass was covered in dog fur. The cat did not smash the bottle. Write your answer in the comments! Answers will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

  For the following argument, use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. A photograph is an artistic expression. Some phones can do photographs. Therefore, some phones can allow for artistic expression. Write your answer in the comments! Answers will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess.    

For the following argument, use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. We should vote for Basil Brush at the next parent and teachers meeting. He was very good with organising the last fete, and has extensive experience as a mediator for meetings. Write your answer in the comments! Answer will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

For the following argument — what are the inference indicators? Use a diagram to represent the argument you construct. There is a game that costs nineteen dollars. Albert and Andy have ten dollars each. If they combine this amount, they’ll have twenty dollars. Therefore, if they combine their money, they can afford the game. Write your answer in the comments! Answer will be available tomorrow on patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

Analyse the following debate and identify how well the debate unfolds — are there any fallacies involved, and what are they? BORIS: It’s silly to think of dying as the end of ourselves; we have memories, we have mementos, we have long-lasting influence on the environment. To call death an end is just scaring people and it’s irresponsible. DORIS: But you cannot deny that we have a fear of death, it’s the ‘great unknown’ as it’s called. What about all the things you’d miss if you died today and you knew you were getting married tomorrow? No person who was truly living their life would ever consider the end of life being something so easily dismissed. BORIS: Honestly, I think you’re being very narrow-minded — we have an eternal soul, we have the potential for passing on our genes and we already know what happens to our bodies. We can even donate our body parts to help other people! You’re just the kind of irresponsible fear-creator that we should ignore. DORIS: Putting aside the insults, what evidence do you have for an eternal soul? Where is it in your body? Where is it after you’re gone? Plus, I know of plenty of people who work in hospitals and caregivers who try to sustain life. If that’s not a sign of a responsible approach to death, I don’t know what is. Put in your answers in the comments, further analysis available tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

Today’s episode is the revision on reviews from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

This is a book for current and future philosophy students and people like them: that is, for people who are intelligent and curious about all sorts of things. And who like to read something provocative, or odd, or funny. And who like to stay up too late with people like them chatting and discussing and disagreeing about a huge and random set of topics, armed with that most important philosophical tool: beer. Robert Martin’s For the Sake of Argument is not a particularly long book but it’s got an enthusiastic and forthright approach to understanding and building philosophical debates. From the first it establishes that it’s a handbook, aimed at educating those who want to learn the basics of philosophical arguing, in an informal, entertaining and opinionated way. It covers the basics of identifying poor reasoning, how to build and support a case and basic fallacies and how to avoid them. I’d recommend this for high school students who are interested in studying the subject and anyone who might be worried that philosophy isn’t for them.

Don’t be Fooled: A Philosophy of Common Sense is a new book by Jan Bransen, and I originally picked it up as a text that seemed to be about logic. It’s a little more than that; it’s an analysis of how we’re easily fooled and the importance of language and our preconceptions can hinder or help us. Being better aware of how easily it is to be fooled is an important element in developing common sense. With short discussions and scenarios, it unpacks how we interpret meaning and the implications for relationships. While it’s less about philosophy and more about the power of rhetoric, I’d recommend this as a readable approach to understanding political and social mores and the power of language and how it can contribute to misunderstandings and manipulation.

Roy Sorensen’s Cabinet of Philosophical Curiosities A Collection of Puzzles, Oddities, Riddles and Dilemmas is a interesting take on philosophy, by investigating paradoxes and problems. Apparently the original inspiration was Ian Stewart’s Professor Stewart’s Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities, and like many puzzle books, can be read as a series or worked on individually. This was a fun approach to philosophical conundrums and has an interesting historical aspect as well, with stories about Voltaire, Eck, Carroll and more. It features a number of essays as well as discussions along with the puzzles. While this is probably too advanced for younger readers, it’s one for anyone interested in the solving-aspects of philosophy. 

Alain Stephen has taken an interesting approach with This Book Will Make You Think — because many of us would have heard philosophical quotes, probably out of context most of the time, and wondered about their significance, influence and meaning.  While it primarily focuses upon the most popular philosophers (which, as you might guess, are male), the introductory section and index are really useful and detailed, and it covers pretty much every major quote from “The unexamined life is not worth living” to “I think therefore I am” to “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation”. It’s not a particularly heavy-going book in that regard, and is more of a dip-into than read at length text, but certainly one for the teens-and-over who are after a basic explanatory book. 

 “The construction and payoff of jokes and the construction and payoff of philosophical concepts are made out of the same stuff. They tease the mind in the same ways…philosophy and jokes proceed from the same impulse: to confound our sense of the way things are, to flip our worlds upside down, and to ferret out hidden, often uncomfortable, truths about life. What the philosopher calls an insight, the gagster calls a zinger.” Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes by Daniel Klein and Thomas Cathcart is a light and enjoyable read, taking an approach I never thought of before — explaining philosophical concepts through humour. There’s a lot of groan-worthy examples throughout, but the range of topics is pretty impressive and as a different kind of introduction, it’s one that I found a pleasant surprise. I’d recommend this one less as a study text, but certainly as a great present for anyone interested in getting a start on the subject, who also has a sense of humour.“My grandfather knew the exact time of the exact day of the exact year that he would die.”“Wow, what an evolved soul! How did it come to him?”“The judge told him.”

Jeremy Stangroom’s Philosophy — Little Book of Big Ideas is useful summary text of a number of ideas and philosophers, with the selections made demonstrating a good range for a short book. As a part of a series, it’s following the trend of the others, with about one or two pages for each section, and while brief, has an interesting scope. The author launched The Philosophers’ Magazine with his colleague, Dr Julian Baggini in 1997 and now publishes the journal Think, on behalf of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. One particular feature of the book is the investigation of philosophical arguments, and while only a handful of these are unpacked, it doesn’t neglect the more recent thinkers Dewey, Piaget, Kohlberg and Chomsky. It’s a neat overview and certainly one I’d recommend as an introductory text.

  Today’s episode is the revision on reviews from the past week — you can support the 365DaysOfPhilosophy podcast by visiting www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess and review previous episodes at www.365daysofphilosophy.com. If you can help the show continue, head to: https://www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess Music from Jukedeck — create your own at http://jukedeck.com.

Celebrated since 2002, World Philosophy Day emphasises the enduring value of philosophy for the development of human thought, throughout different cultures and individuals. UNESCO first established the date to encourage critical questioning, leading to international action and meaningful lives. The 2005 General Conference encouraged the idea that philosophy, particularly for young people “is a discipline that encourages critical and independent thought and is capable of working towards a better understanding of the world and promoting tolerance and peace”.

Primarily known for his work on philosophy of the mind, Daniel Dennet has investigated on a wide range of topics including free will, science and religion and evolution. In addition, he challenges the ideas of philosophical zombies as an unworkable notion, a hypothesis that still gains much debate today. In his book Consciousness Explained, he proposes a materialistic theory of the mind that challenges many previous ideas about what constitutes mind and brain. The notion of the Cartesian theatre is unpacked and he suggests as an alternative approach with “parallel, multitrack processes of interpretations and elaboration of of sensory inputs”, incorporating neuroscientific findings.

Albert Camus was a prolific writer, being a journalist, philosopher, essayist, playwright and novelist. Two of his non-fiction books investigated the works of other contemporary philosophers, Nietzsche, Sartre and Kierkegaard and investigated an ‘absurdist philosophy’ of life.  His best-known works include The Stranger and The Plague, and investigated the indifferent universe and the human need for meaning and hope. Like the Greek legend of Sisyphus, the struggles that humans face are tremendous, but there is meaning in the toil that is given as punishment by the gods. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature and his works continue to have an influence in both fiction and non-fiction.

An influencer on not only philosophical thought but social sciences, Michel Foucault was a French historian. He’s primarily known for his work in post-structuralism, postmodernism and deconstructionism. Since the 1960s, his work investigated the ‘archaeology’ and ‘genealogy’ of knowledge, on whether objective knowledge or universal reason exists, and what if it doesn’t. Early in his career, Foucault studied Marxism and existentialism, but within his works like The History of Madness and The Archeology of Knowledge, he questioned whether there were standards of truth or falsity, outside of culturally created frameworks of language. To the end of his life he reflected on the relationship of power and knowledge and whether forces in history limited human freedom.

Analyse the following debate and identify how well the debate unfolds — are there any fallacies involved, and what are they? BORIS: Graffiti isn’t art; damaging property is a crime and it’s a blight on the city. Let’s face it, art belongs on a stage or a gallery, otherwise it isn’t art.  DORIS: If this kind of art was legal, then perhaps we would have less snobs like you and better art! Artists should be allowed to express their art without being censored by their choice of canvas and way of communicating their ideas.  BORIS: I don’t care what you think — you’re just want to make excuses for law-breakers and if we had your way, burglers would have free reign over our streets. If I see something like this, I’m going to paint it over and report the creator to the police. We already limit sales of spray cans and this is why!  DORIS: I don’t think I’d paint it over, because isn’t that doing vandalism on top of vandalism if it isn’t your wall in the first place? If someone did something good, then maybe they could be encouraged to do work where it is acceptable to the public — just look at Banksy, aren’t they famous now? Put in your answers in the comments, further analysis available tomorrow on Patreon.com/kyliesturgess.

For Patreon subscribers, there’s further revision questions by heading to www.patreon.com/kyliesturgess.1. How confident should one be in one’s atheism?2. There’s no such thing as agnosticism, it’s only delaying the inevitable between faith and atheism. Discuss.3. Is it possible to prove the existence of God? Discuss.4. “There probably is no god. Stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Discuss.