Hong Kong Philo Meeting Summary - Posted Jul 9, 2000

Philosophy Posted July 9, 2000
Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe

Summary of the June 13th 2000 meeting of the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe

Topic: "The Critical Importance of Philosophy to Human Life"

Introduced by: Tom Caldwell

Moderated by Steve Palmquist

Tom began by asserting that what we believe has consequences in the real world. To illustrate this claim, he described in some detail the belief structures of Hitler's Germany, quoting extensively from Ayn Rand's discussion of this topic in "The Ominous Parallels". The Nazis wanted people to think of self-sacrifice and blind obedience as virtues, so they tended to emphasize theories from Luther, Kant, Hegel, and others who seemed to promote such beliefs. This effort, like the concentration camps that followed, constituted an attempt to use philosophy to control what people conceived to exist or perceived as real.
So they purposefully chose philosophers who seemed to be arguing that the external world is not the ultimate reality, that it does not truly exist. But their attempt failed, because every person must already have views of nature, reality, etc. The basic truth that any such attempt fails to recognize is that all these things, including such attempts to control people's thinking, do exist. "Existence exists" is a fundamental presupposition that must be true in order for human experience to be possible at all; the Nazis tried to use philosophy to deny this, yet their very attempt already assumed that existence is real. Tom concluded his summary of Rand's views by expressing interest in knowing to what extent other participants believe that the external world is
real.

Clifford started off the discussion by asking whether Tom's view implies that all religions are bad, since they are based on a belief in a reality that lies outside of the ordinary world we perceive. Tom answered "of course". Daniel then observed that "existence exists" is a tautology and would be better expressed as "only what is tangible exists". He pointed out that Rand's argument is ironically identical to what Kant called a "transcendental argument", adding that in any case, most religions also make specific claims about what exists in the tangible world, not just about other-worldly matters. While claiming to
disagree with this view of Kant, Tom said he believes mental realities do exist as well as physical realities, but that no "spiritual" realities exist.

Jeff raised the problem of knowledge: can something exist without us knowing about it? If so, how do we know this? If not, do we (or can we) know everything? When Tom admitted that we do not know everything, Jeff insisted that it must
therefore be possible that something spiritual does exist. Clifford suggested that it all depends on whether or not you "experience" such a thing; people either believe in a spiritual reality or they don't. While not disagreeing with this point, Jeff reminded us of Einstein's claim that all of history's most important figures have affirmed a spiritual reality, often as a basis for their profound insights about physical reality.

David opined that Beethoven's 9th came from something real, yet something other than a merely physical reality. Tom replied that Beethoven had done nothing more than to arrange a sequence of sounds in order to produce a certain result in the
physical world. Esther asked whether everyone perceives Beethoven's music in the same way. Tom replied "yes", adding that we differ in how we "evaluate" any given piece of music. Jeff retorted that some people perceive colors while listening to music, while others do not. Jörn then asked "What is music?" and answered that it could be regarded as a form of material/mathematical movements manifesting a cosmic principle. After Steve reminded everyone not to stray too
far from the main topic, Gunther briefly commented that the notion of art transcending tangible reality implies that we need to develop the artistic side of ourselves in order to experience transcendent reality.

Roy claimed that the point of philosophy (at least in part) is to answer the question "What is real?" Some philosophers, such as Descartes, have argued that focusing on what we perceive is a blind alley, because our sense perception could be illusory at any point. The only thing we can really be sure is real is our own self. Tom objected that if the senses are not valid, then Roy should not have spoken those words just now! Daniel commented that this whole issue relates to Wittgenstein's arguments regarding the impossibility of having a private language. And Simon suggested that Descartes' famous maxim, "I think, therefore
I am" would make more sense as "I am, therefore I think". Steve noted Feuerbach's claim that "I eat, therefore I am" is more accurate; and he added his own special version for Hong Kong culture: "I shop, therefore I am".

Lene pointed out the problem that we are surrounded by information, most of which is second or third hand. So how can we know which sources to trust? Tom replied that we must judge based on our past experience. Irene protested that
this doesn't make the same impact as something does when you experience it yourself. She lamented: "We float on this information stream." Tom explained that what is important is simply whatever becomes personally significant to each
individual. Lene then asked whether we are losing touch with reality by our attraction to "virtual reality". Steve asked what difference philosophy makes to our consideration of such problems. For example, he suggested that having an insight of your own during a real-life conversation tends to make a more profound impact on your life than reading the same idea in a book. This is why philosophy cafes are such a good way to practice philosophy!

When someone then asked for a definition of philosophy, Tom defined it as the study of the fundamental universal principles of existence. He added that Roy's skeptical view is a self-contradiction, since it uses philosophy to cast doubt on the reality of external existence. Roy responded that one way some past philosophers have avoided such a contradiction is to adopt solipsism, the view that the person doing the thinking is the only thing that really exists; everything else is just created by that person's mind.

Concerning Tom's reference to the Nazis, Roy added that the lesson to be learned from that series of events is that, although reason is generally a better guide than unreason, we should try to balance reason with feeling. Simon asked what the difference is between emotion and whim, and Daniel added that emotions themselves can sometimes be rational. Tom replied that emotion is a consequence of evaluating your past actions and habits. David agreed with Roy's point, adding that most philosophers in the past have been driven by emotion. The Nazis had a rationale and an ethic, one that appealed to those with a religious
background. Tom claimed that religion is mysticism giving instructions for how to live life and urged us not to confuse that with genuine philosophy; for the latter, we must focus our attention on humanity.

Jeff argued that Tom's conception of philosophy takes us away from its classical roots, and mentioned Pythagoras' position as an example. Jeff also quoted Webster's definition of "philosophy", noting the emphasis on a primarily speculative rather than observational approach to understanding the world. Anything that gives meaning and purpose to life can be regarded as that person's philosophy. Pythagoras tried to prove this by appealing to music and mathematics. Jörn added that we all think out and work out our own worlds. These all do exist in a sense. Philosophy can be a way of reconciling ourselves to the feeling that something seems to be missing from the "world" we have made for ourselves. Buddhists do this by attempting to return to a more childlike way of viewing the world. Roy warned, however, that such postulated "meanings" for the world are often induced through intentional sense deprivation, and that using such a method to find life's meaning could well be the source of self-deception.

At this point, in view of the large numbers in attendance (over 30), Steve suggested we take a longer break than usual and divide into small groups for further discussion of the issues Tom had raised. He also noted that, while it is true that the Nazis had used various philosophers to promote and justify their ideas, most scholars now agree that the Nazis grossly perverted what those philosophers had really meant to say. When reconvening the meeting after the break, Steve illustrated this point by emphasizing and explaining a comment Daniel had made earlier, that Rand's argument about existence is actually a form
of Kantian transcendental argument. Steve gave a simple definition of a transcendental argument as a "proof by reference to the conditions that make experience possible", and noted that Kant's intention in using such arguments was not to question the reality of the external world, but rather to safeguard its reality from any skeptical philosophers in the future who might try to question it.

Steve then suggested we focus the remainder of the discussion on the concluding remark Tom made during his introduction, regarding his interest in knowing why people think we are here. Jeff clarified that Tom's actual question was: Do we
think reality is real? However, the dye had been cast, and much of the remaining discussion focused on people's reasons for attending the Philosophy Cafe. Joyce said she came to participate in mental gymnastics. It's a bit intimidating at times, but the small group session was better in this regard. Someone else (Trisha?) likewise said she came because it gives her a chance to think, and because she was curious about this specific topic.

On the issue of this meeting's topic, Pia commented that philosophy is essentially a form of reflection but that it is "absolutely critical" that it be carried out through open-ended inquiry, not in such a way as to attempt to control other people's thoughts. Clifford then asked whether philosophy is the only answer. What about religion? Pia responded that many religious groups do
not let their members reflect and question openly. But Lene countered that for some people, having a religious experience makes a big impact and comes to define what is real for them. Tom then pointed out that some people have very similar experiences, but react in different (non-religious) ways, such as by becoming more ecological. What gives religion its power is mainly its long history.

Guy distinguished between two uses of the term "philosophy": as a meaning system where critical thought is not welcome; and as a form of reflection that perpetuates open questions, though critically evaluating them. The Nazis, he suggested, treated philosophy in the former way. Tom then gave an overview of his definition of philosophy as a system of organized thought, adding that religion is actually a primitive form of philosophy. Daniel stressed that the standard definition of philosophy is as a form of open questioning, and that as such "doing philosophy" is not necessarily the same as "having a philosophy".
After reading several additional definitions of philosophy from Webster's Dictionary, Jeff tried to reconcile the two meanings of "philosophy" by saying that for each person "a philosophy" should develop as a result of "doing philosophy". A third sense of the word, he added, is roughly equivalent to "world view". Pia further supported her view by noting that A.C. Grayling had
defined philosophy as inquiry into anything that is not yet well enough understood to constitute a branch of knowledge.

On a rather more personal note, Stephen agreed with the view that each person has (or should have) his or her own philosophy and shared that, having recently read that "an unexamined life is not worth living", he is now trying to acquire tools that will assist him in this task. On this classical note from Socrates, Steve called the discussion to a close.

++++++++++++

The following topics/areas were suggested for the July meeting:

Philosophy of music
Arts in general
Why the unexamined life is worth living
The meaning of work, or Why thinking is difficult in the office
Productivity and its relation to the ability to think
Is philosophy creativity?
Must art be meaningful?

After some discussion, Jörn agreed to introduce the next discussion on some area relating to the philosophy of music. He will consult with Steve to work out the exact title. The meeting date was set for Tuesday, 18 July 2000.