Citizen Philosopher

New Web Site With Added Features

2008-09-06T12:30:00.001-04:00

Hello All,

I am pleased to announce that our new and improved web site is ready for you to try out. It is better organized, more interactive and includes many new features. Please visit it here:

The New Citizen Philosopher Site

From now on, all new podcasts, posts and announcements will be posted on the new site. I will leave this old site up for legacy purposes, but will not be updating here anymore. Thanks, and enjoy the new site.

Cheers,

Steve

What Is Liberty?

2008-08-10T16:56:00.000-04:00

Greetings Citizen Philosophers,

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded at our relatively new venue, the Charlottesville Public Library, on Wednesday, August 6th. The topic was:

"What is liberty?"

Participating were veteran citizen philosophers, Billie Lagerwerff, David Rood, Deborah Martin, Derek Breen, John Tytus, Stephen Whiteman, Steven Stokes, Susan Patrick, and Uriah J. Fields. Also joining us for the first time were newcomers, Erica Jensen and Rebbecca Quinn from Charlottesville and all the way from some undisclosed location near Brighton, England, through the wonders of modern Internet technology we had our first international guest, an insightful chap by the name of Luke. A hardy welcome to Luke, Erica, and Rebbecca.

As usual we had a wide ranging and thoughtful discussion that raised as many or more questions and than it answered. Here are some of the questions we wrestled with:

Is liberty just a quaint and outdated word for freedom? What is freedom? Can we talk about one without the other? Is liberty personal, social, or political? Who decides our liberties? Our government? Our culture? Our conscience? What are we to be liberated from? Who or what oppresses us? Can we ever be completely liberated? Can we ever be completely free? Are wild animals free? Was Robinson Crusoe free on the deserted island? Was he liberated? Can we be free if we must continuously struggle for basic necessities? Does society curtail our freedoms or enhance them by providing a structure that eases the burden of survival? To what extent is freedom a question of attitude? To what extent is liberty a question of law? Does freedom for one come at the expense of freedom for another? Is it right to suspend civil liberties in the name of defending freedom? Is fear the enemy of freedom? Do our fears enslave us or protect us? Is it possible to have too much freedom? Does absolute freedom corrupt absolutely? Is liberation always a good thing? Doesn't national liberation lead to chaos? Doesn't personal liberation lead to the anxiety of choice? If we don't exercise the freedoms we have, do they matter? To what end do we seek freedom? Is liberation an ends in itself, or just another beginning?

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

As always, your afterthoughts are most welcome. I am in the process of reconstructing our Citizen Philosopher web site, which will include an online forum to allow us to continue our discussions beyond the podcast. I hope to have it up soon.

Finally, mark your calendars. The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, September 3rd, at 7:00 pm. We will select a topic at the beginning of the next session as usual. Hope to see/hear you then, if not sooner.

Cheers,

Steve

****************************************************
Premed Science Tutor,
Citizen Philosopher,
Life Coach
www.citizenphilosopher.com
****************************************************

Next Live Dialogue - Aug 6th, 2008

2008-08-01T17:38:00.000-04:00

Hello Citizen Philosophers,

It's that time once again for your friendly reminder. The next Thinking Out Loud meeting will take place this coming Wednesday, Aug 6th, at 7:00 pm, as usual. Local participants, please remember, we are not meeting at my office anymore. We are meeting at the Charlottesville Public Library, downtown on Market Street, in the Jefferson Rm on the 3rd floor. The circulation desk will validate your parking stub for the Market Street parking garage, if you need it. You can probably find free parking on the streets nearby, as well.

The topic selection process will begin promptly at 7:00. Please arrive on time. Here are some possible topics:

What is liberty? (last time's runner-up, suggested by David)
What does it mean to be reasonable and rational? (also recycled from last time)
How do we distinguish between our wants and our needs? (new, suggested by Steve Stokes)

As always, your topic suggestions are most welcome. Send them to me or bring them with you to the gathering. See you soon.

Cheers,

Steve

******************************************************
Steve Donaldson,
Personal Growth Consultant,
Independent Educator,
Citizen Philosopher

Essentials: Long List of Short Answers

2008-07-12T11:36:00.000-04:00

Our recent discussion on the essentials for a good life generated many possible answers. Here is a list of short answers that were suggested, with which you may or may not agree:

Good health.
A sense of moderation.
Flexibility.
Passions.
Breyer's ice cream.
Good relationships.
Peace of mind.
A sense of self.
A sense of purpose.
A feeling of gratitude.
Compassion
Patience.
Love.
Ability and willingness to be content.
Work.
Feeling one has the power to change things.
Hope.
Pleasures.
A forward looking capacity.
Appreciation of the present moment.
Confidence.
Mindful awareness.
A spiritual perspective.
A moral code.
Something to do and someone to do it for.
A philosophical attitude.

I also find it interesting to note what was not mentioned - money, sex, good looks, status, fame, good luck, good genes, good schooling, family connections. Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

Steve

Steve Stokes Afterthoughts

2008-07-09T14:51:00.000-04:00

Here are some afterthought from Steve Stokes concerning our discussion last Wednesday:

********************************************
Steve,

All in all, I thought it was a very [good] session. I have three points I wanted to share with you.

First: I was not saying that a person needed to have passions or great passions to have a good life, my only point is that whatever passions one has, the fulfillment of those passions is paramount to the good life. I believe the Founding Fathers hit the nail on the head when they identified the pursuit of happiness as one of the unalienable rights of humans.

Second: I think the mode of conversation after the talk was over was more productive towards the exploration of the topic. When we are waiting our turns, the time lag disconnects the speakers from each other, and we are only allowed to make stilted sound bite statements. I don't think David really got a chance to understand that is was my position the fulfillment of personal passion is the one essential for a good life. It seemed as if David didn't think the rest of us were addressing the question at hand. I don't know, maybe it was a matter of semantic misunderstanding, but in any case the mode of conversation blocked us from resolving that difficulty. As I think on this, it seems like maybe David thought we were more answering "what are the essentials OF a good life", and he differentiated that from "what are the essentials FOR a good life", the former being the requirements of good living, and the latter being the resources/tools needed to bring about the good life.

Third: This is just a follow-up: when I reviewed David's six essentials they look more like a list of essentials for living a saintly life or a life that is good, as opposed to the "good life". Maybe in his mind the way to a good life is to live life as a saint, and so they equate.
*****************************************************

Thanks, Steve. Dave, feel free to respond.

At some point I plan to implement a bona fide electronic bulletin board or forum site, linked to this site, whereby you and Dave and others can carry on a more in depth, back and forth dialogue. In such a forum you would have ample time to present your arguments and make your case. You would not need to limit your time and wait for others to take their turn, as you do in a one hour podcast. I think that might address some of your concerns in your point number two. (Don't ask me to predict how long that might take me to get up and running though.) In the meantime, feel free to run your afterthoughts through me directly.

Cheers,

Steve

Essentials for the Good Life

2008-07-06T14:34:00.000-04:00

Greetings Philosophers All,

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded at our new venue, the Charlottesville Public Library, on Wednesday, July 2nd. The topic was:

"What are the essentials for a good life?"

Participating were veteran citizen philosophers, David Rood, Deborah Martin, George Garrett, John Tytus, Stephen Whiteman, and Steven Stokes. Also joining us for the first time were newcomers, Rachel Backburn and Susan Patrick. Welcome to the forum, Rachel and Susan, and thank you for sharing your philosophical insights. We had a most enlightening discussion. Here are some of the questions we wrestled with:

Are there any universal prerequisites to living the good life? Is the question totally subjective, or are there any objective measures? Is good health an essential element? Do physical impairments preclude living a good life? Do pain and suffering? How about impaired mental health? Must one have passions to live the good life? From whose perspective is one's life to be judged as good? Are pleasures, contentment, and happiness reliable indicators of a good life? When a sexual predator is fulfilling his passion, is he living the good life? Might passion be necessary, but not sufficient to a good life? How do we distinguish the essential prerequisites FOR a good life from the hallmarks OF a good life? Is peace of mind essential? Is it a cause or an effect? Can one's life be judged in progress, or must it be judged as a whole only after it has been completed, as one might judge a book or movie? What does it mean to be contributing to the goodness of the world? Are externally applied criteria any more objective than internal judgements? Can one have a good life by just appreciating the present moment? Is a spiritual framework necessary for a good life? Are the essentials for a good life the same throughout ones life? Is there a preferred or natural order to the unfolding of one's life? What does it take to stay on one's course, given that everyone's path may be different? What role does gratitude play in living the good life? Are not most of us living far better lives than even the kings and queens of previous centuries?

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, August 6th, at 7:00 pm. We will select a topic at the beginning of the next session, as usual.

Cheers,

Steve

****************************************************
Premed Science Tutor,
Citizen Philosopher,
Life Coach
www.citizenphilosopher.com
****************************************************

Ebbecke Answers

2008-07-01T16:57:00.000-04:00

Frank Ebbecke emailed me to offer his perspective on three of the proposed questions for this month. Frank used to be one of our local regulars in Charlottesville, Virginia, many years ago, but now resides in San Antonio, Texas. We are in the process of trying to coax him into partaking in our dialogues once again as one of our cyber participants. Here is his take on suggested topics 1 through 3:

For a good life I think you need a since of purpose and some measure of security.

To be reasonable and rational is to first realize that we live in a world that is not reasonable or rational. You are not emotionally devastated when you encounter this lack of reasonableness or rationally. This helps one to be consistent to purpose toward a worthwhile goal in the face of a temporary setback.

Big picture, how big? Ultimately there is nothing you can do. We all die. The sun will supernova some day. In the shorter run, yes we can influence things, but to a lesser degree than what we would like to think. If you lived in Charlottesville in 1861 and you are against Secession you could have a problem. Here in Texas, you would not have the problem for long after mentioning it, because you would be hung. We may be for or against the Iraq war, but if we are not in a policy making role, there is not much we can do about it.

Having spent a career in public education, I've seen children from the best backgrounds go bad. I've seen kids with the cards stack heavily against them go on to make something positive of their lives.

So, I guess the best answer is that we can influence the "big" picture of our lives, but again with a lot of qualification. I can apply myself, save and invest, and work hard. I can't do anything about gas prices, interest rates, the job market, tax policy, home prices, the stock market, or the emotional state of those around me. These qualifiers almost make me want to abrogate personal responsibility altogether. This is abanding too much to fate, I think. Speaking broadly, I've noticed that those who are responsible, apply themselves, plan ahead are over time better off than those who do not.

Best wishes,

Frank V. Ebbecke
San ANtonio, TX

Thanks, Frank, for you thoughtful reflections. Good to hear from you again. Hope you will be able to join us long distance in our next discussion in August. Would be nice to include the Texas perspective in our deliberations.

Cheers,

Steve

Next Live Dialogue - July 2nd, 2008

2008-06-27T12:54:00.000-04:00

The next live Thinking Out Loud podcast event will take place this coming Wednesday, July 2nd, at 7:00 pm at our NEW LOCATION!!. Remember, we are not meeting at my office anymore. We are meeting at the Charlottesville Public Library, downtown on Market Street, in the Jefferson Rm on the 3rd floor.

Those of you participating through our cyber connection (Skype), please follow the same procedure as last time. Steve Stokes will be your cyber host. Steve will attempt to add you to our Skype conference call if your Skype ID indicates you are online. I recommend you let Steve know ahead of time if you are planning to participate long distance. It will make his job a little easier as he attempts to get everyone connected. Thanks.

The topic selection process will begin promptly at 7:00. Please arrive on time. Here are some possible topics:

1, What are the essentials for a good life? (minimum requirements)
2. What does it mean to be reasonable and rational?
3. What difference can one make in the big picture of things?
4. What is liberty? (suggested by David Rood)

As always, your topic suggestions are most welcome. Bring your favorite new or recycled questions to add to the list when you arrive. See you soon.

Cheers,

Steve

******************************************************
Steve Donaldson,
Personal Growth Consultant,
Independent Educator,
Citizen Philosopher
www.citizenphilosopher.com

Welcome Local Participants

2008-06-22T12:08:00.000-04:00

We are moving our Thinking Out Loud recording sessions to a more public venue in order to encourage more local participation. If you live in or around Charlottesville, VA, and would like to participate in our monthly philosophy podcast, join us on the first Wednesday of every month. We will be meeting in the Jefferson Room of the downtown public library, also known as the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL). We have the room reserved from 7:00-8:30 pm. Please arrive promptly.

For those new to the Thinking Out Loud project, here is some background. Our meetings are free and open to the public. We record our philosophical dialogues and release them a few days later as podcasts through Apple iTunes. Along with local participants, we have long distance participants who connect with us live through an Internet conference call. The idea is to gather a global community of citizen philosophers and share our thoughts on topics that boggle the mind and vex the soul. We select a topic each time by voting on questions submitted by the participants. You don't have to be a scholar to participate. All thoughtful and caring individuals are welcome. So bring your vexing and perplexing philosophical questions and join us in this ongoing series of philosophical dialogues with everyday people.

For more information, local individuals can call me at 296-5554. Those who wish to participate long distance should email me at "join @ citizenphilosopher . com" (remove the spaces, inserted for spam protection.)

Regards,

Steve

******************************************************
Steve Donaldson,
Personal Growth Consultant,
Independent Educator,
Citizen Philosopher

Feedback From Far Off Fans

2008-06-20T22:14:00.000-04:00

Here are two comments we received recently from fans of our Thinking Out Loud broadcasts:

**********************************************************
Hello Citizen Philosopher;
I'm Simo from Morocco. I've been listening to your recorded philosophical discussions on Skypecast and i've been having a look and reading some headlines from your website on eblog, i appreciate much what i heared and what i read. I encourage you to open such nice windows for high level communication and open access to philosophical knowledge for common people. I Wish you a lot of successs in what you do.
Best Regards
Simo Haoine
***************************************************************
Hey guys,
Great podcast by the way, just found it recently. I'd like to add a Buddhist perspective to this concept of collective responsibility, because when I was listening to the initial talk about human responsibility, I was so intrigued by how close comments came to the idea behind Buddhism, and let me describe what that is. One of the most fundamental concepts in Buddhism is the idea of connectedness, not just between all humans, not just between all life, but a connectedness and inseperable state between you and all of existence - yea, a powerful idea. But what this implies is a universal sense of compassion as well. This means that our responsibility extends to all of existence - it doesn't stop at family, friends, humanity, or life. It extends to everything, with no boundaries. Now, practically speaking, this does not mean we run off and make sure every child in the world is taken care of - we have to deal with our limits. We have a responsibility to our own children, to take care of them. But within our span of our actions, we DO have responsibility to every other child in the world - from deciding to not buy a t-shirt from Walmart that was made with child labor, or to decide not to smoke around a child, or to decide not to litter near a playground (or even at all!), all of these decisions either reflect a sense of compassion with the rest of existence, or not. I hope you find this comment interesting - there is so much more to say! I really enjoy your talks.
Peace,
Lauren
****************************************************************

Thank you Simo and Lauren, for taking the time to write. We are glad you enjoy the podcasts and we love hearing your perspectives. If you would like to participate in our live discussions, let me know and we will get you set up. If you prefer to just listen to the podcasts and post comments on this blog, by all means, keep it up. We love hearing from you.

Cheers,

Steve

The Ethics of Friendship

2008-06-09T13:05:00.000-04:00

Greetings All,

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded on Wednesday, June 4th, and the topic was:

"What are the ethics of friendship?"

Thank you, Deborah Martin, Steve Stokes, and Uriah J. Fields, for your participation. The discussion was insightful and stimulating. For those of you who missed out, here are some of the questions we grappled with:

Are friendships optional? Are they necessary to live the good life? Is there a universal need to give and receive affection? Where do our feelings about friendships come from? Why do we treat our friends the way we do? Are friendships more "disposable" than they used to be? How do friendships come to be? How much is it by choice? How much is it by chance? Does it require willful action? What are friends for? What are the motives for making and keeping friends? How can we know if a friendship is "true"? What do we expect from friendship? How do expectations differ? Are friendships meant to last forever? What are the ethics of ending a friendship? Is friendship an investment? Is it ethical to end a friendship with unequal investment, "an unbalanced account"? Is it ethical to just fade away? Must we know and must we give a reason for ending a friendship? How do we reconcile the need to grow and to be free with the expectations of friendship? Can we ever fail to profit from our friendship "investment" so long as we see friendship as its own reward without any further expectations?

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, July 2nd, at 7:00 pm. No topic has yet been chosen. We will select a topic at the beginning of the next session. I will reserve the time between 7:00 and 7:15 for topic selection, so please arrive on time with your topic suggestions, if you want to participate in the selection process. You can also email me your suggestions ahead of time, whether or not you are planning to attend. The recording session will last one hour as usual. I'll hang around for an additional 15 minutes after the recording for anyone who wishes to critique that particular session or any aspect of the Thinking Out Loud project.

Lastly, let me leave you with one of my favorite quotes on friendship. I don't remember where I found it and I wish I had thought of it during our podcast recording. Nevertheless, here it is - a definition of friendship:

"A friend is someone who knows all about you,...and likes you anyway."

Cheers,

Steve

****************************************************
Premed Science Tutor,
Citizen Philosopher,
Life Coach
www.citizenphilosopher.com
****************************************************

Next Live Dialogue - June 4, 2008

2008-05-30T15:54:00.000-04:00

Greetings Philosopher Friends,

It's that time once again for your friendly reminder. The next live Thinking Out Loud podcast event will take place this coming Wednesday, June 4th, at 7:00 pm as usual.

The topic selection process will begin promptly at 7:00, allowing us, hopefully, to begin our podcast recording promptly at 7:15. Please come prepared with your favorite topic ideas. You can recycle past topics or suggest new ones. We will decide among them by our usual voting procedure. Our recording session will go for one hour, as always, after which I will be available for an additional 15 minutes to discuss the discussion, as a kind of "post-mortem". If you have gripes, observations, or suggestions to make about how things went, you are welcome to let me know at that time. Of course, you are always welcome to email me your thoughts later as well.

Those of you participating through our cyber connection (Skype), please follow the same procedure as last time. Steve Stokes will be your cyber host. Steve will attempt to add you to our Skype conference call if your Skype ID indicates you are online. I recommend you let Steve know ahead of time if you are planning to participate. It will make his job a little easier as he attempts to get everyone connected who wants to be connected. Thanks.

Finally, let me share with you some interesting statistics:
Total hits on our web site in May: 78,828
Average hits per day: 2,627
Average visits per day: 82
Most popular podcasts for the month:
1. Good Philosophical Conversation
2. Collective Responsibility
3. What is Love?
4. Free Will
5. The Nature of Addiction
6. Limits to Knowledge
7. What is Religion?
8. What is Evil?
9. What is Happiness?

Let's keep up the good work. People are listening.

Best Regards,

Steve

******************************************************
Steve Donaldson,
Personal Growth Consultant,
Independent Educator,
Citizen Philosopher
www.citizenphilosopher.com

P.S. If you prefer to just listen in, that is fine as well. The podcast of our conversation will be released on iTunes few days after the live discussion, usually on the following Sunday. Enjoy.

After the Afterthoughts - a poem & picture

2008-05-23T13:28:00.000-04:00

I went out for a run on this beautiful day in May. As I passed the campus water-feature in the dell at the foot of the University science departments, the following words assembled themselves in my mind - a short poem on the nature of philosophy, philosophers and philosophizing. I call it "Still Pond":

Still Pond
Still Pondering
Still Reflecting
Natural Philosopher

The TOL mascot reminding us that philosophy goes way back!

Afterthoughts on Philosophical Conversations

2008-05-22T12:42:00.000-04:00

Greetings Fellow Philosophers,

Since our last Thinking Out Loud discussion on "What makes for a good philosophical conversation?", some of you have shared insightful afterthoughts with me. I would like to share some of those perspectives with the rest of you as well.

Here are some short answers to the question,
"What makes for a good philosophical conversation?":
1. A philosophical question.
2. A philosophical method.
3. A willingness to participate ("buy-in")
4. A willingness to listen for understanding.
5. A tolerance for disagreement.
6. A measure of humility.
7. An attitude of curiosity.
8. Brevity.
9. Clarity.
10. Civility.
11. Individual and collective self-discipline
12. Mindfulness.
13. Imagination.
14. A sense of humor.
15. A reverence for truth.
16. Authenticity
17. Restraint of impulsive criticism
18. Thoughtful reflection.
19. A desire to learn and grow.

Steve Whiteman in addressing item #1, "What is a philosophical question?", offered the following thesis:
"A philosophical question is one which cannot be profitably addressed by another discipline."

Steve Stokes offered three more perspectives to help us distinguish between what is philosophical and what is not:

Understanding 1
The Love of Wisdom: this is what philosophy means. But this only leaves us with the two or three new and possibly harder questions; what is love, what is wisdom, and what does it mean to love wisdom.

Understanding 2
Socrates tried to make philosophy clear, not by definition but by illustration. Like a zen koan, he makes the challenging statement that "the unexamined life is not worth living". I interpret this to mean that for humans, to live a life without examining that life as it is lived, is to live a worthless life. From this I gain part of what my understanding of what philosophy is, it is living the examined life.

Understanding 3
At the July (07/05/2007) Thinking Out Loud I introduced the group to my concept of philosophy being about what I refer to as the latent questions of life. Latent questions being those questions that are beyond immediate answers that can be firmly arrived at by the sciences and social sciences.

Here are some snippets of my own afterthoughts in this post-dialogue dialogue:

"I have heard science described as "both a body of knowledge and the process by which that knowledge is discovered." Perhaps philosophy could be described as "both a body of WISDOM and the process by which that wisdom is discovered.""

"I believe it [wisdom] may be THE key distinguishing characteristic of philosophy (certainly one of the key distinguishing characteristics)."

"Man is the "philosophical animal". Therefore, perhaps we need to distinguish among different kinds of thinking. Both man and other animals think. What kind of thinking does man do, beyond that of other animals? Reflective? Contemplative? Mindful? (well..Philosophical)"

"So perhaps we might say that philosophical questions are questions that lend themselves to (or even require) the philosophical process. Philosophical questions are questions that cannot be answered immediately, but rather require deliberation."

"As far as subject matter (as opposed to process) how do we identify the philosophical as opposed to the non-philosophical? I would suggest they are the questions that have to do with meaning as opposed to simple statements of fact. The "why?" and "what does it mean?" questions as opposed to "just the facts, Ma'am" questions."

"...philosophical questions tend to be timeless and universal. So I think it would be fair to object to a topic suggestion on the grounds of being too particular or too "dated". For instance, "Should we have invaded Iraq?" is dated but the more philosophical question "When is it ethical to go to war?" might be more suitable for a philosophical discussion group."

If you have any afterthoughts you would like to add, feel free to send them to me. In any case, I hope some of these ideas will help us become better philosophers, help us formulate good questions, and enhance the quality of our philosophical conversations. It is not too soon to start formulating one or more philosophical questions for our next meeting on June 4.

Enjoy,

Steve

******************************************************
Steve Donaldson,
Personal Growth Consultant,
Independent Educator,
Citizen Philosopher
www.citizenphilosopher.com

Good Philosophical Conversation

2008-05-12T13:31:00.000-04:00

Greetings Citizen Philosophers,

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded on Wednesday, May 7th, and the topic was:

"What makes for a good philosophical conbversation?"

Thank you, Billie Lagerwerff, David Rood, Deborah Martin, John Tytus, Steve Stokes, Steve Whiteman, and Uriah J. Fields, for your participation. We had a lively discussion. For those of you who missed out, here are some of the questions we wrestled with:

What makes a subject matter, philosophical? What makes a conversation style, philosophical? What is required for effective conversation of any kind? Is a cooperative style better than a confrontational style in philosophical discussions? What does it take to understand another's point of view? What is the objective of a good philosophical conversation? Is the search for meaning an essential part of any philosophical conversation? What fosters philosophical thinking in others? What stifles it? Are all philosophical questions timeless and universal? Are all timeless and universal questions philosophical? Must the philosophical topic lie outside the bounds of other established disciplines? Is a conversation about philosophical conversation, a philosophical conversation? Must the philosophical question be answerable? Must it be amenable to examination? What methods of examination are philosophical? How does one measure the success of a philosophical conversation? Who benefits from the conversation? What are the benefits? Are the benefits strictly intellectual? What does it take to benefit from a philosophical conversation? Can one find philosophical insight in any conversation? Can one find philosophical insight in entertainment? How can we find philosophical insight in any present moment?

I want to extend a special thanks to Steve Stokes for his work as our cyber host. Steve succeeded in connecting all four cyber guests, reaching way into the cyber hinterland to retrieve Debbie who was initially nowhere to be found, and on more than one occasion successfully resuscitated connections with David after they mysteriously went dead. On top of working all the connections, Steve monitored the cyber queue and kept me informed on who among our cyber guests was next in line to speak. Needless to say, all this made my job a lot easier. Thank you, Steve.

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, June 4th, at 7:00 pm. No topic has yet been chosen.

If you have any other new topics to suggest or old topics you want to recycle, let me know.

Cheers,

Steve

Next Live Dialogue - May 7, 2008

2008-04-30T13:13:00.000-04:00

Hello Citizen Philosophers,

It's that time again. Our next Thinking Out Loud gathering will take place this coming Wednesday, May 7th, at 7:00 pm as usual.

In light of the technical difficulties we ran into last time with dropped Skype connections, I have enlisted Steve Stokes' help as "cyber cohost" to help with hosting the Skype conference call and reconnecting dropped callers. Thanks, Steve, for volunteering for this role. We will send out a separate email to potential Skype callers explaining the new proceedure. If you plan to participate by Skype and have not yet done so, please email me your Skype ID name so I can pass it on to Steve, who will be initiating the conference call. Thanks.

The topic for this month has not yet been chosen. Here are some past suggestions we can consider:

1. From David: "What is the nature of transcendence? And what makes it possible to move from a static derivative life to a dynamic one in which we continually reinvent ourselves?"
2. From Steve Stokes: "Is the perfection of the self what life is all about?"
3. From Debbie: "Is it ethical to test someone's DNA without their consent?"

And here is a new suggestion sent in recently by Alma Cunningham:

4. From Alma: "What qualities must a good Leader have - are they inherent - and what are those that he brings out in others?"

If you have other topics you would like to add or modifications to these you would like to suggest, email them to me or bring them with you to the meeting. We will decide on the final topic by consensus when we meet on Wednesday.

Lastly, I would l pass on some nice feedback I received from one of our podcast subscribers:

Tina Hansen wrote:
"Thank you for your Citizen Philosopher dialogues. They are thoughtful, and are truly a refreshing contrast to the noise I see out in the world."

Thanks, Tina, we appreciate your appreciation.

Best Regards,

Steve

******************************************************
Steve Donaldson,
Personal Growth Consultant,
Independent Educator,
Citizen Philosopher
www.citizenphilosopher.com

P.S. If you prefer to just listen in, that is fine as well. The podcast of our conversation will be released on iTunes few days after the live discussion, usually on the following Sunday. Enjoy.

Collective Responsibility

2008-04-11T17:49:00.000-04:00

Greetings Citizen Philosophers,

My apologies for the long delay in posting the podcast from our latest philosophical discussion. We had a number of technical difficulties during our recording session which required some editing to clean up. I usually refrain from editing our recordings (except for adding music at the beginning and end) so as to preserve the authentic "reality-radio" quality of our Thinking Out Loud episodes. (Besides, audio editing is just really tedious work.) However, this time, because of numerous dropped Skype "phone" connections and noisy attempts to call back in ("Ring, ring...Hello, hello?") I did go back in and edited out several of the more annoying and distracting incidents. The lesser annoyances were left in ("boink, boink"- calls dropping / "burrrt, burrrt" - host calling lost cyber guests).

Whew, anyway, that's done and I am pleased to report that, technical difficulties notwithstanding, the quality of the content of our conversation was excellent as usual. Many perceptive insights were shared, thanks to veteran participants, Billie Lagerwerff, David Rood, Deborah Martin, John Tytus, Steven Stokes, and Uriah J. Fields and to our two new citizen philosophers, Betsy from Charlottesville and Stephen Whiteman from Atlanta, GA. Welcome aboard, Betsy and Stephen.

Our topic was:

"What is the nature of collective responsibility?"

Here are some of the questions we wrestled with in our discussion:

What is collective responsibility? Does an individual have a responsibility to the collective? Does the collective have a responsibility to the individual? Is there really such a thing as "the collective"? Is the whole really greater than the sum of its parts? Are there not just individuals? On the other hand, is there really such a thing as a truly separate individual? Are we not all interconnected? Does accepting the benefits of group membership automatically impose some responsibilities on the individual toward the group? Does membership impart responsibility for the decisions of the group even if a particular member disagreed with those decisions? Must one renounce membership in a group in order to be absolved of collective responsibility for the group? If you are a member of a team, what are your responsibilities toward the other team members? What is your responsibility toward the team as a whole? What is your responsibility toward the mission of the team? What if these responsibilities conflict? What role does group identity play in collective responsibility? Are we responsible for decisions of collectives that we inherit such as previous generations or previous administrations? Is there not a distinction between assuming responsibility and assigning responsibility? Can responsibility be coerced? Doesn't responsibility have to be voluntary on at least some level, for it to be true responsibility? Does collective responsibility necessarily mean sacrificing individuality? How is the welfare of the individual related to the good of the group? Does membership in a group dilute individual responsibility? What is the role of dissent in a group and how does it relate to collective responsibility? Is not the final measure of responsibility in the action that is taken? Are we not today facing problems on such a scale that collective global action will be required for our very survival? Are we capable of exercising such collective responsibility?

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, May 7, at 7:00 pm. Send in your topic suggestions - new or recycled - all are welcome.

Cheers,

Steve

Next Live Dialogue - April 2, 2008

2008-03-29T19:13:00.000-04:00

Cheers Citizen Philosophers,

This is just a friendly reminder that our next Thinking Out Loud gathering will take place this coming Wednesday, April 2nd, at 7:00 pm as usual. The topic has not yet been chosen, but we have several excellent suggestions.

1. "What is the nature of transcendence?"
2. "How do we reinvent ourselves?"
3. "Is the perfection of the self what life is all about?"
4. "What is the nature of collective responsibility?"

If you have other topics you would like to add or modifications to these you would like to suggest, email them to me or bring them with you to the meeting. We will decide on the final topic by consensus when we meet on Wednesday.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome Steve Whiteman from Georgia to our group. (So many Steves! Is somebody being channeled?) Steve is a regular member of Steve Stokes' group in Atlanta and will be participating through our cyber connection, along with Steve S., Debbie, and David. Will the cyber guests out number the locals this time? We shall see.

Lastly, I would l pass on some insightful comments I received concerning our last dialogue on Human Responsibility:

Alma Cunningham wrote:

"Steve: As an absentee 'voter,' I enjoy being included in your shared thoughts, and would like to add my comments on responsibility. Looking down your list [of "first responsibility" summaries], it occurred to me that if when talking about Self, we mean the spiritual Self and not the ego, then "To thine own Self be true" (at all times) takes care of almost everything else on your list and would be automatic, since (I believe) the Self is selfless. The challenge, of course, is the most basic (and hardest) of all: becoming aware of and acting from that Place, yes?"

Alma added that of course this is easier said than done and is not claiming to have master this herself, but rather, that it is simply something to be striving for.

I also heard from Steve Semienick, one of the original founders of our Charlottesville philosophy group. Steve wrote:

"All of these seem like means to an end, in my view. That end, as I know it, is to be a co-creator of reality. What the nature of that reality will be is dictated by the means employed in its creation, as well as the intent of the creator. Most of the above seem aimed at creating a world centering around trust, compassion, and acknowledging the connectedness, even one-ness of all humanity. The others appear aimed at becoming a better creator, through self knowledge and self improvement. The two go hand in hand. Especially as the process is not voluntary. We co-create whether we realize it or not, all the time. Ingnorance or denial of this can lead to irresponsible, counter productive expenditure of energy, creating realities that are counter to our conscious desires and best interests. We get such results as wars,. disease, exploitation of others, neurosis, psychosis, stress - you get the idea. - Just my $0.02"

Thanks, Steve and Alma, for sharing your thoughts. We miss you both and hope you can join the live discussion again sometime. In the meantime, stay tuned and keep sharing you insights. We all benefit.

Best Regards,

Steve

******************************************************
Steve Donaldson,
Personal Growth Consultant,
Independent Educator,
Citizen Philosopher
www.citizenphilosopher.com

P.S. If you prefer to just listen in, that is fine as well. The podcast of our conversation will be released on iTunes few days after the live discussion, usually on the following Sunday. Enjoy.

First Responsibility - Thoughts and Variations

2008-03-14T17:16:00.000-04:00

While listening to our recent discussion on our human responsibilities, I was struck by the number of ideas that came up, as to what our "first responsibility" might be. Here are some of the thoughts and variations I gleaned from the discussion, with which you may or may not agree.

"To thine own self be true."
"To thine own self be responsible."
"Be your brother's keeper."
"Be your brother's brother."
"Know thy self."
"Be authentic,"
"Become your best self."
"Be a moral person."
"Just be yourself - that's crazy enough."
"Express the goodness that you are."
"Do no harm."
"Be of service."
"Follow the golden rule."
"Take care of your children."
"Clean up your messes."
"Be present."
"If you see a problem, it's yours."
"Be willing to be interrupted."
"Be a good Samaritan."
"Do all the good that you can, for all the people that you can, in all the places that you can, in all of the times that you can, for as long as ever you can."

Cheers,

Steve

What are our human responsibilities?

2008-03-09T12:47:00.000-04:00

Greetings Citizen Philosophers,

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded on Wednesday, March 5, and the topic was:

"What are our human responsibilities?"

Thank you, Billie Lagerwerff, Deborah Martin, George Garrett, John Tytus, Steven Stokes, and Uriah J. Fields, for your participation. We had a great discussion. For those of you who missed out, here are some of the questions we wrestled with:

Where do responsibilities come from? Are they imposed upon us by our culture? Are there any responsibilities that are innate and universal? To whom are we responsible? Are we first and foremost responsible to ourselves? Do we have a responsibility to be authentic? Do we have a responsibility to grow - "to become our best self"? Do we have a responsibility to be introspective - "Know thyself"? Do we have any fundamental responsibility to others? Is our responsibility to others merely passive (do no harm) or is it also proactive (be of service)? Are we "our bother's keeper"? Does our responsibility to others extend beyond our culture? Is being responsible the same as being moral? Do we all have the same responsibilities? Are knowledge and ability prerequisites for responsibility? Do our responsibilities change as we grow older and more aware? How does our personal responsibility relate to our collective responsibility?

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, April 2, at 7:00 pm. No topic has yet been chosen, but we have some excellent candidates:

1. "What is the nature of transcendence?"
2. "How do we reinvent ourselves?"
3. "Is the perfection of the self what life is all about?"
4. "What is the nature of collective responsibility?"

Topics 1 and 2 where suggested by David, combined into one topic. I think they are each rich enough to be examined separately, as well. We can choose to discuss them together or separately, either way. Question 3 was suggested by Steve Stokes. I see a connection between Steve's question and David's questions and wonder if Steve's might be in some way a precursor to the other two. (Just a thought as to what order we might tackle these excellent questions.) The fourth question is a rich topic that came up at the end of our last discussion just as we ran out of time, as often happens.

If you have any other new topics to suggest or old topics you want to recycle, let me know. I'll add them to the list.

Cheers,

Steve

Transcendence and Offendence

2008-03-03T11:46:00.000-05:00

Here are two comments I just received. The first is from David, who suggests we add the follow question to our list of topics to consider:

"What is the nature of transcendence? And what makes it possible to move from a static derivative life to a dynamic one in which we continually reinvent ourselves?"

Thanks, David. Nice suggestion. Looking forward to your participation on Wednesday.

The second comment I want to share is from Jnanam. (Jnanam is a long time member of our group who has not been able to participate recently due to scheduling conflicts.) Jnanam won't be participating on Wednesday, but had some insights she wanted to pass along concerning the question I posed on sensitivity in philosophy (or "What to do when philosophy offends?"). This is in part what she had to say:

"...Seems the internet functions above censorship but not the philosopher....There is a distinction between direct insults, tactless remarks, and someone taking offense. Sensitivity is the fabric of conversation....benefit to someone, harm to no one, including oneself."

Nicely put. "Sensitivity is the fabric of conversation...benefit to someone, harm to no one, including oneself." I like that.

Thanks Jnanam for your sharing your thoughts. Looking forward to sometime in the future when you can join us in person once again.

Cheers,

Steve

Next Live Dialogue - Mar 5

2008-03-02T17:30:00.000-05:00

Cheers Citizen Philosophers,

This is just a friendly reminder that our next Thinking Out Loud gathering will take place this coming Wednesday, Mar 5th, at 7:00 pm as usual. The topic has not yet been chosen, but we have several suggestions.

1. What is friendship?
2. What are our biological property rights?
3. What are our human responsibilities (the flipside of human rights)?

I would like to add another suggestion in light of some recent feedback I receive concerning our last discussion on atonement. It was suggested that I, as the moderator, should steer the discussion away from religious examples out of respect for individuals who might find such examples too sacred or too personal to be discussed in a casual, secular settling. My immediate gut level reaction was that nothing should be off limits to philosophy and certainly, as an individual philosopher, I believe one should reserve the right to question anything and everything that one finds intriguing, including religious topics. The question becomes more complicated when one considers the role of the philosopher in society. It is one thing to philosophize for oneself. It is another to use philosophy to enhance the lives of others. Did Socrates improve the lives of the citizens of Athens by insulting them? Perhaps Socrates had a higher loyalty. Nevertheless, for us, more humble citizen philosophers, the question remains. How do we reconcile sense with sensitivity? How do we best advance the quest for understanding while compromising neither truth nor civility? How do we educate/illuminate without offending? I am not sure how best to phrase the question succinctly. Perhaps something like this:

4. Philosophy and the taboo - what is a philosopher to do?

If you have other topics you would like to add or modifications to these you would like to suggest, email them to me or bring them with you to the meeting. We will decide on the final topic by concensus when we meet on Wednesday.

Hope to see/hear you then.

Regards,

Steve

******************************************************
Steve Donaldson,
Personal Growth Consultant,
Independent Educator,
Citizen Philosopher
www.citizenphilosopher.com

P.S. If you prefer to just listen in, that is fine as well. The podcast of our conversation will be released on iTunes few days after the live discussion, usually on the following Sunday. Enjoy.

What is the Nature of Atonement?

2008-02-09T22:04:00.000-05:00

Greetings Citizen Philosophers,

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded last Wednesday, Feb 6, and the topic was:

"What is the Nature of Atonement?"

Thank you, David Rood, Deborah Martin, and Uriah J. Fields, for your participation. We had a great discussion. For those of you who missed out, here are some of the questions we wrestled with:

Is there something universal about atonement that explains why it seems to be a part of so many religious, spiritual, and personal growth practices? Is it prerequisite for a joyful life? What are the essential elements of atonement? Is the acknowledgement and confession of wrongdoing sufficient? Is it necessary to "make things right"? Can there be atonement in situations where damage cannot be undone? Are words and feelings sufficient? Is action required? Is payment necessary for atonement? Is payment sufficient? What is the role of the wronged party? What if the wronged party chooses not to forgive or cannot forgive? What if the wronged party is no longer living? With whom do we need to make things right? What is the role of a guilty conscience? Is atonement a selfish act to attain inner peace? What is the proper motivation for atonement? What about situations where the wrong is done by one group of people against another group of people collectively? Can one and should one atone for the actions of others? Are we responsible for the actions of your ancestors? Are we responsible for the action of our government? Can we choose to accept responsibility for the action of others, as an act of will? Do we need to atone for the damage being done to the planet as a whole? What debt do we inherit from those who proceed us? Whom do we owe? Whom can we pay?

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, March 5, at 7:00 pm. No topic has yet been chosen. Two possibilities are the topics not chosen last time, namely:

1. What is friendship?
2. What are our biological property rights?

Another possibility came up at the end of our discussion on atonement, which I would phase as:

3. What are our human responsibilities (the flipside of human rights)?

If you have any other suggestions or comments, email me. Your input is always welcome.

Cheers,

Steve

Next Live Dialogue - Feb 6

2008-02-01T17:24:00.000-05:00

Cheers Citizen Philosophers,

This is just a friendly reminder that our next Thinking Out Loud gathering will take place this coming Wednesday, Feb 6th, at 7:00 pm as usual. The topic has not yet been chosen, but we have several suggestions. The latest was submitted by David Rood. Here it is in his own words:

" I would like to offer a suggestion for a topic:

What is the nature of atonement? Why do we feel a need to rectify our mistakes, apologize for our misdeeds, and make amends to those we have wronged? What good does it serve? Why do some feel a need to atone and others do not? Can humans who refuse to make amends ever be free?

I add these corollary questions because I'd like to get the group into the meat of the subject without dancing around literal definitions. I think we sometimes wade too slowly into the deep water. I like to plunge in cold."

In addition to David's suggestion we have two ideas submitted earlier by Debbie and Mark as follows:

Mark has suggested: "What is friendship?"
Debbie has suggested: "Is it moral/ethical to collect someone's DNA without their consent?"

If you have other topics you would like to add or modifications to these you would like to suggest, email them to me or bring them with you to the meeting. We will decide on the final topic by consensus when we meet on Wednesday.

Hope to see/hear you then.

Regards,

Steve

******************************************************
Steve Donaldson,
Personal Growth Consultant,
Independent Educator,
Citizen Philosopher
www.citizenphilosopher.com

P.S. If you prefer to just listen in, that is fine as well. The podcast of our conversation will be released on iTunes few days after the live discussion, usually on the following Sunday. Enjoy.

What Is Your Conscience?

2008-01-05T18:00:00.000-05:00

Greetings Citizen Philosophers All,

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded Wednesday, Jan 2, and the topic was "What is your conscience and can it be trusted?" Thank you, Billie Lagerwerff, David Rood, Deborah Martin, George Garrett, John Tytus, and Steven Stokes for your participation. We had a great discussion. We also set a new record for cyber participation. Three cyber guests is our highest so far. We might of had five, if Alice from Australia and Mark from London had not had scheduling difficulties. It would be nice to include international perspectives, so we will continue to try to work around vastly disparate time zones and other scheduling difficulties.

In any case, for those of you who missed out, here are some of the questions we wrestled with:

Is our conscience that voice inside our head, telling us what to do? Is there only one voice? How can we tell which voice is our conscience and which is the little devil on our shoulder? Can meditation help us hear the right voice? Is our conscience a voice in our head or a feeling in our gut? Is our conscience culturally acquired or innately present? When Huck Finn was running away with his slave, Jim, what was his conscience saying? Was it a reliable guide? Is our conscience a passive resource to be consulted or an active agent that intrudes itself upon us? Rather than an instrument providing an answer, could it be just an innate drive to grapple with the question? Are pangs of guilt a reliable indicator of wrong-doing? Does our conscience speak to us on multiple levels? Which is more reliable, our gut, our heart, or our head? How do we reconcile these multiple "voices" with the fact that we are really just one being? How does empathy relate to conscience? How universal is the conscience? Why do some individual get different answers from their conscience than someone else in the same situation? To what extent is our conscience programmed by our upbringing and our culture? Does the conscience mature with life experience? Are there universal stages of development for the conscience? Is our current narcissistic society and culture of rudeness a result of a lack of proper moral or ethical nurturing?

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, February 6, at 7:00 pm. Here are some suggestions for the topic:

Mark has suggested: "What is friendship?"
Debbie has suggested: "Is it moral/ethical to collect someone's DNA without their consent?"

Both suggestions are full of possibilities. A variation on Debbie's questions might be "What are our medical privacy rights?" If you have other topics you would like to add or modifications to these you would like to suggest, send them to me. Your input is most welcome.

Finally, I would like to put in a plug for one of my favorite philosophy magazines and draw your attention to one of its regular columns in particular. The magazine is Philosophy Now and the column is Moral Moments by Joel Marks. Philosophy Now is tailored specifically toward the thoughtful layperson, that is, citizen philosophers such as ourselves, and Joel Marks' column succeeds in providing a continuous stream of stimulating food for thought, perplexing questions, and insightful observations. You can subscribe to the magazine though their web site here:

http://www.philosophynow.org/

You can find more about Joel Marks and his writings from his blog site here:

http://moralandothermoments.blogspot.com/

Cheers,

Steve

Topic Suggestion

2007-12-31T09:33:00.000-05:00

Here is a topic suggestion I just received from Mark Vernon:

Hi -

I wanted to suggest a topic for discussion, What is Friendship? My
interest stems from my book on the subject, The Philosophy of
Friendship, and a website that I have
www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline where there's more. I think it
would be a good discussion: I've taken part in various kind of events
on friendship and it is always lively and interesting.

Cheers,
Mark Vernon

Thanks, Mark. We will definitely add it to our list. Perhaps you can join us in our live Thinking Out Loud discussion sometime. In the meantime, good luck with your book and your web site.

Next Live Dialogue - Jan 2

2007-12-27T13:37:00.000-05:00

Happy Holidays Fellow Philosophers,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that we may have a new cyber participant joining us all the way from Adelaide, Australia at our next Thinking Out Loud meeting is this coming Wednesday, Jan 2, at 7:00. Alice will make her best effort to negotiate not only the temperamental technology of VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) but also the unpredictable demands of two young children to participate in our discussion from the other side of the world, 15.5 time zones away. Should be most interesting, not to mention a new Thinking Out Loud record for long distance participation.

Of course, I am looking forward as well to hearing from our veteran Skype participants, Steve Stokes, Deborah Martin, and David Rood and I encourage other potential Skype participants - Anthony Johnston, Lee Katchen, Chad Meltone, Brooklyn, and others - to also join in on Wednesday. To accommodate multiple Skype participants, I will set up a Skype conference call as before. I do need your Skype ID name, so email that to me if you have not already done so. Log on to Skype on Wednesday around 6:45 PM (Thurs, 10:15 AM, Adelaide time). I will call you if your Skype icon indicates you are online and accepting calls. We will use a chat box, as before, to indicate who "has their hand up" and is waiting to speak. Email me if you have any questions.

I am also looking forward to engaging with our faithful local contingent of citizen philosophers, as always. If you are among those that have not participated awhile, not to worry, you are most welcome to join in again. Call me if you need directions or have questions.

If you prefer to just listen in, that is fine as well. The podcast of our conversation will be released on iTunes few days after the live discussion, usually on the following Sunday. Enjoy.

Our tentative topic for this Wednesday is:

"What is our conscience and can it be trusted?"

If you want to lobby for another topic or refine this one, feel free to send me your suggestions.

Hope to see/hear you all on Wednesday.

Best Regards,

Steve

*****************************************************
Steve Donaldson,
Personal Growth Consultant,
Independent Educator,
Citizen Philosopher
www.citizenphilosopher.com

Peace on Earth

2007-12-08T22:41:00.000-05:00

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded Wednesday, Dec 5, and the topic was "Why don't we have peace on Earth and what would it take to achieve it?" Thank you, Derek Breen, for circumventing the threat of inclement weather and debilitating gameday traffic by arriving on foot. Hopefully circumstances will more accommodating for our other local participants next time. Certainly our cyber participants enjoyed a certain advantage in this regard. Thank you, Debbie Martin from Boca Raton, Fl, and Steve Stokes from Atlanta, GA. We had a great discussion.

Here are some of the questions we wrestled with:

Why is this longstanding human desire taking so long? Is there something peculiar about mankind? Is human aggression different from aggression we see in nature? Where does aggression come from? How is individual violence different from the collective violence of war? How does collective action give "permission" for violence committed by individuals? Why don't individuals simply refuse to commit violence even when given permission by nations at war? Is it realistic to hope for eventual universal individual enlightenment as a solution? How does group identity and ideology justify aggression? Is war ever justified? Are wars of self-defense any better than wars of aggression? Are there longstanding peaceful nations we can look toward as role models? Can weaker nations enjoy peace only when the stronger nations dominate the conflicts? How is technology changing the balance of power among nations and other smaller organizations or groups? Is it possible to transform aggressor nations or groups? Do inequality of resources and real or perceived injustices justify aggression? Are nations just behaving like living, growing organisms with legitimate needs for resources? Are there sufficient avenues to address basic needs by nonviolent means? Would self-imposed population control be sufficient to end conflict? What can be done about the increasing appetites of the developed nations? Can a common global threat unite otherwise hostile people? Might the increasingly dire, global climate crisis be such a threat?

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, January 2, at 7:00 pm. The tentative topic for next time is

"What is our conscience and can it be trusted?"

If you want to lobby for another topic or refine this one, feel free to send me your suggestions. In the meantime, best wishes for the holidays and, of course, peace and prosperity for all.

Cheers,

Steve

Next Live Dialogue - Dec 5

2007-11-29T14:10:00.001-05:00

Greetings Citizen Philosophers,

Our next Thinking Out Loud meeting is this coming Wednesday, Dec 5, at 7:00. No topic has been chosen yet. If you have any suggestions, send them in to me or bring them with you to the meeting. We will vote on the topic right before the recording session.

I am looking forward to hearing again from our veteran Skype participants, Steve and Deborah. I also encourage other potential Skype participants - David Rood, Anthony Johnston, Lee Katchen, Chad Meltone, Brooklyn, and others - to also join in on Wednesday. To accommodate multiple Skype participants, I will set up a Skype conference call as before. I do need your Skype ID name, so email that to me if necessary. Log on to Skype around 6:45. I will call you if your Skype icon indicates you are online and accepting calls. We will use a chat box, as before, to indicate who "has their hand up" and is waiting to speak. Email if you have any questions.

I am also looking forward to engaging with our faithful local contingent of citizen philosophers, as always. If you are among those who have not participated in a while, not to worry, you are most welcome to join in again. Call me if you need directions or have questions.

If you prefer to just listen in, that is fine as well. The podcast of our conversation will be released on iTunes few days after the live discussion, usually on the following Sunday. Enjoy.

Hope to see/hear you all on Wednesday.

Best Regards,

Steve

Mysticism Transcript Posted

2007-11-27T17:32:00.000-05:00

Steve Stokes once again has done a tremendous job transcribing our audio session on "What is Mysticism?". All the participants have now had their opportunity for review and it is ready to release. You can find a copy here.

And now, "as we speak", Steve is hard at work transcribing our latest session on Friendship and Honesty. Thanks Steve for your hard work.

For your easy reference, here are the authors mentioned in the session:

Rumi (the Sufi Poet)
Dean Hamer (The God Gene)
Richard Davidson
Georg Buchner (Danton's Death)
William Blake
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Andrew Greely (Ecstasy: A Way of Knowing)
Thich Nhat Hanh ("To be alive is a miracle...")
Buckminster Fuller
Arthur Koestler (The Act of Creation)
Ken Wilber
John Horgan (Rational Mysticism)
Simone Weil

Enjoy

I Am a Philosopher

2007-11-20T16:18:00.001-05:00

I am enjoying UJ's new book, The Saint Troubadour, which I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. UJ (Uriah J. Fields) is a regular participant in our Thinking Out Loud podcasts. His book is a collection of poems, essays, and songs he has composed over the years dealing with a wide variety of philosophical and spiritual issues.

The very first poem in the book is entitled "I Am a Philosopher". I wanted to share it with you here, because I think it captures the essence of what I am calling the "Citizen Philosopher".

I Am a Philosopher
No, I am not Plato, Socrates or Aristotle;
But I am a philosopher.
I am a lover of truth.
I am concerned not merely with the facts but
.. their meanings and how they relate to
.. each other and to ultimate truth.
I am a philosopher reaching out, searching,
.. expanding, learning, loving and growing
.. while being present.
I am a philosopher.

Thank you UJ for that wonderful description of the philosopher in each of us.

For more gems like this, check out the book, The Saint Troubadour, available on amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Steve Donaldson

Participation Clarification

2007-11-11T15:15:00.000-05:00

You are welcome to join in our monthly, Thinking Out Loud discussions. The live discussions are held on the first Wednesday of each month at 7:00 PM US East Coast Time. To participate, you must contact me in advance to make arrangements. Email me at blogmaster*at*growingagain.com (replace the *at* with @).

You will need Skype installed on your computer to participate. Skype is free "Voice over Internet" software that lets you use your Internet connection like a telephone. You can download Skype from www.skype.com. In addition to the software, you will need a suitable microphone, preferably the headset variety, available at most computer and office supply stores, such as Staples or Office Depot.

In the past we were able to "broadcast" live, so that people could listen to the discussion in real time, even if they were not active participants. We did this using a beta feature of Skype called Skypecast. Unfortunately, Skypecast was very buggy and finally became totally unuseable. So now we just use the Skype conference call to connect with remote participants. Currently we do not have a way to broadcast the live discussion to nonparticipants in real time.

However, we do make the recorded discussion available as a podcast shortly after the live discussion. You can download the podcasts through iTunes and other free podcast distributors, as well as through this web page. If and when Skypecasting become functional again, we will resume the live broadcasting. In the meantime, I hope you will consider participating in the live Skype conference call (email me first) or, if you prefer, just enjoy the recorded podcasts when it becomes available a few days later.

Cheers

Steve Donaldson

Friendship vs Honesty

2007-11-09T11:15:00.000-05:00

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded Wednesday, Nov 7, and the topic was "To whom or what do we have the greater obligation, a friend or the principle of honesty?" Thank you Billie, George, John, U.J., and our two cyber participants, Debbie Martin from Boca Raton, Fl, and Steve Stokes from Atlanta, GA, for a great discussion. Having two long distance participants at once is a new milestone for us. Yea!! (If any of you other out-of-towners or someone you know would like to connect long distance as well, let me know. There is still room for more.)

Here are some of the questions we wrestled with:

Is it okay to lie to avoid hurting a friend's feelings? Is it okay to lie to protect a friend from physical harm? What about for profit or simply to avoid embarrassment? What is "situational ethics" and does it apply here? In situational ethics, if there are no universal rules that apply to every situation, what criteria should we use? Who is and is not a friend? Do friends ask friends to lie? Does friendship imply obligation? Where do obligations come from? Are obligations externally imposed or internally chosen? What are the boundaries of friendship? Is telling the truth always a virtue? Is it friendlier to be discrete or to confront? What are the alternatives? Who owns the truth? Does one have the right to demand of another that they keep private information private? Does one have the right to impose the truth on someone who does not want to hear it? Is there a gender difference in the level of confidentiality expected in a friendship? Do different rules apply to different degrees of friendship? At what point is it right to end a friendship to protect one's principles? Can civil laws resolve conflicting virtues? Should confidentiality laws always be obeyed? Is there a higher law to resolve conflicts of virtues? If so, what is it?

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, December 5, at 7:00 pm. No topic has been chosen yet although several suggest themselves from our last discussion. The following spring to mind:

1. What is friendship?
2. What is conscience?
3. What is betrayal?
4. What is responsibility?

To elaborate on #4, if we accept the notion of universal human rights, does that also imply universal human responsibilities? If so, what are they?

These are just my initial thoughts. Your suggestions/refinements to these or other ideas for our next topic are most welcome. Send your ideas to me and I will circulate them among the group for feedback.

Also in order is congratulations to Uriah J. Fields (UJ) for the publication of his new book "The Saint Troubadour - Speaking and Singing Truth and Love" available from both www.amazon.com and www.bn.com (Barnes & Noble) - ISBN: 1424183588 (6 x9 413pp). Way to go UJ. And check out his web site for some of his other writings - www.uriahfields.com.

Cheers,

Steve

Next Live Dialogue - Nov 7

2007-11-02T16:09:00.000-04:00

Cheers Citizen Philosophers,

Let it be known that the next Thinking Out Loud gathering is this coming Wednesday, Nov 7, at 7:00. The suggested topic is:

"Does loyalty to a friend affect your commitment to honesty?"

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome our latest cyber participant. If all goes well, technology-wise, Deborah Martin of Boca Raton, will be joining us on Wednesday by way of a Skype conference call. Debbie was a regular at one of Steve Stokes' philosophy venues in Atlanta, GA, before moving to Florida about two years ago. She tells me that she was lamenting the fact that she could not find a similar group in her new environs, when she heard from Steve about our ongoing experiment in long distance interactive philosophical dialoguing. I am very pleased that she has found us and has volunteered to help us expand our experiment. I had the opportunity to talk with Debbie last night as we were testing our Skype connection and I can say with confidence that our Socratic explorations will be enriched by the participation of this caring and thoughtful citizen philosopher from Florida. Welcome aboard, Debbie.

Of course, I encourage previous Skype participants and would-be Skype participants - David, Steve, Anthony, etc. - to also join in on Wednesday. To accommodate more than one Skype participant, I will set up a Skype conference call and I will call you if your Skype icon indicates you are online and accepting calls. So if you want to participate long distance, log on to Skype around 6:45 and expect a call from me. We will use a chat box, as before, to indicate who "has their hand up" and is waiting to speak. Email me if you have any questions.

As for you flesh-and-blood regulars, I am most certainly looking forward to seeing your smiling faces and furrowed brows, as always. To you not-so-regulars, I say, we miss you. "Come on in. The philosophy is great."

Hope to see/hear you all on Wednesday.

Best Regards,

Steve

Be Cause

2007-10-08T22:00:00.000-04:00

After our discussion on mysticism, one of our participants suggested that what cannot be adequately explained in prose can sometimes be better said in poetry. She offered this short poem as a possible insight to the mystical state and how to get there:

Be Cause
A void
No matter
Never mind
Be cause

Thanks, Billie, for that little gem.

To which I cannot resist adding two of my own favorite shorts. The first, by Kobayashi Issa, a Japanese haiku poet, has to do with different ways to find the way (or point the way, if you already know a way)

The man pulling radishes
pointed the way
with a radish.

The next, by the early Zen master, Dogen, illustrates the paradox of being full and empty at the same time. (Isn't that what they say about meditation and mystical states as well?)

Midnight. No waves,
no wind, the empty boat
is flooded with moonlight.

You can find these and more in Jon Kabat-Zinn's book on meditation entitled

Wherever You Go There You Are

Enjoy.

What is Mysticism?

2007-10-07T12:38:00.000-04:00

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded last Wednesday, Oct 3, and the topic was "What is mysticism?" Thank you Billie, John, Mike, U.J., and our cyber participant, Steve Stokes from Atlanta, for a great discussion. Here are some of the questions we wrestled with:

What is mysticism? Why should we believe reports of mystical experiences? What do we mean by the term, "mystical experience"? How can we distinguish between mystical experiences and psychotic experiences or other abnormal psychological phenomenon? Is the mystical experience an experience of a higher state of consciousness? Among the great variety of altered states of consciousness, how are we to judge which is higher or lower than another? What are the distinguishing characteristics that set mystical experiences apart? Is deja vu a mystical experience? What is the relationship between mystical experience and ecstasy? Can drug intoxication induce mystical experiences? Is a loss of a sense of self, always an indication of a mystical experience? Is mysticism a skill that can be taught? What are the benefits of mysticism? Does one gain supernatural powers from being in a mystical state? What are we to make of reports of levitation? Is mysticism at odds with science? What can one see while in a mystical state, that one cannot see otherwise? How does mystical insight affect the way one lives one's life? Is the mystical experience always sudden and intense? Does it have to be a so called "peak experience"? Can the mystical state also be obtained by a gradual process? Will a healthy mind in a healthy environment, naturally progress to a higher state of consciousness given sufficient time to mature? Do age and life experience help create the conditions conducive to mystical awareness? As we reflect deeply on everyday experiences, are they not also mystical?

Once again, Steve has generously volunteered to create a transcript of our dialogue. When it is ready, I will circulate it among the participants for review and then post it online for everyone to enjoy. The transcript for the our last discussion on religion has already been posted, and will remain available for anyone interested, at this link:

What is Religion? [transcript]

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, November 7, at 7:00 pm. The suggested topic is "Does loyalty to a friend affect your commitment to honesty?" The final choice of topic will be up to those who show up for the session. Everyone is encouraged to lobby for their favorite topic, so if you have suggestions or comments, send them in.

Cheers,

Steve

Why Mysticism?

2007-09-25T12:00:00.000-04:00

Mike Grosso has suggested we choose "What is Mysticism?" as the topic of our next Thinking Out Loud dialogue scheduled for Oct 3. Here is Mike's plea:

The Case for a Dialogue on Mysticism - Michael Grosso

I would like us to discuss the topic "What is mysticism?". Here is why. The words mystic, mystical, and mysticism have popular, literary, and technical senses. In popular or journalistic talk the mystical is the mysterious, the vaguely poetical, indeed, the misty. I hope we can come to a clearer understanding of what reality lies behind these words.

In particular, I would like to explore the meaning of mysticism as it relates to certain uniquely extraordinary human experiences, experiences marked by what W. Stace called an overwhelming sense of “undifferentiated unity.”

Why is this important? Several reasons come to mind that we might discuss. The first is religious. All the great religions exhibit some form of mysticism, each via its peculiar cultural and historical perspective. Buddhism and Samkya Yoga are atheistic; the Abrahamic religions are theistic. There are also non-religious forms of nature mysticism, in which the experience is one of union with nature. There are intellectual forms of mysticism and devotional forms that deploy feelings of love and adoration. And there are artists and poets clearly with strong mystical bents like William Blake and Walt Whitman.

By concentrating on the common core of mystical experience, some people see in mysticism a potentially unifying force, a way of tying together all the great religions, and touching our common humanity.

The second point of importance is scientific. The mystical experience is a challenge to modern science. How does it fit into the prevailing cosmology? Has neuroscience anything to say about mysticism? Is there a connection between mysticism and incidences of supernormal phenomena?

Certain drugs (so-called “entheogens”) are said to produce mystical experiences. Does this tell us anything about the mind-body problem?

Mystical experiences are often reported as occurring during near-death experiences. Do these experiences perhaps hold an answer to the riddle of death? Why should people physiologically on the verge of death have such extraordinary experiences?

Finally, perhaps the most important question, from a purely the practical perspective, does mysticism tell us anything about how to live?

**************************************

Thanks, Mike, for your persuasive proposal. As usual, the final decision will be up to the participants who show up for the dialogue.

Anyone who wishes to participate long distance in our live dialogue on Oct 3 please contact me for arrangements (blogmaster+AT+growingagain.com). You will need to have Skype, voice over Internet, software installed. I can help you get Skype set up, if you don't already have it. It's free.

Enjoy.

Transcript of "What is Religion?"

2007-09-24T17:38:00.000-04:00

Steve Stokes has done a tremendous job transcribing our last session on "What is Religion?". All the participants have now had their opportunity for review and it is ready to release. You can find a copy here.

Thanks again Steve for your hard work.

What's in a Word?

2007-09-21T17:24:00.000-04:00

After our last dialogue on "What is Religion?", one of the participants lamented to me that we never really answered the question. It is true that we did not arrive at a definitive answer and I have two thoughts I would like to share about that.

First, did we fail in our mission? I don't think so. Our mission is not necessarily to arrive at definitive answers to the questions we examine, but rather to increase our understanding of what realities lie behind the words and to stimulate philosophical exploration of those realities. I believe we succeeded on both counts. The value is in the journey whether or not we arrive at the final destination.

The second point is that there may not be a final destination at all, at least not as far as language is concerned. Words acquire meaning through their usage and we use words to convey our understanding. Where our understanding is unclear our language will be ill defined. A word like "religion" does not have one definitive meaning but a multitude of meanings that vary with the speaker and the context. So how do we work around this limitation of language? One way is to use a kind of triangulation. It has been said that if you look at a hundred different portraits painted by the same artist, what you have is a portrait of the artist. To get a true portrait of someone else, you need a hundred portraits painted by a hundred different artists. Likewise, I believe, if we examine a multitude of related words and concepts and ask what they mean to a multitude of individuals, we can begin to see a portrait of reality not readily apparent from any single word or speaker. This is in part what I hope to accomplish with our Thinking Out Loud series.

Here are some short answers to, "What is religion?" as "painted" by the citizen philosophers in our last session, with whom you may or may not agree:

Religion is the antithesis of philosophy.
Religion is an experience.
Religion is a way of life.
Religion is a story.
Religion is an institution.
Religion is a group identity.

Do you have any short answers you would like to contribute to the emerging portrait? Feel free to add your comments by clicking on the "comments" link below.

The Power of Religion

2007-09-11T15:36:00.000-04:00

And here is a contribution from Mike Grosso, also in response to our discussion on religion. As with Steve Stokes' piece below, the following represents the views of the individual contributor, not the views of the discussion group as a whole. You are invited to comment on Mike's essay by clicking on the "comment" link at the bottom of this post.

The Power of Religion - A Mystery?
by Michael Grosso

Future historians will have much to say about the resurgence of religion that began in the last third of the twentieth century. As Mark Lilla recently explained in the New York Times Magazine (August 19, 2007), the great thinkers of the eighteenth century completely underestimated the power of religion. Many imagined that religion would die out as science progressed, just as Marx imagined the State would wither away with the rise of proletarian justice.

They were wrong. The facts of subsequent history converge toward the idea that religion is an indestructible force. In spite of science destroying religious mythology, there is no decline, no wavering – but rather, steady and massive resurgence of religious belief. The contradictions between science and religion – and surely they exist – are blithely passed over. Religious believers listen to a different drummer.

Science has not done religion in -- neither has political repression when it tried. It was a kind of experiment when the regimes of two great countries in the twentieth century controlled, repressed, and tried systematically to eradicate religion from the consciousness of their peoples. Soviet Russia was able to pursue this experiment for seventy years, and China has also been at it for decades. These attempts to eradicate religion have failed miserably. As soon as the Soviet power block broke up, there was a rebirth of religious sentiment everywhere and it took many shapes. Some flocked back to the Orthodox Church, others went their ways with new gods, cults, movements. Ditto for China, which, as it slides from communism into a market economy, is also brimming over with religious ferment.

Meanwhile, the young everywhere are returning to the churches and mosques, some switching from the old and trying new faiths. Leading among religions whose populations are swelling the ranks of believers are of course Islam and Christianity. So, although Americans are reading books by some brilliant atheists, it represents a tiny blip of revolt against the onward drift of religious belief.

The evidence of the lively, hydra-headed power of religion should prompt us to ask, Why is religion so powerful? If science, political oppression, and consumerism have failed to extinguish religion, what is the nature of its resilience? Are we humans driven by an instinct, an impetus toward transcendence? Is there some compelling mystery in consciousness we have yet to appreciate? Or are we hopelessly addicted to comforting illusions? These are psychological and metaphysical questions.

But the runaway fertility of religious belief also poses ethical problems. For example, mutual respect for each other’s belief systems becomes more important than ever, a practical necessity in a world teeming with religious diversity. Believers and disbelievers will have to live together. As for the impending clash of civilizations, there is a long range challenge we have to face, a choice humanity as a whole will have to make: either cultivate the garden of toleration or stoke the hell fires of fanaticism.

Practicing Safe Religion

2007-09-10T14:58:00.000-04:00

Here is a contribution I received from Steve Stokes relating to our most recent dialogue on "What is religion?". Please note that the following does not necessarily represent the views of anyone in our discussion, except for the contributor, Steve Stokes:

12 Changes to Make Religions Safer
by Steve Stokes

Remove all provisions that the Deity(s) and Its theology is the "one true god and religion". Granted that this provision is the foundation of the orthodoxy of all major established religions, but in light of the untold carnage and suffering that this one piece of dogma is responsible for, it really is irresponsible to sanction this delusion.

Remove all provisions that conclude that there are certain classifications of people that are some kind of abomination to the Deity(s) and ought to be exterminated. (Non-believers, witches, heretics, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, a defeated enemy, "sinners", the unclean, etc., and/or the descendants of the above.) Such provisions have undisputedly been responsible for untold carnage and suffering.

And while we are on the subject, there must be eliminated all provisions for the sacrifices of innocent humans. Historically it has not been necessary to be offensive to a deity in order for a religion to sanction one's death. Ironically, the fact that you are pure or innocent could be the very reason for your life to be taken. It goes without saying that these provisions too are responsible for untold carnage and suffering.

It seems that one of the best things that religion has promoted, THE NOT TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE, needs to be amplified. And also in need of amplification is the instruction, DO NOT DO TO ANOTHER THAT WHICH YOU WOULD NOT WANT DONE TO YOURSELF. If only followers of the worlds religions would pay heed to these two tenets of their dogma, the world would be a infinitely safer. Strangely however, these universal precepts, found in all the world's major religions, are widely ignored. This change alone could prevent much carnage and suffering.

Recognize that the holding of a religious belief is a personal life choice. As such, religious beliefs should never be imposed on others. Theocratic governments, laws against blasphemy, heresy, other sundry blue laws, "justice" systems based on divine intervention, (trial by ordeal, trial by combat), mandatory public religious observance, proselytizing in public or door-to-door, even silly little fish on the back of cars, obnoxious T-shirts, and tacky WWJD bracelets. And while not responsible for carnage, as such, the imposition of religion unto others is cause for untold suffering.

Remove self-depreciating pronouncements against humanity. I.e., humans are not sinful, humans are not unworthy, humans are not sheep, and we don't need to be shepherded.

Do not encourage the belief in divine intervention. One can't be rescued from a calamity by a deity that does not exist.

Take out any prohibitions of medical procedures. Also remove any provisions against organ donation.

Take out any provision for cloistered existence. What a waste of existence: living behind a wall.

Eliminate examples of sloppy thinking. I.e., young Earth references, simplistic creation myths, all the animals of the world being loaded onto one vessel, the sun being stopped in its tracks for a day, etc., etc.

Take out any provisions against free thought. Any dogma that can't hold it own against logical critical thought can't be very sound.

Capricious prohibitions should be eliminated: food, dress, music, dance, etc. In order to advance the human condition, a religion should be significant, and not bogged down with the superficial.

You are welcome to comment on Steve's list and on our dialogue. Just click on the "comments" link below.

What Is Religion?

2007-09-09T17:35:00.000-04:00

The latest Thinking Out Loud podcast has been released on iTunes. The session was recorded last Wednesday, Sept 5, and the topic was "What is religion?" Thank you Billie, George, John, Mike, and our cyber participant, Steve Stokes from Atlanta, GA, for a great discussion. Although Skypecast broadcasting is still down, I am pleased that we were able to include Steve using a regular Skype Internet phone connection. The sound quality was excellent, as was the content of our discussion. Here are some highlights:

Is religion the antithesis of philosophy? What do they have in common? How are they different? What are the origins of religion? What is the "religious experience"? How do interpretation, doctrine, and dogma enter into religion? Does man's search for meaning inevitably lead to religion? How does religion provide meaning? What is the role of the church and its hierarchy of priests? What are the dangers of religion? Where is the line between religious instruction and involuntary indoctrination? How is spirituality different from religion? What is the role of religion in community formation and maintenance? What can science and philosophy learn from religion? Can religions evolve? Is it still possible for altogether new world religions to come into being? Can a synthesis emerge out of the collision of science, philosophy, and conflicting world religions? What could art, literature, and poetry add to such a synthesis?

Steve Stokes has generously volunteered to create a transcript from our recording. I will post it on this blog once it is ready. Thanks, Steve, for your courageous undertaking. A written transcript will be another powerful medium with which we can examine and disseminate what pearls of collective wisdom we managed to scatter throughout our discussion.

Our podcasts have been reaching an audience. We have been consistently within the top 20 on iTunes in the Philosophy category. Here are the numbers on the 4 most popular of our episodes downloaded in August:

640 downloads: The Nature of Addiction
172 downloads: What is Love?
132 downloads: America's Democracy
127 downloads: Free Will

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The next Thinking Out Loud will be Wednesday, October 3, at 7:00 pm. Mike suggested we continue to expand along the theme of religion, having laid down a good introduction to the general topic in the last session. The tentative topic for the next session is "What is mysticism?". Other religion related topics we could consider at some point are:

1. Religion and personal identity
2. Religion, morality and taboos
3. Religion and politics

The final decision will be up to those who show up for the session. If we can come to a consensus beforehand, we can save time at the beginning of the session and we will have the benefit of some forethought on the topic. So if you prefer a topic other than "What is mysticism?" or wish to refine the question, now is the time to make your case. Everyone is encouraged to lobby for their favorite topic. If there is not a clear consensus, we will vote at the beginning of the next session. If there is a consensus, so much the better.

Cheers,

Steve

Lobbying for question #2

2007-09-03T11:28:00.000-04:00

I received the following plea from Mike Grosso arguing in favor of choosing a topic in advance, and in particular, choosing the topic "What is Religion?". I know of at least one other participant who favors that choice of topic as well. If you have strong feelings one way or the other, I encourage you to email me your thoughts. In fairness to all the participants, I will postpone the final decision until we are all gathered on Wednesday. However, please feel free to make your case for your favorite topic ahead of time, as Mike has done. If you make a persuasive enough case, you may succeed in precipitating a consensus in advance of the meeting, in which case, confirming our choice at the beginning of the meeting can be handled very expeditiously.

On 9/3/2007 at 1:14 AM Michael Grosso wrote:
Thanks for this, Steve -- and here are a few thoughts about a possible topic for discussion. Again, put me down for the idea of knowing the topic in advance; that gives us time to think about the subject -- and isn't the idea to increase thought? Become more mindful? More reflective? That presupposes duration, dwelling with an idea over time.

I think the question, What is religion? would be great to discuss. Some people may have seen Christiane Amanpour's three part special on God's Warriors on CNN. The thing we have to face about religion today is that it is the most dangerous weapon of mass destruction around. This of course results when we mix politics and religion. And it's not just Islamic fundamentalism we have to worry about. Christian messianism and exceptionalism is and has served as a covert weapon of mass destruction in American history. And in general the Jews seem to mixed God and history up in ways that the Greek philosopher theologians (especially Epicurus and Xenophanes) would deplore.

But what does all this have to do with religion in general? It's probably unwise to get too fixated on an exact definition of religion. But I would suggest making a few preliminary distinctions. We could do worse than a tentative definition of religion as a system of salvation, but should hasten to add that different systems may be broken down into three things: experiences (induced and spontaneous); rituals and ceremonies; and doctrines, beliefs, and interpretations. The real mischief of religion arises from the latter -- the beliefs and interpretations, the dogmas and apocalyptic mania. The experiences are something else, and need to be sharply distinguished from the other two aspects of religion.

In general, I think the more people reflect and think critically about religion, the better. It's not belief (even absurd ones) that's the problem, but the manner in which organized groups of religionists entertain their beliefs. The only antidote to this poison is the lucid balm of philosophy.

Michael Grosso

Live Dialogue Wednesday Sept 5

2007-09-02T15:59:00.001-04:00

Our next gathering is scheduled for this Wednesday, September 5, at 7:00 pm ET. Suggested topics so far are:

1. What are emotions?
2. What is religion?
3. How are we best educated?
4. What matters?

If you would like to participate long distance in the live discussion, please let me know ahead of time by email. Write to blogmaster+AT+growingagain.com (replace +AT+ with @ to help protect me against spammers) The Skypecast feature is still down, so if you wish to participate, I will need to manually add you to a Skype conference call. I will be glad to do so, but you need to have Skype installed (available free at www.skype.com) and email me your Skype ID. Hope you can make it.

If you miss the live discussion, you will be able to listen to it later as a podcast on iTunes when it is released a few days later.

Enjoy.

From One of Our Listeners

2007-08-10T15:48:00.000-04:00

Here is an essay I received from one of our listeners, Steve Stokes. Steve is a Philosophy Cafe moderator in Atlanta, GA. (The essay was originally composed for NPR's This I Believe series.)

This I Believe, by Steven Stokes

I believe that ultimately the paradoxes of life make fools of us all. So if we would be wise we should study life’s paradoxes and confront our abject foolishness head on.

I’ve come to see that the ultimate source of all human anguish is that we are finite beings sentient of infinity. I’m an egocentric spec at the center of totality. My personal existence is forged by the cosmic chain of events, and all I can do is go along for the ride.

I believe every person, at some point faces a decision as to what to do with their life. They are either to do something with their life or to do nothing with their life. I fear that too many of my brethren opt to do the latter, and too few to do the former. I believe life ought not be squandered; no one should let it slip through their fingers like so much sand, even as they desperately grasp at every grain in an effort to hold on to it forever.

I believe one should not overlook the truth that can lie at the heart of a cliché. Life is not a dress rehearsal… it is a journey, not a destination…and you really only go around once. One would be wise to quit snickering about these facts and take heed of their message.

Accordingly, I believe that one ought to live their life in such a way as to maximize its total experience. No person ought to waste that one life that they have to live. No one should, at the end of their days, look back with regret on all that they never did: the beauties they did not see, the music they did not hear, the flavors they did not taste, the aromas they did not inhale, the sensations they did not feel. Never forget that the next second is guaranteed to no one: life can end without warning in an instant.

I believe we are all very much the same and yet everyone is unique. I believe this is the most important thing to keep in mind. My enemy would not be my enemy if I knew what he knows, and if he knew what I know. So the great tragedy is that we don’t know the other as well as we ought to before we have to act.

I believe the only immorality is doing to another that which we would not have done to ourselves. And the only evil is taking pleasure in doing the immoral. It falls to the enlightened, and the intelligent and the sane to take responsibility for the deluded or doltish or insane.

I’ve come to believe that the secret of living life is to strike a balance between being happy with what I have while striving to make things better. I set my heading by my passions, but let my intellect steer my ship. I believe the circle of human life consists of aspiration, actualization, attainment, and appreciation.

All this I believe, and so much more…

Thanks Steve for sharing your core philosophy. We look forward to including you in our next live discussion, September 5.

Articulating ones core philosophy in a short essay like this (500 words) is a challenging, but very worthwhile exercise in personal self-exploration. I encourage other listeners try this as well. Send your essays to me (click on comments) if you would like me to post them.

The Nature of Addiction

2007-08-04T17:46:00.000-04:00

What is addiction? What are the similarities and distinctions between addictions, habits, compulsions, urges, and drives? Are addictions primarily physical or psychological? How do we develop addictions? Do addictions serve a purpose? What is the relationship between addiction and pain and suffering? Are all addictions bad? Can one become addicted to love or religion? Is there a transcendent element to addiction? Is intoxication necessarily an addiction? Is there a connection between the natural drives, such as sex and eating, and addictions? How do our emotions play into addiction? How much choice is involved in addiction? How does a behavior, that in some remains just episodic, become chronic in others? How can addictions be cured? Can addictions be broken voluntarily? What is the mechanism of the vicious circle? Is there a cultural component to addictions? Are some addictions actually encouraged in some cultures for the benefit of society at the expense of the individual? Join citizen philosophers George Garret, Mike Grosso, Uriah J. Fields and myself in this stimulating and insightful discussion. Music provided by David Rood.

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Global Elders for Our Global Village

2007-07-30T13:04:00.000-04:00

During our last discussion on America's democracy, we talked about its shortcomings and tried to envision a more evolved and enlightened form of government of the future. In particular, we lamented the absence of an institution of wisdom, such as a council of wise elders. As synchronicity would have it, not long after our discussion (recorded July 4th) Nelson Mandela, on the occasion of his 89th birthday (July 18), announced the formation of The Elders.

The following email from Derek Breen, one of the citizen philosophers in our last discussion, provides more details:

"Since fighting on the wrong side in an unjust war over sixteen years ago, I have alternated between inspiration and despair, hope and hopelessness for myself and for the future of humanity. In recent months, I've been finding myself more often in the despair category.

But this afternoon, a friend mentioned a news story from this past Wednesday, about a very special birthday present given from, rather than to, the celebrant. On his 89th birthday, Nelson Mandela introduced the world to The Elders <http://www.theelders.org/>, a select group of former leaders, (including five Nobel Prize winners) that has begun to work together to advance the causes of peace and global justice.

According to lone American elder, former president Jimmy Carter, "The Elders neither want, nor will we ever have, any kind of authority except that that comes from common moral values," he said. "We will be able to risk failure and we will not need to claim successes."

The only agenda of The Elders is that of humanity. Their only purpose is to ease human suffering in three essential areas: 1. Offering a catalyst for the peaceful resolution of conflict. 2. Seeking new approaches to seemingly intractable global issues. 3. Sharing wisdom: reaching out to grassroots Elders and to the next generation of leaders. Listening and helping to amplify voices for good all over the world.

In addition to Mandela and Carter, the elders chosen thus far include: Graca Machel - renowned international advocate for women's and children's rights Desmond Tutu - month after winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, Tutu was elected the first black Anglican bishop of Johannesburg Kofi Annan - emerged from the ranks of United Nations' staff to become its seventh Secretary-General Graça Machel - renowned international advocate for women's and children's rights Gro Harlem Brundtland - former Prime Minister of Norway who championed the principle of sustainable development Li Zhaoxing - former Ambassador to the United Nations for China who played an important role in helping to maintain world peace Mary Robinson - former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Muhammad Yunus - Nobel Peace Prize winner who has worked tirelessly to gain loan opportunities for the world's rural poor

(read profiles of each at the official website<http://www.theelders.org/elders/> ).

The following is an abridged version of Nelson Madela's July 18th speech:

In today's world, many of the problems we face are global in nature. These include climate change, pandemics such as AIDS, malaria and TB. And of course, that entirely human created affliction: violent conflict.

The structures we have to deal with these problems are often tied down by political, economic or geographical constraints.

As institutions of government grapple – often unequally – with challenges they face, the efforts of a small, dedicated group of leaders, working objectively and without any vested personal interest in the outcome, can help resolve what often seems like intractable problems.

We have the makings of such a group. . . Using their collective experience, their moral courage and their ability to rise above the parochial concerns of nation, race and creed, they can help make our planet a more peaceful, healthy and equitable place to live.

Let us call them Global Elders, not because of their age, but because of their individual and collective wisdom.

This group derives its strength not from political, economic or military power, but from the independence and integrity of those who are here. They do not have careers to build, elections to win, constituencies to please. They can talk to anyone they please, and are free to follow paths they deem right, even if hugely unpopular.

I believe that, with their experience and their energies, and their profound commitment to building a better world, The Elders can become a fiercely independent and robust force for good, tackling complex and intractable issues, especially those that are not popular. Through their friends in business, they can mobilize up to date technology, and raise not only awareness of forgotten issues, but also help locate the resources to address them.

But whatever techniques they use, I believe that in the end it is kindness and generous accommodation that are the catalysts for real change. I know these esteemed friends of mine are capable of doing all these things. *Nelson Mandela - Wednesday 18th July 2007 (read the entire speech<http://dl.groovygecko.net/anon.groovy/clients/akqa/projectamber/press/The_Elders-Speech.pdf>or watch video <http://www.theelders.org/Video.aspx>)

* Never have I been filled with so much hope by a simple announcement. In an age where speculation about a sexy celphone or another book about a child wizard, or drunken exploits of a third rate actor can dominate the news for months, consider this email my small part in helping spread what I believe could be the most important story in our lifetime. Just imagine to potential of a group of proven global leaders, thinkers, activists working outside of the twentieth century system, to take on the most daunting global issues.

Please spread this story, discuss it with your friends and family, and support <http://www.theelders.org/supporters/> these pioneers in whatever way you can. For my part, I have just sent an official inquiry into working for The Elders as part of their support staff. I also urge you to sign up for the forthcoming Global Village <http://www.theelders.org/village/>, an online community through which we may all participate in this revolutionary global movement.

Sincerely, Derek Breen human being (with a little more hope than yesterday)"

Thanks Derek for your eloquent description of this historically momentous (and sadly under-reported) development.

America's Democracy

2007-07-08T18:43:00.000-04:00

As we celebrate America's 231st birthday, we ask ourselves what do we think of America's experiment in democratic self-governing? Has it turned out as planned? Is it functioning as it is supposed to? What is the function of democratic government? What are the risks in adopting a democratic form of government? How is America's democracy different from other democracies? How has it changed over the last two centuries? What developments, unforeseen by the original architects, are now interfering with the founding principles? What are the founding principles of our democracy? How are we to evaluate the health of a democracy? How does one cure an ailing democracy? What are the obstacles to maintaining a healthy democracy? Do we need to develop, invent, or evolve a new, more advanced form of government to overcome the ills of the older form? What might a more enlighten/mature form of government look like? How could it come into being? Would the older form of government need to be dismantled, or could the new be added on top of the old?

Participants: Billie Lagerwerff, Derek Breen, John Tytus, Ken Thompson

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Skypecast Difficulties

2007-07-05T09:34:00.000-04:00

My apologies to those of you who tried to connect to our live discussion yesterday by way of Skypecast. For reasons that are still unclear to me, Skypecast failed to maintain a connection more than about a fraction of a second, despite numerous attempts to connect. Skypecast is a very experimental system (very, very, Beta) and that may be the only explanation we can hope for at this time. The company is continuously updating their software, so I hope this is just a temporary bug. I will check to see if we can get a new release and will keep you informed on this blog.

In any case, we did record a very engaging dialogue with my local citizen philosopher guests on the topic of "America's 231 year experiment in democratic self-governing - what do we think of it?" The conversion will be released as a podcast, available through iTunes this Sunday, July 8.

Our next live discussion is scheduled for August 1, 2007. Please join us at that time. I hope Skypecast will be working more smoothly then. We would love to have you included in the discussion.

How to participate

2007-07-01T11:25:00.000-04:00

Hello, this is Steve Donaldson, host of Thinking Out Loud. I hope you have been enjoying our ongoing series of philosophical dialogues with everyday people.

So far we have recorded 22 intellectually stimulating and philosophically insightful conversations ranging from "What is Love?" to "What are the obstacles to wisdom?".

These conversations have been released as free weekly podcasts through Apple's iTunes online music store, as well as through a host of other podcast providers. You can also download the mp3 recordings directly from this web site.

Starting this month, July, 2007, we will be switching from a weekly release schedule to a monthly schedule tied to our live recording sessions. Our live recording sessions are currently scheduled for the first Wednesday of every month at 7:00 pm. The very next session will be this Wednesday, July 4th, 2007, at 7:00 pm eastern time US.

At this point we would like to encourage your participation in our dialogues as well. You can do so by connecting to our live sessions using special software that makes use of Voice Over Internet technology. The software is free and is called Skype. Some of you may already have it. Skype is best known for its ability to allow users to make free long distance phone calls over the Internet. A lesser know feature of Skype is its ability to allow users to participate in live group conversation known as Skypecasts. This is the how we can allow you to listen in and contribute to the conversation as it is being recorded. To speak, you will need to have a microphone connected to your computer. To just listen in, all you need are your computer speakers or earphones. You can download the Skype software from www.skype.com.

I will create the Skypecast session around 6:45, so you should be able to find it listed under "On Now" in the Skypecast Directory at that time. If you run into difficulty, contact me through Skype chat. My Skype ID is citizenphilosopher.

After the recording session, I will do whatever editing might be needed and then release the recording as a podcast on iTunes and other podcast outlets, the following Sunday.

If you have any questions for me or comments to share, please post them below under "comments".

Hope you can join us on Wednesday. Until then, remember, thinking is a good thing - everyone has a right to enjoy it...

Obstacles to Wisdom

2007-06-23T12:38:00.000-04:00

Where does wisdom come from? Is it a given or is it acquired? What is the role of literature? How does one recognize wisdom literature? Is it necessary to have a teacher? How can the unwise distinguish between a wise teacher and the false prophet? How does the company you keep facilitate or obstruct the path to wisdom? Is it more conducive to engage or to withdraw? What about age and experience as teachers? Is there a hierarchy of wisdom corresponding to different levels of development or enlightenment? How do fear, complacency, and arrogance affect the cultivation of wisdom?

Participants: Billie Lagerwerff, John Tytus, Mike Grosso, Uriah J. Fields

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Limits to Knowledge

2007-06-17T13:32:00.000-04:00

Are there any limits to knowledge? What is knowledge? Must you be able to prove something in order to know it? What is the role of experience? What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom? What role does environment play in limiting knowledge? How does reason interact with knowledge? How can we evaluated knowledge for its validity? What are the different ways of knowing? Is secondhand knowledge really knowledge? What about mystical experiences? How does public knowledge differ from private knowledge? Do the different kinds of knowledge have different limits? How much knowledge do we really need?

Participants: Derek Breen, John Tytus, Ken Thompson

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Obstacles to Wisdom. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

How do we fool ourselves?

2007-06-10T12:28:00.000-04:00

What do we mean when we say someone is fooling oneself? Is one part of the self fooling another part of the self? Is our self really multiple selves? Who is is the fooler and who is the fooled? Is it necessarily a bad thing to fool oneself? How universal is self-deception? Can it ever be avoided? What are the harmful effects of fooling oneself? What are the benefits? What is the relationship between disillusionment and personal growth? What factors tend to prolong illusions? What factors help one see past the veil of illusions? What is the difference between being deluded and being creatively optimistic? Does disillusionment stifle creativity and productivity? Does it open one up to a deeper truth?

Participants: Billie Lagerwerff, David Rood, George Garrett, John Tytus, Mike Grosso

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Limits to Knowledge. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Live Discussion - Postscript

2007-06-08T11:57:00.000-04:00

Okay, we had a wonderful discussion on Wednesday. The topic we chose was: "What are the obstacles to wisdom?". Present in real space, or "meat space" as some would say, were Billie Lagerwerff, John Tytus, Mike Grosso, Uriah J. Fields and myself. We didn't have any cyber participants this time, but we did have a number of cyber listeners via Skype (up to 15 at one point). If you did not catch it live, you can still catch it when it is released as a podcast on iTunes on June 24.

Our next live discussion will be on Wednesday, July 4, at 7:00 PM Eastern Time, US. If you would like to participate long distance, leave a comment on this blog (click on lower right label, "comments"). Be sure and check back for my response. (It might take a day or so for me to get back to you so please be patient, as this is not my full-time occupation.)

Whether you wish go participate or just listen live, you will need the Skype software installed on you computer. You can download the latest version of Skype for free from their web site, www.skype.com.

Of course, you can also listen to any previously released podcast by downloading the mp3 file directly from this web site (see left side bar).

So thank you participants for participating and listeners for tuning in.

Cheers,

-Steve

Live Discussion Tonight - June 6, 7:00 ET

2007-06-06T12:36:00.000-04:00

Hello All,

The next Thinking Out Loud session is this evening, June 6, at 7:00 PM US Eastern Time and you can listen to it live via Skypecast. Due to the ongoing anomilies in the Skypecast scheduling software, I cannot post the Skypecast ID in advance. However, a Skypecast will be created shortly before 7:00 and should then appear in the Skypecast directory under "On Now". The following link will take you to the "On Now" Skypecast directory.

https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/ongoing

When you find "Thinking Out Loud" in the directory, click on "Join this Skypecast". You will need to have Skype already installed on your computer to connect to the Skypecast. Everyone will be able to listen, but only those who have contacted me in advance may participate. As of now, this includes David, Anthony, Brooklyn, and Peace Maker. Of course we will also have our regular flesh and blood citizen philosophers present to round out the circle for what promises to be a stimulating discussion. Hope you can make it.

-Steve

Has Science Hit a Wall?

2007-06-03T17:17:00.000-04:00

Modern physics introduced the concepts of the Uncertainty Principle, Probability Waves, and Black Hole Horizons beyond which we cannot see. Do these findings signify permanent, insurmountable limits to further progress in physics? If physics is the most fundamental of the sciences, are the other sciences equally limited as a consequence? What does this do to our faith in science as our institution of truth and understanding? Are there ways around these limitations? Are there other, more troubling limitations built into the structure of the institution of science itself? Does the present nature of the institution of science itself need to change to break the impasse? What role does culture play in the rise and fall of our faith in science? What role does politics play in the integrity of science? Are our current practices of science education conducive to producing the next Einstein? Have we passed our peak, or are we on the verge of a monumental breakthrough?

Participants: Billie Lagerwerff, John Tytus

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: How do we fool ourselves?. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Power, Justice, and Morality

2007-05-26T11:30:00.000-04:00

This is a special edition of Thinking Out Loud, which you might call Thinking Out Loud - One on One. Due to the threat of severe weather, only one brave citizen philosopher showed up at the scheduled meeting time. I decided to postpone the scheduled topic, "How do we fool ourselves?", for next time when more could attend. While waiting to see if anyone else would show up this time, U.J. Fields and I just happened to start talking about power and justice. It sounded promising, so I turned on the microphone. Here is that conversation.

Participants: U.J. Fields

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Has Science Hit a Wall?. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

The Nature of Sacrifice

2007-05-19T13:59:00.000-04:00

What does it mean sacrifice? Who is sacrifice for? What are the expectations that come with sacrifice? Where does the call to sacrifice come from? How can we distinguish between noble sacrifices and sinister calls to sacrifice disguised as noble? How do the concepts of duty and honor relate to sacrifice? Is sacrifice voluntary? What motivates a mother to sacrifice for her children or a soldier for his country? How can the instinct to sacrifice be abused and manipulated by propaganda and other means? What are we to make of the kamikaze pilots of World War II and the suicide bombers of the Middle East today? What does it mean to be a martyr and who decides? What about sacrifices made daily without notice? What roles do our lesser self and our greater Self play in motivating sacrifice?

Participants: Billie Lagerwerff, Carole Abel, Jnanam MacIsaac, John Loy, John Tytus, Ken Thompson

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Power, Justice, and Morality. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Suffering and Creativity

2007-05-13T20:21:00.000-04:00

They say "you have to suffer, to sing the blues." Does suffering stimulate creativity? Are pain and suffering necessary ingredients of creation? How much is sufficient? How much is too much? Can one be creativity without some pain and suffering? What are the distinctions between pain and suffering? Does suffering always lead to creativity? Is the relationship always one of cause and effect? What role does sensitivity play in the relationship between suffering and creativity? Are there times when self-numbing is preferable to self-expression?

Participants: Billie Lagerwerff, Derek Breen, Jason Varsoke, John Tytus, Ken Thompson, Mike Grosso, Paul Beckert, U.J. Fields

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: The Nature of Sacrifice. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

What is Happiness?

2007-05-06T20:42:00.000-04:00

What do we know about happiness? Is it satisfaction, excitement, pleasure, all of the above or in a category by itself? Does happiness depend on circumstances, or can one be happy under any circumstance? What are the obstacles to happiness? How do we explain the transitory, fleeting nature of happiness? Are there different kinds of happiness and are they all desirable? What is the relationship between happiness and intoxication? Are we at risk of losing motivation should we attain lasting happiness? Is happiness a destination or is a property of the path?

Participants: Billie Lagerwerff, Carole Abel, Derek Breen, John Tytus, Ken Thompson, Mike Grosso, Paul Beckert, U.J. Fields

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Suffering and Creativity. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

What is Wisdom?

2007-04-29T13:29:00.000-04:00

What are the distinguishing qualities of wisdom? Is wisdom a kind of knowledge? If so, how does it differ from other forms of knowledge? Is it also a kind of art or skill? Where does wisdom come from? How can we, how do we, recognize wisdom? Can wisdom be taught or can it only be cultivated? How can we cultivate wisdom in ourselves and others?

Participants: Alex Patterson, Billie Lagerwerff, Cathy Polly, Jerry Huml, John Tytus, Mike Grosso, Paul Beckert, U.J. Fields

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: What is Happiness?. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

What is Philosophy?

2007-04-21T20:29:00.000-04:00

In this episode of our on-going series of philosophical podcasts, we explore the question, "What is philosophy?". Is it just "the love of wisdom?" Is it the pursuit of wisdom? Is it teachings on how to pursue wisdom? What are the goals of philosophy? Is philosophy a science? Is it an art? How does philosophy differ from religiion? What are the limits of philosophy and what are the rules, if any?

Participants: Billie Lagerwerff, Carole Abel, Jerry Huml, John Tytus, Mike Grosso, U.J. Fields

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: What is Wisdom?. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Inconvenient Truths

2007-04-14T21:29:00.000-04:00

This is the twelfth in our on-going series of philosophical podcasts. The topic is "How can we overcome obstacles to seeing inconvenient truths?" What are the obstacles to seeing a truth that might cause us distress? How can we guard against deception and denial? What is objectivity? What role does our culture play in what we take to be true? What is the government's role? What effect do other major institution have on our perception - the institutions of science, education, religion, news organizations, and entertainment media? Where can we turn for objectivity? What internal resources do we have to test for truthfulness?

Participants: Billie Lagerwerff, Carole Abel, Jerry Huml, Jill Hacker, John Tytus, Ken Thompson, U.J. Fields, Tim Grubbs

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: What is Philosophy?. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Human Conflict

2007-04-07T20:55:00.000-04:00

This is the eleventh in our on-going series of philosophical podcasts. The topic is "What is the nature of human conflict?" Where does confict come from? Is conflict inevitable? Is confict always bad? How can conficts be resolved? Is there any connection between internal conficts and external conflicts?

Participants: Carole Abel, David Rood, Galen Chadwick, Jnanam MacIsaac, John Tytus, Ophelia

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Inconvenient Truths. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Children of Our Culture

2007-03-31T18:59:00.000-04:00

This is the tenth in our on-going series of philosophical podcasts. The topic is "How has the cultural experiment of the last three generations affected the children of today?" The grownups of today seem to be still trying to find themselves. Where has that left our children? Are they to find their own way? Have we made a Faustian bargain turning parenting over to TV-baby-sitting, mainstream education, and behavior management by prescription drugs, so grownups can have more time to pursue their careers, their pleasures, and propel the economy? Will the outcome be a brave new cultural paradigm born out of the rebellious subculture of resilient young souls or have we set the course for our own social destruction?

Participants: John Tytus, Ophelia

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Human Conflict. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Legitimate Authority

2007-03-24T15:07:00.000-04:00

This is the ninth in our on-going series of philosophical podcasts. The topic is legitimate authority. What is authority? Is there such a thing as legitimate authority? Where does authority come from? How is it empowered? Does legitimate authority require consent? What constitutes abuse of authority?

Participants: Carole Abel, David Rood, John Tytus, Scott Van Bergen

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Children of Our Culture. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Political Self-Determination

2007-03-17T14:21:00.000-04:00

This is the eighth in our on-going series of philosophical podcasts. The topic is political self-determination. What are the rights and limitations of groups seeking political independence? Should any group be granted the right to form their own state? When is it appropriate for a nation to break up into smaller nations? When is it desirable for smaller nations to join into a greater union of states? How can conflicting ambitions of larger and smaller group identities be reconciled?

Participants: David Rood, Karen Lawmen, Steve Donaldson, Steve Semienick
Guest Moderator: Ken Thompson

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Legitimate Authority. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Understanding Others

2007-03-10T19:56:00.000-05:00

This is the seventh in our on-going series of philosophical podcasts. The topic is how can we truly understand another person.

Participants: Carole Abel, David Rood, Dee Bezoier, John Tytus, Karen Lawmen, Mike Grosso, Scott Van Bergen

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Self-Determination. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Finding Your True Self

2007-03-03T19:49:00.000-05:00

This is the sixth in our on-going series of philosophical podcasts. The topic is how can we find our true self. Do we have multiple selves? How is our public self different from our private self? When are we most ourselves? How does our self change with time and circumstance? Are we the same person we were 10 years ago?

Participants: Ariel MacLean, Carole Abel, John Tytus, Scott Van Bergen, Steve Semienick, Uriah J. Fields

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People. The direct iTunes link is:

phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=214321935

If you don't have iTunes or other podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Understanding Others. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Why Marriage?

2007-02-24T18:47:00.000-05:00

This is the fifth in our on-going series of philosophical podcasts. The topic is the changing attitudes toward marriage. What is the purpose of marriage? How has the role of marriage changed over time? What is its function today? What are the religious, political, and personal implications of marriage?

Participants: Alma Cunningham, Adele Abrahamse, Ken Thompson, Ray Smith, Scott Van Bergen, Zeke Hanchak

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People.

If you don't have podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Finding Your True Self. Stay tuned.

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

How Has Technology Changed Us?

2007-02-17T23:16:00.000-05:00

This is the fourth in our on-going series of philosophical podcasts. The topic is technology and its impact on humanity. How has technology changed us? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Has technology made us stronger or has it created dependency and enabled individual weakness? How has it affected our self identities and our values? Join 10 citizen philosophers and myself in this stimulating and insightful discussion.

Participants: Alma Cunningham, Ariel MacLean, Carole Abel, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Huml, John Tytus, Ken Thompson, Matt Komoroski, Scott Van Bergen, Zeke Hanchak

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People.

If you don't have podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: Why Marriage?

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Is Free Will an Illusion?

2007-02-10T17:42:00.000-05:00

Here is the third in our series of philosophical podcasts.

Participants: Alma Cunningham, Bob Miller, Carole Abel, David Rood, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Huml, John Tytus, Ken Thompson, Mike Grosso, Steve Semienick, Zeke Hanchak

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

If you have iTunes, you can find us listed in the Apple Music Store directory under Podcasts/Society & Culture/Philosophy, or just do a search in iTunes on Thinking Out Loud People.

If you don't have podcast software and just want to download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

In our next podcast we will discuss: How Has Technology Changed Us?

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

What is Evil?

2007-02-03T18:59:00.000-05:00

Here is our second in our series of philosophical podcasts.

Participants: Ariel MacLean, Carole Abel, Jeff Johnson, Jen Benedict, Jerry Huml, Mike Grosso, Scott Van Bergen, Tony Potter, Uriah J. Fields

To subscribe to the podcast with your podcast software (such as iTunes or iPodder) copy and past the following link into your software:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

To just download the mp3 file directly, use this link:

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Podcast Launched: What is Love?

2007-01-28T17:00:00.000-05:00

We did it! We have launched the first episode of Thinking Out Loud - What is Love?

Here is the URL for the RSS feed:

www.citizenphilosopher.com/rss/tol_podcasts.xml

Participants: Adele Abrahamse, Carole Abel, David Rood, Jeff Johnson, Jerry Huml, John Tytus, Ken Thompson, Mike Grosso, Scott Van Bergen, Steve Semienick

Listen to the broadcast (mp3)

You are invited to add your thoughts by clicking on the "comments" link at the lower right hand corner of this post.

Mission Statement

2006-12-15T22:48:00.000-05:00

By engaging in and recording for Internet broadcast, our earnest and civil discourses on philosophical questions, that we find troubling and/or intriguing, we seek to:

1. Expand our wisdom and clarify our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live.

2. Exercise and strengthen our intellectual skills of critical thinking, rational analysis, logical argument, and succinct communication.

3. Stimulate intellectual curiosity and philosophical exploration in ourselves and others.

4. Provide a forum for and to give voice to a diversity of thought and perspectives from a broad spectrum of independent thinkers.

5. Establish connections and form a network among citizen philosophers and thoughtful individuals, unencumbered by geographical location.

6. Enjoy the pleasures of intellectually stimulating and philosophically insightful company.

Philosopher/Fellow-Surfer Musings

2006-10-30T21:19:00.000-05:00

I am in the process of transcribing contents from our previous web site, www.teawithsocrates.com, to our new site, www.citizenphilosopher.com. As you may have noticed, the new format is a blog format, which will make it easier for web surfers, such as yourself, to leave comments and make observations. Philosophy thrives on dialogue, so hopefully this format will stimulate insightful exchanges among thoughtful and caring individuals world-wide, unencumbered by geographical location.

Here are comments emailed to our old address, which I have transcribed as comments to this post.

Internet Philosophy Talk Radio

2006-02-01T18:46:00.000-05:00

I took some time off in the Fall of 2005 to teach a semester of physics at a local private school. During that time the attendance at the Tea With Socrates venue suffered in my absence and eventually dissolved entirely. In its place, I am working on starting an Internet Philosophy Talk Radio show. In order to get quality sound recording, I need to procure some equipment and a suitable meeting space. The public coffee and tea houses have much too much background noise and through traffic. I am working on converting some office space I have as part of my real job (www.iqimaging.com). Initially, the radio show will be for local participants and then podcast to the world for feedback. Eventually, it would be nice to allow for global realtime participation, a la call-in talk show variety. I am not sure how that would work yet - maybe with some sort of Internet Phone technology. We'll keep you posted.

From Coffeehouse to Teahouse

2003-11-15T18:27:00.000-05:00

Socrates Cafe of Charlottesville has been meeting at the Barnes & Noble Cafe since the spring of 2000. The bookstore has been very gracious in providing us with a meeting space at no charge for over 3 years. However, as the demand for meeting space at Barnes & Noble has grown, we have been informed that we must change our format to conform to a monthly book club or relinquish our spot to book clubs patiently waiting in line of a time slot. Understandably, Barnes & Noble must give priority to groups that discuss, and therefore promote sales of, specific books and not just general philosophical topics.

We have decided not to change our format. Therefore, as of November 2003, the Barnes & Noble venue for Socrates Cafe in Charlottesville no longer exists. Instead, we meet at the Twisted Branch Tea Bazaar and we refer to these gatherings as Tea With Socrates. Join us every Wednesday at 7:00.

Past Topics of Cville Socrates Cafe

2003-07-31T18:12:00.000-04:00

Here is a list of topics we discussed at our Socrates Cafe meetings between 2000 and 2003:
(highlights of some topics have been posted previously)

2003
07/30 How can we live fully, knowing death is inevitable?
07/23 What value can we find in silence?
07/16 What is it that compels us to be unique and at the same time just like everyone else?
07/09 What is the authentic self and where does it come from?
07/02 What is authority and why do we resist it?
06/25 What is the role of religion on our culture today?
06/18 Is science the only universal religion or link among us?
06/04 What is the sanctity of life and when, where, and to whom does it apply?
05/28 Is Nature Important?
05/21 What is the relationship between non-conformity and self-actualization?
05/07 Does God really exist?
04/16 Should Nations be held to the same standards of behavior as individuals?
04/09 How can we return to a path toward spiritual wholeness?
04/02 Why is it so hard to be totally honest?
03/26 How does a passionate person guard against crossing over to zealotry?
03/19 Why is there not enough time for the fun stuff?
03/19 (Off-topic topic about "going off topic".)
03/05 What should one do if they discover their government is corrupt and evil?
02/26 Why don't people listen to reason?
02/19 What is the point of humor? Why do we laugh?
02/12 What is the nature of creativity?
02/05 Is democracy truly compatible with freedom?
01/29 What is passion?
01/22 What is the nature of dreams?
01/15 Why is voyeurism so compelling?
01/08 How do you know when your government has gone too far?

2002
12/18 Is polyamory ethical?
12/11 Do we need leaders? What is leadership?
12/04 What is our purpose in life?
11/27 Where do questions come from?
11/20 How do we know what we know? How do we make decisions?
11/13 Can shared spiritual beliefs reduce violence?
10/30 How does language affect thinking?
10/23 How do you create a participatory democracy?
10/9 What is being versus having in a capitalist culture?
9/25 Who owns planet earth?
9/11 What does peace mean to you?
8/28 What is competition versus cooperation?
8/14 What is the balance of good and evil?
7/24 What is a perfect world?
7/10 How do we know ourselves? change ourselves?
6/26 Do good and evil co-exist?
6/12 How do we make choices?
5/22 Is language disintegrating?
4/24 Is religion a source of conflict?
3/27 What is more important than the truth?
3/13 What is imagination versus knowledge?
2/27 What is emotional versus rational?
2/13 On a jury, what are the ethics of lying?
1/23 What is enchantment?
1/9 What is truth?

2001
12/26 Is romantic love possible or even viable?
12/12 Are we prisoners of our emotions?
11/28 What is the root cause of terrorism?
11/14 What is loyalty?
10/24 What is art?
9/26 What is scientific evidence?
9/12 What is appropriate response to violence?
8/22 Is human life sacred?
6/27 Is there reality outside of perception?
6/13 Is America free?
5/23 What is worth it?
5/9 What is karma?
4/25 What are the advantages of philosophy?
4/11 Is there a difference between science and religion?
3/28 Is it honorable to deceive yourself?
3/14 How do we know what is not natural evolution?
2/28 What is home?
2/14 Are moral codes shifting?
1/24 What is the source of power in government?

2000
12/13 Is the idea of utopia useful today?
11/8 What is reality?
10/25 What is morality?
10/11 What is guilt?
9/27 What is power?
9/13 How do we manifest?
8/9 What is love?
7/26 How do we know what we know?
7/12 What is absolute value?
6/28 What is happiness?
5/31 What is fun?
5/17 Is there justice?

What is authority and why do we resist it?

2003-07-03T18:08:00.000-04:00

Highlights from our meeting on 07/02/03

Where does authority come from?
Does authority come from position or title?
What is the relationship between authority and power?
Is authority and power the same thing?
Doesn't authority imply more than just power?
Doesn't authority imply some kind of social structure?
Doesn't authority imply a power to enforce some kind of social order or structure?
When we resist authority, are we resisting the social order?
Isn't there a natural drive or desire to be free from restraint?
Do we resist authority because authority always demands some kind of individual restraint?
Do we resist all authority?
Do we resist more restrictive authority more than less restrictive authority?
Is there such a thing as legitimate authority as opposed to illegitimate authority?
Do we resist illegitimate authority and not resist legitimate authority?
What would characterize legitimate authority?
Is legitimate authority, authority that we willingly submit to for the greater good?
Does legitimate authority also imply competence to perform some public good in the position of authority?
Would an example of legitimate authority be a ship's captain, skilled in navigation and crew management?
Wouldn't we acknowledge the authority of a captain on his own ship?
To be legitimate, doesn't the authority have to be accepted by the group as a whole?
Don't people need to "buy into" the authority, for the authority to be legitimate?
Then couldn't some individuals feel the need to resist authority that the majority sees as legitimate?
Is the legitimacy of authority, then, an individual judgement?
Do I have to recognize someone's authority over me, just because others do?
But doesn't authority, conferred by a group, empower that authority over everyone in the group?
Whether or not you recognize someone's authority over you, don't you still have still have to recognize their power, if they have been empowered by the group?
But what about power that does not come from group consent?
In totalitarian societies, isn't power derived from police or military force rather than democratic consent?
In these societies, aren't the "proper authorities" a source of fear and abuse rather than skilled, competent, public service?
Who wants to be turned into or scrutinized by the "proper authorities" in such societies?
Hasn't the word "authority" itself been corrupted by oppressive political systems?
Isn't it a common propaganda technique to coopt language to put up a false facade of legitimacy?
Doesn't the true meaning of the word "authority" share its roots with "authentic" and authorship"?
Doesn't true authority come from a kind of authenticity of character and authorship in a particular area of competence?
Don't we use the word to refer to an expert in a particular field?
Can't someone be an authority on native American culture or the mating behavior of the pacific salmon, for example?
So shouldn't an authority in government be an expert in governing?
Wouldn't an expert in governing be skilled in persuading citizens to act in the public good?
Wouldn't such a skilled and competent authority recognize, as a wise parent might, the utility of leveraging the innate drive or desire within individuals to live a meaningful life?
Doesn't living a meaningful life inevitably involve some kind of service to others?
Isn't the use of violence or the threat of violence, on the other hand, the hallmark of unskilled or less skilled governing?
Isn't another hallmark of such unskilled governing, tremendous tension between the governing and the governed?
Doesn't this tremendous tension between the governing and the governed make such a government unstable in the long run?
Don't such systems generally reach a breaking point and come to a catastrophic end?
But isn't some tension between individual and authority, even "legitimate" authority, inevitable?
Isn't it right and appropriate for individuals to resist, to a greater or lesser extent, authority that is, to a lesser or greater extent, competent?
Isn't this resistance precisely the kind of feedback authority needs in order to correct itself over the long run?

What is the sanctity of life and when, where, and to whom does it apply?

2003-06-05T18:05:00.000-04:00

Highlights from our meeting on 06/04/03

If we think life is sacred, does that mean we shouldn't eat meat?
Does the sanctity of life apply equally to humans, cows, and carrots?
How does the sanctity of life apply to decisions about abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia?
What are the imperatives that come with a belief in the sanctity of life?
How do we reconcile these imperatives with our gut feelings or emotional attachments?
What if I like the taste of meat and my gut tells me some meat in my diet is good for me?
How would I reconcile that with the belief that all creatures have a right to live?
Isn't our diet largely determined by our culture?
Don't people in many Asian countries commonly eat all sorts of insects?
Don't we in this culture commonly eat bee poop?
What do you mean bee poop?
Isn't honey actually just bee poop?
Don't you mean bee vomit?
Does it really matter?
Don't we eat honey because it tastes good?
Doesn't honey taste good because our bodies are programmed to recognize nutritious food as that which tasted good?
So if meat tastes good, does that mean it is good for us?
Can we still trust our taste buds in this age of heavily processed foods?
But isn't meat a natural part of the diet for many creatures besides man?
Would it be more ethical, more reverent of life, to eat only meat from animals that already died of natural causes?
Is killing necessarily antithetical to the sanctity of life?
Aren't many animals, by nature, prey for predators?
Aren't these animals meant by nature to be hunted, killed, and eaten?
Isn't the more important question, how and why an animal is killed?
Can we make the distinction between animals killed swiftly with little pain or suffering for food, and animals bludgeoned to death for fur coats?
So is "dying well" part of the observance of the sanctity of life?
Would this also apply to euthanasia and the idea of death with dignity?
Isn't living well also a critical part of upholding the sanctity of life?
By "living well" do we mean living in accordance with nature?
Can we say that free-range cattle and chickens live well compared to those that are tightly confined, even though both are raised to be killed for food?
How about the issue of "death with dignity"?
Isn't dying naturally with dignity more consistent with the sanctity of life than remaining alive indefinitely by artificial modern medical technology?
What about the voluntary ending of a life with modern medical technology to alleviate the suffering of the terminally ill?
Is euthanasia consistent with the sanctity of life?
And what about abortion?
How would we apply this "nature is better" approach to the abortion question?
Isn't an artificially induced abortion by means of modern medical technology as unnatural an act as there can be?
Does that mean abortions violate the sanctity of life?
Don't most women, by nature, prefer not to have abortions because of strong maternal instincts?
Isn't it also true that the vast majority of abortions are performed by Mother Nature herself?
Is there such a thing as a reverent, humane, and natural way for man to perform abortions?
Is the imperative of the sanctity of life, then, related more to attitude and quality than to simple end result?
Isn't the how and why more important than the what?
Isn't the question of whether or when to kill or not to kill a separate moral question from how it is done?
Whether or not we kill, isn't it imperative that we handle both life and death with the greatest of reverence and care?

Is Nature Important?

2003-05-29T18:00:00.000-04:00

Highlights from our meeting on 05/28/03

Why do we seem to be acting in a way that is so destructive to nature?
What is nature?
Are national parks, city parks, and gardens, maintained by man, nature?
Isn't nature really just inhospitable wilderness?
But isn't everything, including man, a part of nature?
Shouldn't we distinguish between "Nature" as all inclusive and "nature" as that part of all-inclusive Nature which is independent of man?
Isn't it arrogant of man to assume that he actually has the power to control nature and to destroy nature?
Won't man destroy himself before he can ever succeed at destroying nature?
But isn't it also true that man can destroy large parts of nature before he destroys himself?
Isn't that, in fact, our greatest fear, that we will destroy ourselves by destroying those parts of nature that are vital to our own survival?
Does nature even "care" if we destroy ourselves?
Does nature care if we destroy all life on this planet?
Is there really anything unnatural about a dead planet?
So if it is our own survival that is at stake, why are we acting so recklessly toward nature?
How can we know for sure which parts of nature are vital to our own survival?
Is it a question of long-term versus short-term planning?
Isn't it short-term thinking that is responsible for the rapid depletion of our natural resources?
Is our economy structured in a way that rewards short-term profits over the long-term welfare of the planet?
Isn't a more "native" lifestyle more respectful of nature and therefore more sustainable?
Wasn't that the argument of Rousseau and others of the Romantic Movement who advocated a return to the way of the "Noble Savage"?
Hasn't that philosophy been discredited as being no longer feasible?
Isn't the world population already too large to allocate sufficient land to each individual to live that lifestyle?
Isn't the population growing fastest in the underdeveloped countries?
Aren't these countries already in crisis over insufficient natural resources to sustain the Noble Savage lifestyle?
Hasn't agricultural technology made it possible to feed a much larger world population than was previously possible?
But is this technology sustainable?
Aren't we losing top soil at an alarming rate with our modern agricultural techniques?
Aren't we also becoming more and more dependent on chemical fertilizers and pesticides?
Don't all these chemicals have long-term destructive consequences on our environment?
Isn't our industrial pollution destroying whole fishing industries in some locations?
Can newer and newer technology compensate for the destruction it itself has caused?
Is the problem in the technology or in the culture?
Isn't the problem that our culture rewards short-term thinking?
Is the reign of the patriarchal power structure to blame for emphasizing acting on the environment as opposed to relating to it?
Wouldn't a feminist, matriarchal system be better at relating to Mother Nature?
But don't we need both the masculine and the feminine?
Isn't either one, in isolation from the other, destructive to both?
Don't we want and need the best of both the masculine and the feminine?
Isn't this best achieved by the union and integration of the masculine and the feminine?
Isn't vertical integration also essential to any new nature-friendly culture?
Wouldn't such an "integral world-view" emphasize stewardship rather than exploitation?
What does it mean to have an "integral world-view"?
Doesn't it mean recognizing that everything is inter-related and inter-dependent?
Is that what some call the "great web of life"?
Does that put humans on the same level as other animals?
Doesn't man occupy a special position in relation to the rest of nature?
Isn't man in a position above other animals, and other animals above plants?
Isn't there a special responsibility that goes with that special position?
Isn't that responsibility a kind of stewardship?
Doesn't that kind of stewardship include a responsibility to treat other animals humanely?
So does that then mean that the web has a hierarchical structure?
As we become more conscious, don't we also become more powerful and more responsible?
Are hierarchies necessarily bad?
Wouldn't an enlightened, integral hierarchy bind power with responsibility and willing stewardship?
Wouldn't such willing stewardship, not only protect those parts of nature vital to our own survival but also promote the mindful, humane, treatment of all living things for its own sake?
Wouldn't such a culture, for instance, seek a humane alternative to the "concentration camp" method of raising cows and chickens used by agribusiness today?
But where does our culture come from?
Does it come from Hollywood?
Does it come from Madison Avenue?
Didn't it use to come from parents?
Is there a long-term process currently at work that will change our culture?
Isn't culture always changing?
What determines where culture will go in the long-term?
What will our culture look like 30 years from now?
Isn't it in large part determined by who teaches our children and what they teach them?
Won't those who plan for the long-term be more influential in the long-term, than those who only plan for the short-term?
Does that mean that a minority of long-term thinkers can steer the course of long-term change, despite the sea of short-term thinkers?
For that to be true, isn't it also necessary that the long-term thinkers act in synchrony and not in isolation?
Is it possible that such a critical mass of mindfully aware individuals acting in synchrony could represent the beginning of a collective global consciousness?

What is the relationship between non-conformity and self-actualization?

2003-05-22T17:57:00.000-04:00

Highlights from our meeting on 05/21/03

Can you be self-actualizing if you are a conformist?
What does it mean to be a conformist?
Doesn't it mean that you do what everyone else does?
What does self-actualizing mean?
Doesn't that mean becoming your unique self?
Is your unique self something you were born with?
Is a self-actualized person, someone who has manifested his unique self?
Does that mean that a self-actualized person has reached his end state of being?
Can animals be self-actualizing?
Aren't animals already at their end state of being?
Does that mean that animals are already self-actualized?
Doesn't self-actualizing mean more that just reaching the limit of your conscious development?
Can't it be said that there are 4 stages in man's conscious development?
Aren't these stages characterized by the perspectives of (a) things happen to me, (b) things happen by me, (c) things happen through me, and (d) things happen as me?
Does self-actualized then mean having reached the stage where "things happen as me"?
What is the difference between self-actualized and enlightened?
Doesn't self-actualized imply maximizing your own unique and separate self, or "being all you can be"?
Doesn't enlightenment imply transcending the ego or separate self so that one is no longer operating as a separate self?
Are either of these end-points achievable?
Isn't there always further to go?
Isn't enlightenment and self-actualization, like development, a process rather than an end-point?
So does that mean one can be self-actualizing, without being self-actualized?
Is one always self-actualizing, or is this a process which only starts after more basic processes have finished?
Would one of the more basic processes be the process of conforming?
Does conforming meet a basic need for having a feeling of belonging?
Can one belong to a community or subculture without conforming?
Can a rebel be a conformist?
Is a rebel, who is in a subculture of rebels, a conformist or non-conformist?
What role does motive play in being a conformist?
By conformist, don't we mean someone who intentionally adjusts his behavior to be like everyone else?
Isn't intent the distinguishing component?
So if one acts like everyone else by accident, does that mean he is not a conformist?
Who is everyone else?
Can't a conformist in one setting be a non-conformist in another?
Couldn't a Buddhist be a non-conformist in the general population and a conformist in a Buddhist monastery?
If the Buddhist's motivation is not driven by the desire to be the same, but rather by higher aspirations, isn't he still a non-conformist even in the monastery?
Isn't it true that we can be conformists in some ways while simultaneously being non-conformists in other ways?
Doesn't being a conformist beg the question, conforming to what?
Couldn't one intentionally conform to some standards or conventions, such as traffic laws, while not conforming to others, such as fashion trends?
Couldn't one also conform or not conform to values of one's parents or even your own past values?
Isn't some conformity necessary to solve problems on a group or community level?
Isn't that what moral codes represent?
What about problems where the good of the individual conflicts with the good of the group?
Doesn't over-fishing hurt all fisherman collectively, while individual restraint hurts the individual fisherman?
Can't a higher authority, such as the federal government, impose conformity to solve such a problem?
But what if there is no higher authority?
Isn't the European Union an attempt to create a higher authority to conform to in order to solve problems that are not solvable by individual countries acting by themselves?
Isn't that also what the individual states did in this country to form the United States?
Isn't that the goal of the United Nations?
Is some form of conformity, then, a necessary foundation for creating a peaceful community of nations or individuals?
Is a peaceful community a prerequisite for individual self-actualization?
Can someone be self-actualizing in a non-free, totalitarian environment?
How about in a concentration camp?
Didn't Viktor Frankl write about exactly that in his book, Man's Search For Meaning?
Wasn't he self-actualizing where the only freedom remaining was the freedom to choose one's attitude?

Does God really exist?

2003-05-08T17:52:00.000-04:00

Highlights from our meeting on 05/07/03

Isn't God just a story that we have been told for so long that we simply accept it as true?
Is God Love?
Is God is just energy?
Don't sudden unexplained jumps in evolution, such as flying, feathered dinosaurs, suggest the existence of God?
Is God the answer we use to answer the questions to which we have no other answer?
Does God, then, represent everything that is mysterious in out lives?
But what about direct personal experience?
Don't many people report having direct personal experiences which seem to be of a divine nature?
Could they just be due to brain chemistry anomalies?
Don't certain conditions or situations seem to promote the likelihood of having such experiences?
Don't near death experiences seem to bring about such phenomenon?
Can't some psychotropic drugs also induce such experiences?
Does the demonstrable involvement of brain chemistry activity invalidate the interpretation that these are divine experiences?
Don't all human experiences involve some sort of brain chemistry activity?
Haven't researchers demonstrated the ability to invoke all sorts of subjective experiences by stimulating various parts of the brain?
Don't psychotic individuals also seem to have very convincing hallucinations that can be traced to internal brain chemistry dysfunction?
So what is the difference between the experience of seeing an on-coming truck and the hallucination of an on-coming truck?
What is the difference between the experience of the divine and the hallucination of the experience of the divine?
Won't the brain chemistry activity be very similar?
Isn't the difference in the source of the stimulation?
In the case of hallucinations, isn't the source some internal dysfunction or short circuit?
In the other case, isn't the source from somewhere other than the individual himself?
Isn't another difference the eventual outcome or effect of the experience?
Isn't it true that the hallucination of a truck can frighten you, but the actual truck can flatten you?
Don't scientists emphasize the need for repeatability and independent verification of empirical experience to determine its validity?
Aren't there specific spiritual practices which, when followed diligently over a long period of time, dependably lead to certain experiences of a consciousness greater than ones own?
Is science even relevant in the search for God?
Can something that is inherently beyond the rational mind be comprehended by the rational mind?
As long as we are stuck in our rational minds, aren't we like little mice scurrying about in our little world with no awareness of the perspective of the eagle?
Don't the mystics say that in the higher state of consciousness, all becomes one and time ceases to exist?
So does that mean that if I go into a higher state of consciousness and become one with the truck, I won't get flattened?
Don't we need a way to reconcile great spiritual truths with plain common sense?
Doesn't there need to be some vertical integration between the world of the eagle and the world of the mouse?
Well, if the eagle wants to consume the mouse, doesn't it have to descend into the world of the mouse?
Can the eagle, then, operate in both worlds?
How can a mouse or man experience the higher world?
Is it a higher world, or simply this world properly seen?
Where does the wave need to look to experience the ocean?
Waves appear to be separate, but isn't it true that, when properly seen, they are no longer separate, but rather undulating manifestations of one great ocean?
Is God the great wholeness, of which we, and everything else in the universe, are but fleeting, undulating manifestations?
Is this wholeness, alive and conscious?
Does it have a will?
Is it still evolving?
Don't all living things have a need to grow?
Is there anything living that is not changing?
If God or the Universe is alive, isn't it also changing and growing?
Is God, then, a work in progress, changing and growing as we and everything else in the Universe are changing and growing?

Should Nations be held to the same standards of behavior as individuals?

2003-04-17T17:48:00.000-04:00

Highlights from our meeting on 04/16/03

Since it is the function of nations to serve the interests of its citizens, shouldn't nations be held to a higher standard of behavior?
If an individual steals from another individual, it hurts only that one individual.
If a nation, or its government, steals from its citizens, it hurts all the citizens.
Shouldn't the punishment of those responsible for crimes on such a scale be on the same order of magnitude?
But is it true that the function of nations is to serve the interests of its citizens?
Isn't the first and primary function of any living entity to protect itself and ensure its own survival?
Self-preservation seems to be a fundamental law of nature.
But are nations natural, living entities, or are they inventions of man?
Isn't man himself a product of nature, and so also everything made by man?
Then, is there anything that is not natural?
If there is nothing that is not natural, doesn't "natural" lose all meaning?
Not necessarily. "Natural" just becomes synonymous with "Universal".
Natural Law then becomes Universal Law, applying to man equally as to the rest of nature.
Perhaps we should distinguish between "Natural" with a capital "N", meaning all of Nature, including man, and "natural" with a small "n", referring to that part of Nature that is independent of man.
In that sense, nations are a product of Nature working through man.
So are there Natural Laws that govern the behavior of individuals and the behavior of nations?
Where do the standards of behavior for individuals come from?
Aren't the standards of behavior for individuals codified in the laws of the nation?
But what decides what standards become the law?
Isn't the law of a nation simply a reflection of the culturally acceptable standards of behavior, that is, codified customs?
So where do customs come from?
Where does culture come from?
Some standards of behavior are derived from religious customs.
A very old and common standard for individual behavior is "the golden rule".
Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
If two individuals of unequal power have a dispute, why would the more powerful one submit to such a standard?
If the individuals lived in a nation, there would be a higher authority more powerful than either individual.
Does that mean standards of behavior for individual needs a higher power to be enforced?
Is that why nations are granted special permission to commit or threaten to commit acts of violence and coercion which are not granted to individuals?
Does that mean, for nations to adhere to a standard of behavior, a force more powerful than nations needs to wield the threat of violence and annihilation over them?

How can we return to a path toward spiritual wholeness?

2003-04-10T17:44:00.000-04:00

Highlights from our meeting on 04/09/03

It seems we have moved so far in the direction of material priorities we have lost touch with our spiritual priorities.
But aren't we already whole just the way we are?
Who's to say we are not already whole?
Isn't it judgmental to say we are not already whole?
Isn't it equally judgmental to say it is judgmental to say we are not already whole?
To say we are all already whole is also a judgement.
It would seem that judgement is unavoidable.
Without judgement there can be no distinctions.
Without judgement one cannot distinguish between being whole and not being whole.
Without the distinction between "whole" and "not whole" the word "whole" loses all meaning.
Doesn't wholeness refer to a collection of parts that add up to more than the sum of the parts?
A set of jigsaw puzzle pieces that have been assembled, collectively posses a quality, an image, not present in a pile of unassembled puzzle pieces.
Yeah, and if you feed me through a giant meat grinder, you would still have all my parts, but I would strongly argue that there is something, some quality, that was there before that is not there afterwards.
Still, some would argue that the whole by necessity still exists in the collection of the parts, even unassembled.
Isn't that mistaking potential for actual?
Some potentials might not ever be reached.
If the pile of puzzle pieces were burned before they were assembled, their potential would not be realized.
But the whole image must have existed before the puzzle was cut up into pieces in the first place.
Likewise, the whole organism existed before being ground into parts in the meat grinder example.
Are there any examples of unassembled parts existing before the greater whole?
Yes, a simple iron bar is composed of many molecules with magnetic polarities oriented in random directions.
Such an iron bar exhibits no net magnetic polarity, because the individual polarities cancel each other out.
Rubbing the iron bar with a permanent magnetic will cause the molecules to align in such a way that the magnetic polarities line up.
The "magnetized" bar now exhibits a overall quality that it previously did not process.
Another, simpler example would be a pile of bricks that later become a building.
The difference between the pile of bricks and the building is the architectural blueprint.
The difference between before and after, then, is information.
Similarly, the difference between a clump of embryonic cells and a complex human being is the architectural information coded in our DNA.
Perhaps becoming whole, then, is a organic process whereby a pile of parts evolves or develops into a complex of parts in which qualities emerge or manifest that were not there before.
Perhaps the pile of parts does represent a kind of whole, but a different whole from the integrated whole that manifests over time.
It is the quality emerging which may be incomplete and longing for wholeness, like a partially assembled jigsaw puzzle picture longing for completeness.
So how does that relate to our spiritual wholeness?
What do we mean when we say we are not spiritually whole?
Perhaps it means being split or separated from some parts of ourselves.
We tend to disown parts of ourselves we don't like or think are not acceptable.
Doesn't Jung call these disowned parts of ourselves, our shadow?
So becoming whole might mean reconnecting with our shadow.
Some men are working on reconnecting with their feminine side.
One can also work on moving from being too much "in the head" to being more "in the heart".
But in moving from one part to another, aren't you still maintaining a split?
If one moves from valuing the head over the heart to valuing the heart over the head, is that moving to wholeness?
If one values one part over another, doesn't that perpetuate the split?
Perhaps becoming whole means finding a balance of all your parts so that all parts are equally valued.
To find a balance among all your parts, you must first recognize all your parts.
How can you see your blind spots?
Shifting one's focus away from material priorities might help.
We live in a materialistic culture.
Our culture has it's own disowned parts, a collective shadow.
A large portion of our collective shadow is housed in our prisons.
How does living in a schizophrenic culture affect an individuals path toward wholeness?
Being part of a greater whole often means specializing and integrating.
In our culture the trend is toward more and more specialization and interdependence.
This is like the process of early embryonic cells developing into more and more specialized cells which integrate into a complex human organism.
Is this pressure to specialize robbing us of our individual wholeness?
If we abdicate or disown responsibility outside our area of expertise, such as foreign affairs or tax reform, aren't we allowing a collective power act on our behalf in these areas, for better or for worse?
If we harbor negative feelings or intentions in the disowned areas, consciously or unconsciously, won't the collective power act on our behalf in a negative manner?
So connecting with and resolving in a positive manner our own individual split with our individual shadows might be the remedy for stopping the destructive behavior of the collective power.

Why is it so hard to be totally honest?

2003-04-03T17:40:00.000-05:00

Highlights from our meeting on 04/02/03

Someone wrote a book suggesting that if everyone were totally honest all the time, it would solve many of the world's problems.
The premise is that not being totally honest causes isolation and alienation in relationships.
Does that mean that if you think someone has big ears, you should just say so?
Not speaking the truth can perpetuate some problems.
What is the relationship between truth and honesty?
Isn't honesty just your particular truth as you see it in the moment?
If you believe what you are saying in the moment, then you are being honest, even if you later decide that you were mistaken in your belief.
Dishonesty then involves the intent to deceive.
Is it always wrong to be dishonest?
Can one be dishonest for compassionate reasons?
A doctor might lie to his patient about the seriousness of her condition out of concern that the truth might cause live-threatening depression.
Does honesty require courage?
In the story "The Emperor's New Clothes" it was a child that was able to be totally honest.
Was that courage or naivete on the part of the child?
Is the inclination or ability to not being totally honest something we learn as we grow up?
Does this "skill" in hiding our truth serve a useful purpose?
Is this ability uniquely human?
It has been reported that Koko, the gorilla who was taught sign language, has been caught lying on occasion.
Perhaps Koko learned to lie from his human teachers.
Is lying something that was introduced to the world with the introduction of language?
Why would lying become wide spread unless there were some rewards in lying?
What are the rewards of lying?
In our culture, it seems that material success is in part tied to the willingness to be dishonest, or at least, to not being totally honest.
It is an almost universal practice to price items as "something 99" or "something 95" to make them seems less expensive than they really are.
If car dealers and others would disclose their true costs and profit margins, it would be easier for customers to evaluate if they were getting a fair deal.
Competition may be a primary motivation for not being totally honest.
If I were to practice full disclosure, it would put me at a competitive disadvantage with my competitors.
An extreme example of this would be lying to a mortal enemy, as in the time of war.
This would support the notion that dishonesty creates and maintains distance and alienation in a relationship.
Hiding the truth, then, can be useful in maintaining distance or boundaries in cases where such separation might have survival value.
So it seems, honesty can promote and strengthen desired relationships and dishonesty can protect against dangerous relationships.
But isn't dishonesty, in part, also the cause of dangerous relationships?
Also, don't we sometimes use dishonesty to initiate desired relationships?
If we want to be "in with the in-crowd", don't we often pretend to be what we are not?
Isn't personality just a false front that hides our true essence?
In some social environments, isn't it honesty rather than dishonesty that will cause alienation?
Announcing to a dogmatic minister in church full of intolerant believers that you think his concept of God is a bunch of hooey, will cause you to become alienated very quickly.
But in this example, aren't you already feeling isolated inside from this group, whether or not you express your truth out loud?
Could you ever truly feel accepted in a group unless you could be openly honest about who you are, how you feel, and what you think?
We can't always choose our environment.
It would seem that in some environments, if you are the only one who is totally honest, you will be eaten alive.
Are some environments more conducive to total honesty than others?
Environments that are not judgmental seem to be more conducive to total honesty.
Growing up in a dysfunctional family can teach a child the value of hiding feelings and thoughts.
Being dependent on an environment that is judgmental puts the child in a bind.
If love is conditional, then the child must compromise honesty in order to not lose love.
Unconditional love, then, might be a prerequisite for total honesty.
Some individuals have a kind of mental disorder that renders them incapable of practicing honesty.
Are these the individuals we call "pathological liars"?
Perhaps there is a certain fraction of the population that has such a medical condition, for whom even the most loving environment could not have made a difference.
Perhaps the rest of us can find hope in learning to recognize and adopting more and more loving/healthy environments for ourselves.
Don't we have a bit of a "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" problem here?
How do these "honesty-ready" environments come into being?
In order to have safe, honesty-ready environments, don't some individuals have to practice bold honesty even in the face of adversity?

How does a passionate person guard against crossing over to zealotry?

2003-03-27T17:32:00.000-05:00

Highlights from our meeting on 03/26/03

Is zealotry necessarily bad?
Zealotry tends to be seen as a negative thing.
Zealotry implies closed-mindedness.
Is zealotry, then, the enemy of truth?
Truth is difficult to define.
Some say there is no absolute truth, only relative truth.
Isn't it a contradiction to state as an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth?
Being closed-minded does not necessarily mean you are wrong.
Can you be a zealot for a good cause, such as preserving the environment?
An important characteristic of a zealot is the distinction between self and others.
The zealot insists that self is right and others are wrong.
Does zealotry then mean defining others as the enemy?
Were Japanese Kamikaze pilots zealots?
Doesn't zealotry imply fanatical pursuit of a cause greater than the self?
Is zealotry, then, a social or cultural phenomenon?
Is passion, by contrast, more of an individual phenomenon?
An artist can passionate about his art or a teacher passionate about his subject without being zealots.
Is brainwashing involved with becoming a zealot?
Isn't all socialization, just brainwashing by another name?
It seems brainwashing differs from socialization in that brainwashing implies malicious intent.
Perhaps intent is a useful distinction between zealotry and passion?
Perhaps to guard against zealotry one must examine one's intent toward the other.
If one's intent comes from a position of compassion for the other, then passion can be a positive force.
A teacher who cares about his students and is passionate about his subject can use the power of passion to inspire his students.
One might cross the line if one becomes willing to sacrifice the well-being of the other for the sake of one's cause.
If the zealot sees the other as an enemy or threat, then fear might be part of the motivation.
So to check one's motives, one might ask, am I acting out of love and compassion or out of fear and defensiveness.
But how can you distinguish between compassion and self-serving behavior masquerading as compassion?
What if zealot missionaries "brainwash" native people into adopting a happy but unquestioned way of life? Is that compassion?
Is happiness the best measure of compassionate action?
Compassionate action ought to enhance life.
What does it mean to be truly alive?
True compassion seems to have associated with it a kind of humility.
There but for the grace of God (or circumstance) go I.
Scott Peck said that we will never have the luxury of knowing, in the moment, whether we are making the right decision.
However, if our will is steadfastly to the good, he said, in the long run, we will do more good than harm.
Furthermore, he points out that some of the greatest evil that has been inflicted on the world has been committed by individuals who were absolutely certain that their cause was good.
To guard against becoming a zealot then, perhaps one needs to beware of absolute certainty.
Being absolutely certain can be a red flag, a kind of alarm, that it may be time for some serious self-examination.

Rights, Responsibilities, Rules, and Rewards

2003-03-21T16:46:00.000-05:00

Rights, Responsibilities, Rules, and Rewards
(suggested in response to our "off-topic" discussion on 3/19/03.)

"Socrates" Bill of Rights
1. You have the right to participate.
2. You have the right to be heard.
3. You have the right to remain silent.
4. You have the right to be treated with respect.
5. You have the right to express contrary opinions.
6. You have the right to be free from intimidation and personal attack.
7. You have the right to change your mind.
8. You have the right to say "I don't know".
9. You have the right to speak up in defense of your rights.
10. You have the right to question anything (including these rights).

"Socrates" Bill of Responsibilities
1. You have a responsibility to respect and defend the rights of others.
2. You have a responsibility to encourage the participation of others.
3. You have a responsibility to listen without interrupting or engaging in side conversations.
4. You have a responsibility to wait your turn before speaking.
5. You have a responsibility to speak loud and clear so others can hear.
6. You have a responsibility to limit your turn to a reasonable length.
7. You have a responsibility to stay on topic.
8. You have a responsibility to avoid personal attacks, criticism, and name-calling.
9. You have a responsibility to keep a sense of humor.
10. You have a responsibility to help others live up to their responsibilities.

Rules of Engagement
1. Wait to be called on before speaking.
2. Yield to the moderator after speaking.
3. Address the whole group when speaking.
4. Speak loud and clear so others can hear.
5. Stay on topic.
6. Refrain from one-on-one debates.
7. Refrain from interrupting or engaging in side conversations.
8. Refrain from personal attack, criticism, and name-calling.
9. Refrain from using hostile tone of voice or intimidating body language.
10. Refrain from absolute statements and grand generalizations.

Rewards of Involvement
1. You stand to gain increased understanding and insight.
2. You stand to gain intellectual stimulation.
3. You stand to gain new perspectives.
4. You stand to gain the opportunity to be heard.
5. You stand to gain the opportunity influence others.
6. You stand to gain motivation to organize your thoughts.
7. You stand to gain practice in articulating your ideas.
8. You stand to gain feedback for your thoughts and feelings.
9. You stand to gain the experience of group thinking.
10. You stand to gain the fellowship of others.

Why is there not enough time for the fun stuff?

2003-03-20T17:31:00.000-05:00

Highlights from our meeting on 03/19/03

It seems we spend most of our time at work.
The things we really enjoy doing are relegated to the leftover time.
It is not only the amount of time but the quality of the time that is the problem.
By the end of the day, our best time has been spent and our energy level is low.
Some individuals have found a way to combine work and pleasure.
This may require going against what is expected of us and live a less material lifestyle.
In some cultures and "primitive" societies some individuals are allowed to do nothing, while others do the work that needs to be done, without complaint.
Would that really work in our culture?
Wouldn't everyone choose not to work?
If everyone did only what they enjoyed, would everything that needs to get done, get done?
Who enjoys laying hot asphalt in the summer time to repave roads in dire need of repair?
But a certain number of individuals do pursue their pleasure in their work.
Shouldn't we define our terms?
Shouldn't we distinguish between fun, amusement, pleasure, leisure, distraction, recreation, artful creation, etc?
What some people call fun is just passive amusement.
Watching sports on TV is different from actually playing sports for fun.
Does our tendency toward passive use of our free time come from the fact that our best energy is used up at work?
Is it part of the agenda of "the system" to keep people passive?
Doesn't one have the choice to buy into the system or not?
Some people have found ways to drop out of the system and become relatively self-sufficient.
If one has enough land, one can live off of the land.
Is there enough land in the world for everyone to live this way?
There is a lot of land out west that is not being used.
Is that land really fertile?
Is there enough water?
Isn't water more scarce than land?
There is a limit to the carrying capacity of any environment.
As population grows, sooner or later, these limits are challenged.
Technology and social structure can extend and has extended the carrying capacity of our environment.
For many this means "working for the man".
What choice do we have?
We always have the choice of attitude.
Victor Frankl, a survivor of the holocaust, made this point in his book, Man's Search for Meaning.
Does this mean we can be happy in most any situation?
If you don't like your work, is it enough to say "change your attitude"?
What if you were a slave in the old south?
Isn't there a legitimate distinction between oppressive work and meaningful work?
The Buddha referred to this as "right livelihood".
In situations that can't be changed, having the right attitude can help you find meaning in the face of dire circumstance.
In situations that can be changed and need to be changed, having the right attitude can help you make that change.
Without the right attitude, you won't be happy no matter what the circumstance.
Some say the attitude most necessary for happiness is the attitude of gratitude.

Off-topic topic about "going off topic"

2003-03-20T17:23:00.000-05:00

Tangent highlights from our meeting on 03/19/03

Shouldn't the moderator/chairperson/facilitator keep us on topic?
Moderators have different styles.
Shouldn't we follow the same style as Christopher Phillips, originator of the Socrates Cafe concept?
Chris would be the first to argue that there is no one correct style or format.
What set of rules and procedures does this group wish to follow?
What is the will of this group?
Can a group have a will?
What set of procedures do we want to follow?
How should they be enforced?
What are the rights and responsibilities of the members of this group?
How do we decide these questions?
How is this group to govern itself?
Could we make that the main topic of our next meeting?
It could be a kind of Constitutional Convention for our Socrates Group.
We are a living experiment in spontaneous government formation.
Perhaps this is the same process Scott Peck called "community formation" in his book The Different Drum.
Let's hope we get it right.
Let's watch this process with mindful awareness.
Let's get back to our main topic this evening.

What should one do if one discovers one's government is corrupt and evil?

2003-03-06T17:10:00.000-05:00

Highlights from our meeting on 03/05/03

Is that where we are in this country?
In Hitler's Germany the transformation to evil was so subtle at first that by the time people realized how serious things were, it was already dangerous to speak out and take action.
Hitler was democratically elected and in the beginning did much good for the Germans.
It seems that integrity in government in this country has been in decline for decades.
Jimmy Carter seems to be the only exception to what seems to be an accelerating decline in the quality and character of our political leaders.
Nixon was brought down in large part by the courageous journalism of Woodward and Bernstein.
The press today seems to be part of the same big money, vested interest, power structure that is ruining this country.
It seems we can no longer rely on our own press for accurate news coverage.
Foreign news services give a much different picture of events than our own press.
It would be nice if we had better access to foreign news services.
We can get foreign news over the Internet.
But what do you do if you are one of the few who does see what is happening?
Trying to work through your political representatives may not do much good if they are all part of the power structure vested in the status quo.
Where does the power structure get its power?
We give the power structure its power in a Faustian bargain.
"We will give you our money and our permission to act on our behalf, if you take care of our dirty work."
In exchange we don't need to worry about our responsibility to our fellow man/woman, because government will take care of that.
Government replaces individual compassion and frees us to pursue individual greed without guilt.
We empower government through the money we give it.
The same is true for large corporations.
The most powerful vote, the one that carries the most weight, is the vote of the dollar.
You could protest poor press coverage by cancelling your newspaper subscription.
If everyone agreed not to buy a new car in a given year, the big auto makers would really feel it and start paying attention.
To be effective, boycotts need to be organized and synchronized.
If you could coordinate a mass action to withhold paying income tax, the federal government would collapse.
Is total collapse the best goal?
Total collapse might cause much suffering among innocent citizens.
Ganhdi is a good model of effective use of mass participation.
How do you organize a mass action if the majority is ill informed?
Most people are already suffering from "information overload".
Actually it might be more accurate to say "misinformation overload".
There seems to be a time and credibility gap. Most people don't have the time to check the validity of all sources and therefore are left not knowing what to believe.
More powerful than facts, figures, and "hard news", is the power of stories to reach the general public.
The arts and entertainment media are ways to provide information to the public.
A musical parody about President Bush and Saddam Hussein is currently playing to sell-out crowds in London.
Actual stories are also powerful, such as the story of the young man who was forced by security guards to leave a shopping mall because he was wearing a T-shirt that said "Give Peace a Chance".
Middle America is sometimes slow to react, but when it does, it is a powerful force, like a sleeping giant.
Body bags coming home could be another kind of story that could wake up the sleeping giant.
Events happen faster and faster as history progresses.
Is there enough time for the sleeping giant to wake up before it is too late?
Is history inevitable?
Perhaps now is the time to start planning for the aftermath of the collapse of western civilization.
It may not be possible to repair or dismantle the present system by intent.
A system lacking integrity will have internal tension and in-fighting that weakens it.
The present system may come to an end on its own accord.
Like a car running out of gas.
Like a natural death at the end of a life span.
What happens after the collapse may depend on those with enough foresight to plan for it.
Remembering that we are spiritual beings can provide peace of mind when dealing with the injustices of the material world.
An alternative form of compassionate self-governing based on a higher power/authority has yet to be invented.
Could such an alternative power structure, if implemented soon enough, prevent a total collapse of our current way of life?
A total collapse would mean starting over from scratch.
Nature is indifferent.

Why don't people listen to reason?

2003-02-27T17:05:00.000-05:00

Highlights from our meeting on 02/26/03

We live in a sound byte culture.
We seem to be more interested in expressing our own views than in listening to others.
Listening seems to be a lost art.
Bumper sticks substitute for public debate.
Intensity and commitment seems to have replaced logic and reason as the preferred means to advance a particular position.
The power of the personality of the speaker seems to be a very significant factor.
Charismatic leaders such as Hitler appeal to emotion rather than to reason to garner support.
Does emotion always win over reason?
Sometimes people overrule their emotions in favor of reason only to discover later that their intuition was right. This might occur in relation to whether or not to trust a new business partner, for instance.
The reverse is also sometimes true. Compulsive gamblers regularly go with their intuition, ignoring the odds as calculated by reason, only to lose repeatedly to the point of financial ruin.
Reason, well employed, has an advantage over emotion in that reason can acknowledge and factor into its calculations what wisdom it may find in emotional reactions.
The reverse is not true. Emotional reactions, while they may contain some wisdom, do not engage logic and reason before expressing its position.
Emotional wisdom does grow with life experience.
Still, why is the appeal to reason so scarce?
If emotional needs are not being met, people have little patience with cold logic and reason.
Perhaps to be persuasive one needs to appeal to both emotion and to reason.
Perhaps there has been a cultural backlash against detached logic and reason. An era of smug intellectuals debating abstract ideas in ivory towers with little interest in or actual knowledge of the real problems of ordinary people might have caused such a backlash.
Perhaps the baby was thrown out with the bath water.
The danger of abandoning reason entirely, is that it leaves one open to abuse by forces that might incite passions for cynical or sinister purposes.
Perhaps it is compassion, rather than just passion, that needs to be married to reason in order to make reason both effective and meaningful. Compassion ensures that the listener's emotional needs are acknowledged and addressed before one rushes down the path of logic and reason in pursuit of common understanding.

Background/History

2003-01-01T15:33:00.000-05:00

In 1996 a disgruntled journalist by the name of Christopher Phillips started organizing gatherings of individuals from the general public in Montclair, NJ, to examine, through the process of inquiry, topics of common philosophical interest. These gatherings were typically held in coffee houses and became known as Socrates Cafes. Since 1996, Chris has been responsible, directly or indirectly, for the creation of over 100 Socrates Cafes in various parts of the continent. He recounts the story about how he came to find his calling as a modern day Johnny Appleseed of Philosophy in his book, Socrates Cafe, A Fresh Taste of Philosophy. His goal, he says, is "to give philosophy back to the people" and "to reach out to anyone and everyone to engage in a common quest to gain a better understanding of ourselves and the human nature".

In the spring of 2000, Chris Phillips came to Charlottesville for a presentation and book signing at Barnes & Noble Bookstore. In attendance were Steve Semienick and Ken Thompson. Steve had participated in the original Socrates Cafe in Montclair and had since moved to Charlottesville. Ken had heard about the book signing event and was simply curious about the Socrates Cafe concept. Although Steve and Ken had not known each other beforehand, they were both motivated to start an on-going Socrates Cafe in Charlottesville and joined forces to make it happen. The Socrates Cafe at Barnes & Noble in Charlottesville has been meeting every 2nd and 4th Wednesday ever since.

I started attending the Socrates Cafe at Barnes & Noble in the spring of 2002. Steve and Ken were alternating as moderator and asked if anyone else in the group would like to join them in this capacity. I volunteered and enjoyed moderating so much, I decided to start another group. With the support and encouragement of Ken and Steve, I searched for another location where we could meet on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays. A new teahouse, The Twisted Branch Tea Bazaar, had just opened on the historic downtown mall and it seem to me to have just the right ambiance. Since "Socrates Cafe" didn't seem like an appropriate name for a group meeting in a teahouse, I decided to call the new group "Tea With Socrates". The first Tea With Socrates gathering was held on October 30, 2002.

If you have not yet had the opportunity to participate in a Socrates Cafe style gathering, please join us at one these two locations. You can always find either Steve Semienick or Ken Thompson moderating on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays at Barnes & Noble, and myself moderating on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays at the Twisted Branch. I think you will find the experience most stimulating.

Steve Donaldson,
webmaster/moderator