Category Archives: Philosophy in Paradise

Creativity Workshop

What is creativity?

 

 

Who is the creative person?

A creative person chooses their own goals and how they will achieve them. The creative person is expressive and curious, often both introverted and extroverted, and is driven by an urge to create and produce things.

 What is the creative process?

The creative process is untidy and messy, undisciplined and unruly. It is lateral, playful, imaginative, unconscious, childlike.

 What are the techniques of creativity?

The creative person practices the techniques of creativity. They are not afraid to learn to be more creative. In fact, they welcome the opportunity because they know that they don’t know everything.

 How do I test my creativity?

The creative person is not afraid to test their creativity. Give me a puzzle, they say, and I will try to resolve it. And if I can’t, then I will learn something from it.

 What is the place of creativity in future employment?

The creative person will be a worker in demand in the future. They will have the creative skills that cannot be easily replaced by computer automation.

 

 What is this workshop about?

This workshop will be a discovery learning experience which will examine six knowledge areas: What is creativity? What techniques increase creativity? What is the creative process? What is the creative personality? How can I test my creativity? What is the relationship between creativity, technology, and the future of work?

 

Saturday 8th April 2-5pm

Robina Community Centre

 

Cost $30 Bookings through markweblin@gmail.com

Creativity and the Future of Work

 

 

“40% of the Australian workforce face the high probability of being replaced by computers in the next ten to fifteen years.”                  (2015 CEDA report)

“Skills associated with creativity are not only important for finding novel and innovative solutions, they are also skills that are unlikely to be made redundant by disruptive technology such as automation.”                                    (2016 PC report)

“Economists have predicted that, over the next two decades, the jobs most unlikely to be automated are those that involve creative intelligence, social intelligence and problem solving.” (2015 FYA report)

 

Technology has been radically changing the nature of work over the past century and will
continue to do so into the future. A series of recent industry reports have stressed the importance of creativity in confronting the challenges that rapid and extensive technological change will have on future employment prospects.

The magnitude of the problem is stated simply in a detailed 2015 Committee for Economic Development in Australia (CEDA) report. Over the next fifteen years, 40% of Australian jobs are a high chance of loss to technology and another 18% are at a medium chance of loss. Jobs that involve low levels of social interaction, low levels of creativity, or low levels of mobility and dexterity are more likely to be replaced by automation. In contrast, occupations that involve complex perception and manipulation tasks, creative intelligence tasks, and social i
ntelligence tasks are least likely to be replaced by automation.

This importance of creativity in future employment was reinforced in a 2015 Foundation for Young Australians (FYA) report. This report found that what it termed ‘21st Century Skills’ – creative intelligence, social intelligence, and problem solving – are the least likely to be affected by automation. Jobs which involve routine tasks – whether they be manual or intellectual – face the highest likelihood of automation, whether it be from robotics or advanced computer algorithms. For example, routine data search task such as commonly performed by acc
ountants or lawyers face a high possibility of automation.

Finally a 2016 Productivity Commission (PC) report specified which occupations will be most at risk and those that will be immune from change. Labourers, machinery operators, drivers, and clerical workers will all face significant risk from automation, while professionals and personal service workers face the least risk. This report also found that the nature of work will change, with employment being more oriented to self-employment, contract and casual work, and project management. On-going, full time employment with a single employer will largely be a thing of the past.

In the future labour market, creativity wont simply be a special skill or capacity of artists and musicians. It will be a necessary skill for all workers. Why is this?
Firstly, workers of the future will need to be problem-solvers. They will need to think laterally and creatively as they confront new social, industrial, and economic problems.

Secondly, workers of the future will need to anticipate coming trends. They will need to be creative in the way they access information and knowledge about the future.
Thirdly, workers of the future will need to be creative and inventive in the way they organise their employment and their home-work balance. Work in the future will be contract driven and part-time in nature.

Fourthly, workers of the future will need to use social media creatively to advertise their skills and gain work contracts.

Finally, workers who are creative will be those who are most immune from the impact of computer automation on the job market.

 

A Creativity workshop will be held at Robina Community Centre on April 8th, 2-5 pm.

 

The workshop will be run by Dr. Mark Weblin, a qualified philosopher and counsellor. Mark has worked in a number of employment agencies, both public and private, and has extensive knowledge of the labour market and the impact of technological change.

The cost for the workshop is $30 and bookings are essential.

For more details and to book a place contact markweblin@gmail.com

What is transhumanism?

(An address to the Byron Bay Philo Cafe 3rd Feb. 2017

The last time I spoke to this group, I considered the question of time from a philosophic point of view. Can time have a beginning? Obviously not. And therefore Quantum Theory is false. This time, in talking about transhumanism, I want to talk about time in a more concrete fashion.

Four billion (1,000 million) years ago, first life appeared on earth. (By way of contrast, it has been estimated that four billion years into the future, the earth itself will end.) Three billion years ago, photosynthesis first occurred and two billion years ago, oxygen was created. One billion years ago, sexual reproduction occurred for the first time and half a billion years ago, the first living creatures crawled onto land. 250 million years ago, dinosaurs first appeared and the first flowers existed 125 million years ago.

Apes first appeared 10 million years ago and human-like apes walked the earth 5 million years ago. The hair covered Australopithecus existed 4 million years ago and homo habilis who invented stone tools lived 3 million years ago, followed shortly after (2 million years ago) by homo erectus who was a hunter-gatherer. Neanderthals flourished 500,000 years ago and at 280,000 years ago homo sapiens appeared, followed by homo sapien sapien (anatomically modern humans) at 200,000 years. 60,000 years ago, behaviourally modern human appeared with their capacity for abstract thinking, capacity for planning, and use of symbols and the earliest cave art appeared at 30,000 years ago.

Agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago, followed by the discovery of writing at 6,000 years ago and the first emergence of human civilisation. The Sumerians flourished 4,000 years ago with Bronze Age Egypt and Babylonia following 3,000 and 2,000 years ago respectively. At 500 BC, we have the start of the classical Greek culture, followed at 100 BC by the emergence of the Roman Empire at 100 BC which eventually collapsed in 500 AD. This was followed by the Middle Ages until the start of the Renaisannce in 1500 AD, a point which we typically describe as the start of modernity. Industrialisation began in 1800 and, if I am right, the transhuman period is beginning in the period 2000-2050 AD. This fifty year period, when compared to the previous 4 billion years of life on earth, is equivalent to one second every 137 years.

I have taken the time to detail this brief history of life on earth because people often say to me when I’m discussing transhumanism and post-humanism that it is ‘off in the future’. Clearly, when we consider these questions, the question of time is a question of perspective. Do we, when estimating the impact of technology on the human species, imagine 100 years into the future or 1,000 or 1 million or 1 billion? So, when we estimate the changes that may occur up to say 2050, we are estimating on very small time frames indeed. (As an aside, there is now research investigating a new geological timeframe called the Anthropocene epoch because the impact of human activity on the earth’s environment since 1950 has been so significant, that future geologists will be able to look back and specify the start of this new geological era.)

Now back to transhumanism. It is a clumsy, imprecise term. It refers to the transitionary period from Renaissance Humanism and its optimistic belief in the unparalleled capacities of biological humans to a post-human future where fully biological humans are only one sentient species (and indeed a rare one) amongst many others. A post-human will be primarily composed of artificial parts and organs and will be distinguished from other artificial sentient beings by the fact that a post-human, despite all its technological accretions, was once a human at some point in its past. This part may be very small, limited perhaps to the brain or even merely neural pathways, but that will be enough to designate it as a ‘post-human’. So while we might know when transhumanism is beginning (now) we don’t know when it’s going to end (and the post-human period begins) or even what its defining characteristics are.

In its most general sense, transhumanism refers to the modification and adaption of the biological human body by the use of technology. This process began a decade or so before the end of the twentieth century but has really accelerated since about 2005-2010. However transhumanism also refers to the development of non-biological Artificial Intelligence and robots which will replace humans in many fields of social endeavour and will even surpass human capacities.

Lets consider the first sense of transhumanism. The technological modification and adaption of the human body can be done in two ways. The first is biological and involves three possible processes. The first process in the enhancement of the existing human body by the means of drugs and supplements. This has been common for several decades, especially in sport, and continues to predominant in many sports. Bans on supplements and drugs are common because it is believed they give an unfair advantage to those athletes who take them. Supplements and drugs are also used to improve individual’s cognitive abilities. This is human enhancement in a trivial sense. The individual reverts back to their former capacities once they stop taking these drugs. The second process is genetic engineering which is the alteration of individual embryos to promote so-called desired qualities. This is also known as ‘designer babies’. By its very nature, this is a more permanent alteration of individual capacities and can be said to be human enhancement in a non-trivial sense. There does not appear to be any logical limit to the sort of capacities that could be engineered.

A third process of biological modification is through the growth of organs and limbs under laboratory conditions. In principle, there is no restriction of the sorts of organs which could be cultured and grown and hence no restriction to the number of such organs an individual may have in their body. This is not technically human enhancement (the individual in not enhanced in any way) although it is human modification. Significantly, the organs do not need to be grown from the individual’s own DNA, so technically the individual can, in time, become less of ‘themself’ and more of an ‘other’. Given that there is no logical limit to the parts of the body that could be replaced, it is possible that over time the individual will have none of their original parts, not even their brains. This raises special problems regarding the identity of the individual. Technically, this is not human enhancement because the individual does not gain any new ability, except for the capacity to live longer.

The second technological modification of the human body is by artificial or synthetic (i.e. non-biological) means. For example, many humans now alive have pacemakers, cochlear implants, or insulin pumps attached to their bodies. These attachments form an interactive feedback loop with the bodily processes. A human who is modified in such a way is known as a cyborg. Much public perception of cyborgs is informed by science fiction portrayals of them as inhuman monsters (e.g. The Terminator) whereas in fact cyborgs are quite ordinary human beings. However with the increasing sophistication of mechanical limbs (think of Luke Skywalker’s mechanical arm in Star Wars) the distinction between biological and synthetic will become increasingly blurred. Consider, for example, Darth Vader, whose biological parts are ultimately only a very small part of his overall being. Cyborgs will become increasingly common in the transhuman period.

In the second sense of transhumanism – that of AI and robots – the emphasis is on non-biological sentience and labour. Lets consider the coming impact of Artificial Intelligence. In many ways, the domination of AI over humans has already occurred. All the reigning champions of chess, Go, and Jeopardy are AI programs. The sophistication of these systems will only improve throughout this century and beyond. AI programs will also, in the very near future, perform many tasks currently carried out by medical, legal, and educational professionals, thus reducing the employment prospects of those professionals.

Much contemporary talk on the dangers of AI centres around the idea of the Singularity. This is the point – commonly said to be 2050 but this is being revised earlier on regular basis – when an AI program will design its own operating parameters and there will be no further need for human involvement in that process. At that point, it is argued, AI will become a self-sustaining entity. And from that point, there doesn’t seem to be any logical reason why future AI systems will need to take account of human requirements and needs in the design of its own parameters. Many contemporary thinkers such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawkins believe there is a great existential danger in this. We only need to think of Hal from 2001 Space Odyssey or Skynet from Terminator to get a sense of this danger. Others, such as Ray Kurzweil, believe that only good will come from this. Either way, it is certainly true that AI programs currently outstrip human cognitive ability and by the start of the 22nd century the capacity of these programs will appear god-like to humans. It could be replied that no artificial system will ever equal human biological creativity and speculative capacity but this would appear to be a question that can only be answered empirically and not one known a priori.

The other important issue in this sense of transhumanism is robots. Robots have been in use for manufacturing purposes since the 1960’s but since the start of the 21st century the development of humanoid robots for use in a variety of industries has grown rapidly. For example, in 2015 robots were used in a number of positions in a new ‘robot hotel’ including three on the reception desk – one with the appearance of a ‘robot’, one with the appearance of a human, and another with the appearance of a reptile.

Robots are also being developed for a number of military and public safety functions and humanoid versions of these have the capacity to walk and run, even on slippery surfaces such as ice. Humanoid robots are also being given human appearance and the female versions of these – gynoids – are expected to be popular in the sex industry. It is quite possible that employment in the oldest profession in the world will go into irreversible decline by the end of the century. One expert recently predicted that robot sex will be ‘normal’ by 2070. And if we have sex with robots and if we also form romantic attachments with them, will be able to marry them? This has already been a book written on this subject.


Humanoid robots will also become popular in domestic and personal care situations. Our psychologists will even be robots. The television series, Humans, touches on many of these issues. At any rate, unemployment due to the spread of robot labour will skyrocket during the century. This will necessitate a re-thinking of our taxation and social service systems and Elon Musk believes that a Universal Basic Income Scheme is inevitable. Finally there is the question of whether sentient robots will have the right to be treated as sentient beings in the same way as humans are. Could a robot be tried for murder? Again, this is a question taken up in the series, Humans.

Clearly there are many vexing questions concerning the emergence of transhumanism and many of these are moral and legal questions. What can be done to advance or hinder the progress of transhumanism? Should anything be done at all? But there are also political questions as to the access of the population to the benefits of transhumanism. One school of thought is Libertarian Transhumanism which argues that these benefits should flow to those most able to afford it. In contrast, Democratic Transhumanism holds that such benefits should be available to all, irrespective of income.

A curious offshoot from Democratic Transhumanism is known as Technoprogressivism. This radical offshoot incorporates a number of various ideas including abolitionism (the abolition of suffering in sentient entities), immortalism (the pursuit of technological immortality), extropianism (the pursuit of long term biological life extension), technogaianism (the use of technology to restore the earth), post-genderism (the use of technology to create a society free from gender roles), biopunk (the open access to genetic material) and many others including body modifiers, world federalists, nanosocialists, socialist feminist cyborgs, bioutopians, and revolutionary singulartarians. The transhuman future will be a very strange place indeed.

But even stranger will be the post-human future. Now while there is no clear consensus of when the dividing line between the transhuman and post-human periods will be, we can safely estimate that by the year 3000, we will be living in a post-human future. One writer gives a reasonable outline of the development of the human species within this timeframe. George F. Hart, a palaeontologist and emeritus professor at Louisiana State University, argues that the next stage in human development from homo sapien sapien will be homo roboticus which will be a conscious human mind attached to a manufactured body. He suggests that the simplest way of doing this is to simply attach a human head to such a body, with this body being either totally biological, totally mechanical, or bio-mechanical. He believes that this species will emerge within 300 years. (I think Hart needs to distinguish between homo roboticus and homo cyborgus. A cyborg will, by definition, always be a human and never a robot, whereas a synthetic biological body with human brain attached will not be neither a cyborg nor a robot.)

The next stage in the evolutionary development according to Hart will be a manufactured mind within a manufactured body which he describes as robotico earthensis. This will, in fact, be the creation of a new genus, robotico, with its differentia being its point of origin, Earth. The final evolutionary step that he envisages is homo cosmos which occurs when homo sapiens migrate into deep space and form genetically isolated populations. Genetic engineering will allow for the modification of homo sapiens to survive in potentially hostile environments. Hart argues that this post-human future which will be achieved within 1,000 years.

As it happens, there is other speculation about the state of humanity by the year 3,000. The Millenium Project, a joint enterprise of the U.N. University and the Foundation for the Future, postulates several alternative scenarios for the year 3,000. The first, and most optimistic, is that humans are alive and thriving. Through biological and artificial enhancement, humans survive and prosper, with an earth population of 10 billion and a population of 50 billion humans in space. The second, and most pessimistic, is that environmental degradation and biological viruses leads to the end of the human species. The third postulates that the development of greatly advanced AI and sentient robots leads to a conflict with humans and the outbreak of robot wars. Humans are marginalised and pushed to the edge of extinction but, according to the authors of this scenario, somehow recover and come to an uneasy truce with the robots.

The final possibility, called the Great Divide, postulates the existence of three sentient lifeforms. The first are standard biological humans who refuse to adopt any form of biological or artificial enhancement and become like a religious cult. The second are modified humans known as con-techs (conscious technology beings) who use biological enhancement, mechanical attachments, and AI to survive and prosper, first on earth, and then in outer space. The final group are known as artificials, which may be sentient robots or may be nano-lifeforms which breed with a range of biological creatures including humans, even though they have vastly superior capacities compared to the ‘standards’.

A final vision of this post-human future can be found in the science fiction of Isaac Asimov. In his Robot and Foundation series, Asimov introduces us to Susan Calvin, a robopsychologist working for the U.S Robots Corporation in 2007. By the time of her death in 2064, humans have started colonising other planets, but the development of sentient robots has been so successful that civil unrest breaks out and robots are banned from the cities. Humans eventually gather and live underground to escape the conflict on the surface.

Further into Asimov’s future to the year 3,200 AD, a humanoid robot with a wide emotional range, Daneel, is created who then becomes a central character in the remaining books. At about the same time, Asimov introduces us to a female human, Gladia, who has had every part of her body, except for her brain, replaced with a biological or mechanical parts. She is 230 years old and still only in mid-life, with about another 100 years to live. She feels emotionally close to Daneel because she once had a romantic relationship with a similar robot named Jander. Another robot from this time is Giskaard who is non-humanoid and with a limited emotional range but is able to control humans by manipulating their emotions. Giskaard eventually ‘dies’ after 500 years, but Daneel survives for at least 22,000 years. Asimov’s imagination takes him a long way into the post-human future.

So what is transhumanism? It is not some imagined future. It is an actual reality, existing right now. As I said before, it is a clumsy and imprecise term and while we can only guess at some of the consequences and even the timeframe for the transhuman period, we can see now that the characteristics of the transhuman are quite clear: the transformation of humans through technological means and the emergence of artificial entities which are, in many respects, superior to humans. And these issues are not merely technological and social but also philosophical. What does it mean to be human, or, more precisely, what does it mean to be homo sapien sapien? If the essence of our humanity lies in our capacity for thinking and reasoning, then is the modification of our bodies irrelevant to the definition of us as humans? But if AI enhances our capacity for reasoning and thinking, will the next stage of our evolutionary development be homo AI? In other words, what are the dividing lines between human, transhuman, and post-human?

Some questions to consider

1. Would you, when faced with chronic illness or death, have an artificial organ or instrument placed in or attached to your body so you could survive longer? If no, would this be a decision taken as a matter of principle, irrespective of the consequences? If yes, is there a point where you would refuse to accept any further technological adaptions? Would you have any difficulty with being described as a cyborg?

2. Would you ever contemplate having an electronic probe placed into your brain that would replace your phone and computer and give you instantaneous access to any knowledge whenever you wanted it? Would you consider having such a probe inserted that would stimulate your pleasure centres, or suppress feelings of pain, at your command?

3. Would you consider having a romantic or sexual relationship with a robot that is indistinguishable in feeling, appearance, thought, and action from an ordinary biological human? If no, how would you know the difference between the human and the robot? If yes, would you like to choose the personality profile and appearance of the robot yourself? Is it possible that you would consider marrying such a robot?

4. Should sentient robots have rights similar to human rights? If yes, do we need a broader classification of sentient rights than simply human rights? Is an AI without any physical ‘body’ entitled to sentient rights?

5. Which, if any, of the following transhumanist philosophies would you support?

a. Abolitionism: the abolition of suffering in sentient entities
b. Immortalism: the pursuit of technological immortality
c. Extropianism: the pursuit of long term biological life extension
d. Technogaianism: the use of technology to restore the health of the earth
e. Post-genderism: the use of technology to create a society free from gender roles

6. In the above discussion, I mentioned the fictional character Gladia, who had all of her organs and body parts replaced except for her brain. We would probably want to say to this point that, in a meaningful sense, Gladia had retained her identity as Gladia. But now consider that Gladia has her brain replaced with a new empty brain and all her previous memories are uploaded into this new brain. Is she still Gladia in the same sense as she was before?

Freewill and Determinism: mental illness, mental health, and the gestalt of freedom

Over the past few weeks, I have presented the main positions in the classic philosophical conundrum of freewill and determinism. On the one hand, there are determinists (also called ‘hard determinist’) who, believing in a universe explicable in terms of scientifically determined causal laws, assert that there is no such thing as ‘free will’: our belief in this idea is a mere delusion. On the other hand, there are those libertarians (also called ‘voluntarism’) who, believing in moral and legal responsibility, assert the existence of free will and deny the universality of causal laws. The opposition between these two positions is known as incompatibilism. In an attempt to resolve this dilemma, there is the position known as compatibilism (also called ‘soft determinism’) where it is argued that the experience of freedom is compatible with the belief in universal causal laws. So, in the classic exposition of this problem, we have the three doctrines of libertarianism, soft determinism, and hard determinism.

The resolution of this conundrum turns on our experience of free choice. While we are quite happy to accept that many of our decisions are determined by various factors, many of us wish to retain the belief that some of our choices are, in some meaningful way, ‘free’. We don’t like to think that we are, as in the words of Sam Harris, a ‘bio-chemical puppet’. One idea I have used recently to explore this issue is that of vulnerability, my argument being that since being vulnerable is something significant that we choose to do, it is also something which leads to greater freedom in our personal lives. The more vulnerable we are, the more open we are to different scenarios and alternatives in our lives. Another way that we can explore the issue of determinism and free will is through the distinction between mental illness and mental health.

On the hard determinist position, since we have no free will, then mental health and mental illness have nothing at all to do with anything we allegedly ‘choose’ to do. So the meaning of mental health cannot lie in our capacity to choose and the meaning of mental illness cannot lie in our belief that we are compelled to act in certain ways. Mental health and illness, on this analysis, are simply constructions imposed by mental ‘health’ professionals. This analysis would also imply that there can be no meaningful sense of responsibility in moral or legal matters: the actions of a sociopathic murderer are just as determined as the actions of the judge who sentences him.

On the libertarian position, everyone, in principle, has free will and therefore we all have the capacity to choose to be mentally healthy or mentally ill. This is the position of the existential psychiatry of Thomas Szasz: the client who comes into therapy chooses whether to embrace mental health or remain in illness. On this analysis, the individual is morally and legally responsible for their action and hence deserving of any punishment or reward that might come to them.

On the soft determinist or compatibilist position, there is the recognition of ‘shades of grey’ between being determined in one’s actions and exercising autonomous choice. At one extreme, the murderous sociopath has little or no control of his impulses; at the other extreme, the sentencing judge deliberates on the verdict of the jury and rationally ‘chooses’ an appropriate punishment.

One common assumption in all of these positions is the view that freedom is a psychological entity within the individual. However it may be the case that freedom is social – that it is a characteristic of social interaction, rather than an individual will. One way of expressing this position is to argue that freedom is the result of a gestalt. ‘Gestalt’ is the German word for whole or form and gives its name to the distinct philosophical view that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’. What does this mean? Consider two people who each separately consider six different options to act in response to a certain common problem – some responses may be shared, some may be unique. However when they come together to discuss and exchange views, they might in fact come up with a number of new possibilities which neither had considered before. In this sense, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and this suggests the way in which freedom, and perhaps also creativity, might possibly work.

(Summary of discussion of Tuesday evening group 20th September)

Empathy and Art

Empathy is a key constituent of any meaningful human relationship. The author of the article on empathy for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Lou Agosta, writes:

“Individuals [in contemporary culture] strive to bandage over the pervasive feelings of inner emptiness and feelings of being a fake in spite of the external trappings of material success. The resulting image is a Nietzschian one – everywhere fragments of persons and no-where a complete, whole human being, capable of engaging life with integrity (wholeness). The antidote is empathy. Empathy functions as an on-going process of distinguishing, sustaining, and strengthening the structure of the self. Empathy heals the self, and a well-integrated self is one able to sustain the commitments required to keep one’s word, avoid cheating and self-medication with alcohol and recreational drugs, productively engage in satisfying activities and relatedness to others, and contribute to the community. Empathy is a form of receptivity to the other; it is also a form of understanding. In the latter case, one puts oneself in the place of the other conceptually. In the former, one is open experientially to the affects, sensations, emotions that the other experiences.”

screen-shot-2016-09-23-at-9-43-52-am

While the writer no doubt over-states the case for the role of empathy in healing the many ills of modern culture, he is no doubt correct in recognizing that the capacity to see into the emotional life of another is both a means of improving social relations between people, and, is also a means for healing the ruptures and wounds of our own individual self.

 

The origin of the word ‘empathy’ is that of a conjunction of the Greek em (‘in’) + pathos (‘feeling’). The history of the word pathos in western culture is curious. On the one hand, it figures significantly in discussions of sickness as in the suffix –pathology. On the other hand, it is also the root of our common word for emotion, passion. The one word then seems to signify both sickness and emotion. The reason for this unusual situation is that the ancient Greeks thought that to be governed purely by ones emotions was indeed to be mentally ill. The philosophic tradition since the time of Plato has that of emphasising the important of reason in governing the emotions.

Empathy also plays an important role in the appreciation of art. If empathy is defined as the seeing into another person’s emotional life, then aesthetic empathy is seeing into the emotional life of a work of art. This might take many forms – music, drama, literature, painting, etc – but the fundamental point would be the same: we appreciate art when we enter into the emotional life of the work of art.

However this should not be confused with subjectivism in aesthetics – the view that beauty is merely in the eye of the beholder. If that view were true, then there would be no beauty independent of the subjective perceiver which would imply that beauty really doesn’t exist at all.

Such a world would be a very dull one.

(Discussion summary of Tuesday morning group at Burleigh Heads 20th Sept 2016.)

The Inconsistent Tetrad of Theism

An ‘inconsistent tetrad’ is the presentation of four statements of which the truth of any three entails the falsity of the fourth. It is a method of demonstrating that the holding of four apparently consistent propositions is in fact inconsistent.

 

For example, Christians typically believe the following four propositions:

 

  1. Any act that God commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible.
  2. 
The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones.
  3. It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles.
  4. The Bible tells us that God does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles.

However…

If 1,2,3 are true then 4 is false

If 1,2,4 are true then 3 is false

If 1,3,4 are true then 2 is false

If 2,3,4 are true then 1 is false

 

Therefore, Christians cannot consistently believe all of the above four propositions.

 

The Cosmological Proofs for the Existence of God

The Cosmological Proof for the Existence of God – 1 (Classic version of Thomas Aquinas)

 

Any thing that exists, exists as part of a larger group.

 

The largest possible group is the universe (the ‘universe’ is defined as the totality of all things)

 

Since, by definition, nothing can exist outside the universe, whatever created the universe cannot be a physical thing from within the universe

 

Therefore whatever created the universe is non-physical and must be a spiritual entity

 

This spiritual entity can only be God

 

The Cosmological Proof for the Existence of God – 2 (Modern version implied by quantum theory)

 

At the moment of the ‘big bang’, physical Space-Time was created

 

Physical Space-Time is the existence of material things and objects

 

Therefore, all material objects were created after the big bang

 

However to speak of the ‘moment’ of the big bang, implies that there was a moment which preceded that moment.

 

Therefore, whatever existed prior to the big bang, must be non-material. That is, there must be spiritual (non-material) existence prior to the big bang.

 

This spiritual existence can only be God

 

The Cosmological Proof for the Existence of God will be discussed Wednesday 21st September 10.30-Noon at Edgewater, Isle of Capri. $5

What is empathy?

th-1What is empathy? Empathy is ‘feeling with’ another person: it is entering into the emotional life of that person. How do you feel empathy for another person? Empathy is achieved by being self-aware of the ways you experience another person, as a person. Once you have achieved this self-awareness, then you are free to enter into the emotional life of that person. To do this, you need to be curious: you need to listen, to ask questions, and to be sensitive to that person’s emotional state.

Empathy is achieved when you can accurately reflect back to the person the nature of their emotional life. The practice of empathy is central to our experience of intimacy with other people. Without the capacity to empathise with the experiences of others, we can fall into feelings of narcissism, emptiness, and fragile self-esteem, which, in turn, can lead to egocentric and addictive behaviours.

Empathy is most commonly confused with sympathy. When we sympathise with another person, we typically want to do something to ease their suffering or pain, while when we empathise we simply want to understand the nature of their emotional state without any commitment to acting. Empathy should also be distinguished from pity which is a feeling of superiority about another’s suffering. The practice of empathy can both sustain the emotional structure of our self and lead to genuine and authentic relations with others.

Empathy will be the subject for discussion at the next ‘Philosophy on the Beach’ on Tuesday 20th September 10.30-Noon at Burleigh Beach. Meet outside Burrough Barista. $5

Death Café

screen-shot-2016-09-08-at-5-45-16-pm

How do you imagine your own death? What music would you like played at your funeral? Who would you like to attend? How would you like your body to be disposed of? What would you like your epitaph to be? These are some of the questions that a Death Café considers.

 

The subject of death is often seen as one of the last great taboos. We feel easy today talking about past taboos such as religion, politics, and sex, but death is not something we typically discuss in polite conversations. It is still seen as a macabre and morbid subject. A Death Café changes all that.

 

Based on the Swiss ‘Café Mortel’ experiment, the Death Café movement became established in England in 2011 and has since spread around the world. The practice of the Death Café is remarkably simple. It gathers people together in a friendly atmosphere and asks them to reflect and share what they might value in their own death experience. There is no judgement and no agenda. Participants are simply asked to listen and accept in a respectful manner and to share their own beliefs and values openly.

 

The results are quite remarkable. Death Café conversations are typically animated and humorous. There is often surprise at the variety of opinions expressed and the ways people imagine their own ‘exits’ might occur. Naturally enough, conversations might turn to contentious subjects such as assisted suicide, but this only occurs when individuals raise them as part of their own belief and value system. These views are noted and respected and the conversation then moves on to the next person.

 

A Death Café is a new way we can talk about death and learn from other people about the great diversity of opinion on death and dying.

 

The next Death Cafe will be held at the Gold Coast Arts Centre Cafe Monday 19th September 5.30-7.00pm $10 Bookings essential through Philosophy in Paradise on meetup, Facebook, or through this site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Cafe

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/22/death-cafe-talk-about-dying

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/29/death-cafes-embrace-last-taboo

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-15/death-cafe-brisbane-end-of-life/5018806

https://www.facebook.com/DeathCafeQueensland

 

The wounded healer

th-2

There is an ancient Greek myth that tells the story of the centaur, Chiron, who accidentally becomes infected by the blood of the poisonous creature, the Hydra. Being immortal, Chiron cannot die, although the wound from his infection does not heal and so he sets out on a quest to find a cure for his ailment. He travels far and wide and consults many wise healers and while none can provide a cure, he himself becomes a revered healer and cures many of their pain and sickness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiron

This myth of the ‘wounded healer’ has become a metaphor for the journey that any psychological healer must undertake – ‘physician, heal thyself’. The famous psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, believed that every therapist or counsellor must undertake the process of healing their own wounds before they can effectively heal others.

Jung expressed himself clearly on this when he wrote: “We could say, without too much exaggeration, that a good half of every treatment that probes at all deeply consists in the doctor’s examining himself, for only what he can put right in himself can he hope to put right in the patient. This, and nothing else, is the meaning of the Greek myth of the wounded physician.”

Jung’s point is that we all have wounds from our childhood and that many therapists undertake their healing work precisely because of the presence of these wounds. But do we even need the healer? Are we not responsible for our own cure? Do we not need to share the vulnerability of our wound so that we can become whole again? Do we not need to heal ourselves?

http://www.jungatlanta.com/articles/fall12-wounded-healer.pdf

http://www.thegreenrooms.net/wounded-healer/

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/psychoanalysis-now/2014/12/are-psychotherapists-nuts/