McMaster Philosophers' Society

10/04/2021

The lecture is a joint project between the Centre for Scholarship in the Public Interest and the Wilson Institute for Canadian History.

04/08/2021

We're so close to the end of term! Since we know everyone's busy with final projects and exams, tomorrow will be a laid-back social night rather than a discussion. The Social Night will be held on Friday April 9th at 6:30 pm. Come by our Discord server for a chat or some gaming.

Further, thank you to our members who applied for an executive position. We will get back to you shortly for interview scheduling. Interviews will be held over the next two weeks.

Good luck with these last few weeks and see you soon!

04/04/2021

THANK YOU FOR APPLYING!⁣
⁣
Thank you to the students who applied for the 2021-22 executive team! Keep an eye on your inbox 📧 for next steps. We will email you about future interviews. ⁣
⁣
Have a lovely long weekend!🤗

03/26/2021

This week we will hold our Friday discussion on Friday, March 26 2021 from 6:30-8:00 pm. We hope to see you there on the Discord Server!

This week's topic: Kant's Teleological Principle:The Efficient Causes and Final Causes of Life

In his Critique of the Power of Judgement, Immanuel Kant ascribes a method on how one is allowed to inquire and investigate the enigmas of mother nature. Kant argues that efficient causes (external causes to some effect) are not sufficient to provide explanations about the final causes (their purpose, potentiality, and the design to which they actualize) of natural objects. He argues that the sunlight and the water that nourish a seed into a flower do not tell you about the inner purposiveness that leads that seed to become a flower. For this reason, the final cause of this seed and the flower is not accessible through observing efficient causes. In Humean terms, the constant conjunction of two events of nature does not convey any knowledge about how natural objects flourish into a diversity of configurations and propagate them. For this reason, he asserts that natural philosophers assume that all of nature progresses towards a final cause and design. But the natural philosopher can only assume this final cause and never gain knowledge of actual final causes. The assumption that nature progresses towards a final cause is to give context to the efficient causes.

This week we will discuss Kant’s assumption of the teleological principle of final causes in the study of nature. Do you think efficient causes are enough to discern the inner purposiveness of nature? Is Kant correct in stating that final causes in nature are out of the reach of our judgement? Are we relegated solely to assuming that nature progresses and flourishes to some end that we can never know of? Further, do you think Kant’s critique about final causes is applicable to modern biology?

03/24/2021

Hello friends!

This post explains how to apply for the McMaster Philosophers' Society executive team of 2021/2022. Since we are expecting some part of university operations during 2021/2022 to be online due to the Covid-19 pandemic, we have opted for an interview process for the selection of the coming team rather than an election process. The interview process will allow the outgoing president and the incoming president(s) to screen capable candidates to manage rapidly changing club operations in an online space. Please check the emails or Discord for a PDF that contains information on the respective responsibilities of 4 roles on the executive team. It also outlines the basic structure of the interview process and general information about being on the exec team.

To apply for the executive team, please fill out the google form below. The deadline for the Applications is April 2nd, 2021 at 11:59 PM. Interviews will take place between April 8th-14th during the academic assignment and test restriction.

Lastly, because the Covid-19 has changed the nature of the presidential responsibilities of McMaster Philosophers' Society, for the coming year the team has opted for a co-presidency. The purpose of this change is to allow for a balanced division of presidential duties and account for any potential situations if one president is unable to perform their duties due to extenuating circumstances. With this change to co-presidency for 2021/2022, we have eliminated the role of Vice-president to reduce redundancy in the coming year. The incoming co-presidents for 2021/2022 will be acclimated. Who they are will be announced soon.

https://forms.gle/wR8MRDUThuS6Eb8Z8

03/08/2021

This week we will hold our Friday discussion on Friday, March 12 2021 from 6:30-8:00 pm. We hope to see you there on the Discord Server!

BTW, the one-stop-shop to all our social media is: https://linktr.ee/macphilos

This week's discussion topic is: What is time?

Anyone else noticing that time is flying by especially quickly this year? Wait... how did I observe that? Did I literally watch time flap its wings and fly through the sky? Yet other times, I imagine time not as a bird, but as a straight line on a page. The way English speakers colloquially describe the concept and passage of time can be misleading.

In this discussion, we will think about how the command of language and culture affects our understanding of time. Does English limit our grasp? We will also critique the common past/present/future model, with help from Indigenous linguistics, J.M.E. McTaggart, Plato, and Jeremy Bearimy.

Please check your email to access the document of definitions and a three-minute video to watch. Please consider reading through the document, but no pressure!

Linktree. Make your link do more.

02/27/2021

Next Discussion: Reason and Emotion

This week we will hold our Friday discussion on Friday, February 26 from 6:30-8 pm. We hope to see you there on the Discord server!

Access all our social media and email sign-up form at https://linktr.ee/macphilos

This week's topic is: Reason and Emotions

This week's topic is a reflection on emotions and reason. Often, both are viewed as opposite and rivals of one another. From ancient Greeks philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle argue that through reason, we can live well. In contrast, continental philosophers such as Nietzsche and Hume explain that our passions and emotions lead to a life well-lived. However, this discussion's motivation is not necessarily a debate between the two, but rather an inquiry and, hopefully, an opportunity for self-reflection, to deepen our feelings and thoughts on how we interact with emotions and reason is our lives. The rise of industrialization and the scientific method has significantly led to the appraisal of rationality. Even in our day-to-day lives, we aim to use reason to justify our actions and even our feelings. However, at times we find that though we may have reasons to feel or not feel a certain way, act, or not commit an act, our emotions convey otherwise. Whether we further try to reason with ourselves or justify our irrational behaviours simply as a lack of discipline, perhaps we overlook a crucial drive unrelieved by emotions and tamed by reason.

Some questions to ponder: if there is a differentiation between reason and emotion, what is this difference? Do you as an individual value one over the other? Do our culture and social value one over the other?

Was there a time when you rationally understood the repercussions of committing an action (such as eating a tub of ice cream, neglecting your studies, or texting your ex?) but emotionally you couldn’t be bothered? You are welcome to share an example from your personal life when you found yourself at war between your rational and emotional state. What was the feeling like? What were your thoughts? *Leading question warning* Did you feel guilty to side with your emotional state or proud for being rational?

Linktree. Make your link do more.

02/10/2021

Next discussion: Friday, February 12th from 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM on Discord.

Join email list and Discord server: https://linktr.ee/macphilos

This week’s topic is: What is Power?

To question power means to ask: what makes a society governable? What are the effects of power relations in governance? How should we identify those relations? This discussion will seek to rephrase the question “what is power?” into more specific questions: what problems can current manifestations of power be seen as an adequate response to? What does power aim to accomplish? Without presupposing that power requires an essence, we aim to keep the “power of power” in sight during a lively discourse on power. How can gradations of power be elucidated through anthropological conceptions of the modern world’s events, problems and conditions? How should we synthesize or differentiate questions of power, identity and governance in our present moment?

Please check the email blast to read the optional readings to prepare you for the discussion.

Hope to see you there!

Linktree. Make your link do more.

01/12/2021

We want to hear your feedback! Please fill out the following Google form to provide feedback on our club activities over the past semester. You may also use the feedback text channel on the discord to submit feedback anytime throughout the term.

Submit: https://forms.gle/gwJn4BWZmCSXmXtS8

01/12/2021

Next discussion: Friday, December 15th from 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM on Discord.

Join email list and Discord server: https://linktr.ee/macphilos

This week’s topic is: Do we have a Moral Duty to Participate in Clinical Research?

It is the case that historical innovations in medicine (that benefit us in the present) could not have been made without individuals volunteering themselves as test patients for clinical experiments. Some argue that it is only fair that we as individuals also voluntarily participate in clinical experiments as test subjects so that future generations may further benefit from medical innovations as we have. If we do not, then we may be considered free riders who benefit from the sacrifice of others without giving anything in return. Some have also argued that if the risks and costs to us are negligible, then we have a responsibility to alleviate future harm caused by medical ailments by participating (as test subjects) in medical research. But in light of these questions, others have also asked if we really have to particularly participate as test subjects. Instead of being an active participant, donating funds to medical research may fulfill the duties to fairness and alleviation of harm mentioned above. Further, many have asserted that gratitude for the medical advances is simply enough, and that no individual has an obligation to participate in clinical research out of fairness or a duty to alleviate harm.

For our next discussion, the questions above will be explored to see if we can find a position on the question of our moral duty to participate in clinical research.

Hope to see you there!

Linktree. Make your link do more.

12/27/2020

Happy new year from the execs of McMaster Philosophers’ Society to you, our beloved members! We’d like to thank you for sticking with us through the hurdles of online school. Congrats on completing this semester✨🎉👏⁣
⁣
Have a fun and safe new year! See you in January for more Discord discussions and other events. Over the Winter break, feel free to chat in the Discord Server💬☃️

11/30/2020

Next discussion: Friday, December 4th from 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM on Discord.

Join email list and Discord server: https://linktr.ee/macphilos

This week’s topic is: The Ring of Gyges

If you could get away with any crime . . . would you?

In Book 2 of Plato’s Republic, the brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus pose a famous challenge to Socrates. It is a challenge that takes Socrates most of the Republic to address, as he is required to defend its central thesis: that it is always in one’s best interest to be just. Glaucon and Adeimantus challenge Socrates to show why justice is something that we value for its own sake and not for the things that follow from it. The brothers claim that the popular view is that people see justice as something that is bothersome and impedes the pursuit of their self-interest. We can reframe this as a challenge to us. Reworded: Why should we be moral? Is it always in our best interest to be moral? Such a question has implications on a personal and interpersonal level, a subjective and objective level.

Glaucon then presents his famous Ring of Gyges thought experiment. He believes that it tells us something about human nature, what everyone would do if they had the ring of Gyges. A farmer, Gyges, finds a magical invisibility ring. When twisted it allows him to turn invisible, making it so that he can always avoid detection. Glaucon adds that Gyges could commit any crime and always get away with it, no matter how small or large no one will ever know it was Gyges. Most importantly, even if Gyges commits heinous crimes he will always be regarded as a just and righteous individual because it will never be traced back to him. What would you do if you were Gyges? Would you still follow your principles? Why or why not? What do you think other people would do? Do you think they would still be moral?

Remember, no one will ever know you did it…

Attached to this week’s email is the optional reading. Hope to see you there.

Linktree. Make your link do more.