This Wednesday, 30th September the Deakin Philosophical Society will meet in ib3.307 from 5-6pm, where Mitch Cunningham will present “The Trick in the Book: Fiction, Philosophy and Representation”.

Here’s Mitch’s blurb:

“What truth can we, the philosophically inclined, divine from the process of reading fiction? What exactly occurs in the conception, expression and comprehension of the literary text? What are the relationships between the fictional worlds of literature and the world in which we find ourselves?

“This multi-disciplinary (*cough* scattershot?) piece will explore the intersections of fiction and philosophy, with guest appearances from Plato, Nietzsche, Camus, Hegel and Derrida. Drawing on two helpful readings, “The Fall: Fictocritical Writing” (Stephen Muecke 2002) and “Critiquing Desire: Philosophy, Writing and Terror” (Russel Ford 2004), I will examine the means by which ‘realities’ are constituted, and ‘Reality’ augmented, by the exercise of the expressive form.

“Hopefully we can all agree to disagree, loudly.”

Note that the DPS meeting will finish early this week as Philosophy Café starts at the Barking Dog at 7pm. For details, see below.

September @ Philosophy Café

Renate Howe,
Author of A Century of Influence presents:
“What’s God got to do with it? religion in Australian education and politics”

Wednesday, 30th September from 7-9pm @ The Barking Dog,
126 Pakington st, Geelong West.

Regards,

Dylan Nickelson.
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

This Wednesday, 23rd September from 5-6:30pm in ib3.307 the Deakin Philosophical Society will meet to discuss an article by Leo Strauss entitled ‘The Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy’. The article deals with an issue that has repeatedly cropped up in discussions over the last few months: what can philosophy say about theology and vice-versa. This article gives an intriguing answer. Find a copy here (please note that pp. 116 and 117 are in the wrong order, sorry). If you don’t get time to read the entire eight pages, the argument is summarised in the last section: IV.

Strauss opens with the contention that ‘No one can be both a philosopher and a theologian’ because, for the philosopher, ‘there can never be an absolute sacredness of a particular or contingent event’ (p. 111). For the theologian, ‘experience [revelation] and not reasoning based on sense perception, is the root of biblical wisdom’ (p. 112). In essence, the philosopher and the theologian determine what is good philosophy or good theology according to different criteria. Hence, although the conflict between philosophy and theology ‘is the secret of the vitality of the West’ (p. 113), throughout the history of this conflict ‘philosophy has never refuted revelation. Nor … has revelation, or rather theology, ever refuted philosophy’ (p. 117).

The same could be said of science as is said of philosophy. In the last few centuries science has come to know more than philosophy, but it has not refuted theology either (p. 114). Importantly for Strauss, however, it has never needed to. It’s only the modern philosophers who have turned their hand to refuting theology. In the past Socrates was content to say to theologians: ‘I do not reject your divine wisdom, I simply do not understand it. My wisdom is merely human wisdom’ (p. 113). We modern philosophers, however, or so Strauss contends, busy ourselves with attacking revelation. But in the process we eat our own heads.

Yes, eat our own heads (not Strauss’s words, but metaphorically his point). Philosophy turns its tools against theology, but in the process commits one of the biggest sins in philosophy – it begs the question. ‘Philosophy demands that revelation should establish its claim before the tribunal of human reason, but revelation as such refuses to acknowledge that tribunal’, Strauss argues (p. 116). So the philosopher urges the theologian to justify revelation, but only on philosophical grounds, i.e. only if the theologian rules out the possibility of revelation beforehand. Therefore, the philosopher has answered her own question before the game even begins. Big PHILOSOPHICAL mistake. Hence she eats her own head.

So, the big question: Are the only two options for modern philosophers (1) to end the debate with theology or (2) beg the questions we ask of them? We don’t have to accept the possibility of revelation if the debate ceases, but then what would we do? On the other hand, if we continue the debate and don’t accept the possibility of revelation we beg the questions we ask the theologian to debate. Hmm, tough one.

Regards,

Dylan Nickelson.
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

The Deakin Philosophical Society will meet on Wednesday, 16th September from 5-6:30pm in ib3.307. Drawing on three short script excerpts from Stargate (the TV show), Kristian Schutz will discuss the rights of those that call themselves gods and the obligations of those that are asked to serve gods.

A pdf copy of the texts is available here.

On Other Business

THE END OF NEO-LIBERALISM?

FREE PUBLIC ADDRESS
BY ROBERT MANNE
SUNDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2009

2.00pm-3.30pm
Percy Baxter Lecture Theatre
Geelong Waterfront Campus
Deakin University

In this lecture Robert Manne, one of Australia’s foremost public intellectuals, will try to find an answer to some urgent questions. Have we reached the end of the era of neo-liberalism, the faith in the free market that was central to Australian politics for the last two decades? Can the embrace of the free market be held responsible for our present problems? What sort of alternative visions are emerging today and what issues do these new political ideas have to address?

Regards,

Dylan Nickelson.

Wednesday, 9th September from 5-6:30pm in ib3.307.

This week the Deakin Philosophical Society, continuing with the great books, will discuss two brief chapters from Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground (VII and VIII of Part I – Underground, for those with the full text). A copy of the text is available here. A Libriox audiobook version is also available.

There are two main questions with which the chapters deal. First the underground man asks if we only do wrong because we are unaware of our true interests. Then: If through the application of reason we become aware of our true interests, won’t we simply act contrary to those interests out of boredom or to assert that reason is not all that we are? Like Cleopatra, won’t we stick gold pins into our slave-girl’s breast just to hear her scream?

It is interesting to note that Dostoevsky wrote Notes from Underground partly as a review of Nikolai Chernyshevsky’s What is to Be Done? Last week Beckett told us that there is nothing to be done. This week Dostevsky tells us that maybe there is something to be done after all, but not the something that rational egoists (Chernyshevsky) and utilitarians would have us do.

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

Join the Deakin Philosophical Society on Wednesday, 2nd September from 5-6:30pm in ib3.307 to discuss Act I of Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett.

Literature student Corrinna Waycott will introduce Act I and give an analysis of the tragicomedy.

A pdf copy of Act I is available here. You can also access the text online.

If you wish to watch the 2001 film version visit YouTube.

Regards,

Dylan Nickelson.
President, Deakin Philosophical Society