Friends,

DPS meeting
On pornography
Wednesday 30 March from 5-6pm in ib3.307 on Deakin’s Waurn Ponds campus

This Wednesday 30 March from 5-6pm in room ib3.307 on Deakin’s Waurn Ponds campus the Deakin Philosophical Society will meet to discuss a 2007 article by philosopher Nina Power, ‘Naughty but nice’, in which she discusses the possibility of a humanist pornography. The article, published in New Humanist, is available online at http://newhumanist.org.uk/1500.

For an insider’s criticism of the porn industry, see ‘Scenes from my life in porn’ by journalist Evan Wright (the author of Generation Kill, a book about Wright’s time as a journalist embedded with US forces during the 2003 Iraq invasion and on which the HBO TV series is based). Wright’s article, available online at http://www.laweekly.com/2000-04-06/news/scenes-from-my-life-in-porn/, might be used as a basis for criticising Power’s article.

Note that the DPS meeting will finish at 6pm this week to allow people time to get to Philosophy Café.

Kind regards,

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

March Philosophy Café
John Calvert discusses Adam Smith 255 years on
Wednesday 30 March from 7-9pm at The Barking Dog hotel

On Wednesday 30 March John Calvert will talk at Philosophy Café on the topic ‘Adam Smith 255 years on’. A period of questions and discussion will follow the presentation.

Philosophy Café is held from 7-9pm on the last Wednesday of each month, February to November, in the (newly refurbished) ‘Kennel’ at The Barking Dog hotel, 126 Pakington st, Geelong West.

Entry is free and includes a glass of wine and nibbles.

Kind regards,

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

Existentialist Society Melbourne announcement

Existentialist Society
Free Public Lectures, followed by an extended period of questions and discussion.

Tuesday, 5th April 2011, 8pm
Richard Sebold (Philosophy, La Trobe University)
will speak on, “Toward the Disenchantment of Nature”.

Venue: Unitarian Hall, 110 Grey Street, East Melbourne. (Melways 2G D2)

Enquiries:
Secretary: David Miller.
Telephone: (03) 9467 2063.
Email: existmelb@yahoo.com.au
Future lectures, past transcripts and links: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~exist

MSCP evening course announcement

Lecturer: Dr David Rathbone
A 12 week evening course

When?
Weekly, Thursday 6:30-8:30pm, March 31 – June 16

Where?
University of Melbourne Law School, Parkville
Room GM16

Full Details and Enrolment at
www.mscp.org.au

Outline
This course is an introduction to the whole of Hegel’s philosophy from the objective perspective. After first distinguishing this perspective from the subjective perspective on the one hand and the absolute perspective on the other, we shall focus on the objective aspect of Hegel’s system, namely the histories of religion, of art and of philosophy, and, most importantly, his philosophy of law and its relation to custom, morality and the state. The “right” and “left” interpretations of Hegel shall be contrast not through extreme examples but rather through the only slightly left interpretation of Walter Kaufmann and the only slightly right interpretation of George Seidel. We shall also be dispelling some prevalent Hegel myths and considering Derrida’s approach to Hegel along the way.

Programme of Study

• Week One: Introduction to Hegel – the subjective, objective and absolute perspectives
• Weeks 2-3: The objective perspective subjectively – The Phenomenology of Mind chapter VI “(BB) Spirit” (Baillie translation pp.455-506, Miller tr. pp. 438-483)
• Weeks 4-7: The objective perspective objectively – Hegel’s Philosophy of Law
  (Hegel’s Philosophy of Right in Nisbet’s tr. ed. Wood; my tr. as Philosophy of Law shall be supplied)
• Weeks 8-10: The objective perspective absolutely – Encyclopedia §483-552
  (Wallace’s tr. as Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind pp.241-291)
• Weeks 11-12: Back to the beginning – two crucial early texts:
  • 1. Hegel’s System of Ethical Life (1802/3) and First Philosophy of Spirit (Part III of the System of Speculative Philosophy 1803/4) ed. & tr. by Harris & Knox
  • 2. Natural Law: the Scientific Ways of Treating Natural Law, its Place in Moral Philosophy, and its relation to the Positive Sciences of Law tr. Knox

DPS meeting
Sex, gender, desire
Wednesday 23 March from 5-6.30pm in ib3.307 on Deakin’s Waurn Ponds campus

This Wednesday 23 March from 5-6.30pm in room ib3.307 on Deakin’s Waurn Ponds campus the Deakin Philosophical Society will meet to discuss the first chapter of Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1990). A PDF copy of the chapter, ‘Sex, Gender, Desire’, is available online at deakinphilosophicalsociety.com/texts/butler/sexgenderdesire.pdf.

DPS meeting
The political philosophy of Julian Assange
Wednesday 16 March from 5-6.30pm in ib3.307 on Deakin’s Waurn Ponds campus

This Wednesday 16 March from 5-6.30pm in room ib3.307 on Deakin’s Waurn Ponds campus the Deakin Philosophical Society will meet to discuss a short article on the political philosophy of Julian Assange. The article is by Urizenus Sklar (a pseudonym for Professor Peter Ludlow from Northwestern University) and is available through The Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/urizenus-sklar/understanding-conspiracy-_b_793463.html. The article discussed Assange’s idea of governments as closed networks, Assange’s idea of a conspiracy.

Peter Ludlow also appeared on The Philosopher’s Zone to discuss his analysis of Assange’s political philosophy. The episode, like most episodes of The Philosopher’s Zone, is worth a listen.

Hope to see you there.

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

DPS meeting
Can science tell us how we should act?
Wednesday 9 March from 5-6.30pm in ib3.307 on Deakin’s Waurn Ponds campus

Over the past few weeks we’ve been tackling, in a round-about way, the question of whether or not science can tell us anything about how we ought to act. This question underlies our discussion of Aubrey de Grey on immortality, Matt Ridley on behavioural genetics and, particularly, Sam Harris’s TED lecture on how science can answer moral questions.

This question has a long history in philosophy. The central figure that philosophers mention when attempting to answer it is David Hume and his distinction between ‘is’ statements — the findings of science, statements about the natural world — and ‘ought’ statements — the statements of ethics. Here’s what Hume says on the matter:

In every system of morality which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it should be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded that this small attention wou’d subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason.
(Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III, Part i, Section i,)

This week we’ll look at Alasdair MacIntyre’s reading of this passage in his article ‘Hume on “Is” and “Ought”’. A PDF copy of the article is available at http://deakinphilosophicalsociety.com/texts/macintyre/isought.pdf. For those of you who are pressed for time, sections I and V are of particular interest for our discussion. For those of you who are really pressed for time, here’s MacIntyre’s reading of the passage:

Hume is not in this passage asserting the autonomy of morals—for he did not believe in it; and he is not making a point about entailment—for he does not mention it. He is asserting that the question of how the factual basis of morality is related to morality is a crucial logical issue, reflection on which will enable one to realize how there are ways in which this transition can be made and ways in which it cannot. One has to go beyond the passage itself to see what these are; but if one does so it is plain that we can connect the facts of the situation with what we ought to do only by means of one of those concepts which Hume treats under the heading of the passions and which I have indicated by examples such as wanting, needing, and the like. Hume is not…trying to say that morality lacks a basis; he is trying to point out the nature of that basis.
(MacIntyre 1959, pp. 465-66, italics added)

Our discussion will be framed around, but by no means limited to, this article. The central question for discussion remains ‘Can science tell us how we should act?’ And if you think you have an answer, come along.

Also, I’ll have the membership forms at Wednesday’s meeting. So bring your $10 if you wish to join the DPS for 2011.

Kind regards,

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.