Robert Stone: Socrates the activist: how academic philosophy can
make a difference
Socrates was interested in the same kind of academic questions that
English-speaking philosophers discuss today, in particular the status of
moral concepts and the foundations of knowledge; but – unlike most
modern academic – he argued about them on the streets and in the
dining-rooms of Athens, and made people realise they mattered. How did
he do this, what effect did it have, was it worthwhile? Audio recording (MP3 format) Handout (PDF format) Talk text (PDF format)
Ann Long: Five Questions and an Answer
I will first ask, and briefly discuss, four of the questions: does the
history of philosophy help us to think about its point? what role does
philosophy have in an intellectual culture? can a brief examination of
just one of its perennial puzzles offer us a clue as to its purpose?
can it offer us knowledge? And then, armed with some ideas developed in
that discussion, I will ask – and this time attempt to answer!
– the fifth question: what then is the point of philosophy? Audio recording (MP3 format) Handout (PDF format) Talk text (PDF format)
Peter Gibson: How to Make Analytic Philosophy Worth Doing
It will be claimed that philosophy has always aimed at wisdom through
analysis, with Aristotle as the role model. Contemporary analysis has
explored logic and semantics as tools for the job, and run into
scepticism about the whole enterprise. It is suggested that the error
has been to focus on what our sentences say, instead of on what we want
to say. If we are still allowed to think directly about the world, then
analysis becomes once again our best (and only) hope for achieving
wisdom. Audio recording (MP3 format) Handout (PDF format) Talk text (PDF format)
Peter Ells: A Defence of Speculative Metaphysics
Many thinkers nowadays reject metaphysics, believing that science is the
only source of reliable knowledge. I will show, however, that this
attitude is a metaphysical position in itself – and moreover one
that may very well be wrong. How can metaphysical systems be evaluated
against one another when they are non-empirical? I will argue that this
can be done in terms of factors such as scope of explanatory power,
consistency with science, clarity, plausibility, minimal number of brute
facts assumed, and so on. The system of George Berkeley will be used as
an example. Audio recording (MP3 format) Handout (PDF format) Slides (PowerPoint format) Talk text (PDF format)
The Speakers
Bob Stone graduated in Classics in 1970, having specialised
in Greek philosophy, and then spent three years researching into
Pythagoreanism, and also becoming hooked on modern philosophy. His
thinking was rudely interrupted by 35 years as a schoolteacher. Now
that he's retired he's been rediscovering philosophy with a vengeance.
Ann Long gained a BSc in Economics (1959), and a BSc in
Psychology (1972). She spent most of her working life teaching
psychology in both further and higher education. She has written two
books: Equality (1988: samizdat distribution) and Making God:
a New Materialist Theory of the Person (2007: Imprint Academic).
She is now working on a third.
Peter Gibson graduated in English in 1968, and gradually
turned himself into a philosophy teacher, via the Open University, the
London Institute of Education, and Rewley House. He taught Philosophy
to sixth formers for 24 years, and is now doing a research degree in
metaphysics at Birkbeck. He is building a catalogue of philosophical
ideas at http://www.philosophyideas.com.
Peter Ellshas had a long-standing interest in the philosophy
of mind and the question of free will. He obtained an MA in philosophy
at the University of Reading in 2009. His book Panpsychism, the
Philosophy of the Sensuous Cosmoswas published by O-Books in August
2011
Suggested websites and reading:
Jose Luis Bermudez
Philosophy of Psychology: a Contemporary Introduction (2005)
Plato
Apologia, Crito, Euthyphro, Laches, Republic Books 1 and 2
