INTRODUCTION
What is a Philosophy Café?
At its simplest, a philosophy café is just a group of people who arrange to meet in a café (or a pub, or somewhere where food and/or drink is available) from time to time to discuss philosophical topics – or to bring a philosophical perspective to bear on non-philosophical topics.
The “food and/or drink” element preserves one of the basics of the original concept of a “symposium” which played an important part in the development of philosophy in Ancient Greece and Rome (symposium is Latin for an occasion on which people meet and drink and talk together).“Dry” symposia play an important part in the life of academics in all disciplines these days – not just philosophy - but “amateur” philosophers (for which the philosophy café movement is designed) tend to need rather more fuel and lubrication in order to sustain a serious discussion than professionals do!
What is Philosophy?
Philosophy has two main branches:
Ethics, which is concerned with the rights and wrongs of human behaviour. i.e., in any given situation, how do you tell what’s the right thing to do?
And
Metaphysics, which is concerned with the Nature of Reality, and looks at questions like the origin of the universe, the purpose of human existence, and the contributions to answering these questions which science, on the one hand and religion, on the other, can make, and have made over the years.
Ethics, which is concerned with the rights and wrongs of human behaviour. i.e., in any given situation, how do you tell what’s the right thing to do?
And
Metaphysics, which is concerned with the Nature of Reality, and looks at questions like the origin of the universe, the purpose of human existence, and the contributions to answering these questions which science, on the one hand and religion, on the other, can make, and have made over the years.
The Nature of Philosophical Discussion
Philosophy Cafes – as with the symposia on which they are modeled – are based on the belief that, when considering philosophical questions, two heads are better than one, three are better than two, and so on, until a practical limit is reached on the useful maximum size for a good discussion.
It may be that some one individual will take the lead in introducing a topic, or setting out a view, or raising a question, but they will do so in the expectation that their own ideas will benefit from being tested, criticized and challenged by others, and that, by this means, those taking part in the discussion will together move a little closer to the truth of the matter under discussion.
Philosophical discussion is not therefore an argument of the kind by which politics, for example, proceeds – with ample use of passion and partiality. Instead, a philosophical discussion is expected to proceed solely on the basis of reason and logic, supported by evidence (where this exists). A point of view, or a particular line of argument, may indeed be criticized – or pursued – strongly, but attacks should never be personal (i.e directed against the speaker, rather than against what he has said) or informed more by emotion than by reason.
It may be that some one individual will take the lead in introducing a topic, or setting out a view, or raising a question, but they will do so in the expectation that their own ideas will benefit from being tested, criticized and challenged by others, and that, by this means, those taking part in the discussion will together move a little closer to the truth of the matter under discussion.
Philosophical discussion is not therefore an argument of the kind by which politics, for example, proceeds – with ample use of passion and partiality. Instead, a philosophical discussion is expected to proceed solely on the basis of reason and logic, supported by evidence (where this exists). A point of view, or a particular line of argument, may indeed be criticized – or pursued – strongly, but attacks should never be personal (i.e directed against the speaker, rather than against what he has said) or informed more by emotion than by reason.
