Hello Philosophy Society!
Discussion 1: Hyperreal
Our discussion began with an overview of Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation. In this text he discussed the notion of the Hyperreal which can be understood in the context of our current social media platform. When we go out for an evening with friends, for example, we will often take photos or videos then share them online. Those online posts receive attention from the larger public sphere. We receive dopamine hits from our brains more from the social media version of our experience than the actual experience of us at the dinner table. This social media version of the experience is what Baudrillard was referring to when he discussed the hyperreal. We can lose touch with the actual experiences we are in because we get more dopamine from the likes and views we receive online relative to an inflated version of the experience we were actually having.
Discussion 2: Exercise
It is important to have some form of daily exercise. Our evolutionary history dates our bodies back to an environment where we survived in trees. Our current concrete environment is not conducive to the biomechanics of our physical bodies. Therefore, it is important for us to balance our muscle groups by regular, proportional exercise, stretching and cardiovascular activities.
Discussion 3: Mindful Communication Habits
It is important for us to be mindful of our habits so that we can direct our own growth. For example, sometimes we can cut people off in conversation. This is rude and not fair to the other person. Sometimes, the other person will remind us that we have cut them off. It is up to us to follow a method such as this for our own improvement:
1: Acknowledge and Apologize
2: Make Mental Note of the Mistake
3: Active Listening
Adopting an attitude of active listening whenever someone speaks to us is very important. This means that you are making an effort to understand what the other person is trying to communicate. They may not have the words at this moment to clearly express their thoughts and this specific conversation may be part of their learning curve in fluent communication.
Allow the other person the time to express themselves and make mistakes. You can always clarify after they have had their moment on alternative ways of expressing the same idea. They may be grateful and appreciative that you offered such suggestions.
Even in the instance where you think you know what another person is going to say, it is not fair for you to say it for them. It is up to them to speak for themselves and not up to you to say it for them. It is disrespectful to speak for another person because you are disregarding their autonomy. In some instances, where there is a prolonged period of silence and you have a strong trusting relationship, you can offer suggestions for them if they are at a loss for words. Be mindful that this does not become a habit where you are speaking for them or over them.
A healthy relationship is one where you reciprocate active listening for each other so that all of the individuals communicating understand each other and have an opportunity to express themselves.
Discussion 4: Historiography
When we look at history, the story we are told is usually by those who have survived. The survivors are not necessarily the ones who know the truth of the events or had all the facts of the situation at hand. To know the legitimacy of any historical event, it is important to cross reference an event with other accounts. Here we can apply Kuhn’s criteria of adequacy from the philosophy of science. Each theory of an event would be something we can apply the criteria of adequacy to and look for one that meets each of them.
Discussion 5: Kuhn’s Criteria of Adequacy
Thomas Kuhn wrote the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) where he discusses five objective standards we can apply to evaluating a theory. The criteria of adequacy determine which theory is best to adopt based on:
1) Scope: How much data is included in the theory?
2) Predictability: How well can the theory be used to predict future events?
3) Falsifiability: Is the theory structured in such a way that it can be proven wrong or tested?
4) Coherence: Does the theory commit contradictions within itself or within the larger body of scientific knowledge ?
5) Simplicity: Applying Ockham’s razor, we want to limit the amount of assumptions in any theory. All data being equal, the simplest explanation of that data is usually the best.
When we are evaluating a theory, these criteria are very useful to determine which theory is of higher value relative to the objective standards we are applying to them. Each standard or criteria is important for different reasons discussed in the philosophy of science.
Discussion 6: Objectivity in the Scientific Method
The scientific method is a means to remove our personal biases when gathering data, measurements or evidence. Different scientific enterprises utilize a different kind of method but the goal of all of them is to make sure that the information is not dependent on the person who is gathering it. The procedure being used is supposed to be universalizable to anyone such that they can achieve the same results if they follow the method. This makes the scientific method objective and not relative to an individual perspective.
© Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com, 2018-22. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Achilles Atlas Justice and achillesjustice.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.