Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Club Ideas

My name is Paula Morrow and I am one of the two vice-presidents of the philosophy club. I stood for office in order to get a bit more age and gender balance on the committee. I also remember the heyday of the philosophy dept and club and hope to help raise the profile of both again. My idea on how to do this is 1) to organise debates on campus - starting with one in October on the topic 'people with ethics don't make profits' in light of the logging company Gunns suing 20 organisations and individuals for trying to save the tas forest which is a landmark case for freedom of speech and freedom to demonstrate. And 2) to bring philosophy into the broader community by arranging monthly get-togethers in town somewhere where we can talk philosophy and current affairs generally in a neutral and comfortable environment.

Please email me on paula.morrow@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au with any comments or better ideas.

Paula.

3 comments:

MH said...

Would it be possible, at this early stage, to be presented with the format of the debate and with a list of proposed speakers?

michael said...

if it can be organised it will be attended, I'm sure.

Bill Pascoe said...

Sounds good. Let me know about anything happening in town. I ought to get out more. Also wouldn't mind contributing to some topic I have some ideas on, if there is a debate, or if you want to do journal items, or start up some sort of topic focused blog.
At the moment I'm interested in power and strategy; also, our understanding of economic rationalism. I think these are relevant and things people need to understand more, and would be interested in seeing debates on. Unfortunately I need to be better read on the topics than I am.

Also, I made some rude remarks on this blog a while ago about some people's obsession with arguing against religion. I was surprised they seemed to be taken seriously, and at the following meeting it seemed there was a decision not to get on the topic of God at all (that's if my comments had anything to do with it). It is something I would avoid myself, but that's not to stop others.

I still agree with what I was saying - ie that in many regards it's fruitless pitting reason against blind faith (which would be why that debate never ends). There could be some good work done though, but my advice would be to make it not hysterical or evangelical, but cool, well reasoned, structured, conclusive, point by point. Eg: point 1, The world is complex, does this mean it must have an architect? Point 2, Without God there would be no ethics or humanity (quite the contrary I would say). Point 3, Science and Religion are contradictory, Point 4 etc etc