“Since philosophy is the art which teaches us how to live, and since children need to learn it as much as we do at other ages, why do we not instruct them in it?” ~ Michel De Montaigne On Education 1533-1592

Instructing children in philosophy is exactly what Philosopher Leighton Evans and The Philosophy Shop intends to do. Leighton Evans is seeking to get primary schools in the UK to see not only the usefulness but also the feasibility of teaching kids to think philosophically. According to Philosophy Shop advantages to children will include “raised IQ, raised self-confidence and improved emotional intelligence.” As for the question of feasibility, though it may seem unlikely that kids from 7 to 11 years old will understand the principles of philosophy, Evans says that their age group is actually “well suited to this type of thinking. They are not burdened by the subject knowledge they are going to gain through school.” Furthermore, according to Dr Ieuan Williams children are “natural philosophers in that they ask important questions about the world and about human life and morality.” Thus their natural curiosity combined with their open-mindedness makes them ideal for thinking outside the box.

Philosophy Shop is not going to be the one conducting philosophy classes to kids but instead trains the teachers/philosophers how to use philosophy methods in the classroom and thus encourage a philosophical attitude among children.

We see a lot of people taking up higher studies. Normally these are the additional vocational degrees or the professional schools we know as Masters degrees. While not all people can have the time or afford to get into them, being adjudged a certified MBA degree holder logically holds a brighter future for anyone. Or does it?

For one, the philosophical hypothesis that most MBA graduates hold are often for the better in any business perspective. Advanced education often holds that people with MBA degrees are seasoned and adequately trained to handle real life issues in the world of business and management. But while that is something expected today, it seems that the surplus of MBA degree holders has been somewhat overflowing, making it a standoff as far as choosing the right person with the right degree to handle a business that wants to follow a certain route.

Especially now that most companies are experiencing a lot of turbulence in the business world, one cannot help but think if MBA degree holders still have a bearing in business entities. Are they a need at this point?

From the way things are going, it seems business can function without them. It is either that or companies are just trying to preserve their salary caps since MBA degree holders will be asking for the stars.

With that in mind, does the MBA philosophy make any sense? Why take up advanced professional studies if they are no longer recognized in the field of business? Maybe for entrepreneurs it is a requirement but as far as career is concerned, a lot of questions on why they should take an MBA degree is in the air.

These are totally unrelated areas of study in philosophy yet they are somewhat similar due to their aim, the study of force. Politics is the study of how political force in relation to the general public and Legal Law is the study of how to best laws can be used to achieve social and political aims. The two are often mixed and used in conjunction with each other because of this simple truth. Legal Philosophy determines or studies, which laws are better, and whether this one or that is better for all or that if this law should even be followed at all due to underlying circumstances that might substantiate invalidity. It tries to explain the relationship of social factors and human nature in a balanced outcome deciding that the outcome would be best for all. Political philosophy on the other hand is defined by the development of a government as it evolves into its current state. Meaning the development of the political structure of a country is highly dependent on which political system it has been based upon and how it’s people have reacted to those systems deciding which is best to apply. True to this, many governments and political figures muddle and try to erase the fine line in order to justify their acts. Those acts then elicit response from the public and the legalities of such actions are questioned further muddling the distinctions. Politics should always follow a certain limit and so does the legal system so instead of focusing on these personal political agenda that they try to substantiate by using the law. Politics and religion for example should always be separated due to a never-ending battle that would ensue. Governments are formed and maintained by the legal system and they should share a common goal which is to represent the society for which they represent in their best interests and not their own.

That is a question each and every parent asks every time their kids go to school, or do they. The gun related incidents in several US schools and elsewhere around the world, have prompted legislation that makes gun ownership a bit tad harder but there are always loopholes as the incidents themselves have shown. Guns have been in the blood of all Americans since the Constitution includes a phrase that states, each and every American had the right to bear arms and it was interpreted literally as is. Gun control which has been in place ever since crooks started to tote guns and so law enforcers had to catch up and started to carry their own (for protection). Does the world need guns? Ask yourself, and you’ll say no but get involved or have somebody you know involved in gun related incidents and you’ll suddenly have a change of heart (most probably).
All of us have been exposed to a society that has been made and shaped by weapons of all shapes and sizes and all of them were invented for self-preservation from other humans. Guns is a way of saying don’t mess with me or I’ll mess with you and it’s not a very comforting idea to see one in public for it always raises your blood pressure at mere sight. The US has had a long and hard history of gun related violence and so has the rest of the world but the basic and main idea of bearing arms has been lost in translation so to speak in all the violence and crime that has been related to and blamed on these weapons of choice. They are small, deadly and easy to carry so what else could you ask for in a personal protection measure, others carrying the same weapons! Paranoia is the game and if society cannot deal with the problem, then should we allow society to take care of itself by allowing everybody to carry guns? You be the Judge!

Aristotle, one of the founding fathers of modern philosophy has written many works regarding politics and his interpretation of such. In the book, Nicomachaean Ethics, Aristotle’s foundations for his political projects were based on the presumption that ethics and politics were closely related. In a sense of reverse thinking, he says that the main purpose of politics is to empower or entice citizens to become honest and empower them to do or perform noble actions. This has been greatly contested by many Western civilizations of today who see politics as a sort of undertaking based on greed and self-interest which might be true no only for these areas but anywhere else in the world.

He also defines the aim of politics in the creation of a society with high regards for moral standing. Modern politics is defined as a governance which protects us from each end every body else outside the system with the use of military and policing forces. This has normal people on one side who abide by the rules set by the political leaders and all who are against the said order to be outcasts to be protected from. Much of Aristotle’s ideals are lost in the modern world of politics with very little so-called honorable constituents going into the system to truly represent society as a whole. Some even do it for mainly personal reasons making politics a bridge to personal gain. Today’s modern society sees the kind of molding as counter productive seeing it as a form of making people think out of their own accord. Much is to be learned from the fathers of modern philosophy whose ideals and studies has given rise to all current political systems though not much is left of the ethical part of the ideals.

Extremism is defined by many as a form of strict adherence to laws or beliefs that takes one a step further from the rest of society. Some are considered to be conservative extremists, or those who use the fundamental bodies of study in their belief as justifications for their actions towards other people, society, government or race. They are also labeled as patriots for their aim is to uphold the basic values to which their society is founded on and uses that foundation as their motivation. There are also those who are called Political Extremists like the Extremist Islamic Network, or those who rage a war between a society based on race, color, or other factors that differentiates them from others in society. Many of these people live outside the normal behavior that most observe and turn to more violent forms of showing their adherence to their laws.

Many of these so-called Extremists have foundation in peaceful society but due to influences from people like for example in the Middle East where religion plays a central part of daily life clerics form the basis for their formation and upbringing. Many have interpreted and infused the holy books of all the religions from around the world to incite violence that many find unacceptable hence they are labeled as radicals or those who do not think normally. Many who commit these crimes to society are indiscriminate, killing not only their intended targets but many innocent civilians in the process just to prove the point that they are capable of doing so. More on this on the next post as we take a closer look at some of the most extreme actions taken by people against others in society.

I came upon another blog that referred to a group of segments of the BBC News Agency in one of it’s programs/special reports about democracy and it’s implications on world society as a whole. The discussion on Philosophy News was a true and timely battle of the minds that asked, “Can democracy work for the whole world?” This is a very challenging question which was showed in the programs many discussions on what it means to people from all walks of life from all corners of the globe.

For those who have been enjoying democracy, they should be thankful to their forefathers for the great job that they have done in establishing and propagating the idea of democracy. For those who are now only getting a taste of what it is and what it can do, well that’s not a very simple matter to contend with. Most of the former communist countries, who have started to embrace Western culture and some form of democracy it is a very scary story indeed. A society that has evolved to be a workforce that does all the leaders of their countries tell them to can be intimidated by the prospect of having to choose whatever and whoever they wish to become. Like the children in China who are now being taught in school of the concept of democracy who were dumbfounded by the ideals and differences that it had to their own society.

For now, the world is evolving as well as human society. The financial crisis of times past and the many natural disasters that have plagued us ever more frequently have opened many doors for people who have usually been left in the dark about the rest of the world. True to this, to ask the question of “Why Democracy?” is not only a very difficult one but quite sensitive for many a wealthy nations are still run under rule of a monarchial government. Some still follow time honored traditions that were reminiscent of the medieval ages when we had kings and queens and that succession was a right rather than a voted upon right.

Democracy might not be for everyone but it may be time that all of us embrace it for it allows us the freedom not only of society but of the global scene and the part that we can play in it if we were all allowed to participate. No society is ever self-sufficient for all those that have tried have miserably failed. We humans have a built-in drive to do what we want, when we want it and where ever we want it to be. Many say that there is no such thing as a democracy but we must always remember that democracy is a form of government that can be defined on paper and is subject to personal interpretation. So for now, democracy has still offered the best tools for the growth of countries around the world. The famous philosopher Kant predicted 200 years ago that democracies don’t go to war with each other but with those who do not embrace it and promote it. In a way this might sound true but a discussion on that must be left to another day. So till then enjoy life and embrace it for all the good and bad. It’s not about the trip, but about the journey that has passed and we currently are on….

I came upon an article on the EPhilosopher news regarding the Metaphysics of Ceteris Paribus Laws that made quite a lot of sense and was nice to ponder. The term Ceteris Paribus is Latin for all other things being equal stating the generalizations that science in all it’s history has placed upon certain aspects of science as a whole. But pondering the said term and it’s literal meaning it comes under great fire for many matters on this earth and even the sciences that aims to quantify it has evolved into a science of exceptions meaning that the rule doesn’t apply because….
This might be so for science is never constant as time is and that everything is evolving into something that we don’t know yet. Science has blessed us with many a wonder yet science itself seems to always re-define what it has already termed as known or defined. We humans have a never-ending quest for discovery and re-discovery and something that seems impossible should never be termed as so, someone just hasn’t figured out a way of doing it……
So the term Ceteris Paribus is a fundamental foundation for something that is termed to be an analytic truth which in science terms if definite, defined, final. Or is it???? Thanks to the people who continuously form, challenge and subsequently change the definitions of everything else for in the process we gain a little more understanding of our purpose on this earth which as scientists say is just one of millions if not billions of possible inhabited planets in our solar system alone(Let us just hope that the beings on those other worlds are thinking of the same stuff we are).

Many have said that the world of science and philosophy are worlds apart and cannot be understood or used to complement each other. These two fields seem to contradict each other at every angle but some do think they can be used together to allow a better understanding of the universe and our place in it.
Science as we know is based on fact or the search of an explanation for something through facts. Meaning why a candlestick burns scientifically is because of many known scientific processes like; oxidation, fuel, air, combustion and so on and so forth. But taking the standpoint of a philosopher pondering that fact would result in a totally different definition or explanation.

The merging of these two fields of study is not as far off as you think. Many of the fathers of philosophy were scientists in their own rights. These ancient people formed the basis for both philosophy and the sciences. Thales, who is considered to be the father of philosophy wondered about the universe from his time and the significance of man in that universe. He was said to have employed a form of research that can be en-likened to a scientific inquiry or study. The next ancient philosopher, Anaximander, focused more on the nature of the universe as a whole. He is credited to have made the first accurate sundial marking accurately the hours of the day on a sundial. He made elementary maps in his quest to find the relationships of the places he knew and their significance to his existence. One of the most famous philosophers was Pythagoras who was a philosopher and mathematician where he formulated some of the most elementary basis of mathematics and their relationships with the universe.
Many more ancient philosophers and scientists shared the same passion for a better understanding of the universe and the way we influence it or are a part of it. True to this, we can say that it may be theoretically possible to meld the two areas of science and philosophy into a new area of study where we seek answers and hopefully better questions to answers to them.

The Department of Philosophy of the University of Guelph will be inviting a speaker every year to their campus hold an event called The Guelph Lecture in Philosophy. This is the very first year that the event will be held. The inauguration of the Guelph Lecture in Philosophy will be held on March 21 from 2 to 4pm at the Rozanski Hall in Guelph. The lecturer, Peter Singer, will speak on “Ethics and Animals”. Everyone is invited to come and listen to the lecture. NO ADMISSION FEE.

Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He is best known for his book Animal Liberation, which is credited by some for the formation of the animal rights movement as we now know. With a utilitarian approach to ethics he asserted the principle of minimizing suffering in his book and argued that animals have rights and these rights should be based on their ability to feel pain. Singer’s latest book, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty, is fresh out of printing. Though I haven’t got hold of a copy yet but it promises to be a riveting read based not only on the topic itself and Singer’s reputation but from the first few paragraphs shown in the book’s website.

With such a distinguished guest it is no wonder Prof. Andrew Bailey of Guelph’s Philosophy Department feels that they are indeed fortunate.