This year’s “World Philosophy Day” will be held on November 19. However the official international celebration of the Day will be held from November 16-19 in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, Russia. The theme, “Philosophy in the Dialogue of Cultures”, was selected by the host in order to “foster the dissemination of philosophy in all its traditions.” Specific topics to be discussed in parallel round tables during the celebration are as follows:

* Liberating from the stereotypes concerning history of philosophy;
* Dialogue of rationalities;
* Cultural self-consciousness in the era of globalization;
* Philosophical images of human being;
* XXI century’s technological challenges;
* Values and the dialogue of cultures;
* Philosophy for children;
* Common cultural grounds of the national self-consciousness of the nations of CIS and Baltic states;
* Teaching philosophy in multicultural context.

The first World Philosophy Day was held last November 24, 2005 in Chile. It was instituted by UNESCO with the primary purpose of “making philosophy accessible to all.” With this in mind everyone is encouraged to participate in the celebration, wherever you may be.

Some ideas to celebrate World Philosophy Day:

*Invite a speaker to expound on any relevant topic.
*Read a philosophy book.
*Have a costume party where people are required to dress up as philosophers or a concept.
*Get together with a bunch of your philosophical (or just plain argumentative) friends and have a healthy debate on the following pesky topics (courtesy of David Bain’s article in BBC):
1.Should we kill healthy people for their organs?
2. Are you the same person who started reading this article?
3. Is that really a computer screen (person – since you’ll be in front of your friend) in front of you?
4. Did you really choose to do what you are doing right now?

Enjoy!

With the Sotomayor hearings pervading the news it is no wonder that I have become a bit pre-occupied with judicial philosophy. The big hoopla the US senators, both for and against Sotomayor’s confirmation, have been making over empathy and it’s role or non-role in the judicial system is a very interesting matter.

Lately I came across Michael C Dorf’s article “What is Sonia Sotomayor’s Judicial Philosophy?” and just feel that I have to share his wonderful insights on “formalism” and “legal realism”. According to Dorf, “formalists believe that legal interpretation is a matter of finding the objective meaning of formal legal materials, such as the words of statutes and constitutional provisions.” He says that ideology has no place in formalism and the judges are seen as “simply a vehicle for the expression of the law.” On the other hand, he says that legal realists assert that “formalist’s view of the law is false, or at least radically incomplete.” He further explained that “legal realists believe that formalists are not being honest (perhaps, not even with themselves) when they disclaim any influence from their own values upon their judicial decision making. Nor, they say, could matters be otherwise in a complex and evolving society in which legislators and constitution writers cannot possibly have anticipated all of the circumstances in which the provisions they wrote would be applied.”

So it is quite clear that the contention between those that want to confirm Judge Sotomayor and not is caused by the differing jucidicial philosophy. The question of course lies in who is right – the formalist or the legal realist? I leave it up to the senate committee to sort it out.

After reading the latest news about Jackie Chan and his comments about the Chinese people I think he’ll make a great topic for the next volume of the Popular Culture and Philosophy® series of Open Court Publishing. The book can be titled “Jackie Chan and Philosophy: Chinese Martial Arts and the Art of Kicking Your People in the Teeth.” Of course since I adore Jackie Chan as an actor the book can also tackle his movie philosophy, his sense of humour, and the real reason behind his seemingly masochistic tendencies when it comes to stunts. These things alone would make for enough material to write a philosophy book on Jackie Chan but add to that his latest anti-Chinese freedom remarks and you’ve got one interesting character to analyze, someone worthy of a philosophy book.

So what were the things he said that landed him the honor of being considered to be submitted by yours truly to Open Court? Here are snippets of his controversial comments during the panel discussion at the annual Boao Forum for Asia last April 18.

“Sure, we’ve got 5,000 years of history, but our new country has just been around for 60 years and the reforms for 30 years. It’s hard to compare us with other countries. But I feel that in the 10 years after Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule, I can gradually see, I’m not sure if it’s good to have freedom or not.”

“I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want.”

Sources:
Spokesman: Jackie Chan comments out of context
Jackie Chan: Chinese people need to be controlled

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.

We may not all have a Ph.D. on philosophy but that doesn’t mean that we should give up learning and pondering on philosophical ideas. One of the best things that you can do with your spare time is to engage in activities that will enhance your knowledge and understanding. And one such activity is the seminar that Endicott College in Massachusetts is holding.

On February 6 and 7, the college will be holding a seminar on philosophy and pop culture. This seminar is going to held at the Visual and Performing Arts Center in campus. The event starts at 4 in the afternoon of the first day (Friday) and will end at lunch the next day. The whole seminar is open to the general public, as long as participants register. If you want to partake in the meals, there will be a minimal fee charged.

What can you expect as a participant in the seminar? Undergraduates from several educational institutions – Endicott, Gordon, Clark University, Salem State College, and Boston College – will be serving as panelists and giving their take on various aspects of pop culture with a philosophical twist. The presentations will be answering two main questions:

1. What can pop culture teach us about philosophical issues?
2. How can philosophy help us understand the workings of our culture?

If you are interested, do register asap and get in touch with Willie Young, assistant professor of humanities, at 978-232-2242, or at wyoung@endicott.edu.

The much talked about financial bailout move of the US government is deeply under scrutiny and as concerned citizens, many would think that such a move may perhaps be a good one. But if you are in the business and political sector, it may be not necessarily a sound one.

For one, how can such a move be based on the fact that big companies such as Lehman Brothers and the ongoing sale of some others like Morgan Chase Bank be the basis of it all? Are we forgetting the concept of probably mismanagement and bad business practice? Let me reiterate, where is capitalism and what has happened to it? If this becomes a trend, what would stop smaller companies from demanding and seeking aid from the government?

That is why the philosophy of making sound decisions in office is entirely crucial. You simply cannot please everyone. But the fact remains, while such a move is viewed by many as a common good for all, you really cannot generalize at this point. How can you explain such a financial bailout plan to the smaller companies that simply fold up and not ask for help?

In fact, some may even call it a discriminate move. It is true that the US is teetering on the brink of economic disaster but still, political intervention is something that is bound to get a lot of attention. Wise move or not, the fact remains, that this economic crisis that the US is under is far from over.

If you were able to watch the historic dream match between Manny Pacquiao and Oscar Dela Hoya, you can pick up a lot of lessons from it. One is that you don’t judge fighters by how much they weigh or how large they look. It still goes way back to the time where we all believe the practice makes perfect. That theory will always remain and it was proven once again.

Just imagine the betting odds before the fight where Dela Hoya was practically given a 100% chance of winning over Pacquiao. Laying down the odds of how it is easier to step down to a weight level rather than move up was their only basis. Yet after all that has been said and done, we saw smaller and faster fighter prevail in what many call as an upset. For a fighter winning all but one round is hardly an upset.

Saving face for the sake that they never gave the small fella chance should not deprive him of his dedication and hard work. This is totally foul. Why call it an upset when Pacquiao practically destroyed Dela Hoya from the opening bell? This is totally unfair and goes way beyond the proper means of providing respect for people who have proven their worth.

Regardless, size is not always the reason for winning. Heart and determination are still important. In the case of Manny Pacquiao, it was all about preparation and determination. That is why he has gotten the tag best pound for pound fighter today.

During the time of Martin Luther King Jr., we can recall how rowdy most of us were as far as colored presidents were concerned. King was certainly disliked and even lead to his assassination in April 4, 1968. He was standing at the second floor balcony of the Lorraine Motel when he was shot.

It is no secret that majority of the people back then had a thing for the blacks. But today, we find ourselves on the verge of having another black President in the person of Barrack Obama.

But unlike before, we do not see rowdy people cursing and threatening Obama. That is excluding John McCain, his opponent of course who has used advertising mediums to get some leverage as far as their race is concerned. Apparently we see that it is all for naught as Obama is still leading thus far and officially.

Anyway, with all the discriminations left in the past, we are in a new era where political philosophy seems to be entirely better. It is more about what the person can provide rather than what he looks like. It has been a philosophy that we normally believe in even in real life. So if a black president can lead us to better tomorrows then why not?

So as long as we are in the era of being more rational and livid, let us keep it that way. We need all the help we can get and it does not matter if you are black or white!

The bailout trends we have been hearing and reading are indeed something worth looking into. The world is at a crisis and much as we want to do our share, it looks like the fate is left at the hands of people in power in the government and countries that control the monetary system. Businesses are desperately seeking lifesavers and from the looks of it, the bailout philosophy aims to save them from drowning in debt.

While that is a given, you would have to think where the money is coming from. You can assume that these cash reserves were controlled for a purpose and for sure, that purpose is not for crisis to which many did not initially see. These monetary reserves were set aside for something and as an economist, you would think where they would get the money in case they start to be in need.

But frantic as it may, it seems that the problem at hand needs to be addressed. Everyone is panicking and worldwide recession is imminent. So with that in mind will the bailout philosophies work? If so, for how long?

We see the current crisis we have as something that is surely pushing us to the brink of poverty. But while we acknowledge the efforts from the world leaders, when will they get the returns from these borrowed lump sums? Businesses need the boost but as far as these loans are concerned, you would have to think that we may be in for something rougher ahead.

From the eyes of an ordinary consumer, the financial bailout is bound to point to only one thing, save the debt-ridden country from collapsing and nothing else. If only that were the case in doing business then perhaps we would have seen a lot of businesses surviving and economies rising. Sadly, the philosophy of it all is that business is done more than plain business.

There are more business components to consider. One of which is business policies that are sure to be varied, depending on the philosophy of the management team tasked to establish the business venture and create a profit overall. If something goes wrong along the way, you are sure to note that it is not plainly a matter of infusing cash and paying off debt. For how can a business go on surviving if such debts will just accrue over time?

Also, as far as the recourse provided by the government is concerned, it is more than just paying off debt. In exchange, various arrangements such as a stake in the company in the event they fail to settle their financial bailout loan is pegged as one of the key highlights in exchange for a loan. Is that feasible?

As far as companies are concerned, it may be the last hurrah for them. Rather than filing for bankruptcy, they are left with little choices. So in the event they still falter, then the company may give way to political power. If that would be the case, at least they tried and now pass the problem to the government powers. In the end, it is similar to applying a loan using your business as collateral.

Makes you think of the government has a dirty hand in it all. But if that is the philosophy they are applying then they just have to honor it, especially if they sign on the dotted line.