28 August 2009

from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: the nature of dreams + Chris needs your help and call for cv’s from EFL teachers

Two messages

Dear friends,

This Sunday we are discussing the nature of dreams. The topic is wide
enough in my opinion to including dreams as what we have when we are
asleep and dreams as what we want to achieve in our lives. Matilda was
thinking of the first interpretation when she proposed the subject.

In the meantime a dream has been shattered for Christine when her bike
was stolen on the 22 August. And a dream could be reached if you are a
budding English teacher since Patricia is looking for English teachers
(budding or not) in her capacity as head of studies at Tandem.

I am including this link for the photos of Chris's bike:
http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo/ChristineSStolenBike?feat=directlink

======message from Chris=======
Hola a Todos,

El sabado 22 a pleno sol me han robado mi querida bici en frente de
la Casa Encendida, y como era un modelo unico en madrid y tenia 17
años. La policia tiene una foto- y ademas estoy avisando mis amigos
de la zona. Si por casualidad alguien la ve en la calle que llame
al 091 y a mi por favor .

Adjunto una foto de ella tambien tenia un claxon negro estilo
antiguo como una trompeta en el manillar que no sale en la foto.

Muchas gracias a todas por vuestra ayuda.

Beso,
Christine

======message from Patricia=======

Dear Lawrence

It was nice to see you again the other day after such a long time. As I
told you the other day I have just started my new job as Head of Studies
for in-company courses at Tandem.

We need English Teachers, so if anyone of the Tertulia Group is
interested, please send me your CV

ingles@tandem-madrid.com

Thank you for passing on this message!

Patricia

Patricia Jahncke
Key Account Manager
English, French, Portuguese
Tandem International School
Tel (34) 915 322 715
Fax (34) 915 224 539
C/Marqués de Cubas, 8
28014 Madrid
www.tandem-madrid.com
Skype: Jaytandem
"One should always be a little improbable" Oscar Wilde

=======end=====


IF YOU DON'T GET AN EMAIL BY FRIDAY PLEASE LET ME KNOW


+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.00pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group
photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My
tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dimas Taxi service: mobile 627 219 316 email dimasobregon@hotmail.com

TINA Flat http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/photosphilo/TINAFLAT

Tertulia with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30 to 21h, at
Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/
**********HOLIDAY FLATS**********
Mayte; Almería (Villa de Níjar);
http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo/HOLIDAY_FLAT_mayte_AlmerAVillaDeNJar
*************************************


from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: the nature of
dreams + Chris needs your help and call for cv's from EFL teachers

21 August 2009

from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: The philosophy of possession

Dear friends,

This Sunday we are discussing, The philosophy of possession.

Not a very common subject in itself but possession as wealth is
certainly a common subject. And it affects us all whether we like it or not.

Take care and see you Sunday.


Lawrence

IF YOU DON'T GET AN EMAIL BY FRIDAY PLEASE LET ME KNOW


+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.00pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group
photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My
tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dimas Taxi service: mobile 627 219 316 email dimasobregon@hotmail.com

TINA Flat http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/photosphilo/TINAFLAT

Tertulia with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30 to 21h, at
Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/

**********HOLIDAY FLATS**********
Mayte; Almería (Villa de Níjar);
http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo/HOLIDAY_FLAT_mayte_AlmerAVillaDeNJar
*************************************


from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: The philosophy of
possession

13 August 2009

from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Loyalty

Dear friends,

This Sunday we are discussing Loyalty. This is quite apt since even
during these holidays and crazy heat we have been having quite a good
discussion on Sundays.

All the best,

Lawrence

IF YOU DON'T GET AN EMAIL BY FRIDAY PLEASE LET ME KNOW


+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.00pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group
photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My
tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Loyalty

Maybe loyalty is a concept more difficult to define and more complex to
analyze than say fidelity. We know exactly when and how we have to be
faithful and what constitutes being unfaithful.

We have to be faithful to someone when our declared love for them is
reciprocated and we are unfaithful when we share our love (or physical
desires to be precise) with someone other than the person we claimed to
be in love with. If you are not sure or convinced about this just ask
your present partner to explain.

An important quality or feature of loyalty is what John Kleinig
describes in his essay on the subject in the Stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy as "The test of loyalty is conduct rather than intensity of
feeling...." In other words loyalty is something we do and not some
thing we feel.

But although conduct is a necessary condition it is of course not a
sufficient one. We can fake behaving "as if" we are loyal but we cannot
fake loyalty. One of the reasons that we cannot fake loyalty is because
loyalty is tested and proven under adverse conditions. Being faithful to
your partner is not a question of prevailing conditions but whether you
go with someone else or not. One's loyalty is proven when we have to
take some serious decisions where either us or the person we are loyal
to is going to suffer.

If we accept this situation we probably need to investigate the question
of motivation. Why be loyal? Why commit ourselves to someone when there
is a good chance we might be put in a disadvantageous situation,
especially in the future? But to claim this I have to assume that now we
are not in a disadvantaged position and more importantly, my loyalty is
based on some free will. If not either party could be taking advantage
of the situation and this is hardly a situation when one acts from free
will.

In turn this implies an evolutionary meaning (see Kleinig essay for more
on this debate) because we can assume that not only there must be some
gain in being loyal, but also a rational meaning of loyalty. There must
be gain because otherwise it will be altruism, and rational because we
have to make a choice now taking into consideration possible future events.

This is not, therefore, to be mixed up with behaving "as if" we are
loyal. To behave "as if" is to behave now according to the prevailing
conditions, and not in consideration of possible future obligations we
see ourselves bound by.

There are, in my opinion, two other issues related to loyalty. If
loyalty can be an advantage for us, do we confer some sort of advantage
to the person we are loyalty to? And does our loyalty imply some sort of
obligation on the person we are loyalty to?

To answer the first question I would assume that there must be some sort
gain conferred on the person we are loyal to. If no gain is conferred on
the other person than this could easily be described as selfishness
because the benefit is one way, our way, and I have already established
that we do gain when we are loyal otherwise it would be altruism.
However, there is one big proviso for this.

Thinking that we are conferring a gain on the other person it does not
follow that this gain we think we are conferring is useful, beneficial,
appreciated or even known by the other person. We might think we are
conferring huge benefits on the other person but they might see what we
are doing just a matter of course of events.

As to whether the other person has some sort of obligation towards the
person who is loyal to them (reciprocated loyalty) this depends on a
number of factors. I would say that those factors would include
recognizing that the loyal person is conveying some useful benefit
(think win-win strategy here) and that the person who is receiving the
benefit from the loyal person is receiving this benefit is doing so
freely. As I have argued, for there to be loyalty there must also be a
free choice to be so. Oppression or acting from a position of
inferiority would, in my opinion, negate any chance of loyalty.

On this interpretation, I accept that this would immediately rule out
loyalty between employee and employer. But not necessarily between
directors of a company who are supposed to be peers.

I now wish to consider an issue which I will put forward in non
philosophical terms: what's the big deal about loyalty? In other words,
what can we do with loyalty which we cannot do with other things? For
example, between selfishness and altruism we can cover both the key
aspects of loyalty, i.e. receiving a gain and conferring a gain.

Of course, we cannot be selfish and altruistic about the same thing at
the same time, but we can receive a gain and confer a gain under the
terms and conditions of loyalty.

Maybe the big deal about loyalty is that it is a human rational strategy
when we consider the issues in terms of the future and in terms on
investing more effort in some relationships and not others. Another
aspect of loyalty is that unlike fidelity, it need not be declared
explicitly to be practiced or feel bound by it. For fidelity to take
effect there must be a public declaration by the two parties of love and
therefore of fidelity. We cannot be unfaithful to some we have not
declared our love to. However, we can be loyal to someone without
telling anyone about it.

It seems to me that although loyalty is based on rational reasoning
there must also be some emotional attachment involved. Maybe we feel
grateful for the way the other person treats us, maybe we feel grateful
for considering us as an equal. The reasons might be numerous, but the
emotional component if there is one, would make the matter more complex
which it is.

Finally I wish to consider two cases.

Kleinig also discusses the standard example in this debate of the loyal
Nazi. He does this in the context of the debate of whether loyalty is a
virtue; and citing Ewin (see essay for references) who thinks that
loyalty is not a virtue because there can be a loyal Nazi.

I do not wish to enter this debate because I personally believe that
loyalty is an evolutionary strategy and not an ethical virtue. This
might make loyalty less romantic, but in my opinion will certainly make
it more indispensible for human relationships. Moreover, in my opinion,
loyalty does not have much to tell us on the debate of the ethics of
Nazism (and vice versa). Although the ethics of Nazism is another
debate, a quick empirical look at the facts would go a long way to show
the fallacy of this doctrine (ditto with the so called communism)!

The second case is, can animals be loyal and to get to the point, are
dogs really loyal? At face value I am neither a dog psychologist nor a
dog so I cannot really say much on the topic. However, I have a strong
feeling that what we think is loyalty on the part of our pet dog is none
other than an extremely clever execution of a win-win strategy. And some
dogs are good at it or bred for it and some are not.

Could it be that some people are just loyal and some are not?

Take care

Lawrence

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dimas Taxi service: mobile 627 219 316 email dimasobregon@hotmail.com

TINA Flat http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/photosphilo/TINAFLAT

Tertulia with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30 to 21h, at
Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/

**********HOLIDAY FLATS**********
Mayte; Almería (Villa de Níjar);
http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo/HOLIDAY_FLAT_mayte_AlmerAVillaDeNJar
*************************************


from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Loyalty

07 August 2009

from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Team vs Individualism

Short essay


Dear friends,

This Sunday we are discussing Team vs Individualism.

A discussion on teams and individualism is always a challenging debate.
And in an economic and confidence crisis we happen to be in at the
moment the situation might even be more pressing; should we go it alone
and try to survive or should we all team up to clean up the mess?

But the question is not only easier said than done, but more complex
than we can imagine, as I try to show in my very short essay.

Take care see you Sunday

Lawrence


IF YOU DON'T GET AN EMAIL BY FRIDAY PLEASE LET ME KNOW


+++++++++MEETING DETAILS+++++++++
SUNDAY 6.00pm – 8.30pm at Molly Malone's Pub, probably downstairs----
-Email: philomadrid@yahoo.co.uk
-Yahoo group >> philomadridgroup-subscribe@yahoogroups.co.uk <
-Old essays: www.geocities.com/philomadrid
- Blog: http://philomadrid.blogspot.com/
-Group
photos: http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo
-My
tel 606081813
-metro: Bilbao : buses: 21, 149, 147
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dimas Taxi service: mobile 627 219 316 email dimasobregon@hotmail.com

TINA Flat http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/photosphilo/TINAFLAT

Tertulia with Ignacio and friends: Every Thursday, from 19:30 to 21h, at
Moore's Irish Pub, c/ Barceló 1 (metro Tribunal).
http://sites.google.com/site/tertuliainenglishmadrid/
**********HOLIDAY FLATS**********
Mayte; Almería (Villa de Níjar);
http://picasaweb.google.com/photosphilo/HOLIDAY_FLAT_mayte_AlmerAVillaDeNJar
*************************************


Team vs individualism

In an analysis of team work and individual enterprise we are faced with
a dichotomy of the following nature: although there are only individuals
in the world, people like you and me, most of our survival needs are
totally dependent on team work. Another term for team work would be
society although these two terms are neither synonyms nor the same system.

Like many issues in philosophy the problem we are considering involved a
language factor. In our debate I feel that language problem comes down
to the meaning of survival. We might easily interpret survival to mean
something like living on our wits when we don't have access to goods and
services generally available in our society. We might call this the
Robinson Croeso survival meaning.

One of the meanings of survival in thefreedictionary.com/survival is:
The act or process of surviving. Although the Robinson Croeso meaning of
survival is an extreme case, it is not, in my opinion, a representative
meaning of what we normally mean by survival, especially in philosophy.
So what ought we to mean by survival in a philosophical context?

To begin with there is the biological process of survival. Not only do
we need such things as food to survive as biological systems but also,
medical attention, shelter (i.e. housing), clothes, and personal safety
and security. Without a steady supply of these elements during our life
time we wouldn't make much progress as a biological entity. But all
these activities today, and maybe from day one, are the product of team
work. And it is thanks to this team endeavour that today we expect to
survive biologically into our eighties if not nineties. The fact that I
can write these few lines and you can read them later is one hundred
percent the effort of team work.

The meaning of survival is therefore more complex than the Robinson
Croeso meaning. In a way we are the product of team work right from the
start whether we have natural parents or the result of a technological
process.

We can safely assume that whatever we achieve as individuals we do so
with a great deal of support from others; irrespective if that support
was provided directly or indirectly.

However, this might give the impression that the individual is
insignificant or irrelevant. The issue is not whether the individual is
relevant or not, but rather what is the role of the individual in all this?

So far I have argued that the individual needs a team effort to survive
thus giving the impression that there is only a one way process. Of
course, as individuals we also have to contribute to some team effort.
And many, if not most people do contribute to some team effort, so it is
not simply a one way process.

But before looking into the role of the individual in the context of
team effort and a world where teams or societies dominate, there is also
the question of the role of teams.

We can also interpret this question as whether teams are there to
benefit individuals or the team?

There is a difference between a team benefitting individuals and an
individual. For example, a free health service would be a team to
benefit individuals, but, say, a business whose only objective is to
enrich its owner would be a team that benefits an individual. The
ethical issue is whether in the process on enrich him or her self the
business owner also offers fair and reasonable conditions for the
employees.

It is, however, more common for a small group of people to exploit a
larger number of people, political dictators are very good at this
strategy. Although teams are necessary institutions, some of them might
not benefit many individuals and some are a real threat to individuals.

Finally, what is the role of the individual? At the simple level the
role of the individual is precisely to be that, an individual. But this
is easier said than done. Many political or social groups openly
discourage individualism. Whilst at the same time it is self evident
that what individualism means. Individualism cannot be to do what we
like irrespective of the consequences to others. This will not do. It
cannot mean excluding ourselves from people who share our interests and
convictions. To deny associating with like minded people would be to
deny the fact that people already associate with like minded people and
have done since there have been living cells.

Maybe the meaning of what is an individual is not to be had by a
semantic analysis but by looking at the way the world is.

One necessary condition for individualism is opportunity.

Without opportunities we are nothing. Now, whether we should strive to
create our opportunities or have them given to us is of course a rather
side issue. Nor is it that relevant in discussing the question of
meaning of individualism whether we ought to take advantage of any
opportunities presented to us. But once we settle the issue of meaning
of individuals these issues do become somewhat relevant.

One of those opportunities that really matters for an individual is to
develop one's talents. But this is not easy, consider this article from
the Law.com on a report published recently in the UK on social mobility:
The report, compiled by a panel chaired by former cabinet minister Alan
Milburn, calls on occupations such as lawyers and doctors to widen
access to their professions after becoming increasingly more exclusive
in recent decades. (U.K. Government Report Labels Legal Profession as
'Socially Exclusive', by Jeremy Hodges, July 22, 2009:
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/international/LawArticleIntl.jsp?id=1202432429375).
One reason for this exclusivity is that companies or institutions do not
pay trainees to work in their chosen profession thus that either have to
borrow a lot of money or be financed by the family.

The Law.com article is very disquieting, but that's maybe because we, as
individuals, recognize the unfairness and injustice of this state of
affairs. But there is nothing more disquieting than those societies that
forcefully disapprove of any individual expression.

Ironically, in my opinion, a debate on team vs individualism, the key
fact is that it is individuals that make up the team. To imagine that
somehow a team inherits some sort of property that is not present in the
individual is to make a categorical mistake, in the same way that the
mind is not something different from the body. And of course, the reason
why some teams work well is because individuals cooperate with each
other; nothing more magical than that.

Take care

Lawrence

from Lawrence, Pub Philosophy Group, Sunday meeting: Team vs Individualism