PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 26th June: (Short title) knowledge from no experience

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: How much do we know about something we
didn't experience?
The topic was proposed by Malik. In my short essay I have a look at the
possibilities in such a situation.

Short title: knowledge from no experience
How much do we know about something we didn't experience?
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/06/how-much-do-we-know-about-something-we.html

Please contact me for the Skype link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 26th June: (Short title) knowledge
from no experience

How much do we know about something we didn’t experience?

Short title: knowledge from no experience

 

How much do we know about something we didn’t experience?

Topic by Malik

Essay by Lawrence

 

 

This question can easily be summed up as the empirical vs rational debate in epistemology. How do we know what a number is given that numbers are not like oranges and apples? In other words, how much can we know about something we can never experience?

 

But the topic question is not asking how much we can know about something that cannot be experienced, but rather how much can we know about something others have experienced but not us.

 

This means that the real question is how reliable are reports from others about something we have not experienced. Of course, one of the main issues here is that it is unlikely that the experience others have of an event will be the same experience we would have had, had we been at the event ourselves. Our character, personality and personal history would determine what kind of experience we would have whether we were present at the event or not.

 

The nature of the “experience” also influences the kind of knowledge that is available about the event. Someone reporting how they were abducted by the aliens is not the same as how enjoyable a football match was. We have various means to verify what more or less happened at the football match.

 

Hence, as far as our question is concerned, the epistemic value we might have of an event depends on 1) the efficacy of the information we have of the event, and 2) how much knowledge can possibly be extracted from an event. A televised football match probably has a huge amount of verifiable extracts of knowledge. As for the aliens, unless they left some strange marks or something our knowledge about the event is practically zero. The thing about knowledge is not that it is true, but that it can be verified.

 

Another problem is whether our language (natural or not, eg mathematics) can cope with our experience, meaning is our language robust enough to describe our experience. Sometimes, we cannot describe a new experience because we don’t have the language to report the experience and sometimes very few people have the knowledge of the language to report what they experience. So although our knowledge about an event might be limited because we did not experience the event, the real question is: do we have the means to understand the reports of an event experienced by others?

 

In effect, just because we don’t experience an event, it does not mean that we cannot have enough knowledge about the event. The value of that knowledge, however, depends on the robustness of the reports (information/data) we have about the event. Speaking the same language is a good start to have a good amount of knowledge about an event.

 

Best and take care

 

Lawrence

 

 

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

 

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

 

http://www.philomadrid.com

 

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 19th June: Collaboration

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Collaboration.

The topic was suggested by Moinul` Zaber. In my short essay I try to
identify the necessary and sufficient condition for collaboration.

Collaboration
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/06/collaboration.html


Please contact me for the the Skype link.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 19th June: Collaboration

Collaboration

Collaboration

Topic by Moinul` Zaber.

Essay by Lawrence

 

First a note about language. For a long time after the Second World War the word “collaborator” was a pejorative term and referred to French (but not only French) people who collaborated with the NAZIs during of occupation of France. Instead I shall use the term “cooperation” not necessarily because of the connection with the mid 20^th century history but also because cooperation has been used for many centuries.

 

One of the most important uses of the term cooperation is the legal organisation called cooperatives. The idea is for the members of the cooperative achieve their goals by cooperating together. A business cooperative shares the profits among the members of the cooperative. One argument is that cooperatives were set up as a “rejection” to the idea of charity: maybe god helps those who help themselves.

 

There is no doubt, and I would argue, that the term “collaboration” has gained extensive use through the modern influence of American English and also through the interaction between native speakers of Latin based languages. You will remember that collaboration is colaboración in Spanish, collaboration in French and collaborazione in Italian. But what I consider the most important for the word collaboration to flourish is that European speakers are directly interacting with the English speak world. And collaboration seems to be the predominant term use in European languages.

 

Of course, all these European languages also have the term cooperation and collaboration is not exclusive to American English. The simple fact is that Americans use the term cooperative even in a business context with not much deviation from what we normally understand by cooperation. But this is an essay about the philosophy of the meaning of cooperation/collaboration.

 

Whether we look at the meaning of collaboration or cooperation we find such terms as “working together”, “common purpose” or “common goal” as the key terms for the meaning of cooperation or collaboration.

 

So what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve cooperation? A general condition of cooperation is that it is rational, and maybe even moral, to cooperate with someone else to achieve a goal that would, otherwise, won’t be possible to achieve alone.

 

For example, if I want to build a table it makes more sense for me to by the wood from a wood merchant and the tools from an ironmonger and then make the table at home. Going through the relevant shops to make my table means that many people in the supply chain had to do their work properly so I can find the things I need to make a table. Without this cooperation nothing will happen, even considering that each person in the supply chain is there to make a living.

 

As the first cooperatives had discovered cooperation is not incompatible with personal survival. Cooperation is a win-win sum game. We can say that cooperation is a means to maximise our gains by grouping resources so everyone else in the group can maximise their gains. Zero sum games can only survive until someone else has a bigger stick or a bigger hammer to beat down the competition.

 

Of course, the drawbacks of cooperation are that whilst the cooperative can maximise their profits, our share is always equal to the other members of the cooperative. But this is not the compatible with someone disposed to being selfish or greedy. The real question is whether one should go it alone or stay in the group to maximise one’s gains?

 

We can look at the necessary and sufficient conditions of cooperation by look at the foundations of Doctor-Patient relationship. In a paper by Fallon E. Chipidza et al., Impact of the Doctor-Patient Relationship, the authors identify “Trust, knowledge, regard, and loyalty are the 4 elements that form the doctor-patient relationship,….” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4732308/). By “regard” they mean respect. We can accept that a Doctor-Patient relationship is fundamentally a cooperation game.

 

Trust, in our context, is not just the patient trusting the doctor but also the doctor trusting the patient. It is reasonable to assume that doctors trust their patient that, the patient, is consulting the doctor in “good faith”. This means that the patient really believes they have a problem that requires the time and expertise of the doctor.

 

In the context of a cooperative (and a doctor’s office) we expect people to know what they are doing. A cooperative member of olive growers is expected to know how to collect olives and when to collect the olives. I would argue that knowledge confirms trust: helping to solve a problem for a patient can only mean that the patient trusts the doctor. And the patient knowing what they are experiencing can only help the doctor.

 

Without respect and loyalty, I would argue, there cannot be cooperation. The collective behaviour of the British government towards European partners is a disgraceful example of disrespect and disloyalty. In this geo-political game, the Tory party expected to win all the gains from leaving the EU, but in this zero sum game, so far the UK has achieved zero gains.

 

From the philosophical perspective, is cooperation/collaboration a long term solution for short term problems?

 

Best and take care

Lawrence

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com

 

PhiloMadrid no meeting this coming Sunday

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are not having a meeting due to personal commitments.

Our meeting on the 19th June will be on Collaboration and the topic was
suggested by Moinul` Zaber.

I will write again next week on Thursday to confirm the meeting on the
19th June and include any essays.

Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid no meeting this coming Sunday

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 5th June: Democracy without parties (2)

Dear Friends:

This Sunday we are discussing: Democracy without parties (2).

The topic was proposed by James.

We discussed this exact topic way back in May 2011 (2nd link below) and
we have also discussed the subject of democracy many times over the
years, including some of the early meetings of the group.

In my essay today I look at some philosophical issues that underline our
dissatisfaction with political parties and the democratic process. In my
2011 short essay I discuss the topic from a slightly different
perspective, mainly wealth distribution:

Democracy without parties (2)
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/06/democracy-without-parties-2.html

2011 old essay

Democracy without political parties
https://www.philomadrid.com/2011/05/from-lawrence-this-sunday-meeting.html

Finally, if you need the Skype link please let me know.

Best Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 5th June: Democracy without parties (2)

Democracy without parties (2)

 

Democracy without parties (2)

 

Topic by James

Essay by Lawrence

 

 

Once upon a time there were no parties, in the modern sense of parties, in assemblies or councils in various countries. At the most assemblies had factions or maybe support for a person in the council.

 

Even early seventeenth or nineteenth century parties were in transition from factions to parties. For example the Whigs (UK, 1678-1859) were mainly against absolute monarchy and supported constitutional monarchism but they started as a faction in the UK “parliament” and by the time they were dissolved they had evolved into a party.

 

The Tories, the name is modern Irish, tóraí, meaning "outlaw" (check Wikipedia for these early parties), had quite a chequered history, but their main philosophy has always been that inheritance brings stability (see Tories Wikipedia). Today many people who are anti Tory, even though officially the party is called the Conservative party, would characterise this party as people who feel they are entitled to hold power and have a birthright to be wealthy.

 

The Whigs, who merged into the Liberal Party of the late 19^th century, and many would say were then overtaken by the Labour party, were the “anti establishment” party over time. By the time Labour became the natural opponents of the Tories during the 20^th century they became more militant, but their major weakness has always been that they never understood the international nature of socialism. It can be argued that this historical evolution has led to the catastrophic economic and political consequences of Brexit in the UK by failing to understand Britain’s role in geopolitics.

 

I mention these examples of UK parties mainly because I understand their history, but also because of our restrictions on Spanish politics. But there is nothing extraordinary about these parties. What matters is that political parties tend to reflect factions and interests in society and gain legitimacy by members of the parties being elected to parliaments.

 

Under the British system political parties are recognised by the parliamentary system through various constitutional instruments: the Whips office, budgets, the official opposition office, and so on. These instruments are confirmed through parliamentary votes rather than being mentioned in a codified constitution.

 

If we’re to be pedantic about the meaning of democracy, this term would mean what we think it means today only these past fifty or sixty years. The populist meaning of democracy today is voting for a government meaning parliament, during elections. Historically, democracies excluded women from voting, slaves, and non-land owners from the election process. Today many millions of people are excluded from the election processes simply because they are not citizens of the country they are official residents: but they are citizens enough to pay taxes. Unfortunately, I would argue that we are not better off from the American colonialists who gave us the democratic slogan: no taxation without representation.

 

The first philosophical issue we come across is the idea that democracy is power of the people. It is clear that names (or words) do not give meaning to the said word. I have tried to show that democracy does not mean the people because not everyone is allowed or has been allowed to participate in the election process. Secondly, the “-kratia” part of democracy, that is “power, rule” is once again not what we understand by power in everyday use today.

 

In the British example at least, the parties or factions in parliament exercise any power they have in parliament to meet the demands of their supporters in the country. But a key factor of democracy, however, is that the government is supposed to look after the interests of all the people and the country.

 

So can you see the second philosophical issue? Parties are elected to parliament to look after the interests of those who supported them during the election, usually based on a manifesto or ideology. But the government are made up of members of parliament who have the support of the majority of MPs. And yet these same people who form the government are supposed to look after the interests of the whole country and all citizens. You will remember that 16million people voted for the UK to leave the EU, yet the population of the UK is approximately 65million people. QED

 

Another reason why I am using the UK as a question example is because it is an extreme case even under normal circumstances. Having said that, the philosophical and political philosophy issues of the UK example are, more or less, the same for most countries.

 

Even if we can agree what democracy is at the practical level, or ought to be at the philosophical level, we still have the misconception mentioned by Lincoln during the Gettysburg Address “….government of the people, by the people, for the people” (see Wikipedia or other sources). Granted that in the USA they do some things different, in my UK example, Members of Parliament only swear an oath equivalent to be loyal to the Queen. In the USA and Spain the equivalent legislators swear an oath to protect the constitution. My point is that no one swears an oath to protect the people, or to serve the people as Lincoln tried to argue. I agree that written constitutions are more robust than uncodified constitutions, but constitutions can still be changed.

 

For me the underlying philosophical issue of this topic is that parties in parliament, and I have argued this in the past, are incompatible with the concept of members of parliament having absolute power. MPs have a priori proclaimed they will protect the interests of those who voted for them yet they are theoretically support to protect the interests of the whole country. At the very least this is muddled philosophical thinking.

A possible solution to the problems presented by our topic is to remove the Whip system in parliament. Political parties can function outside parliament, maybe on the lines of NGOs, but members of parliament can vote according to their conscience in a secret vote.

 

Best Lawrence

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com