This is an Online Debate forum to go with the Specialized Group, Sandel on The Tyranny of Merit. Feel free to ask a question, share your thoughts, respond to others, etc.

INSTRUCTIONS:
• "Leave a Reply" to this entry to start a new discussion thread.
• "Reply" to contribute to a discussion in the relevant thread.
• Don't forget the "Notify me of new comments" checkbox if that is what you want.
• There are various software limitations: (i) Comments are limited to 800 words, so you will need to post multiple replies for longer contributions; (ii) Nesting of replies is limited to two levels, so it may be a good idea in some replies to indicate to whom you are responding, eg "@JoeM 20/9/2021 05:25:26 pm" or suchlike.
• Contact the moderator if you have any problems or questions.

This is an Online Debate forum to go with the Specialized Group, Themes from Aristotle. Feel free to ask a question, share your thoughts, respond to others, etc.

INSTRUCTIONS:
• "Leave a Reply" to this entry to start a new discussion thread.
• "Reply" to contribute to a discussion in the relevant thread.
• Don't forget the "Notify me of new comments" checkbox if that is what you want.
• There are various software limitations: (i) Comments are limited to 800 words, so you will need to post multiple replies for longer contributions; (ii) Nesting of replies is limited to two levels, so it may be a good idea in some replies to indicate to whom you are responding, eg "@JoeM 24/2/2020 05:25:26 pm" or suchlike.
• Contact the moderator if you have any problems or questions.

This is an Online Debate to go with the Specialized Group, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

INSTRUCTIONS:
• "Leave a Reply" to this entry to start a new discussion thread, with some question or some other focus, and perhaps your thoughts on that topic.
• "Reply" to contribute to a discussion in the relevant thread.
• Don't forget the "Notify me of new comments" checkbox if that is what you want.
• There are various software limitations: (i) Comments are limited to 800 words, so you will need to post multiple replies for longer contributions; (ii) Nesting of replies is limited to two levels, so it may be a good idea in some replies to indicate to whom you are responding, eg "@JoeM 6/6/2019 05:25:26 pm" or suchlike.
• Contact the moderator if you have any problems or questions.

In 2018, the Ramsay Center approached various universities with a proposal to lavishly fund a new specialist BA degree in Western Civilization, the underlying philosophy of which was enunciated in Robert Hutchins' 1952 essay The Great Conversation [abridged text below, but see here for the full text, and here for the University of Wollongong's degree]. For many, such a proposal is way past its use-by date in university humanities departments [here, but see also here]. They objected that its narrow focus is at odds with diversity and inclusion, that it implies some civilizations are superior to others, and, according to some, that it is European supremacism writ large—So, should universities be teaching western civilization?

Science gives us many useful things, but useful things are only ever for the sake of other, higher, things. By contrast, the arts give us culture, and religion gives us meaning. Richard Feynman [reading below] thinks that science allows the joyful imagination of things more marvelous than poetry, and seems to want to replace God by Nature as the object of our awe. But science can be used for harm, the joy is reserved only for specialists like Feynman, and are fuzzy images of black holes really a replacement for God? Damian Broderick [reading below] is aware of these sorts of problems, and thinks we need an erotics of science. So, can science give us more than just gadgets?—What value does science have for the spirit?

We all think that animals have at least some rights, though there are different opinions about exactly why they do so. Some say it is because of their sentience, some because of rationality, and some because of our sympathy. But robots are getting smarter and smarter these days, and some people [for example here, also attached below] are beginning to seriously ask whether these sorts of reasons apply to robots as well. Are they sentient? Are they rational? Certainly, some robots are pretty cute. So we ask, if animals have rights, should robots?

The European Wars of Religion taught the West a bloody lesson in the value of mutual toleration between religious groups. The practices of traditional religious groups towards some of their members, however, seem discriminatory and unjust by the egalitarian standards of the liberal state (for example, here). Can these practices be tolerated? Some (such as Habermas) suggest that these  groups must simply adjust their beliefs to fit the egalitarian ethos. Others (such as Kymlicka) are more conciliatory. So what are the limits of religious toleration?

This question is increasingly relevant to the way discussions are conducted, public and academic. This was particularly the case for the Same-Sex Marriage debate, in which it was suggested [here] that the debate itself was problematic. And the very same concerns have now entered into the universities, with a recent petition for a prominent anti-SSM academic, John Finnis, to be removed from his position for his views [discussion here].

These cases raise immediate questions: Is it wrong to SAY that heterosexual relations are morally superior to homosexual relations? Does it matter whether it is true or not? Is there an inoffensive way of saying such a thing? If not, is the offense enough to make it wrong? To mean that it should be illegal? How CAN we have this sort of discussion? But there are also broader questions: How can we discuss ANYTHING about which opposing sides feel very strongly, if at all? Is sincere offense enough to make speech wrong? How free CAN philosophical discussion be in the public domain? Or is real philosophical discussion just too dangerous in public places?