Event

How Did We Get Here?: Democracy

Is democracy new or old? Does it deserve the reverence that modern Western society has ascribed to it? In this evening’s program, we’ll look at the evolution of the modern concept of democracy, including how different groups approached practical matters. We’ll trace their solutions to the present day & see how those solutions continue to shape the discourse of the modern world. We’ll also reflect on current challenges to “democracy” and how members of the community can put theory into practice to keep democracy healthy. Learn more & RSVP here!

How Did We Get Here?: Free Will

Debates about “free will” crop up in a wide, wide variety of areas: In discussing law and punishment, we ask whether the defendant acted “of his own free will.” In physics and metaphysics, we wonder whether the future is fully deterministic, or whether our choices might affect the course of things. Theologians of various religious traditions ponder a variety of problems over how to reconcile human freedom with divine providence. And researchers in neuroscience and the philosophy of mind worry over the legacy bequeathed to them from Descartes: how, if at all, can the mind even be connected to the body? What, if anything, do these widely varied conversations in divergent fields have in common, besides the name “free will”? By looking at the history of this much-contested concept in this month’s session of “How Did We Get Here?”, we can begin to peel back the layers! Learn more & RSVP here!

March 2018 Philosophy Think & Drink (squared)

Our March Think & Drink (squared) was lovely. We enjoyed a lively discussion about a topic near and dear to our hearts — empathy. Specifically: the value, role and evolution of empathy and its relationship to “Good & Evil” and (a closely related area of exploration) the neuroscience of free-will. Click here to view what articles we read to prepare for our philosophical discussion and some other resources!

Neuroscience: A New Model for Punishment & Reform?

In this article of the Atlantic, neuroscientist and author, David Eagleman, examines our criminal-justice system and the brain and advocates for a more “biologically-informed jurisprudence.” Why? “Acts cannot be understood separately from the biology of the actors, says Engelman, ” and this recognition has legal implications.” This (among other obvious…