Like freedom, democracy is very relevant to what is happening in the world now.  The following video from Philosophy Tube discusses the many questions about democracy:

https://youtu.be/Vr-ZeToI4R8

The article on "Democracy" in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides useful material on the topic.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#JustDemo 

Some questions are:

• What is democracy?
• What are the characteristics of a democracy?
• How is democracy a good thing?
• Can leaders be trained? Who decides the curriculum?
• What qualities should leaders of democracies have?
• How do we get good leaders rather than people who are just good at winning elections?
• Who can vote?  Should criminals and billionaires be excluded?
• Should there be compulsory voting?
• Are values of votes the same?  If not, is it fair that a high value vote is worth the same as a low one?
• Many organisations, like the armed forces and corporations, are not democratic; why do we accept these non-democratic organisations?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of democracies?
• How and why do democracies fail?
• What can we do to improve our democracy?

John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

 

The ABC Philosopher Zone discusses John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" back in 2009 on the 150th anniversary of its publication.  The guest was John Skorupski, Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of St Andrews, Scotland.

The Philosopher Zone program, which was broadcast on 5 Sep 2009, can be found below:

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/john-stuart-mills-on-liberty-150th-anniversary/3123918 

The program addresses questions like:

• What was the background in which the book was written?
• What were the issues about which Mill was concerned?
• What was the harm principle promoted by Mill?
• Mill was well known as a utilitarian. How can that cohere with his view on liberty?
• What are some of the criticisms of Mill's On Liberty?
• Are freedom and cooperation conflicting concepts?
• How can the states of Australia improve their cooperation?
• How can citizens of a state improve their cooperation?
• If a group of people/entities voluntarily give up a lot of freedom to form the group, is it morally wrong?
• Is it morally wrong for a state or an organisation to impose strict laws or rules on its citizens or members? 

A transcript of the program can be found here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w4BJH9Tcf6TGBWVEMLm43ni7QPDhOjPz/view?usp=sharing

Freedom

Do we truly have the right to unlimited freedom?

Definitions:

Cambridge Dictionary: The power or right to act speak or think as one wants.

Wikipedia: Associated with having free will and being without undue constraints or unjust enslavement and is an idea closely tied with the concept of liberty, a person has the freedom to do things that will not in theory or practice be prevented by other forces.

Thomas Hobbes: Suggested that the surrender of freedom is necessary to a civilized society.

Jeremy Bentham: Proposed a  utilitarian system of moral philosophy in which an action is judged by its usefulness in bringing about beneficial consequences: a morally good action maximises pleasure and minimises pain. A free society raises up and enables its citizens, but also entails giving up some of our personal liberties for the needs of the whole.

The United Nations Declaration of Human rights:

Article 13: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression ;  this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

See Also:

John Stuart Mill on liberty:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lzwQp9aMKFqIqqw7hjrBghQ-JSFhrsUu?usp=sharing

Knowledge Recapped

Why is knowledge important?

Because knowledge matters.  If we are driving on a highway, and if there is a big hole in front, we want to know that.  If our life-savings is invested in the share market, and if the market is about to crash, we want to know that.  

When we say someone knows something, what does that mean?  

A definition proposed by Professor Jennifer Nagel in her video “PHILOSOPHY – Epistemology: Introduction to Theory of Knowledge” is that someone knows something when the person:

•     believes something to be true,
•     that something is actual true, 
•     that the person is confident about the belief, and 
•     the belief is formed on good basis.

What about Scepticism?

A philosopher, Pierre Le Morvan, advocates the "Health Approach"—that explores when skepticism is healthy and when it is not, or when it is virtuous and when it is vicious.  

Some scepticism is vicious, like the Trump supporters who did not believe in the US election result and stormed the Capitol building.  Some scepticism may be virtuous, like a monk who lives a simple meditative life.

What do we mean when we say something is true?  

We discussed the following theories of truth:

•     Correspondence theory,
•     Coherence theory, and 
•     Pragmatic theory.

As pointed out in the video “Theories of Truth”, the three theories should compliment each other.  

When we say something is true, we mean that something:

•     corresponds with reality (when it is verifiable),
•     coheres with our comprehensive view of the world, and 
•     is of practical use to us.

The last dot point above (i.e. the pragmatic theory) takes us back to our original question “why knowledge is important?”  We said because it matters.   The following diagram illustrates the relationship of reality, knowledge, truth and action.

Sometimes, it matters whether something is true or not true, and we have to take appropriate actions.  

Other times, it does not matter whether something is true or otherwise, and we put up with things like Santa Claus, unicorns and fairies.   The monk who lives a simple meditative life does not need to worry about whether the news of the impending share market crash is true or not.

Happy fish Argument 濠梁之辯

 秋水 - 13:

莊子與惠子遊於濠梁之上。莊子曰：「儵魚出遊從容，是魚樂也。」惠子曰：「子非魚，安知魚之樂？」莊子曰：「子非我，安知我不知魚之樂？」惠子曰：「我非子，固不知子矣；子固非魚也，子之不知魚之樂全矣。」莊子曰：「請循其本。子曰『汝安知魚樂』云者，既已知吾知之而問我，我知之濠上也。」

The Floods of Autumn - paragraph 13

Zhuangzi and Huizi were walking on the bridge over the Hao creek, when Zhuangzi said, 'These thryssas come out, and play about at their ease - that is the happiness of fishes.' 

Huizi: You are not a fish; how do you know what constitutes the happiness of fishes?

Zhuangzi: You are not I. How do you know that I do not know what constitutes the happiness of fishes?

Huizi: I am not you; therefore I cannot know you (fully); but you are not a fish, therefore you cannot know what constitutes the happiness of fishes.  The argument is complete.

Zhuangzi: Let us keep to your original question. You said to me, 'How do you know what constitutes the happiness of fishes?' I knew then that you knew that I knew it, and yet you put your question to me - well, I know it over the Hao creek.

• What do you think about the story?  
• Are Zhuangzi and Huizi talking about the same type of knowing?  
• Is Huizi's argument valid?  
• Is Zhuangzi's argument valid?  
• Can Zhuangzi know if fishes are happy?  
• What else may the story be talking about - friendship, being at ease, happiness?

The latter part of the Youtube video below discusses the 'Happy Fish Argument':

Zhuangzi "Autumn Floods" and "Happy Fish Argument" @ Asian Philosophies

https://youtu.be/A49xO5-Qg6s

Reference:

1. 《秋水 - The Floods of Autumn》https://ctext.org/zhuangzi/floods-of-autumn

Theories of Truth

The principal issue is being clear about what you are saying when you say some claim is true.

To illustrate with an example – the question is not: Is it true that there is extraterrestrial life? The question is: What does it mean to say that it is true that there is extraterrestrial life?  Astrobiologists study the former problem; philosophers, the latter.

Some of the important theories of truth are the Correspondence Theory, the Coherence Theory, and the Pragmatic Theory. They are explained in the above video.

The following videos give more detail information on the three theories of truth:

The Correspondence Theory of Truth by Daniel Bonevac

https://youtu.be/qlG_VaN1LHQ

The Coherence Theory of Truth by Daniel Bonevac

https://youtu.be/UGdJf-kZepA

 

Pragmatism by Daniel Bonevac

https://youtu.be/td391dFdXPs

For further information, refer to the following:

• The article on 'Truth' on Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/truth/#H2
• 'Truth, philosophy and logic' Encyclopedia of Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/truth-philosophy-and-logic
• 'Truth' Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Responses to Scepticism

 

The video above presents the following responses to the problem of scepticism:

•  René Descartes (1596 – 1650)
• Descartes argues that he has an innate idea of God as a perfect being. He concludes that God necessarily exists, because, if he did not, he would not be perfect. 
• God is perfect, he does not deceive human beings. Since God leads humans to believe that the material world exists, therefore it does exist.
• This response appears to be a case of confirmation bias.  Descartes, being a Christian, wants to believe that God and reality exist and he rationalises his beliefs. 
• Bertrand Russel (1872 – 1970)
• The bad case is possible, but there is no reason to believe that it is true though.
• The good case is simpler and more likely to be true. 
• G. E. Moore - George Edward Moore (1873 – 1958)
• Proof of an external world:
• Here is one hand,
• Here is another,
• Hands are external objects, 
• Therefore,  external world exists.
• Moore's proof relies on that the premises 'here is one hand' and 'here is another' to be basic and do not need to be proved. 

In the following video, Australian philosopher, David Chalmers (born 1966) gives another response to the problem of scepticism.

Pierre Le Morvan (2011) has distinguished between three broad philosophical responses to skepticism. (from Wikipedia page on Philosophical Skepticism, under the heading Criticism of Epistemological Skepticism.)

• The first he calls the "Foil Approach." Skepticism is treated as a problem to be solved, or challenge to be met, or threat to be parried; its value, if any, derives from its role as a foil. It clarifies by contrast, and so illuminates what is required for knowledge and justified belief. 
• The second he calls the "Bypass Approach" according to which skepticism is bypassed as a central concern of epistemology. 
• Le Morvan advocates a third approach—he dubs it the "Health Approach"—that explores when skepticism is healthy and when it is not, or when it is virtuous and when it is vicious.

Responses from Russel and Moore could be considered as 'foil approaches'.  David Chalmers' response could be considered to be a 'bypass approach'.