What we’re about
"Human understanding is marvellously enlightened by daily conversation with men, for we are, otherwise, compressed and heaped up in ourselves, and have our sight limited to the length of our own noses." - Michel de Montaigne
"To look life in the face, always, to look life in the face and to know it for what it is..." - Virginia Woolf
It's not easy to find a place to have formal discussions about intellectually oriented topics. So that's what this group is for. It's a discussion group based on articles, books, videos, podcasts, and films. The source material will be based on ideas, in other words substantial stuff. The choice of topics will be eclectic and wide-ranging: ideally a mix of the sciences, the humanities, and the arts.
Please note: A priority of the group is a rational (reason-based) approach (scientific and/or critical thinking). We're looking for people who have considered opinions but aren't dogmatic about them, people who are open-minded and able to talk about opinions that differ from their own in a cooperative way.
The meetings will be on weekends at a pub or restaurant on the Westside & its suburbs.
The group will be kept small to allow members to become familiar with each other, but new members are welcome! If you’re interested in joining, you must have a realistic, recognizable, fairly up-to-date photo. Then apply by answering these questions, which will appear when you click on the ‘request to join’ button:
- Please list three non-fiction books or articles you’ve read recently (please be specific).
- Please list three videos or podcasts that you've found interesting (please be specific).
- Where do you get your news?
- What's your opinion of science?
- What sorts of topics do you most like to talk about?
Thanks...
Michael
*Ideas and content for this group are created solely by the organizer. There is no affiliation with any other organization. Copyright ©
Upcoming events (2)
See all- Ordinary Vices - Judith ShklarLocation available to members, Portland, OR
Judith Shklar’s ideas are a great example of modern useable philosophy - easily understandable and readily applicable to real-life situations. It's about morality for individuals. Her philosophy is in the category of virtue ethics (as opposed to utilitarian and deontological ethics, in philosophy terms), but which basically means that it emphasizes common human characteristics rather than consequences or rules.
Shklar was a professor of political philosophy who taught at Harvard until her death in 1992. She is known for focusing on aspects of injustice rather than justice, which has the effect of subtly changing the objectives of her message and making it more intimate & personal. Her best known book is Ordinary Vices, in which she analyzes cruelty, snobbery, betrayal and hypocrisy. And she believes that cruelty is actually the worst of these.
Let’s listen to a podcast (45 mins) about Shklar’s ideas by David Runciman, Professor of Politics at the University of Cambridge until just this year. He produced this series of podcasts - Talking Politics: History of Ideas - during the Covid pandemic and the one we’ll use as our source is the last in that series (and his favorite, as he says):
https://shows.acast.com/history-of-ideas/episodes/shklaronhypocrisy
~Michael
- Politics as the Art of the PossibleLocation available to members, Portland, OR
Please read the article below about House Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who was the rare Democrat who kept her seat in a conservative, rural district (Washougal, WA in fact) during the recent election. The one thing that is glaringly obvious about her is that she and her concerns are hyper-local. The article makes it clear that she is absolutely dedicated to the welfare of the place where she lives, and all else be damned. This has to be a big part of why she was able to hold her place in the tide and win re-election. Can we draw any insights from this?
In any case, since political situations are never perfect anyway (even at the best of times), it’s important to stay realistic and focus on what seems possible. Gluesenkamp Perez, the 36-year-old mother of a toddler and owner of an auto shop, says “Democratic condescension has to go.” “There’s not one weird trick that’s going to fix the Democratic Party… It is going to take parents of young kids, people in rural communities, people in the trades running for office and being taken seriously.”
So what is politics for? Is it only for the acquisition and wielding of power? Of course it can be that, and for many that is its raison d’etre. But what should politics be for? This, clearly, depends on who you are. For example, it seems that Marie Gluesenkamp Perez has a very different conception of the purpose of politics. Let’s discuss these questions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/08/us/politics/marie-gluesenkamp-perez-interview.html
And to make the parallel point explicit:
Democrats and the Case of Mistaken Identity Politics
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/09/opinion/democrats-identity-politics.htmlIf you'd like to see a more in-depth demographic analysis of the Democratic party’s current problems:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/opinion/democrats-republicans-class-realignment.html*the New York Times can be accessed online through any of the county library websites (free)
~Michael
