Announcing a short break...

Making some connections between thought, language and action.Laurance’s topic in this episode is language, and his broad aim is to reveal some connections between the logical and ethical dimensions of language, and the socio-political issues of free speech and hate speech. Along the way, he will explore the familiar, yet puzzling, question of how thought, speech and action are related.Laurance asks, “What is the point of language?” and notes the common response that language is intended to communicate our own subjective thoughts, ideas and opinions. However, this response is problematic, in part because it assumes a “Cartesian” or dualist view of mind and body, and prioritises thinking and feeling over their expression. Dualism runs into some well-known difficulties, including puzzles about causality. We readily find examples of physical or material phenomena both causing, and being caused by, such mental or psychological phenomena as our beliefs, desires, intentions and emotional states. But how can such causal relationships exist between mind and body if, as dualism claims, these two domains are completely separate from each other?Laurance then moves to consider some of the familiar assumptions we make when we speak and listen to one another. We assume that we can understand each other, but beyond linguistics and grammar, we assume the mutual acceptance of a basic logical structure designed to expose assumptions and implications which are contradictory or inconsistent. This structure is also intended to guarantee what we call “truth preservation”, that is, an assurance that, provided we begin with true statements or beliefs, sound logic and reasoning will never lead to false conclusions.This is important because both meaning and truth, or truthfulness, are linked to such ethical virtues as sincerity, accuracy and trust. In practice, this points to the importance of embedding even casual conversation in a framework in which it is appropriate to challenge what has been said, to question the assumptions and reasoning strategies being used, etc.Moving to the topic of free speech, most notably in the context of demonstrations and rallies in which contentious, inflammatory or hateful speech, whether in the form of statements/assertions or exclamations/commands, is used, Laurance notes that such contexts leave no room for the kinds of follow-up questions and challenges just referred to.Nevertheless, unless we believe that those engaging in such speech acts are simply mimicking or repeating what others have said, and many probably are, it is reasonable to hold them accountable, both for the truth of what is said and for its likely impact on others. In this sense, speech constitutes a form of action and, occasionally, action which can be judged as genuinely harmful.Leaving open the question of whether such harm, where it can be clearly established, should be open to legal sanctions, Laurance cites the views of the philosopher J. S. Mill, who famously defended the right of free speech in just about every circumstance, because the consequences of banning it would nearly always be worse.Wary of claiming to arrive at any strong conclusions on the topic of free speech, Laurance nevertheless suggests that proclaiming such speech as the foundation of a democratic society is somewhat “underwhelming”. Spoken and written slogans and exclamations made at rallies, demonstrations and on social media do not absolve those who make them from attending to the logical and ethical requirements which are essential hallmarks of a civil and respectful society.Laurance ends the episode by citing some recent media statements which reinforce this point.Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedInFor resources, transcripts and more visit: https://www.therestisuncertain.com/episodes/

After 20 episodes of the Podcast – all of which can be found via the link www.therestisuncertain.com – Laurance will take a short break.Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedInFor resources, transcripts and more visit: https://www.therestisuncertain.com/episodes/ 

Reflecting on the theme of “examining one’s life”.In this episode, Laurance engages in some professional and personal reflection to explain how these components have combined in shaping the direction of his life (so far!). He cites the phrase “the life of the mind” as a powerful motivating force in his own education, but acknowledges its limitations, including the reference to just one mind, and its focus on cognition and reasoning over emotion and affect. He reminds listeners of Jonathan Haidt’s colourful metaphor of the mind’s reasoning rider and its emotive elephant, and his thesis that the former is often controlled by the latter.Laurance points to his somewhat ironic commitment to the concept of community, the irony being that while he extols the virtues of community in his own writing and teaching, he has always struggled to feel connected to any particular community. He refers to the  major shift in his career trajectory when he became involved in Philosophy for Children and spent many years working with educators and children, and establishing regional, national and international organizations committed to “P4C”. After reviewing the key concept of the community of inquiry, and its connection with a relational view of what being a person amounts to, he turns to some reflection on his own development during his early years. He gravitated to positions of leadership, in part to avoid the casual intimacy of communal life, and also because he yearned to be recognized and appreciated. He was and is something of a perfectionist who always found it difficult to accept compromise, particularly in the context of interpersonal relationships. He knew, from his early adolescence, that he had an emotional attraction to other boys and men, but did not share his feelings with anyone, and only “came out” to himself and others during his late twenties. By then he had completed post graduate studies at Oxford, thanks to the Rhodes Scholarship which he was awarded at the age of 22.After reflecting on the well-known affinity between abstract mathematics (which he studied) and Baroque music (which he still performs as a chorister), Laurance presents his own views about sexuality and gender, arguing that stereotypical ideas about romantic and sexual attraction have made it particularly difficult for gay men to navigate around concepts of intimacy and, even, love.In closing, Laurance returns to the idea that contemporary analytic philosophy can accommodate a balanced view of “self”, which is both embedded in a thriving network of other “selves” and reflects a harmonious balance of the best aspects of intellectual and emotional life.After 20 episodes of the Podcast – all of which can be found via the link www.therestisuncertain.com – Laurance will take a short break in order to consider future topics and directions, and to continue looking for people interested in having a lively conversation on topics of mutual concern. He is always keen to promote the podcast in a crowded podcast world and expresses his thanks and gratitude to those who have been regular – or even irregular – listeners. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedInFor resources, transcripts and more visit: https://www.therestisuncertain.com/episodes/ 

This time an actual conversation.In this episode, Laurance talks with Professor John Bishop, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Auckland University. A long-standing colleague and friend, and also a  practising Christian, John has published several books and articles on the philosophy of religion exploring, among other things, whether we are justified in having beliefs based on faith for which there is no real evidence. With respect to Christianity, John claims that even if certain historical truths about the life, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ are regarded as essential, the idea that such truths can be the basis for a moral guide to how we should live would still require something like a “leap of faith”.Responding to Laurance’s question about whether religion is best characterized in terms of an essential set of beliefs or, in more sociological terms, as a mechanism for bringing people together as a community, John suggests that these ideas are somewhat complementary, in that the very idea of being part of a worthwhile community is linked to deeper concerns about how we should live and flourish together.Laurance invites John to comment on the reality that different religions will often have different views about how their adherents should live, and that these differences have been a source of conflict over the centuries. John agrees, but points out that different perspectives about morality and values go beyond religion, and that they are bound to be linked to non-religious – e.g. scientific – ways of thinking as well. Both speakers then reflect on the historical role that philosophy has played when it comes to ethical theories and values, with John suggesting that philosophy and religion operate at different levels, the former being somewhat “removed” from the practical, real-life concerns that religions attempt to address.Turning to what Laurance regards as the threat posed by so-called “missionary religions” – particularly Christianity and Islam – John maintains that this threat is mitigated if we adopt the view that whatever religion one subscribes to can be regarded in terms of offering a “gift” to the whole of humankind; that even a non-missionary religion such as Judaism is charged, by God, to be a “light unto the nations”. Extending this line of thought, John agrees with Laurance’s suggestion that religious conflict is more representative of humanity’s tribal tendencies and insecurities than of deep differences among the religions themselves.Laurance invites John to comment on the propriety of a democratic society’s support for religious schools, a topic raised in previous episodes. John responds that a respectable religious education could serve both to offer people something other than a purely secular perspective, and to promote ways of living that are inclusive and accepting of difference.Finally, in light of the reality that some people commit atrocities in the name of a larger group or religion, Laurance maintains that in response to such acts, it is morally incumbent on that larger group to call this out and proclaim, “No, this is not who we are!” John’s response is to acknowledge that while such actions would be very distressing to many members of the larger group, those members might feel insulted that anyone could possibly think that their religion would justify such things. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedInFor resources, transcripts and more visit: https://www.therestisuncertain.com/episodes/ 

A force for good or something else?Laurance begins this episode by asking what the term “religion” means and why religions retain such a strong appeal in the world today. Citing the work of psychologist Jonathan Haidt and sociologist Emile Durkheim, he notes the “two B’s” associated with religion: Belief and Belonging, and the suggestion that it is the latter which has been more important historically. This leads to the familiar idea of community which is a valuable counter to crude individualism, but can also support the kinds of tribalism or collectivism which lead to divisions between “us” and “them”. Here Laurance quotes one of Haidt’s signature slogans: that morality “binds and blinds”.Laurance turns to the age-old question about the connection between religion and morality, and makes several comments about: the Socratic question about whether the pious (or good) is loved by the Gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the Gods; the existence of several non-religious theories of “normative ethics” in philosophy (based on virtue, reason and consequences, respectively); and the idea that notwithstanding their many differences, most established religions include versions of the “Golden Rule”. Still, we need to be cautious, because different religions are also associated with different moral pathways leading to eternal salvation (e.g. Heaven or Paradise).Laurance turns to a brief comparison among the three Monotheistic religions: Judaism (which many Jews classify as a “way of life” rather than a religion), Christianity, and Islam. The latter two are, at least theoretically, missionary in nature, although Christianity underwent significant change as a result of the Reformation and Enlightenment. Turning to Islam, Laurance notes that claims regarding its current mission and status in the world range from declaring that Islam has always sought to dominate whatever communities it connects with, to insisting that inciting hatred toward non-Muslims has no place in Islam, and do not represent the views of most Muslims. In response to such extremes, Laurance reiterates the general principle that “When a group of individuals commits an atrocity in the name of a larger group, which it claims to represent, it is morally incumbent on that larger group to call this out and proclaim, “No, this is not who we are!”.Laurance attempts to defuse the contentious notion of Zionism and its role in Judaism and the modern State of Israel. While questioning the claim that Zionism is colonialist in origin, he does point to one aspect of the Jewish state which remains problematic: its aspiration to be a democracy. Somewhat ironically, this aspiration has made the issues of citizenship and migration problematic, which would not be the case if Israel functioned, as do other religious states, non-democratically.Finally, Laurance asserts that he sees no harm in embracing the rich narratives that are associated with different religions, but cautions against two stronger claims which are sometimes made: that one’s own religious beliefs are the true ones, and that religion is the only genuine source of morality.Once again, Laurance leaves listeners with some questions to ponder, given that the next episode will include a dialogue with a colleague about the nature of religion.Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

A never-ending quagmire?In this extended episode, Laurance asks why the Middle East, focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian situation, remains such a quagmire. He attempts to give a balanced perspective which will not shy away from criticism, but will avoid retreating to any one specific narrative which is likely to allow our emotive “elephants” to dominate our more reasonable “riders”.It makes good sense to begin with the hope that the only way forward, apart from pointless, never-ending conflict, is one which empowers both sides to work together. With a view to moving in that direction, Laurance proceeds to identify a number of what he calls serious issues which have served to distract many from what he calls the “core” issues. He suggests that until these core issues are widely acknowledged, the other issues will remain unresolved.Many would agree that the most urgent “serious” issue is the ongoing tragedy in Gaza concerning the toll on the lives and livelihoods of its Palestinian residents, and the destruction of much of its infrastructure. The rebuilding of Gaza should be a priority that does not await the allocation of blame to this or that side. The ongoing Israeli occupation of the West Bank is also a serious issue, although the term “occupation” distracts from the core issue because the Palestinian territories were not occupied prior to 1967. Likewise the important question of why so many Palestinian refugees remain without a proper home.Reflecting on the actions of governments in the immediate region, Laurance points to a complex tapestry of historical events that saw attempts at a Peace Accord fail more than 25 years ago, and the subsequent elections of the Likud coalition in Israel, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Hamas in Gaza. After commenting on the dubious legitimacy of the world-wide demonstrations that have taken place in support of Palestinians since October 7, Laurance comes to the “core” issue, namely, the deeply-held conviction among Palestinians that their true home is the whole state of Israel, and that the “right of return” which currently applies to Jews around the world, should rightfully be applied to Palestinians.Digging a little deeper, Laurance suggests that this conviction has its source in the contentious view that for many people in the region, the mere existence of a Jewish state, no matter how small, at the very centre of the Islamic world, is unacceptable. This idea reaches into key historical and religious matters which will be addressed in a future episode. Laurance does articulate a general principle according to which acts of atrocity or terrorism committed by a small number of individuals in the name of a larger group, must be “called out” by members of the larger group.Laurance invites listeners to consider a number of questions, some relating to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but others of a more general nature concerning the connection between democracy and religion. He concludes on a more hopeful note, by pointing to a growing number of Israeli/Jewish and Palestinian/Islamic voices which not only support the rights and future well-being of their own peoples, but are prepared to be critical of the actions of leaders and governments on both sides. Finally, he points to the so-called 20 point “Peace Plan” which follows 17 points relating to Gaza with a call for an interfaith dialogue based on the values of tolerance and peaceful coexistence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace. Yet again, the pressing need to establish dialogue among those most directly involved, points the way forward. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

A history of inconsistencies.In this episode, Laurance begins by noting that there are several areas of dispute surrounding the nature and use of drugs – both legal and illegal – some of which are factual (empirical) and others more conceptual or moral. A clue to his approach concerning drugs is noting that the most widely cultivated drugs are alcohol and cannabis, where, by and large, the former is legal and the latter not. The legal/illegal distinction does not adequately reflect the degree of harm caused by certain drugs, and many so-called prescription drugs can be extremely harmful. It turns out that this distinction has more to do with history and politics than with an objective appraisal of harm.The so-called “War on Drugs”, a term emanating from the USA in the 1970s, has always been more focused on policies relating to enforcement and punishment, than on the minimization of harm, even though there is little evidence that such policies have reduced either the supply of illicit drugs or the extent of the criminal networks which produce and market them.Laurance suggests that perhaps the most fundamental flaw in the way governments and whole societies think about drugs, is the inconsistency between laws and attitudes to alcohol, vis-à-vis other drugs of dependence. Indeed, in countries like Australia, excessive drinking, while acknowledged to be harmful to many, is deeply embedded in the national culture. Laurance compares the situation regarding alcohol with that of cigarettes and other nicotine products. Currently, the latter remain legal (with certain restrictions about advertising, etc.), but are subject to increased excise taxes designed, presumably, to deter people from purchasing them. However, as the demand for cigarettes is on the rise again, many are turning to criminal cartels which sell them at a cheaper price and, moreover, do whatever they can to drive legitimate suppliers out of business.Asking the question “What should be the primary concerns of government with respect to both legal and illegal drugs?”, Laurance looks first at the extremes of free-market libertarianism, and a paternalistic “nanny state” mentality, and then at the reasonable idea that harm minimization should be the major priority, whereby medical and health services play a larger role than the law. He returns to a familiar topic: the importance of engaging members of society, especially young people, in robust, informed dialogue over the issues of most concern regarding drugs, including the inconsistencies raised earlier. As always, the aim of such a dialogical process is to empower ordinary citizens to become powerful thinkers on matters of importance, so that they are best equipped to think and act as responsible agents in the world. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

What exactly is AI and how concerned should we be about it?In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter notes the distinction between empirical and more conceptual questions regarding AI, with questions about future employment and dangers relating to who controls it, and what would prevent it from dominating the world, including us. He suggests that at least some of our reservations about AI and their potential psychological status – e.g. consciousness, moral agency, free will – stem from the common stereotypes of AI as either non physical software or physical entities that are nothing like we humans. If and when AI takes on more human features, the perceived emotional gap between “us” and “them” will diminish. Laurance is prepared to countenance the possibility of non-human aliens which/who are persons because they regard themselves as one among others. Why couldn’t we come to see AI along similar lines?Turning to some of the concerns which AI has raised, Laurance notes the challenge of teaching and assessing for genuine expertise in various fields, given that many students now use AI as a “short cut”. He then moves to asking about a future in which AI not only makes much of the work currently done by humans redundant (but how much?), but engages in such higher-level tasks as discussing philosophy, and creating musical and artistic masterpieces. He revisits the question of who, if anyone, will control AI, and considers a “worst case” scenario, in which Homo sapiens is, eventually, replaced by a new species (Homo machinis?), just as the former replaced its ancestral species. He asks why the prospect of going extinct seems so frightening.Laurance turns, finally, to a recent article whose author claims that professional philosophers are increasingly being lured away from universities by AI-related companies keen to explore such questions as: “How can we ensure that AI remains well disposed to humanity’s concerns?”, and “How might humans live worthwhile lives when much of their current work is taken over by AI, leaving them with more time for contemplation and reflection.” He ends with a reminder that the contemplation of just such questions has been undertaken by philosophers for thousands of years.”Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Aiming for truth and the dangers of retreating to narratives.In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter invites listeners to think about why they make the decisions and choices that they make, which refers to our capacity for agency, whereby our beliefs and desires cause us to interact with the world deliberately or intentionally. He then broadens the topic to focus on the types of causal explanations that are appropriate in the major disciplines and intellectual traditions. If we assume that explanations in the sciences are structured by well-tested laws and theories, we can also assume that the concept of causality has its most natural home in the context of the natural world and science. However, when we shift to consider events and explanations in which we humans/persons are directly involved, things become less clear, because while intentional and causal agency, which plays a central role in disciplines such as history, social studies, the law, politics, etc., the nature and status of such causation seems puzzling, because these disciplines are not governed by universal laws and theories.In line with the views of analytic philosopher Donald Davidson, causal explanations in these domains – indeed, even in relatively simple contexts involving our everyday agency – rely on appealing to a holistic network of mental states such as belief, desire and intention. In other words, there is no single, complete causal pathway outside the domain of the sciences, because our mental states are interwoven and bound together. This sense of holism relating to agency raises questions about the status of history, for example, in which we remain committed to finding what is true – as in all cases of inquiry – but must acknowledge a level of subjective interpretation on the part of historians and commentators, who make choices about what actions and events to focus on, as well as the language they use in describing and reporting them.Laurance casts a critical eye on what is becoming an increasingly popular tendency providing explanations in the humanities and social sciences, especially contemporary and contested fields such as politics, namely, to propose that explanations in these domains commonly take the form of narrative, in which the ideal of truth or truthfulness gives way to such elements as believability, “telling a good story”, etc. While acknowledging the benefits of narratives and stories in our lives, he relates this tendency to the growth of populism and the ascendency of political leaders who sow tribal divisions using narratives about “us” and “them”, etc. He maintains that such ideals as truthfulness remain important, and points, yet again to the potential of dialogue as an appropriate context for deliberating about matters of importance, whether they be strictly scientific or not. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Good thinking and dialogue are more important than ever.In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter begins by reflecting on topics previously discussed, including: social and cultural polarization; the challenge of having dialogue when those involved not only disagree, but show no respect or empathy for their opponents; the positive value of uncertainty; immigration, housing, youth crime, and education; and the underlying theme of regarding ourselves as each “one among others”, which avoids the extremes of individualism and collectivism. Laurance also revisits his view of philosophy as contributing to such topics in terms of both content and process, which can be traced back to antiquity.Laurance advocates for reasonableness which has both cognitive and affective dimensions (“being appropriately moved by reasons”), and which offers a way forward when facing such challenges as balancing our reasoning “riders” and our emotive/intuitive “elephants”, and becoming trapped in the “echo chambers” of social media, which reinforce herd-like or tribal thinking, rather than producing thoughtful dialogue. Laurance reminds listeners of the normative ideal of a community of inquiry, which has a practical role to play, both in formal education and other social environments. He also ponders the tricky issue of responding, respectfully, to those who express views which are morally repugnant or logically incoherent.Laurance endorses a recent essay called “Flickering Enlightenment”, whose author questions some of the historical repercussions of Enlightenment thinking which include the ongoing disputes between political extremes, while underscoring the importance of thinking which is both critical and intellectually humble. He also cites the views of philosopher Hannah Arendt who wrote about the dangers of totalitarian domination when ordinary citizens ignore the difference between truth and fiction, and refuse to think for themselves.Finally, Laurance reflects on the connection between thinking and talking (more precisely, good thinking and dialogue), and reiterates that talking (and listening) produce thinking as much as they communicate it. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn