How about a brief encounter with Massimo Pigliucci ?

According to @Wallows Massimo likes ducks, a lot.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6979/i-want-to-learn-but-its-so-difficult-as-it-is

So, ducks. Do they have to be stoical, cynical or tasty ?

https://philosophynow.org/issues/134/How_To_Be_A_Stoic_by_Massimo_Pigliucci

Thanks for starting this. Happy to take suggestions and invite on that basis provided @jamalrob agrees.

Prego :cool:

Even if the 'Guest Speaker' thing doesn't take off, it would still be great to hear of live and fascinating movers and shakers, philosophical in their way...

I’ve seen this before with Chalmers on a forum. All that happened was people made themselves look silly by basically calling his ideas stupid when they had clearly misinterpreted his paper.

It would work if only select members were allowed to discuss with the person directly and involve others by vetting questions a little that could then be offered up to the guest.

It’s worth a try.

So...I have no idea of most productive format. I'm sure admin have a few ideas...
I think an initial interview by a knowledgeable, experienced person would be good. Perhaps posted as an OP as usual, or an article. Then, questions or comments from the forum, with the Guest able to then choose...

However, initial questions to forum members:

Who would you like to hear ?
And why ?
What would be a burning question ?

So...I have no idea of most productive format. — Amity

It would work if only select members were allowed to discuss with the person directly and involve others by vetting questions a little that could then be offered up to the guest. — I like sushi

An interesting example of an online style of live guest speaking may be seen in the Ender's Game series. The idea is that there is an online forum where everyone is allowed to view and comment, but there is a hierarchy of viewers. Those in the top tier hierarchy had the power to create new posts while those in the lowest tier could view the posts and discuss it among everyone else in their tier. Members could participate in their tier level, which would bring to question, what qualifies a lower tier discussion? Simply put, if the member doesn't have access to a higher tier level, then they cant participate. The levels and tiers could theoretically be an unlimited number. Guest speakers would have special temporary access. Those in the higher tiers could view comments in the lower tiers, but not visa Versa. Members have to be invited, vetted, and accepted by a "council" to get into higher tiers. Alongside the hierarchy, there were also categories of membership. Those with professional membership were allowed to comment while those with a citizen membership were only allowed to view (like a children's account). Furthermore, those individuals with memberships could also have followings of individuals who agree/disagree with their claims such as followers on social media (as a simplistic example)

This may be a viable way of holding a live online forum without it getting crowded out by non-serious members or trolls. Maybe this form of account ship may be too complicated or unnecessarily complex for what was discussed in the op. However, for a forum of consistent guest speakers, discussions, and arguments, the forum would have to be organized in such a way that requires a vetting process and/or a "credit score" analyzed from historical posts to discourage trolls and encourage serious discussion.

Yes, we do have a reputation system here. It's a secret though. Maybe Bean figured that one out.

:) lol!
But here the reputation system doesn't restrict or give access with the goal of posting on specific forums. As far as I know....

I want a feminist speaker to make an appearance for a change.

So to get back to my burning question...
I'm guessing that your favoured Guest Speaker would be...Orson Scott Card ?
Or who else...one of the actors ?
What would you ask ?

https://web.archive.org/web/20170820102813/http://www.hatrack.com/osc/books/endersshadow/endersshadow.shtml

I want a feminist speaker to make an appearance for a change. — Wallows

Why ?
Who would you suggest ?

I'm not really a particular fan of him or the movie and don't really have an opinion on who comes to speak, I think it would be interesting regardless. I was just suggesting a way in which the forum could be formatted.

Understood.

Underappreciated virtue ethicists of care, such as Nel Noddings (she will make a departure soon to the other world) or Carol Gilligan really make philosophy more than just a matter of commitment to cherished beliefs or dogma intertwined with word play.

This is where I see the future of philosophy gearing towards.

So, ducks. Do they have to be stoical, cynical or tasty ? — Amity

If I am right about this, ducks or geese are the very few animals that can steal eggs from heterosexual partners and form bonds that if broken can actually lead to suicide in the animal kingdom. Rare, eh?

OK,

So, in another thread in a faraway land, it was postulated that the esteemed Professor, Massimo Pigliucci of CUNY, will be asked a prepared 3-4 questions, that is if he even agrees to make an appearance on this forum. However, given what I believe to be the Stoic ethos of unity through divine Logos, he would be more than happy to stop by and spend a day here.

I took it upon myself to present for discussion the following topics:

1. Why has Stoicism experienced such a revival as of late in the Western world? In your professional opinion, Professor Pigliucci is this due to our lifestyle, and if so, what has Stoicism to offer to better ourselves?

2. How would you differentiate between ancient Stoicism, Victorian Stoicism, and modern-day neo-Stoicism? How has the ethical field of Stoic thought evolved through time?

3. On a more general level, why do you subscribe to virtue ethics that is Stoicism rather than advocate consequentialism or deontological theories?

4. People have a hard time understanding the difference between Stoical apatheia and our modern use of the term is "apathy". How do you disambiguate the two from one another? — Wallows questionnaire.

@Ciceronianus the White, and other's what are your thoughts about these questions? If (any) seem too broad or imprecise, they are up for revision.

Thanks, and looking forward to reaching out to Professor Pigliucci on Facebook.

If memory serves, there used to be debates on this or the old forum - I see it on this one, perhaps then also on the old. The quality of the back-and-forth seemed then generally higher than that in ordinary threads. Or at least I was often impressed.

At the same time, "celebrity" guests are likely to be professionals or have a professional level of understanding, and that level of gearing simply is not going to mesh with many of us, me included. It's like getting into the ring with a professional boxer, or playing chess against a grandmaster with a 2000+ rating, or acting as your own lawyer.

So I have a somewhat different proposal: that debaters be drawn from volunteers from our own members. And that each post be reviewed and commented on by a panel of volunteer judges. That is, the debate have an interested and engaged participating peanut gallery. The rules would be that the peanut gallery would not argue, that being the business of the debaters, but the peanut gallery would call foul on nonsense, ignorance, stupidity, inappropriate rhetoric, and so forth. Details to be worked out.

Since we're mostly philosophy kindergarten, this is a bad idea.

I want a feminist speaker to make an appearance for a change.
— Wallows

Why ?
Who would you suggest ? — Amity

Underappreciated virtue ethicists of care, such as Nel Noddings (she will make a departure soon to the other world) or Carol Gilligan really make philosophy more than just a matter of commitment to cherished beliefs or dogma intertwined with word play.
This is where I see the future of philosophy gearing towards. — Wallows

You make good points.
I think I would broaden it out to female philosophers.
The likes of Mary Midgley who passed away on 10th October 2018.
Interviewed here:
https://highprofiles.info/interview/mary-midgley/

A list of women philosophers:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_philosophers

Mary Midgley was one of 4 great women philosophers celebrated here:
https://www.dur.ac.uk/research/news/item/?itemno=39138

The ultimate aim is to see the Quartet achieve recognition as a school in Analytic Philosophy and rewrite the history of 20th Century philosophy in the UK, which has mostly ignored women philosophers.

Dr Clare Mac Cumhaill is from our Department of Philosophy and is the co-director of In Parenthesis with Dr Rachael Wiseman from University of Liverpool. To mark the birth centenary of Iris Murdoch they have organised the #PhilosophybyPostcard initiative - https://www.philosophybypostcard.com/.

So, a guest speaker might not be a 'celebrity' in the sense of being famous.
However, Dr Clare Mac Cumhaill and Dr. Rachael Wiseman might be considered well known in their field.
Worthy of being interviewed at least?

what are your thoughts about these questions? If (any) seem too broad or imprecise, they are up for revision.
Thanks, and looking forward to reaching out to Professor Pigliucci on Facebook. — Wallows

This is wonderful of you. You have given this much thought; your questions reflect your knowledge.
I look forward to hearing what others have to say.

For me, this Guest Speaker thing is a novelty. I note various concerns raised.
I think the success of an interaction depends on clarification of our aims and sensible preparation.
To get the most out of it, rather than rush in to any discussion, I think I would like time to read around the guest, the topic and previous works. Refresh my memory and look at current issues.

For example:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/134/How_To_Be_A_Stoic_by_Massimo_Pigliucci
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_Pigliucci

My post from the other thread:

'Massimo fantastico tweets:
Philosophy Day is on Thursday, 21 November! This year’s event feature at CCNY: Ben Vilhauer on “Taking free will skepticism seriously.” Elise Crull on “Metaphysics & the Multiverse.” More info here: https://philosophydayatccny.wordpress.com

Someone asks: Will the discussions be livestreamed anywhere for those of us in flyover country?
Yes he says - and includes video of previous event.'

I am not on Twitter or Facebook. However, it seems that Massimo Pigliucci is open to all !
As to timing: if Philosophy Day is on November 21st, perhaps it might be worthwhile to engage with this first ?

Thoughts welcome.

At the same time, "celebrity" guests are likely to be professionals or have a professional level of understanding, and that level of gearing simply is not going to mesh with many of us, me included. It's like getting into the ring with a professional boxer, or playing chess against a grandmaster with a 2000+ rating, or acting as your own lawyer. — tim wood

Utter nonsense.
This is not about a fight or a game.
It is about listening to someone who has a special interest and experience in their field.
Or it might just be a simple interview with questions afterwards.

If memory serves, there used to be debates on this or the old forum — tim wood

There is a debate section in this forum. I think the idea is to revive it.
I look forward to seeing how this develops.

Since we're mostly philosophy kindergarten, this is a bad idea. — frank

How do you expect to grow and develop ?
Who would you listen to ?
What questions might you have ?

As to a potential interview format, and how difficult it might be - here is Zizek:

https://highprofiles.info/interview/slavoj-zizek/

A full list of interviews:
https://highprofiles.info/interviews/

Ciceronianus the White, and other's what are your thoughts about these questions? If (any) seem too broad or imprecise, they are up for revision. — Wallows

I wondered why you zoomed in on @Ciceronianus the White in particular and then noticed a thread I missed:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/336619

Good stuff.

One way to engage with Massimo Pigliucci - an interview article followed by questions.
@jamalrob @Baden - what are your thoughts so far ?

[ Like most authors, he might appreciate questions on his book 'How to Be a Stoic' ? - £9.00.
Also, in kindle there is for a mere £2.99 ''Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life'. ]

A possible template from https://philosophynow.org/issues/120/Raymond_Tallis
It begins:

Our columnist has just released a major book on the philosophy of time. Grant Bartley interviews him about Of Time and Lamentation.

Lovely to see you Professor Tallis, to talk about your new magnum opus, Of Time and Lamentation. What were your motivations for writing this book?

Well, it’s part of a much bigger project. As a secular humanist, I feel I’ve managed to liberate myself from supernatural accounts of humanity, but the alternative for many people is a naturalistic account – the idea that we’re just ‘pieces of nature’. One aspect of that is the notion that the natural sciences are ultimately going to give us a complete account, not only of the rest of the universe, but of ourselves in it. It’s this scientism that has been one of my targets over many years, and it’s one of the drivers for writing this book about time. There are other motives. But the scientific reduction of time to ‘little t’ is a very good example of where scientism gets us, and it’s a rather dismal place. — Grant Bartley with Raymond Tallis

There follows a forum discussion on the topic. Not sure how informative it is...
I think we could do better :wink:

what are your thoughts so far ? — Amity

I'm amenable. The idea expressed by some that there aren't posters here capable of engaging with a "real" philosopher is piteous. Philosophers are people with ideas who put more work than most into expressing them. That's it. They're not all superhumans that exist on some level of thought inaccessible to the rest of us. If you can read a book on philosophy and understand it, you can engage in dialogue with the author. And both parties might potentially learn something.

So, the process:

1: Get @jamalrob to agree to the invite.
2: The invite is successful.
3. We finalize a date.
3: We set up a space for the interaction.
4. We invite those willing and able to ask a few questions.
5. We do it and it'll be great.

Yes, it is unfortunate that there are some who put a downer on a potential uplift.
My school motto was 'Surgo in lucem'. I rise into the light. Never forgotten it.

Thanks for clarifying the process. What kind of a space would be set up ?
Having problems envisaging it. Perhaps I am dazzled by the light :cool:

A Guest Speaker category, I guess, where we can stick questions in the form of discussions.

Ah, OK - that sounds good. So, everything in writing - no chance of being a movie star...

How do you expect to grow and develop ? — Amity

Life is the greatest of all gurus.

Who would you listen to ?
What questions might you have ? — Amity

I would really like to talk to Heiddeger about nihilism.