Philosophy groups

I have run a few philosophy group. They can be great. It is wonderful to have the chance to discuss things in depth. We don't get a chance to go into deep discourse very often. All has been great. The one group was quite well established and had been going for many years. However, one evening we began discussing how a meeting itself should be carried out. Should we keep things objective rather than subjective. I.E. avoid discussing things that are personal or put a halt to anything that seems to be prying too much into someone's individual experiences. Should we listen more and refrain from interrupting too much. Should we pull people up when they go off on a tangent - and try to keep it on topic at all times. I could go on. In fact, we spent nearly three evenings trying to formulate things. It didn't go well at all. Philosophers and agreement is chalk and cheese. There was heaps of acrimony.

In the end I decided that we are to have some basic rules and keep it to that. The main rule being that there are no rules. No one can claim that something someone is saying is not allowed. Who can be the judge of whether a proposition, a sentence an argument is deemed philosophical or not. Let people have their say, their turn and listen. Listen and think about what they are saying to if see what merit it has. Lots like game playing. Lots like to be dismissive of people's thoughts. Many will brush you off by saying that is 'x theorem' and already finalised.

There will be times where we need to use some good old common sense. If you sense that someone is looking a little uncomfortable, then back off. Allow everyone a say. Bring people in rather than shut people out. Sometimes you have to make a judgement call and rule that someone is being out of order. Maybe they are raising their voice or getting over heated. You won't get it right every time. Life is about balance. A few interruptions can be good. Someone constantly interrupting is not always so good.

We are there to help one another. There to explore ideas rather than win a debate. Philosophy groups are not for everyone, I saw that a few members left from time to time citing reasons that I felt were really polite ways of saying that it wasn't 'their cup of tea'. Don't be put off by all this. Just start a group and be brave. Most people are warm friendly and useful. You get to test ideas in a philosophy discussion. Sometimes people will find holes in your argument. Sometime people will say things that inspire you to take the idea further. All kinds of things happen. Mainly good.

Democratic, turn taking formula.

This formula is not perfect, but you may want to use it as a starting point perhaps. I let each member take it in turns. The idea is that each person has an evening to decide how it is to be. They can choose the topic, the question or theme. If it is a question, then they, and they alone, devise the wording and highlight the real issue they are interested in. They can be the chairman if they want or nominate one. Or decide not to have a chairperson. Lead by example, if others like the way your evening goes, they may follow suit. Some really don't like chairpersons but will have to live with it on other people's nights. On their night, there can be no chairman. The chair is a complex role. They have to keep things on topic, involve all, and will tend to ask questions rather than speak about the topic themselves. They will have the least input. They will be the one guiding and drawing things out of people. Encouraging and sometimes being the devil's advocate.

It is so easy to say, "that is not philosophical", "that is not allowable" or "that has little in the way of argument to support it". You may just have a vague poorly considered hunch but a good group will draw out your idea rather than shut it down.

Give people their turn. Ensure that the discussion is heading in the right direction, the direction they wanted. Some meetings may not be entirely to your liking. However, on your turn you can show them another way. And if I am to give you some advice. Never ask the question, "how should a philosophical discussion be conducted? " It can be disastrous. No rules per se, might be better than a long list of rules that gent bent and twisted and ignored.

As per the ignorance paradox book. "I shall say what I like with the words of my choosing and allow you to do the same.