What is the Philosophy Takeaway?

For me the Philosophy Takeaway is a little utopian space...

It is a humble market stall, the decorative colours faded with age, the 'Talk to a Philosopher' sign tattered and bent, supported by masking tape and a box. Sometimes we have stock of second-hand philosophy books, sometimes not.  Sometimes our lights are working, other times the extension cable has been foolishly left at home. But the Philosophy Takeaway doesn't need to enchant market visitors with any pristine presentation to succeed, because it is all about conversation, thought and eager human beings.

To put it simply, what we do at the Philosophy Takeaway is ask anyone passing by a philosophical question from our hat. It is as simple as that! Three recent example questions have been: What is order? What is more important: consequences or intentions? and Is universal justice possible?  We then engage in a discussion, varying between a few minutes to an hour. We actually get more answers than you would think from such open-ended philosophy questions.

If people dig our groove, and want to receive regular philosophy literature and links, they can then sign up to our e-newsletter. We send out articles written by our team and guest contributors to continue the never-ending philosophical journey. Some people also donate money to help us cover our stall costs, and they get a printed Journal in return.

How we fit into society -

Trade can actually be quite 'humanizing', bringing people together, creating a sense of community and giving us a reason to communicate on a regular basis. When speaking of trade I refer to actual market places, the polar opposite of generic consumer malls, cookie-cutter big brands and plastic chain stores. I found Greenwich market to confirm this. Markets are a swirl of activity and conversation, where anyone can set up a stall and try a good idea, and anyone can afford to buy what is on offer. They tend to have more locally sourced and recyclable goods, which make them more environmentally aware, and the lesser emphasis on hierarchy means more cooperatives and mutuals are likely to pop up. Markets are face-to-face, they all have their own unique character, and above all they are places of independence and respect, the traders pitch being something of a sacred space. It is an experience no corporation can come close to replicating, and one which they would actively destroy if their growth and power is not checked. The Philosophy Takeaway, and any humanities stall like it, will fit into most markets perfectly. Greenwich, Camden Lock and the Merton Abbey Mills have already been visited by us!

It might be tempting to lump the Philosophy Takeaway in with instant-gratification or consumer culture: people come along to fill the gaps in their lives with monetary transactions, quick and easy answers packaged and devoured, just another fleeting experience. It might even sound like the latest trend among people whose lives of desire fulfilment aren't quite producing the goods! But nothing could be further from the truth. We are totally free of charge, and always will be. We may introduce people to the world of philosophy, but we are not the be all and end all of this mighty discipline. We do not guarantee answers, and we are not happiness vendors. In fact, a lot of the talking at the stall comes from the real philosophers, the people!

A place like the Philosophy Takeaway fits perfectly into any democratic, free-thinking society. It is a place of self-discovery, the equivalent of talking to a friend about the big questions, but with the advantage of having someone very interested in philosophy to guide it. As for answers, I have given them at times, and believe that having strong convictions is positive - provided they rest upon solid foundations and are willing to change and face criticism. Whilst we do not spread any one philosophy, this does not mean that our output is 'content free'. I have seen my friends vigorously defending their positions in the spontaneous debates which sometimes arise.

We have a massive range of political-philosophies in our group; from socialists to classical liberals, secularists and religious moderates, the typical 'realist' and 'idealist' divide, feminists, centrists and an anarchist or two. It does create some interesting, if not arduous, ethical debates! Where we do all agree, and what we all advocate, is that Philosophy must survive in universities and should be introduced into schools. Through projects like the Philosophy Takeaway, we can convince the public that this is also in their interests. Not only that - it is also massively fun!

How was Phil Tak born and where is it going??

The Philosophy Takeaway was ultimately born out of protest. We occupied our university in response to their cutting single-honours philosophy, an act which not only went against logic, but also threatened the jobs of our tutors. Although we were unable to prevent management from reducing the scope of their university by axing one of their best courses, we were bonded as a team and keen to popularize philosophy as much as possible. The consequence of those protests seems to have been the Philosophy Takeaway, although there is no way to know for sure.

In many ways it was also an accident. Two years ago I could never have imagined, dragging the one-wheeled 'Philosopher's Mule' through south-east London at 6am in the morning, that it would still be going and thriving more than ever! No one predicted that the Philosophy Takeaway would achieve what it has done. I think we have all surprised ourselves - especially our philoso-artist Eliza whose artwork not only made the actual, physical stall possible but also decorates publications. At the moment we are working on a bigger Journal to help us become self-sufficient with funding. We also have a website and forum (which will be tied in to a real life meet-up group) on the way, and regularly attend arts festivals whenever possible.

Most importantly the Philosophy Takeaway confirmed for me a very valuable lesson - that there is more to life than profitability alone, and that only a fool weighs success in gold coins.

Selim 'Selim' Talat, Coordinator of the Philosophy Takeaway stall
 email: thephilosophytakeaway@gmail.com for enquiries, or just to philosophize about, well, anything!

Clouds of Truth (A Comedy) - By St.Zagarus

Clouds of Truth (A Comedy)

I speculate once more after the truth. What is truth? What it is is what there is. What it isn't is what there isn't! Yet before we can begin to understand truth, I see three great clouds or barriers.

One, the crystal ball each of us hold inside. It remains cloudy, we cannot see into the centre. This is the appeal, it tells of the past and future in such a vague way. Comprehending it is always just at the edge of the mind. The ball is safe, locked away in a vault, tucked away in its farthest corner. It is not to be revealed to any stranger (though friends are sometimes welcome). It is never exposed for what it is. The decision has already been made, the ball is true and profound. It will look only where it wants to look. It is frail, the cold of the outside world will freeze it to death; the claws of democracy will tear it asunder. It remains hidden.

This crystal ball we all use to discern our own subjective truth lies within us all. If we revealed it to the cosmos, it would reflect the darkness of the cosmos. It would say nothing. It can only survive in the womb-water of the skull! Why do I say this? Anything can be questioned to the point that it crumbles to pieces in our hands. A child is scolded for asking 'Why?' incessantly, for that child will bore a hole through any wall of truth and expose it for what it actually is - an educated guess. We must pretend that we know, for to admit that we do not know is to let the void be filled with any number of horrors worse than our gentler ignorance! For instance, it is better to believe that the light of science will eventually explain all-things, than to allow cynicism to snuff out its optimism, perhaps allowing fundamentalist religion to take root. Action follows belief! And belief is the glorification of an educated guess. And no belief can survive the sceptics scrutiny, so hide it half away in your crystal ball.

Two, the weight of emotional attachments. They can crush the impulse to seek for truth. They do not replace searching for a meaningful existence, and they cannot fill the longing for transcendence from our mortality. Instead, they displace. When the emotions are good, and sweet, they are a consolation at our inability to ever know much of anything. They carry us forward, creating small wells of gravity to keep us from floating off into the aether, dragging us their short distance.

Even the 'wrong' emotions can be 'right'. For instance, rage and hatred can grant us a narrative. A narrative can grant us meaning. Each story will wrap around the subject like a cloak. Some kind of self-importance follows. Emotion is a kind of gravity, binding us all together. It cannot produce truth, for the passions are little more than chaotic shapes in a bubbling cauldron. The meaning we ascribe to them, the primacy of the L-word (love!) and so on, is all just an attempt to keep the universe fluffy. They can keep the 'normals' entertained whilst they flounder upon the sparse beach of nihilism. A cold-hearted philosopher on the other hand, should have nought to do with emotional impulses. They are alone, even in the embrace of a lover, alone.

Three, the fabric created by large numbers of human beings. Conformity and stability create this social fabric - without it we are left with chaos. Doing the same thing, monotony, dullardy, the grey paste that is culture, forever disappointing and mediocre, is nonetheless essential. Like the passionate emotions, winning the esteem of many-human-beings is a plaster upon the open void of meaninglessness. It is an instinctual and pleasant path to self-importance. And even if the herd scolds us and attacks us, still it is some reaction, and still we maintain some relation to our fellows, and thus relevance.

Is being hated for no reason whatsoever preferable to absolute atomised isolation? I think we think so. For freedom and individual liberty, whilst espoused by the greater many, is just a means of surviving drudgery and servitude. People speak of freedom to account for their lack of it; just as the turkey at the edge of its farmyard cage imagines the land on the other side is its domain. Only the bravest souls want any true freedoms, for to create ones own values and motivations is the real test of strength, and it is far easier to be buried in the great mass swarm. Safer too.

And how many hurl their wrath against the herd from within its safe boundaries! The ones with the loudest voices are often just that, voices; words without deeds. How many revolutionaries truly understand that revolution means the end of a social order, bringing in a period of time when there is no right and no wrong - a limbo between States? Violence is inevitable under such conditions. And it is not only political minds who are drawn to such destructive change. The hungry psyche of the human animal, lurking just beneath the polite and conscious individuals striding through life, is satiated by perpetual virtual violence and sex. They hunt animals and fight battles and climb ranks, all without a semblance of risk. They are natural humans who forever live at arms-length; embracing their darkness through such safe means. They want safety, but they also desire freedom from safety, an escape valve through which to channel their guilty impulses.

However disgusting the Leviathan (State) whose belly we rot within, could it be any worse than no Leviathan at all? The masters know full well that a thinking citizen is a dangerous citizen (for if all citizens were Socrates there should be no Athens!) Thus, the greyest of all Stately orders, the dull plodding mediocre bisonette, the cords of human flesh and idea which knit together our inane sphere, are favourable to their absence – the State will always glorify its mediocre foundation! Our dross utopia! Fluff to line the harsh edges of cold reality. In mediocrity we trust, and may we live in uninteresting times.

And so, here are demonstrated three clouds, preventing us from discovering what we might discover. Yet what we might discover is precisely nothing but mindless, moving matter. Here is where the light of science has led us, deeper and deeper into the nature of Nature, leaving us with a resounding 'Ok, now what?' when the last scientist observes the last unit of physical reality through the last lens.

We are left with a wholly material universe, and when looked upon in such a way, it becomes wholly banal. What the difference between a nebula and a human being? They are composed of similar elements, only one has the ability to move of its own accord, and incites certain chemical reactions in the brain (you know - emotions), and the other does not, and that is it. Everything is thus everything, and everything is futile - one sometimes feels that this universe was made for stones and dust particles, far less sentient creatures! It is a universe of appearances, and such appearances are fleeting. There is nothing Eternal.

The great light of Reason (with a capital 'R', meaning Reason the ability to discover objective truths, as sure as mathematical truths) has been snuffed out. Apparently, telescopes and neuroscientists have replaced the Rationalist philosopher in understanding the universe around us, and ourselves. We can safely bid farewell to moral absolutes and a higher order discoverable through Reason. Instead we are confronted with floaty, flaky moralities, which ask only what to eat, what to drink, who to f***, and where to shit.

The actual truth is a void, a solid, fundamentally unchanging void (if all parts of the void are equally meaningless, any alterations in the void are just meaningless components switching places). No amount of conscious searching for transcendence (something outside of humanity, beyond humanity) will get us anywhere. We shall always be disappointed, we inheritors of the West who have been given our legacy of individuality and intellect. We will always need that unexplored something beyond the horizon. We have nothing left but dissatisfaction and empty promise, and this is the fuel that stokes the mindless consumption engine.

Our 'truth' (the false truth) has no foundation of its own, for Reason is dead. There is no longer a yardstick against which to measure truth and falsehood – all we have left is our surface world, with its surface level of reasoning. Upon such a paltry plane, anything goes!

Our truth rests atop a steam, rising from a fire; the fuel of this fire is ignorance itself. We do not look to the ignorant flame! Ignorance is our heat. Without it we are frozen.

We observe truth from the corner of our eyes. To stare into it directly is to gaze into an abyss.

The last write of St.Zagarus

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'

Pragmatic Metaphoric Philosophy - By Cathy Preston / Loreleila

Pragmatic Metaphoric Philosophy

It's a curious thing

That never ending argument

Over what is right and what is wrong

And what is you and what is not

Where words lie end to end and yet do not

Appear to describe anything;

That dichotomous myth

Seeming so enduring.

Mirage me you, mirage me me

Then will we all be free?

Pontifications on the thoughts of others

As though they aren't our sisters and brothers

Or part of us, or what is right

Where God might be or rather not

So often do we lose the plot;

And who is what and where and why,

I'd really rather eat some pie

(Actually that's poetic since I'm not a fan

Of pastry so that leaves out flan)

But you get my gist

If I have to squirm and twist

To find agreement, or if you insist

I see another as my foe

How can any of us grow

Or even see reality?

I'd really rather kiss or be kissed

Pragmatically metaphorically

Or love yourself as if you're me

Or me be you and you be me

It matters not for where we lie

We cannot lie, for in truth we be

Reflections in the others I.

Cathy Preston / Loreleila

Editors Glossary Note: Dichotomous - Division into two parts, often mutually opposed, the one not containing the other.

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'

Correctness, Intuition and Logic - By Martin Prior

Correctness, Intuition and Logic

About a week ago I commented on a newspaper report from North Lanarkshire, one of the Labour-controlled councils in Scotland where STV is used, a form of proportional representation.

The council had axed an annual taxi outing for children with special needs.  The Monklands Taxi Drivers’ Outing had been running for almost 40 years – but North Lanarkshire Council halted the yearly fancy dress road trip.  According to them, such outings didn’t “fit in with current thinking on inclusion and equality and that parading children with additional support needs is inappropriate.”

To my mind, thinking is merely thinking, and that formulating such hypotheses is an initial stage.  Indeed one can say that inclusion and separate activities are not mutually exclusive. I have written before about the importance of the intuitions of the people for whom political correctness is supposed to benefit.  People who speak an accent, say Indian, have an intuitive judgement as to whether an attempt at an Indian accent is racist.  I for example have no objection to the metaphor ‘short-sighted’, for example our government’s short-sighted attitude toward climate change.  If somebody who was not short-sighted tried to tell me how I should react to such a metaphor, my intuition would be that they were bloody patronising and the only reason I didn’t thump them was because my glasses might get broken.

When such people try to be logical, they often use emotive and subjective terms, often in situations where it is not ‘either... or’.  Using the term short-sighted in a derogatory context supposedly tells short-sighted people they are inferior.  Not when we have glasses and choose to use them, which the metaphorical short-sighted do not.

Attempting to be politically correct can only be meaningful if you listen to those you are trying to help, and are ready to learn from their intuitions.  And indeed inclusion does not exclude separateness, when of course neither is imposed.

Martin Prior

The Philosophy Takeaway Issue 53 'Open Topic'