Home Page Icon  Home Page Icon

Philosophy Discussion Group*


This group has been suspended until further notice.

**Note: Due to a last-minute cancellation,
this sesion is being replaced.

To learn what we are substituting, please click here.



Some of Our Previous Sdession are Listed Below


September 11, 2019

T i t l e: "Random Topics"

D e s c r i p t i o n:  A series of discussions on various topics. Our erudite audience had many interesting things to say about what we do or do not have in common with our fellow Americans.

Up Arrow

Prior Sessions

August 14, 2019

T i t l e: Racism

D e s c r i p t i o n: What is real, what is imagined and what are the causes. Race, people, ethnicity, ethnic group, and nation are terms for a large body of persons who may be thought of as a unit because of common characteristics. Race is no longer in technical use as a biological or anthropological system of classification.

To read Rich Hisrich's full artice, cick here.


June 12, 2019

T i t l e: What is the definition of "Great?"

D e s c r i p t i o n: A lively discussion about how that word is defined. Many members of the audience had voiced a variety of opinions.

Up Arrow

Below are some topics we addressed in Del Webb over the last year:

2018 Topics

Date Topic
7-May Should the Boy Scouts shift its mission to both girls and boys?
21-May What are the causes of violence in American schools and workplaces?
4-Jun What would we do if intelligent life was found in the universe?
18-Jun What is the relationship of propaganda and morality / ethics?
16-Jul Has the “Me-Too” movement gone too far or not far enough?

Up Arrow


Previous Session (2019): May 8

T i t l e: Seeing the World From Both a Justice and a Social Justice Perspective

D e s c r i p t i o n: During our April philosophy discussion, we analyzed the difference between Justice and Social Justice. Since then, numerous disturbing events have occurred on both the domestic and international fronts. These include the Poway synagogue shooting, the uprising in Venezuela, the immigration crisis, the college entry scandal, and the rising tensions over the Muller report.

Are our different interpretations of Justice and Social Justice a significant contributing factor to this hate and mistrust? Would a common understanding and expectations about rights and responsibilities increase our ability to live in peace? Would a justice system that enforced laws consistently, help to solve these challenges?

The May 8th meeting was an interactive analysis of these events through the lens of both Justice and Social Justice. Hopefully this will lead to a greater consensus on the proper role of Justice. Please think about the following questions and share your thoughts:

· What are the causes of hate and violence?
· Are the goals of social justice and justice in conflict with each other?
· Should justice and/or social justice prevent deceptive hateful speech?
· What is governments role in ensuring compassion and or benevolence?


April 10, 2019 Session

T i t l e: Justice Vs. Social Justice

D e s c r i p t i o n: Two of the most frequently used terms in modern policy debates are “Justice” and “Social Justice”. They sound similar and many people think there are only minor deviations between the two. But these concepts are very different with very different desired end states. So being confused or having nebulous interpretations is extremely harmful and prevents us from solving the serious challenges of our day. During this month’s discussion, we addressed questions such as:

· What do these terms actually mean?
· How did they originate?
· What are the goals, benefits, and risks of each?
· What is their relationship and how do they impact each other?
· Will we be able to uncover the influence of these concepts on policies such as: immigration, taxes, healthcare, the economy, religious freedom, historic monuments, and education?


March 2019 Session

Title: Determining Truth

Description: The March discussion addressed a truly philosophic question using a philosophic process. The question is “What is Truth?”. This may seem like a simplistic question, but because we live in a world with other humans, it is extremely complex. Audience was asked to contemplate the questions below and be prepared to contribute to a highly stimulating and lively discussion.

A. What is “Truth” and what is “Absolute Truth”?
B. How do we determine what is true and what isn’t?
C. What are the obstacles we face in determining truth?
D. How does human psychology influence our efforts?
E. How important is it for us to learn the truth?

The focus of the February 2019 meeting was "Why we are so different – The History of Political Ideologies"


As Americans, it seems the only thing that truly unites us is our frustration with dysfunctional government. The same dynamic also manifests itself in stressful and unpleasant interactions with friends and family members. So, why are we so different? This month’s Philosophers Forum attempts to answer that question through a “History of Political Ideologies”

Up Arrow

More than 30 years ago I began an effort to understand political ideologies. It has been a long arduous journey into an extremely complex and confusing topic. Eventually however, I traced our current political viewpoints all the way back to the Age of Enlightenment. This was when western civilization was searching for the optimal way to transition beyond medieval kingdoms into more modern forms of society. Philosopher’s such as Thomas Hobbes, Stuart Mill, John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau debated the state of nature and the best way for humans to live in community. These debates were influential in the founding of the United States as well as the creation of forms of government such as Marxism, Socialism and Communism. These theories and ideologies mutated and spread through-out western civilization and eventually into Russia and China. Slowly and steadily ideologies from foreign countries especially England, France and Germany have morphed back into the political debates of America.

These various ideologies are best be understood as a dichotomy between “Collectivism” and “Individualism”. While these are indeed polar opposites, the optimal solution contains the right balance of elements from both. The risk however is the worst governments in the history of mankind contain different elements from both. So, the best way to get above the fray of silly conversations and contribute to a better way forward, is to revisit the original debates. That is “What is the natural state of humanity?” and “What is the optimal form of government to support that natural state?”

To read "Why We Are So Different", click here.

Up Arrow

The January 2019 meeting focused on the difference between Idealogy and Moderation.

Rich Hissrich distributed an article entitled “The Alternative to Ideology” by Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center. The premise of the article was that Americans should abandon their firm defense of ideological beliefs and adopt a new approach called “Moderation”.

It is true that American politics has become extremely unwieldy and harmful and we do need to compromise more. But, while the article accurately articulates a dangerous challenge and trend, it also contains a number of significant flaws. For example, it falsely associates our struggle between populism and sound ideologies as a conflict between people with different but equal beliefs. In fact, many of our policies are promoted by people with lack of knowledge or ill motives. And our politicians consistently employ techniques (rhetoric, meta-jumping, insults, fear, blaming, misinformation, etc.) which are prohibited with Socratic Method. With America’s over emphasis on populism, compromising with people with harmful policies lead to disaster.

Up Arrow

Philosophy involves the creation and study of theories and ideologies. And while some philosophic ideologies are aligned with nature and human psychology, others are unnatural and extremely flawed. Inferior or superior, these ideologies are the underpinnings of our culture, society, government programs and politics. So, a deeper study of ideologies, and an adoption of proven methods like Socratic method and scientific method would solve many of our existing problems and move our country in a healthier direction. Jerry Taylor in his article demonstrates a misconception of philosophy and the structured study of ideologies.

Our discussion included the question: “What are the real causes of ineffective government and what can be done to improve this situation”? Please read the article (see the link below). You may conclude that the article is right and our assessment is flawed or you may agree with me. Either way, we need changes that will allow us to compromise on the better of two good policy changes.

Click here for a link to the article.

Up Arrow

The December 2018 meeting was about the meaninig of life.

Description: December's philosophic question: “What is the meaning of life and how can we discover our meaning?.”

While it may not be scientifically provable, it is obvious that people who live according to their meaning, achieve greater levels of success, health, and bliss. But uncovering our unique meaning is extremely difficult, changes as we mature, and requires overcoming obstacles along the way.

While there are countless books on the subject, below are two books that are great references on the subject:

• “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Victor Frankl

•  “The Meaning of Life” by The Dalai Lama

Up Arrow

This will be a highly interactive discussion, where you can share what you’ve learned and how your life has been impacted. Below are questions you might want to contemplate prior to the meeting:

1. What is the best resource (science, philosophy, psychology, religion, history, art, literature, lives of great people) for understanding the concept of the meaning of life?

2. What gives life meaning? (demonstrating creativity, being of service, relationships, attitudes we adopt during unavoidable suffering)

3. What is the impact (i.e. happiness and health) of our focus?

4. How do we evaluate our lives relative to fulfilling meaning (afterlife, legacy, knowledge, accomplishments, relationships)?

5. What is Logothherapy and how is it related to Psychotherapy? (Logos is the Greek word that denotes meaning).

6. How consistent or volatile is the meaning of life? Does it change as we enter different phases of our lives (i.e. retirement, parenthood)?

7. How do ethics, morality, authority and duties impact "meaning of life"?

8. Why are people willing to give their lives for a greater purpose?

November 14, 2018

A sizable crowd showed up to be part of this newly reestablished group meeting,

This session focused on the differences between Globalism and Nationalism. Had you been present you would know which won out over the other.

Up Arrow

First Session: October 10, 2018

Husbay has introduced a new philosophic meeting format for the 2nd Wednesdays of each month. This format will tackle the deeper philosophic questions of human existence and utilize “Socratic Method”.

Our first meeting focussed on the Socratic Method.

Socratic Method will help ensure safe and welcoming environment that enables us to achieve a deeper analysis of these complex and potentially controversial topics. Our meeting on October 10th will be an introduction to the objectives, format and process. We will begin with a brief introduction to what philosophy is and the types of topics that will be addressed. We will then describe Socratic Method and explain why it is important to the philosophic format. As in all philosophic discussions, it will be a highly interactive meeting designed to obtain ideas on how to tune a Philosophy Discussion Format for Husbay.

We've attched 4 PDFs that could help explain more about this format.

1. Process, Mindset, Actions

2. Goals and Objectives

3. The Roles Within Philosophic Discussion

4. The Value of Philosophy

Finally, we have a comment piece from member Ernie Kinnie.

Up Arrow

Discussion Topics

Previous Topics

May 6th Session: Richard introduced the topic of 'The Narrative" in politics. How does it influence public opinion and voting? A lively discussion followed his presentation.

March 4th Session: was presented by Jay Gonen. Topic: Fatherland (German), Motherland (French), Birthland (Israeli), Settled Land (Arab), Homeland (American) - by love and honor this land is my land.

Jay discussed how "psychological and cultural differences among historical groups in their modes of mystical identification with their own lands."

February 4th Session: Obesity and Impulse Control

What does that have to do with philosophy, you may well ask?

How does weight control relate to philosophy? Come to this Philosophy Group session, 2015 to find out: “Can Stigmatization of Obesity Ever be Morally Justifiable?” A short paper appears on the HUSBAY Blog and at dontdumbdown.com. Here's a link to Richard's piece.

PS. The luncheon was not be catered by Nutrasystem™.


January 7th Session: Why Atheism Cannot Compete with Organized Religion (presented by Richard Kessler and Rafael Haddock)

Synopsis: Atheists constitute only 1.6% of the American population. This means that 98.4% of the remainder are potential customers for the marketplace supplied by religious affiliation. Why is no one buying what Atheists are selling?

For more on this session, please refer to the following links:
Barren Outcomes
Religious Landscape Survey
Ted Talk on Atheism

Topic for the December 3rd Session: We were in for a real humdinger of a Philosophy Program when discussing Death with Dignity, with reference to what secular humanism has to say on the subject. Dan Dana explained his quantum theory for end-of-life decision-making. Rafael discussed why Kant said we should not do it but may have really meant it was permissible. I will argue that a secular humanist has a moral duty to die with dignity but not by seppuku (a form of Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment). As a Stoic might ask: Can one really live well if unprepared to die well?

Back to Top

Topic for the November 5th Session:  Tolerance and Intolerance. In the U.S., in the aftermath of 9-11, the fear of radical Islam, as evidenced by America's counterterrorism efforts here and abroad, have led to a greater intolerance of Islam. At the same time, intolerance of western values and the global economy have increased the sway of radical Islam( Al Qaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram, for example) and its intolerance of western societies. This raises our question for discussion: When is it proper for a moral person to be intolerant, and, conversely, when is it improper for amoral person to be intolerant?

Please note: It was a very successful presentation with much audience participation. There were over forty comments spoken during the session. Who says Chinese food puts you to sleep?

Please note my essay on this subject consisting of 8 pages is available on Richard's blog at: http://www.dontdumbdown.com/tolerance-and-intolerance/<-Click here, or copy the URL to your browser.

Topic for the October 1st Session: From National Conflict to Religious Conflict:
Is the Israeli army the army of God?

Topic for the September 3rd Session was : Who is a Liberal, and What is Liberalism? If you missed this session, you missed a great one. You can still learn more about it by clicking on the links below.

Richard has published a 10 page extract of a book he is writing which you may read on his blog, dontdumbdown.com

For a more detailed description of Richard's discussion topic, please click HERE.

Back to Top

Topic for the August 6th Session:  Neuroscience and Murder

Mary Coleman was the presenter for this session.

We live in a society that has three kinds of murder – 1) a few individuals murder other people, 2) society imitates these killers and murders them (capital punishment), and 3) society trains young people to lose their usually inborn reluctance to kill and to become members of an armed force trained in the arts of murder (war). This talk will focus on the first topic – people who murder others and what neuroscience and other disciplines so far has and has not revealed about the minds of these individuals.  

This talk will focus on the first topic – people who murder others and what neuroscience and other disciplines so far has and has not revealed about the minds of these individuals.

In the July 2nd Session: Jay Gonen discussed two of Kafka's works, "The Castle" and "The Trial".

For a free read of "The Castle", click here. For "The Trial", click here.

Back to Top

In the June 4th Session: The fourth of July is a federal holiday to celebrate the nation’s independence. For many Americans, it is a day for backyard barbecue, parades and fireworks. However this holiday is much more than hamburgers, hot dogs and ice cream in July. Do you agree it is an annual holiday which celebrates American Exceptionalism? Does America’s history justify the nation’s celebration of American Exceptionalism? How do you feel about the 4th of July? You can read Richard Kessler's answer. This was an active session with many HUSBAY members participating.

In the May 7th Session: What is Power? Read the cover letter.

The meaning of power is best understood through a linguistic analysis of the structure of its meaning.

  1. Power is an expectation. It is not an action
  2. The expectation is expressed in a counter factual conditional sentence.
  3. The expression requires a social or institutional context to become meaningful.
  4. The expectation must identify the actor in the premise who can actualize, perform or carry out the expectation. It refers back to a person or a human institution.
  5. Power is exercised by a person or people but not by a thing. The definition of power requires linguistic examination of the grammar of power and its specific syntax. Such an examination results in a definition that “power” is a statement of an expectation expressed as a counter factual conditional in a social context relating to human agency. Read the rest of "What is Power" by clicking here. To see an abbreviated essay, click here.

The discussion also includes the Bases of Power.

Appendix A
Bases of Power

(French and Raven)

Some scholars have attempted to provide a classification system for different types of
power. In a notable study of power conducted by social psychologists John R. P. French
and Bertram Raven in 1959, power is divided into five separate and distinct forms.

a. Coercive power
b. Reward power
c. Legitimate power
d. Referent power
e. Expert power
f. Informational power

Click here for the appendix.

Up Arrow


Topic for April 2, 2014: "Explanation" - see below.

The theme is explanation (Part 2). We all know that there is a lot of 'splainin' to do. On February 5th we looked at Scientific Explanation. Click here for specific details. April 2nd is Historical Explanation.

Wayne amd BrainThe photo at left shows the middle stages of the operation in which ideas are grafted to Jack's brain each year.

Jack Wayne Bio

Below are some of the programs we enjoyed in 2013:

Valentine's Day

On February 6 we will celebrated Valentine’s Day by connecting love and marriage with social welfare support provided by the state. It will be argued that the reproduction of the working class depends on transfers of money from the government to workers. These transfers diminish the social worth of the specific recipients and lead to more social control of families but are necessary for the economy. The fantastical notion that keeping laborers alive so that they can toil in repetitive, low-paid jobs under poor conditions makes them ‘freeloaders’ is now more than 150 years old.

Up Arrow

Family Affairs

Families have long been a site of violence and oppression for many. The fetish about conserving this version of the family has become prominent in recent years, particularly among social conservatives. The ‘traditional’ family has been celebrated as a positive institution. But given the amount of damage inflicted by families and family life it is appropriate to question the value of the ‘traditional’ family.

The March 6th meeting considered how the ‘traditional’ family became so dysfunctional for individuals, and so positive for business and government, as it evolved in the industrial era. Here are some of the issues:

1. The emergence of rigid gender roles as the idea of true womanhood developed within a spermatic economy. The invention of heterosexuality.

2. Courtship, sex and procreation. Getting caught and doing the right thing.

3. The transformation of housework. Modern appliances and more work for mother.

4. The obsession with normal. Trying to act normal if you’re different.

5. Family violence. See more by clicking this link.

Scientific Explanation

Program for Feb. 6, 2014

1. The Search for Explanation Humans live in a bewildering world and have sought ways of explaining and predicting outcomes in it. Science has provided several approaches to understanding stuff but has never produced an explanation of any outcome that is completely valid. Scientists are always correcting and adding nuance to their explanations. The limitations of scientific findings are always identified in Good Science, but unfortunately are obscured in Bad Science.

2. Types of Scientific Explanation The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”

Causal Explanations: Scientific explanations of a phenomenon (y) often begin with speculations about the cause or causes of y (x). These speculations—hypotheses—are derived from a framework or theory. They are not random speculations but are generally seen as worthy of investigation by a community of scholars because there is some reason that the cause will, under some circumstances, create the effect. We may speculate that ‘stepping on a crack breaks your mother’s back’ but no scientific group has ever received a grant to examine that hypothesis. On the other hand there is some good theoretical basis to consider the effects of smoking on lung cancer. We’ll consider that subject a little later.

Another feature of causal explanations is the use of counterfactuals. Would we have the same outcome if the explanatory variables were changed? Would Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation apply in a spaceship where gravitational forces are much reduced? (Answer next Wednesday).

Up Arrow

Some causes of an event and their counterfactuals are trivial. It is perfectly true that if a meteor had struck my condo last night I wouldn’t be here leading this discussion. Is the absence of a meteor a cause of my involvement in today’s meeting?

Functional/Teleological Explanations: This type of explanation reverses our usual understanding of cause and effect. Functionalists argue that the effect produces the cause. You are probably familiar with the theory of Intelligent Design. All living things have various components arranged in a specific way. Most of these parts serve specific functions. It cannot be by accident that this marvelous arrangement has come into existence. There must have been a designer.

Charles Darwin also used a functionalist approach. His great contribution was to replace the designer (God) with the Theory of Natural Selection. In so doing he turned a religious belief into a subject of scientific investigation.

Essentialist Explanations: For centuries, beginning with Plato and Aristotle, we have explained outcomes by looking at the properties of entities. The entity—a physical object, an animal, a group of people—is understood to have specific properties which identify them and which cause them to function as they do. As Popeye tells us over and over again, “I am what I am.”

Up Arrow

Essentialist explanations are very weak. In historical explanation, to be discussed next month, they tend to replace serious approaches. “The Germans are a warlike people” is not an explanation of the origins of World War II, even if it were true. In terms of April’s topic, explanations of human behavior, essentialist views of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, or other group characteristics lead to stereotypical thinking.

Determinism: Determinism is the theory that if x (the cause) exists then y (the effect) will necessarily follow. Causal determinism leads to the proposition that what happens today was determined at the origin of the universe. There is no demonstration of how this unending chain works, and free will is eliminated from the discussion. We seldom accept the thought-preventing explanation, ‘it had to happen.’

Overdetermination is a more useful concept. An effect usually has multiple causes. But sometimes we don’t require that many causes to generate a scientific explanation. The answer to “Why did the egg break?” does not require an elaborate description of why it was dropped on the floor by the distracted cook, the physical structure of the egg, the breeding of chickens so that they lay very thin-shelled eggs in these times, etc.

Freud used this concept artfully in The Interpretation of Dreams, arguing that many features of dreams are usually ‘overdetermined,’ in that they are caused by multiple factors in the life of the dreamer, from the "residue of the day" (superficial memories of recent life) to deeply repressed traumas and unconscious wishes, these being ‘potent thoughts’. Many events in history and in our lives appear to be overdetermined.

Up Arrow

3. Smoking and Lung Cancer

Does Smoking Cause Lung Cancer?

Our belief that smoking causes lung cancer is derived from studies by Epidemiologists. They have assembled data that consistently show much higher rates of lung cancer in smokers versus nonsmokers. These studies do not show causality. The data merely show a statistical association. The causal sequence (smoking ➡ lung cancer) is not proven. Here are some issues:

(i) The counterfactual, that without smoking the afflicted individuals would not have developed lung cancer, is assumed but cannot be established.

(ii) Most smokers do not develop lung cancer. In a 40 year British study the rate of mortality from lung cancer of smokers was 2.49 per 1,000. Rate of death from medical conditions not normally associated with smoking was 3.49 per 1,000.

(iii) Some of the data are questionable. An early study of British Physicians’ mortality rates over 20 years showed the Number of Deaths per 100,000, age standardized, was Nonsmoker 23, Former smoker 21, Current smoker 28. It appears that it is better to have smoked and then quit the habit.

Final note: Although the statistical association between smoking, lung cancer, and other diseases does not establish causality there is a powerful correlation between the two. Point (iii) above shows a 22% increase in mortality for smokers, and other studies—however limited and qualified—also show a strong association. The explanation of this correlation will never be established by epidemiological studies but by basic research on the effect of cigarette smoke on cell structures.

Up Arrow

The Value of Families

On April 3rd we considered the increasing value of families to individuals in the new millennium. The ‘traditional’ family is being replaced by the post-modern family in which:

1. Gender roles are becoming more flexible as the sexual identity of individuals is changing from a dichotomy to a continuum. (A self-evaluated Gender Aptitude Test will be distributed to the group.)

2. Women are more likely to enter the labor force. Peer marriage is emerging.

3. Sexual orientation is increasingly perceived non-judgmentally. Same sex marriage creates new options for family life.

4. We can choose family members from a wider population. No need to be stuck in a dysfunctional family with oppressive relationships; pick people you like and make your own family.

5. New reproductive technologies broaden our options for family formation.

Up Arrow

Jack Wayne - Brief Bio

Jack Wayne taught Sociology at the University of Toronto from 1968 to 1999. His areas of interest and publication included Urban Sociology, African Studies, Historical Sociology and Sociology of the Family. He was seconded for two years to the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and was also Visiting Fellow at Cambridge University. While at the University of Toronto Jack directed the Transitional Year Programme, which brought students to the university from minority and working class communities. He was also Advisor to the University President on anti-racist initiatives.

After retirement Jack turned his full attention to Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc., a company that he had founded to provide educational materials to post-secondary students. CSPI grew to become the leading Canadian-owned company of its kind. Jack served as President of the Association of Canadian Publishers for two years.

Jack is also featured on our Who's Who at HUSBAY page.


hit counters