Lunch Chat (11/8): Time Travel

With Einstein's relativistic physics, we get a sort of fusing of space and time. One of the interesting consequences of this fusing is the fact that no moment is objectively present — it depends on our frame of reference — and past, present, and future are all equally real. All of time exists.

Kurt Gödel (1906–1978)

This raises a fascinating possibility: could we actually travel to other times? As it happens, it was the famous mathematical logician, Kurt Gödel, who demonstrated how to solve the field equations of General Relativity in such a way as to introduce "closed timelike curves". Many other solutions have been offered since. Some of these solutions describe universes that are very unlike ours in structure (despite being physically possible — so far as Relativity is concerned anyway).

Without getting into any details, let's suppose that physics has indeed signed off on the possibility of time travel. What does that mean for philosophy? What consequences does it have on our conceptions of time? Of free will? Of causation? Of information? Think of the time travel stories that involve people intervening in the past. What if the way I intervene is to prevent time travel from ever being discovered — can I succeed? If I succeed, I fail! On the flip side of this coin, suppose a mysterious time traveler appears out of nowhere and provides me with instructions for building a time machine. I spend my life gathering parts and working out the delicate engineering necessary. After 30 years of exhausting work, I realize that I was the time traveler who gave myself the plans. I dutifully travel back 30 years and hand over the plans. Where did the information about how to build a time machine come from?!

In this lunch chat we'll puzzle over these paradoxes, talk about time travel stories/movies good and bad, and (as usual) enjoy some pizza and friendly conversation. Thursday at noon in the Philosophy Lounge (Coleman 62).

LAST Philosophical Film Tuesday: "La Jetée" and "12 Monkeys"

Tuesday November 6th @ 7:30PM | Campus Theatre | $2 admission

The last of our Philosophical Films for the year will be a double feature . . . sort of: Chris Marker's "La Jetée" is only 26 minutes long. It is, however, a science fiction classic — presented to us via a beautifully-restored 35mm print — and the idea on which Terry Gilliam's "12 Monkeys" was based. Both involve time travel, but in a smart, philosophically responsible way. Gilliam (one of the Money Python troupe) has a quirky director's eye and (in my view) extracted some of the best performances of Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis's careers.

Sellars Lecture: Sally Haslanger, "Structural Injustice: What It Is and How It's Hidden"

Thursday, February 28th
Forum, Langone Center: 7PM

Professor Haslanger is Professor of Philosophy and Director of Women's and Gender Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Her areas of specialization are analytic metaphysics, epistemology, feminist theory, and social philosophy. A collection of her papers, Resisting the Real: Social Construction and Social Critique was published by Oxford University Press in 2012. She has also co-edited three volumes: Adoption Matters: Philosophical and Feminist Essays, with Charlotte Witt, Theorizing Feminisms, with Elizabeth Hackett, and Persistence, with Roxanne Marie Kurtz. In 2009 she founded the Women in Philosophy Task Force and has collaborated extensively with others to promote gender equity in academia in general, and in philosophy in particular. In 2010 she was awarded the Distinguished Woman Philosopher of the year by the Society of Women in Philosophy. Haslanger gave the Carus Lectures, the American Philosophical Association’s most prestigious lecture series, in 2012 and is President-Elect of the Eastern Division of the APA.

Lunch Chat (11/1): Religion in Politics

With one more Philosophy Lunch Chat before the election, I wanted to do a special edition on the role of religion in politics and governing with a guest expert, Professor Brantley Gasaway from the Religion Department.

Among other things, we'll talk about whether (and how) a candidate's religion should bear on our voting, whether their beliefs matter as far as their capabilities for effective governance go, and how we should understand the difference between "the separation of church and state" and the separation of religion and politics.

So stop by the Philosophy Lounge (Coleman 62) at noon on Thursday to enjoy some pizza and informal but insightful conversation about question that matter.

Lunch Chat (10/25): Debating Debate

In keeping with our political theme, I thought that in the next lunch chat we could talk about the role that the presidential (and vice-presidential) debates play — or ought to play — in our deciding who we should vote on. There's been a lot of talk about "who won" certain debates; boxing analogies are common (was it a "victory on points" or a "knock-out"?). Does this talk make sense? What is the relationship between debate and other forms of intellectual discourse? What makes a discussion a debate? And how does any of this matter when it comes to the voting booth?

If you're interesting in debates or politics (or both), stop by the Philosophy Lounge on Thursday at noon for some pizza and (polite) discussion. I swear I'll reign in my use of "zingers". . . .

Philosophical Film Tuesdays: "The Prestige"

October 23rd @ 7:30PM | Campus Theatre | $2 admission

In this thought-provoking and suspenseful film by acclaimed director Christopher Nolan (of Batman and Inception fame), two rival magicians compete to develop the ultimate magic trick. Stay after the film to participate in a discussion with yours truly about some of the philosophical themes.

Lunch Chat (10/18): A Vote for Reason

As the political wrangling heats up heading into the presidential election, I thought we might talk about some of the pathologies familiar in political discourse. For background, you might read this column in "The Stone" by Michael Lynch on the role that reason might well play in our thinking about how to cast our vote. Lynch writes:

Suppose I offer, at no charge, to drop a drug in the water supply that would cause almost everyone in the country to vote like you this November. You would probably feel at least a little bit tempted to take the deal. Presidential politics is a matter of grave import, after all. Still — many of us would hesitate, and rightly so. There seems to be something really wrong with manipulating people to believe things even when the stakes are high. We want to convince our opponents, yes, but we want them to be convinced by our reasons.

And yet, many seem content to attempt to influence our vote by non-rational means. Is this simply the ever-present debate between ends and means? What should we care more about in this arena: product or process?

I propose that we inject a little philosophical rigor into presidential politics leading up to Election Day — stay tuned to the blog for topics. So if you're a "politics-wonk" (of either or neither political party), stop on by the Philosophy Lounge on Thursdays at noon for some pizza and reasoned discussion.