Some possible topics for discussion

Ideas that we have discussed are greyed out - but that doesn't mean KPC couldn't return to them as most philosophical topics would repay exploration over several sessions. Please contact us with other suggestions and/or offers to lead discussions. 

Topics proposed at the December 2009 "What next?" session, in no particular order apart from the first 4 which got one or more supporting ticks:
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice
Free will
Peter Singer
Collective responsibility
“The purpose of life is to avoid boredom.”
Why?
Schopenhauer
The notion of “self”
Sustainability requires living with the natural world’s capital – the bonus would be a more fulfilling life
Choice is very partial, relative and dependent on degree of knowledge and understanding
Free will
Which ideas, assumptions and practices current today might our descendents come to regard with incredulity?
Do philosophers ever achieve anything? What is the point of philosophy?
Free speech

Additional topics suggested at 2010 meetings:
Richard Rorty
John Stuart Mill
“known unknowns…” - is that really such nonsense?
Marxism
Happiness

Ideas  proposed at our December 2008 "What next?" meeting, grouped in descending order of popularity:
Identity, consciousness, memory
Philosophy of History – how do we know about the past?
Philosophy of Science, Life and death issues, Environment / Why should we care about future generations?  Post-modernism, Literary influences, The Good Society / society’s values, Crime, What is education for? Religions – are they relevant? Materialism, Free will, choice, determinism, British values, Business ethics
Spinoza
Sartre, Music,What is time? The influence of the Enlightenment,  Continental philosophy, Philosophy from other cultures / countries, What has philosophy achieved? Reply to relativism, Democracy

Ethics of sport
Nietzsche

Heidegger, Appearance and reality,Philosophy of language,Information about various philosophical areas,Drama, What is our nature? How should we live?

Other possibles that have come up at one time or another: 

Democracy and climate change: see discussion at http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/climate_change/democracy_climate_change_failure

Identity- films can demonstrate some interesting cases: Memento, about somone who, following an accident, can only remember the last three minutes, perfect for questions of whether continuous memory is necessary for identity; Transporters in Star Trek (two copies, which is you?); people who lose their memory becoming different people (e g the Bourne films or the film Iris (Murdoch).

Predestination, determinism and free will - with the film Minority Report.

How free are we? Our actions are influenced by our personalities - yes? And our personalities are influenced by a combination of our genes and our environment - yes? So are our actions freely chosen - or are they determined by these influences? This question seems particularly important when we consider issues of equality and reward(can people help being lazy or clever or stupid or bankers?), of criminality (how much should we blame or punish people for being bad?) and even health (can we help being fat or addicted to unhealthy substances?).

“Do philosophers ever achieve anything?” This, or something like this, question has been proposed for discussion at Kingston Philosophy Café several times – we apparently have some sceptics about the value of philosophy amongst our regulars! It’s an understandable implied criticism – philosophers rarely have much power or go to the barricades for their ideas, and they can seem very impractical and theoretical. Even when a philosopher’s writings or ideas appear to have been influential, it’s a moot point whether the philosopher in question influenced, or was influenced by, the ideas of the time. Are “philosophical reflections”, as David Hume suggested, “nothing but the reflections of common life, methodised and corrected”? But are methodising and correcting our ideas worth doing in themselves? Can we defend the achievements of philosophers such as David Hume, Karl Marx, J S Mill, Karl Popper, Simone de Beauvoir, Peter Singer and many others who’ve helped to shape how we think and even perhaps how we live? Volunteers to speak briefly about the achievements of one or more philosophers, perhaps in a kind of "balloon debate", welcome.

The Good Society
Some questions (and a few provocative quotations) compiled by Michael McCarthy to stimulate a future KPC discussion on the good society here. 

Life and death issues(e g abortion, voluntary euthanasia, suicide) – do the arguments always have to be between the religious (“life is sacred) and the non-religious (“no such thing as sacred”), or are there other moral criteria we should consider? Is Utilitarianism a helpful meta-ethical theory when thinking about these issues? 

Would it have been better never to have been born? A sub-question of the previous one but worth considering in its own right.

Free speech - is it always a good thing?

"British values"? Can there be such a thing?  

Is religion the only possible source of absolute moral values and rules? Do the non-religious have to be moral relativists? Listen to a fascinating Moral Maze discussion on Religion and Morality at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml

Where do ethical values come from?

Post-modernism

Literature / the impact of the Romantics 

Materialism - are we living in a solely material world? Is this all there is? Go to Radio 4’s “In our Time” to listen to a fascinating discussion on materialism, with a reading list, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20080424.shtml. 
   See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism for some definitions and arguments, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nagel for an introduction to a contemporary opponent of materialist theories of mind, and http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html for Nagel’s famous Philosophical Review essay “What is it like to be a bat?” For something more accessible, read the chapter on “the mind-body problem” in What Does It All Mean?: A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy (1987), Oxford University Press. 

What exactly is wrong with drugs in sport?
An ethical (perhaps?) question inspired by the 2008 Olympics. We tolerate all kinds of performance-enhancing artificial aids, from aerodynamic helmets to the new Speedo swimsuits, and a certain amount of self-harm in the demanding training schedules athletes submit to - so why not performance-enhancing drugs as well?

What is Philosophy?
See http://www.e-voice.org.uk/kingstonphilosophycafe/useful-reading/for-those-new-to-philosophy/for some reading ideas and watch this space for other suggestions. Or philosophical method, an exploration.
See also a note about definitions at http://www.e-voice.org.uk/kingstonphilosophycafe/some-possible-topics/definitions/.

Is it Art? Is X really art? How can we decide? (e g, Work 850 - athletes running through the Duveen Gallery at regular intervals -  at Tate Britain, now over) Two good, readable introductions to the philosophy of art are The Art Question by Nigel Warburton (Routledge, 2003) - or read a reviews of it at http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/philos/art-question.htm -  and But is it art? by Cynthia Freeland (Oxford, 2001).
See also a note about definitions at http://www.e-voice.org.uk/kingstonphilosophycafe/some-possible-topics/definitions/ and some preparatory notes and questions for the October and November 08 meeting on the topic at http://www.e-voice.org.uk/kingstonphilosophycafe/files/view/philosophy-cafe-briefings/IS_IT_ART,_prep.doc.

The environment and Why should we care about future generations?

The arts - we've discussed theories about the visual arts, and drama/theatre - but what about poetry or music ? 

Philosophical conversations on unlikely topics (like the School of Life or Theodore Zeldin on Conversation.

The ethics of: sport, drugs, sport and drugs; business, money, finance; food/vegetarianism; the environment… and/or debates with 2 sides on topical or ethical issues. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/ - BBC's Ethics website isn't particularly philosophical but does highlight some relevant contemporary news, issues and discussions - a possible source of topics.

The philosophy of… for example, education – what is education for? Or history - how do we know about the past? Can we ever really fully know or understand what happened? Or science - can science give us certain knowledge about the world, or are scientific theories "just theories", no better than, say personal experience or religious doctrines, at getting close to the truth?

Society's values - Could Asimov's four laws, or a similar set of concise assertions, be applied as a meta-legal structure from which all subsequent laws devolve? And is it possible that in doing so, we can obtain an objective (or near objective) framework within which politics can work safely: Thus safe-guarding the citizens from radical regimes and inappropriate laws. (Asimov's "Laws of Robotics" feature in a 2008 article in The Independent, in which a scientist warns that the rise of robots in the home, in the workplace and in warfare needs to be supervised and controlled by ethical guidelines.

A reply to the relativism of our first ever session, theme: truth and philosophy. 

Moral relativism - See Moral Relativism (Big Ideas, paperback) by Steven Lukes for an interesting and readable discussion on judging the behaviour of others in a world where ethics seem increasingly diverse and conflicting. Do universal human rights exist, or do we just have to accept that there's an irreparable moral discord between ‘us’ and ‘the other’? You can look inside the book at
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moral-Relativism-Ideas-Steven-Lukes/dp/1846680093/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232093412&sr=1-1