What we’re about
Welcome to the Toronto Philosophy Meetup! This is a community for anyone interested in philosophy, including newcomers to the subject. We host discussions, talks, reading groups, pub nights, debates, and other events on an inclusive range of topics and perspectives in philosophy, drawing from an array of materials (e.g. philosophical writings, for the most part, but also movies, literature, history, science, art, podcasts, current events, ethnographies, and whatever else seems good.)
Anyone is welcomed to host philosophy-related events here. We also welcome speakers and collaborations with other groups.
Join us at an event soon for friendship, cooperative discourse, and mental exercise!
You can also follow us on Twitter and join our Discord.
Feel free to propose meetup topics (you can do this on the Message Boards), and please contact us if you would like to be a speaker or host an event.
(NOTE: Most of our events are currently online because of the pandemic.)
"Philosophy is not a theory but an activity."
— from "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", Wittgenstein
"Discourse cheers us to companionable
reflection. Such reflection neither
parades polemical opinions nor does it
tolerate complaisant agreement. The sail
of thinking keeps trimmed hard to the
wind of the matter."
— from "On the Experience of Thinking", Heidegger
See here for an extensive list of podcasts and resources on the internet about philosophy.
See here for the standards of conduct that our members are expected to abide by. Members should also familiarize themselves with Meetup's Terms of Service Agreement, especially the section on Usage and Content Policies.
See here for a list of other philosophy-related groups to check out in the Toronto area: https://www.meetup.com/The-Toronto-Philosophy-Meetup/pages/30522966/Other_Philosophy_Groups_in_the_Toronto_Area/
Please note that no advertising of external events, products, businesses, or organizations is allowed on this site without permission from the main Organizer.
*****
Make a Donation
Since 2016, the Toronto Philosophy Meetup has been holding regular events that are free, open to the public, and help to foster community and a culture of philosophy in Toronto and beyond. To help us continue to do so into the future, please consider supporting us with a donation! Any amount is most welcome.
You can make a donation here.
See here for more information and to meet our donors.
Supporters will be listed on our donors page unless they wish to remain anonymous. We thank them for their generosity!
If you would like to help out or support us in other ways (such as with any skills or expertise you may have), please contact us.
Note: You can also use the donation link to tip individual hosts. Let us know who you want to tip in the notes section. You can also contact hosts directly for ways to tip them.
Upcoming events (4+)
See all- Live-Reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics – North American StyleLink visible for attendees
Let's try something new. For the next dozen weeks or so, starting 4/17/2022, we are going to live-read and discuss Aristotle's ~Nicomachean Ethics~. What is new and different about this project is that the translation, by Adam Beresford (2020), happens to be rendered in standard 'Murican English.
.
From the translator's "Note" on the text:
.
"This translation is conservative in interpretation and traditional in aim. It aims to translate the text as accurately as possible.
.
"I translated every page from scratch, from a clean Greek text, rather than revising an existing translation. ... I wanted to avoid the scholars’ dialect that is traditionally used for translating Aristotle.
...
"I reject the approach of Arthur Adkins, Elizabeth Anscombe, and others who followed Nietzsche in supposing that the main elements of modern thinking about right and wrong were unknown to the Greeks, or known to them only in some radically different form. My view of humanity and of our shared moral instincts is shaped by a newer paradigm. This is a post-Darwinian translation. (It is also more in line with the older, both Aristotelian and Christian view of human character.)
.
"Having said that, I have no interest at all in modernizing Aristotle’s ideas. All the attitudes of this treatise remain fully Greek, very patriarchal, somewhat aristocratic, and firmly embedded in the fourth century BC. My choice of dialect (standard English) has no bearing on that whatsoever. (It is perfectly possible to express distinctively Greek and ancient attitudes in standard English.) ... I have also not simplified the text in any way. I have translated every iota, particle, preposition, noun, verb, adjective, phrase, clause, and sentence of the original. Every premise and every argument therefore remains – unfortunately – exactly as complex and annoyingly difficult as in any other version in whatever dialect.
...
"Some scholars and students unwarily assume that the traditional dialect has a special connection with Greek and that using it brings readers closer to the original text; and that it makes the translation more accurate. In reality, it has no special tie to the Greek language, either in its main philosophical glossary or in its dozens of minor (and pointless) deviations from normal English. And in my view it certainly makes any translation much less accurate.
.
"I will occasionally refer to the scholars’ dialect (‘Gringlish’) and its traditional glossary in the Notes."
.
.
Here is our plan:
1. Read Intro excerpts or a summary to gain the big picture.
2. Read a segment of the translated text.
3. Discuss it analytically and interpretively.
4. Repeat again at #2 for several more times.
5. Discuss the segments evaluatively.
.
.
Zoom is the project's current meeting platform, but that can change. The project's cloud drive is here, at which you'll find the reading texts, notes, and slideshows. - The Price of Neutrality: Why “Staying Out of It” Backfires in Moral DisagreementLink visible for attendees
People care where others around them stand on contentious moral and political issues. Yet when faced with the prospect of taking sides and the possibility of alienating observers with whom they might disagree, people may try to “stay out of it”. We demonstrate that despite its intuitive appeal for reducing conflict, opting not to take sides over moral issues can provoke distrust and disdain, even more so than siding against an observer’s viewpoint outright. Across 11 experiments, we find that attempts to stay out of the fray are often interpreted as deceptive and untrustworthy. When people choose not to take sides, observers often ascribe concealed opposition, an attribution of strategic deception which provokes distrust and undermines real-stakes cooperation and partner choice. However, we further demonstrate that this effect arises only when staying out of it seems strategic: People who seem to hold authentic middle-ground beliefs or who lack incentives for impression management are not distrusted for staying neutral. (The full paper from the Journal of Experimental Psychology, a free pdf is here)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We will discuss the episode "The Price of Neutrality" from the Stanford Psychology Podcast at this meetup. Please listen to the episode in advance (50 minutes) and bring your thoughts, reactions, and queries to share with us at the conversation.
Listen here: Spotify | Apple | The Stanford Psychology Substack
In this episode, Dr. Alex Shaw, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago, discusses his fascinating research on why attempts to stay neutral in moral and political disagreements can backfire. His work reveals that when people choose not to take sides on contentious issues, they may actually be viewed as less trustworthy than those who openly disagree. Through a series of experiments, Dr. Shaw and his colleagues found that this distrust stems from observers perceiving neutrality as strategic deception.
Shaw's research explores how children and adults navigate the complex world of social behavior, with a particular focus on morality, fairness, and social judgments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Future topics for this discussion series:
If you'd like to suggest a podcast episode for us to discuss at a future meetup, please send me a message or leave a comment below.
This link here is my own (frequently updated) list of listening recommendations and potential fodder for future discussions (by default it's sorted from oldest to newest but you can change the order with the "sort by" button.)
Podcast episodes we've previously discussed:
- Why Cynicism Is Bad For You (and The Surprising Science of Human Goodness) from The Gray Area
- The Culture Map: Decoding Cross-Cultural Communication from ReThinking
- Medieval Civilization: Millennia in Microcosm Week 152Link visible for attendees
Join us for an exploration of Kenneth Smith’s analysis of hamartia, the tragic flaw that turns intelligence against itself. In this session, we’ll examine how early Christianity redefined sin—not as mere wrongdoing, but as a profound misjudgment rooted in ego and blindness to the essential. Drawing from Greek tragedy, Smith presents Oedipus as the ultimate case of hamartia in extremis: a man who mistakes his cleverness for insight and brings ruin upon himself despite every warning. Through this lens, sin becomes not just moral failure but a spiritual pathology—a corruption of perception, of self-awareness, of the soul’s capacity to recognize what truly matters. We’ll discuss how this tragic blindness speaks not only to individuals, but to cultures that exalt ego over wisdom and mistake fragmentation for strength.
C: Selfless Love and The Encompassing https://kennethsmithphilosophy.com/end07.php
