Forum for Philosophy

Despite progress in recent decades, women remain under-represented in many areas of science. Why is this, and what can be done about it? How do the challenges faced by women in science today differ from those faced by previous generations? Does the neuroscience of sex differences show that science requires a "male brain", or does it debunk that idea? And how might the structure and culture of science be improved to help the next generation of female scientists?

Winston Churchill famously described democracy as "the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried". While not exactly a resounding endorsement, something like this sentiment is strongly held by most people in Western societies. Those who challenge it are branded "extremists" or "ideologues", with special suspicion reserved for those who incorporate unfamiliar cultural or religious beliefs. However, there have always been those who think alternatives to democracy are possible, and indeed preferable. So what are the philosophical arguments in favour of democracy, and do they stand up to scrutiny?

Even in so-called "mature" democracies, political discussion often turns ugly. Recently we have seen accusations of deception and name-calling in the EU referendum debate, of negative campaigning in the London mayoral election, and of unrestrained personal attacks in the US election. Does such behaviour fall short of an ethical standard for public discussion, or is it an essential feature of political life?

Swarms of bees make decisions as a "democratic" collective, voting on various possible nest sites through waggle dances. Does this phenomenon amount to a form of "collective intelligence"? Do we also find collective intelligence in humans? And what might humans be able to learn from bees about the best ways to act together and to make collective decisions?

The "most depressing lesson" of suffering, Slavoj Žižek writes, is that "there is nothing to be learned from it". Is Žižek’s bleak view convincing, or is there evidence to suggest that suffering can educate or even improve us? If so, do some types of physical or mental suffering have more value than others? What is it that we learn? Does suggesting that suffering has meaning or value validate or demean the experience of suffering?

In a year of heated discussions about campus rape culture and street harassment, the merits of sex positivism, and the implications of trans-identity for feminism, we ask what is the future of sex and sexuality? Have the rules of sexual engagement changed in the twenty-first century and has the discipline of philosophy managed to keep up? How do we start to think afresh about desire, after Freud and into the future? And what is the future for sex as our conceptions of the body are reframed by culture, bionics, and even the law?

Does perception give me any reason to believe in an external world, or could I be a "brain in a vat" that is fed information by a malicious (or benevolent) scientist? And if I were such a brain, could I ever say or think this? This is just one puzzle raised by the Harvard philosopher Hilary Putnam, who died last year. Though its origins are in Augustine and Descartes, Putnam revolutionised its implications for our understanding of knowledge, language, and the mind. We bring together a distinguished panel to discuss his life and work.

From Nietzsche’s dalliances with tragic drama and Adorno’s adoration of Schoenberg to Badiou’s writing on dance, philosophy’s love affair with the performing arts has been long and thoughtful. In this debate, we discuss the ways philosophy thinks about performance.

The traditional answer to this question is that God has a plan for the universe and we are part of it. Almost as traditionally, atheists have countered that the universe has no purpose since a benevolent God does not exist. But what if the purpose of the universe does not involve us – or God – at all?

Why is art preoccupied with monsters? What can we learn about a society from the kinds of monsters it imagines? Today, when traditional ideas of the human cannot account for advances in biology and technology, can monstrous figures help us to better understand our changing sense of ourselves?

What is money, where does it come from, and why does it sometimes fail to make us better off? The banality of money makes it appear neutral with respect to political, religious, or moral values. Should we try to answer these questions in a value-neutral way, or does money shelter a value system hiding in plain sight?

From the impact of de-industrialization to the emerging forms of labour generated by technological advances, we are witnessing a transformation of work. What impact does the digital economy have on our understanding of work? Does it alter our conception of the labouring body? Where should we look to make sense of work in the contemporary, globalized world?

What are microbial societies? In what ways do they resemble human societies and in what ways do they differ? Can the same ideas that explain cooperation in larger animals also explain cooperation in microbes? And what can we learn from microbes about what it is to be human? In this panel discussion, philosopher Maureen O’Malley and microbiologists Kevin Foster and Sara Mitri discuss the social lives of microbes.

We tend to pay more attention to living beings than objects, failing to notice the complexities of the things that surround us, neglecting the differences between "the obsidian fragment, the gypsum crystal, the capsicum pepper, and the propane flame" (Ian Bogost). But what if we are wrong to think of objects as inert and unimportant? What if objects can act? What if objects can help us to bridge the perceived gap between ourselves and the world around us? Our panel will consider the significance of objects between the personal and philosophical.

In the film Amadeus, Mozart remarks that ‘his composition has the exact amount of notes’, hinting at some kind of Absolute. For contemporary composer Nimrod Borenstein, there is only one solution: the right number of notes at the right place, as if his music had always existed. Are there philosophical arguments that support such claims? We bring together a composer, a pianist, a piano, and a philosopher to explore this question.

This panel will consider the ways in which philosophers have engaged with architecture and explores how architects have thought philosophically about their own work. Are there are philosophical ideals at the heart of civic building projects and social housing programmes? What are the principles of good design and how could a three dimensional space represent an idea? Is the primary purpose of a building aesthetic, social or moral? Do we judge a building on the beauty of its structure, the practicality of its form or the human interaction it enables? And how should we imagine the skyline of the future?