Just as the food we ought to consume is not necessarily the tastiest, so the art we ought to value is not necessarily that which pleases most. So what kind of art truly nourishes the soul? This talk will explore Tolstoy’s answer –that it is the kind of art in which the audience contracts the feelings of the artist like a contagion, thereby forming moral bonds between individuals and within communities.

'The Problem of the Criterion: Is Knowledge too Hard or too Easy?' We acquire knowledge through methods such as perception and reasoning and, according to an intuitively plausible principle, acquiring knowledge through such a method requires us first to know that this method is reliable. But it has long been recognized that this seems to give rise to a vicious regress, making knowledge impossible. Rejecting the principle, on the other hand, seems to make knowledge too easy: we could come to know that a method is reliable by using that very method! So how might we solve this ancient puzzle? We acquire knowledge through methods such as perception and reasoning and, according to an intuitively plausible principle, acquiring knowledge through such a method requires us first to know that this method is reliable. But it has long been recognized that this seems to give rise to a vicious regress, making knowledge impossible. Rejecting the principle, on the other hand, seems to make knowledge too easy: we could come to know that a method is reliable by using that very method! So how might we solve this ancient puzzle?

Dramas and other fictions that portray tragic events are often thought to be the most important and valuable artistic works. But ever since the age of Plato and Aristotle, when tragedy was invented, philosophers have wondered why, and even whether, they are a good thing. Do we enjoy the merciless representation of lives being wrecked? If so, how do we explain that? Do we enjoy it in spite of, or because of, the painfulness of the events? And if we do not enjoy it, what is the point of tragedy?

Motherhood is revered as a state of almost saintly self-sacrifice. According to the popular picture, a mother is willing to do anything for her child and always puts her child first and her own needs last. But real mothers often fail to live up to this ideal and are harshly criticised for this. So might the way we talk about motherhood involve philosophical mistakes? And are these mistakes harmful to mothers?

Our highly successful Philosophy Café (run in conjunction with the John Hansard Gallery) is now entering its fifth year: the Café offers regular, informal lunchtime discussions that are free and accessible.

These regular, informal lunchtime discussions are held between 1-2pm and open to all (no booking required). They aim to bring together those with an interest in philosophy - from both within the University and the wider local community.

Our highly successful Philosophy Café (run in conjunction with the John Hansard Gallery) is now entering its fifth year: the Café offers regular, informal lunchtime discussions that are free and accessible. These regular, informal lunchtime discussions are held between 1-2pm and open to all (no booking required). They aim to bring together those with an interest in philosophy - from both within the University and the wider local community.

Philosophy talk given at Southampton City Art Gallery

The latest in the popular Philosophy cafe series at the John Hansard Gallery saw Dr Alex Gregory talking about self interest. Alex researches the relationship between what we want and what we think is good, and has published on these issues. "It's clear that people sometimes do things for their own benefit: you might push ahead of other people to ensure you get a good seat on the train. Some philosophers have made the bolder claim that we always act out of self-interest. But is that true? What are the arguments for it? It might seem obvious that sometimes people act for the sake of others: for example, someone might offer to donate blood for the benefit of a complete stranger. But can such examples be explained away as ultimately self-interested?".

The philosopher Descartes famously held that the mind is an immaterial, thinking substance entirely distinct from the body. If he is right, it is hard to see how mind and body could ever interact - for how can something immaterial causally affect something physical? Most contemporary philosophers would reject this Cartesian dualism but the problem of what the mind is, and how it relates to the body, or brain, remains pressing today. Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Dr Genia Schonbaumsfeld, discussed this issue at the University of Southampton's Philosophy Cafe at the John Hansard Gallery; an event organised by Lifelong Learning in Humanities. Philosophy Cafe talks are scheduled each month and cover a wide range of topics.