Hi everyone!

This week, we’ll be holding our bi-annual presentation meeting! At this meeting, you can give a presentation on any topic of your choice. We will be bringing refreshments, so look forward to it!
I wanted to remind everyone to fill out our attendance form regardless of if they plan to present or not. Also, if you would like to contribute to the snack fund, please Venmo me at @ catarinacynica.

Our meeting will be at the normal time (8PM) in Alumni 200, but we may expect to run slightly over time this meeting.
Feel free to bring some friends you might not otherwise!

Hope to see you there,
VP Catarina

Hey everyone,

This Thursday, we will be holding our biannual presentation week. This is a week in which you get a few minutes to present on a topic of your choice:–: it can be literally anything, so choose something you’re passionate about!
This semester, we will be using a sign up sheet that can be accessed here: https://forms.gle/UWJTE9q3kZGYA7oK7
PLEASE fill this out by Wednesday at midnight, even if you are not presenting! We’ll be bringing refreshments this time, so we want an idea of how many people will be attending and if we have to mind for any dietary restrictions.
Feel free to bring your friends!

Many thanks,
Catarina

Hello Humanists!

This week’s topic, brought to you by Gabriel, is tribalism, individualism, and collectivism. Gabriel will be moderating this meeting.

As a quick reminder, next week’s meeting (4/25) will be presentation night, and the week after that (5/2) is elections. If you want to present, send me your slides by Wednesday 4/24 to declare your intent.

Hope to see you all Thursday 4/18 at 8:00pm in Alumni Hall 200!

Best,
Samantha Darby

Hello everyone,

Hope your week is going well. This week our meeting topic will be on the ethics of war: that is, are there good wars? To what extent is military action justified, and how far does “self defense” extend? Is imperial expansion ever just? We will talk about these questions in Room 200 of Alumni Hall at 8PM.

I also wanted to give you all a schedule for the next few weeks, since the semester is drawing to a close. Next week (that of April 18th) will be our last “normal” meeting where we discuss a single topic announced the week of. The week after that, on April 25th, we will have our presentation night, where members will give a presentation on a topic of their choice. On May 9th, we will have elections for executive positions. Forms for both the presentation night and to register as a candidate for an executive position will be sent within the next week.

Unfortunately, I will not be in attendance tonight due to poor health. That being said, you all have given us a great semester, and I’m super grateful to be your VP.

Have a great time :)
VP Catarina

Hello Humanists!

For our first meeting back from Spring Break, our topic will be privacy. Specifically, to what extent does it matter? Is it more important than security? When is it a right, and when is it a privilege? In this digital age, what even constitutes “privacy”?

To answer these questions and more, come to our meeting in 200 Alumni Hall on Thursday at 8:00pm. Can’t wait to see you all there!

Best,
Samantha Darby

Hi everyone,

I’m so sorry for the very late email. I wanted to formally announce that we ARE meeting today! That being said, the format this week will be less formal due to Spring break, so expect some feeling out when the meeting starts.

Have a wonderful Spring break!

Catarina

Howdy Peeps,

I’m returning to a moderator role this week as I’ll be filling in for Sam, who will be too busy battling a Gorn to attend.
On Thursday night, we will be asking the following question: To what extent should a country be responsible for the welfare of foreigners? This is a major question that the developed world has been considering in the 21st century, particularly when discussing immigration policy related to asylum seekers and refugees. We’ll be discussing this question, and more, at our Thursday night meeting.
As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

Kind regards,
Emil

Hello everyone!

Sorry for the late email. I hope you all have had a good week, and that midterms have not been too hard on you. This week our meeting will be on what we owe to each other: that is to say, do people have any obligation to each other at all? From the obligation of politeness to issues such as compulsory organ donation, how much should we be expected to give back to other people? The meeting will be in Alumni Hall room 200 at 8PM.

I hope to see you there!
Catarina

Friends, wedding crashers, leap day babies (AKA 5 year olds),

This week our topic is going to be marriage and monogamy. Much of our societal and family structure in the U.S. (but also more broadly in many parts of the globe), is built around the nuclear family. We have legal and monetary incentives for marriage, societal pressures for monogamous bonds, and an expectation (this one is more U.S. specific) that a wedded couple live and rear their children alone without direct support from other family members or friends. Is this still a useful structure for our families and relationships, or is there something better? What social limitations does the institution of marriage enforce? Why is polyamory still so stigmatized?

As always (except for that one time), I’ll see you all in 200 Alumni Hall on Thursday at 8:00pm.

Best,
Samantha Darby

Hello, everyone!

I hope you’ve all had a wonderful week since our last meeting with Dr. Massie. This week, we’ll return to our usual format, this time talking about our sexual freedoms, specifically: what content should be restricted, on the internet in real life? And, to that end, how does consent extend to what we see?

Remember that we are in Alumni Hall 100, and that our meeting will be at the normal time of 8PM.

Hope to see you all there!
VP Catarina

Hello Humanists!

We’ve been invited to an event! I’ll let you read about the details in Karla’s email, but this looks like a really good opportunity for us to build ties with another organization (plus, snacks). If you’re free on Friday March 1st at 2:30pm, please consider going! Additionally, if you do end up RSVPing, go ahead and shoot me a message so we can plot.😈

See you tomorrow night (at 7!!!),
Sam

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Karla Mustafa <mustafka@miamioh.edu>
Date: Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:41 PM
Subject: META Invitation
To: Darbys <darbys@miamioh.edu>

Hello Sam Darby,

We are reaching out because you have been identified as a leader or advisor of Humanists of Miami organization. The M.E.T.A. (Multifaith Engagement for Transformative Action) Advisory board would like to formally invite you and the members of your organization to our kick off event we are planning to host on March 1st at 2:30 PM.

Over the last semester we have been working hard on making the Ford Mediation Room a more inclusive space for all students to access. In hopes to make this a more inclusive and welcoming space we have repainted, refurnished, redecorated, and would like you to join us in unveiling the space. We will gather on Friday March 1st at 2:30 PM and refreshments will be served across the hall in the Wikiaami Room. Please RSVP. The RSVP is important so we can anticipate the amount of food needed, Additionally - please share with other students who may be interested in Interfaith work. We hope to make a connection with you and others who would be interested in collaborating with and reviving the M.E.T.A. student organization.

The Student Organization M.E.T.A. - Multifaith Engagement for Transformative Action is supported through the generous gift of the Ford Family. The Ford Family Initiative helps support programming centered around Interfaith and secular programming designed to explore and learn about ways of making meaning and spiritual practices. The Ford Family Initiative and M.E.T.A. are here to support students of different faith traditions or no faith at all as they build community through collaboration and understanding.

Learn more about META HERE.

Thank you!

The META Advisory Team - Karla, Ben, Kourtney, and Kim

Hello Humanists,

This week is going to be one of those extra special meetings! Professor Massie (our very own club advisor) is coming to talk to us about transhumanism, enhancing people with technology, and genetic modification. Here is Professor Massie’s bio from the MU directory if you want to see what his teaching interests are and the research he’s been working on.

To accommodate Professor Massie’s schedule, we’re going to be meeting an hour early. Instead of our meeting starting at the usual time, we’ll be meeting at 7:00pm in 200 Alumni Hall.

Can’t wait to see you all there!

Best,
Samantha Darby

Hello HOM!

I hope you all have had a great first two weeks of your Spring semester! This week, rather than a vote, the topic was chosen by myself:

Does suicide carry moral weight? Is suicide ever moral? Is suicide ever immoral?

Suicide and when it is appropriate is one of the great trans-cultural questions, and perceptions of suicide often reflect cultural values as a whole. This question is an opportunity to think about an individual’s obligations to society and society’s obligation to an individual. This question will be addressed tomorrow at 8PM in Alumni Hall.

I also wanted to thank everyone who helped out with Mega Fair! While I couldn’t go to the event myself, I was happy to work with the club for this promotional event.

See you all soon!
VP Catarina

Hello Humanists!

Welcome back from break! I hope you all had a good time and got lots of rest. This week’s topic, by unanimous vote in the group chat (has that ever happened before?), is, “Are some people more important than others?”

This would normally be the point where I ask clarifying follow up questions to narrow down the topic, but this time I want to see where y’all choose to take this. Can’t wait to see everybody tomorrow night in 200 Alumni Hall at 8:00pm.

Best,
Samantha Darby

Congratulations Humanists!

We’ve just about made it to finals week! Winter break approaches, and since this is such a busy time of year for all of us, this meeting is going to be a bit of a change of pace. Instead of our usual topic/discussion format, come join us in Alumni 200 at 8:00pm this Thursday (12/7) for a study and hang out session! There will be hot chocolate. Feel free to bring snacks and get cozy.

During this meeting, we also plan to finish updating the constitution, which includes revising HOM’s mission statement. We’ll be taking suggestions and input on this process at that time, so if you have any strong feelings about what HOM is and what you want it to be, come and let us know!

See you soon!

Best,
Samantha Darby

Howdy Peeps,

I want to congratulate Grant McCrary for his hard work during his time at Miami University–he’s been a wonderful friend to us all, and made a fantastic President during his time in that role. I wish him luck in his pursuit of becoming a labour lawyer post-graduation. Grant is available to connect with on LinkedIn.

Tonight, we will be holding elections for the roles of Vice President, Secretary, Historian, and any other roles people wish to retire from. To briefly explain the roles, the Vice President alternates with the President in deciding topics & sending emails, and co-moderates during meetings. The Secretary takes notes during meetings and makes these available to the Historian. The Historian maintains the club website for posterity, advises the executive board on club history, procedures, and tradition, and maintains contact with members who’ve since left the university yet remain involved with the organisation. While the roles of Secretary and Historian are not essential to fill, we will make time to elect a new VP; the newly elected members enter their roles at the start of next semester.
As the outgoing VP, I will remain available to advise the new VP if requested during my final semester; I frequently sought Ais’s advice when I took on this role myself.

The election process will occur as it did in the past. As a reminder:

• It will take place over GroupMe. While we will discuss in-person, those who do not wish to attend will still be able to nominate members for roles, and vote among the candidates. If you are not present, but still wish to resign from your current position, please announce your intentions on GroupMe.
• A nominated member has the right to decline nomination.
• Once a person is nominated and has accepted nomination, we will continue to seek further candidates for a position until in-person deliberation has concluded and it is evident that no further nominations will be made. Only someone present in-person may then proceed to create a poll for a position, with every candidate nominated.

As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

Kind regards,
Emil

Dearest beloathed club members,

As described in my previous email, this week’s meeting will be a break from tradition! Instead of our usual topic/discussion format, we’ll instead have a docket of member presentations. The itinerary is as follows:

1. Aaron Varghese — “The Industrial Revolution Was Bad Actually”
2. Gabriel Powell— “Why Monarchism is the Best Form of Government”
3. Skylar Stapleton—“In Praise of Fortnite”
4. Maxon Owens—TBD
5. Anastasija Mladenovska— TBD
6. Hannah Rose— “Why Effective Altruism is Really Cool and Not At All Morally Bankrupt”
7. Emil Sayahi— TBD
8. Sam Darby— “Asexuality 101: A Remedial Course”

If you are one of the presenting parties, make sure to share your presentation with me ahead of time to help the meeting flow a little more smoothly. To everyone else: come with popcorn and your best listening years. Remember, at the end of the meeting it will come down to YOU to decide who gave the best/funniest/most interesting presentation.

See you all Thursday at 8pm in Alumni Hall 200.

Best,
Samantha Darby

Friends. Humanists. Countrymen.

This information was already shared in the GroupMe, but for the sake of thoroughness, I’ll share it here as well. Next Thursday (11/16) will be a very special episode of HOM. Instead of our usual topic and debate meeting, we will instead be taking turns sharing short philosophical and/or informational presentations. Among other benefits, this will give us an opportunity to explore some of the topics that don’t contain quite enough controversy for a regular meeting, but are nonetheless interesting.

If you’d like to present but are having trouble picking a topic, might I suggest: what’s your hottest philosophical take? You’ll have about ten minutes to make your case uninterrupted, this is your chance to convince us. Once you’ve decided on a topic, please reach out to either Emil (sayahie@miamioh.edu) or myself (darbys@miamioh.edu) for approval and so that we can plan the order of presentation/exactly how long we can give you before yanking you off stage.

At the end of the meeting, we will vote on the best, funniest, and most convincing presentations. I’m so excited to see what you all prepare. I’ll send out another email on Wednesday or Thursday with the line up.

Best,
Samantha Darby

Howdy Peeps,

Tonight, we will be asking the following question: Is gender a net-useful concept to have in our society? To answer this, we’ll need to agree on how we conceive of gender, and perhaps how it’s been used in human societies, past & present. We’ll be discussing this question, and more, at our Thursday night meeting.

If you’re interested in some reading on this topic ahead of the meeting, I’d recommend the following resources:

• ‘Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender’ entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• ‘Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction’ entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

Kind regards,
Emil

Hello Humanists,

By a very narrow margin in this week’s GroupMe poll, our topic for Thursday is going to be: Did the sexual revolution fail? The sexual revolution, as defined by Wikipedia, “was a social movement that challenged traditional codes of behavior related to sexuality and interpersonal relationships throughout the developed Western world from the 1960s to the 1970s.” From the feminist perspective, this heavily featured the goals of eliminating undue favorable bias towards men, ending the objectification of women, and supporting women’s right to choose their sexual partners free of outside interference or societal judgment. Other hot button topics included: contraceptives, abortion, “free love”, sadomasochism, non-monogamy, and nonmarital sex.

It’s also worth mentioning that by the late 1970s and early 80s, the sexual revolution caused a considerable divide among feminists, an ideological debate that was eventually labelled the “feminist sex wars.” Broadly, feminists split into anti-porn feminist and sex-positive feminist groups divided primarily along the debates around pornography, sadomasochism, and prostitution, although all aspects of the sexual revolution became controversial between these two camps.

To get you started thinking about this topic, I would suggest the following readings:

• The Wikipedia article concerning the sexual revolution
• An article arguing that the sexual revolution HAS failed
• The Wikipedia article about the “feminist sex wars” that followed the sexual revolution (I would recommend the debates section in particular)

As always, our meeting will be Thursday night at 8pm in Alumni Hall room 200. Can’t wait to see you all there!

Best,
Samantha Darby

Howdy Peeps,

Tomorrow night, we will be discussing genetic modification made possible by CRISPR-Cas9, both in the context of its current uses in agriculture, and potential future uses in human healthcare. What are the ethical concerns and considerations of genetic modification technology? What do we think the moral red lines are? How do we think this technology should be applied and controlled? We’ll be discussing these questions, and more, at Thursday night’s meeting.

As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

Kind regards,
Emil

Hello humanists,

At long last, democracy returns to the land. In our first vote of the year, you the people have chosen Joe’s topic: exploring the relationship between empathy, morality, and oppression. So much of how we often teach and talk about morality is wrapped up in the notion of empathy (i.e. feeling what others feel), and yet we rarely stop to fully consider who in society gets to receive our empathy and how the implications of those limitations lead to, or, perhaps, generate systems of oppression.

For more details on some of the points involved in this topic, here’s an article from Vox about some of Paul Bloom’s ideas concerning empathy (our inspiration for this topic).

See y’all tomorrow in Alumni Hall room 200 at 8:00pm!

Best,
Samantha Darby

Howdy Peeps,

Tonight, we will be discussing organicism and how our lives as individuals are shaped by our society’s emergent behaviour. To what extent are you responsible for your society or government’s actions? To what extent does your society or government represent you? We’ll be discussing these questions, and more, during tonight’s meeting.

While thoughts around this topic have been on my mind for a while now, the events being covered in the news this week are certainly quite relevant. I’m sure we’ll all have some thoughts on current events as well.

As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

Kind regards,
Emil

Happy Tuesday y’all!

This week we’re going to be talking about how fiction impacts reality and what the implications of this are on things like censorship and representation in media. Some questions to consider: Do you think a fictional story can change minds? How does what we see on the screen and on the page impact our biases? How does that impact relate to the ethics of storytelling? Can fiction impact our cultural beliefs and values, or is it only a reflection of them? And with all this in mind, what can we conclude about the nature and motivations of censorship?

Some videos to help get the ball rolling on this topic:

• Ignorance and Censorship
• Art or Reality

As always, we’ll be meeting in Alumni Hall room 200 at 8:00pm on Thursday night. Hope to see you all there!

Best,
Samantha Darby

Howdy Peeps,

This Thursday, we will be discussing antifragility in the context of free speech & public discourse; in our democratic society, do we want a society that punishes problematic ideas, or one that claims that we should engage with them? We’ll be discussing this question, and more, in our upcoming meeting.

If you’re interested in some reading on this topic ahead of the meeting, I’d recommend the following resources:

• ‘Harvesting Luck: Nassim Taleb on Concept of Antifragile’ from Stanford University Management Science and Engineering
• ‘Forced examination: How the free speech of others benefits us all’ from Big Think
• Clip of David Axelrod & Van Jones speaking at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics

As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

Kind regards,
Emil

Hello Humanists!

Last week we talked about the big three of ethical frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics). This week, we’re gonna get a little more specific with the (still appropriately broad) topic: moral luck, medical ethics, and free will. How are these things related? Come to our meeting this Thursday at 8:00pm in 200 Alumni Hall and find out!

(More importantly though, come to the meeting and find out if you really believe in free will, or if you just want to.) (More importantly, can you really fault murder more than manslaughter when the consequence is the same?) (MOST importantly, how closely is our brain chemistry tied to our moral culpability?)

Further reading for anybody interested:

• A short video about moral luck.
• A (completely and totally unbiased–promise :)) video about free will.
• The medical ethics will come on its own, don’t worry.

Looking forward to seeing you all on Thursday!

Howdy Peeps,

This Thursday, we will be discussing the three major classes of ethical theory, being virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism. Are we living our lives ethically? How applicable to our lives & world are these approaches to ethics? What is the ultimate source of what is right and what is wrong? We’ll be discussing these questions and more in our upcoming meeting.

If you’re interested in some reading on this topic ahead of the meeting, I’d recommend the following resources:

• ‘Consequentialism’ entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• ‘Deontological Ethics’ entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• ‘Virtue Ethics’ entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

Kind regards,
Emil

Hello Humanists!
Our first meeting of the semester (finally! I missed y’all) is going to be this Thursday (9/7) at 8:00 pm in Alumni Hall room 200. Our topic is going to be a case study of the Titan sub disappearance and implosion (links for explanation in case you’re unfamiliar). Through the lens of these events, we’ll explore how social media impacted our reaction to this event, the link between humor and horror observable through the many memes made about the event, the question of how much respect or empathy we owe strangers, how the wealth gap has impacted social dynamics between classes, and more.

For those new members who joined us from Mega Fair, welcome! We hope you’ll be able to make it Thursday, and we look forward to getting to know you.

See y’all soon,
Samantha Darby

Hello Humanists!

Mega Fair, as I’m sure you’ve heard, is nearly upon us. Specifically, it’s 11-2 on Sunday, September 3rd (this weekend!!!). Check in begins at 10, so the plan will be to arrive around 10:30 to get set up and make sure we’re settled in when the freshmen arrive. However! We need not all be there at once. In fact, this year tabling is limited to 3 representatives per organization at once, so in order to get as many people involved as possible and prevent fatigue, we’re going to split that time up into 1 hour shifts. The more people sign up to help, the less time you’ll actually have to spend behind the table.

With all that in mind, please respond to this email with your availability/how many hours you’d like to work if you’re interested in helping out. I’ll reach back out to you by Friday with a schedule for your shift/more info in general.

This is our biggest recruitment event of the year! We need young blood to keep this club going and this is where we hunt for it, so please consider helping out.

Hope to hear from you soon,
Sam

Howdy Peeps,

Tonight, we will be holding an informal meeting before we head into the summer.
I want to congratulate Aisulu Murzagulova, Nishan Amgain, and Connor Owens for their hard work throughout their years as undergraduate students at Miami University—the three of you have transformed this organisation and have been wonderful friends to us all. I wish you the best as you enter the next chapter of your lives.
At tonight’s meeting, we will be saying goodbye to our departing graduating seniors, Ais and Connor, and will be congratulating Nishan as he begins his graduate studies at Miami University next semester; after the meeting, several of us will have tea at Ais’s apartment.
Additionally, we will be holding elections for the role of President, as well as any roles which members may wish to retire from. The results of this election will take effect next semester.
Regarding the election process:

• It will take place over GroupMe. While we will discuss in-person, those who do not wish to attend will still be able to nominate members for roles, and vote among the candidates. If you are not present, but still wish to resign from your current position, please announce your intentions on GroupMe.
• A nominated member has the right to decline nomination.
• Once a person is nominated and has accepted nomination, we will continue to seek further candidates for a position until in-person deliberation has concluded and it is evident that no further nominations will be made. Only someone present in-person may then proceed to create a poll for a position, with every candidate nominated.

As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

Regards,
Emil

Hi all,
This week for our meeting we will be hosting Dr. Emily Zakin back to speak about psychoanalysis. This is one of her research specialties and she is very excited to come speak to us again. To accommodate her schedule, we will be meeting at 7:00PM in Alumni Hall 200 today. Please try to make it to the meeting if you are able.

Additionally this will be the last email I will send out as your President and I encourage anyone to think about running for the position if you’d like to play a more active role in the organization. It has been a pleasure leading discussions with you all this semester and I look forward to seeing the new direction of the organization in the fall.

Best,
Grant McCrary

Howdy Peeps,

This Thursday, we have yet to pick a topic! Ahead of tonight’s meeting, you will have the opportunity to exercise your democratic right to vote; we have a ranked-choice poll to pick tonight’s topic. This may be the most important vote of our lifetimes!
As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

PS. We will be holding elections at the start of this meeting for the role of president, as well as any roles which members may wish to retire from. The results of this election will take effect next semester.

PPS. We are collecting feedback on the meeting from last week (Thu, 13 Apr).

Regards,
Emil

Hi everyone, congratulations to Samantha for winning this week’s poll with her suggestion of what constitutes a dignified death and does one even exist! If you don’t believe in the afterlife, then your time on Earth is all you have and when you leave, you will eventually be forgotten (except in the cases of extreme fame).
Death (as far as we know) is permanent, irreversible, and at times devastating. Even in the event of dying a “hero’s death” such as being persecuted for a noble cause or dying in a war by trying to save someone’s life, your voice has still been taken away forever and people might only mention you for so long before moving on with their lives. So is all death undignified or does it depend? It’s that time of the semester where things can get existential and philosophical before final exams, so join us in Alumni Hall 200 @ 8:00PM TODAY to share your thoughts and unwind!

All the best,
Grant McCrary

Howdy Peeps,

This Thursday, we’ll be discussing the following question: How responsible are we for the welfare of wild animals?
Humans maintain lists of endangered & protected species, and take steps to protect individuals of those species; we do not take significant steps to protect other wild animals from everyday death, however. Where do we draw the line, and why?
As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

If you are receiving this email and are not on our mailing list on The Hub, it is because you have expressed prior interest in attending our meetings. If you would like to join our mailing list, join our page on The Hub using the link above. If you would like to explicitly opt-out of future emails, let me know via email at sayahie@miamioh.edu.

Regards,
Emil

Hello all, I hope you had a restful Spring Break and that your first week back hasn’t been as exhausting as possible. This week, per the results of the GroupMe poll, Max’s topic won a come from behind victory! Therefore this week, we will be discussing how to achieve enlightenment and purpose. Is the proper/better path through embracing complexity in the arts, culture, and heroism, or is it better to achieve enlightenment through asceticism and withdrawal. Here is a link to Julius Evola’s wikipedia page if you would like to know more background about him and the topic we will discuss.

Wishing you the best,
Grant McCrary

Howdy Peeps,

This Thursday, we’ll be discussing the following question: Is the practice of animal testing & experimentation ethical?
The debate over animal experimentation dates back many years, with the first British regulation of the practice being passed as the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, and the current primary legislation regulating the practice in the United States having been passed as the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966; while this debate may be old, I’m sure we will all have new viewpoints to share and contribute.
As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.
Be well, and enjoy the upcoming break!

Regards,
Emil

Spring Break is quickly approaching, so push through because we are almost there! But in the meantime, why not ponder an existential question like if humans truly have free will? This week we have a special guest lecturer, Dr. Emily Zakin from Miami’s Philosophy department coming to talk to us about that very subject. Her work on Beauvoir and “The Drama of Independence” will be key features of this presentation, but don’t worry if you are not familiar with these as everything will be explained.
Please try to attend this meeting if you can, as it is important for us to build up a rapport with professors and the community, especially the philosophy department. This week, we will be meeting at 7:00 PM in Alumni Hall 200 to accommodate Dr. Zakin’s busy schedule. As a housekeeping item, if we like this time better we could hold a vote on whether we want to ultimately switch the meeting time for the future. Enjoy your week and get outside while the weather lasts!

Respectfully,
Grant McCrary (I will try to get the letterhead for the email like Emil does soon)

P.S. This is a plug for another org I am in; we (NRHH, a service org) are desperate not only for new members, but for leaders who could serve on our exec board. This can be a great resume boost and an opportunity to build leadership skills while serving the Miami community. If you have ANY interest, please apply here (the application is not too bad and conveniently I serve on the member voting committee so as long as you follow the directions and don’t say anything offensive, you’re almost guaranteed to get in). The application closes Thursday at 5:00PM so please apply if you can or have any desire to!

Howdy Peeps,

On Tuesday, Ginkgo suggested that we discuss the ‘animal’ in us all—the part with impulses—and our ego—the part of us which has the notion of selfhood.
So, this Thursday, we’ll be discussing: The id and the ego. Is one perhaps more important than the other? What does each give us?
As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

Regards,
Emil

Salutations! We hope all is well and offer our condolences to those of you taking midterm exams this week. Our topic for discussion, as proposed by AJ ( I believe), will be how perceptions of beauty influence perceptions of character. There is a lot of research in social psychology suggesting that conventionally attractive people are perceived to be more competent in other areas of life; these are called the halo effect and the physical attractiveness stereotype. Do you agree that society has a bias in favor of the attractive or is this mostly hot air? Join us at Alumni Hall 200 at 8:00 PM on Thursday to share your thoughts on this topic.

Wishing you a beautiful week,
Grant

Howdy Peeps,

Grant and I spent many difficult, arduous hours designing the perfect discussion topic, and, in our infinite wisdom, have decided for the people.
We’ll be discussing: What are the rights of people? What is a person’s right, exactly? What’s the history behind many of our present-day rights?
As always, we’ll meet on Thursday (8pm to 9pm ET) at Alumni Hall 200.
To stay in touch with the rest of the organisation, remember to join our GroupMe, our mailing list, and follow our Instagram.

Ahead of tomorrow’s meeting: please discuss in the GroupMe what you’d like to do after the meeting.
While it has been our long-time tradition to head to Krishna for chai afterwards, Ais suggested we make our own tea.
Evan and I have an electric kettle, and can boil up water for everyone at our residence hall. Ais mentioned that she has some tea supplies that she can contribute as well.
If we decide to proceed with this, try to bring your own tea bags (if you have any) and cups over to Stonebridge Hall, where we can hang out and drink our teas!

Regards,
Emil

Hello All,

The Office of Student Activities is launching a pilot program this semester to build connections between similar student organisations and Student Activities staff.
These meetings will be held in McGuffey Hall 322, with a different meeting date for each category of organisation (note: each meeting is on a Friday). Any member of Humanists of Miami can attend. In addition to having members of other organisations in attendance, there will be a member of SEAL staff, and a SEAL Ambassador.
Humanists of Miami is considered both a ‘Political/Social Action’ and ‘Religious/Spiritual/Secular’ organisation, but this does not limit our members to only attending meetings for those two categories.

Regards,
Emil

Greetings to all our new and returning members, we are so excited to have you here with us! With Valentine’s Day on the horizon, it’s time for our annual meeting about love. This will be one of our most broad topics and you can speak about anything related to love and relationships.

If you’d like a little direction with what you want to talk about, here are some ideas that may interest you: Do soulmates exist? How has pornography affected love? Does porn do more harm than good? Should love only be between humans or can we love an artificial intelligence? Recent developments actually suggest humans may be able to have sex with robots (https://scrippsnews.com/stories/sex-robots-get-more-intimate-with-humans-thanks-to-ai/), so would this be damaging to our society or is there nothing wrong with it? We would LOVE to see you attend this meeting and we can’t wait to see you all at 8PM Thursday in Alumni 200!

Yours truly,
Grant McCrary

Ahoy Peeps,

The voters have exercised their rights, and democracy has prevailed: a topic has been chosen which was introduced by the fantastic Ais.
She asked: ‘God and other idols. Do we need them?’
This is a question which many throughout the ages have pondered; and Thursday night (8pm to 9pm ET, Alumni Hall 200) we too shall do so!
Be well, and see you all tomorrow.

Regards,
Emil

Greetings,
To start off the new semester, we will have a more low-key meeting this week. With winter mega-fair coming up, our main focus will be on advertising our organization and recruiting new members. Please try to attend this meeting, as we will be looking for volunteers to help man the mega fair table. Next week will be our target for getting back to our normal discussions. As usual, see you all at Alumni 200 at 8:00 PM on Thursday.

Wishing you all luck in the new year and semester,
Grant McCrary

Hey y’all,

I hope Thanksgiving was a hit. We have elections for our club this week. All positions are up for grabs. Please try to make it to the meeting since this meeting might be the most important one you will attend this whole semester. If you can’t make it, let me know beforehand if you plan to run for any positions. The positions will be contested for in this order:

President
Vice
Treasurer
Secretary
Historian
Social Chair
Event Organizer

You all can run for multiple positions if you want to. Don’t feel intimidated by the titles, you will have past title holders to help you sort things out. I encourage all of you to run for something.

For each position, I will ask for nomination/self-nomination from the members. If you are nominating someone, the person being nominated will have to agree to run for them to be considered for the position. If we have multiple people running for the position, we will pass around some pieces of paper for y’all to cast your vote. Then we will tally the votes, declare the winner, and move on to the next position.

If you haven’t already, please join our groupme and our instagram.

As always we will be meeting in Alumni 200 @ 8pm.

Best,
Nishan Amgain

Hello Peops,

HOM meeting is, as usual, tomorrow at 8 pm in Alumni Hall. Before we get to the topic of tomorrow - the elections for HOM Exec positions will be held on Thursday after Thanksgiving.
All positions are up for grabs. These include:
President
Vice
Treasurer
Secretary
Historian
Social Chair
Event Organizer

Now…
Live Laugh Love
Hedonism, Humor, Humanism

This week we will talk about these three H’s that are very much separate concepts, yet they intertwine in unexpected ways. Is Humanism Hedonistic? What is the role of Humor in advancing humanistic views? Is Humor Hedonistic?

We could certainly discuss these concepts separately – but I thought we could discover a connection between them through scrupulous intellectual digging.
Encyclopedia entries on each concept:
Hedonism
Humor
Humanism

Yours faithfully,
Ice

Hey y’all,

This Thursday the topic of our discussion will be “The ethics of Voting.” We just had our midterms so my hope is that the changing of hearts this discussion may precipitate won’t be too consequential. Questions that I am about to ask have been asked and will be asked in the future, but we mostly ignore them because it seems to most of us that there is a clear answer. Maybe there is, but if that is the view you hold, I want us to think why these questions have a place they do amidst such (presumed) certainty. Here are the questions: Who should be allowed to vote? Should voting be made mandatory by the state? What kind of ethical burden do you bear if you do not exercise your right to vote? What kind of issues should be voted on by the masses and what kind of issues should be addressed by the “experts” in their respective fields?

Some links to be more informed on the topic:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/
https://aeon.co/ideas/the-right-to-vote-should-be-restricted-to-those-with-knowledge

As always, I’ll see you in Alumni 200 @ 8pm.

Best,
Nishan

Ethics of Voting

  Elections in 2 meetings.

  There is a bit of a disconnect between Nishan’s attempts at appealing to both sides of the political spectrum and the actual political composition of the club: that is to say that we are just about all socialists.

  Should only “intelligent” (i.e. educated) people be allowed to vote? In which case, how is intelligence to be determined, and how is “intelligence” to be distinguished in context? How often does public opinion (established through votes) concur with an “advantageous” position? Is the way states are represented in the Senate and House of Representatives fair? What is the function of the Senate when its modern function has been primarily to inhibit the acts of the House? Why should States be represented in federal matters, as opposed to simply reflecting the judgment of the nation as a whole?

  Why might someone not vote? Not everyone feels that party alignments are valuable, or that they are sufficiently educated to meaningfully vote. Is a vote even an action with moral characteristic? Would a multi-party or no-party system improve individual voice in US policy? Party and individual power becomes watered down once politicians enter the legislative floor. A multi party system often results in one party forming a majority anyway– how effective can a multi party be?

  What about the ethics of mandatory voting?

Hello Peops,

Oh this unusually and pleasantly warm November week I hope you’re finding inspiration and peace. Humanists of Miami meeting is, per usual, happening this Thursday 11/3 at 8 pm in Alumni Hall. This week we shall discuss the topic “Doing vs. Allowing harm: Is it the same?”. The trolley problem is the classic thought experiment on the theme, however, I believe we can extend beyond it.

Bring your Marianna’s trenchi-est thoughts and discerning attitudes.
Sincerely,
Ais

Trolley Problem

  Do individuals have a responsibility to act when others commit (perceived) immoral acts? Can inaction that facilitates immoral acts be equivalized to those immoral acts? In theory, if individuals hold each other accountable, then immoral acts may be largely neutralized through individual actions. Can standard citizens then be held accountable for the actions of their government? Can powerful individuals be held accountable for the actions of their government? Can powerful governments be held accountable for the actions of other governments?

  Perhaps, but the this idea has been used to justify historical acts of imperialism. Consider the draft, consider the value of the vote in the US and other countries. Not to conflate the complexity of ethics with a call to inaction. Cold War justifications, Middle East justifications. Is there an altruistic reason to intervene abroad? Russia-Ukraine war. Should the US be obligated to intervene in other conflicts before it is able to improve itself? But individuals are not our government– why are we obligated to think in the context of borders at all? Regardless of the ideological meaning of borders, or the material purpose of borders, and how well they fit within an ideal– borders exist. Resources are not unlimited– maximization is not always practical. National ties are ultimately family ties– would you sacrifice your family for the lives of strangers?

Hello Peops,

I apologize for the late email but I hope a lot of you were planning to come to the meeting regardless. In a corny fashion, this week’s topic is Halloween-themed, as such, it will be on Death and Immortality.

For this discussion, I think it will be helpful to focus on several concepts within death: such as the immaterial soul, immortality, and dualism.

As with all of our meetings, as much as we appreciate passionate and enthusiastic discourse, in no way do we want to trigger you or make you feel uncomfortable. The discussion is purely on a philosophical matter.

Here is a helpful resource on the topic of death in philosophy.

Sincerely,
Ais

Ship of Theseus

Ship of Theseus as related to identity. Is identity directly continuous to identity? Identity exists “independently” of the body, but is still reliant on it. The Ship of Theseus may be said to be the same ship, not for its composition, but for its value to the people that used it and knew it. Douglas Adams’s experience with the Shinto shrine. Is identity contingent on the people with whom you interact? Who you are with your mom vs with your friends vs with your teachers etc. Tree falling in a forest etc. 2022 Physics Nobel prize as counter to theories of butterfly effect. Star Trek transporters. Buddhist conceptions of the self as a sophism.
Does the self expand with age? Can aspects of the self be “lost?” When a person is lost, one loses the identity they had in their presence. Do you wish you could be someone else? Does there exist a true, singular self? Not the same as being disingenuous– just that our self concept is dependent on interactions with others. Can identity be defined?– by demographic factors? Identity is always subject to change and dependent on environment. Might there be a “core” in identity?
Identity vs sense of self– morals, cognitive processes, etc distinct from identity and inarticulable. Identity may be defined through negatives, as a relative concept, while sense of self exists intrinsically. Is sense of self intrinsic, though? As even our understanding of our own cognitive processes occurs only relative to others, only with the understanding that there are others who are not like us. Does a sense of self still exist without a way to articulate it?

Hey y’all,

This week, I propose to talk about the philosophy of identity (we will most likely talk about personal identity). The dilemma of identity is best laid out in the thought experiment called Ship of Theseus. Here’s the story:

Theseus owned a ship and the ship was entirely made of wood. Every time a piece of the ship needed replacing it was replaced with a metal part. This went on for a few years until eventually it was entirely made of metal.
Is the metal ship of Theseus the same ship as the wooden ship of Theseus?

What happens when we apply the same notion to people? We grow and change, learn new things and forget some, our body cells replace themselves within 7-10 years (with exception of neurons) - so like the ship, are we the same person through time? Is it still the same thought experiment or does it take a vastly different shape and form?

Lastly, is this question just a brain teaser or do you think it’s important? Does the question “Am I the same me as I was yesterday” bear any significance in your life?

As always, we will see you on Thursday at 8 pm in ALUMNI 200.

Best,
Nishan

Philosophy of Education

My birthday is tomorrow!

Public education is a vehicle of indoctrination, but there is no alternative– children must be socialized. What kind of socialization should we value? Is it good that the public education system so strictly encourages rule following etc.? Modern school systems are much more lenient than historical schools. Education has always served as a form of indoctrination, but over the years the US has transitioned from marriage to any particular ideology or philosophy to a postmodern “anti-philosophy.” Education might be phrased as providing “cultural tools” as opposed to specific ideologies.
Should education be more vocational? Should children be compelled to attend school?

Hey all,

This week our discussion topic will be Philosophy of Education. With all the talks about banning books (fahrenheit 451 irl), integrating critical race theory or not integrating critical race theory into the US curriculum, it might be interesting to look at the philosophy behind a formal education system where the state decides what information is most vital to be fed to young minds. Viewed through that lens, one might question the ethics and morality of education. What should the role and the goal of education be? Should it be mandatory? Who should get to decide what a child should study? Wikipedia has a great entry on the subject, checking it out will give you a sense of the scope of this topic. As usual, we will see you all in Alumni 200 @8pm this Thursday.

Here’re some relevant links:
Reuters on CRT: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/what-critical-race-theory-means-why-its-igniting-debate-2021-09-21/
Guardian on book censorship: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/sep/19/us-school-book-censorship-bans-pen-america
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education
Stanford: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy

Not so unbiased (still informative) videos:
Vice video on banned books: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h28316trOYU
A debate on CRT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwgsbZ1MsAE
Reuters, 3 min intro to CRT:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57kVvE97nI4

Yours Truly,
Nishan Amgain

Hey y’all,

We will not have our normal discussion style meeting this week. We will
instead be attending the tea festival at Armstrong Pavilion where our very
own Vice President will be making some Kazakh tea for us all. There will be
teas from all around the world too. Just because we don’t have an official
meeting doesn’t mean we won’t be game for some intense discussion over tea;
feel free to pick each other’s brains over things that are bothering you.
The program runs from 7 to 9 but you can come at our normal meeting time of
8pm.

Venue: Armstrong Pavilion
Date and Time: Thursday, Oct 6, 7pm - 9pm

Yours Truly,
Nishan

P.S. Consider attending the talk on Place of Science in Democracy at Shriver Heritage room on Thursday Oct 6 @5pm just before the tea fest.

The limits of knowledge

Empiricism and its limits– the philosophy and David Hume and how, though science may be able to provide more certainty to an idea, it does not guarantee it. Pursuit of truth/knowledge as human nature and the distinction between knowledge as human nature and knowledge as a tool for human nature. Objective truth as fallacious. Structures of knowledge as relating to philosophy of mind– “knowing animal.” Knowledge:survival as parallel to to debates of altruism. Internal knowledge of identity as distinct from universal knowledge.
Knowledge is relative. “I know my address,” in the sense that when asked for my address, I may give an answer. But when asked for the nature of the universe, this knowledge is so far beyond a relevant, relative sphere that it cannot be comprehended, must less “known.” Semantic knowledge– Kant, “all bachelors are unmarried,” not because the speaker has met every bachelor, but because bachelors are by definition unmarried. Words must have meaning– convey “knowledge”– for any progress or prepositions, any science to move forward. In this sense things are “true,” by virtue of their meanings. Cannot “truth” be created through the creation of words (e.g. “all blombos are flingies”)? Unless truth is maintained by collective agreement.
Does any communication require the existence of axioms? “Definitions,” which may act as axioms, still vary when put down. Words change definitions over time– “meaning” is ephemeral. Meaning cannot even be communicated between individuals, regardless of to what extent they share experience, or how well “understood” the language used may be. Individuals are often unable to even communicate knowledge to themselves. Does knowledge exist if it cannot be communicated? Is anything conceivable, “knowable?” Does there exist anything “unknowable,” or “knowable?”
Nothing can be known for certain, but things may be known with very high probability. Humans do not act rationally! Do humans actually operate on any rational basis at all? Is there meaning in assigning meaning or reason to anything? The “real is rational.” Hegel. False argument that evolution “acts with intent.”
What is rationality? Following logical steps– either in self interest, or ethical interest. Rationality may be linked to achieving a specific goal– to behave efficiently. “Rationality” in fact implies intent to natural processes– evolution is not “rational,” because it does not have intent. Rationality as distinct from logic. Rationality may be based on logic– but is logic inherent? Is logic non-relative knowledge? That was the first question of the meeting!
“All of philosophy is wrong and you are right,” Schröedinger was a dumbass.

Hey y’all,

I hope all your midterms went/are going well. Even if they are not, a HOM
meeting between your study sessions should cheer you up a bit. This
Thursday our discussion topic will be “Limits of Knowledge.”

What can we know? How much can we know? Is the excruciating process of
figuring things out just a dreadful waste of time? Should we all lull
ourselves into passive happiness like the drunken masters in Kung
Fu movies? Is knowledge the key to living a better life (here you might
want to define knowledge properly)? Or is the right way of life the
asceticism of naga babas (google them, it will be new to some of you) who
roam the Hindu lands? Let me take a second to breathe. I hope you all come
with some answers tomorrow.

As always, we meet at Alumni 200 @8pm.

Join our Groupme if you
haven’t already, and follow us on Instagram to see Connor’s social media
skills in action.

Here are a few links if people want to do some digging before the meeting:
https://falsabeh.medium.com/immanuel-kant-on-the-limits-of-knowledge-fe3e928ea644
https://philosophyalevel.com/aqa-philosophy-revision-notes/the-limits-of-knowledge/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4319805?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents

For people who like videos and podcasts:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=limits+of+knowledge

Yours Truly,
Nishan Amgain

Hi Peops,

I apologize for the late email. This week is full of career-centric events,
and perhaps like many of you, I tried attending them. But HOM meetings are
happening as usual on Thursday (Today) at 8 pm in Alumni 200.

In light of recent catastrophic events, this week’s discussion is titled ”
Who deserves to be flooded?”. We will include in the discussion the
concepts such as fairness, difficult moral choices, the disparity between
rich and poor countries, and equality in the political and international
context.

Bring your well-rounded thoughts, a pinch of compassion, and utmost
sincerity,

Ais

Who Deserves to be Flooded?

  The question is interpreted very literally. For the literal interpretation: Florida, Russia, Great Britain. Flooding in Pakistan, hurricanes in Puerto Rico. First world nations (esp. The US) largely responsible for conditions killing great numbers in developing countries– both through contributions to climate change (Pakistan) and through abuses under imperialistic rule (PR).

  Climate accelerationism met with strong objections and nervous laughter. Colonial history in Pakistan and how developing countries suffer for 70-year-old emissions from the Global North– China’s emissions are the result of its ravaging by the West and subsequent rapid industrialization. Middle Eastern countries have the greatest emissions per capita. The economic value of oil– how it’s destroyed the Middle East and saved the Nords. Nationalization in Europe and Latin America. Ozone depletion and recovery over three decades. Exxon Mobile– formally the world’s largest company, but growing increasingly less powerful.

  “Not to sound like a fucking Liberal, but if you watch John Oliver–” ‘carbon offsets’ largely snake oils. Tesla and its contributions to alternative energy– can state subsidized environmental protections have any effect? Technology needed for alternative energy manufacture also extremely environmentally taxing– back to Venezuela, lithium needed for electric car batteries largely mined in Latin America. Yet electric cars may still be better for the environment.

  Many countries need oil and other environmentally taxing measures to maintain their economies, especially in the developing world. Should developed countries “claim” important environmental resources (e.g. the Amazon) in developing countries to protect it? Shareholders don’t care about climate change! “Green capitalism” is ultimately non-functional. Is capitalism the source, or the electoral system? Multi-partisan, or no parties (George Washington!)?

Separation of Art and Artist

  The “separation of art and artist” is an academic concept that has been debated for decades and, arguably, longer. Consider, for example, the preservation of ancient texts by scholars such as Aristotle, work which was for centuries done in an almost exclusively religious context. The monks tasked with transcribing the works of the Great Philosopher would have acknowledged him as a pagan or, worse, an atheist– yet he was known as the Great Philosopher nonetheless. In more modern history, famous playwright Oscar Wilde was arrested on charges of homosexuality, yet maintained massive popularity well into the contemporary era.

  Yet it was not until the 20th century that critics began to move away from traditional literary criticism, which emphasized historical context and authorial circumstances in interpretation, to “death of the author,” which posited that literature (and, later, other forms of art) should be interpreted only from its end point: the final consumer decides the meaning of a work, regardless of authorial intention. The relationship between art and artist which had been historically almost unquestioned grew increasingly distal in the eyes of critics. Death of the author saw increasing popularity as academia grew more critical of the underrepresentation of authors of color and women authors within the Western canon.

  With the advent of social media, authors have become increasingly visible in the public eye. No longer are viewers restricted in their understanding by the 24-hour news cycle– they may discover a creator’s thoughts, words, and misdeeds in real time. Not only this, but they may take matters of criticism into their own hands, not needing to wait for the weeks or months it may take to publish an editorial or mail a letter, but message a creator directly through websites such as Twitter and Facebook.

  As the public grows increasingly cognizant of an artist’s indiscretions, some have asked the morality in engaging with art by those unfavored within the public eye. Still others have argued for the separation of art and artist– that art may be engaged without considering, or even actively rejecting, its creator’s influence.

  One must distinguish between interpretation and enjoyment, though both are equally related to the issue of art and artist: interpretation refers to one’s understanding of a work, what is gleaned, its message and meaning, while enjoyment refers simply to the pleasures a work of art may evoke. Should an artist’s questionable words or actions sour either? Some argue that, as learning new information about an author changes nothing intrinsically about their existing work, only enjoyment– which is purely intrinsic to the reader– will diminish when an author is found “problematic.”

  However, not all subscribe to the author’s critical death– to many, art and artist are considered inseparable. The traditional theory of literary criticism remains popular. Art is, in many ways, a reflection of its artist. What thoughts, emotions, and actions had occurred within and around the artist exist also in their work. Take, for example, the work of H.P. Lovecraft, a phenomenal racist. His work centers around a fear of the strange of the unknown and, even within his work, is often closely linked with a fear of people of color– for example, by characterizing Native peoples as worshiping or abetting the eldritch gods. Despite the wild popularity of Lovecraft’s stories, his hatred of people of color is indivisible from the themes of his work.

  One may also argue that, for as much as an artist’s emotions may affect their work, many creators avoid or even contradict their actions outside of their art. John Lennon of Beatles fame was a wifebeater and child abuser, yet his song Imagine was performed by celebrities such as Gal Godot as recently as the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in a call for unity and kindness, and even by Lennon’s son after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

  With this in mind, one must consider the circumstances created by the entertainment industry and how many creators experience abuse throughout their careers. Should one have sympathy for the interpersonal conflicts of creators and celebrities, considering what abuses they may have faced, and how they experience constant scrutiny within the public eye?

  Here we reach into the issue of consumption under capitalism: with the entertainment industry so corrupt, and so much art controlled by corporations such as Disney and Netflix, how much responsibility do individuals retain in the creation of and engagement with art? Does morality of consumption start and end with the material benefit wrought by faulty parties as this consumption occurs?

  The issue of morality within creative consumption is a topic of debate perhaps as old as the written language, as works criticizing politically powerful entities have been constantly under fire. Whether art may be separated from its creator is intrinsic to this understanding of morality as, consistently, the desire to distinguish the two comes from an impression of moral conflict. On this subject matter, one may consider the opinions expressed by Oscar Wilde as he was attacked for homosexual themes in his work: to judge art not by its beauty, but by its moral merits, is a form of criticism for “brutes and illiterates.”

Hey y’all,

This week, for our meeting, we will be asking ourselves a very simple question: Should art be treated separately from the artist? Do I need to say more on the topic? I will see you all with your opinions in Alumni 200 @8pm.

If you guys haven’t already, please join our groupme: https://groupme.com/join_group/70576704/wc8yedGU

Here’s a link to our new instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/humanistsofmiami/

Yours truly,
Nishan

Hello HOMers,

Our weekly meeting is held, as usual, in Alumni 200 at 8:00 pm tomorrow 9/8.

And after pondering this week’s topic, we have decided to fluidly transition from Life and Meaning to the Meaning of words, sentences, etc. - Philosophy of Language. We will discuss how we collectively and individually understand the meaning of words used to describe a myriad of abstract concepts. We will talk about how language shapes our perception of the world and the perception of us by others.

Semantically yours,

Ais

Philosophy of Language

  There exists a question as to what constitutes a “language.” Certainly some “languages” are obvious– this text is written in a language, and the discussion it describes was spoken in a language. This raises problems of medium– is language not restricted to speech or text?– of origin– are synthetic languages, “conlangs,” languages in the same sense as natural languages?– and of recipient– what might we call code, the language of computers? One may argue, from these examples, that a “language” is something constituted of “words” that communicate “meaning.”

  Regardless of a language’s medium, origin, or recipient, the problem of meaning is constant. The philosophy of language is largely concerned with the communication of meaning, in particular, the explanation of what exists. Readers of philosophical texts will understand why this poses such an issue– even “approachable” philosophical texts will pose difficulty in their comprehension, by virtue of attempting to explain a concept so complex and abstract. This forces either the adoption of fiction (to quote Ursula K. Le Guin, “All fiction is metaphor… a metaphor for what? If I could have said it non-metaphorically, I would not have written all these words…”) or the creation of extremely dense non-fiction texts. The former may be more fun to read, but is more prone to misunderstanding, or even the erasure of meaning entirely. The latter is very often a chore: a textbook, consisting not of bland, factual statements (“the dipole moment describes the asymmetrical movement of electrons across a molecule…”) but instead sentences that are stupendous, insane, and false.

  The density and complexity of these texts spark debate as to the usefulness of language and language in its current state. Some argue about the “inaccessibility” of jargon– they claim that meaning could be more easily communicated in more simple, less specialized language. By these arguments, the onus for comprehension lies in the author’s word choice, their preference for words with more or fewer syllables, the latter choice always better, the former the tool only of masturbatory elites. There is some evidence of this– Latin, in many ways a “timeless” language, lost much of its complexity as Europe aged beyond the Roman empire. Regional dialects became “vulgar,” simplifying verbs and nouns as its speakers forgot or simply ceased to care about the minutiae (pronounced min-oo-ti-eye) of the language. Almost no modern Romance language retained all ten noun cases– forgotten were the four infinitives– no longer do we see the second person-plural-pluperfect-passive-subjunctive conjugation in Spanish or Italian or French. People simply do not retain language with rules that seem arcane.

  Yet how do we communicate meaning without jargon? How is the chemist to explain their field if, rather than use the word “electronegativity,” they must say explicitly “the tendency for an atom to attract electrons?” How should the small business manager explain his success to his investors if, rather than saying “profit,” he need state “the difference between the money spent creating and vending products and the money given in exchange for the product sold?” How might the linguist describe the language she studies if, rather than “verb,” she must say “the part of a lingual idea which describes an action, as opposed to an object or actor?”

  We return to the question of how meaning is communicated, when language, as demonstrated, is so inherently flawed. Ludwig Wittgenstein argues in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus that the world consists not of objects, but facts (objects consisting not of matter, but logical arguments). To take this abstractly, that at least the way in which we interact with the world is dependent on our understanding of true and false clauses, one must ask how truth is communicated, and, from there, how one can understand a statement as true. From these questions we reveal that words carry no inherent meaning– if I say “the sky is blue,” but your understanding of “sky” is my understanding of “ground,” then my statement is, to you, false, and truth improperly communicated. This state of affairs– one we encounter every time we argue with a friend, or a teacher, or our parents, every time we try to articulate the gravity of an externally mundane experience– is tremendously lonely. We cannot escape language, even though, as Wittgenstein claimed, “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

Hello Peops,

Here’s the link to our club GroupMe:
https://groupme.com/join_group/70576704/wc8yedGU

AND Instagram: @humanistsofmiami

Thank you all and I hope to see you at our next meeting,

Ais

Hello Peops and the newly joined members from Mega Fair! We welcome you to Humanists of Miami and hope you find something of use and enjoyment here.

We will meet this Thursday in Alumni 200 @8pm for our discussion. Alumni is between Irvin and Bishop Halls.

This week our topic of discussion will be Life and Meaning. I concede the topic might sound uninspired to some but the beauty of this topic lies in the various ways it can be interpreted. One may deduce the topic as asking a straightforward question with not so straightforward answer: “What does life mean to you?” Someone may look at it differently and ponder: “Is life (intrinsically) meaningful?” Maybe some of us who are tired of the rabbit hole of metaphysical arguments and are inclined towards a more pragmatic discussion find these two words, life and meaning, central to religious, political, and personal disputes and social issues like abortion rights. You are free to interpret the words life and meaning as you please.

Gleefully,

Nishan - President
Ais - Vice President

PROLOGUE

  Regarding the title of his famous novel, Il nomme della rosa, author Umberto Eco said he preferred a title with the least information possible. In the style of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre, or Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, it was Eco’s hope to name the novel “Adso da Melk,” after its protagonist. In the same style, I’d prefer to title these entries only after the dates on which they were written. Unfortunately, Eco was pressured by his publisher to rename his novel (in English: The Name of the Rose) as titles after the protagonist were unpopular in the Italian industry. In the same style, I’m forced to properly name these entries.

  Our first meeting of the semester is in the days prior to Mega Fair, and turns up most of its usual actors:

DRAMATIS PERSONAE
Nishan Amgain (Club President): A Senior of Physics
Aisulu “Ais” Murzagulova (Vice President): A Senior of Quantitative Economics
Connor Owens (Social Media Chair/PR): A Senior of Computer Science
Catarina Palmer (Myself; the Secretary): A Sophomore of Biochemistry
Evan Burke (Treasurer): A Sophomore of Biology and Neuroscience
Emil Sayahi (IT): A Sophomore of Computer Science
Grant McCrary (Events Coordinator): A Sophomore of Political Science
Ariana Noas (Just Here to Hang Out): A Junior of Social Work

  By the time I completed this list, it was 8:50PM.

  We did manage to discuss, at relative length, intentions to expand club activities over the coming semesters. As nearly all of our membership intends to graduate this year, the accruement of new members is a must. Our plans are to coordinate with other clubs, particularly religious and cultural organizations on campus. Emil is compared to a video game character; Ais attempts to teach me the pronunciation of her surname. Nishan, finally, addresses the topics we intend to discuss this semester. No conclusions were reached, though many were broached.

Hello Peops and Welcome back to Miami!

HOM is back on the schedule in Alumni 200 at 8 pm this Thursday. Our first meeting will be a get-together - we will share stories from the summer, discuss the benefits of the philosophical approach to life, and decide on the plans for the club.

We will have a booth at the Mega fair this Sunday, so make sure to stop by there as well.
See you soon,

Truthfully Ais

Hello HOMers,

School and, oh well, our meetings are about to cease. So let’s end the semester on a powerful note. Speaking of power (or of my intentional pun), this week’s topic will be centered around the meaning of power: be it inner, outer, political, financial, societal, religious, you name it. Why does one strive to have power? Why one should or should not hold this much power? The topic can extend to national governance, decisions on human rights, etc. But I think we can focus more on the anatomy of power itself.

Yours faithfully,

Ais

Hey y’all,

This Thursday, our topic will be Philosophy of Morality: Beyond right and wrong. We will discuss Morality’s ever shifting nature (or maybe its firm, static nature), and analyze the current form of morality that permeates our society. We might also have fun forecasting the principles the future generations will adopt and discard. Max, Connor’s brother, will be sharing a short presentation on Nietzsche’s viewpoint of Morality in the beginning of the meeting to kickstart the discussion. I hope to see all of you tomorrow @8pm in Alumni Hall.

Best,
Nishan

Hey guys,

This week, our meeting will have a different structure. Instead of us giving you the topic, we encourage each one of you to bring a topic that you want to talk about. It doesn’t have to be philosophical, and it doesn’t have to be a discussion topic; you can talk about the awesome-ness of Rubik’s cube if you want to. You can make a presentation or show us a video on the topic if you want to. Just try to keep it under five minutes. This should be a good meeting to cover some topics that you guys really wanted us to cover but didn’t. Like always, I will see you guys this Thursday @8pm in Alumni Hall.

Sincerely,
Nishan

Hey y’all,

This week’s topic will be something that was sort of touched in the last meeting: Empiricism and other ways of knowing. We want to discuss if experiments and our senses are the only thing we can rely on for gaining knowledge or if there are some other ways of approaching knowledge. We could also touch on the meaning and forms of truth(s). As always, see you in Alumni Hall 200 @ 8pm.

Join our Groupme if you haven’t already.

Best,
Nishan

Hi all,

Sorry about the very late email. It was a mishap on my part. Today we will be talking about, because of popular opinion, Love, Sex, and BDSM. Like always, we meet at 8pm in Alumni Hall.

Best,
Nishan

Hello Homers,

Welcome back to wonderful Oxford – from wherever you warmed your toes this spring break. It is rather cold and gruesome (or perfectly poetic) outside. And whether you become extremely productive or disintegrate into a big beautiful mess under such clouds, I think we could talk about hedonism today. Should we always seek pleasure and avoid pain? etc.

See you today in Alumni 200 at 8 pm,

Ais

Hello Homers,

Happy St. Patrick Day to y’all. It’s Green Beer Day here in Oxford, and this is the perfect time to talk about a topic we all are very familiar with and take part in to a certain degree: Escapism. I am disinclined to talk more about this topic in this email because our familiarity with it means we all have our versions and definitions of it. Ponder on the visions that this word invokes in your mind and come to the meeting expecting a lively discussion. As always, we will be meeting in Alumni 200 at 8pm.

Stay safe and make good decisions.

Yours Truly,
Nishan Amgain

Hello Homers,

It’s midterm season and there’s no better way to revitalize your soul (just a figure of speech) than a fantastic HOM meeting. This Thursday, we will be talking about philosophy of technology. This topic doesn’t just encompass the effects of technology in current society. We can talk about the chicken or the egg problem with the vantage point of technology, did smartphones come first or the need for smartphones come first? Does every form of technology follow the same direction? Has technology always been an imitation of nature or are we past that stage? These two links may help you form stronger arguments:
Philosophy of Technology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Philosophy of technology - Wikipedia

I will see you all this Thursday at 8pm in Alumni 200.

Sincerely,
Nishan Amgain

Hello Humanists,

This week’s meeting is special, as we will have a lecture-discussion by Dr. Massie on the ethical allocation of scarce medical resources (think Pandemic, war, etc.)

The weather is truly and hopefully consistently spring-y, but tea is as relevant as ever. Everyone is welcome to join the rest of us for chai after the meeting.

Yours sincerely,
Ais

Hey Y’all,

I’ve been notified that you guys don’t look at the emails much and just use it as a reminder and assurance that we are meeting this Thursday in Alumni 200 at 8:00pm. So I will try to keep this email short. Dr. Massie, our club advisor, is coming on March 3rd (next week) to facilitate a discussion on the topic “How to ethically allocate scarce medical resources?” So this week, our topic of discussion will be Bioethics. Some questions to think about are: Are animal trials ethical? should individuals vaccinate themselves for the society even when they are not convinced of its usefulness to themselves? Should CRISPR be used on Humans? Who should delineate these rules? The meeting will be more exciting if you guys come in prepared with some specific questions or points you want to explore. This is an extremely broad topic and it should result in a lively discussion. I will see you guys tomorrow. Take care.

Please join our GroupMe and go add us on The Hub if you haven’t already.

Yours Truly,
Nishan Amgain

Hi All,

I hope your week was not too taxing. If it was, I am sure the meeting this Thursday will lift your spirits up. It will take place in Alumni 200 at 8:00pm. We will be talking about a topic very unfamiliar to, hopefully, most of us: War. We will delve deeper into the philosophy of war where questions like Is war ethical? Is everything actually fair in war? What even are war crimes? Are wars inevitable and necessary for the development of society, culture, and science? are sure to be thrown around. We encourage you to bring your own questions and angles to the discussion. For the war on war this Thursday, sharpen your minds rather than your swords and clear your throats rather than your rifles; we will be fighting with thoughts and voices instead of guns and steel. Here are some links that might help you better form your arguments:

• https://philosophynow.org/issues/124/The_Philosophy_of_War
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_war
• https://iep.utm.edu/war/

If you want something more technical, here’s a research paper on war and peace. I will see you all on Thursday. Thanks to Aisulu for suggesting this topic.

Please join our GroupMe and go add us on The Hub if you haven’t already.

Yours Truly,
Nishan Amgain

Hello People,

And welcome to those, who left their unique Ids on our signing sheet during the Spring Mini fair and have probably forgotten about that. You’re in for a treat…if you have the sweet tooth for ambiguous little philosophy-themed talk shops. We’re non-exclusive but sized as an exclusive club, so feeling right at home won’t be a problem.

Carrying on the discussion about the definition of race, I propose we segway into a discussion of the meaning of identity through the thought experiment called Ship of Theseus. Here’s the story:

Theseus owned a ship and the ship was entirely made of wood. Every time a piece of the ship needed replacing it was replaced with a metal part. This went on for a few years until eventually it was entirely made of metal.
Is the metal ship of Theseus the same ship as the wooden ship of Theseus?

The thought experiment is pertaining to the notion of personhood. We grow and change, learn new things and forget some, our body cells replace themselves within 7-10 years (with exception of neurons) - so like the ship, are we the same person through time?

See you on Thursday at 8 pm in ALUMNI 200. It’s in between Kreger and Irvin Halls.

Yours Unfaithfully,

Ice

Hi all,

As you know classes are canceled for this thursday, Feb 03. So HOM won’t be having a meeting this week. I hope you will be brimming with enthusiasm and energy next week.

Yours Truly,
Nishan Amgain

Hey y’all

Welcome back. I hope everyone had a revitalizing break and is excited for the semester. This semester, we are tweaking the meeting times slightly. Last semester, many of us had an overload of meetings and commitments on Wednesday evenings. So, this semester, we are going to be meeting on Thursdays instead of Wednesdays. The meeting time will still be the same: 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm.

We will have our first meeting this Thursday on the 27th. The first meeting will be dedicated to catching up and general discussions about the club. Feel free to bring topics you want to discuss on the day or later in the semester. We will try our best to incorporate them in our subsequent meetings. Any event ideas will also be appreciated.

Yours Truly,
Nishan Amgain

As your vice president pointed out, I forgot to mention the location of the meeting in the last email. The meeting venue is still Alumni 200.
Meetings will be on Thursdays 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm at Alumni 200.

Sincerely,
Nishan

Hey y’all,

I hope you had a great Thanksgiving break with your friends and family. This wednesday HOM will have its final meeting for the semester. We have no agenda or topic to discuss tomorrow but feel free to bring anything you want to talk about. It is going to be a chill meeting as we wind down for the semester.

I thank you all for your contributions to the discussions throughout the semester. The club has had its highs and lows and I thank each and every one of you who attended the meetings for being a part of it. Have a great week and good luck for your finals.

Best,
Nishan

Hey guys, some updates to the last email:

Join the groupme if you haven’t already:https://groupme.com/join_group/70576704/wc8yedGU
It’s free.

And if you’re new and have never attended a meeting, please feel free to attend the meetings. We are like a sitcom with very few running jokes; you can feel right at home in any episode.

I’ll see you on Wednesday.

Signing off,
Nishan

Hello Homers,

This will be the last meeting before our Thanksgiving break. Let’s make it a special one since we won’t be seeing each other for a while. This wednesday night we will be talking about the Symbiotic relationship between Art and Philosophy. Some points that we may touch on are: how, over the ages, philosophy has informed artists’ conception of art or even the definition of art, how art has helped popularize philosophical movements in the past (or vice versa), or why art was praised as a superior vocation by prominent existential philosophers. Feel free to read up on the topic before coming to the meeting. That always makes the discussions livelier. I hope to see all of you there. Until then, take care.

Where: Alumni Hall
When: Wednesday 8:00pm sharp

Best,
Nishan

Hello Peops,

It’s Tuesday, which means it’s HOM time soon. For tomorrow’s meeting, I thought we could talk about Climate Change. For its redundancy in political discussions, the climate might not be everyone’s favorite “philosophical” topic (or philosophical topic at all, for that matter). But the topic of climate change certainly concerns little things like justice and equality, which are big discussions on their own. An article from the President of Uganda that came out on Wall Street Journal recently sets a good base to talk on climate justice. To put it grossly, should developing nations pay the western world by sacrificing their industrial boom for the sake of clean energy? On the other hand, there will be no boom to have without action on climate…

the article link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-wind-force-poverty-on-africa-climate-change-uganda-11635092219

Yes, as usual, the meeting is in Alumni 200 at 8 pm.

Yours missingly,
Ais

Hello People,

Here’s the *late* reminder that our meeting is today at 8 pm in Alumni 200.

On this Halloween Eve, we wanted to talk about something truly scary about our existence. But instead, let’s have a little fun and talk about evil. Are there really really bad things we’re capable of? And is it evil? Or should we abandon the concept altogether?
…
Can someone really be bad? And what is wrong?

The topic naturally leads to questions about ‘good’. And although good and evil have a strong presence in Abrahamic religions, we can discuss their place outside of religion.

Stay warm and see you tonight,

Ais

Hello HOMers,

Our weekly meeting will be held, as usual, in Alumni 200 at 8:00 pm 10/20.

The topic is Evolutionary epistemology. I realize it is perhaps not the sexiest topic that we had thus far. However, we’ve been noticing that an abundant number of arguments in our discussions directly or indirectly concern the Theory of Evolution. For a quick definition, see the following:

“Evolutionary epistemology is the attempt to address questions in the theory of knowledge from an evolutionary point of view” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

There are several questions to dig out from the topic, one of them - Is struggle a necessary condition to human life?

And from there we can potentially discuss questions in epistemology in general, such as: What distinguishes knowledge from mere belief? What can be known with certainty? How can we know if we have knowledge?

From Plato to squeaky floors in Alumni Hall

See you tomorrow,

Ais

Hello Peops,

I hope all of you had a great break. HOMers meeting is happening tomorrow at 8 pm in Alumni 200, as usual. The topic for tomorrow is none other than Objectivity of Reality & Simulation Theory (blame your president for such abstract choice). In short, what is real and what is not.

It’s getting chilly, so wear your quirkiest sweaters and cardigans. Or if you choose not to, appearance is part of the simulation anyways.

Yours falsely,

Ais

Hello Homers,

I hope midterms are not treating you too harshly. Even if they are, yall have three days of fall break to get midterms completely off of your minds (or double down on your studies). But let’s not get ourselves too far into the week, we still have a meeting this Wednesday. This week’s topic is going to be Modern day Feminism and Men’s Rights movement. It may be a contentious topic but I think all of us can appreciate the nuance present here. As always we will be meeting in Room 200 of Alumni Hall at 8:00 pm.

Yours Truly,
Nishan

P.S.: If you haven’t already, please join our groupme: https://groupme.com/join_group/70576704/wc8yedGU

Hello HOMers,

Hope you had a wonderful Tuesday. If not, I am sure your Wednesday is going to be a lot better because we have another HOM meeting this Wednesday. This week’s topic will be on Abortion rights. Need I say more? Prepare your minds for a heavy intellectual discussion. As always we will be meeting in Room 200 of Alumni hall from 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm. I will see you all there.

Yours Truly,
Nishan

Greetings HOMers,

This Wednesday we will be talking about Animals and Ethics. Bring your juicy stance on veganism, vegetarianism, factory farming, your thoughts on whether humans have any responsibility towards animals, and your opinions about keeping pets. Hope you have a wonderful Wednesday. The meeting, as always, will be held in Room 200 of Alumni Hall.

Yours Truly,
Nishan

I forgot to mention the time for the meeting today. Most of us are familiar with the time but for the new members, it’s 8pm to 9pm. As always we are in Room 200 of Alumni Hall.

Apologetically,
Nishan

PS: There will be a drag night at 1868 uptown right after the meeting.

Hello HOMers,

I hope your week is going well, such that you feel optimistic enough to talk about - oh well - DEATH. Particularly, death and its influence on life and existence.

We realize that the topic of death might be a bit gruesome. But here shines another opportunity to discuss the different perceptions of death - with fears, uncertainty, acceptance, and the rest that surround it.

Our meeting is tomorrow on 9/15 at 8 pm Alumni 200, as usual.

In a non-dark-humorous manner, let’s make it fun.

Aisulu

P.S. Nishan said that there’s a comedy show in 1868 tomorrow if we choose to have something light-hearted afterwards