"Jack Bowen's novel is like traveling with Alice to a Wonderland inhabited by the greatest philosophers and scientists who ever lived. This is must-reading for anyone who wants to understand how the teachings of the great philosophers apply to today's world."

"…Bowen has enough narrative talent and philosophical background to pull off the very difficult combination."

— Rob Reich, Stanford University, founder of the Stanford Summer Philosophy Discovery Institute

"Knowledge and Reality (Prologue and Chapter 1)"

What is knowledge? How does knowledge differ from belief? From faith? Our senses often deceive us, our dreams seem real, and yet we often believe that we experience true reality. Do we experience actual reality or just something that is useful in our daily lives?

The meetings are open to all interested in participating in philosophical discussion—no philosophy background is necessary, just an open mind. Ian's Philosophy Club features lively philosophical debate on topics and issues of interest to you with examples from "The Dream Weaver: One Boy's Journey Through the Landscape of Reality" (the "BOOK").

"Can Computers Cheat? (Chapter 2 and 9) "

What does it mean to cheat? Is it any action that breaks the rules? Must the rules be broken with the hopes of gaining an advantage? How important is “intent” in regards to cheating?

If a computer places two X’s in a row when you play tic-tac-toe, has the computer cheated? Some claimed that it has—it made an illegal move in order to gain an advantage. Yet others argued that cheating requires the intent to cheat and since computers are programmed (and don’t have free will) then they cannot intend to do anything. But to what extent are we as humans programmed? Is cheating necessarily a bad thing? Is there some part of game playing and sports in which cheating is just “part of the game”? This question spawned interesting debate as well….what do you think?

"Do selfless actions really exist?"

Is genuine altruism really possible? Is every selfless act really a disguised form of selfishness? What would it mean to do something that is truly not in your interest? As the chapter in Ian's Adventure mentions, some argue that we are biologically driven to be selfish--that because of our innate need to stay alive and reproduce our genes, to act UNselfishly would be unnatural.

If this is the case, then how can we be asked to act morally--i.e. in the interests of others? Could it be that acting in the interest of others makes us seem good and then we can further ourselves? This is what Ian's friend does by helping the old woman across the street--he is doing something for the woman, but the girl that he likes sees him and ends up wanting to get to know him even more.

Ian gives his dad a hard time when his dad compliments Ian's mother. It is a criticism of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you)--do we really want someone doing something nice for us JUST BECAUSE they want us to do that for them?

From the chapter, though, we see that not EVERY action can be selfish--not for biological reasons, but for logical, linguistic reasons. There must be a criterion. What is this criterion? Is it the consequence of the act? The intent of the actor? Where do we draw the line between selfish and altruistic?

"Living up to your Potential"

At a recent meeting, we considered what it means to fulfill one’s potential. We hear this all the time but what does it mean?

Some argued that it means finding what you do best and then pursuing that to the fullest. But what if you are best at doing math, yet you don’t enjoy math? Or what if you are best at stealing? Do you have an obligation to yourself to pursue something just because you are naturally good at it?
Others argued that fulfilling one’s potential meant that we ought to pursue what we are passionate about. Though many wondered if living up to your potential really meant just doing what you felt like doing. Shouldn’t it be something more?
Yet another suggestion involved making the lives of those around you better. Yet many had a problem with defining your potential based on others.

So a lot of the discussion surrounded two main points:

1) Who decides on what my potential is? My potential to do what?
2) If I can even decide where to focus my potential, why should I focus on that instead of something else?

Aristotle writes that our purpose—our goal—is to reason. It is through reason that we can fulfill our purpose and thus achieve happiness. Isn’t happiness subjective, though? And who can decide what my purpose is—God? The government? Aristotle? Me? If I do realize the purpose for myself, can’t I still do something else?

Every object, living or non-living, has a potential to do something, or to be something. What does it mean for me to live up to my potential?