The Rest is Uncertain

Tying up some loose ends….In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter provides further clarification of the concept of quantitative, or strict, identity. Objects and people can and do change – we call this “qualitative change” – but such change makes sense only on the assumption that the objects in question remain “the same objects”, i.e. literally identical. We see this idea in such intuitive examples as “That individual was slim and healthy 20 years ago, but is now overweight and unwell”. This point applies both to people (or human beings) and objects. In simple logical terms, quantitative identity is involved whenever we pick out or refer to something or someone, while qualitative identity (or similarity) is about properties or characteristics that the objects picked out have in common. Logically and grammatically, words or phrases that perform the latter function are called “predicates”.However, even the simple act of picking something out has a conceptual component, because we assume that the object picked out is of a certain kind. So, While specifying and defining such kinds is not always a trivial matter, we need to do this, otherwise we would have no basis on which to assert that the object in question continues to exist (albeit through qualitative change) or ceases to exist. The oak tree survives being lopped, or losing its leaves, but not being chopped down and turned into firewood. The same holds when the object is a person or human being, although there is a long-standing dispute about which of these classifications, if either, matches the kind of individual that we each are. This dispute bears on another fundamental question about our own identities: are our existence and identity a purely physical matter, or do they have a psychological component (such as consciousness, in John Locke’s terms)?Noting that words standing for kinds are, themselves, predicates, Laurance explains that like all predicates, we normally take for granted that more than one object or person will belong to a given kind, which he summarizes by claiming that when we refer to something – i.e. one particular individual – we are assuming that that individual is one among others, i.e. one among others of the same kind. When the kind in question includes such individuals as you and me, we can add that regarding ourselves and one another as persons involves being aware of ourselves as one among others. Arguably, no other object has this level of awareness. While this sophisticated attribute is one that distinguishes us from non persons (language might be another), it also confirms our status as moral beings who can be held responsible and accountable for their actions. This point is in line with the long-standing historical claim that morality and personhood go together (although we are left with questions about the moral status of a human fetus or someone with severe dementia, on the one hand, and higher mammals, aliens and, needless to say, AI, on the other).Laurance then points out that regarding ourselves as one among others – i.e. any others – offers a relational perspective on who we are, that avoids the extremes of individualism and collectivism, as previously described. Freed from the hopeless task of trying to find those specific qualities that define persons uniquely by grouping them with others, each of us is who we are for as long as we exist. And we can, at least to an extent, view the qualitative changes that we undergo – whether by choice or otherwise – with a sense of equanimity, because none of them defines us.Laurance then offers a suggestion about how we might interpret the concept of social identity, once we accept that our own individual identities are not given in social – i.e. qualitative – terms. He also expresses some residual doubt that the deeper questions about our own status as persons have been completely answered. Does my understanding of my own subjective awareness allow me to perceive or experience myself actually engaged in the process of picking something out? Might I still demand to “see” this self which is consciously making decisions and choices based on such psychological factors as my beliefs, my desires, and my intentions?Finally, Laurance looks at the challenges confronting those whose “tribal” convictions prevent them from acknowledging that those with whom they disagree on fundamental issues are, indeed, persons and deserve to be treated as such. Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Why is the topic of immigration so socially divisive? In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter begins with several disclaimers, which include avoiding the explicitly political dimensions of immigration (which, inevitably, focus on extreme positions), and also making reference to specific religious or cultural groups. Listeners are invited to make these connections for themselves. Laurance makes a distinction between factual issues regarding immigration – where immigrants to Australia have come from, the reasons people have sought to migrate, and the criteria or standards which are applied in determining who should, or should not, be permitted to immigrate – and issues which are best described as ethical and emotional (although this distinction is far from clear). Among those seeking to migrate are those classified as refugees or asylum seekers, which suggests another distinction: that between practical or utilitarian considerations (the impact on housing or employment, etc.) – i.e. how immigration affects our own country and its existing citizens – and considerations based on compassion and care for those seeking refuge and safety because of the dangerous, even life-threatening conditions in their home countries.After asking the question “What is the ideal population size for our country?” – and realizing how difficult it is to answer – Laurance moves to consider the contentious issue of Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers who have sought refuge in precarious circumstances (often on overcrowded boats managed by people smugglers). He admits to feeling a sense of shame on this topic, particularly because the major political parties have been unanimous in ruling that such individuals will never be allowed to settle permanently in Australia.Laurance then considers the question that is central in the minds of many Australians (likewise in many other countries): “Who are those seeking to migrate and, specifically, are they sufficiently ‘like us’?” Key examples are the members of certain religious and cultural groups, and people arriving from countries which have a history of violence. Laurance raises questions about multiculturalism and diversity, and asks what the oft-used term “Australian values” actually stands for, other than those values which are associated with universal human decency and ethics. He then returns to a recurring theme and asks whether our primary concern should be the values and practices of different cultural groups, or those of specific individuals. The episode concludes with a question: “Is there a moral imperative to help relieve the lives of distant strangers whose lives are impoverished and endangered, when doing so is likely to produce greater strain on those at home who may already be struggling by their own standards.?” Dare we hope that such questions could be discussed with sensitivity and respect, without being sucked into familiar political stereotypes? Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

How do communities of inquiry work across subjects like philosophy, mathematics, and science?In this episode, Dr. Laurance Splitter shares practical examples of collaborative inquiry with students of different ages, sparked by stories, games, and classroom activities. Discussions range from loyalty and friendship to reasoning, mathematical abstraction, scientific concepts, and ethical questions about animals and human responsibility.These examples show how effective teachers foster genuine inquiry without fixed outcomes.The episode concludes with Laurance reflecting on student podcast discussions about social media, trust, and justice and the resistance he encountered when schools deemed related topics “too sensitive.” Echoing psychologist Jonathan Haidt, he highlights the tension between protecting young people and limiting their opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue about the issues shaping their lives.Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Is there a gap between educational goals and ideals, on the one hand, and the reality experienced by teachers and students in schools and classrooms, on the other? In the first of several episodes on education, host Dr. Laurance Splitter distinguishes between schooling, training and education. He then takes a brief journey into past theories of education, citing key ideas of Aristotle, Confucius, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, John Dewey and Paulo Freire. Several common themes emerge, including the goals of educating the “whole person” in intellectual, moral and physical terms, and teaching young people to be critical or powerful thinkers. But is today’s society serious when it comes to striving toward these goals?Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

When it comes to youth crime, simple answers often miss the deeper questions.In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter explores the moral and social complexities surrounding youth crime, punishment, and responsibility in contemporary society.He examines polarized responses from “lock them up” to broader social explanations and asks why societies punish in the first place. By considering agency, accountability, disadvantage, and the search for identity which can lead to such unhealthy associations as gang membership, this episode challenges listeners to rethink justice, victimhood, and the kind of society we are collectively shaping.Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn

Certainty feels reassuring but it can also shut down reasonable thinking, dialogue, and better judgment.In this episode, host Dr. Laurance Splitter introduces the central ideas behind The Rest Is Uncertain and explains why certainty can be more limiting than helpful when navigating complex questions and challenges through what he calls a philosophical lens. He emphasizes the importance of dialogue, and of questioning our assumptions, and introduces a recurring theme of the series: whether we see ourselves as isolated individuals or as members of something larger and why that distinction matters.Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn