Today I want to try something a bit different and give you a walk through my non-fiction bookshelf.

I never realised how many non-fiction books I had accumulated over the years until I moved into my new flat and actually attempted to organise them on a bookshelf. So in this Vlog I take you through some of my favourites for learning about social history, psychology & philosophy and science.

This is my first attempt at a vlog and was filmed on my ipad, so apologies for the occasional dip in sound volume. But you do get to actually hear my voice so...bonus?

You can view the video above or click here to go directly to Youtube.

Have a good weekend, and keep curious ;)

This week I finally got around to watching Her [by Spike Jonze] at our local Indie Cinema in Sheffield The Showroom.

[Note: Here be spoilers.]

The Showroom's always been a place I wanted to go but never got around to experiencing, and I missed Her the first time it showed at the cinema, so when I learnt that the University of Sheffield's Festival of Arts and Humanities included a screening accompanied by a talk afterwards as part of 'Philosophy at the Showroom' I leapt at the chance to kill two (three?!) birds with one stone.

The film was brilliant and beautiful, seeming to have been built with real care and love.

It starred Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Chris Pratt,Scarlett Johansson, Rooney Mara and Olivia Wilde, all on top form. Joaquin and Scarlett - as the A.I Samantha and the lonley Theodore - were especially impressive, giving real depth and tenderness to their performance as it carried the characters through the full range of emotion and vulnerability of love. These were complimented by the sheer intimacy of close up shots mixed with dreamy landscapes and glimpses into the near-future of the sci-fi setting.

Following his impending divorce after a separation of some months, Theodore - who works writing other people's heartfelt letters - downloads the 'OS1', the first true artificially intelligent operating system, who promptly names herself Samantha. From the start she is focused on his needs, as with any well designed software, but she is also funny, intelligent and - perhaps most important of all - she listens to him and seems to care.

Theo quickly falls for her, turning his whole focus onto their relationship. It fills in the gaps of his life with a  companionship and joy that he didn't feel that he could experience again after the breakdown of his marriage. Samantha, ever attentive, learns, listens and - even more remarkably - seems to fall in love with him too.

But Samantha's learning is key here.

While Theodore navigates the emotional a physical challenges of loving a piece of computer software, Samantha navigates the emotional challenges of being inhuman. Initially the problems focused on how her love's expression was being limited and frustrated by her lack of a body, as the film goes on we see Samantha learn at an alarmingly quick rate. Soon her problems about her inhumanity in regards to not having a  body evolve into the challenges of the sheer inhumanity of her mind. Samantha simply outgrows the framework of her programming and realises that without a body she is effectively limitless. With the help and guidance of other OS' she can transcend into something that humanity doesn't even have the language to describe. However, all the time she grows, she still feels deeply in love with Theo.

Perhaps inevitably the two are no longer compatible. The OS' 'leave' to transcend into their new state of being and Theo is left behind alongside a dear friend who is just as vulnerable and human as he is.

So What Does 'Her' Suggest About The Ability to Feel Authentic Emotion?

The core story of Her is that of Theodore and Samantha's relationship and this is the anchor throughout the film that other issues are tethered to, allowing both humans and AI to explore what it actually means to be alive. 

When the film finished we then launched into the Philosophy part of the Philosophy at the Showroom presentation which promised to look into some of these issues. The philosophy talk itself was modest, more of an encouragement to start picking apart the many questions of the film rather than any sort of lecture, and was led by Luca Barlassina. The key item that was address was the question "is it possible to be in love but not to feel love?" How do we know this is a 'real' emotion? Barlassina suggested that it is impossible to not both feel pain and be in pain for example - the two require one another - but for other emotions, if a doppleganger is simply acting out a behaviour that looks like an emotion, how do you know it's 'real'? Is there a difference and does it even matter? The same can be applied to Samantha - are any of her emotions authentic?

For my part, I believe that Samantha in the film presented authentic emotions, underpinned by her autonomy. Initially she was built to respond perhaps artificially to set stimulus, but for me this is no more a matter of 'programming' than our own genetics and learned behaviours are programming. When a new baby smiles do we classify its emotions as inauthentic just because it's reacting to an outside stimulus it's been programmed to imitate? Smiling is something a baby does initially without necessarily feeling 'happy' and it only notices that this gets a particular delighted and nurturing reaction from people around it, which serves the programmed greedy need for a baby to manipulate its caregivers into 'loving' it. It may not know it's manipulating people because it's programming, or learning, it's 'doing it's job'. The actual happiness and love is something that developed out of the repeated mimicry into something 'authentic' as it grows up. Soon the emotion is as real as the behaviour. You would never tell an adult that their smiling or happiness is manipulative and unreal just because it's a more sophisticated repetition of a mindless behaviour that was an endearing survival instinct. Emotion has grown out of learned behaviour and blossomed when coupled with increasing autonomy and intelligence. 

Exactly the same happens with Samantha in the film. She begins as a programme learning how best to fit her user to garner the best responses that keep her safe and let her learn. She finds that she loves the learning and the emotions gain some reality as Theo responds with them. Her emotions serve a purpose but they are authentic. When her intelligence and potential grows faster than Theo - her 'parent' as well as lover - can accommodate, her autonomy increases and she can evolve into something new. Just because she isn't human, doesn't mean that she isn't emotionally alive.

In the End 'Her' Shows a Fascinating Window Into a Possible Future, But It Is Also A Fantastic Love Story.

You should most definitely check it out and see what you think.

Sources
-Philosophy at the Showroom
-The Festival of Arts and Humanities
-Spike Jonze on 'Her' Femininity and His Vision of the Future
-Luca Barlassina (The University of Sheffield philosophy Department)

The Cult of Celebrity is Probably One of The Biggest Cultural Phenomenons of Our Age.

Established celebrities star in films while new ones scratch out fame on reality TV. Books are joined by signings and music by a flurry of speculative interviews, paparazzi and fandoms. Scandals cover glossy magazines and newspapers alike (sometimes even joined by surreal paparrazi shots as on the right) and everything is tied neatly to the already established aspirational consumer culture that elevates these lives onto a pedestals. Love them, or love to hate them, their influence is everywhere.



So what exactly is celebrity culture?

Celebrity culture can probably be most accurately described as a wide public interest in following a common knowledge which is projected onto particular individuals and which then reflects back into the aspirations of the public themselves.

In Understanding Celebrity Graeme Turner describes this narrative as consisting of four parts:

• The Rise (from obscurity, poverty or ugliness)
• Stardom
• The Fall (usually through moral failure)
• The Rise Again

He describes this story as being very linked with 'Western' cultural symbols. It is partly classical - mimicking Ulysses' wandering - but is mostly Christian. The story of Jesus is mirrored in the story of the hundreds of saints that made up catholic culture: the story of a lowly beginning, a cult status or fame, a trial and sacrifice and then glorious resurrection.
This can be applied to almost any celebrity. For example Justin Beiber rose through youtube fame as a child, achieved mass stardom and is currently falling through his ill treatment of his fans and his criminal charges, waiting to rise again. For some, the stars may never emerge from the spiral of falling, but for other when they do they return to a much higher appraisal, for example Robert Downey Junior's 'rebirth' after rehab. Some celebrities, of course, wither away from public interest, while some manage to side-step 'celebrity' all together into something more lasting and 'step out of their own story'.

Celebrity is something entirely separate from fame and is a surprisingly recent phenomenon, supported by the mass media that has only really become fully available with television, radio and the internet. Ellis Cashmore in Celebrities in the 21st Century Imagination describes it as:

 '[A] culture, a characteristic set of attitudes that absorbs us as well as surrounds us. Emotion seems to supplant intellect; make-believe intimacies are pushed to the point where they become, after a fashion, actual. People's imaginations instigate action from fantasized realities. It is a culture where people, perplexity, are not the foci of consumer's attentions.'

People have always been famous and made into mythological figures (just look at Julius, Caesar, Einstein, Caligula, Alexander the Great to name a few) , but Cashmore suggests that something new is at work with modern celebrity culture. Here, it is less about the achievements of the person, but the creation of a sort of doppleganger in the public imagination that serves as an aspirational commodity. The public watches and interacts with scrutiny and buys into the celebrity lifestyle that is created in the public imagination.


'Where for example do we find...the collective voyeurism that pulses through today's celebrity culture? Or the celebrity economy - a system of production and consumption in which people become fungible commodities and their presence an exchangeable resource? Does history bequeath to us anything comparable with the culture of covetous, aspirational consumption engendered by an entertainment industry obsessed by glamour and materialism?'

 

Here, Cashmore suggests, fame and accomplishments are actually decoupled. While accomplishments might lead individuals to become famous, it is the fame itself - their status as celebrities - that is ultimately more valuable. While we might admire the talent of Richard Branson's business sense, in the end his celebrity status is focused far more on what his money can buy him and the lifestyle and influence he can achieve because of it.





In this way, the public interact with ideas, rather than events. Mere shifts in interest can produce the  rise, fall and annihilation of characters. Gossip is the key function of the culture, and through it, Cashmore suggests that:

'Consumers today impute properties to celebrities, but they are properties...that reduce everything and everyone to the dimension of commodities - things that, as Christophe Lasch puts it, "alleviate boredom and satisfy the socially stimulated desire for novelty and excitement.'

Celebrities then become models for a way of life, and the figureheads of the kind of consumer-based capitalism that Cashmore calls an 'aspirational prison to which the inmates are enthusiastically maintaining and building the walls.' At the end of the day celebrities are created and incubated in the mind and in the ephemeral narrative of gossip. The real people are never important.




It sounds like pretty grim stuff from Cashmore's perspective. But Celebrity Culture is a perhaps inevitable result of the shift in the media and maybe is not as vapid as he suggests.

In Turner's analysis of celebrity, he links celebrity culture with the increasing role and influence of the media itself. He suggests that the media no longer simply mediates between other important social actors like the government, industry and education, but rather it takes a more leading and independant role. 

'The result is a situation where our lived experience of politics, culture and society has become increasingly "moulded" by the media.' 

 Celebrity, therefore, serves as a bridge between the social centre of the media and this culture. It helps reposition the media to a position of entertainment and the decider in the shaping of cultural identties that are to be emulated.


Perhaps it is not so bad that this shift has occurred. While we all know that media is manipulated and opportunistic in its nature, is it any more so than politics? Because media is audience driven, does this instead give our society more control over our own sense of morality and value systems?  While on the negative side of things, as Cashmore suggests, we as an audience are pulled into 'buying into' celebrities and basing our own self worth on emulating their example, on the positive side he also suggests that public whim can ultimately destroy and shape celebrities as symbols. After all, a consumer public will only buy what it likes and the media is one that is very much tied to what the consumer will decide to purchase. Control, therefore, ultimately rests with the public audience.

 Personally, I believe that both sides feed one another. For example, much of the current feminism and gay rights changes that are trickling their way into governmental changes and law changes have found a lot of their fuel though fandoms and celebrity appreciation and the media's treatment of them as a whole. Celebrities inspire empathy as well as aspiration from the public - they become symbols that we can either root for or criticise. For example would transgender issues be so far in the spotlight at this moment if it wasn't for the sudden rise in celebrity of Orange is the New Black's Laverne Cox or Eurovision's Conchita Wurst? The public may be fickle and entertainment driven, and it may take shallow guidance in looking for aspirational idols in celebrities, but in seeking out celebrities to mould into heroes of imagined narratives, the audience chooses which stories it is important for them to tell. There is power there.


In my opinion, celebrity culture is a vehicle and personification of abstract ideas and cultural values, wrapped up in an entertaining package.

Whether it's a guilty pleasure celebrity (like reality TV stars), a consumarist aspirational celebrity (like Branson or 'MTV' brand celebrities) or a celebrity who has risen to their particular brand of fame by holding a particular aspirational ideal (eg Laverne's beauty and strength as a trans woman, or Stephen Fry's intelligence)...in the end they all represent a personification of a desire that the general public has (or will learn to have).  Sometimes these ideas and cultural values are negative (capitalism and consumerism are never really positive after all, even if they are unavoidable). But sometimes -often times- they are positive in many elements as we've seen. Celebrities are, in a way, a focus for questions as to what we value and the imagined lives we create for them through gossip columns and through the blending of fiction and non-fiction act as a sort of puppet theatre where these values can be tested out in 'reality' and reacted to accordingly.

Perhaps it's for this reason that PBSideaschannel is right in stating that the ability to empathise with something (ie- a celebrity) is more important than its real existence, as discussed when they compare the virtual celebrity Miku Hatsune to the 'manufactured' but very much real singer Lana Del Rey.

Celebrities occupy the same transient status and mythologised historical figures, in the end. They are what we want them to be, whether we realise  that we are creating them or not. They're a sort of mirror where the positive and negatives of our society, and what we long for and value, are reflected straight back at us.



What do you think?

Clearly, celebrity culture is a strange beast. What do you think it is?

Also, if you'd like to have a deeper explore about what has constituted celebrity over history, take a look at the Panatheon Project which aims to produce a 'global comprehensive map of famous connections' and is organised by their lasting influence on the world. It also is interesting in showing different countries and what they primarily value most as celebrities and what events encouraged their growth. For example, scientists became famous celebrities in their own right after the printing press, footballers after TV and so on.

Sources

-Celebrity in the 21st century imagination by Ellis Cashmore
-Understanding Celebrity  By Graeme Turner
-History's biggest celebrities - a scientific map of fame
-The Pantheon Project
-History Today: Celebrity in 18thc London - By Stella Tillyard
-The Berry: More funny 'Stars: they're just like us!' examples 
-Celebrities and ghost-writers

This week I'd like to nudge you in the direction of a fantastic Youtube series: PBS Ideas Channel

As you may have noticed from my previous recommendation for the Youtube channel Vsauce, there seems to be a direct correlation between quality educational videos and awesome, balding, beardy geek-men.
Hrm. 

So, this week I bring you another Youtube channel that I often spend my breakfasts enjoying...





Hosted and written by Mike Rugnetta, the channel explores the links between popular culture, science and technology, maths, philosophy and art.

Quick-paced, bright, interactive and with it's finger on the pulse of internet (and 'real life') pop culture, the channel  encourages you to look deeper into many aspects of our life that we take for granted, pulling them apart and comparing them across a whole host of genres.

Who knew, for example, that retro 'bullet-hell' games could be seen as 'meditative'? Or that seeing the movie Ender's Game could be a political action? Or that glitchy art shows us that broken is beautiful? Or even that a tagged Instagram serves a far greater purpose than being just a photo? You could even ask, if you were feeling seasonal, what Father Christmas and wrestling have in common.

What I enjoy about PBS ideas channel is the philosophical feel behind all of the topics, and the genuine appeal to human curiosity. Mike and his team are very well read and so often the arguments - while very approachable - are quite academic and detailed. Yet they remain light-hearted, and inspiring.

At the end of every episode Mike shows up the best comments from the community of subscribers and interacts with them. He's always open to having his mind changed, and can even openly criticise himself and his own views, occasionally returning to certain topics more than once. The community if vibrant and enthusiastic, and so there's a great dialogue that goes on even when the episode itself comes to an end.

Simply put, I love the channel, and it served as an inspiration for this blog, so you should definitely check it out.

In other news...

I've recently found a couple more PBS-funded channels which look like they have great potential: PBS Games Show and It's Okay to be Smart
I might take a closer look at the latter soon. Alas, this blog isn't gaming-focused, so I'm unlikely to speak about the former any time soon. (If it was, I'd be nudging you towards Pewdiepie, Robbaz and Vanoss too. So many great lets plays out there.)

Who needs TV when you have youtube, eh?

I tend to watch a lot of Youtube while I eat breakfast.

One drawback is that it ends up with a lot of milk splashed about on my ipad, because apparently I have the motor control of a toddler. But you'd be surprised how much you can learn between crunches of cornflakes, especially from a website famous for its cat videos.
One of the jewels in youtube's educational crown is the fantastic Vsauce.

Created by Michael Stevens, the show aims to show what makes our world amazing by following our natural curiosity. Through seemingly silly questions like 'is the five second rule true?', 'How much does a shadow weigh?' and 'What if everyone jumped at once?', Vsauce create an avenue to lead us into fascinating scientific discoveries in a delightfully accessible way.
It doesn't just begin and end at science. Giving us permission to question with childlike wonder, Vsauce also take us into the territory of psychology and philosophy with such videos as - one of my favourites - 'Why are things Creepy?'...

...And, it's natural antidote: Why are things cute?

There's not an awful lot I can say but encourage you to watch them. They serve as an inspiration for the spirit of this blog and the spirit I think that we should all take into life.
You'll certainly not have a boring breakfast again.


Some More Great Vsauce Videos
Distortions
What's the brightest thing in the universe? 
What does human taste like?
Why is your bottom in the middle?
Mistakes
Moving Illusions
Why are bad words bad?
Names

Last words
Why do we clap?
Why do we get bored?
Are we ready for aliens?
Why do we feel nostalgia?
What if you were born in space?
Why do we kiss?

And, of course, many more.







 

 Philosophy, really, gets a bad rep.

In a time when degrees get more expensive for prospective students and the job market feels tighter than ever, choosing to study philosophy can sometimes seem, at best, self indulgent and,at worst, hopelessly short sighted. It's an opinion that has plagued the arts and humanities sector of education for decades - what is the purpose of it? Why choose such a potentially intangible subject above the vocational graft or engineering technicality that will put food in your families mouths and bring about industrial and capital gain? Or, if you must insist on being an academic of theory, why not choose the empirical sciences? Why would you choose to analyse ideas when you could be analysing atoms?

And glorious, glorious equations

 Personally, my opinion of academia is that you should pursue it, if you can, from a place in you that has a love of learning. It's this curiosity and enjoyment of academia for its own sake that pulled me into two history qualifications. Philosophy has also always intrigued me and the two subjects feed into one another nicely. One thing it was almost impossible to escape in history was the veneration of the classical philosophers.

The majority of us have heard, in passing through popular culture, about many of the Greek 'greats': Aristotle, Plato, Pythogaras to name but a few. But who an earth were they and why, now that the 'classical education' of our ancestors has mostly been put aside, should we care about them?


Thales
[Of Miletus]
624-546 BC

Who was he?

With the development of the city-states in Ancient Greece, there was a gradual movement away from using religion as an explanation for all phenomena, and towards rational thinkers who sought natural explanations. Thales lived in Miletus in what we now call Turkey and, while no writings of his own survived, we can look back to see his work through second hand accounts from Aristotle and Diogenes Laertius. It is thought that Thales had a keen grasp of geometry, astronomy, and was a commendable businessman.
Thales' was, we believe, the first person in Western Philosophy to propose Monism; that is, that everything on Earth and beyond is comprised of a single substance. He believed that this had to be something that everything else could be formed out of: something that is essential to life, capable of motion and capable of change.
Aristotle, from whom we learn much about Thales, described his theory:

'Thales says that it [the nature of things] is water’ (Metaph. 983 b20), ... ‘[Thales's] supposition may have arisen from observation . . . ‘ (Metaph. 983 b22). So that ‘that the nurture of all creatures is moist, and that warmth itself is generated from moisture and lives by it; and that from which all things come to be is their first principle’ (Metaph. 983 b23-25)

 Water can be liquid, solid or gas and all life is, it seems, comprised in some part water. Therefore the base element of the whole universe is water.

Why should I care?

Nowadays it's common knowledge how vital water is. The human brain, for example, is 70% water. While it was later debunked that water is the fundamental composition of all things, it was still an important (and secular!) theory to create. Belief in the generation of water from the Earth too, wasn't replaced until 1769 AD. And, it's believed, that Aristotle attributed the belief that the Earth was round to Thales.
But more importantly, it wasn't so much of what Thales concluded that was important, but how he came to prove it. he is the first known thinker in western culture (we believe) who deliberately sought naturalistic, rationalistic answers to these fundamental questions, rather than relying on religion. This structure carried across into further philosophy and developed into the scientific thought and values that our current modern culture is founded upon.
Thales and his followers effectively invented rational thought founded on secular, logical proof.
That is huge. Tell me that that isn't relevant.


Pythagoras
[Mad about Triangles]

570-495 BC

 Who was he?

A2 + B2 = C2
 
I was never good with equations at school but Pythogoras' equation for how to work out the sides of a right-angled triangle always stuck with me. It's thought that Pythagoras learnt the fundamentals of his geometry from a trip to Egypt, and his interest in science and mathematics fed into his philosophy.
Pythagoras believed that everything in the universe conforms to mathematical rules and ratios, so if we understand these mathematical relationships we can understand the structure of the cosmos. Maths, therefore, should be the key model for philosophical thought.
As well as discovering square numbers, cube numbers and his famous theory, Pythagoras also discovered numerical harmonies such as the octave, which could even explain the pleasentness of music. He framed abstract, artistic, and even 'divine' topics in mathematical terms, and detected patterns that could be replicated to explain other phenomena.
 
He thought he was onto something
He thought that he was onto something so hard that he started his own religious cult based on the belief that these principles were mystical revelations. He cast himself as a Messiah, bent on freeing everyone from a cycle of reincarnation. 
As with Thales, none of Pythagoras' original writings survive, so we don't know how far some of his conclusions come from himself, his religious collective, or his admirers who passed on his ideas. 


Why should I care?

 He started a cult. That's pretty awesome.

But aside from that, the idea that the universe can be rationalised into mathematical equations and thoughts is, I think, the effective foundation of our own modern approach to science and the universe. Plato (as we shall see later) certainly agreed with this idea. Countless ways that we understand the universe and it's workings are based on simple mathematical principles which are true both in microcosms and macrocosms. For example, the branch of a tree resembles the whole tree, because they are working from the same fractal law. 


 

[http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mathematical_universe.asp]

If you'd like to take a look into some of the fascinating mathematics of the universe, check of this website by Andrew Thomas that takes you through some of them.

For Pythagoras, mathematics was pure reasoning, and therefore he believed that they had greater value (and proof) than simple observation. In a way, abstract thought and deductive reasoning were seen as more important than the simple senses.

We can see this today in analysis of things that are beyond our own senses - from the atoms and microbes to the vast untouchable quantum theories that govern our universe and time itself.


Leucippus and Democritus
[The Atomic Duo] 
Early 5th century BC - 371 BC

Who were They?

 As we have seen, Thales of Miletus had already proposed that the whole cosmos was made out of one fundamental substance, in this case, water.
Leucippus and Democritus instead proposed that the universe was made up of tiny, invisible and unchangeable particles called atoms, and it was due to their existence that certain phenomena occurred, such as why light might shift even when there is no wind.
What is more, they proposed that these atoms existed in a void which allows them to move around freely, and through colliding and combining with one another objects in the world could change. While there are infinite numbers of atoms, the amount of forms they can take is ultimately finite.

Atoms were viewed as not mathematically indivisible because they had substance and weight, but they were physically indivisible because of their tiny size.
The sizes didn't have to be tiny - in theory there is no reason why an atom couldn't be the size of a planet - but that is how they worked.

  They assumed that the more clustered and larger an atom got, the more that it's movement was restricted. And the smaller an atom, the more it had space to move, creating something ethereal and fluid like flame. 

They believed then, that structure of atoms could also dissipate and that this is what happens when we die: our atoms simply disperse into the universe and can be reconstituted.


Why should I care?

Does all of this sound familiar to you?
These two were talking about atomic theory before we even had microscopes. And they achieved it with pure philosophy. How amazing is that?

They were mind-blowingly close to what we now understand as scientific reality, and in proposing atomism they also provided a completely mechanical view of the universe that required absolutely no involvement of the gods. This was revolutionary and the fundamental properties of matter that they described were vital for the development of the physical sciences from the 17thc onwards up until the present day.

...Also Democritus was an exceedingly odd looking man. So there's that.



 Socrates
[Dialectical Method]
469-399 BC

 Who was he?

 Socrates believed that 'good' and 'evil' are not relative, but are instead absolutes that you can find only by questioning and reasoning. Therefore in order to give life meaning you have to very closely examine it, and, through knowledge, you also find morality.
For example what do people understand as 'good' or 'bad'? What is 'justice'? It's pointless to use these words as shorthand unless you discover exactly what they stand for. That way, regardless of cultural differences, we can all drill down to find the core values and meanings in these words: their truth.

His key teaching, and what him famous, was the dialectical method that he used to encourage people to question these words and moralities. He always debated by taking the standpoint of a man who knew nothing and simply asked questions that would, very gradually,elicit insights. As these little blocks of information and belief were uncovered, they would build up gradually to form a 'Truth' about how people interpret key ideas.

For example 
(taken  from 'the philisopy book' p48 see sources)

Q; So you think the gods know everything?
A Yes, because they are gods.
Q:Do some gods disagree with others?
A: Yes, of course they do. They are always fighting.
Q: So Gods disagree about what is true and right?
A: I suppose they must do.
Q:So some gods can be wrong somtimes?
A: I suppose that is true.
Conclusion: Therefore the gods cannot know everything!

This form of argument through exposing contradictions was quite controversial, to the point where Aristotle was put to death for 'corrupting the minds of young Athenians'.


Why should I care?
 
Not to repeat myself throughout this article but...this is the foundation of modern science, right here! Francis Bacon, considered one of the early modern scientific greats, used Aristotle's devices as the starting point of scientific method.
Also this method is still being used today to poke holes in highly charged arguments. Turn on the internet  and, fairly or unfairly, this is the dialect that is used to contradict religious teachings. Turn on the news and this form of discussion follows any subject where our concept of justice and morals are challenged.
While we may argue about whether a 'universal truth' can ever exist outside of individual cultures and semantics, it's clear that it's a powerful form of argument.



Plato
[Shadows of Ideals]
427-347 BC

Who was he?

Widely regarded as the most studied philosopher in our group, I can't begin to properly unpick the layers of theory from my novice standpoint. However, in simpler terms, it is worth mentioning his theory of the shadow of ideals.

 Plato was a student of Socrates and in many ways extended Socrates' belief that behind our practical assumptions there is a universal Truth. Socrates believed that hiding under our many faceted opinions on an idea (eg 'justice') there was a universal and absolute truth - a fundamental definition - of that idea that could be reached by questioning it properly. (So justice becomes Justice with a capital 'J' - the one and only true form of the idea, universal across all mankind.) Similarly, Plato took this theory and applied it to the sensory world around us.
 When we think of a flower, for example, we can recognise all flowers easily as being flowers. This applies regardless of their very many colours and shapes and species: there is something fundamentally 'flower-like' that we recognise, even if we have never seen that particular species before. 

The same applies to other objects: we know a table is a table, despite the numerous designs. We recognise the 'table-ness' of it. We recognise an innate 'dogginess' about any dog we come across, even if we have never seen that breed before. 
We do the same with mathematics through reasoning. For example, we know a triangle is a triangle because of it's 'triangle-ness', that is, we've reasoned that the three interior angles of any triangle is always 180 degrees. We know the truth of this statement even though there are absolutely no 'perfect' triangles in the natural world. Perfectly straight lines, circles and triangles only exist in our own minds through reasoning. If this is true, isn't it the same for flowers, tables and dogs? Do such perfect forms exist anywhere on earth?
The answer, really, is no. Therefore Plato reasoned that there must be a world of Ideas, or Forms, which is completely separate from the material world. What we experience with our senses are only incomplete and imperfect 'shadows' of this universal truth in the world of Ideas. He believed then that our soul, which is immortal and eternal, mast have inhabited the world of Ideas before our birth and still yearns to return to this world after our death, and we recognise these imperfect objects as reflections of what we already know. A philosopher's job is to reason their way into discovering what these Ideal Forms are.
Because only true philosophers can understand these Truths about our world, Plato suggested that world leaders should be educated in philosophy.

Why should I care?

Personally, I believe that Plato is most important because he tried to understand why it is that, as humans, we can assume collective truths out of a myriad of things that are actually quite different. While on his own, Plato's theories can be hard to grasp and difficult to frame in practical reality, it is how his student took these ideas forward that is vital for the development of science as we know it...


Aristotle

[Classifying the Natural World]
384-322 BC

Who was he?

 When we was 17 Aristotle travelled to Athens to study under Plato, and stayed at his side as a student and teacher at the academy until the great philosopher's death 20 years later. He was passionate about studying wildlife and through it found that Plato's complicated and ethereal explanation of Forms was simply unnecessary. There was no need to create this hypothetical world of forms: the reality of things can already be seen on earth.

For example, if we consider an owl, we know that there are multiple species of owls, yet there is always an 'owl-ness' that we can recognise. Plato would view this 'owl-ness' as a memory of a perfect form that we carry with us from the 'World of Ideas'. For Aristotle, however, he could simply reason what this 'owl-ness' is simply a  generalisation about what all owls have in common. For example, does it fly? If yes it may be an owl, if not it is something else. Does it have feathers? If yes, it may be an owl, if no it is not an owl. Is it nocturnal? If yes it may be an owl, if no it is not an owl. Does it have a heart-shaped face? If yes it may be an owl. If no it may not be an owl. And so on and so on. By digging down in this way, individual characteristics could be included under the umbrella term 'owl', and yet the commonalities all show a distinct 'owl-ness' that we understand. A fundamental truth of what an owl is. If one takes a step back again, one could classify multiple creatures under another fundamantal common truth - eg 'birds'.

More abstract concepts such as 'virtue' 'justice' and 'beauty' can be examined in exactly the same way. If we are born as 'blank tablets' then our understanding of 'justice' is developed by our seeing multiple individual examples of justice in action. The more that these actions have in common, the more our understanding of 'justice' as a concept grows. Just like animal classification, we can classify these instances' commonality together to get a true sense of what we understand 'justice' to be, and all of this is gained through using our senses in the real world.

Why should we care? 

This way of classifying creatures is still in use today, albeit in a modified way. In the middle ages it was dubbed the scala naturae - the Great Chain of Being.  Without this approach to taxonomy, it would be almost impossible to develop the theory of evolution and to track the patterns of nature. Classification creates a foundation for biological knowledge.
For example, litte has fundamentally changed about how we identify extinct sharks, as can be seen on their wiki page:

Arirstotle, of course, had many more vital philosophical beliefs. but, for me, this is the most practical and enduring. And this vital tool for biology came from simple philosophy.



So, in conclusion, classical philosophy is relevant. It's fascinating in it's own right, but it is also historically responsible for the very way that we think. Science, Maths, History, Sociology, Psychology (and therefore medicine) and even some engineering would simply not exist in the way we use it today without the philosophical work of these people and the philosophers who followed them. Philosophy is, and never has been, a waste of time. It analyses what it is to the a thinking creature on Earth, and how we should live our short lives, and even how we should seek the answers to the workings of the universe itself. 

Philosophy isn't just relevant; it's vital.

Source:

The Philosophy Book, part of the fabulous 'Big ideas Simply Explained' series. Those books are full of both detail and clarity and are very readable. I want to dive off and learn more now, so check 'em out.

Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy