BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//208.94.116.123//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.26.9// CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH X-FROM-URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress X-WR-TIMEZONE:America/New_York BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/New_York X-LIC-LOCATION:America/New_York BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20231105T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 RDATE:20241103T020000 TZNAME:EST END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20240310T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 RDATE:20250309T020000 TZNAME:EDT END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7707@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://nygiw.tumblr.com/2021-2022 DESCRIPTION:
Eva Bockenheimer. Frederica Gregoratto. Thimo Heisenberg. Ax
el Honneth. Rahel Jaeggi. Gal Katz. Frederick Neuhouser. Andreja Novakovic
. Angelica Nuzzo. Johannes-Georg Schülein. Italo Testa.
\nApril 22-23
Time TBA
\n*In-person event
Tickets: https://forms.gle/rzEaVneRo3ohK5nu9.
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20230923 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20230925 GEO:+40.806777;-73.960523 LOCATION:Columbia Law School @ 435 W 116th St\, New York\, NY 10027\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Twin Conferences in Tribute to The Philosophy of Joseph Raz URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/twin-conferences-in-trib ute-to-the-philosophy-of-joseph-raz/ X-COST-TYPE:external X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:conference\,legal\,value X-TICKETS-URL:https://forms.gle/rzEaVneRo3ohK5nu9 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8014@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:CUNY CONTACT:https://www.telosinstitute.net/conference2024/ DESCRIPTION:Democracy is often presented as the sine qua non of politics today. Yet our own democratic political orders across the West c onsistently fail to deliver the desiderata they promise to provide. Does t his failure arise in part from the theoretical insufficiency of convention al diagnoses of democracy’s challenges and ills? As the primaries for the 2024 U.S. presidential election open\, we invite participants to consider critically the status of democracy with an eye toward the concerns that ha ve defined Telos over its 55-year history.
\nThe main advantage of d emocracy over other political forms is that\, by allowing broader particip ation in decision-making\, it prevents domination of the many by the few. In theory\, it also fosters decision-making that is comparatively effectiv e and meaningful by allowing views and information from the many to be com municated efficiently to political leaders\, while also holding the latter to account for their actions. At the same time\, a major difficulty of de mocracy is that the rule by the many requires some procedure for translati ng a multitude of opinions into unified decisions and action. In addition\ , precisely by exercising its majority will\, the many can trammel the int egrity of the individual—the key threat that liberalism seeks to hold at b ay.
\nThese advantages—and\, especially\, these challenges—have prod uced two competing visions of democracy in the contemporary West. Their di vision reflects differences about the politics of representation and decis ion-making. On one hand\, liberals view democracy as the following of appr opriate procedures for channeling the opinions of the multitude through th e election of representatives. On the other hand\, populists might disrega rd such procedural restrictions to arrive at outcomes that are acclaimed b y the people directly.
\nWhile both sides nod to the importance of t he popular will\, both are in fact willing to denigrate it. The liberal ca mp reacts in horror when democratic elections result in the election of po pulists\, who are said to lack proper governing expertise\, as in the 2016 victory of Donald Trump. The populist camp charges conspiracy when electo ral results fail to reflect their own conception of the people’s will\, as in Trump’s reaction to his 2020 ouster. Depending on which camp is descri bing the times\, the false mediator of popular will is either the demagogu e or the bureaucrat—Telos has long opposed both.
\nDifferent narrati ves\, in turn\, have taken hold about democracy’s present challenges. From the point of view of the liberal proceduralist critique of demagogues\, t he means of moving from a multiplicity of opinions to a unified decision i nevitably involves discourse within a public sphere. This discourse depend s on a common understanding of historical facts\, as well as a public sphe re that allows different perspectives to face each other in debate. In our contemporary world\, however\, the breakdown of previous limits to access ing the public sphere has led to an inability to arrive at a consensus on the difference between fact and fiction\, as well as an increasing tendenc y of citizens to exist within a social media echo chamber of their own vie ws\, undermining the common ground that a public sphere presupposes.
\nAt the same time\, public debate necessarily implicates values and iden tities that have an ultimately mythic basis that cannot be rationally dete rmined. People’s opinions\, moreover\, are invariably shaped by leaders as much as the people shape what leaders ought to do. Experts lament how thi s representational dynamic undermines the procedures that govern and chann el the representation of the popular will. Yet the narrative aspect of rep resentation is an ineradicable element of the way in which the popular wil l coalesces. The process of narrativized representation will never be an e ntirely rational one\, and the prominence of media personalities such as R eagan\, Trump\, and Zelensky as politicians underlines the futility of att empting to rid the public sphere of drama and spectacle.
\nFor the p opulist\, by contrast\, the primary threat to democracy lies in bureaucrac y. In his 2016 end run around the political establishment\, Trump’s electo ral success was driven by a broader critique of the administrative state’s undermining of democratic process. The rise of the managerial bureaucrati c state that was set in motion by the development of the welfare state in the twentieth century has created a class divide between managers and mana ged that has shifted decision-making power over the conditions of everyday life away from individuals and toward government and corporate bureaucrac ies. Because more and more of our economic and social welfare is under the direct influence of the state\, the resultant bloated administrative stat e has now become prey to a frenzy of lobbyists\, who further distance the people from political decision-making. The protections of minority rights that constitute the liberal aspect of today’s democracies have turned comm unities into special interests that lobby administrators to pass on privil eges to favored groups. The result has been a growing restriction of freed om of expression in the public sphere and an eroding of a unifying basis f or constructing a political order now dominated by the collusion of bureau cracy with corporations.
\nWhile the liberal critique of demagoguery resorts to more government controls that exacerbate the expansion of bure aucracy\, the populist critique of bureaucracy has attempted to dismantle government without considering how to establish mechanisms that would take over the functions that bureaucracies have coopted. Focusing on oppositio n to government\, the populist perspective often lacks any sense of altern ative institutional structures that could remedy the administration and co mmodification of everyday life.
\nBoth sides have contributed to a p olarization of views that threatens the underlying consensus necessary for democratic politics. The political gridlock that has ensued from their di verging diagnoses has meant that our political orders consistently fail to deliver peace\, prosperity\, and accountable government. Moreover\, regar dless of the rhetoric or credentials of those in power\, democracy today s eems always to leave us with broadly the same basic policies\, despite som e of them being deeply unpopular.
\nWe invite those who are interest ed in presenting at the 2024 Telos Conference to consider critically the s tatus of democracy today by addressing one or more of the following questi ons:
\nDemocratic Values
\nDemocracy and the Administrative State
\nDemocracy and the Public Sphere
\nDemocracy and Relig ion
\nDemocracy and Authorit arianism
\nAbstract Submi ssions
\nWhatever specific questions you address\, we invit e you to present your analysis with an eye toward the long-standing concer ns of the Telos-Paul Piccone Institute and thereby to help develop a trenc hant\, independent view of democracy that can inform both critique and pra ctical action within our present historical moment. Please submit a short c.v. and an abstract of up to 250 words by October 15\, 2023\, to telosnyc 2024@telosinstitute.net and place “The 2024 Telos Conference” in the email ’s subject line. Please direct questions to Professor Mark G. E. Kelly\, W estern Sydney University\, M.Kelly@westernsydney.edu.au.
\nC onference Location
\nThe conference will take place at the John D. Calandra Italian American Institute in New York City from Friday\, March 22\, to Saturday\, March 23\, 2024.
\n DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240322 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240324 GEO:+40.754894;-73.981856 LOCATION:The Telos-Paul Piccone Institute @ 25 W 43rd St 17th Floor\, New Y ork\, NY 10036\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Democracy Today? URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/democracy-today/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:cfp\,conference\,legal\,political\,religion\,social END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7682@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://universityseminars.columbia.edu/seminars/comparative-philos ophy/ DESCRIPTION:ABSTRACT: The Shenzi Fragments\, numbering a mere 3\,000 or so characters in length\, is all that remains of a work attribut ed to Shen Dao (ca. 350-275 BCE). While perhaps best known for his appeara nce in the Han Feizi as an advocate for positional power (勢 shi)\, he also makes an appearance in the Xunzi as one who is blinded by his focus on 法 fa (models\, standards\, laws). We will examine the fragments that discus s fa in an attempt to come to a deeper understanding of the role that thes e fragments see for the fa\, how they are to be determined\, and why Shen Dao took them to be central to a strong\, stable\, and flourishing state. The fragments\, in classical Chinese with English translations (Harris 201 6)\, are included here as a PDF attachment.
\n\n
DA TE: October 22\, 2021
\nTIME: 7:00-8:30 pm
\n\n
This seminar will take place via Zoom (please scroll down for the full invitation). Below you will find the link to join the meeting. T he attached file is an instruction manual to help you familiarize yourself with the program. In addition to familiarizing yourself with the program’ s basic functions\, there are two things we ask you to do before the meeti ng can start. First\, you will need to sign in by typing your name in the chat. Subsequently\, we will have to agree on the privacy policy for the m eeting. The privacy policy provided by the Columbia University Seminars Of fice will be read aloud. To indicate your agreement\, you will raise your virtual Zoom hand in the Participants panel. In the manual\, you will find step-by-step instructions of how to sign in and to raise your hand.
\nLead Presenter: Eirik Lang Harris
\nDiscussan ts: Alejandro Bárcenas (Texas State University)\, Yutang Jin (Princeton University)\, Mercedes Valmisa < /a>(Gettysburg College)
\nNote Regarding Donations: Due to COVID-19\, donations are only accepted through Columbia University’s secu re online giving form\, Giving to Columbia.
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20211022T190000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20211022T203000 GEO:+40.712775;-74.005973 LOCATION:ZOOM - see site for details @ New York\, NY\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:A Discussion of Fa (法) in the Shenzi: Eirik Lang Harris URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/a-discussion-of-fa-%e6%b 3%95-in-the-shenzi-eirik-lang-harris/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:Chinese\,comparative END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7745@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://nyphilsci.wordpress.com/2022/02/15/upcoming-maps-talks-spri ng-2022/ DESCRIPTION:The current pandemic has focused attention on the techniques used by epidemiologists and other non-experimental scientists to infer ca usal hypotheses from correlational data. I have previously argued* that we need to explain these techniques by reducing causal relationships to depe ndencies in systems of structural equations with probabilistically indepen dent exogenous variables. In this talk I shall aim to use this account to cast light on (a) single-case counterfactual dependence and actual causati on\, (b) the content and practical relevance of generic causal claims like “smoking causes cancer”\, (c) the temporal asymmetry of causation\, and ( d) the proper understanding of rational action under risk.
\n*In par ticular\, I’ve argued this in http:/ /weebly-file/1/8/5/5/18551740/stat_nat_csn_monist.pdf. I will also be giving a talk on it at the CUNY Logic and Metaphysics workshop on Monday 7 March 1615-1815.
\nThe talk will be on Zoom. All are welcome to att end!
\nThe zoom link will be distributed through the MAPS mailing li st. If you are not on the MAPS mailing list and would like to receive the Zoom link for the talk\, please email nyphilsci@gmail.com.
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220309T163000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220309T183000 GEO:+40.712775;-74.005973 LOCATION:Zoom @ New York\, NY\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:The Causal Structure of Reality\, David Papineau (KCL) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/the-causal-structure-of- reality-david-papineau-kcl/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:causality\,science END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7750@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://universityseminars.columbia.edu/seminars/comparative-philos ophy/ DESCRIPTION:THE COLUMBIA SOCI ETY FOR COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY
\n\n
< b>Presents: Li Zehou on the ‘Deep Str uctures of Confucianism’
\nLead Presenter: Andrew Lambert (College of Staten Island\ , CUNY)
\nDiscussa nts: Robert A. Carleo III (East China Normal University)\, Emma Bucht el (Hong Kong Education University)
\nABSTRACT: Contemporary Chinese intellectual Li Zeh ou’s cross-cultural methodology blends traditional Confucian thought with thinkers such as Kant and Marx. This seminar addresses the question of cul ture and its role in Li’s thought. Li has made several claims about how a settled cultural tradition influences the subjects within it. One such cla im concerns the existence of ‘deep structures’ of Confucianism\, as outlin ed in this preparatory reading . The idea is that culture\, history\, and social practice (col lectively\, a tradition) shape human psychology (including the formation o f concepts\, emotions\, and values) in ways not always apparent to the sub ject. Within the Chinese tradition\, Confucianism constitutes such a deep structure\, and its effects cannot be captured by textual studies alone\, nor studies of material culture. Rather\, the deep structure is articulate d in terms of an emergent shared subjectivity. Such traditions can evolve and ultimately dissolve\; nevertheless\, their effects are deep-rooted. Th is seminar meeting will aim to identify the parameters of Li’s ambitious t heoretical framework and its plausibility\, and to explore connections wit h current work in related fields\, such as cultural and empirical psycholo gy.
\nDATE: Ma rch 25\, 2022
\nTI ME: 6:30 – 8:00 pm EST
\nThis seminar will take place via Zoom (please scroll down for the full invitation). Below you will find the link to join the meeting. Here is an instruction manual to help you familiarize yourself with the program. In addition to fam iliarizing yourself with the program’s basic functions\, there are two thi ngs we ask you to do before the meeting can start. First\, you will need t o sign in by typing your name in the chat. Subsequently\, we will have to agree on the privacy policy for the meeting. The privacy policy provided b y the Columbia University Seminars Office will be read aloud. To indicate your agreement\, you will raise your virtual Zoom hand in the Participants panel. In the manual\, you will find step-by-step instructions of how to sign in and to raise your hand.
\nNote Regarding Donations: Due to COVID-19\, donations are only accepted through Columbia University’s secure online giving form \, Giving to Columbia.
\n\n
Accessibility Statement: Columbia University encourages p ersons with disabilities to participate in its programs and activities. Th e University Seminars participants with dis- abilities who anticipate need ing accommodations or who have questions about physical access may contact the Office of Disability Services at 212.85 4.2388 or disability@columbia.edu. Disabili ty accommodations\, including sign-language interpreters\, are available o n request. Requests for accommodations must be made two weeks in advance. On campus\, seminar participants with disabilities should alert a Public S afety Officer if they need assistance accessing campus.
\nPLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE: https://universityseminars.columbia.edu/seminars/co mparative-philosophy/
\nDTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220325T183000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220325T200000 GEO:+40.712775;-74.005973 LOCATION:Zoom @ New York\, NY\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Li Zehou. Deep Structures of Confucianism URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/li-zehou-deep-structures -of-confucianism/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:Chinese\,comparative\,Confucianism END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7774@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://universityseminars.columbia.edu/seminars/comparative-philos ophy/ DESCRIPTION:
THE COLUMBIA SOCI ETY FOR COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY
\nWelcomes you to an IN-PERSON meeting:
\n< p class='gmail-p2'>Allison Aitken (Columbia University)\n« A Case against Simple-mindedness: Śrīgupta on Mental Mereology »< /p>\n
With responses from Ale xander Englert (Princeton University)
\nABSTRACT: There’s a c ommon line of reasoning which supposes that the phenomenal unity of consci ous experience is grounded in a mind-like simple subject. To the contrary\ , Mādhyamika Buddhist philosophers beginning with Śrīgupta (seventh-eighth century) argue that any kind of mental simple is incoherent and thus meta physically impossible. Lacking any unifying principle\, the phenomenal uni ty of conscious experience is instead an ungrounded illusion. In this talk \, I will present an analysis of Śrīgupta’s “neither-one-nor-many argument ” against mental simples and show how his line of reasoning is driven by a set of implicit questions concerning the nature of and relation between c onsciousness and its intentional object. These questions not only set the agenda for centuries of intra-Buddhist debate on the topic\, but they are also questions to which any defender of unified consciousness or a simple subject of experience arguably owes responses.
\nDTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220513T173000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220513T193000 GEO:+40.807536;-73.962573 LOCATION:Faculty House\, Columbia U @ New York\, NY 10027\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:A Case against Simple-mindedness: Śrīgupta on Mental Mereology. All ison Aitken\, Columbia URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/a-case-against-simple-mi ndedness-srigupta-on-mental-mereology-allison-aitken-columbia/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:Buddhism\,comparative\,mind END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7870@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://universityseminars.columbia.edu/seminars/comparative-philos ophy/ DESCRIPTION:
With responses from Mark Siderits (Illinois State University)
\nABSTRACT: Budd hist philosophers often draw a distinction between two different kinds of truth: conventional truth (saṃvṭi-satya) and ultimate truth (paramārtha-sa tya). Abhidharma Buddhists philosophers typically understand this distinct ion in terms of an ontological distinction between two different kinds of entities: ultimately real entities (paramārtha-sat) and conventionally rea l entities (saṃvṛti-sat). Similar to contemporary philosophical discussion s about ordinary objects\, Buddhist philosophers debate the ontological st atus of conventional entities and the semantics of discourse concerning th em. Mark Siderits (2015\, 2021\, 2022) has influentially argued for an eli minitivist position he calls “Buddhist reductionism” that interprets the A bhidharma position as one that denies conventional entities exist but that retains discourse involving apparent reference to them. However\, in a re cent article Kris McDaniel (2019)\, a prominent defender of ontological pl uralism\, challenges that view by proposing that the Abhidharma Buddhist d istinction between conventional truth and ultimate truth be “defined up” f rom a more basic distinction between two different ways an entity can exis t: conventionally or ultimately. In this paper I argue that Saṃghabhadra’s account of conventional reality and truth does lends itself well to McDan iel’s proposal but I will also argue that the account of conventional and ultimate truth that results differs in important ways from the models he o ffers. I will end by offering a modification of McDaniel’s account of conv entional truth that is derived from Saṃghabhadra’s pluralist ontology. Tha t view will\, unlike the views suggested by both Siderits and McDaniel\, a llow for there to be ultimate truths about what is conventionally true.
\n\n
Dinner will be kindly offered by the Columbia University Seminars.
\nRSVP is required for dinner. Please email Lucilla with eating requirements at lm3335@columb ia.edu.
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220930T173000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220930T193000 GEO:+40.806753;-73.959136 LOCATION:Faculty House\, Columbia U @ 64 Morningside Dr\, New York\, NY 100 27\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Buddhist Conventional Truth and Ontological Pluralism. Laura P. Gue rrero (William & Mary) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/buddhist-conventional-tr uth-and-ontological-pluralism-laura-p-guerrero-william-mary/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:Buddhism\,metaphysics\,truth END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7872@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://universityseminars.columbia.edu/seminars/comparative-philos ophy/ DESCRIPTION:With responses from Timothy Connolly (East Stroudsburg University)
\nABSTRACT: Recent philosophical discussions on compassion focus on the value and the
nature of compassion as an emotion. Ancient Asian philosophical tradition
s such as Confucianism and Buddhism\, however\, emphasize compassion as a
character trait that should be nurtured. This paper examines the insights
drawn from these traditions to help inform the nurturing of compassion. Fo
r example\, is empathy a necessary tool? What is the role of love and car
e? Does self-reflection contribute to the process?
\n
\n
Dinner will be kindly o ffered by the Columbia University Seminars.
\nRSVP is required for dinner. Please email Lucilla with eating requ irements at lm3335@columbia.edu.< span class='gmail-Apple-converted-space'>
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20221014T173000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20221014T193000 GEO:+40.806753;-73.959136 LOCATION:Faculty House\, Columbia U @ 64 Morningside Dr\, New York\, NY 100 27\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:How to nurture compassion? Some lessons from Asian philosophical tr aditions. Sin Yee Chan (U Vermont) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/how-to-nurture-compassio n-some-lessons-from-asian-philosophical-traditions-sin-yee-chan-u-vermont/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:Buddhism\,Confucianism END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7831@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://philosophy.columbia.edu/content/colloquium-lectures-2022-20 23 DESCRIPTION:Naked Statistical Evidence and Verdictive Justice
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20221027T161000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20221027T180000 GEO:+40.807536;-73.962573 LOCATION:716 Philosophy Hall @ New York\, NY 10027\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Naked Statistical Evidence and Verdictive Justice. Sherri Roush (UC LA) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/sherri-roush-ucla/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:legal\,statistics END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7861@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://nygiw.tumblr.com/post/694621478841450496 DESCRIPTION:Please join us for a talk by Eric-John Russell (Unive rsität Potsdam)\, who will present chapters from his recently published bo ok\, Why Everything is as it Seems: Hegel and Debord. Jacob McNu lty (University College London) will provide a response followed by a Q&A with our audience.
\nGuy Debord has been called many things: pse udo-philosopher\, nihilist\, filmmaker\, megalomaniac\, strategist\, third -rate Mephistopheles. His book The Society of the Spectacle (1967) has fallen into a similarly motley reception\, frequently enveloped within the discourses of postmodernism\, media and cultural studies\, and avant- garde art history. My research however\, dispenses with such narratives an d instead offers a sustained examination of the concept of the society of the spectacle through the two pillars upon which Debord understood his own work as a critical theory of society: Marx’s critique of political econom y and Hegel’s speculative philosophy. It is the latter that will be the fo cus of my paper\, first by offering some introductory remarks on Debord’s theory of the spectacle but then arguing that it precisely the specula tive dimension of Hegel’s dialectic that remains central for Debord’s diagnosis of twentieth century capitalism\, with emphasis placed on the im portance of Hegel’s Wesenslogik. I will conclude with the historica l significance of Debord’s “heretical Hegelianism\,” specifically as an in tervention within the atmosphere of the French Hegelianism of the interwar and postwar period.
\nDTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20221216T170000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20221216T190000 GEO:+40.807536;-73.962573 LOCATION:Philosophy Hall\, rm 716 @ New York\, NY 10027\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Why Everything is as it Seems: Hegel & Debord. Eric-John Russell URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/why-everything-is-as-it- seems-hegel-debord-eric-john-russell/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:German\,Hegel\,idealism END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7964@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U\,New School for Social Research CONTACT:https://nygiw.tumblr.com/post/708636328395472896/21523-james-kreine s DESCRIPTION:
15 Feb\, 4pm:
\nJames Kreines (Claremont McKenna)
\nFrom Shapeless Abyss Towards Self-Developing Thought: Taking Hegel on Spinoza Seriously
\n@ The New School\, Room L502\, at 2 W 13th Stre et
\nGuests and visitors policies at the New School can be accessed via this website. You will have to download CLEAR an d upload proof of vaccination or the results of a rapid test. Please try t o arrive 15 minutes earlier so we can help you in case of complications. p>\n
Feb 24:
\nGeorg Spoo (Freiburg)
\nGrounds and L imits of Immanent Critique: Kant\, Hegel\, Marx
\n@ Columbia
\nMar 3:
\nHeikki Ikaheimo
\nHegel\, Humanity\, and Soc ial Critique
\n@ Zoom
\nMar 24:
\nStephen Howard (KU Leuven)
\nKant’s Late Philosophy of Nature: The Opus Postumum p>\n
@ Columbia
\nApr 11:
\nKarin de Boer
\nDo es Kant’s Antinomy of Pure Reason Amount to an A Priori History of Rationa l Cosmology?
\n@ Columbia
\nApr 15\, 4pm:
\nEva von Redecker
\nCo-sponsored by the New School Graduate Student Confe rence
\n@ The New School
\nApr 21:
\nGiulia Batt istoni
\nNAture\, Life\, Organizm: The Legacy of Romanticism and Cla ssical German Philosophy in Jonas’ Philosophical Biology
\n@ The New School
\n\n
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230215T160000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230215T180000 GEO:+40.735225;-73.994325 LOCATION:The New School L502 @ 2 W 13th St\, New York\, NY 10011\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:From Shapeless Abyss Towards Self-Developing Thought: Taking Hegel on Spinoza Seriously. James Kreines (Claremont McKenna) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/german-idealism-workshop -3/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:German\,Hegel\,idealism\,Spinoza END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7963@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://universityseminars.columbia.edu/seminars/comparative-philos ophy/ DESCRIPTION:
The COVID-19 pandemic is said to be a once-in-a-century incident\, and it brought to us a sense of crisis at v arious levels. What is a crisis\, though? Can any unnerving moment or peri od be called a crisis\, or are there different dimensions of a crisis to w hich we need to be attentive? Is solidarity possible after experiencing a crisis like Covid-19? Can Buddhism make any contribution to facilitating s olidarity? This presentation explores the meaning and nature of a crisis a nd our responses to it by drawing on modern Korean political thinker Pak C h’iu’s (1909–1949) analysis of crisis and feminist-Buddhist thinker Kim Ir yŏp’s (1896–1971) Buddhist philosophy. By doing so\, this presentation con siders what social\, political\, existential\, and even religious meaning we can draw from our experience of crises\, and what questions these insig hts present to us.
\nWith responses from Karsten Struhl (John Jay College of Criminal Ju stice\, CUNY)
\nPresented by THE COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY
\nRSVP is required for dinne r. If you would like to participate in our dinner\, a $30 fee is requi red. Please contact Lucilla at lm3335@columbia.edu for further information.
\nDTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230303T173000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230303T193000 GEO:+40.806753;-73.959136 LOCATION:Faculty House\, Columbia U @ 64 Morningside Dr\, New York\, NY 100 27\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Philosophy of Crisis and a Question of Solidarity. Jin Y. Park (Ame rican) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/philosophy-of-crisis-and -a-question-of-solidarity-jin-y-park-american/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:Buddhism\,comparative\,existentialism\,Korean\,politi cal\,religion\,social END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7977@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://universityseminars.columbia.edu/seminars/comparative-philos ophy/ DESCRIPTION:
Conceptual misalignment is a pervasive phenomenon in the stu dies of Non-Western philosophy and the History of Philosophy (NW&HP). Howe ver\, conceptual misalignment is often undetected\, unsuspected\, or seen as a hurdle that NW&HP materials need to overcome to contribute to contemp orary discussions. Specifically\, conceptual misalignment refers to the fo llowing: In the process of crystalizing NW&HP materials\, a linguistic coo rdination of concepts is formed between the speaker\, i.e.\, NW&HP\, and i ts context of contemporary anglophone philosophy. However\, in philosophic ally meaningful ways\, the original NW&HP concept and its anglophone count erpart misalign. This misalignment is particularly intricate and hard to d etect when it comes to emotion concepts\, as they are thought to involve p henomenal and/or intentional features. Through investigating the concept o f emotion in Chinese philosophy\, I propose a refocusing on conceptual mis alignment as a method of cross-cultural comparative and history of philoso phy. Moreover\, I argue that conceptual misalignment is an important resou rce for contemporary conceptual engineering and amelioration projects.
\nWith responses from Andrew Lambert (College of Staten Island\, CUNY)
\nRSVP is required for dinner. Dinner will take place at a nearby restaurant. Please contact Lucilla at lm3335@columbia.edu for fu rther information.
\nDTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230317T173000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230317T193000 GEO:+40.807527;-73.960864 LOCATION:Philosophy Hall\, Columbia @ 1150 Amsterdam Ave\, New York\, NY 10 027\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:From Conceptual Misalignment to Conceptual Engineering: A Case Stud y on Emotion from Chinese Philosophy. Wenqing Zhao (Whitman) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/from-conceptual-misalign ment-to-conceptual-engineering-a-case-study-on-emotion-from-chinese-philos ophy-wenqing-zhao-whitman/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:Chinese\,comparative\,emotion END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8044@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T113420Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:http://universityseminars.columbia.edu/seminars/comparative-philoso phy/ DESCRIPTION:
What is an appropriate response to humiliating treatm ents such as insults? This question is not only relevant to today’s discou rse but has also piqued the curiosity of thinkers in classical Chinese phi losophy. The Warring States period debate regarding whether one’s inner se nse of shame can shield one from insulting situations and from experiencin g shame is frequently presented as a one-sided narrative that focuses on t he Confucian texts. Meanwhile\, the views of their rival thinkers\, such a s the Daoist\, legalist\, or much-neglected Songzi (3rd century BCE)\, are rarely the focus of attention. This paper brings Songzi\, a key player in the debate of emotions as responses to external triggers\, into the pictu re and restores the historical intellectual discourse over the topic of wh at constitutes an appropriate response to humiliating situations such as i nsults. More importantly\, I point out the philosophical significance of t his debate\, namely how Songzi prompts Xunzi to respond to an ambiguity wi thin the Confucian doctrine: The early Confucians appear to think that an individual’s internal virtues can isolate and shield one from hostile exte rnal stimuli while also maintaining that the external environment impacts one’s moral cultivation and moral life in significant ways. Xunzi’s strate gic move\, I argue\, is to give credit to both an inner sense of shame and the function of external stimuli in inducing negative emotions\, thus mak ing an important philosophical concession compared to Confucius and Menciu s.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n< p>With responses from Nalei Chen (New York University)\n\n
ABSTRACT: Yogācāra Buddhists articulated in the 3-5th c. CE India an explicit model of how we collectively\, yet mostly unconsciously\, constru ct our shared social realities\, our cultures. These “worlds” are supporte d by cognitive processes informed by cultural influences occurring outside our conscious awareness\, in the “store-house consciousness” (ālaya-vijñā na). Through development and socialization\, we come to identify with thes e cultural norms\, thinking “I am this” and “this is mine.” Moreover\, and in agreement with cognitive scientists\, Yogācārins argue that humans hav e developed to be “innate essentialists\,” so that we imagine that our con structed social and cultural identities have their own essential\, intrins ic characteristics\, set apart from all others\, generating the “us/them” dichotomies that underlie conflicts between groups. We can counteract thes e harmful patterns\, Yogācārins say\, by analyzing how our social and cult ural “realities” are collectively constructed\, and by showing how—through logical\, psychological\, and contemplative exercises—we may weaken our u nreflective\, knee-jerk reaction to different peoples and cultures\, and t hereby foster more tolerance\, empathy and understanding for all beings. I n sum\, Yogācāra Buddhism offers a rigorous and nuanced analysis of the or igins of our prejudices and a set of methods to overcome them\, rooted in ancient traditions yet relevant to contemporary issues.
\nWith re sponses from Jonathan Gold (Princeton University)
\nDA TE: October 13th\, 2023
\nTIME: 5:30 pm EST
\nLO CATION: Philosophy Hall\, Room 716\, Columbia University
\n1150 Amsterdam Ave\, New York\, NY 10027
\nNOTE ON ENTRY FOR NON-COLUM BIA GUESTS: The door to Philosophy Hall will only open with a Columbia University ID card. If you do not have this card please arrive early wher e someone will be standing outside until the meeting begins. If you arrive late\, you can ask someone walking nearby to let you in or contact Cole a t cf27 98@columbia.edu. Please only contact Cole as a final resource so as no t to interrupt the talk.
\nThe first section of the talk will give an account of the Hi ndu-Buddhist debate about the existence of selves. The particular Hindu / Brāhmaṇical tradition concentrated on is Nyāya\, and ‘Buddhism’ is used t o refer specifically to Dharmakīrtian Buddhism with its doctrine of moment ariness. The second section looks at a Nyāya argument against Buddhism. I will argue that it is not difficult for the Buddhist to come up with a s atisfactory response. The third section will introduce the view of Rāmaka ṇṭha (950–1000 CE) and look at three of his arguments against the Buddhist view. These I view as more difficult for the Buddhist to respond to. Th e fourth section introduces the view of Galen Strawson\, relates it to the Buddhist view\, and considers the extent to which it is susceptible to Rā makaṇṭha’s arguments.
\nWith responses from Martin Lin (Ru tgers University)
\nNOTE ON ENTRY FOR NON-COLUMBIA GUESTS: b>The door to Philosophy Hall will only open with a Columbia University ID card. If you do not have this card please arrive early where someone will be standing outside until the meeting begins. If you arrive late\, you ca n ask someone walking nearby to let you in or contact Cole at cf2798@columbia.ed u. Please only contact Cole as a final resource so as not to interrupt the talk.
\nNOTE REGARDING DONATIONS: Due to COVID-19\, dona tions are only accepted through Columbia University’s secure online giving form\, Giving to Columbia.
\nRSVP is required for dinner. Di nner will take place at a nearby restaurant. Please contact Cole at cf2798@colum bia.edu for further information.
\nComparative Philosophy Semina r:
\nHow doe s the imagination change us? Why should picturing ourselves a certain way have any real effect on what we are? These questions are central to debate s in Buddhist tantric literature regarding the generation stage (utpatt ikrama)\, wherein practitioners visualize themselves as buddhas enscon sed in magnificent mandala-palaces. For some\, this practice is what sets Buddhist tantra apart: through this “yoga of the imagination\,” as David S hulman puts it\, a practitioner can achieve buddhahood in a single lifetim e. And yet\, as the Buddhist tantric author Indrabhūti (8th century) argue s\, a pauper who imagines himself to be a king does not thereby become one —so\, in the same way\, practitioners who visualize themselves as buddhas will not thereby become buddhas. The mental imagery (ākāra) involve d in this practice is just so much unreal fabrication. Why should it have real transformative effects? I’ll consider here how these debates played o ut in Sanskrit Buddhist tantric texts from the 10th–11th centuries. I’ll f ocus on early authors in the Kālacakra tradition\, who upheld Indrabhūti’s critique of the generation stage\, and authors like Ratnākaraśānti\, Vāgī śvarakīrti\, and Advayavajra (aka Maitrīpa)\, who each in their own way cr itiqued mental imagery yet defended the importance and effectiveness of ge neration-stage practice. In the first part of the paper\, I’ll consider ar guments against mental imagery as these appear in generation-stage practic e texts and the early Kālacakra tradition. In the second part\, I’ll turn to why we might think unreal mental imagery can nevertheless have real tra nsformative effects\, paying special attention to the ways Buddhist tantri c authors writing in Sanskrit take up ideas from the tradition of dramatic theory (nāṭyaśastra) and Sanskrit culture more broadly.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nW ith responses from Thomas Yarnall (Columbia University)
\n div>\nDATE: February 2nd\, 2024 p>\n
TIME: 5:30 pm EST
\nLOCATION: Philosophy Hall\, Room 716\, Columbia University
\n1150 Amsterdam Ave\, New York\, NY 10027
\nNOTE ON ENTRY FOR NON-COLUMBIA GUESTS: The door to P hilosophy Hall will only open with a Columbia University ID card. If you d o not have this card please arrive early where someone will be standing ou tside until the meeting begins. If you arrive late\, you can ask someone w alking nearby to let you in or contact Cole at cf2798@columbia.edu. Please o nly contact Cole as a final resource so as not to interrupt the talk.
\nNOTE REGARDING DONATIONS: Due to COVID-19\, donations are only accepted through Columbia University’s secure online giving form\, Giving to Columbia.
\nRSVP is required for dinner. Dinner will take place at a nearby restaurant. Please contact Cole at cf2798@columbia.edu fo r further information.
\nACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT: Columbia Un iversity encourages persons with disabilities to participate in its progra ms and activities. The University Seminars’ participants with dis- abiliti es who anticipate needing accommodations or who have questions about physi cal access may contact the Office of Disability Services at 212.854.2388 o r disability@columbia.edu. Disability accommodations\, including sign-la nguage interpreters\, are available on request. Requests for accommodation s must be made two weeks in advance. On campus\, seminar participants with disabilities should alert a Public Safety Officer if they need assistanc e accessing campus.
\nPLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE: https://universityseminars.columbia.edu/seminar s/comparative-philosophy/
\n(Please do not reply to this anno uncement. You may contact the Co-Chairs using the link above.)
\n< p>Comparative Philosophy Seminar:\n\n
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240202T173000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240202T193000 GEO:+40.811099;-73.962729 LOCATION:Columbia Religion @ 80 Claremont Ave\, New York\, NY 10027\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Mental Imagery\, Tantric Practice\, and the Drama of the Imaginatio n. Davey K. Tomlinson (Villanova) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/mental-imagery-tantric-p ractice-and-the-drama-of-the-imagination-davey-k-tomlinson-villanova/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:Buddhism\,comparative\,imagination END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR- January 19 – Alex Watson (Ashoka University)
\n- February 2 – Davey Tomlinson (Villanova Univ ersity)
\n- April 5 – Laura Specker (Fordham University)
\n- M ay 3 – Daniel Stephens (University at Buffalo)
\n