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-8000@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T102414Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Fordham CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/110241 DESCRIPTION:
Richard J. Bernstein first encountered John Dewey’s pragmati st naturalism as a graduate student at Yale University\, where “Dewey’s n aturalistic vision of the relation of experience and nature—how human bein gs as natural creatures are related to the rest of nature—spoke deeply to me.” This early enthusiasm for Dewey’s naturalistic vision never left him. During the final years of his long life\, Bernstein finished two books th at return to issues of pragmatist naturalism.
\n· His Prag matic Naturalism: John Dewey’s Living Legacy (2020)\, traces differin g versions of Deweyan naturalism in the works of contemporary philosophers \, including Robert Brandom\, John McDowell\, Richard Rorty\, Wilfrid Sell ars\, Peter Godfrey-Smith\, Philip Kitcher\, Bjorn Ramberg\, David Macarth ur\, Steven Levine\, Mark Johnson\, Robert Sinclair\, Huw Price\, and Jose ph Rouse.
\n· In his final book\, The Vicissitudes of Natu re (2022)\, Bernstein clarifies his own pragmatist naturalis m in relation to the thinking of earlier modern philosophers: Spinoza\, Hu me\, Kant\, Hegel\, Marx\, Nietzsche\, and Freud.
\nThis conference will critically assess and expand the legacy of Bernstein’s final pragmati c naturalism as expressed in these two books. Accepted papers will be coll ected for publication.
\nThe New York Pragmatist Forum
\nPaper topics may include:
\n● Ber nstein’s discussion of Dewey’s thinking in relation to contemporary philos ophers’ formulations of naturalism in Pragmatic Naturalism: John Dewey ’s Living Legacy.
\n● Bernstein’s interpretation of an ear lier thinker’s understanding of naturalism or nature in The Vicissitud es of Nature (Spinoza\, Hume\, Kant\, Hegel\, Marx\, Nietzsche\, or F reud).
\n● A larger theme or problem that brings one of these B ernstein’s texts into conversation with philosophical naturalism\, either particular expressions or conceptual issues.
\n● The consequenc es of one or both of these texts for questions of naturalism in relation t o wider social and political questions\, e.g.\, democracy\, praxis\, criti que.
\nAbstracts: Please submit an abstract of no m ore than 500 words to tara@newschool.edu.
\nSubmission Deadline: May 22\, 2023
\nNYPF Conferen ce Committee:
\nSergio Gallegos\, John Jay College of Criminal Justi ce
\nJudith Green\, Fordham University
\nBrendan Hogan\, New Yo
rk University
Tara Mastrelli\, New School for Social Research
\nDavid Woods\, New York University
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20230929 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20231001 GEO:+40.770718;-73.98539 LOCATION:Fordham University at Lincoln Center @ Leon Lowenstein Center\, 11 3 W 60th St\, New York\, NY 10023\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Nature’s Vicissitudes: Richard J. Bernstein’s final pragmatic natur alism URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/natures-vicissitudes-ric hard-j-bernsteins-final-pragmatic-naturalism/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:cfa\,conference\,naturalism\,pragmatism END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8089@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T102414Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:New School for Social Research CONTACT:https://sites.google.com/newschool.edu/unmasking-objectivity/home DESCRIPTION:How does objectivity shape power\, and how does power shape objectivity?
\nWelcome to “Unmasking Object ivity: A Critical Examination of the Nexus between Universal Truth Claims and Emergent Power Structures\,” a conference that plunges into the intric ate relationship between knowledge and power. In this conference\, we will uncover how epistemological standpoints intersect with systems of coercio n\, marginalization\, and oppression. Our topic extends to alternative vis ions of knowledge\, truth\, and learning\, offering the potential for shar ed beliefs while addressing the adverse impacts of entrenched power struct ures.
\nHow have claims to absolute\, objective\, or scientific trut h driven oppression through ideologies like religious absolutism\, colonia lism\, technocracy\, and scientific sexism and racism? Contemporary debate s further emphasize the significance of this intersection.
\nOur dis course will also scrutinize epistemic injustice\, examining whether univer salist epistemologies privilege specific knowledge systems while silencing valid alternatives. We aim to shed light on social and political issues o verlooked by dominant knowledge frameworks through inclusive dialogues. Th is conference fosters critical exploration and inclusive discourse\, drawi ng on interdisciplinary studies in philosophy\, sociology\, and political theory.
\nTogether\, we will assess the ethical implications of our epistemological practices and explore pathways to creating more equitable systems of knowledge and social learning. Join us at “Unmasking Objectivit y” as we navigate the intricate web of knowledge and power\, aiming for a just and inclusive future where the notion of objectivity is both scrutini zed and harnessed for social transformation.
\n\n\n\nSocrates’ close association of madness and philosophy from the Phaedrus’ Palinode has puzzled interpreter s. How can philosophy be equated to irrationality? In this paper I argue a gainst interpretations that either deny that the association of madness an d philosophy ought to be taken seriously or downplay this association by c onsidering madness as akin to the unreflective inspiration characterizing only the first stages of philosophizing but subsequently overcome by the mature philosopher. I show that the association of madness and philosophy is an integral part of Socrates’ polemics against what he calls “human mod eration”\, characterized by a cold calculation of costs and benefits. And\ , moreover\, that madness is an ongoing feature of philosophy and of the p hilosopher\, who is never fully in possession of all his rational and cogn itive processes but has to constantly work on them in an effort of self-cl arification.
\n\n
External visitors must comply with the univ ersity’s guest policy as outlined here: https://www.newschool.edu/covid-19 /campus-access/?open=visitors.
\nAudience members must s how proof of a full COVID-19 vaccination series (and booster if eligible)\ , ID\, and remain masked at all times.
\n\n
Tickets: https:/ /event.newschool.edu/philosophycolloquiumarruzza.
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220908T180000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220908T200000 GEO:+40.73702;-73.992243 LOCATION:Wolff Conference Room/D1103 @ 6 E 16th St\, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:The Madness of Philosophy & the Limitations of Human Moderation in Plato’s Phaedrus”. Cinzia Arruzza (NSSR) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/the-madness-of-philosoph y-the-limitations-of-human-moderation-in-platos-phaedrus-cinzia-arruzza-ns sr/ X-COST-TYPE:external X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:Plato\,rationality X-TICKETS-URL:https://event.newschool.edu/philosophycolloquiumarruzza END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7897@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T102414Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:New School for Social Research CONTACT:https://event.newschool.edu/philosophycolloquiumkamtekar DESCRIPTION:What makes right acts right? A Stoic answer to R oss’s question.
\nWhen W.D. Ross poses the question\, “what makes right acts right?” (The Right and the Good ch. 2)\, he is aski ng a question that is prior to the deliberative question\, “how do I deter mine the right thing to do?” The Stoics recognize this: in De Officiis 1.7 \, Cicero says that every inquiry about duty has two parts: (1) a theoreti cal part concerned with the end of goods and evils\, which addresses such matters as whether all duties are perfect\, whether some are more importan t than others\, and what are the kinds of duties\, and (2) a practical par t which sets out rules (praecepta) by which our conduct can be made to con form with the end. This paper focuses on (1) and in particular asks Ross’ s question about Stoic right actions (kathêkonta).
\n\n
The endpoint of Stoic deliberation is determining what token action is the rig ht action. The paper begins with the Stoic distinction between a thing’s choiceworthiness\, its intrinsic disposition to elicit a choice response i n a suitable subject\, and its possession being to-be-chosen. The determin ation of what is to-be-done is made by weighing against each other all the values of the relevant action types specified by their content (the so-ca lled ‘intermediate actions’) that are in accordance with nature\, as Stoic value theory says that according with nature is an objective reason to do an action. What constitutes the rightness of the token right action\, an d is given in its reasonable defense\, is the same as what constitutes the rightness of a perfect (katorthôma) action. The Stoic distinction betw een right and perfect action depends on the action’s moral goodness—not ri ghtness—which is due to its causal origin.
\nPresented by Professor< a href='https://philosophy.cornell.edu/rachana-kamtekar'> Rachana Kamtekar (Cornell University)
\nTickets: http s://event.newschool.edu/philosophycolloquiumkamtekar.
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20221117T180000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20221117T200000 GEO:+40.73702;-73.992243 LOCATION:Wolff Conference Room/D1103 @ 6 E 16th St\, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Rachana Kamtekar: What makes right acts right? A Stoic answer to Ro ss’s question URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/rachana-kamtekar-what-ma kes-right-acts-right-a-stoic-answer-to-rosss-question/ X-COST-TYPE:external X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:ancient\,ethics X-TICKETS-URL:https://event.newschool.edu/philosophycolloquiumkamtekar END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7938@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T102414Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:New School for Social Research CONTACT:https://event.newschool.edu/gwengrewal DESCRIPTION:Book discussion on Gwenda-lin Grewal’s\, Thinking A bout Death in Plato’s Euthydemus. A Close Reading and New Translation (OUP 2022)
\n\n
Speakers:
\nGwenda-lin Grewal (NSSR)
\nCinzia A
rruzza (NSSR)
\nNicholas Pappas (CUNY)
\n
Thinking of Death places Plato’s Euthydemus among the dialo gues that surround the trial and death of Socrates. A premonition of philo sophy’s fate arrives in the form of Socrates’ encounter with the two-heade d sophist pair\, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus\, who appear as if they are t he ghost of the Socrates of Aristophanes’ Thinkery. The pair vacillate bet ween choral ode and rhapsody\, as Plato vacillates between referring to th em in the dual and plural number in Greek. Gwenda-lin Grewal’s close readi ng explores how the structure of the dialogue and the pair’s back-and-fort h arguments bear a striking resemblance to thinking itself: in its immersi ve remove from reality\, thinking simulates death even as it cannot concei ve of its possibility. Euthydemus and Dionysodorus take this to an extreme \, and so emerge as the philosophical dream and sophistic nightmare of bei ng disembodied from substance. The Euthydemus is haunted by philosophy’s t enuous relationship to political life. This is played out in the narration through Crito’s implied criticism of Socrates-the phantom image of the At henian laws-and in the drama itself\, which appears to take place in Hades . Thinking of death thus brings with it a lurid parody of the death of thi nking: the farce of perfect philosophy that bears the gravity of the city’ s sophistry. Grewal also provides a new translation of the Euthydemus that pays careful attention to grammatical ambiguities\, nuances\, and wit in ways that substantially expand the reader’s access to the dialogue’s myste ries.
\nThe importance of incorporating value pluralism into a theor y of justice is recognized in many conceptualizations of justice. This plu ralism is often seen as a reason to attend to a range of perspectives\, pe rspectives which can function as a source of information in determining wh ich principles should guide justice. However\, philosophy’s ability to pro perly attend to different perspectives has received extensive attention in the criticisms of various non-ideal theorists\, who argue that ideal-theo retical philosophy runs the risk of excluding important aspects of actual social problems. Taking these criticisms on board\, this paper builds on n on-ideal theory by arguing for a Wittgensteinian family resemblance approa ch to justice. I will explain how this linguistic practice-embedded unders tanding of justice can be a helpful tool for non-ideal theory\, as it can give us insight into why\, in various similar but different cases\, the no tion of justice is seen as applicable. In light of this approach\, I will suggest a reorientation of the pluralist demand towards an empirical start ing point.
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20231103T160000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20231103T180000 GEO:+40.73702;-73.992243 LOCATION:New School room 1101 @ 6 E 16th St\, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Non-Idea Justice: A Family Resemblance Approach. Nadia ben Hassine (Cambridge) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/non-idea-justice-a-famil y-resemblance-approach-nadia-ben-hassine-cambridge/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:justice\,social\,wittgenstein END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8051@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T102414Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:New School for Social Research CONTACT:https://event.newschool.edu/rachanakamtekar DESCRIPTION:When W.D. Ross poses the question “what makes right acts rig ht?” (The Right and the Good\, ch. 2)\, he is asking a question t hat is prior to\, and has a bearing on\, the practical question “how do I determine the right thing to do?” The Stoics recognize this. Cicero (D e Officio\, where he is referring to Panaetius’ work Peri Kathêk ontos) tells us that every inquiry about duty has two parts: (1) a th eoretical part concerned with the end of good and evil deeds\, which addre sses such matters as whether all duties are perfect (omniane official perfecta sint)\, whether some are more important than others\, and wh at the kinds of duties are\, and (2) a practical part which sets out rules (praecepta) by which our conduct can be made to conform with the end (De Officiis\, 1.7). While Cicero himself focuses on the se cond\, this paper seeks the answer to the first part.
\n\n
Ra chana Kamtekar is a Professor of Philosophy and Classics at Cornell Univer sity and has written on many topics in ancient philosophy and contemporary moral psychology. Her monograph\, Plato’s Moral Psychology: Intellect ualism\, the Divided Soul and the Desire for Good\, was published in 2017. She is currently working on the relationship between action and cha racter in ancient Greek ethics.
\nDTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20231116T180000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20231116T200000 GEO:+40.73702;-73.992243 LOCATION:Wolff Conference Room/D1103 @ 6 E 16th St\, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Chrysippus on What Makes Right Acts Right. Rachana Kamtekar (Cornel l) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/chrysippus-on-what-makes -right-acts-right-rachana-kamtekar-cornell/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:ancient\,ethics END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8108@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T102414Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Fordham CONTACT:abagchi@law.fordham.edu\; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DNgHQ XWhXRqJ8ALCoYyZHAVSbiY9z8jC/edit DESCRIPTION:
Th 1/25/24: Kate Manne
\nTh 2/1/24: Scott Shapiro
\nTh 2/8/24: Ekow Yankah
\nTh 2/15/24: Tommie Shelby
\nTh 2 /22/24 Gideon Rosen
\nTh 2/29/24: Sabeel Rahman
\nTh 3/7/24: A my Sepinwall
\nTh 3/14/24: Erik Encarnacion
\nTh 3/21/24: Seyl a Benhabib
\nTh 4/4/24: Amalia Amaya
\nTh 4/11/24: Debbie Hell man
\nTh 4/18/24: Mala Chatterjee
\nTh 4/25/24: Liam Murphy
\nContact Aditi Bagchi: https://www.fordham.edu/school -of-law/faculty/directory/full-time/aditi-bagchi/
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240125T160000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240125T190000 GEO:+40.861457;-73.885277 LOCATION:Fordham Law @ Bronx County\, Bronx\, NY 10458\, USA RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240201T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240208T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240215T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240222T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240229T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240307T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240314T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240321T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240404T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240411T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240418T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240425T160000 SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Law & Philosophy Colloquium URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/law-philosophy-colloquiu m/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:legal END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8140@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T102414Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:New School for Social Research CONTACT:https://event.newschool.edu/eyoewara DESCRIPTION:This talk reads contemporary debates about structural racism and US history from the perspective of philosophical questions about iden tity and difference. While many people have argued that America needs to c ome to terms with or “work through” the racism in its history that has sha ped and continues to shape its present structures\, it remains difficult t o explain what connects this past and the present. Are we talking about on e racism with many different past and present forms? Or are there multiple racisms that only share some similar features? In this talk\, I draw atte ntion to how these divisions play out particularly in contemporary Black S tudies and argue that the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze can offer us resour ces for thinking about these questions through his discussions of repetiti on. I argue that understanding our conversations about structural racism a nd history as conversations about a racism that repeats\, can help us to b etter understand why racism seems to reappear\, how to think its disparate forms together\, and what presuppositions operate in many attempts to “wo rk through” the past.
\nBio: Eyo Ewara is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University Chicago. His teaching and re search explores the relationships between 20th Century Continental Philoso phy\, Critical Philosophy of Race\, and Queer Theory. His work has appear ed in Theory and Event\, Puncta\, Philosophy Today\, Critical Philosophy o f Race\, Political Theology\, and other venues. His current research proje ct is particularly interested in engaging work in Continental Philosophy\, Queer Theory\, and Black Studies to address questions of identity and dif ference amongst concepts of race\, forms of racism\, and forms of anti-rac ism. How can we better account for the relations between at times radicall y disparate concepts\, structures\, and practices such that they can all s pecifically and recognizably be called racial? What might our account of t hese relations say about our ability to address racism’s harms?
\nTi ckets: https://event.newschool.edu/eyoewara.
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240328T180000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240328T200000 GEO:+40.73702;-73.992243 LOCATION:Wolff Conference Room/D1103 @ 6 E 16th St\, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Strange Returns: Racism\, Repetition and Working Through the Past presented by Eyo Ewara URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/strange-returns-racism-r epetition-and-working-through-the-past-presented-by-eyo-ewara/ X-COST-TYPE:external X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:history\,race X-TICKETS-URL:https://event.newschool.edu/eyoewara END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR