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-7764@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress
DTSTAMP:20240329T054123Z
CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:CUNY
CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/98534
DESCRIPTION:
\n
The New York University Center for
Bioethics is pleased to invite submissions of abstracts for the 3rd Annual
Philosophical Bioethics Workshop\, to be held at NYU on Friday and Saturd
ay\, April 28-29\, 2023.
\n
We are seeking to showcase new work in ph
ilosophical bioethics\, broadly understood. This includes (but is not limi
ted to) neuroethics\, environmental ethics\, animal ethics\, reproductive
ethics\, research ethics\, ethics of AI\, data ethics\, public health ethi
cs\, gender and race in bioethics\, and clinical ethics.
\n
Our disti
nguished keynote speaker will be Professor Ruth Chang\, University of Oxfo
rd. There will be five additional slots for papers chosen from among the s
ubmitted abstracts\, including one slot set aside for a graduate student s
peaker. The most promising graduate student submission will be awarded a G
raduate Prize\, which includes an award of $500\, and may include coverage
of travel expenses\, depending upon university policies at the time of th
e award. Please indicate in your submission email whether you would like t
o be considered for the Graduate Prize.
\n
Please submit extended abs
tracts of between 750 and 1\,000 words to philosophicalbioethics@gmail.com
by 11:59 pm Eastern Time on Sunday\, January 22\, 2023. Abstracts should
be formatted for blind review\, and papers should be suitable for presenta
tion in 30-35 minutes. Email notifications will be sent out by Friday\, Fe
bruary 10\, 2023.
\n
When submitting your abstract\, please also indi
cate whether you would be interested in serving as a commentator-chair in
the event that your abstract is not selected for presentation. We will be
inviting five additional participants to serve as commentator-chairs.
\n
This year’s Philosophical Bioethics Workshop is organized by S. Matth
ew Liao\, Daniel Fogal\, Claudia Passos-Ferreira\, Stephanie Beardman\, Da
n Khokar\, and Jonathan Knutzen of the NYU Center for Bioethics.
\n
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20230428
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20230430
GEO:+40.729457;-73.994348
LOCATION:Center for Bioethics\, NYU @ 5 Washington Pl\, New York\, NY 10003
\, USA
SEQUENCE:0
SUMMARY:3rd Annual Philosophical Bioethics Workshop
URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/3rd-annual-philosophical
-bioethics-workshop/
X-COST-TYPE:free
X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:bioethics\,cfp\,conference
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:ai1ec-7947@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress
DTSTAMP:20240329T054123Z
CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:NYU
CONTACT:https://theassc.org/assc-26/
DESCRIPTION:
\n
\n
We are pleased to announce that the 26th annual meeting
of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness will be held
at New York University on June 22-25\, 2023.
\n
Submissions for talks and poste
rs are now open with a deadline of February 15\, 2023. Conference registration will open
in early 2023.
\n
Ke
ynote speakers\, sympo
sia\, tutorials\,
and housing have now b
een arranged\, as specified below.
\n
Please direct any inquiries to
ASSC26@nyu.
edu.
\n
We hope to see you soon in New York!
\n
Ned Bloc
k and David Chalmers\, Conference Directors
\n
\n
\n
T
ickets: https://theassc.org/assc-26/#registration.
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20230622
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20230626
GEO:+40.730564;-73.999586
LOCATION:Vanderbilt Hall @ Vanderbilt Hall\, 40 Washington Square S\, New Y
ork\, NY 10012\, USA
SEQUENCE:0
SUMMARY:Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness Conference
URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/association-for-the-scie
ntific-study-of-consciousness-conference/
X-COST-TYPE:external
X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:cfp\,conference\,consciousness
X-COST:$150-550
X-TICKETS-URL:https://theassc.org/assc-26/#registration
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:ai1ec-8009@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress
DTSTAMP:20240329T054123Z
CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:CUNY
CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/111762
DESCRIPTION:
After the stimulating discussion at the Conference on Philos
ophy in the Pandemic Generation\, participants decided then and there to b
egin something bigger: The Society for Philosophers of the Pandemic Genera
tion. This group is open to any and all who feel that the pandemic influen
ced them during their formative years of philosophical training.
\n
T
he First Conference of the Society for Philosophers of the Pandemic Genera
tion welcomes abstracts:
\n
That explicitly engage with the role of p
andemics\, epidemics\, and the unique challenges\, academic or otherwise\,
of 2020-2023.
\n
That are the result of a research project in philos
ophy conceived or written during\, or affected by\, said challenges.
\n
That may be on a range of topics that need not be limited by content\,
this includes topics on the crossroads of philosophy and another disciplin
e.
\n
We encourage PhD students and early career researchers to submi
t an abstract\, particularly those whose philosophical research overlaps w
ith the timing of the pandemic. The objective of the conference is to prov
ide a platform for graduate and postgraduate philosophers to present their
work to peers\, and to discuss experiences and research from the past thr
ee years. Ideas do not have to be finished or perfect\; it can be work in
progress. We also encourage undergraduate students of philosophy affected
by the pandemic to submit research for a special showcase portion of the c
onference.
\n
Formal requirements:
\n
Abstracts should be suitab
le for a 30-minute presentation.
\n
Abstracts should be written in En
glish.
\n
Abstracts for papers should be fully anonymised.
\n
Ab
stracts should not exceed 500 words\, including references.
\n
Your a
bstract will be anonymously reviewed.
\n
There is no registration fee
for this conference. However\, travel and stay costs cannot be reimbursed
.
\n
The deadline for submissions is
\n
15 August 2023 to: pande
micgenerationphilosophy@gmail.com
\n
The conference will be held:
\n
September 1 and 2\, the CUNY Graduate Center
\n
Organizers:
\n
V Alexis Peluce
\n
Liam D. Ryan
\n
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20230901
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20230903
GEO:+40.748789;-73.984092
LOCATION:CUNY Grad Center @ 365 5th Ave\, New York\, NY 10016\, USA
SEQUENCE:0
SUMMARY:First Conference of the Society for Philosophers of the Pandemic Ge
neration
URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/first-conference-of-the-
society-for-philosophers-of-the-pandemic-generation/
X-COST-TYPE:free
X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:cfa\,cfp\,conference
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:ai1ec-8013@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress
DTSTAMP:20240329T054123Z
CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:CUNY
CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/112490
DESCRIPTION:
Keynote: Harry Brighouse (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
p>\n
Pedagogy Workshop Leader: TBA
\n
Location: The Graduate Center
\, CUNY—New York\, New York
\n
Abstracts & Workshop Applications due:
July 31st 2023
\n
Responses: August 31st 2023
\n
Organizers: Mi
chael Greer (CUNY)\, Maria Salazar (CUNY)
\n
Contact email: gscope.co
mmittee@gmail.com
\n
The committee for the Graduate Student Conferenc
e on Philosophy of Education (GSCOPE) invites abstracts for papers on the
topic of Higher Education\, Democracy\, and Controversy. The theme of the
conference & post-conference pedagogy workshop reflects the difficulty in
creating and maintaining respectful discourse in higher-education classroo
ms\, especially surrounding controversial empirical\, moral\, and politica
l issues. Some argue that this is an equity issue. Undergraduate students
who come from rural and/or underprivileged areas are more likely to experi
ence alienation on campus\, sometimes because they have never been exposed
to certain “politically correct” language or ideas\, and sometimes simply
because they lack the financial and social capital that their peers have.
It seems crucial (and follows from democratic and civic values) to foster
safe learning environments for all students\, especially those students w
ho are more likely to feel alienated on college campuses and in elite spac
es. At the same time\, some argue that the aim of higher education is pure
ly epistemological\, and not civic or democratic. Proponents of this view
might hold that free speech and academic freedom must be properly protecte
d for higher education to perform its proper social function: education. W
hat is the appropriate relationship between higher education\, knowledge-p
roduction\, teaching\, free speech\, and democracy? How can higher educati
on instructors and professors be effective teachers in the light of these
relationships?
\n
Papers must pertain to higher educationbut maybe ab
out anything from interpersonal classroom dynamicstoinstitutional policies
to campus controversy. We are particularly interested in papers that expl
ore the following topics:
\n
\n- Philosophical issues around teach
ing controversy
\n
\n
\n- Navigating different identities in
the classroom and on campus
\n- Free speech and controversial issues
in classrooms and on campus
\n- Differential roles of various highe
r education actors when it comes to protecting free speech (administration
\, tenured professors\, students\, residential life)
\n
\n
\nTraining (or lack thereof) of graduate students to be teachers and the i
mpact of this on teaching in our current political moment\n
\n
\n- Theright relationship(s) between democracy\, knowledge\,free speech
\, and higher education
\n
\n
\n- The role of controversy in
democracy
\n- The relationship between controversy and equality
\n
\n
\n- Teaching as an equity issue – how education might foste
r or impede different kinds of equity (class equity\, racial equity\, urba
n/rural equity\, gender equity)
\n
\n
\n- Disagreement in cla
ssrooms
\n
\n
\n- Epistemological issues around disagreement
and understanding
\n- Trust in classrooms
\n- Pedagogical tool
s to cope with disagreement in classrooms
\n- Philosophical views on
coming to understanding from different social locations\, epistemic commi
tments\, and material circumstances
\n
\n
We especially welcome
contributions that:
\n
\n- Think about universities outside of the
“top 50” and the “top 500” — we want our conversation to reflect issues f
ound across the entire spectrum of international higher ed institutions\n
- Engage with CUNY-specific issues and offer CUNY-specific solutions
\n
\n
Abstracts should:
\n– Outline the paper’s principal
argument(s).
\n– Give a good sense of the paper’s philosophical and/o
r empirical contributions and methods.
\n– Be anonymized.
\n
Pro
posal Guidelines:
\n
Please submit abstracts of up to 500 words by mi
dnight EST on Monday\, July 31\, 2023.
\n
PDF or DOC.X by email to gs
cope.committee@gmail.com
\n
Post-Conference Pedagogy Workshop
\n
The theme of our conference Higher Education\, Democracy\, and Contro
versy is relevant to graduate student educators\, who are routinely u
nder-trained and under-equipped to engage with real-life problems they may
encounter in the classroom. The lack of training for higher education tea
chers is a growing iue in philosophy of education.
\n
This workshop a
ttends to this issue by facilitating a space for graduate student educator
s to reflect on how to foster good teaching environments for controversial
issues\, and be good interlocutors with each other on controversial issue
s. The workshop will also touch on promoting equity in classrooms. We will
provide workshop participants with a certificate of completion.
\n
h
ttps://philevents.org/event/show/112546
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20231012
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20231015
GEO:+40.748789;-73.984092
LOCATION:CUNY Grad Center @ 365 5th Ave\, New York\, NY 10016\, USA
SEQUENCE:0
SUMMARY:GSCOPE 2023: Higher Education\, Democracy\, and Controversy
URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/gscope-2023-higher-educa
tion-democracy-and-controversy/
X-COST-TYPE:free
X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:cfp\,conference\,epistemology\,ethics\,social
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:ai1ec-8014@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress
DTSTAMP:20240329T054123Z
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.
\n
The 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.
\n
These 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.
\n
While 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.
\n
Different 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.
\n
At 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.
\n
For 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.
\n
While 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.
\n
Both 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.
\n
We 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:
\n
Democratic Values
\n
\n- Does democr
acy have a value of its own independent of its practical consequences?
\n- What kinds of basic agreements on principles are necessary to maint
ain a democracy?
\n- Is there a limit to diversity in a democracy?
li>\n
- To what extent is polarization itself a threat to democracy?
\n- What is the relationship between democracy and liberalism?
\n\nDemocracy and the Administrative State
\n\n
- To what extent is the consistent reality of all self-styled “democraci
es” of the world today a form of managerial governance that resists change
from below?
\n- What role is left in an age of managerialism for th
e popular will?
\n- Might the appropriate response to managerialism
not be more democracy\, both at the level of the state but also inside cor
porate and workplace structures\, e.g.\, through workers’ self-management?
\n
\nDemocracy and the Public Sphere
\n\n- What is the role of representation in a democracy\, and how do toda
y’s representational processes threaten democratic decision-making?
\n
- How have social media and artificial intelligence changed the way in w
hich democratic processes function\, and what changes to these processes m
ight be necessary in the future to accommodate these new technological dev
elopments?
\n- To what extent and in what ways does the public spher
e function in today’s democracies? What kinds of limitations are necessary
to guarantee the functioning of the public sphere as a space for democrat
ic debate and decision-making?
\n
\nDemocracy and Relig
ion
\n\n- What role is there for religion in today’s dem
ocracies?
\n- To what extent does either secularization or religion
pose a threat to democracy?
\n
\nDemocracy and Authorit
arianism
\n\n- What is the relationship between democrac
y and authoritarianism? Do the current ills of democracy promote a global
shift toward authoritarian government?
\n- What are the key componen
ts of democracy that differentiate it from authoritarianism? Where do coun
tries such as Hungary\, Turkey\, India\, and Russia fall on the continuum
from democracy to authoritarianism?
\n
\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-8100@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress
DTSTAMP:20240329T054123Z
CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:NYU
CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/117065
DESCRIPTION:\n
The New York University Center for
Bioethics is pleased to invite submissions of abstracts for the 4th Annual
Philosophical Bioethics Workshop\, to be held at NYU on Friday and Saturd
ay\, May 3-4\, 2024.
\n
We are seeking to showcase new work in philos
ophical bioethics\, broadly understood. This includes (but is not limited
to) neuroethics\, environmental ethics\, animal ethics\, reproductive ethi
cs\, research ethics\, ethics of AI\, data ethics\, public health ethics\,
gender and race in bioethics\, and clinical ethics.
\n
Our keynote s
peaker will be Professor Shelly Kagan\, Yale University. There will be fiv
e additional slots for papers chosen from among the submitted abstracts\,
including one slot set aside for a graduate student speaker. The most prom
ising graduate student submission will be awarded a Graduate Prize\, which
includes an award of $500\, and may include coverage of travel expenses\,
depending upon university policies at the time of the award. Please indic
ate in your submission email whether you would like to be considered for t
he Graduate Prize.
\n
Please submit extended abstracts of between 750
and 1\,000 words to philosophicalbioethics@gmail.com by 11:59 pm Eastern
Time on Wednesday\, January 31\, 2024. Abstracts should be formatted for b
lind review\, and papers should be suitable for presentation in 30-35 minu
tes. Email notifications of acceptance will be sent out by Friday\, Februa
ry 16\, 2024.
\n
When submitting your abstract\, please also indicate
whether you would be interested in serving as a commentator-chair in the
event that your abstract is not selected for presentation. We will be invi
ting five additional participants to serve as commentator-chairs.
\n
This year’s Philosophical Bioethics Workshop is organized by S. Matthew Li
ao\, Daniel Fogal\, Claudia Passos-Ferreira\, Dan Khokar\, and Jonathan Kn
utzen of the NYU Center for Bioethics.
\n
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240503
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240505
GEO:+40.729457;-73.994348
LOCATION:Center for Bioethics NYU @ 5 Washington Pl\, New York\, NY 10003\,
USA
SEQUENCE:0
SUMMARY:4th Annual NYU Philosophical Bioethics Workshop
URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/4th-annual-nyu-philosoph
ical-bioethics-workshop/
X-COST-TYPE:free
X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:bioethics\,cfp\,conference
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR