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-7699@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T192151Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:NYU CONTACT:https://swip-nyc.org/swip-nyc-colloquium/ DESCRIPTION:
Abstract. The Noble Lie proposed by Plato for the J ust City in Republic III has been much misunderstood. Its agenda is twofol d: to get the citizens of the City to see their society as a natural entit y\, with themselves as all ‘family’ and akin\; and to get the Guardians in particular to make class mobility\, on which the justice of the City depe nds\, a top priority. Since the second is taken to depend on the first\, t he Lie passage amounts to an argument (1) that the survival of a just comm unity depends on the existence of social solidarity between elite and mass \, which allows for full class mobility and genuine meritocracy\; (2) that this solidarity in turn depends on an ideology of natural unity\; and (3) that such ideologies are always false. So the Lie really is a lie\, but a necessary one\; as such it poses an awkward ethical problem for Plato and \, if he is right\, for our own societies as well.
\n\n
Prese nted by SWIP-NYC
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20220304T153000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20220304T173000 GEO:+40.712775;-74.005973 LOCATION:Zoom\, possibly in person @ New York\, NY\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Rachel Barney (U Toronto)\, “The Ethics and Politics of Plato’s Nob le Lie” URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/rachel-barney-u-toronto- the-ethics-and-politics-of-platos-noble-lie/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:ancient\,political END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7863@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T192151Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://philosophy.columbia.edu/content/colloquium-lectures-2022-20 23 DESCRIPTION:Thursday\, September 29th\, 2022
\nChristina Van Dyke (
Barnard College)
\nTitle “I feel it in my fingers\, I feel it in my t
oes: Imaginative Meditation and Experience of Love in Medieval Contemplati
ve Philosophy”
\n4:10-6:00 PM
\n716 Philosophy Hall
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:20240328T192151Z 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 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-8064@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T192151Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Independent CONTACT:https://www.locus29.org/about-1 DESCRIPTION:
We are embarking on an inno vative adaptation of J.P. Sartre’s timeless masterpiece\, “No Exit.” Infus ed with elements inspired by Plato’s Dialogues\, our play aims to explore the depths of existentialism\, dark absurdity\, and musical comedy while d elving into the realms of speech and movement improvisation.
\n< p class='font_8 wixui-rich-text__text'>Through this innovative production\, we aim to challenge and provoke audi ences\, encouraging deep introspection and dialogue about our existence an d the choices we make. We believe that the combination of Sartre’s piercin g insights and Plato’s philosophical foundations will create a unique thea trical experience that will resonate with both enthusiasts of classic lite rature and fans of contemporary performance art.\nWe are embarking on an inno vative adaptation of J.P. Sartre’s timeless masterpiece\, “No Exit.” Infus ed with elements inspired by Plato’s Dialogues\, our play aims to explore the depths of existentialism\, dark absurdity\, and musical comedy while d elving into the realms of speech and movement improvisation.
\n< p class='font_8 wixui-rich-text__text'>Through this innovative production\, we aim to challenge and provoke audi ences\, encouraging deep introspection and dialogue about our existence an d the choices we make. We believe that the combination of Sartre’s piercin g insights and Plato’s philosophical foundations will create a unique thea trical experience that will resonate with both enthusiasts of classic lite rature and fans of contemporary performance art.\nWe are embarking on an inno vative adaptation of J.P. Sartre’s timeless masterpiece\, “No Exit.” Infus ed with elements inspired by Plato’s Dialogues\, our play aims to explore the depths of existentialism\, dark absurdity\, and musical comedy while d elving into the realms of speech and movement improvisation.
\n< p class='font_8 wixui-rich-text__text'>Through this innovative production\, we aim to challenge and provoke audi ences\, encouraging deep introspection and dialogue about our existence an d the choices we make. We believe that the combination of Sartre’s piercin g insights and Plato’s philosophical foundations will create a unique thea trical experience that will resonate with both enthusiasts of classic lite rature and fans of contemporary performance art.\nWhen 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-8032@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T192151Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://philosophy.columbia.edu/content/colloquia-lectures-2023-202 4 DESCRIPTION:
Verity Harte is a specialist in ancient philosophy\, with pa rticular research interests in ancient metaphysics\, epistemology and psyc hology\, especially of Plato and Aristotle. She is the author of Plato on Parts and Wholes: The Metaphysics of Structure\, and is the edito r of several important books on ancient philosophy.
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240215T161000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240215T180000 GEO:+40.807536;-73.962573 LOCATION:716 Philosophy Hall @ 116th and Broadway\, New York\, NY 10027\, U SA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Verity Harte (Yale) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/verity-harte-yale/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:ancient\,metaphysics END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8107@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T192151Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://maisonfrancaise.columbia.edu/events/artificial-history-natu ral-intelligence-thinking-machines-descartes-digital-age DESCRIPTION:David Bates\, in conversation with Stefanos Geroulano and Joanna Stalnaker
\nWe imagine that w
e are both in control of and controlled by our bodies—autonomous and yet a
utomatic. This entanglement\, according to David W. Bates\, emerged in the
seventeenth century when humans first built and compared themselves with
machines. Reading varied thinkers from Descartes to Kant to Turing\, Bates
reveals how time and time again technological developments offered new wa
ys to imagine how the body’s automaticity worked alongside the mind’s auto
nomy. Tracing these evolving lines of thought\, David Bates discusses his
new book\, An Artificial History of Natural Intelligence\, which
offers a new theorization of the human as a being that is dependent on tec
hnology and produces itself as an artificial automaton without a natural\,
outside origin.
\nDavid Bates is Professor of Rheto
ric at the University of California Berkeley. His research focuses on the
history of legal and political ideas\, and the relationship between techno
logy\, science\, and the history of human cognition.
Stefa nos Geroulanos is the Director of the Remarque Institute and Prof essor of European Intellectual History at NYU. He usually writes about con cepts that weave together modern understandings of time\, the human\, and the body. His new book is a history of the concepts\, images\, and science s of human origins since 1770\, forthcoming from Liveright Press as Th e Invention of Prehistory: Empire\, Violence\, and Our Obsession with Huma n Origins in 2024.
\nJoanna Stalnaker< /strong> is Professor of French at Columbia. She works on Enlightenment ph ilosophy and literature\, with a recent interest in how women shaped the E nlightenment. Her new book\, The Rest Is Silence: Enlightenment Philos ophers Facing Death\, will be published by Yale University Press in t he Walpole series.
\nIn the final part of The Human Condition (1958) Han nah Arendt turns to the danger of ‘world- alienation’. Based on a variety of discoveries and evolutions that are constitutive of modernity (globaliz ation\, Protestantism\, the invention of the telescope)\, modern man has a dopted an Archimedean\, external position vis-à-vis the world. According to Arendt\, this ‘view from without’ has gradually jeopardized the experie nce of a shared world\, endangering the foundation of all meaning-giving a ctivities.
\nMy talk can be considered as a reply to Arendt’s pessim istic account of modern ‘world-alienation’. It builds on the idea that som e of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century (Ernst Jünger \, Georg Lukács\, Ernst Bloch\, Theodor Adorno\, Walter Benjamin\, Aby Wa rburg\, Sigmund Freud) did not equate the loss of a shared world with the loss of meaning. Rather\, the conceptual framework of a substantial part o f early twentieth century German philosophy centers on the exploration of a productive opposition\, negation or fragmentation of the world. From the perspective of these thinkers\, the world’s ‘durability’ (Arendt) is not simply a source of shared meaning since it can be experienced as the mark of its indifference to change and renewal.
\nBio: p>\n
Stéphane Symons is Full Professor of Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy of the University of Leuven\, Belgium. His research is focused on interwar German thought (Frankfurt School) and postwar French philosop hy (structuralism and post-structuralism).
\n DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240404T180000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240404T200000 GEO:+40.73702;-73.992243 LOCATION:Wolff Conference Room/D1103 @ 6 E 16th St\, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:The Concept of World-Alienation in Twentieth Century German Thought – presented by Stéphane Symons URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/the-concept-of-world-ali enation-in-twentieth-century-german-thought-presented-by-stephane-symons/ X-COST-TYPE:external X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:existentialism\,German X-TICKETS-URL:https://event.newschool.edu/stephanesymons END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR