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:20240329T154847Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Fordham CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/110241 DESCRIPTION:Richard J. Bernstein first encountered John Dewey’s pragmatist naturalism as a graduate student at Yale University\, where “Dewey’s natu ralistic vision of the relation of experience and nature—how human beings 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. Du ring the final years of his long life\, Bernstein finished two books that return to issues of pragmatist naturalism.\n· His Pragmatic Naturali sm: John Dewey’s Living Legacy (2020)\, traces differing versions of Dewey an naturalism in the works of contemporary philosophers\, including Robert Brandom\, John McDowell\, Richard Rorty\, Wilfrid Sellars\, Peter Godfrey -Smith\, Philip Kitcher\, Bjorn Ramberg\, David Macarthur\, Steven Levine\ , Mark Johnson\, Robert Sinclair\, Huw Price\, and Joseph Rouse.\n· In his final book\, The Vicissitudes of Nature (2022)\, Bernstein clarifie s his own pragmatist naturalism in relation to the thinking of earlier mod ern philosophers: Spinoza\, Hume\, Kant\, Hegel\, Marx\, Nietzsche\, and F reud.\nThis conference will critically assess and expand the legacy of Ber nstein’s final pragmatic naturalism as expressed in these two books. Accep ted papers will be collected for publication.\nThe New York Pragmatist For um\nPaper topics may include: \n● Bernstein’s discussion of Dewey’s t hinking in relation to contemporary philosophers’ formulations of naturali sm in Pragmatic Naturalism: John Dewey’s Living Legacy.\n● Bernstein’ s interpretation of an earlier thinker’s understanding of naturalism or na ture in The Vicissitudes of Nature (Spinoza\, Hume\, Kant\, Hegel\, Marx\, Nietzsche\, or Freud).\n● A larger theme or problem that brings one of these Bernstein’s texts into conversation with philosophical naturalism \, either particular expressions or conceptual issues.\n● The consequ ences of one or both of these texts for questions of naturalism in relatio n to wider social and political questions\, e.g.\, democracy\, praxis\, cr itique.\nAbstracts: Please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words to tara@newschool.edu.\nSubmission Deadline: May 22\, 2023 \nNYPF Conference Committee:\nSergio Gallegos\, John Jay College of Criminal Justice\nJudit h Green\, Fordham University\nBrendan Hogan\, New York University\nTara Ma strelli\, New School for Social Research\nDavid Woods\, New York Universit y 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-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n
\\nRichard J. Be rnstein first encountered John Dewey’s pragmatist naturalism as a graduate student at Yale University\, where “Dewey’s naturalistic vision of the r elation of experience and nature—how human beings 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 that return to issues of prag matist naturalism.
\n· His Pragmatic Naturalism: John Dewe y’s Living Legacy (2020)\, traces differing versions of Deweyan natur alism in the works of contemporary philosophers\, including Robert Brandom \, John McDowell\, Richard Rorty\, Wilfrid Sellars\, Peter Godfrey-Smith\, Philip Kitcher\, Bjorn Ramberg\, David Macarthur\, Steven Levine\, Mark J ohnson\, Robert Sinclair\, Huw Price\, and Joseph Rouse.
\n· I n his final book\, The Vicissitudes of Nature (2022)\, B ernstein clarifies his own pragmatist naturalism in relation to the thinki ng of earlier modern philosophers: Spinoza\, Hume\, Kant\, Hegel\, Marx\, Nietzsche\, and Freud.
\nThis conference will critically assess and expand the legacy of Bernstein’s final pragmatic naturalism as expressed i n these two books. Accepted papers will be collected for publication.
\nThe New York Pragmatist Forum
\nPaper topics may include:
\n● Bernstein’s discussion of Dew ey’s thinking in relation to contemporary philosophers’ formulations of na turalism in Pragmatic Naturalism: John Dewey’s Living Legacy.
\n● Bernstein’s interpretation of an earlier thinker’s understandi ng of naturalism or nature in The Vicissitudes of Nature (Spinoza \, Hume\, Kant\, Hegel\, Marx\, Nietzsche\, or Freud).
\n● A la rger theme or problem that brings one of these Bernstein’s texts into conv ersation with philosophical naturalism\, either particular expressions or conceptual issues.
\n● The consequences of one or both of these texts for questions of naturalism in relation to wider social and politic al questions\, e.g.\, democracy\, praxis\, critique.
\nAbstr acts: Please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words to tara@newschool.edu.
\nSubmission Deadlin e: May 22\, 2023
\nNYPF Conference Committee:
\nSerg io Gallegos\, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
\nJudith Green\,
Fordham University
\nBrendan Hogan\, New York University
Tara Mastrelli\, New School for Social Research
\nDavid Woods\, New York University
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:cfa\,conference\,naturalism\,pragmatism END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8089@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T154847Z 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 obj ectivity?\nWelcome to “Unmasking Objectivity: A Critical Examination of th e Nexus between Universal Truth Claims and Emergent Power Structures\,” a conference that plunges into the intricate relationship between knowledge and power. In this conference\, we will uncover how epistemological standp oints intersect with systems of coercion\, marginalization\, and oppressio n. Our topic extends to alternative visions of knowledge\, truth\, and lea rning\, offering the potential for shared beliefs while addressing the adv erse impacts of entrenched power structures.\nHow have claims to absolute\ , objective\, or scientific truth driven oppression through ideologies lik e religious absolutism\, colonialism\, technocracy\, and scientific sexism and racism? Contemporary debates further emphasize the significance of th is intersection.\nOur discourse will also scrutinize epistemic injustice\, examining whether universalist epistemologies privilege specific knowledg e systems while silencing valid alternatives. We aim to shed light on soci al and political issues overlooked by dominant knowledge frameworks throug h inclusive dialogues. This conference fosters critical exploration and in clusive discourse\, drawing on interdisciplinary studies in philosophy\, s ociology\, and political theory.\nTogether\, we will assess the ethical im plications of our epistemological practices and explore pathways to creati ng more equitable systems of knowledge and social learning. Join us at “Un masking Objectivity” as we navigate the intricate web of knowledge and pow er\, aiming for a just and inclusive future where the notion of objectivit y is both scrutinized and harnessed for social transformation.\n https://s ites.google.com/newschool.edu/unmasking-objectivity/home \nhttps://phileve nts.org/event/show/116553\nhttps://philevents.org/event/show/116561 DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240321 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240324 GEO:+40.736924;-73.992688 LOCATION:Wolff Conference Room/D1103 @ Albert and Vera List Academic Center \, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Unmasking Objectivity: A Critical Examination of the Nexus between Universal Truth Claims and Emergent Power Structures Conference URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/unmasking-objectivity-a- critical-examination-of-the-nexus-between-universal-truth-claims-and-emerg ent-power-structures-conference/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nHow does objectivity shape power\, and how does power shape ob jectivity?
\nWelcome to “Unmasking Objectivity: A Critical Examinati on of the Nexus between Universal Truth Claims and Emergent Power Structur es\,” a conference that plunges into the intricate relationship between kn owledge and power. In this conference\, we will uncover how epistemologica l standpoints intersect with systems of coercion\, marginalization\, and o ppression. Our topic extends to alternative visions of knowledge\, truth\, and learning\, offering the potential for shared beliefs while addressing the adverse impacts of entrenched power structures.
\nHow have clai ms to absolute\, objective\, or scientific truth driven oppression through ideologies like religious absolutism\, colonialism\, technocracy\, and sc ientific sexism and racism? Contemporary debates further emphasize the sig nificance of this intersection.
\nOur discourse will also scrutinize epistemic injustice\, examining whether universalist epistemologies privi lege specific knowledge systems while silencing valid alternatives. We aim to shed light on social and political issues overlooked by dominant knowl edge frameworks through inclusive dialogues. This conference fosters criti cal exploration and inclusive discourse\, drawing on interdisciplinary stu dies in philosophy\, sociology\, and political theory.
\nTogether\, we will assess the ethical implications of our epistemological practices a nd explore pathways to creating more equitable systems of knowledge and so cial learning. Join us at “Unmasking Objectivity” as we navigate the intri cate web of knowledge and power\, aiming for a just and inclusive future w here the notion of objectivity is both scrutinized and harnessed for socia l transformation.
\n\n\n\n\nW hat makes right acts right? A Stoic answer to Ross’s question.
\nWhen W.D. Ross poses the question\, “what makes right acts righ t?” (The Right and the Good ch. 2)\, he is asking a question that is prior to the deliberative question\, “how do I determine the right thing to do? ” The Stoics recognize this: in De Officiis 1.7\, Cicero says that every i nquiry about duty has two parts: (1) a theoretical part concerned with the end of goods and evils\, which addresses such matters as whether all duti es are perfect\, whether some are more important than others\, and what ar e the kinds of duties\, and (2) a practical part which sets out rules (pra ecepta) by which our conduct can be made to conform with the end. This pa per focuses on (1) and in particular asks Ross’s question about Stoic righ t actions (kathêkonta).
\n\n
The endpoint of Stoic deliberat ion is determining what token action is the right action. The paper begin s with the Stoic distinction between a thing’s choiceworthiness\, its intr insic disposition to elicit a choice response in a suitable subject\, and its possession being to-be-chosen. The determination of what is to-be-done is made by weighing against each other all the values of the relevant act ion types specified by their content (the so-called ‘intermediate actions’ ) that are in accordance with nature\, as Stoic value theory says that acc ording with nature is an objective reason to do an action. What constitut es the rightness of the token right action\, and is given in its reasonabl e defense\, is the same as what constitutes the rightness of a perfect (ka torthôma) action. The Stoic distinction between right and perfect actio n depends on the action’s moral goodness—not rightness—which is due to its causal origin.
\nPresented by Professor Rachana Kamtekar (Cornell University) p>\n
Tickets: https://event.newschool.edu/phi losophycolloquiumkamtekar.
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:20240329T154847Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:New School for Social Research CONTACT:https://event.newschool.edu/gwengrewal DESCRIPTION:Book discussion on Gwenda-lin Grewal’s\, Thinking About Death i n Plato’s Euthydemus. A Close Reading and New Translation (OUP 2022)\n \nS peakers:\nGwenda-lin Grewal (NSSR)\nCinzia Arruzza (NSSR)\nNicholas Pappas (CUNY)\n \nThinking of Death places Plato’s Euthydemus among the dialogue s that surround the trial and death of Socrates. A premonition of philosop hy’s fate arrives in the form of Socrates’ encounter with the two-headed s ophist pair\, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus\, who appear as if they are the ghost of the Socrates of Aristophanes’ Thinkery. The pair vacillate betwee n choral ode and rhapsody\, as Plato vacillates between referring to them in the dual and plural number in Greek. Gwenda-lin Grewal’s close reading explores how the structure of the dialogue and the pair’s back-and-forth a rguments bear a striking resemblance to thinking itself: in its immersive remove from reality\, thinking simulates death even as it cannot conceive of its possibility. Euthydemus and Dionysodorus take this to an extreme\, and so emerge as the philosophical dream and sophistic nightmare of being disembodied from substance. The Euthydemus is haunted by philosophy’s tenu ous relationship to political life. This is played out in the narration th rough Crito’s implied criticism of Socrates-the phantom image of the Athen ian laws-and in the drama itself\, which appears to take place in Hades. T hinking of death thus brings with it a lurid parody of the death of thinki ng: the farce of perfect philosophy that bears the gravity of the city’s s ophistry. Grewal also provides a new translation of the Euthydemus that pa ys careful attention to grammatical ambiguities\, nuances\, and wit in way s that substantially expand the reader’s access to the dialogue’s mysterie s. DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230223T180000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230223T200000 GEO:+40.73702;-73.992243 LOCATION:Wolff Conference Room/D1103 @ 6 E 16th St\, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Thinking About Death in Plato’s Euthydemus. URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/thinking-about-death-in- platos-euthydemus/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nBook discussion on Gwenda-lin Grewal’s\, Thinking About Death in Plato’s Euthy demus. A Close Reading and New Translation (OUP 2022)
\n< p> \nSpeakers:
\nGwenda-lin
Grewal (NSSR)
\nCinzia Arruzza (NSSR)
\nNicholas Pappas (CUNY)
\n
Thinking of D eath places Plato’s Euthydemus among the dialogues that surround the trial and death of Socrates. A premonition of philosophy’s fate arrives in the form of Socrates’ encounter with the two-headed sophist pair\, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus\, who appear as if they are the ghost of the Socrates of Aristophanes’ Thinkery. The pair vacillate between choral ode and rhapsody \, as Plato vacillates between referring to them in the dual and plural nu mber in Greek. Gwenda-lin Grewal’s close reading explores how the structur e of the dialogue and the pair’s back-and-forth arguments bear a striking resemblance to thinking itself: in its immersive remove from reality\, thi nking simulates death even as it cannot conceive of its possibility. Euthy demus and Dionysodorus take this to an extreme\, and so emerge as the phil osophical dream and sophistic nightmare of being disembodied from substanc e. The Euthydemus is haunted by philosophy’s tenuous relationship to polit ical life. This is played out in the narration through Crito’s implied cri ticism of Socrates-the phantom image of the Athenian laws-and in the drama itself\, which appears to take place in Hades. Thinking of death thus bri ngs with it a lurid parody of the death of thinking: the farce of perfect philosophy that bears the gravity of the city’s sophistry. Grewal also pro vides a new translation of the Euthydemus that pays careful attention to g rammatical ambiguities\, nuances\, and wit in ways that substantially expa nd the reader’s access to the dialogue’s mysteries.
\nThe importanc e of incorporating value pluralism into a theory of justice is recognized in many conceptualizations of justice. This pluralism is often seen as a r eason to attend to a range of perspectives\, perspectives which can functi on as a source of information in determining which principles should guide justice. However\, philosophy’s ability to properly attend to different p erspectives has received extensive attention in the criticisms of various non-ideal theorists\, who argue that ideal-theoretical philosophy runs the risk of excluding important aspects of actual social problems. Taking the se criticisms on board\, this paper builds on non-ideal theory by arguing for a Wittgensteinian family resemblance approach to justice. I will expla in how this linguistic practice-embedded understanding 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 notion of justice is seen as applicable. In light of this approach\, I will suggest a reorientation of the pluralist demand towards an empirical starting point.
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:justice\,social\,wittgenstein END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8051@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T154847Z 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 right? ” (The Right and the Good\, ch. 2)\, he is asking a question that is prior to\, and has a bearing on\, the practical question “how do I determine th e right thing to do?” The Stoics recognize this. Cicero (De Officio\, wher e he is referring to Panaetius’ work Peri Kathêkontos) tells us that ever y inquiry about duty has two parts: (1) a theoretical part concerned with the end of good and evil deeds\, which addresses such matters as whether a ll duties are perfect (omniane official perfecta sint)\, whether some are more important than others\, and what the kinds of duties are\, and (2) a practical part which sets out rules (praecepta) by which our conduct can b e made to conform with the end (De Officiis\, 1.7). While Cicero himself focuses on the second\, this paper seeks the answer to the first part.\n \nRachana Kamtekar is a Professor of Philosophy and Classics at Cornell Un iversity and has written on many topics in ancient philosophy and contempo rary 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 characte r in ancient Greek ethics.\n DTSTART;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-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nWhen W.D. Ros s poses the question “what makes right acts right?” (The Right and the Good\, ch. 2)\, he is asking a question that is prior to\, and has a bearing on\, the practical question “how do I determine the right thing t o do?” The Stoics recognize this. Cicero (De Officio\, where he i s referring to Panaetius’ work Peri Kathêkontos) tells us that e very inquiry about duty has two parts: (1) a theoretical part concerned wi th the end of good and evil deeds\, which addresses such matters as whethe r all duties are perfect (omniane official perfecta sint)\, wheth er some are more important than others\, and what the kinds of duties are\ , and (2) a practical part which sets out rules (praecepta) by wh ich our conduct can be made to conform with the end (De Officiis\, 1.7). While Cicero himself focuses on the second\, this paper seeks the answer to the first part.
\n\n
Rachana Kamtekar is a Profess or of Philosophy and Classics at Cornell University and has written on man y topics in ancient philosophy and contemporary moral psychology. Her mono graph\, Plato’s Moral Psychology: Intellectualism\, the Divided Soul a nd the Desire for Good\, was published in 2017. She is currently wor king on the relationship between action and character in ancient Greek eth ics.
\n\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:ancient\,ethics END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8108@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T154847Z 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: Ek ow Yankah\nTh 2/15/24: Tommie Shelby\nTh 2/22/24 Gideon Rosen\nTh 2/29/24: Sabeel Rahman\nTh 3/7/24: Amy Sepinwall\nTh 3/14/24: Erik Encarnacion\nTh 3/21/24: Seyla 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 B agchi: https://www.fordham.edu/school-of-law/faculty/directory/full-time/a diti-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-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\n
Th 1/25/24: K ate Manne
\nTh 2/1/24: Scott Shapiro
\nTh 2/8/24: Ekow Yankah< /p>\n
Th 2/15/24: Tommie Shelby
\nTh 2/22/24 Gideon Rosen
\nTh 2/29/24: Sabeel Rahman
\nTh 3/7/24: Amy Sepinwall
\nTh 3/14 /24: Erik Encarnacion
\nTh 3/21/24: Seyla Benhabib
\nTh 4/4/24 : Amalia Amaya
\nTh 4/11/24: Debbie Hellman
\nTh 4/18/24: Mala Chatterjee
\nTh 4/25/24: Liam Murphy
\nContact Aditi Bagchi: https://www.fordham.edu/school-of-law/faculty/directory/fu ll-time/aditi-bagchi/
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:legal END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8140@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T154847Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:New School for Social Research CONTACT:https://event.newschool.edu/eyoewara DESCRIPTION:This talk reads contemporary debates about structural racism an d US history from the perspective of philosophical questions about identit y and difference. While many people have argued that America needs to come to terms with or “work through” the racism in its history that has shaped and continues to shape its present structures\, it remains difficult to e xplain what connects this past and the present. Are we talking about one r acism with many different past and present forms? Or are there multiple ra cisms that only share some similar features? In this talk\, I draw attenti on to how these divisions play out particularly in contemporary Black Stud ies and argue that the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze can offer us resources for thinking about these questions through his discussions of repetition. I argue that understanding our conversations about structural racism and history as conversations about a racism that repeats\, can help us to bett er understand why racism seems to reappear\, how to think its disparate fo rms together\, and what presuppositions operate in many attempts to “work through” the past.\nBio: Eyo Ewara is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University Chicago. His teaching and research explores the relatio nships between 20th Century Continental Philosophy\, Critical Philosophy o f Race\, and Queer Theory. His work has appeared in Theory and Event\, Pu ncta\, Philosophy Today\, Critical Philosophy of Race\, Political Theology \, and other venues. His current research project is particularly interest ed in engaging work in Continental Philosophy\, Queer Theory\, and Black S tudies to address questions of identity and difference amongst concepts of race\, forms of racism\, and forms of anti-racism. How can we better acco unt for the relations between at times radically disparate concepts\, stru ctures\, and practices such that they can all specifically and recognizabl y be called racial? What might our account of these relations say about ou r ability to address racism’s harms?\nTickets: 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-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nThis talk rea ds contemporary debates about structural racism and US history from the pe rspective of philosophical questions about identity and difference. While many people have argued that America needs to come to terms with or “work through” the racism in its history that has shaped and continues to shape its present structures\, it remains difficult to explain what connects thi s past and the present. Are we talking about one racism with many differen t past and present forms? Or are there multiple racisms that only share so me similar features? In this talk\, I draw attention to how these division s play out particularly in contemporary Black Studies and argue that the p hilosophy of Gilles Deleuze can offer us resources for thinking about thes e questions through his discussions of repetition. I argue that understand ing our conversations about structural racism and history as conversations about a racism that repeats\, can help us to better understand why racism seems to reappear\, how to think its disparate forms together\, and what presuppositions operate in many attempts to “work through” the past.
\nBio: Eyo Ewara is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University Chicago. His teaching and research explores the relatio nships between 20th Century Continental Philosophy\, Critical Philosophy o f Race\, and Queer Theory. His work has appeared in Theory and Event\, Pu ncta\, Philosophy Today\, Critical Philosophy of Race\, Political Theology \, and other venues. His current research project is particularly interest ed in engaging work in Continental Philosophy\, Queer Theory\, and Black S tudies to address questions of identity and difference amongst concepts of race\, forms of racism\, and forms of anti-racism. How can we better acco unt for the relations between at times radically disparate concepts\, stru ctures\, and practices such that they can all specifically and recognizabl y be called racial? What might our account of these relations say about ou r ability to address racism’s harms?
\nTickets: https://event .newschool.edu/eyoewara.
X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:history\,race X-TICKETS-URL:https://event.newschool.edu/eyoewara END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR