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-7821@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T103100Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:NYU CONTACT:https://as.nyu.edu/maisonfrancaise/Calendar/events/fall-2022/arts-a nd-pragmatism-.html DESCRIPTION:Advance Registration Required\; RSVP details coming soon\nLa Ma ison Française is pleased to host the second symposium of Arts and Pragmat ism. Join us for two days of fascinating talks and encounters at the inter section of philosophy and artistic practice under the direction of Sandra Laugier and Yann Toma.\nwith the support of Panthéon Sorbonne University\, Politique scientifique program\, Global Works and Society\, Liberal Studi es\, and La Maison Française at New York University.\nFull program details to follow.\n*We are so excited to welcome the general public back to most events at La Maison Francaise of NYU. Instructions for attending events i n-person will be confirmed shortly before each event. Please note that NYU requires all visitors to provide official proof (in English) that they ar e fully vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19. Additional details to fol low. DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20221024 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20221026 GEO:+40.731147;-73.995378 LOCATION:La Maison Française NYU & Zoom @ 16 Washington Mews\, New York\, N Y 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Arts and Pragmatism URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/arts-and-pragmatism/ X-COST-TYPE:external X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n
\\nAdvance Regis tration Required\; RSVP details coming soon
\nLa Maison Française is
pleased to host the second symposium of Arts and Pragmatism. Join us for
two days of fascinating talks and encounters at the intersection of philos
ophy and artistic practice under the direction of Sandra Laugier and Yann
Toma.
\nwith the support of Panthéon Sorbonne University\, Politique
scientifique program\, Global Works and Society\, Liberal Studies\, and La
Maison Française at New York University.
Full program details to follow.
\n*We are so excited to welcome the general public back to m ost events at La Maison Francaise of NYU. Instructions for attending event s in-person will be confirmed shortly before each event. Please note that NYU requires all visitors to provide official proof (in English) that they are fully vaccinated and boosted against COVID-19. Additional details to follow.
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:aesthetics\,pragmatism END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7993@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T103100Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:NYU CONTACT: DESCRIPTION:Our friends from Université de Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne return f or a third installment of their symposium Arts & Pragmatism: From Ordinary Aesthetics to Post Creation. \nThis day-long symposium will be chaired by Yann Toma and Sandra Laugier. From the organizers:\nWe have noticed it du ring the two previous symposia of our program: the pragmatist philosophy a nd in particular Dewey defends the idea that aesthetics must not only be c onsidered as the search for truths about art and its creations but also as what concerns the experience of the persons with an artwork (a sensitive and active experience). The reception would thus be the dynamic experience of an incarnated observer\, acting\, feeling in his senses and his affect s what is the work and what it makes him feel.\n\nThe political stake of t he pragmatist aesthetics is to make sure that the strong aesthetic experie nces remain open and accessible to the largest public and become even a «m atter of ordinary conversation». It is then a matter of thinking about sha red experience as a transmission of values\, an important phenomenon for t he moral\, political\, “educational” reflection of adults» (Cavell 1979\, 1981\, Shusterman\, Laugier 2019\, 2023\, Gerrits 2020). Thus\, this quest ion of pragmatism addresses societal issues that concern all audiences\, n ot just from a broadcast/transmission perspective. By focusing on experien ce and agency\, this way of approaching pragmatism involves the cultural a udience in a broad way to the point where it engages mediums such as telev ision and in general digital cultures.\nThe concept of Post-Creation\, ins ofar as it plays a form of exteriority to an original Creation\, has all i ts place in a world where the strong aesthetic experiences remain open and accessible to a wider public. It is a question of placing the creation be yond what is biased\, in the heart of a form of Third State of the artisti c act in charge of a heuristic and critical potential\, towards a form ext racted from the zone of influence of the world of the art as such. The ide a of Post-Creation tends towards the universal that would be the fact of c onceiving the creation beyond any not institutionalized academism. We will see how a possible emulation between the ordinary aesthetic and the share d experience of the Post-Creation is articulated and played\, where the ex perience of the creation produces knowledge and transforms what is out of the specific field of perception of the art in so many new acting and refl exive spaces. In that\, the influence of the artistic creation on whole se ctions of the society\, domains of perception until now inaccessible\, bec omes a stake of opening which results from the transformation of a form of ordinary aesthetics in a Post-Creation freed from the aesthetic channels of the contemporary art.\nRead the statement in French\nProgram:\n10:30AM : Opening Yann Toma\, Sandra Laugier and François Noudelmann\n11:00AM – 1: 00PM : Panel I Pragmatism and the Project of an Ordinary Aesthetics\nChair : Yann Toma\nAndrew Brandel (Penn State University) From the Aesthetics o f the Everyday Life to Ordinary Aesthetics.\nBarbara Formis (Panthéon-Sorb onne University) Doings and redoings of the Identical.\nSandra Laugier (Pa nthéon-Sorbonne) Ordinary Creation and Shared Culture.\nEmmanuel Kattan (C olumbia University) What happens when nothing happens: Chantal Akerman\, F rancis Ponge\, Marisa Merz and the emergence of time.\n \n1:00PM – 3:00PM : Lunch Break\n \n3:00PM – 6:00PM : Panel II Pragmatism\, Post-Creation\nC hair : Sandra Laugier\nYann Toma (Artist/Panthéon-Sorbonne University) Pos t-Creation\, a new way of making creation\nThe example of L’Or bleu.\nJung Hee Choi (artist and author of «Manifest Unmanifest») Dream House.\nDa n Thomas (United Nations Global Compact)\, The importance of Art and Perce ption in the Diplomatic Way.\nWarren Neidich (Artist and Founding Director Saas-Fee Summer Institute of Art) The Brain Without Organs and the Ecocen e.\nThis event is organized with the support of Université Paris 1 Panthéo n-Sorbonne\, Politique scientifique program\, and La Maison Française at N ew York University\nTickets: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/arts-pragmatism- from-ordinary-aesthetics-to-post-creation-tickets-596140822247. DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20230403 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20230404 GEO:+40.731169;-73.995381 LOCATION:La Maison Française @ 16 Washington Mews\, New York\, NY 10003\, U SA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Arts & Pragmatism: From Ordinary Aesthetics to Post-Creation URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/arts-pragmatism-from-ord inary-aesthetics-to-post-creation/ X-COST-TYPE:external X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nOur friends f rom Université de Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne return for a third installment o f their symposium Arts & Pragmatism: From Ordinary Aesthetics to Post C reation.
\nThis day-long symposium will be chaired by Yann Toma and Sandra Laugier. From the organizers:
\nWe have noticed it du
ring the two previous symposia of our program: the pragmatist philosophy a
nd in particular Dewey defends the idea that aesthetics must not only be c
onsidered as the search for truths about art and its creations but also as
what concerns the experience of the persons with an artwork (a sensitive
and active experience). The reception would thus be the dynamic experience
of an incarnated observer\, acting\, feeling in his senses and his affect
s what is the work and what it makes him feel.
\n
The political stake of the pragmatist aesthetics is to make sure that the stro ng aesthetic experiences remain open and accessible to the largest public and become even a «matter of ordinary conversation». It is then a matter o f thinking about shared experience as a transmission of values\, an import ant phenomenon for the moral\, political\, “educational” reflection of adu lts» (Cavell 1979\, 1981\, Shusterman\, Laugier 2019\, 2023\, Gerrits 2020 ). Thus\, this question of pragmatism addresses societal issues that conce rn all audiences\, not just from a broadcast/transmission perspective. By focusing on experience and agency\, this way of approaching pragmatism inv olves the cultural audience in a broad way to the point where it engages m ediums such as television and in general digital cultures.
\nThe concept of Post-Creation\, insofar as it plays a form of exteriority t o an original Creation\, has all its place in a world where the strong aes thetic experiences remain open and accessible to a wider public. It is a q uestion of placing the creation beyond what is biased\, in the heart of a form of Third State of the artistic act in charge of a heuristic and criti cal potential\, towards a form extracted from the zone of influence of the world of the art as such. The idea of Post-Creation tends towards the uni versal that would be the fact of conceiving the creation beyond any not in stitutionalized academism. We will see how a possible emulation between th e ordinary aesthetic and the shared experience of the Post-Creation is art iculated and played\, where the experience of the creation produces knowle dge and transforms what is out of the specific field of perception of the art in so many new acting and reflexive spaces. In that\, the influence of the artistic creation on whole sections of the society\, domains of perce ption until now inaccessible\, becomes a stake of opening which results fr om the transformation of a form of ordinary aesthetics in a Post-Creation freed from the aesthetic channels of the contemporary art.
\n\nProgram:
\n10:30AM : Opening Yann Toma\, Sandra Lau gier and François Noudelmann
\n11:00AM – 1:00PM : Panel I Pra gmatism and the Project of an Ordinary Aesthetics
\nChair : < /u>Yann Toma
\nAndrew Brandel (Penn State Unive rsity) From the Aesthetics of the Everyday Life to Ordinary Aesthetics.
\nBarbara Formis (Panthéon-Sorbonne University) Doings and redo ings of the Identical.
\nSandra Laugier (Panthéon-Sorbonne) O rdinary Creation and Shared Culture.
\nEmmanuel Kattan (Colum bia University) What happens when nothing happens: Chantal Akerman\, Franc is Ponge\, Marisa Merz and the emergence of time.
\n\n
1:0 0PM – 3:00PM : Lunch Break
\n\n
3:00PM – 6:00PM : Pane l II Pragmatism\, Post-Creation
\nChair : Sandra La ugier
\nYann Toma (Artist/Panthéon-Sorbonne Universit y) Post-Creation\, a new way of making creation
\nThe example of L’O r bleu.
\nJung Hee Choi (artist and author of «Manifest Unman ifest») Dream House.
\nDan Thomas (United Nations Global C ompact)\, The importance of Art and Perception in the Diplomatic Way.
\nWarren Neidich (Artist and Founding Director Saas-Fee Summer I nstitute of Art) The Brain Without Organs and the Ecocene.
\nThis ev ent is organized with the support of Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne\ , Politique scientifique program\, and La Maison Française at New York Uni versity
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:aesthetics\,art\,pragmatism X-TICKETS-URL:https://www.eventbrite.com/e/arts-pragmatism-from-ordinary-ae sthetics-to-post-creation-tickets-596140822247 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8024@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T103100Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://sofheyman.org/events/beyond-polarization-epistemic-distorti on-and-criticism DESCRIPTION:Individuals support forms of domination with varying levels of understanding that they are doing so. In many cases\, those very structure s of domination distort our conceptions of them through mechanisms such as motivated reasoning\, implicit bias\, affected ignorance\, false consciou sness\, and belief polarization. These various epistemic distortions\, in turn\, cause social conflict\, notably by promoting political polarization . Those worried by social conflict have spent a great deal of energy decry ing the increasingly polarized contexts in which we live. However\, episte mic distortions in our sociopolitical beliefs also misrepresent\, maintain systems of domination and prevent human needs from being met.\nThis works hop aims to go beyond pronouncements such as ‘we are polarized’ or that ‘p artisanship is on the rise\,’ and begin to think through epistemic distort ions at the individual and intersubjective levels\, the role of criticism and critique in facilitating belief and social change\, and the idea of re conciliation\, by asking questions such as:\n\nIn what ways are individual beliefs about domination/social structures epistemically distorted?\nWhat explains why social beliefs are epistemically distorted?\nWhat are the no rmative upshots of epistemic distortion for social relationships like ally ship\, comradeship\, and friendship?\nOught polarization be remedied? Whic h epistemic resources and theoretical frameworks avail themselves of emanc ipatory potential?\n\nConvenors\nEge Yumuşak is a philosopher\, specializi ng in epistemology\, the philosophy of mind\, and social & political philo sophy. She received a PhD in Philosophy from Harvard University in 2022. H er research examines political disagreement—its material foundations\, psy chological and social manifestations\, and epistemic properties. She is cu rrently writing a series of articles on the nature and significance of cla shes of perspective in social life.\nNicolas Côté is a postdoctoral resear cher at the University of Toronto. His research is mainly in normative eth ics and social choice theory\, but they also dabble in applied ethics and issues of practical rationality. Côté’s doctoral dissertation work focuses on the measurement of freedom\, especially on axiomatic approaches to the measurement question\, and on how deontic concerns for protecting individ ual rights interact with welfarist concerns for improving the general welf are. Côté’s current research focuses on the ethics of decision-making unde r radical uncertainty.\nInvited speakers:\nSabina Vaccarino Bremner\; Dani ela Dover\; Cain Shelley\nInvited commentators\nTBA DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20231108 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20231109 GEO:+40.807536;-73.962573 LOCATION:Heyman Center\, 2nd foor common room @ 116th and Broadway\, New Yo rk\, NY 10027\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Beyond Polarization: Epistemic Distortion and Criticism URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/beyond-polarization-epis temic-distortion-and-criticism-2/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nIndividuals s upport forms of domination with varying levels of understanding that they are doing so. In many cases\, those very structures of domination distort our conceptions of them through mechanisms such as motivated reasoning\, i mplicit bias\, affected ignorance\, false consciousness\, and belief polar ization. These various epistemic distortions\, in turn\, cause social conf lict\, notably by promoting political polarization. Those worried by socia l conflict have spent a great deal of energy decrying the increasingly pol arized contexts in which we live. However\, epistemic distortions in our s ociopolitical beliefs also misrepresent\, maintain systems of domination a nd prevent human needs from being met.
\nThis workshop aims to go be yond pronouncements such as ‘we are polarized’ or that ‘partisanship is on the rise\,’ and begin to think through epistemic distortions at the indiv idual and intersubjective levels\, the role of criticism and critique in f acilitating belief and social change\, and the idea of reconciliation\, by asking questions such as:
\nConvenors
\nEge Yumuşak is a philosopher\, specializing in epistemology\, the philosophy of mind \, and social & political philosophy. She received a PhD in Philosophy fro m Harvard University in 2022. Her research examines political disagreement —its material foundations\, psychological and social manifestations\, and epistemic properties. She is currently writing a series of articles on the nature and significance of clashes of perspective in social life.
\nNicolas Côté is a postdoctoral researcher at the University o f Toronto. His research is mainly in normative ethics and social choice th eory\, but they also dabble in applied ethics and issues of practical rati onality. Côté’s doctoral dissertation work focuses on the measurement of f reedom\, especially on axiomatic approaches to the measurement question\, and on how deontic concerns for protecting individual rights interact with welfarist concerns for improving the general welfare. Côté’s current rese arch focuses on the ethics of decision-making under radical uncertainty. p>\n
Invited speakers:
\nSabina Vaccarino Bremner \; Daniela Dover\; Cain Shelley
\nInvited commentators
\nTBA
How 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\nAbstrac em>t. The Noble Lie proposed by Plato for the Just City in Republic III ha s been much misunderstood. Its agenda is twofold: to get the citizens of t he City to see their society as a natural entity\, with themselves as all ‘family’ and akin\; and to get the Guardians in particular to make class m obility\, on which the justice of the City depends\, a top priority. Since the second is taken to depend on the first\, the Lie passage amounts to a n argument (1) that the survival of a just community depends on the existe nce of social solidarity between elite and mass\, which allows for full cl ass mobility and genuine meritocracy\; (2) that this solidarity in turn de pends on an ideology of natural unity\; and (3) that such ideologies are a lways 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
Presented by SWIP-NYC
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:ancient\,political END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7897@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T103100Z 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 Ross’s question. \nWhen 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 the d eliberative question\, “how do I determine the right thing to do?” The Sto ics recognize this: in De Officiis 1.7\, Cicero says that every inquiry ab out duty has two parts: (1) a theoretical part concerned with the end of g oods and evils\, which addresses such matters as whether all duties are pe rfect\, whether some are more important than others\, and what are the kin ds of duties\, and (2) a practical part which sets out rules (praecepta) b y which our conduct can be made to conform with the end. This paper focus es on (1) and in particular asks Ross’s question about Stoic right actions (kathêkonta).\n \nThe endpoint of Stoic deliberation is determining what token action is the right action. The paper begins with the Stoic distin ction between a thing’s choiceworthiness\, its intrinsic disposition to el icit 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 ag ainst each other all the values of the relevant action types specified by their content (the so-called ‘intermediate actions’) that are in accordanc e with nature\, as Stoic value theory says that according with nature is a n objective reason to do an action. What constitutes the rightness of the token right action\, and is given in its reasonable defense\, is the same as what constitutes the rightness of a perfect (katorthôma) action. Th e Stoic distinction between right and perfect action depends on the action ’s moral goodness—not rightness—which is due to its causal origin.\nPresen ted by Professor Rachana Kamtekar (Cornell University)\nTickets: https://e vent.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-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\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-7957@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T103100Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://scienceandsociety.columbia.edu/events/sexual-and-reproducti ve-justice-vehicle-global-progress DESCRIPTION:This event will feature a thought-provoking panel discussion wi th sexual and reproductive justice experts on the value of the sexual and reproductive justice framework and how it can be applied to diverse stakeh olders\, settings\, and contexts. Panelists will also highlight examples f rom around the world of momentum towards sexual and reproductive justice. \nEvent Information\nFree and open to the public\; registration is require d for both in-person and online attendance. For additional information\, p lease visit the event webpage. Please email Malia Maier at mm5352@cumc.col umbia.edu with any questions. All in-person attendees must follow Columbia ’s COVID-19 policies.\nHosted by the Global Health Justice and Governance Program at Columbia University.\nTickets: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/sex ual-reproductive-justice-vehicle-for-global-progress-in-person-tickets-523 893077297. DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230213T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230213T110000 GEO:+40.816253;-73.958389 LOCATION:Forum\, Columbia University @ 601 W 125th St\, New York\, NY 10027 \, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Sexual and Reproductive Justice: Vehicle for Global Progress URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/sexual-and-reproductive- justice-vehicle-for-global-progress/ X-COST-TYPE:external X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nThis event wi ll feature a thought-provoking panel discussion with sexual and reproducti ve justice experts on the value of the sexual and reproductive justice fra mework and how it can be applied to diverse stakeholders\, settings\, and contexts. Panelists will also highlight examples from around the world of momentum towards sexual and reproductive justice.
\nFree and open to the public\; registration is required for bot h in-person and onlin e attendance. For additional information\, please visit the event webpage. Please email Malia Maier at mm5352@cumc.columbia.edu with any qu estions. All in-person attendees must follow Columbia’s COVI D-19 policies.
\nHosted by the Global Health Justice and Governance Program at Columbia University.
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:justice\,medical\,reproductive\,social X-TICKETS-URL:https://www.eventbrite.com/e/sexual-reproductive-justice-vehi cle-for-global-progress-in-person-tickets-523893077297 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7938@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T103100Z 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.
\nIn Sanskrit epistemology\, philosophers are preoccupied with th e notion of pramā. A pramā\, roughly\, is a mental event of learning or kn owledge-acquisition. Call any such mental event a knowledge-event. In A Co nfection of Refutation (Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya)\, the 12th century philosoph er and poet Śrīharṣa argued that knowledge-events are indefinable. Any sat isfactory (and therefore non-circular) definition of knowledge-events will have to include an anti-luck condition that doesn’t appeal back to the no tion of learning or knowledge-acquisition itself. But there is no such ant i-luck condition. What is novel about Śrīharṣa’s argument is that it is mo tivated by his commitment to a certain “knowledge first” approach to epist emology: the view that knowledge-events are epistemically prior to other n on-factive mental states and events. On this view\, when we are trying to determine whether an agent has undergone a knowledge-event\, we don’t init ially ascribe to them some other non-factive mental event\, and then check if that event meets some further conditions (like truth or reliability) n ecessary for it to count as a knowledge-event\; rather\, we treat certain mental events by default as knowledge-events until a defeater comes along. Surprisingly\, Śrīharṣa argues that this kind of “knowledge first” epistemology should give us re ason to doubt whether our ordinary attributions of knowledge-events are re liably tracking any sui generis psychological kind. In this talk\, I recon struct Śrīharṣa’s position.
\nWith res ponses from Rosanna Picascia (Swarthmore College)
\nRSVP is required for dinner. Dinner will take place at a nearby resta urant. Please contact Lucilla at lm3335@columbia.edu for further information .
\n\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:comparative\,epistemology\,Indian END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8082@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T103100Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:New School for Social Research CONTACT:nycwittgensteinworkshop@gmail.com DESCRIPTION:The importance of incorporating value pluralism into a theory o f justice is recognized in many conceptualizations of justice. This plural ism is often seen as a reason to attend to a range of perspectives\, persp ectives which can function as a source of information in determining which principles should guide justice. However\, philosophy’s ability to proper ly attend to different perspectives has received extensive attention in th e criticisms of various non-ideal theorists\, who argue that ideal-theoret ical philosophy runs the risk of excluding important aspects of actual soc ial problems. Taking these criticisms on board\, this paper builds on non- ideal theory by arguing for a Wittgensteinian family resemblance approach to justice. I will explain how this linguistic practice-embedded understan ding of justice can be a helpful tool for non-ideal theory\, as it can giv e us insight into why\, in various similar but different cases\, the notio n of justice is seen as applicable. In light of this approach\, I will sug gest a reorientation of the pluralist demand towards an empirical starting 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-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\n
The 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:20240329T103100Z 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-8032@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T103100Z 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 parti cular research interests in ancient metaphysics\, epistemology and psychol ogy\, especially of Plato and Aristotle. She is the author of Plato on Par ts and Wholes: The Metaphysics of Structure\, and is the editor 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-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\n
Verity Harte is a specialist in ancient philosophy\, with particular research interests in ancient metaphysics\, epistemology and psychology\, especially of Plat o and Aristotle. She is the author of Plato on Parts and Wholes: The M etaphysics of Structure\, and is the editor of several important book s on ancient philosophy.
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:ancient\,metaphysics END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8140@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240329T103100Z 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