BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//208.94.116.123//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.26.9// CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH X-FROM-URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress X-WR-TIMEZONE:America/New_York BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/New_York X-LIC-LOCATION:America/New_York BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20231105T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 RDATE:20241103T020000 TZNAME:EST END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20240310T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 RDATE:20250309T020000 TZNAME:EDT END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7764@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T180747Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:CUNY CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/98534 DESCRIPTION:Submissions from any area of philosophy/social science are welc ome. The primary author must be an undergraduate\, and papers should be no more than 10 pages in length and suitable for 15-20 minute presentations. Electronic submissions should be in Word or PDF format and should be read y for blind review. In your submission email please include your name\, th e title of your paper\, your institutional affiliation\, and your preferre d email address for correspondence.\nEmail essays to lagccphilosophy@gmail .com\nSubmission deadline: April 15\, 2022\nPlease note: This is an in-per son event. In order to present you must provide proof of vaccination. DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20220513 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20220514 GEO:+40.743805;-73.935064 LOCATION:E-Building - Poolside Cafe\, LaGuardia College\, CUNY @ 31-10 Thom son Ave\, Queens\, NY 11101\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:LaGuardia Undergraduate Philosophy and Social Science Conference URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/laguardia-undergraduate- philosophy-and-social-science-conference/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n
\\nSubmissions from any area of philosophy/social science are wel come. The primary author must be an undergraduate\, and papers should be n o more than 10 pages in length and suitable for 15-20 minute presentations . Electronic submissions should be in Word or PDF format and should be rea dy for blind review. In your submission email please include your name\, t he title of your paper\, your institutional affiliation\, and your preferr ed email address for correspondence.
\nEmail essays to lagccphilosop hy@gmail.com
\nSubmission deadline: April 15\, 2022
\nPlease n ote: This is an in-person event. In order to present you must provide proo f of vaccination.
\nThe graduate students and faculty of Columbia University and N ew York University invite graduate students to submit papers to present at the 23rd Annual Columbia-NYU Graduate Conference in Philosophy\, to be he ld April 22nd\, 2023!
\nThe keynote speaker for thi s event will be Michael Della Rocca.
\nThe conferen ce will take place in person on NYU’s campus.
\nThi s conference is a generalist conference. Any topic which suitable for pres entation for a general philosophical audience is welcome!*
\nRequirements for submission. Papers submitted should be…
\n(1) 3\,000 to 5\,000 words in length\, suitable for a pr esentation of 30 to 40 minutes.
\n(2) Prepared for blind rev iew\, in PDF format.
\n(3) Accompanied wit h a separate cover sheet with the author’s name\, home in stitution\, contact information\, topic area(s) of the paper\, and an abst ract of approximately 300 words.
\nSubmissions should be sent to tinyurl.com/philgradconf. Papers should be submitted by 1/31/2 023\, and decisions will be sent out by 2/28/2023.
\nFor an y further information or inquiries\, please contact columbianyu.philgra dconference@gmail.com.
\n*Submissions from graduate students at NYU and Columbia will not be considered for acceptance.
\nThe New York University Center for Bioethics is pleased to inv ite submissions of abstracts for the 3rd Annual Philosophical Bioethics Wo rkshop\, to be held at NYU on Friday and Saturday\, April 28-29\, 2023.
\nWe are seeking to showcase new work in philosophical bioethics\, bro adly understood. This includes (but is not limited to) neuroethics\, envir onmental ethics\, animal ethics\, reproductive ethics\, research ethics\, ethics of AI\, data ethics\, public health ethics\, gender and race in bio ethics\, and clinical ethics.
\nOur distinguished keynote speaker wi ll be Professor Ruth Chang\, University of Oxford. There will be five addi tional slots for papers chosen from among the submitted abstracts\, includ ing one slot set aside for a graduate student speaker. The most promising graduate student submission will be awarded a Graduate Prize\, which inclu des an award of $500\, and may include coverage of travel expenses\, depen ding upon university policies at the time of the award. Please indicate in your submission email whether you would like to be considered for the Gra duate Prize.
\nPlease submit extended abstracts of between 750 and 1 \,000 words to philosophicalbioethics@gmail.com by 11:59 pm Eastern Time o n Sunday\, January 22\, 2023. Abstracts should be formatted for blind revi ew\, and papers should be suitable for presentation in 30-35 minutes. Emai l notifications will be sent out by Friday\, February 10\, 2023.
\nW hen submitting your abstract\, please also indicate whether you would be i nterested in serving as a commentator-chair in the event that your abstrac t is not selected for presentation. We will be inviting five additional pa rticipants to serve as commentator-chairs.
\nThis year’s Philosophic al Bioethics Workshop is organized by S. Matthew Liao\, Daniel Fogal\, Cla udia Passos-Ferreira\, Stephanie Beardman\, Dan Khokar\, and Jonathan Knut zen of the NYU Center for Bioethics.
\nWe are p leased to announce that the 26th annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness will be held at New York University on June 22-25\, 2023.
\nSubmissions for talks and posters are now open with a deadline of February 15\, 2023. Conference registration will open in early 2023.
\nKeynote speakers\, symposia\, tutorials\, and housing have now been arranged\, as specified below.
\nPlease direct any inquiries to ASSC26@nyu.edu.
\nWe hope to see you soon in New York!
\nNed Block and David Chalmers\, Conf erence Directors
\nTickets: https:/ /theassc.org/assc-26/#registration.
X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:cfp\,conference\,consciousness X-COST:$150-550 X-TICKETS-URL:https://theassc.org/assc-26/#registration END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8009@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T180747Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:CUNY CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/111762 DESCRIPTION:After the stimulating discussion at the Conference on Philosoph y in the Pandemic Generation\, participants decided then and there to begi n something bigger: The Society for Philosophers of the Pandemic Generatio n. This group is open to any and all who feel that the pandemic influenced them during their formative years of philosophical training.\nThe First C onference of the Society for Philosophers of the Pandemic Generation welco mes abstracts:\nThat explicitly engage with the role of pandemics\, epidem ics\, and the unique challenges\, academic or otherwise\, of 2020-2023.\nT hat are the result of a research project in philosophy conceived or writte n during\, or affected by\, said challenges.\nThat may be on a range of to pics that need not be limited by content\, this includes topics on the cro ssroads of philosophy and another discipline.\nWe encourage PhD students a nd early career researchers to submit an abstract\, particularly those who se philosophical research overlaps with the timing of the pandemic. The ob jective of the conference is to provide a platform for graduate and postgr aduate philosophers to present their work to peers\, and to discuss experi ences and research from the past three years. Ideas do not have to be fini shed or perfect\; it can be work in progress. We also encourage undergradu ate students of philosophy affected by the pandemic to submit research for a special showcase portion of the conference.\nFormal requirements:\nAbst racts should be suitable for a 30-minute presentation.\nAbstracts should b e written in English.\nAbstracts for papers should be fully anonymised.\nA bstracts should not exceed 500 words\, including references.\nYour abstrac t will be anonymously reviewed.\nThere is no registration fee for this con ference. However\, travel and stay costs cannot be reimbursed.\nThe deadli ne for submissions is\n15 August 2023 to: pandemicgenerationphilosophy@gma il.com\nThe conference will be held:\nSeptember 1 and 2\, the CUNY Graduat e Center\nOrganizers:\nV Alexis Peluce\nLiam D. Ryan\n https://sites.googl e.com/view/pangen/ DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20230901 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20230903 GEO:+40.748789;-73.984092 LOCATION:CUNY Grad Center @ 365 5th Ave\, New York\, NY 10016\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:First Conference of the Society for Philosophers of the Pandemic Ge neration URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/first-conference-of-the- society-for-philosophers-of-the-pandemic-generation/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nAfter the sti mulating discussion at the Conference on Philosophy in the Pandemic Genera tion\, participants decided then and there to begin something bigger: The Society for Philosophers of the Pandemic Generation. This group is open to any and all who feel that the pandemic influenced them during their forma tive years of philosophical training.
\nThe First Conference of the Society for Philosophers of the Pandemic Generation welcomes abstracts:
\nThat explicitly engage with the role of pandemics\, epidemics\, and the unique challenges\, academic or otherwise\, of 2020-2023.
\nThat are the result of a research project in philosophy conceived or written d uring\, or affected by\, said challenges.
\nThat may be on a range o f topics that need not be limited by content\, this includes topics on the crossroads of philosophy and another discipline.
\nWe encourage PhD students and early career researchers to submit an abstract\, particularl y those whose philosophical research overlaps with the timing of the pande mic. The objective of the conference is to provide a platform for graduate and postgraduate philosophers to present their work to peers\, and to dis cuss experiences and research from the past three years. Ideas do not have to be finished or perfect\; it can be work in progress. We also encourage undergraduate students of philosophy affected by the pandemic to submit r esearch for a special showcase portion of the conference.
\nFormal r equirements:
\nAbstracts should be suitable for a 30-minute presenta tion.
\nAbstracts should be written in English.
\nAbstracts fo r papers should be fully anonymised.
\nAbstracts should not exceed 5 00 words\, including references.
\nYour abstract will be anonymously reviewed.
\nThere is no registration fee for this conference. Howev er\, travel and stay costs cannot be reimbursed.
\nThe deadline for submissions is
\n15 August 2023 to: pandemicgenerationphilosophy@gma il.com
\nThe conference will be held:
\nSeptember 1 and 2\, th e CUNY Graduate Center
\nOrganizers:
\nV Alexis Peluce
\nLiam D. Ryan
\n\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:cfa\,cfp\,conference END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8013@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T180747Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:CUNY CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/112490 DESCRIPTION:Keynote: Harry Brighouse (University of Wisconsin-Madison)\nPed agogy Workshop Leader: TBA\nLocation: The Graduate Center\, CUNY—New York\ , New York\nAbstracts & Workshop Applications due: July 31st 2023\nRespons es: August 31st 2023\nOrganizers: Michael Greer (CUNY)\, Maria Salazar (CU NY)\nContact email: gscope.committee@gmail.com\nThe committee for the Grad uate Student Conference on Philosophy of Education (GSCOPE) invites abstra cts for papers on the topic of Higher Education\, Democracy\, and Controve rsy. The theme of the conference & post-conference pedagogy workshop refle cts the difficulty in creating and maintaining respectful discourse in hig her-education classrooms\, especially surrounding controversial empirical\ , moral\, and political issues. Some argue that this is an equity issue. U ndergraduate students who come from rural and/or underprivileged areas are more likely to experience alienation on campus\, sometimes because they h ave never been exposed to certain “politically correct” language or ideas\ , and sometimes simply because they lack the financial and social capital that their peers have. It seems crucial (and follows from democratic and c ivic values) to foster safe learning environments for all students\, espec ially those students who are more likely to feel alienated on college camp uses and in elite spaces. At the same time\, some argue that the aim of hi gher education is purely epistemological\, and not civic or democratic. Pr oponents of this view might hold that free speech and academic freedom mus t be properly protected for higher education to perform its proper social function: education. What is the appropriate relationship between higher e ducation\, knowledge-production\, teaching\, free speech\, and democracy? How can higher education instructors and professors be effective teachers in the light of these relationships?\nPapers must pertain to higher educat ionbut maybe about anything from interpersonal classroom dynamicstoinstitu tional policies to campus controversy. We are particularly interested in p apers that explore the following topics:\n\nPhilosophical issues around te aching controversy\n\n\nNavigating different identities in the classroom a nd on campus\nFree speech and controversial issues in classrooms and on ca mpus\nDifferential roles of various higher education actors when it comes to protecting free speech (administration\, tenured professors\, students\ , residential life)\n\n\nTraining (or lack thereof) of graduate students t o be teachers and the impact of this on teaching in our current political moment\n\n\nTheright relationship(s) between democracy\, knowledge\,free s peech\, and higher education\n\n\nThe role of controversy in democracy\nTh e relationship between controversy and equality\n\n\nTeaching as an equity issue – how education might foster or impede different kinds of equity (c lass equity\, racial equity\, urban/rural equity\, gender equity)\n\n\nDis agreement in classrooms\n\n\nEpistemological issues around disagreement an d understanding\nTrust in classrooms\nPedagogical tools to cope with disag reement in classrooms\nPhilosophical views on coming to understanding from different social locations\, epistemic commitments\, and material circums tances\n\nWe especially welcome contributions that:\n\nThink about univers ities outside of the “top 50” and the “top 500” — we want our conversation to reflect issues found across the entire spectrum of international highe r ed institutions\nEngage with CUNY-specific issues and offer CUNY-specifi c solutions\n\nAbstracts should:\n– Outline the paper’s principal argument (s).\n– Give a good sense of the paper’s philosophical and/or empirical co ntributions and methods.\n– Be anonymized.\nProposal Guidelines:\nPlease s ubmit abstracts of up to 500 words by midnight EST on Monday\, July 31\, 2 023.\nPDF or DOC.X by email to gscope.committee@gmail.com\nPost-Conference Pedagogy Workshop\nThe theme of our conference Higher Education\, Democra cy\, and Controversy is relevant to graduate student educators\, who are r outinely under-trained and under-equipped to engage with real-life problem s they may encounter in the classroom. The lack of training for higher edu cation teachers is a growing iue in philosophy of education.\nThis worksho p attends to this issue by facilitating a space for graduate student educa tors to reflect on how to foster good teaching environments for controvers ial issues\, and be good interlocutors with each other on controversial is sues. The workshop will also touch on promoting equity in classrooms. We w ill provide workshop participants with a certificate of completion.\nhttps ://philevents.org/event/show/112546 DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20231012 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20231015 GEO:+40.748789;-73.984092 LOCATION:CUNY Grad Center @ 365 5th Ave\, New York\, NY 10016\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:GSCOPE 2023: Higher Education\, Democracy\, and Controversy URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/gscope-2023-higher-educa tion-democracy-and-controversy/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nKeynote: Harr y Brighouse (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
\nPedagogy Workshop Le ader: TBA
\nLocation: The Graduate Center\, CUNY—New York\, New York
\nAbstracts & Workshop Applications due: July 31st 2023
\nRes ponses: August 31st 2023
\nOrganizers: Michael Greer (CUNY)\, Maria Salazar (CUNY)
\nContact email: gscope.committee@gmail.com
\nT he committee for the Graduate Student Conference on Philosophy of Educatio n (GSCOPE) invites abstracts for papers on the topic of Higher Education\, Democracy\, and Controversy. The theme of the conference & post-conferenc e pedagogy workshop reflects the difficulty in creating and maintaining re spectful discourse in higher-education classrooms\, especially surrounding controversial empirical\, moral\, and political issues. Some argue that t his is an equity issue. Undergraduate students who come from rural and/or underprivileged areas are more likely to experience alienation on campus\, sometimes because they have never been exposed to certain “politically co rrect” language or ideas\, and sometimes simply because they lack the fina ncial and social capital that their peers have. It seems crucial (and foll ows from democratic and civic values) to foster safe learning environments for all students\, especially those students who are more likely to feel alienated on college campuses and in elite spaces. At the same time\, some argue that the aim of higher education is purely epistemological\, and no t civic or democratic. Proponents of this view might hold that free speech and academic freedom must be properly protected for higher education to p erform its proper social function: education. What is the appropriate rela tionship between higher education\, knowledge-production\, teaching\, free speech\, and democracy? How can higher education instructors and professo rs be effective teachers in the light of these relationships?
\nPape rs must pertain to higher educationbut maybe about anything from interpers onal classroom dynamicstoinstitutional policies to campus controversy. We are particularly interested in papers that explore the following topics: p>\n
We especially welcome contributions that:
\n\nAbstracts
should:
\n– Outline the paper’s principal argument(s).
\n– Give
a good sense of the paper’s philosophical and/or empirical contributions a
nd methods.
\n– Be anonymized.
Proposal Guidelines:
\nP lease submit abstracts of up to 500 words by midnight EST on Monday\, July 31\, 2023.
\nPDF or DOC.X by email to gscope.committee@gmail.com
\nPost-Conference Pedagogy Workshop
\nThe theme of our conferenc e Higher Education\, Democracy\, and Controversy is relevant to g raduate student educators\, who are routinely under-trained and under-equi pped to engage with real-life problems they may encounter in the classroom . The lack of training for higher education teachers is a growing iue in p hilosophy of education.
\nThis workshop attends to this issue by fac ilitating a space for graduate student educators to reflect on how to fost er good teaching environments for controversial issues\, and be good inter locutors with each other on controversial issues. The workshop will also t ouch on promoting equity in classrooms. We will provide workshop participa nts with a certificate of completion.
\nhttps://philevents.org/event /show/112546
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:cfp\,conference\,epistemology\,ethics\,social END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8014@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T180747Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:CUNY CONTACT:https://www.telosinstitute.net/conference2024/ DESCRIPTION:Democracy is often presented as the sine qua non of politics to day. Yet our own democratic political orders across the West consistently fail to deliver the desiderata they promise to provide. Does this failure arise in part from the theoretical insufficiency of conventional diagnoses of democracy’s challenges and ills? As the primaries for the 2024 U.S. pr esidential election open\, we invite participants to consider critically t he status of democracy with an eye toward the concerns that have defined T elos over its 55-year history.\nThe main advantage of democracy over other political forms is that\, by allowing broader participation in decision-m aking\, it prevents domination of the many by the few. In theory\, it also fosters decision-making that is comparatively effective and meaningful by allowing views and information from the many to be communicated efficient ly to political leaders\, while also holding the latter to account for the ir actions. At the same time\, a major difficulty of democracy is that the rule by the many requires some procedure for translating a multitude of o pinions into unified decisions and action. In addition\, precisely by exer cising its majority will\, the many can trammel the integrity of the indiv idual—the key threat that liberalism seeks to hold at bay.\nThese advantag es—and\, especially\, these challenges—have produced two competing visions of democracy in the contemporary West. Their division reflects difference s about the politics of representation and decision-making. On one hand\, liberals view democracy as the following of appropriate procedures for cha nneling the opinions of the multitude through the election of representati ves. On the other hand\, populists might disregard such procedural restric tions to arrive at outcomes that are acclaimed by the people directly.\nWh ile both sides nod to the importance of the popular will\, both are in fac t willing to denigrate it. The liberal camp reacts in horror when democrat ic elections result in the election of populists\, who are said to lack pr oper governing expertise\, as in the 2016 victory of Donald Trump. The pop ulist camp charges conspiracy when electoral results fail to reflect their own conception of the people’s will\, as in Trump’s reaction to his 2020 ouster. Depending on which camp is describing the times\, the false mediat or of popular will is either the demagogue or the bureaucrat—Telos has lon g opposed both.\nDifferent narratives\, in turn\, have taken hold about de mocracy’s present challenges. From the point of view of the liberal proced uralist critique of demagogues\, the means of moving from a multiplicity o f opinions to a unified decision inevitably involves discourse within a pu blic sphere. This discourse depends on a common understanding of historica l facts\, as well as a public sphere that allows different perspectives to face each other in debate. In our contemporary world\, however\, the brea kdown of previous limits to accessing the public sphere has led to an inab ility to arrive at a consensus on the difference between fact and fiction\ , as well as an increasing tendency of citizens to exist within a social m edia echo chamber of their own views\, undermining the common ground that a public sphere presupposes.\nAt the same time\, public debate necessarily implicates values and identities that have an ultimately mythic basis tha t cannot be rationally determined. People’s opinions\, moreover\, are inva riably shaped by leaders as much as the people shape what leaders ought to do. Experts lament how this representational dynamic undermines the proce dures that govern and channel the representation of the popular will. Yet the narrative aspect of representation is an ineradicable element of the w ay in which the popular will coalesces. The process of narrativized repres entation will never be an entirely rational one\, and the prominence of me dia personalities such as Reagan\, Trump\, and Zelensky as politicians und erlines the futility of attempting to rid the public sphere of drama and s pectacle.\nFor the populist\, by contrast\, the primary threat to democrac y lies in bureaucracy. In his 2016 end run around the political establishm ent\, Trump’s electoral success was driven by a broader critique of the ad ministrative state’s undermining of democratic process. The rise of the ma nagerial bureaucratic state that was set in motion by the development of t he welfare state in the twentieth century has created a class divide betwe en managers and managed that has shifted decision-making power over the co nditions of everyday life away from individuals and toward government and corporate bureaucracies. Because more and more of our economic and social welfare is under the direct influence of the state\, the resultant bloated administrative state has now become prey to a frenzy of lobbyists\, who f urther distance the people from political decision-making. The protections of minority rights that constitute the liberal aspect of today’s democrac ies have turned communities into special interests that lobby administrato rs to pass on privileges to favored groups. The result has been a growing restriction of freedom of expression in the public sphere and an eroding o f a unifying basis for constructing a political order now dominated by the collusion of bureaucracy with corporations.\nWhile the liberal critique o f demagoguery resorts to more government controls that exacerbate the expa nsion of bureaucracy\, the populist critique of bureaucracy has attempted to dismantle government without considering how to establish mechanisms th at would take over the functions that bureaucracies have coopted. Focusing on opposition to government\, the populist perspective often lacks any se nse of alternative institutional structures that could remedy the administ ration and commodification of everyday life.\nBoth sides have contributed to a polarization of views that threatens the underlying consensus necessa ry for democratic politics. The political gridlock that has ensued from th eir diverging diagnoses has meant that our political orders consistently f ail to deliver peace\, prosperity\, and accountable government. Moreover\, regardless of the rhetoric or credentials of those in power\, democracy t oday seems always to leave us with broadly the same basic policies\, despi te some of them being deeply unpopular.\nWe invite those who are intereste d in presenting at the 2024 Telos Conference to consider critically the st atus of democracy today by addressing one or more of the following questio ns:\nDemocratic Values\n\nDoes democracy have a value of its own independe nt of its practical consequences?\nWhat kinds of basic agreements on princ iples are necessary to maintain a democracy?\nIs there a limit to diversit y in a democracy?\nTo what extent is polarization itself a threat to democ racy?\nWhat is the relationship between democracy and liberalism?\n\nDemoc racy and the Administrative State\n\nTo what extent is the consistent real ity of all self-styled “democracies” of the world today a form of manageri al governance that resists change from below?\nWhat role is left in an age of managerialism for the popular will?\nMight the appropriate response to managerialism not be more democracy\, both at the level of the state but also inside corporate and workplace structures\, e.g.\, through workers’ s elf-management?\n\nDemocracy and the Public Sphere\n\nWhat is the role of representation in a democracy\, and how do today’s representational proces ses threaten democratic decision-making?\nHow have social media and artifi cial intelligence changed the way in which democratic processes function\, and what changes to these processes might be necessary in the future to a ccommodate these new technological developments?\nTo what extent and in wh at ways does the public sphere function in today’s democracies? What kinds of limitations are necessary to guarantee the functioning of the public s phere as a space for democratic debate and decision-making?\n\nDemocracy a nd Religion\n\nWhat role is there for religion in today’s democracies?\nTo what extent does either secularization or religion pose a threat to democ racy?\n\nDemocracy and Authoritarianism\n\nWhat is the relationship betwee n democracy and authoritarianism? Do the current ills of democracy promote a global shift toward authoritarian government?\nWhat are the key compone nts of democracy that differentiate it from authoritarianism? Where do cou ntries such as Hungary\, Turkey\, India\, and Russia fall on the continuum from democracy to authoritarianism?\n\nAbstract Submissions\nWhatever spe cific questions you address\, we invite you to present your analysis with an eye toward the long-standing concerns of the Telos-Paul Piccone Institu te and thereby to help develop a trenchant\, independent view of democracy that can inform both critique and practical action within our present his torical moment. Please submit a short c.v. and an abstract of up to 250 wo rds by October 15\, 2023\, to telosnyc2024@telosinstitute.net and place “T he 2024 Telos Conference” in the email’s subject line. Please direct quest ions to Professor Mark G. E. Kelly\, Western Sydney University\, M.Kelly@w esternsydney.edu.au.\nConference Location\nThe conference will take place at the John D. Calandra Italian American Institute in New York City from F riday\, March 22\, to Saturday\, March 23\, 2024.\n https://www.telosinsti tute.net/conference2024/ DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240322 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240324 GEO:+40.754894;-73.981856 LOCATION:The Telos-Paul Piccone Institute @ 25 W 43rd St 17th Floor\, New Y ork\, NY 10036\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Democracy Today? URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/democracy-today/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nDemocracy is often presented as the sine qua non of politics today. Yet our ow n democratic political orders across the West consistently fail to deliver the desiderata they promise to provide. Does this failure arise in part f rom the theoretical insufficiency of conventional diagnoses of democracy’s challenges and ills? As the primaries for the 2024 U.S. presidential elec tion open\, we invite participants to consider critically the status of de mocracy with an eye toward the concerns that have defined Telos over its 5 5-year history.
\nThe main advantage of democracy over other politic al forms is that\, by allowing broader participation in decision-making\, it prevents domination of the many by the few. In theory\, it also fosters decision-making that is comparatively effective and meaningful by allowin g views and information from the many to be communicated efficiently to po litical leaders\, while also holding the latter to account for their actio ns. At the same time\, a major difficulty of democracy is that the rule by the many requires some procedure for translating a multitude of opinions into unified decisions and action. In addition\, precisely by exercising i ts majority will\, the many can trammel the integrity of the individual—th e key threat that liberalism seeks to hold at bay.
\nThese advantage s—and\, especially\, these challenges—have produced two competing visions of democracy in the contemporary West. Their division reflects differences about the politics of representation and decision-making. On one hand\, l iberals view democracy as the following of appropriate procedures for chan neling the opinions of the multitude through the election of representativ es. On the other hand\, populists might disregard such procedural restrict ions to arrive at outcomes that are acclaimed by the people directly.
\nWhile both sides nod to the importance of the popular will\, both are in fact willing to denigrate it. The liberal camp reacts in horror when d emocratic elections result in the election of populists\, who are said to lack proper governing expertise\, as in the 2016 victory of Donald Trump. The populist camp charges conspiracy when electoral results fail to reflec t their own conception of the people’s will\, as in Trump’s reaction to hi s 2020 ouster. Depending on which camp is describing the times\, the false mediator of popular will is either the demagogue or the bureaucrat—Telos has long opposed both.
\nDifferent narratives\, in turn\, have taken hold about democracy’s present challenges. From the point of view of the liberal proceduralist critique of demagogues\, the means of moving from a multiplicity of opinions to a unified decision inevitably involves discour se within a public sphere. This discourse depends on a common understandin g of historical facts\, as well as a public sphere that allows different p erspectives to face each other in debate. In our contemporary world\, howe ver\, the breakdown of previous limits to accessing the public sphere has led to an inability to arrive at a consensus on the difference between fac t and fiction\, as well as an increasing tendency of citizens to exist wit hin a social media echo chamber of their own views\, undermining the commo n ground that a public sphere presupposes.
\nAt the same time\, publ ic debate necessarily implicates values and identities that have an ultima tely mythic basis that cannot be rationally determined. People’s opinions\ , moreover\, are invariably shaped by leaders as much as the people shape what leaders ought to do. Experts lament how this representational dynamic undermines the procedures that govern and channel the representation of t he popular will. Yet the narrative aspect of representation is an ineradic able element of the way in which the popular will coalesces. The process o f narrativized representation will never be an entirely rational one\, and the prominence of media personalities such as Reagan\, Trump\, and Zelens ky as politicians underlines the futility of attempting to rid the public sphere of drama and spectacle.
\nFor the populist\, by contrast\, th e primary threat to democracy lies in bureaucracy. In his 2016 end run aro und the political establishment\, Trump’s electoral success was driven by a broader critique of the administrative state’s undermining of democratic process. The rise of the managerial bureaucratic state that was set in mo tion by the development of the welfare state in the twentieth century has created a class divide between managers and managed that has shifted decis ion-making power over the conditions of everyday life away from individual s and toward government and corporate bureaucracies. Because more and more of our economic and social welfare is under the direct influence of the s tate\, the resultant bloated administrative state has now become prey to a frenzy of lobbyists\, who further distance the people from political deci sion-making. The protections of minority rights that constitute the libera l aspect of today’s democracies have turned communities into special inter ests that lobby administrators to pass on privileges to favored groups. Th e result has been a growing restriction of freedom of expression in the pu blic sphere and an eroding of a unifying basis for constructing a politica l order now dominated by the collusion of bureaucracy with corporations. p>\n
While the liberal critique of demagoguery resorts to more governmen t controls that exacerbate the expansion of bureaucracy\, the populist cri tique of bureaucracy has attempted to dismantle government without conside ring how to establish mechanisms that would take over the functions that b ureaucracies have coopted. Focusing on opposition to government\, the popu list perspective often lacks any sense of alternative institutional struct ures that could remedy the administration and commodification of everyday life.
\nBoth sides have contributed to a polarization of views that threatens the underlying consensus necessary for democratic politics. The political gridlock that has ensued from their diverging diagnoses has mean t that our political orders consistently fail to deliver peace\, prosperit y\, and accountable government. Moreover\, regardless of the rhetoric or c redentials of those in power\, democracy today seems always to leave us wi th broadly the same basic policies\, despite some of them being deeply unp opular.
\nWe invite those who are interested in presenting at the 20 24 Telos Conference to consider critically the status of democracy today b y addressing one or more of the following questions:
\nDemoc ratic Values
\nDemocracy a nd the Administrative State
\nD emocracy and the Public Sphere
\nDemocracy and Religion
\nDemocracy and Authoritarianism
\nAbstract Submissions
\nWh atever specific questions you address\, we invite you to present your anal ysis with an eye toward the long-standing concerns of the Telos-Paul Picco ne Institute and thereby to help develop a trenchant\, independent view of democracy that can inform both critique and practical action within our p resent historical moment. Please submit a short c.v. and an abstract of up to 250 words by October 15\, 2023\, to telosnyc2024@telosinstitute.net an d place “The 2024 Telos Conference” in the email’s subject line. Please di rect questions to Professor Mark G. E. Kelly\, Western Sydney University\, M.Kelly@westernsydney.edu.au.
\nConference Location
\nThe conference will take place at the John D. Calandra Italian A merican Institute in New York City from Friday\, March 22\, to Saturday\, March 23\, 2024.
\n\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:cfp\,conference\,legal\,political\,religion\,social END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8100@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T180747Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:NYU CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/117065 DESCRIPTION:The New York University Center for Bioethics is pleased to invi te submissions of abstracts for the 4th Annual Philosophical Bioethics Wor kshop\, to be held at NYU on Friday and Saturday\, May 3-4\, 2024.\nWe are seeking to showcase new work in philosophical bioethics\, broadly underst ood. This includes (but is not limited to) neuroethics\, environmental eth ics\, animal ethics\, reproductive ethics\, research ethics\, ethics of AI \, data ethics\, public health ethics\, gender and race in bioethics\, and clinical ethics.\nOur keynote speaker will be Professor Shelly Kagan\, Ya le University. There will be five additional slots for papers chosen from among the submitted abstracts\, including one slot set aside for a graduat e student speaker. The most promising graduate student submission will be awarded a Graduate Prize\, which includes an award of $500\, and may inclu de coverage of travel expenses\, depending upon university policies at the time of the award. Please indicate in your submission email whether you w ould like to be considered for the Graduate Prize.\nPlease submit extended abstracts of between 750 and 1\,000 words to philosophicalbioethics@gmail .com by 11:59 pm Eastern Time on Wednesday\, January 31\, 2024. Abstracts should be formatted for blind review\, and papers should be suitable for p resentation in 30-35 minutes. Email notifications of acceptance will be se nt out by Friday\, February 16\, 2024.\nWhen submitting your abstract\, pl ease also indicate whether you would be interested in serving as a comment ator-chair in the event that your abstract is not selected for presentatio n. We will be inviting five additional participants to serve as commentato r-chairs.\nThis year’s Philosophical Bioethics Workshop is organized by S. Matthew Liao\, Daniel Fogal\, Claudia Passos-Ferreira\, Dan Khokar\, and Jonathan Knutzen of the NYU Center for Bioethics. DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20240503 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20240505 GEO:+40.729457;-73.994348 LOCATION:Center for Bioethics NYU @ 5 Washington Pl\, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:4th Annual NYU Philosophical Bioethics Workshop URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/4th-annual-nyu-philosoph ical-bioethics-workshop/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nThe New York University Center for Bioethics is pleased to inv ite submissions of abstracts for the 4th Annual Philosophical Bioethics Wo rkshop\, to be held at NYU on Friday and Saturday\, May 3-4\, 2024.
\n< p>We are seeking to showcase new work in philosophical bioethics\, broadly understood. This includes (but is not limited to) neuroethics\, environme ntal ethics\, animal ethics\, reproductive ethics\, research ethics\, ethi cs of AI\, data ethics\, public health ethics\, gender and race in bioethi cs\, and clinical ethics.\nOur keynote speaker will be Professor Sh elly Kagan\, Yale University. There will be five additional slots for pape rs chosen from among the submitted abstracts\, including one slot set asid e for a graduate student speaker. The most promising graduate student subm ission will be awarded a Graduate Prize\, which includes an award of $500\ , and may include coverage of travel expenses\, depending upon university policies at the time of the award. Please indicate in your submission emai l whether you would like to be considered for the Graduate Prize.
\nPlease submit extended abstracts of between 750 and 1\,000 words to philos ophicalbioethics@gmail.com by 11:59 pm Eastern Time on Wednesday\, January 31\, 2024. Abstracts should be formatted for blind review\, and papers sh ould be suitable for presentation in 30-35 minutes. Email notifications of acceptance will be sent out by Friday\, February 16\, 2024.
\nWhen submitting your abstract\, please also indicate whether you would be inter ested in serving as a commentator-chair in the event that your abstract is not selected for presentation. We will be inviting five additional partic ipants to serve as commentator-chairs.
\nThis year’s Philosophical B ioethics Workshop is organized by S. Matthew Liao\, Daniel Fogal\, Claudia Passos-Ferreira\, Dan Khokar\, and Jonathan Knutzen of the NYU Center for Bioethics.
\n