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-7955@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T173618Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://scienceandsociety.columbia.edu/events/curiosity-creativity- and-complexity DESCRIPTION:How does the brain cope with Complexity? How do we make decisio ns when confronted with practically infinite streams of information?\nThe conference showcases cutting edge research on these questions in Neuroscie nce and Psychology (neural mechanisms of cognitive control\, exploration\, decision-making\, information demand\, memory and creativity)\, Computer Science (artificial intelligence of curiosity and intrinsic motivation) an d Economics (decision making and information demand). Alongside formal pre sentations\, the conference will encourage ample interactions among facult y\, students and postdocs through informal discussions and poster presenta tions.\nSubmissions for poster presentations and travel awards are due Feb ruary 15\, 2023. Please visit the call for submissions for complete requir ements.\nEvent Information\nFree and open to the public. Registration is r equired and will open shortly. All in-person attendees must follow Columbi a’s COVID-19 policies. Visitors will be asked to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. Online attendees will receive a Zoom link. Please email even ts@zi.columbia.edu with any questions. DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20230523 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20230526 GEO:+40.816847;-73.957958 LOCATION:Jerome L. Greene Science Center (9th Floor Lecture Hall) @ 3227 Br oadway\, New York\, NY 10027\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Curiosity\, Creativity and Complexity Conference URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/curiosity-creativity-and -complexity-conference/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n
\\nHow does the brain cope with Complexity? How do we make decisions when confronted with practically infinite streams of information?
\nThe conference showca ses cutting edge research on these questions in Neuroscience and Psycholog y (neural mechanisms of cognitive control\, exploration\, decision-making\ , information demand\, memory and creativity)\, Computer Science (artifici al intelligence of curiosity and intrinsic motivation) and Economics (deci sion making and information demand). Alongside formal presentations\, the conference will encourage ample interactions among faculty\, students and postdocs through informal discussions and poster presentations.
\nSu bmissions for poster presentations and travel awards are due February 15\, 2023. Please visit the call fo r submissions for complete requirements.
\nFree and open to the public. Registration is required and will open shortly. All in-person attendees must follow Columbia’s COV ID-19 policies. Visitors will be asked to provide proof of COVID-19 va ccination. Online attendees will receive a Zoom link. Please email events@zi.columbia.edu with any quest ions.
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:artificial intelligence\,decision theory\,mind\,psych ology END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7831@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T173618Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://philosophy.columbia.edu/content/colloquium-lectures-2022-20 23 DESCRIPTION:Naked Statistical Evidence and Verdictive Justice DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20221027T161000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20221027T180000 GEO:+40.807536;-73.962573 LOCATION:716 Philosophy Hall @ New York\, NY 10027\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Naked Statistical Evidence and Verdictive Justice. Sherri Roush (UC LA) URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/sherri-roush-ucla/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nNaked Statist ical Evidence and Verdictive Justice
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:legal\,statistics END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7897@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T173618Z 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-7954@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T173618Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://scienceandsociety.columbia.edu/events/cynthia-bennett-disab ility-accessibility-and-fairness-artificial-intelligence DESCRIPTION:Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to automate and scale sol utions to perennial accessibility challenges (e.g.\, generating image desc riptions for blind users). However\, research shows that AI-bias dispropor tionately impacts people already marginalized based on their race\, gender \, or disabilities\, raising questions about potential impacts in addition to AI’s promise. In this talk\, Cynthia Bennett will overview broad conce rns at the intersection of AI\, disability\, and accessibility. She will t hen share details about one project in this research space that led to gui dance on human and AI-generated image descriptions that account for subjec tive and potentially sensitive descriptors around race\, gender\, and disa bility of people in images. DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230206T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230206T140000 GEO:+40.841243;-73.940971 LOCATION:Presbyterian Hospital Building (Room PH20-200) @ 622 W 168th St\, New York\, NY 10032\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Cynthia Bennett – Disability Accessibility and Fairness in Artifici al Intelligence URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/cynthia-bennett-disabili ty-accessibility-and-fairness-in-artificial-intelligence/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nArtificial in telligence (AI) promises to automate and scale solutions to perennial acce ssibility challenges (e.g.\, generating image descriptions for blind users ). However\, research shows that AI-bias disproportionately impacts people already marginalized based on their race\, gender\, or disabilities\, rai sing questions about potential impacts in addition to AI’s promise. In thi s talk\, Cynthia Bennett will overview broad concerns at the intersection of AI\, disability\, and accessibility. She will then share details about one project in this research space that led to guidance on human and AI-ge nerated image descriptions that account for subjective and potentially sen sitive descriptors around race\, gender\, and disability of people in imag es.
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:artificial intelligence\,ethics END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7938@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T173618Z 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 COVID-19 pandemic is said to be a once-in-a-century inciden t\, and it brought to us a sense of crisis at various levels. What is a cr isis\, though? Can any unnerving moment or period be called a crisis\, or are there different dimensions of a crisis to which we need to be attentiv e? Is solidarity possible after experiencing a crisis like Covid-19? Can B uddhism make any contribution to facilitating solidarity? This presentatio n explores the meaning and nature of a crisis and our responses to it by d rawing on modern Korean political thinker Pak Ch’iu’s (1909–1949) analysis of crisis and feminist-Buddhist thinker Kim Iryŏp’s (1896–1971) Buddhist philosophy. By doing so\, this presentation considers what social\, politi cal\, existential\, and even religious meaning we can draw from our experi ence of crises\, and what questions these insights present to us. p>\n
With responses from Kars ten Struhl (John Jay College of Criminal Justice\, CUNY)
\n< p class='gmail-p2'>Presented by THE COLUMBIA SOC IETY FOR COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY\nRSVP is required for dinner. If you would like to participate in our dinner\, a $30 fee is required. Please contact Lucilla at lm3335@colu mbia.edu for further information.
\n\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:Buddhism\,comparative\,existentialism\,Korean\,politi cal\,religion\,social END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8051@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T173618Z 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:20240328T173618Z 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:20240328T173618Z 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 BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8141@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T173618Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:New School for Social Research CONTACT:https://event.newschool.edu/stephanesymons DESCRIPTION:In the final part of The Human Condition (1958) Hannah Arendt t urns to the danger of ‘world- alienation’. Based on a variety of discoveri es and evolutions that are constitutive of modernity (globalization\, Prot estantism\, the invention of the telescope)\, modern man has adopted an Ar chimedean\, external position vis-à-vis the world. According to Arendt\, this ‘view from without’ has gradually jeopardized the experience of a sha red world\, endangering the foundation of all meaning-giving activities.\n My talk can be considered as a reply to Arendt’s pessimistic account of mo dern ‘world-alienation’. It builds on the idea that some of the most influ ential thinkers of the twentieth century (Ernst Jünger\, Georg Lukács\, Ernst Bloch\, Theodor Adorno\, Walter Benjamin\, Aby Warburg\, Sigmund Fre ud) did not equate the loss of a shared world with the loss of meaning. Ra ther\, the conceptual framework of a substantial part of early twentieth c entury German philosophy centers on the exploration of a productive opposi tion\, negation or fragmentation of the world. From the perspective of the se thinkers\, the world’s ‘durability’ (Arendt) is not simply a source of shared meaning since it can be experienced as the mark of its indifference to change and renewal.\nBio:\nStéphane Symons is Full Professor of Philos ophy at the Institute of Philosophy of the University of Leuven\, Belgium. His research is focused on interwar German thought (Frankfurt School) and postwar French philosophy (structuralism and post-structuralism).\nTicket s: https://event.newschool.edu/stephanesymons. DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240404T180000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240404T200000 GEO:+40.73702;-73.992243 LOCATION:Wolff Conference Room/D1103 @ 6 E 16th St\, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:The Concept of World-Alienation in Twentieth Century German Thought – presented by Stéphane Symons URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/the-concept-of-world-ali enation-in-twentieth-century-german-thought-presented-by-stephane-symons/ X-COST-TYPE:external X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nIn the final part of The Human Condition (1958) Hannah Arendt turns to the dan ger of ‘world- alienation’. Based on a variety of discoveries and evolutio ns that are constitutive of modernity (globalization\, Protestantism\, the invention of the telescope)\, modern man has adopted an Archimedean\, ext ernal position vis-à-vis the world. According to Arendt\, this ‘view from without’ has gradually jeopardized the experience of a shared world\, end angering the foundation of all meaning-giving activities.
\nMy talk can be considered as a reply to Arendt’s pessimistic account of modern ‘wo rld-alienation’. It builds on the idea that some of the most influential t hinkers of the twentieth century (Ernst Jünger\, Georg Lukács\, Ernst Bl och\, Theodor Adorno\, Walter Benjamin\, Aby Warburg\, Sigmund Freud) did not equate the loss of a shared world with the loss of meaning. Rather\, t he conceptual framework of a substantial part of early twentieth century G erman philosophy centers on the exploration of a productive opposition\, n egation or fragmentation of the world. From the perspective of these think ers\, the world’s ‘durability’ (Arendt) is not simply a source of shared m eaning since it can be experienced as the mark of its indifference to chan ge and renewal.
\nBio:
\nStéphane Symons is F ull Professor of Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy of the Universi ty of Leuven\, Belgium. His research is focused on interwar German thought (Frankfurt School) and postwar French philosophy (structuralism and post- structuralism).
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:existentialism\,German X-TICKETS-URL:https://event.newschool.edu/stephanesymons END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR