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-7991@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T235130Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:CUNY CONTACT:https://philevents.org/event/show/109665 DESCRIPTION:Speakers:\n\n\n Angela Condello \n(unaffiliated)\n\n\n Julie St one Peters \n(unaffiliated)\n\n\n Katrin Trüstedt \nLEIBNIZ CENTER FOR LIT ERARY AND CULTURAL RESEARCH (ZFL BERLIN)\n\n\n Jesus Velasco \n(unaffiliat ed)\n\n\n Marco Wan \n(unaffiliated)\n\n\nOrganisers:\n\n\nPeter Goodrich \nYeshiva University DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20230402 DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20230403 GEO:+40.734628;-73.994256 LOCATION:Yeshiva University Room 1008 @ Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law/B rookdale Center\, 55 5th Ave\, New York\, NY 10003\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Law as Performance URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/law-as-performance/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n
\\nA conference hosted by the Moth erhood and Technology Working Group at the Center for the Study of Soc ial Difference on the theme of “Conception and Its Discontents.”
\nM edical technologies have radically transformed the biological and social e xperience of motherhood. Advances in genomic and reproductive care\, the c irculation of novel kinship structures\, the entrenchment of existing glob al networks of power and privilege\, and the politics of contested bodily sites mark this emerging constellation.
\nTechnological advancements have in particular impacted not just the understanding of conception\, bu t the very process by which a human embryo is created\, implanted\, and ma tured. Egg freezing\, embryo storage\, IVF\, and surrogacy afford women ne w freedoms in choosing when and how to become mothers\, while also raising troubling questions about the pressures of capitalism and the extension o f worklife\, as well as the global inequalities present in the experience of motherhood. In addition\, technologies have arisen allowing for unprece dented control over not just who becomes a mother\, but what kind of embry o is allowed to be implanted and to grow. Technologies such as CRISPR and NIPT have re-introduced the question of eugenics\, radically shifting the very epistemology of motherhood and what it means to be “expecting.” And c ontemporary abortion debates draw on technology in order to make arguments both for and against access\, with imaging technologies being instrumenta lized in the building of a sympathetic case for the unborn\, and the very notion of a “heartbeat bill” reliant on the misreading of technologies for measuring fetal activity.
\nWhile these problems are urgent today\, questions of conception and technology are by no means recent development s. The 18th century saw a flourishing of philosophical and scientific theo ries regarding the start of human life and its formation within the womb. Such theories relied on modern technologies\, such as autopsy\, to atomize and visualize the body. In the 19th and 20th centuries\, eugenic medical science produced theories of reproductive difference between differing rac ial and social groups\, leading to forced sterilization laws in both the U S and in Germany. This long history of racializing the rhetoric of fertili ty and motherhood continues to influence political debates on immigration and demographic changes in the present.
\nFull conference detail s and schedule to come.
\nPlease email disability@columbia.edu to request disability ac
commodations. Advance notice is necessary to arrange for some accessibilit
y needs
\n
Tickets: https:/ /forms.gle/rzEaVneRo3ohK5nu9.
X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:conference\,legal\,value X-TICKETS-URL:https://forms.gle/rzEaVneRo3ohK5nu9 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8014@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T235130Z 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-7644@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T235130Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:NYU CONTACT:https://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/lawphilosophy/colloquium DESCRIPTION:The Colloquium in Legal\, Political\, and Social Philosophy was founded by Ronald Dworkin and Thomas Nagel in 1987. It is the original mo del for all of NYU Law’s colloquia. The Colloquium is now convened by Liam Murphy\, Samuel Scheffler\, and Jeremy Waldron\, two of whom will host in any given year.\nEach week on Thursday a legal theorist or moral or polit ical philosopher presents a paper to the group\, which consists of student s\, faculty from the Law School and other departments of NYU\, and faculty from other universities. The choice of subject is left to the paper’s aut hor\, within the general boundaries of the Colloquium’s subjects\, and the discussions are therefore not connected by any structured theme for the t erm as a whole\, though in past years certain central topics were canvasse d in several weeks’ discussion. The Colloquium aims\, not to pursue any pa rticular subject\, but to explore new work in considerable depth and so al low students to develop their own skill in theoretical analysis.\nEach wee k’s paper is posted at least a week in advance on this page\, and particip ants are expected to have read it.\nThe public sessions of the colloquium will take place on Thursdays\, in Lester Pollock Colloquium Room\, Furman Hall\, 9th floor\, from 4:00 to 7:00 pm. \nColloquium 2021\nProfessors Li am Murphy and Samuel Scheffler\nSeptember 2nd\nKim Ferzan\, University of Pennsylvania\, Law\nRethinking Credit for Time Served\nSeptember 9th\nLiam Murphy\, NYU\nInternational Responsibility for Global Environment Harm: C ollective and Individual\nSeptember 17th ( Friday 2.00-5.00)\nMoshe Halber tal\, NYU\nOn Being Human\nSeptember 23rd\nJeff McMahan\, Oxford\nSeptembe r 30th\nEmma Kaufman\, NYU Law\nOctober 7th\nRick Pildes\, NYU Law\nOctobe r 14th\nSamuel Scheffler\, NYU\nOctober 21st\nSteve Darwall\, Yale\, Philo sophy\nOctober 28th\nChris Kutz\, University of California\, Berkeley\, La w\nNovember 4th\nAnthony Appiah\, NYU\nNovember 11th\nJohann Frick\, Unive rsity of California\, Berkeley\, Philosophy\nNovember 18th\nTeresa Bejan\, Oxford\nDecember 2nd\nRuth Chang\, Oxford DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20210902T160000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20210902T190000 EXDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20210917T160000 GEO:+40.730147;-73.998916 LOCATION:Lester Pollock Colloquium Room\, Furman Hall\, 9th floo @ 245 Sull ivan St\, New York\, NY 10012\, USA RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20210909T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20210917T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20210923T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20210930T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20211007T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20211014T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20211021T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20211028T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20211104T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20211111T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20211118T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20211202T160000 SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Colloquium in Legal\, Political\, and Social Philosophy URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/colloquium-in-legal-poli tical-and-social-philosophy-7/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nThe Colloquiu m in Legal\, Political\, and Social Philosophy was founded by Ronald Dwork in and Thomas Nagel in 1987. It is the original model for all of NYU Law’s colloquia. The Colloquium is now convened by Liam Murphy\, Samuel Scheffl er\, and Jeremy Waldron\, two of whom will host in any given year.
\nEach week on Thursday a legal theorist or moral or political philosopher presents a paper to the group\, which consists of students\, faculty from the Law School and other departments of NYU\, and faculty from other unive rsities. The choice of subject is left to the paper’s author\, within the general boundaries of the Colloquium’s subjects\, and the discussions are therefore not connected by any structured theme for the term as a whole\, though in past years certain central topics were canvassed in several week s’ discussion. The Colloquium aims\, not to pursue any particular subject\ , but to explore new work in considerable depth and so allow students to d evelop their own skill in theoretical analysis.
\nEach week’s paper is posted at least a week in advance on this page\, and participants are e xpected to have read it.
\nThe public sessions of the colloquium will take place on Thursdays\, in Lester Pollock Colloquium Roo m\, Furman Hall\, 9th floor\, from 4:00 to 7:00 pm.
\nProfessors Liam Murphy and S amuel Scheffler
\nSeptember 2nd
\nKim Ferzan\, Univers
ity of Pennsylvania\, Law
Rethinki ng Credit for Time Served
\nSeptember 9th
\nLiam Murphy\, N
YU
Internatio nal Responsibility for Global Environment Harm: Collective and Individual< /a>
\nSeptember 17th ( Friday 2.00-5.00)
\nMos
he Halbertal\, NYU
September 23rd\nJeff McMahan\, Oxford
\nSeptember 30th
\nEmma Kaufman\, N
YU Law
October 7th
\nRick Pildes\, NYU Law
October 14
th
\nSamuel Scheffler\, NYU
October 21st
\nSteve Darwall
\, Yale\, Philosophy
October 28th
\nChris Kutz\, University o
f California\, Berkeley\, Law
November 4th
\nAnthony Appiah\,
NYU
November 11th
\nJohann Frick\, University of California\
, Berkeley\, Philosophy
November 18th
\nTeresa Bejan\, Oxford
December 2nd
\nRuth Chang\, Oxford
The Colloquiu m in Legal\, Political\, and Social Philosophy was founded by Ronald Dwork in and Thomas Nagel in 1987. It is the original model for all of NYU Law’s colloquia. The Colloquium is now convened by Liam Murphy\, Samuel Scheffl er\, and Jeremy Waldron\, two of whom will host in any given year.
\nEach week on Thursday a legal theorist or moral or political philosopher presents a paper to the group\, which consists of students\, faculty from the Law School and other departments of NYU\, and faculty from other unive rsities. The choice of subject is left to the paper’s author\, within the general boundaries of the Colloquium’s subjects\, and the discussions are therefore not connected by any structured theme for the term as a whole\, though in past years certain central topics were canvassed in several week s’ discussion. The Colloquium aims\, not to pursue any particular subject\ , but to explore new work in considerable depth and so allow students to d evelop their own skill in theoretical analysis.
\nEach week’s paper is posted at least a week in advance on this page\, and participants are e xpected to have read it.
\nThe public sessions of the colloquium will take place on Thursdays\, in Lester Pollock Colloquium Roo m\, Furman Hall\, 9th floor\, from 4:00 to 7:00 pm.
\nProfessors Liam Murphy and S amuel Scheffler
\nSeptember 2nd
\nKim Ferzan\, Univers
ity of Pennsylvania\, Law
Rethinki ng Credit for Time Served
\nSeptember 9th
\nLiam Murphy\, N
YU
Internatio nal Responsibility for Global Environment Harm: Collective and Individual< /a>
\nSeptember 17th ( Friday 2.00-5.00)
\nMos
he Halbertal\, NYU
September 23rd\nJeff McMahan\, Oxford
\nSeptember 30th
\nEmma Kaufman\, N
YU Law
October 7th
\nRick Pildes\, NYU Law
October 14
th
\nSamuel Scheffler\, NYU
October 21st
\nSteve Darwall
\, Yale\, Philosophy
October 28th
\nChris Kutz\, University o
f California\, Berkeley\, Law
November 4th
\nAnthony Appiah\,
NYU
November 11th
\nJohann Frick\, University of California\
, Berkeley\, Philosophy
November 18th
\nTeresa Bejan\, Oxford
December 2nd
\nRuth Chang\, Oxford
Generative ar t made with algorithms has existed since the early days of computing in th e 1960s. In recent years\, a new strand of generative art has emerged: AI- generated art\, which leverages the recent progress of artificial intellig ence to create artworks. Unlike old-fashioned generative art\, AI-generate d art is not produced with an explicit set of programming instructions pro vided by human artists\; instead\, it involves training an algorithm on a dataset so that it can later produce artworks (images\, music\, or video c lips) using its own internal parameters that have not been explicitly defi ned by a human. This process raises fascinating questions at the intersect ion of computer science\, art history\, and the philosophy of art. At a su perficial level of analysis\, AI-generated art seems to offload much of th e creative impetus of art production to the machine\, requiring minimal in tervention from the artist. On closer inspection\, however\, it involves a novel process of curation at two key stages: upstream in the selection of the dataset on which the algorithm is trained\, and downstream in the sel ection of the outputs that should qualify as artworks. Instead of replacin g human artists with computers\, AI-generated art can be understood as a n ew kind of collaboration between mind and machine\, both of which contribu te to the aesthetic value of the final artwork.
\nThis seminar will bring together AI artists and philosophers to explore the significance of this new mode of art production. It will discuss the implications of AI-ge nerated art for the definition of art\, the nature of the relationship bet ween artists and tools\, the process of digital curation\, and whether AI systems can be as creative as humans.
\nFree and open to the publi c. Registration is required via Eventbrite. Registered attendees will rec eive an event link shortly before the seminar begins.
\nThis event i s hosted by the Presidential Scholars in Society and Neurosc ience as part of the S eminars in Society and Neuroscience series.
\nThe Center for Sci ence and Society makes every reasonable effort to accommodate individuals with disabilities. If you require disability accommodations to attend a Ce nter for Science and Society event\, please contact us at scienceandsociety@columbia.edu or (212 ) 853-1612 at least 10 days in advance of the event. For more information\ , please visit the campus accessibility we bpage.
\nTickets: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/how-ai-is-changing-artistic-creati on-tickets-404716165947.
X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:aesthetics\,computation\,technology X-TICKETS-URL:https://www.eventbrite.com/e/how-ai-is-changing-artistic-crea tion-tickets-404716165947 END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-7831@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T235130Z 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-8029@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T235130Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:NYU CONTACT:https://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/lawphilosophy/colloquium DESCRIPTION:Colloquium 2023\nProfessors Jeremy Waldron and Liam Murphy\nSep tember 7th\nBonnie Honig\, Brown University\nFatal Forgiveness: Euripides\ , Austin\, Arendt\, Cavell\nSeptember 14th\nJeremy Waldron\, NYU\nSeptembe r 21st\nAlice Crary\, The New School\nSeptember 28th\nDavid Enoch\, Univer sity of Oxford\nOctober 5th\nGina Schouten\, Harvard University\nOctober 1 2th\nDaryl Levinson\, NYU\nOctober 19th\nBarbara Levenbook\, North Carolin a State University\nOctober 26th\nRob Howse\, NYU\nNovember 2nd\nTrevor Mo rrison\, NYU\nNovember 9th\nJohn Goldberg\, Harvard University\nNovember 1 6th\nCourtney Cox\, Fordham University\nNovember 30th\nJuliana Bidadanure\ , Stanford University\n \nThe Colloquium in Legal\, Political\, and Social Philosophy was founded by Ronald Dworkin and Thomas Nagel in 1987. It is the original model for all of NYU Law’s colloquia. The Colloquium is now c onvened by Liam Murphy\, Samuel Scheffler\, and Jeremy Waldron\, two of wh om will host in any given year.\nEach week on Thursday a legal theorist or moral or political philosopher presents a paper to the group\, which cons ists of students\, faculty from the Law School and other departments of NY U\, and faculty from other universities. The choice of subject is left to the paper’s author\, within the general boundaries of the Colloquium’s sub jects\, and the discussions are therefore not connected by any structured theme for the term as a whole\, though in past years certain central topic s were canvassed in several weeks’ discussion. The Colloquium aims\, not t o pursue any particular subject\, but to explore new work in considerable depth and so allow students to develop their own skill in theoretical anal ysis.\nEach week’s paper is posted at least a week in advance on this page \, and participants are expected to have read it. DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20230907T160000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20230907T190000 GEO:+40.730147;-73.998916 LOCATION:Lester Pollock Colloquium Room\, Furman Hall\, 9th flr @ 245 Sulli van St\, New York\, NY 10012\, USA RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20230921T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20230928T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20231005T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20231012T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20231019T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20231026T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20231102T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20231109T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20231116T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20231130T160000 SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Colloquium in Legal\, Political\, and Social Philosophy URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/colloquium-in-legal-poli tical-and-social-philosophy-9/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nCollo quium 2023
\nProfessors Jeremy Waldron and Liam Mur phy
\nSeptember 7th
\nBonnie Honig\, Brown University<
br />\nFatal Forgiveness: Euripides\, Austin\, Arendt\, Ca
vell
September 14th
\nJeremy Waldron\, NYU
Septem
ber 21st
\nAlice Crary\, The New School
September 28th
\nDavid Enoch\, University of Oxford
October 5th
\nGina Schou
ten\, Harvard University
October 12th
\nDaryl Levinson\, NYU<
/p>\n
October 19th
\nBarbara Levenbook\, North Carolina State Unive
rsity
October 26th
\nRob Howse\, NYU
November 2nd
\nTrevor Morrison\, NYU
November 9th
\nJohn Goldberg\, Harv
ard University
November 16th
\nCourtney Cox\, Fordham Univers
ity
November 30th
\nJuliana Bidadanure\, Stanford University<
/p>\n
\n
The Colloquium in Legal\, Political\, and Social Philoso phy was founded by Ronald Dworkin and Thomas Nagel in 1987. It is the orig inal model for all of NYU Law’s colloquia. The Colloquium is now convened by Liam Murphy\, Samuel Scheffler\, and Jeremy Waldron\, two of whom will host in any given year.
\nEach week on Thursday a legal theorist or moral or political philosopher presents a paper to the group\, which consi sts of students\, faculty from the Law School and other departments of NYU \, and faculty from other universities. The choice of subject is left to t he paper’s author\, within the general boundaries of the Colloquium’s subj ects\, and the discussions are therefore not connected by any structured t heme for the term as a whole\, though in past years certain central topics were canvassed in several weeks’ discussion. The Colloquium aims\, not to pursue any particular subject\, but to explore new work in considerable d epth and so allow students to develop their own skill in theoretical analy sis.
\nEach week’s paper is posted at least a week in advance on thi s page\, and participants are expected to have read it.
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:legal\,political\,social END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8108@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T235130Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Fordham CONTACT:abagchi@law.fordham.edu\; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DNgHQ XWhXRqJ8ALCoYyZHAVSbiY9z8jC/edit DESCRIPTION:Th 1/25/24: Kate Manne\nTh 2/1/24: Scott Shapiro\nTh 2/8/24: Ek ow Yankah\nTh 2/15/24: Tommie Shelby\nTh 2/22/24 Gideon Rosen\nTh 2/29/24: Sabeel Rahman\nTh 3/7/24: Amy Sepinwall\nTh 3/14/24: Erik Encarnacion\nTh 3/21/24: Seyla Benhabib\nTh 4/4/24: Amalia Amaya\nTh 4/11/24: Debbie Hell man\nTh 4/18/24: Mala Chatterjee\nTh 4/25/24: Liam Murphy\nContact Aditi B agchi: https://www.fordham.edu/school-of-law/faculty/directory/full-time/a diti-bagchi/ DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240125T160000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240125T190000 GEO:+40.861457;-73.885277 LOCATION:Fordham Law @ Bronx County\, Bronx\, NY 10458\, USA RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240201T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240208T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240215T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240222T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240229T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240307T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240314T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240321T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240404T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240411T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240418T160000 RDATE;TZID=America/New_York:20240425T160000 SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:Law & Philosophy Colloquium URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/law-philosophy-colloquiu m/ X-COST-TYPE:free X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nTh 1/25/24: K ate Manne
\nTh 2/1/24: Scott Shapiro
\nTh 2/8/24: Ekow Yankah< /p>\n
Th 2/15/24: Tommie Shelby
\nTh 2/22/24 Gideon Rosen
\nTh 2/29/24: Sabeel Rahman
\nTh 3/7/24: Amy Sepinwall
\nTh 3/14 /24: Erik Encarnacion
\nTh 3/21/24: Seyla Benhabib
\nTh 4/4/24 : Amalia Amaya
\nTh 4/11/24: Debbie Hellman
\nTh 4/18/24: Mala Chatterjee
\nTh 4/25/24: Liam Murphy
\nContact Aditi Bagchi: https://www.fordham.edu/school-of-law/faculty/directory/fu ll-time/aditi-bagchi/
\n X-TAGS;LANGUAGE=en-US:legal END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:ai1ec-8107@www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress DTSTAMP:20240328T235130Z CATEGORIES;LANGUAGE=en-US:Columbia U CONTACT:https://maisonfrancaise.columbia.edu/events/artificial-history-natu ral-intelligence-thinking-machines-descartes-digital-age DESCRIPTION:David Bates\, in conversation with Stefanos Geroulano and Joann a Stalnaker\nWe imagine that we are both in control of and controlled by o ur bodies—autonomous and yet automatic. This entanglement\, according to D avid W. Bates\, emerged in the seventeenth century when humans first built and compared themselves with machines. Reading varied thinkers from Desca rtes to Kant to Turing\, Bates reveals how time and time again technologic al developments offered new ways to imagine how the body’s automaticity wo rked alongside the mind’s autonomy. Tracing these evolving lines of though t\, David Bates discusses his new book\, An Artificial History of Natural Intelligence\, which offers a new theorization of the human as a being tha t is dependent on technology and produces itself as an artificial automato n without a natural\, outside origin.\nDavid Bates is Professor of Rhetori c at the University of California Berkeley. His research focuses on the hi story of legal and political ideas\, and the relationship between technolo gy\, science\, and the history of human cognition.\nStefanos Geroulanos is the Director of the Remarque Institute and Professor of European Intellec tual History at NYU. He usually writes about concepts that weave together modern understandings of time\, the human\, and the body. His new book is a history of the concepts\, images\, and sciences of human origins since 1 770\, forthcoming from Liveright Press as The Invention of Prehistory: Emp ire\, Violence\, and Our Obsession with Human Origins in 2024.\nJoanna Sta lnaker is Professor of French at Columbia. She works on Enlightenment phil osophy and literature\, with a recent interest in how women shaped the Enl ightenment. Her new book\, The Rest Is Silence: Enlightenment Philosophers Facing Death\, will be published by Yale University Press in the Walpole series.\n\n\n\n\n\nTickets: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/an-artificial-his tory-of-natural-intelligence-david-bates-tickets-794696587887?aff=oddtdtcr eator. DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20240306T180000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20240306T193000 GEO:+40.807717;-73.961428 LOCATION:East Gallery\, Maison Française @ Buell Hall\, 515 W 116th St\, Ne w York\, NY 10027\, USA SEQUENCE:0 SUMMARY:An Artificial History of Natural Intelligence: Thinking with Machin es from Descartes to the Digital Age URL:https://www.noahgreenstein.com/wordpress/event/an-artificial-history-of -natural-intelligence-thinking-with-machines-from-descartes-to-the-digital -age/ X-COST-TYPE:external X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:\\n\\n\\nDavid Bates\, in conversation with Stefanos Geroulano and Joa nna Stalnaker
\nWe imagine that we are both in control of a
nd controlled by our bodies—autonomous and yet automatic. This entanglemen
t\, according to David W. Bates\, emerged in the seventeenth century when
humans first built and compared themselves with machines. Reading varied t
hinkers from Descartes to Kant to Turing\, Bates reveals how time and time
again technological developments offered new ways to imagine how the body
’s automaticity worked alongside the mind’s autonomy. Tracing these evolvi
ng lines of thought\, David Bates discusses his new book\, An Artifici
al History of Natural Intelligence\, which offers a new theorization
of the human as a being that is dependent on technology and produces itsel
f as an artificial automaton without a natural\, outside origin.
\nDavid Bates is Professor of Rhetoric at the University of C
alifornia Berkeley. His research focuses on the history of legal and polit
ical ideas\, and the relationship between technology\, science\, and the h
istory of human cognition.
Stefanos Geroulanos is the Director of the Remarque Institute and Professor of European Intellec tual History at NYU. He usually writes about concepts that weave together modern understandings of time\, the human\, and the body. His new book is a history of the concepts\, images\, and sciences of human origins since 1 770\, forthcoming from Liveright Press as The Invention of Prehistory: Empire\, Violence\, and Our Obsession with Human Origins in 2024.
\nJoanna Stalnaker is Professor of F rench at Columbia. She works on Enlightenment philosophy and literature\, with a recent interest in how women shaped the Enlightenment. Her new book \, The Rest Is Silence: Enlightenment Philosophers Facing Death\, will be published by Yale University Press in the Walpole series.
\n div>\n