Apr
5
Fri
Intersubjectivity and Interpretation: CUNY Grad Conference 2019 @ CUNY Grad Center, rm tba
Apr 5 all-day

In ethics, in epistemology, in philosophy of mind and even (Searlean protestations notwithstanding) in ontology interest has steadily been growing in the idea that intersubjectivity is a central concept for understanding various aspects of our world. Similarly, the concept of interpretation has come to attention in a new light as a key means by which the interactions between subjectivities is mediated. This line of research raises a number of philosophical questions:

– What is intersubjectivity? Can it be given ‘a clear explanation’? In what relation does it stand to objectivity? In what relation does it stand to the first-person and second-person perspectives?

– What is interpretation? What is it to interpret another person’s behaviour as that of a genuine subject of experience? Is this notion of interpretation the same as that which we employ when speaking of interpreting language, rules, art, or data?

– Does intersubjectivity require interpretation? Must we rely on interpretive practices in order to make sense of others as subjects? If so, what implications might this have for the concept of intersubjectivity, and those practices and entities that might depend upon it?

– Does interpretation require intersubjectivity? Is there a sense of interpretation for which one cannot genuinely interpret something without taking it to be the result of intentional action on the part of a subject, produced for other subjects? And if so, what implications might that have for our understanding of interpretive practices?

– How do these questions connect with issues in areas of philosophy such as epistemology, aesthetics, phenomenology, philosophy of mind, social philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, political theory?

The keynote speaker will be Jay Garfield, who will deliver a talk on “The Second Person: Reflexivity and Reflection”.

We are pleased to invite abstracts sufficiently in the spirit of the project theme of no more than 1,000 words. Abstracts should:

– Outline the paper’s principal argument(s).

– Give a good sense of the paper’s philosophical contribution(s).

– Be anonymized.

The deadline for abstracts is January 19th, 2019. Abstracts should be e-mailed to 2019cunygradconference@gmail.com. Please include with your submission a cover page that includes your name, affiliated institution, contact information, and title of paper.

We will accept submissions from any area of philosophy, and from any philosophical tradition. We strongly encourage participants from groups whose voices are disproportionately excluded from philosophical discourse to submit abstracts.

https://philevents.org/event/show/68066

May
3
Fri
Workshop on Emotions @ CUNY Grad Center, rm 5307
May 3 all-day

This workshop will provide a forum for researchers doing work on emotions and related states. The goal is to share new ideas and lines of inquiry, to develop new reflections, and to foster communication between those of us who are investigating emotions in the New York area, and beyond.

*** The event is free but registration is required for those attending on Saturday. To register, send an email with your name by May 2, to Sarah Arnaud: sarnaud@gc.cuny.edu ***

Program (download printable flyer)

Friday, May 3

9:45-10:30

  • Introduction by Jesse Prinz

9:45-10:30

  • Sarah Arnaud
    “What are unconscious emotions?”

10:30-10:45: Break

10:45-11:30

  • Katherine Rickus
    “1st and 3rd person knowledge of emotions”

11:30-12:15

  • Hilla Jacobson
    “Pain and mere tastes”

12:15-1:45: Break – lunch

1:45-2:30

  • Kathryn Pendoley
    “Nagging Guilt, Tentative Fear: Uncertain Emotions and the Problem of Recalcitrance”

2:30-3:15

  • Alexandra Gustafson
    “Love Alters Not: A Study of Unrequited Love”

3:15-3:30: Break

3:30-4:15

  • Justin Leonard Clardy
    “A New Challenge for Romantic Love as Union”

4:15-5:00

  • Adam Lerner
    “Empathy is evidence”

5:00-6:00: Reception

 

Saturday, May 4

9:45-10:30

  • Federico Lauria
    “What does emotion teach us about self-deception?”

10:30-10:45: Break

10:45-11:30

  • Hyunseop Kim
    “Meaningfulness as Correct Fulfillment”

11:30-12:15

  • Sergio Gallegos
    “Emilio Uranga’s analysis of zozobra (anguish)”

12:15-1:45: Break – lunch

1:45-2:30

  • Xiaoyu Ke
    “Virtue Responsibilism, Epistemic Emotions, and Epistemic Situationism”

2:30-3:15

  • Michael Zhao
    “Guilt without perceived wrongdoing”

3:15-3:30: Break

3:30-4:15

  • Shawn Tinghao Wang
    “Moral agency account of shame” 

4:15-5:00

  • Daniel Shargel
    “Lol: What we can learn from forced laughter”

5:00-6:00: Reception

Oct
4
Fri
The Moral Imagination of the Novel @ Columbia U Philosophy Dept.
Oct 4 – Oct 5 all-day

Columbia University’s Department of Philosophy, the Morningside Institute, and the Thomistic Institute invite graduate students in philosophy, theology/religious studies, literature, and related disciplines to submit papers for “The Moral Imagination of the Novel.” The conference will examine the ways in which individual novels and the novel as a literary genre can be understood both to depict the search for moral, philosophical, and religious truth and to engage in this very search themselves. Is the novel a realistic or idealistic genre? Can novels expand our sense of moral possibilities? Can they contract them?

The conference will begin with four twenty-minute graduate student papers on Friday, October 4, followed by talks that day and the next from faculty. Confirmed speakers include:

Paul Elie (Georgetown)

Ann Astell (Notre Dame)

Thomas Pavel (Chicago)

Lauren Kopajtic (Fordham)

Dhananjay Jagannathan (Columbia)

 Limited financial assistance is available to defray the cost of travel for student presenters, but students are encouraged to seek funds from their own institutions as well.

 One-page proposals should be emailed to Molly Gurdon at mcg2197@columbia.edu by Saturday, August 31 to be considered. Invitations to present papers will be sent by Friday, September 6. Submissions should not contain any identifying information except for a title, but the author’s institution and program, along with the title of their proposed submission, should be noted in the e-mail submission.

https://philevents.org/event/show/74726

Oct
19
Sat
New Materialist Approaches to Sound @ Music Department, Columbia U
Oct 19 – Oct 20 all-day

Scholars working under the broad umbrella of New Materialism have offered compelling reappraisals of the ways in which we know, interact with, and exist in the world. This scholarship also intersects with recent work on music and sound, which raises rich sets of questions regarding human agency, material, ethics, aesthetics, embodiment, and the subject/object dichotomy, among other issues.

We invite scholars working in the humanities, arts and sciences to submit proposals for papers and performances that engage with the themes of sound and new materialism, broadly construed.  We welcome work that adopts historical, technological, analytical, philosophical, materialist, and creative vantage points, among others. Overall, this conference will direct these diverse disciplinary and methodological perspectives towards convergent and critical issues, creating new, interdisciplinary lines of enquiry and generating original research.

The one-day conference will consist of panels that comprise of papers with short reflections by a moderator, as well as an evening concert that includes opportunities for discussion. The concluding concert of work that engages with these themes from creative perspectives will afford attendees with an opportunity to consider and discuss issues concerning sound, material, and agency in a forum that contrasts with, but also complements, our events during the day. Conference participants are strongly encouraged to attend both the daytime and evening portions of the conference.

Proposals are called for:

Paper presentations of 20 minutes with 10 minutes of Q&A.

Artistic presentation of 20 minutes with 10 minutes of discussion

Submission: Proposals of no more than 500 words (300 words for artistic presentation) should be submitted as a PDF by August 14th 2019 to jc5036@columbia.edu

and include “NMAS Submission” in the subject line. If you’re applying for an artistic presentation please include three representative 2 minute audio/video examples. Please also include the title of your proposed paper and anonymize your submission.  Include your name, affiliation, and contact information in the body of the email, and also nominate any audio/visual requirements for your paper or performance.

https://philevents.org/event/show/74950

Apr
2
Thu
Analytic/Continental What? Dissolving the Philosophical Divide @ CUNY Grad Center
Apr 2 all-day

The 23rd Annual CUNY Graduate Student Philosophy Conference invites graduate students to submit their work engaging with philosophical topics and traditions that consider or bridge the analytic/continental divide. The analytic/continental division typically assumes contrasting notions of what philosophy ‘is’ and what it ought to be. The divide also describes the varying methodologies employed when we practice philosophy. Whether it refers to meta-philosophical commitments or strategies used, the divide can do exactly that – divide. When concerned with the nature of philosophy and how one ought to conceive of the practice the stakes can be high; when we ask, “What counts as philosophy?” we implicitly ask, “What doesn’t ‘count’ as philosophy?” This conference aims to explore issues that need to be explored by the philosophical community at large, especially when the legitimacy of certain practices are under scrutiny. The conference also aims to create a space where we can learn to ask better questions concerning the nature of our academic practices, the traditions we draw from, the methodologies we employ, and the topics we consider.

Keynote speaker: Talia Mae Bettcher (California State University, Los Angeles)

We are particularly interested in papers from all areas of philosophy that:

  • explore the meta-philosophical or sociological questions concerning the analytical/continental divide without exclusionary border-policing. Is such a divide legitimate? What has motivated this divide? What are the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining the divide? How can we bridge or dismantle the divide? Etc.
  • broadly engage with the question of “what can philosophy be?” How can philosophy establish fewer borders and more bridges?
  • engage with philosophers (i.e. Rorty, Badiou, Williams, etc.), philosophical topics (i.e. race, gender, coloniality, etc.), and/or traditions (i.e. critical race theory, feminist philosophy, queer theory, postcolonial/decolonial theory, etc.) that have always or currently do bridge the analytic/continental divide, again without exclusionary border-policing.
  • explore the analytic/continental divide in an interdisciplinary manner drawing from sociology, critical psychology, gender studies, race studies, literature, history, the arts, etc.

The conference is committed to providing a platform for marginalized persons and topics in the discipline. In answering some of the questions presented we highly encourage papers regarding, among other topics: critical race theory, feminist philosophy, queer theory, trans philosophy, and disabilities studies. Speakers from marginalized groups in the discipline are strongly encouraged to submit. Any abstracts that aim to discredit already marginalized philosophers or philosophies are strongly discouraged.

May
13
Fri
LaGuardia Undergraduate Philosophy and Social Science Conference @ E-Building - Poolside Cafe, LaGuardia College, CUNY
May 13 all-day

Submissions from any area of philosophy/social science are welcome. 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 ready for blind review. In your submission email please include your name, the title of your paper, your institutional affiliation, and your preferred email address for correspondence.

Email essays to lagccphilosophy@gmail.com

Submission deadline: April 15, 2022

Please note: This is an in-person event. In order to present you must provide proof of vaccination.

Sep
1
Fri
First Conference of the Society for Philosophers of the Pandemic Generation @ CUNY Grad Center
Sep 1 – Sep 2 all-day

After the stimulating discussion at the Conference on Philosophy in the Pandemic Generation, 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 formative years of philosophical training.

The First Conference of the Society for Philosophers of the Pandemic Generation welcomes abstracts:

That explicitly engage with the role of pandemics, epidemics, and the unique challenges, academic or otherwise, of 2020-2023.

That are the result of a research project in philosophy conceived or written during, or affected by, said challenges.

That may be on a range of topics that need not be limited by content, this includes topics on the crossroads of philosophy and another discipline.

We encourage PhD students and early career researchers to submit an abstract, particularly those whose philosophical research overlaps with the timing of the pandemic. The objective of the conference is to provide a platform for graduate and postgraduate philosophers to present their work to peers, and to discuss 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 research for a special showcase portion of the conference.

Formal requirements:

Abstracts should be suitable for a 30-minute presentation.

Abstracts should be written in English.

Abstracts for papers should be fully anonymised.

Abstracts should not exceed 500 words, including references.

Your abstract will be anonymously reviewed.

There is no registration fee for this conference. However, travel and stay costs cannot be reimbursed.

The deadline for submissions is

15 August 2023 to: pandemicgenerationphilosophy@gmail.com

The conference will be held:

September 1 and 2, the CUNY Graduate Center

Organizers:

V Alexis Peluce

Liam D. Ryan

Oct
12
Thu
GSCOPE 2023: Higher Education, Democracy, and Controversy @ CUNY Grad Center
Oct 12 – Oct 14 all-day

Keynote: Harry Brighouse (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Pedagogy Workshop Leader: TBA

Location: The Graduate Center, CUNY—New York, New York

Abstracts & Workshop Applications due: July 31st 2023

Responses: August 31st 2023

Organizers: Michael Greer (CUNY), Maria Salazar (CUNY)

Contact email: gscope.committee@gmail.com

The committee for the Graduate Student Conference on Philosophy of Education (GSCOPE) invites abstracts for papers on the topic of Higher Education, Democracy, and Controversy. The theme of the conference & post-conference pedagogy workshop reflects the difficulty in creating and maintaining respectful discourse in higher-education classrooms, especially surrounding controversial empirical, moral, and political issues. Some argue that this 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 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 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 not civic or democratic. Proponents of this view might hold that free speech and academic freedom must be properly protected for higher education to perform its proper social function: education. What is the appropriate relationship between higher education, knowledge-production, teaching, free speech, and democracy? How can higher education instructors and professors be effective teachers in the light of these relationships?

Papers must pertain to higher educationbut maybe about anything from interpersonal classroom dynamicstoinstitutional policies to campus controversy. We are particularly interested in papers that explore the following topics:

  • Philosophical issues around teaching controversy
  • Navigating different identities in the classroom and on campus
  • Free speech and controversial issues in classrooms and on campus
  • Differential roles of various higher education actors when it comes to protecting free speech (administration, tenured professors, students, residential life)
  • Training (or lack thereof) of graduate students to be teachers and the impact of this on teaching in our current political moment
  • Theright relationship(s) between democracy, knowledge,free speech, and higher education
  • The role of controversy in democracy
  • The relationship between controversy and equality
  • Teaching as an equity issue – how education might foster or impede different kinds of equity (class equity, racial equity, urban/rural equity, gender equity)
  • Disagreement in classrooms
  • Epistemological issues around disagreement and understanding
  • Trust in classrooms
  • Pedagogical tools to cope with disagreement in classrooms
  • Philosophical views on coming to understanding from different social locations, epistemic commitments, and material circumstances

We especially welcome contributions that:

  • Think about universities outside of the “top 50” and the “top 500” — we want our conversation to reflect issues found across the entire spectrum of international higher ed institutions
  • Engage with CUNY-specific issues and offer CUNY-specific solutions

Abstracts should:
– Outline the paper’s principal argument(s).
– Give a good sense of the paper’s philosophical and/or empirical contributions and methods.
– Be anonymized.

Proposal Guidelines:

Please submit abstracts of up to 500 words by midnight EST on Monday, July 31, 2023.

PDF or DOC.X by email to gscope.committee@gmail.com

Post-Conference Pedagogy Workshop

The theme of our conference Higher Education, Democracy, and Controversy is relevant to graduate student educators, who are routinely under-trained and under-equipped 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 philosophy of education.

This workshop attends to this issue by facilitating a space for graduate student educators to reflect on how to foster good teaching environments for controversial issues, and be good interlocutors with each other on controversial issues. The workshop will also touch on promoting equity in classrooms. We will provide workshop participants with a certificate of completion.

https://philevents.org/event/show/112546

Mar
22
Fri
Democracy Today? @ The Telos-Paul Piccone Institute
Mar 22 – Mar 23 all-day

Democracy is often presented as the sine qua non of politics today. 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. presidential election open, we invite participants to consider critically the status of democracy with an eye toward the concerns that have defined Telos over its 55-year history.

The main advantage of democracy over other political 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 allowing views and information from the many to be communicated efficiently to political leaders, while also holding the latter to account for their 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 opinions into unified decisions and action. In addition, precisely by exercising its majority will, the many can trammel the integrity of the individual—the key threat that liberalism seeks to hold at bay.

These advantages—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, liberals view democracy as the following of appropriate procedures for channeling the opinions of the multitude through the election of representatives. On the other hand, populists might disregard such procedural restrictions to arrive at outcomes that are acclaimed by the people directly.

While 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 democratic 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 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 mediator of popular will is either the demagogue or the bureaucrat—Telos has long opposed both.

Different 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 discourse within a public sphere. This discourse depends on a common understanding of historical facts, as well as a public sphere that allows different perspectives to face each other in debate. In our contemporary world, however, the breakdown of previous limits to accessing the public sphere has led to an inability 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 media echo chamber of their own views, undermining the common ground that a public sphere presupposes.

At the same time, public debate necessarily implicates values and identities that have an ultimately 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 the popular will. Yet the narrative aspect of representation is an ineradicable element of the way in which the popular will coalesces. The process of narrativized representation will never be an entirely rational one, and the prominence of media personalities such as Reagan, Trump, and Zelensky as politicians underlines the futility of attempting to rid the public sphere of drama and spectacle.

For the populist, by contrast, the primary threat to democracy lies in bureaucracy. In his 2016 end run around 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 motion by the development of the welfare state in the twentieth century has created a class divide between managers and managed that has shifted decision-making power over the conditions 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 further distance the people from political decision-making. The protections of minority rights that constitute the liberal aspect of today’s democracies have turned communities into special interests that lobby administrators 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 of a unifying basis for constructing a political order now dominated by the collusion of bureaucracy with corporations.

While the liberal critique of demagoguery resorts to more government controls that exacerbate the expansion of bureaucracy, the populist critique of bureaucracy has attempted to dismantle government without considering how to establish mechanisms that would take over the functions that bureaucracies have coopted. Focusing on opposition to government, the populist perspective often lacks any sense of alternative institutional structures that could remedy the administration and commodification of everyday life.

Both 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 meant that our political orders consistently fail to deliver peace, prosperity, and accountable government. Moreover, regardless of the rhetoric or credentials of those in power, democracy today seems always to leave us with broadly the same basic policies, despite some of them being deeply unpopular.

We invite those who are interested in presenting at the 2024 Telos Conference to consider critically the status of democracy today by addressing one or more of the following questions:

Democratic Values

  • Does democracy have a value of its own independent of its practical consequences?
  • What kinds of basic agreements on principles are necessary to maintain a democracy?
  • Is there a limit to diversity in a democracy?
  • To what extent is polarization itself a threat to democracy?
  • What is the relationship between democracy and liberalism?

Democracy and the Administrative State

  • To what extent is the consistent reality of all self-styled “democracies” of the world today a form of managerial governance that resists change from below?
  • What role is left in an age of managerialism for the popular will?
  • Might 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’ self-management?

Democracy and the Public Sphere

  • What is the role of representation in a democracy, and how do today’s representational processes threaten democratic decision-making?
  • How have social media and artificial intelligence changed the way in which democratic processes function, and what changes to these processes might be necessary in the future to accommodate these new technological developments?
  • To what extent and in what ways does the public sphere function in today’s democracies? What kinds of limitations are necessary to guarantee the functioning of the public sphere as a space for democratic debate and decision-making?

Democracy and Religion

  • What role is there for religion in today’s democracies?
  • To what extent does either secularization or religion pose a threat to democracy?

Democracy and Authoritarianism

  • What is the relationship between democracy and authoritarianism? Do the current ills of democracy promote a global shift toward authoritarian government?
  • What are the key components of democracy that differentiate it from authoritarianism? Where do countries such as Hungary, Turkey, India, and Russia fall on the continuum from democracy to authoritarianism?

Abstract Submissions

Whatever specific questions you address, we invite you to present your analysis with an eye toward the long-standing concerns of the Telos-Paul Piccone Institute and thereby to help develop a trenchant, independent view of democracy that can inform both critique and practical action within our present historical moment. Please submit a short c.v. and an abstract of up to 250 words by October 15, 2023, to telosnyc2024@telosinstitute.net and place “The 2024 Telos Conference” in the email’s subject line. Please direct questions to Professor Mark G. E. Kelly, Western Sydney University, M.Kelly@westernsydney.edu.au.

Conference Location

The conference will take place at the John D. Calandra Italian American Institute in New York City from Friday, March 22, to Saturday, March 23, 2024.

Mar
30
Sat
24th Annual Columbia-NYU Graduate Conference in Philosophy @ Philosophy Hall
Mar 30 all-day

The graduate students and faculty of Columbia University and New York University invite graduate students* to submit papers to present at the 24th Annual Columbia-NYU Graduate Conference in Philosophy, to be held March 30th, 2024!

The keynote speaker for this event will be Robert Brandom (University of Pittsburgh).

The conference will take place in person at Columbia University.

This conference is a generalist conference. Any topic suitable for presentation for a general philosophical audience is welcome!

Requirements for submission. Papers submitted should be:

(1) 3,000 to 5,000 words in length, suitable for a presentation of 30 to 40 minutes.

(2) Prepared for blind review, in PDF format.

(3) Accompanied with a separate cover sheet with the author’s name, home institution, contact information, topic area(s) of the paper, and an abstract of approximately 300 words.

Submissions should be sent to forms.gle/tVo3jhHUY2LyyeUD7. The deadline is 01/15/2024. Decisions will be sent out by 02/12/2024.

For any further information or inquiries, please contact columbianyu.philgradconference@gmail.com.

*Submissions from graduate students at NYU and Columbia will not be considered for acceptance.