Join bell hooks and Kevin Powell in a discussion about black masculinity in popular culture today.
Kevin Powell is an activist, writer, public speaker and entrepreneur.
bell hooks is an author, activist, feminist and scholar-in-residence at The New School. This fall is her fifth and final week-long visit in a three-year residency.
Visit http://www.newschool.edu/lang/bell-hooks-scholar-in-residence/ for more information.
A Memorial conference for Hilary Putnam
Pragmatic Themes in the Philosophy of Hilary Putnam
Sponsored by Department of Philosophy, New Social for Social Research
10 A. M. Richard J. Bernstein Pragmatist Enlightenment
11 A. M. Alice Crary Putnam and Propaganda
12-2 P. M. Lunch
2 P.M. Naoko Saito Pragmatism, Analysis, and Inspiration
3 P.M. Brendan Hogan and Lawrence Marcelle: Putnam,
Pragmatism and the Problem of Economic Rationality
4 P. M. Philip Kitcher Putnam’s Happy Ending? Pragmatism
and the Realism Debates
The paper draws on the first sentence of Nicomachean Ethics I, but goes beyond interpretation in putting forward a new version of the Guise of the Good (GG). This proposal is Aristotelian in spirit, but defended on philosophical grounds. GG theorists tend to see their views as broadly speaking Aristotelian. And yet they address particular actions in isolation: agents, the thought goes, are motivated to perform a given action by seeing the action or its outcome as good. The paper argues that the GG is most compelling if we distinguish between three levels: the motivation of small-scale actions, the motivation of mid-scale actions or pursuits, and the desire to have one’s life go well. The paper analyzes the relation between small-, mid-, and large-scale motivation in terms of Guidance, Substance, and Motivational Dependence. In its Aristotelian version, the argument continues, the GG belongs to the theory of the human good.
Katja Maria Vogt, Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University. She specializes in ancient philosophy, ethics, and normative epistemology. In her books and papers, she focuses on questions that figure both in ancient and in contemporary discussions: What are values? What kind of values are knowledge and truth? What does it mean to want one’s life to go well?
Presented by The New School for Social Research (NSSR) Philosophy Department.
Rutgers Workshop on Chinese Philosophy (RWCP) is designed to promote critical engagements and constructive dialogues between scholars of Chinese philosophy and Western analytic philosophy with the hope of bringing the study of Chinese philosophy into the mainstream of philosophical discourses within the Western academy. It is run every other April. The workshop is co-directed by Tao JIANG (Religion), Ruth Chang (Philosophy) and Stephen Angle (Wesleyan).
The theme and format of the fourth RWCP workshop is “Engagements with Western Philosophers.” Thirteen invited scholars will participate in the workshop, including seven experts on Chinese philosophy (one presentation will be jointly offered by two speakers) and six leading voices in the Western analytic philosophy.
Scholars of Chinese Philosophy:
Yong Huang (Chinese University of Hong Kong)
Sungmoon Kim (City University of Hong Kong)
Chenyang Li (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore)
Li Kang (Vassar College)
JeeLoo Liu (California State University, Fullerton)
Justin Tiwald (San Francisco State University) and Bradford Cokelet (University of Kansas)
Scholars of Western Philosophy:
Elizabeth Camp (Rutgers University)
Johann Frick (Princeton University)
Stephen Macedo (Princeton University)
Peter Railton (University of Michigan)
Jonathan Schaffer (Rutgers University)
Jennifer Whiting (University of Pittsburgh)
RSVP is required for attendance. Further information will be forthcoming in the spring of 2018.
The paper argues that Spinoza is influenced by epicureanism. This is evident particularly in the conflict between authority—understood as the kind of figure that is impervious to argumentation—and the calculation of utility (phronesis) that is the precondition of action. This conflict is complex because in certain circumstances we may calculate that it is to our utility to allow a person in authority to calculate on our behalf.
The paper indicates, in addition, that the way Spinoza constructs the relation between authority and utility can inform our political predicament today. Spinoza may offer an alternative to populism as to why we have political figures who lack authority. And his thinking on utility could help us reconsider instrumentality in the neoliberal age.
Dimitris Vardoulakis is the debuty chair of Philosophy at Western Sydney University. He is the author of The Doppelgänger: Literature’s Philosophy (2010), Sovereignty and its Other: Toward the Dejustification of Violence (2013), Freedom from the Free Will: On Kafka’s Laughter (2016), and Stasis Before the State: Nine Theses on Agonistic Democracy (2018). He has also edited or co-edited numerous books, including Spinoza Now (2011) and Spinoza’s Authority (2018). He is the director of “Thinking Out Loud: The Sydney Lectures in Philosophy and Society,” and the co-editor of the book series “Incitements” (Edinburgh University Press).
What do the worlds of global finance and nationalist populism have in common? How can we understand the rise of today’s ‘new fascisms’ through the prism of financialization? This one-day workshop brings together scholars from across disciplines to debate these key questions for our understanding of contemporary capitalism. The workshop is part of Public Seminar’s Imaginal Politics initiative and is organised jointly with the Department of Social Science, University College London. The workshop will include three panel discussions and will close with a talk by Judith Butler on ‘Anti-gender ideology and the new fascism’.
10-11.45am – Panel 1 (Wolff Conference Room, D1103)
12.-1.30pm -Panel 2 (Wolff Conference Room, D1103)
Chiara Bottici ( The New School)
4.30-6pm – Closing plenary & discussion (UL104, University Center)
‘The New Fascism of the Anti-Gender Ideology Movement’
A number of philosophers working on Buddhist traditions have recently explored similarities between the cultivated experience of not-self, and the clinical experience of depersonalization. In this talk, I will offer some reflections on this theme. But my primary aim will be to push a similar kind of exploratory project one step further. Drawing on tools from cognitive and computational neuroscience, as well as insights from Yogācāra Buddhist philosophy, I will explore some of the most significant similarities and differences between anomalous experiences evoked by meditation, and anomalous experiences that are commonly labeled as hallucinations. I will then argue that understanding how such experiences are produced offers a powerful framework for thinking about the socially and historically situated nature of everyday experience.
John Dewey, in his resistance to foundational individualism, declares that individual autonomy so conceived is a fiction; for Dewey, it is association that is a fact. In his own language: “There is no sense in asking how individuals come to be associated. They exist and operate in association.” In a way that resonates with Confucian role ethics, the revolutionary Dewey particularizes the fact of associated living and valorizes it by developing a vision of the habitude of unique, defused, relationally-constituted human beings. That is, he develops a distinctive, if not idiosyncratic language of habits and “individuality” to describe the various modalities of association that enable human beings to add value to their activities and to transform mere relations into a communicating community.
In Confucian role ethics, Dewey’s contention that association is a fact is restated in a different vocabulary by appealing to specific roles rather than unique habitudes for stipulating the specific forms that association takes within lives lived in family and community—that is, the various roles we live as sons and teachers, grandmothers and neighbors. For Confucianism, not only are these roles descriptive of our associations, they are also prescriptive in the sense that roles in family and community are themselves normative, guiding us in the direction of appropriate conduct. Whereas for both Confucianism and Dewey, mere association is a given, flourishing families and communities are what we are able to make of our facticity as the highest human achievement.