Hesperus is Bosphorus

A group blog by philosophers in and from Turkey

Archive for April 2016

Talk at Bilkent Tuesday 3 May 15:40

leave a comment »

Tuesday 3 May at 15:40-17:30 in room G160. All welcome.

To what extent does metaphysics depend on representationalism?

 

Jonathan Knowles

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

A prominent theme of neo-pragmatist thinking is that once we give up a certain representationalist conception of the relation between language and the world, many or even most of the characteristic concerns of philosophy will lapse. Among these are questions about how notions of everyday life such as meaning and value fit into a natural world (so-called ‘placement problems’). This line of thought is prominent in the work of Richard Rorty and, more recently, Huw Price. In this talk I critically examine Rorty’s and Price’s arguments against placement metaphysics from a rejection of representationalism. I will then discuss the implications of anti-representationalism for alternative or broader conceptions of what metaphysics might be.

Written by Sandrine Berges

April 29, 2016 at 1:30 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Talk at Istanbul Technical University Friday 6th May 1.30

leave a comment »

To what extent does metaphysics depend on representationalism?

Jonathan Knowles

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

A prominent theme of neo-pragmatist thinking is that once we give up a certain representationalist conception of the relation between language and the world, many or even most of the characteristic concerns of philosophy will lapse. Among these are questions about how notions of everyday life such as meaning and value fit into a natural world (so-called ‘placement problems’). This line of thought is prominent in the work of Richard Rorty and, more recently, Huw Price. In this talk I critically examine Rorty’s and Price’s arguments against placement metaphysics from a rejection of representationalism. I will then discuss the implications of anti-representationalism for alternative or broader conceptions of what metaphysics might be.

Friday 6th May at 1:30

Istanbul Technical University

Ayazağa Campus (in Maslak)

Faculty of Science and Letters

Department of Humanities and Social Science

Seminar Room

 

 

Written by Barry Stocker

April 28, 2016 at 8:34 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

International Workshop “Women Philosophers on Autonomy”, Yeditepe University, 5-6th May.

with one comment

WPA FINAL

“Women Philosophers on Autonomy”
International Workshop
Yeditepe University, Department of Philosophy
Istanbul, May 5-6th 2016
Contact: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Alberto L. Siani (alberto.siani@gmail.com)

http://www.yeditepe.edu.tr/home/haberler.dot

The workshop is organized in the frameworks of the newly instituted hub “Turkish European Network for the Study of Women in Philosophy” and of the newly instituted Joint Master Program “History of Women Philosophers/History of Philosophy” (University of Paderborn-Yeditepe University Istanbul). The overall aim of these two projects is the study of women philosophers and of the changes in the canonical history of philosophy resulting from a thorough consideration of the women contribution. Within this broader framework, this workshop addresses the women philosophers’ contribution to a particularly relevant topic: the notion of autonomy. Autonomy, together with its cognate concepts (self-determination, self-mastery, self-government etc.), is among the central concepts across the whole history and the whole spectrum of the philosophical debate, yet the women philosophers’ contribution to its development has been seldom investigated.
The notion of autonomy is virtually to be encountered in every area of philosophy. For the sake of simplicity one can identify three main aspects: autonomy in its relation with rationality, personality, self-identity, authenticity (personal autonomy), autonomy in its relation with freedom, moral values, moral motivations (moral autonomy), and autonomy in its relation with forms of government, state sovereignty, legal and social structures and institutions (political autonomy). The three aspects are clearly interrelated, yet not reducible to one another. Historically, autonomy has constituted an essential component of Western rationality, from Plato’s and Aristoteles’ rational self-determination up to the political autonomy and perfectionism debate in contemporary liberal philosophy, passing through the Stoic notion of self-sufficiency, Spinoza’s notion of adequate ideas and Kant’s moral autonomy as rooted in practical reason. Issues related to autonomy inform not only the philosophical practice, but also our daily life. Hardly a single dimension of life can escape evaluations in terms of autonomy: psychological autonomy, economic autonomy, legal autonomy, physical autonomy, autonomy of taste etc.
At the same time, the notion of autonomy has been the subject of significant criticism following at least two major threads: autonomy as outweighing or even endangering interpersonal or collective values (equality, solidarity, care etc.) and autonomy as alienating or marginalizing individual or collective subjects to which, for different reasons, a strong form of autonomy does not apply (persons with physical or psychological disabilities or in dire economic conditions, women in traditional communities or households, LGBTI persons, ethnic and religious minorities and even whole states). Since autonomy remains a fundamental and possibly non dispensable concept, formulating a more sophisticated and non-exclusive version of it is a major task whose importance goes far beyond the borders of the academic debate.
This workshop aims at illuminating possible patterns of this reformulation by bringing to light and critically assessing the contribution by women philosophers throughout the whole history of philosophy.

Written by albertolsiani

April 26, 2016 at 12:16 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Sehir University Philosophy Talks 22 On The Irreconcilable Conceptions of Social and Political Justice

leave a comment »

PHILOSOPHY_TALKS_22-01

Abstract

Following John Rawls, leading contemporary political philosophers, like Martha Nussbaum, aim at some form of consensus or rational agreement about justice. However, the notion that a consensus on social and political justice could be achieved was questionable from the start. This was made evident by Robert Nozick’s immediate and strong disagreement with Rawls. This talk argues for the need of a significant shift of the research perspective on social and political justice. It criticizes the notion that a consensus about justice is possible, laying out a few of the insurmountable disagreements about just distributions and a just society that have existed from antiquity till today. The talk prepares the ground for a discussion of the reasons for the fundamental oppositions concerning social and political justice found within existing moral intuitions.

Everyone is wellcome.

Written by metindemirsehir

April 24, 2016 at 10:32 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Conference at Bogazici: Aristotelian Themes in Contemporary Metaphysics, and, Kathrin Koslicki Book manuscript Workshop

leave a comment »

Announcement - Aristotle Conference Web Version.jpg

Written by markedwardsteen

April 20, 2016 at 6:15 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Sehir Philosophy Talks 21 Curiosity and Ignorance / İlhan İnan

leave a comment »

PHILOSOPHY_TALKS_21_son-01

Written by metindemirsehir

April 13, 2016 at 9:28 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Workshop at Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, ‘The Death of God. Politics and Subjectivity’

leave a comment »

POSTER WORKSHOP1

Written by markedwardsteen

April 11, 2016 at 3:16 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Talk at Bogazici, Andrea Rossi (Koc), “After God: Finitude, Economy, Individualization”

leave a comment »

 

Please join us for the following talk.

Location:

Bogazici University

TB 130 (Anderson Hall)

5-7pm

Friday, April 15

 

Abstract:

After God: Finitude, Economy, Individualization

This paper delves into the experience of finitude underpinning Western political-economic apparatuses in the aftermath of the death of God. It takes its cue from the observation that modern societies have not merely neglected or sought to conceal our being-towards-death, but they have codified it in an explicit and precise fashion, epistemically as well politically. In order to illustrate this point, the paper first looks at biology’s conceptualization of mortality starting from the turn of the nineteenth century. Whereas natural history typically viewed death as a moment functional to the preservation and reproduction of the ‘great chain of being’ (i.e. natural order), with Cuvier and, later, Darwin, death began to appear as ‘the blind sculptor’ of life (Canguilhem), i.e. as the force defining the constitution, form and evolution of organic life. The argument then moves on to consider how, with Adam Smith, economics came to mediate this understanding of mortality politically, through the notion of scarcity, conceived of as a radical feature of man’s relation to his biological milieu of existence. It will be argued that political economy, in its modern form, appears as an ecology of rarity and a biopolitics of labour-intensities. The paper concludes by showing how this ‘positive’ rationalization of finitude, freed from the prospect of in-finte redemption, has contributed to delineate the understanding of agency and subjectivity in contemporary regimes of power.

Written by markedwardsteen

April 11, 2016 at 3:00 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Talk at Bogazici, Andrew Irvine (UBC), “Two Theories of Academic Freedom”

leave a comment »

Please join us for this timely talk:

Bogazici University

Wednesday, April 13th, 5-7pm

location: NBZ119

“Two Theories of Academic Freedom”

Abstract: Is academic freedom best justified on the basis of the Millian view, the view, due largely to John Stuart Mill, that academic freedom is necessary for the advancement of knowledge? Or is academic freedom best justified on the basis of the Dworkin-Mercer view, the view, due largely to Ronald Dworkin and Mark Mercer, that academic freedom is necessary for the advancement of intellectual autonomy? In this paper I will argue that how we choose to answer these questions turns out to be of more than theoretical interest. I will also argue that our answer has wide-ranging implications for society beyond the academy.

More information about Prof. Irvine can be found here.

 

 

Written by markedwardsteen

April 6, 2016 at 9:05 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

CFA: Kant and Moral Psychology at Boğaziçi University (Istanbul) June 25th-27th, 2016

leave a comment »

Kant and Moral Psychology (Boğaziçi University, Istanbul)
June 25th-27th 2016.

Abstracts should be submitted to turkant@gmail.com by April 30th. Successful applicants will be informed by may 5th 2015.

Confirmed Keynote Speakers:

Paul Guyer (Brown)
Ken Westphal (Boğaziçi)
Alix Cohen (Edinburgh)

In this conference we hope to bring together researchers working on Kant with an interest in Moral Psychology, and researchers working on Moral Psychology who have an interest in Kant, and so we hope to have a mixture of historical and problem based papers. In much of the Anglophone literature on moral psychology many of the assumptions are broadly Humean, and we believe the Kantian tradition offers a rich, alternative framework that has often been overlooked. We have a broad understanding of what moral psychology is about and among the topics we hope to address are the following: What criteria must a plausible moral psychology meet? What do we want out of such a theory? What sorts of capacities does a moral agent require and how, if at all, does Kant provide insight into the meaning of such requirements? What are the roles of emotions and feelings in Kant’s moral philosophy? What sort of capacities does a Kantian Moral agent require? Does Kant have a plausible account of moral development and moral education? How does his account of moral development relate to his moral philosophy as a whole? Is a Kantian understanding of human psychology compatible with contemporary empirical findings? How should we understand Kant’s distinction between phenomenal and intelligible character? What is the role of judgment in Kantian ethics? How does Kant understand moral deliberation? What is the source of human immorality?

There will be at least one session arranged for presentations by graduate students.

This conference is organized by Dr. Lucas Thorpe (Boğaziçi) and Dr. Sasha Mudd (Southampton) as part of their joint Boğaziçi -Southampton Newton-Katip Çelebi project AF140071 “Agency and Autonomy: Kant and the Normative Foundations of Republican Self-Government”.

Written by Lucas Thorpe

April 5, 2016 at 12:06 pm

Posted in Uncategorized