Seminar cercetare DFT ‘An analogous investigation? Later Wittgenstein on psychological and mathematical discourse’

Următoarea conferință din cadrul seminarului de cercetare al Departamentului de Filosofie Teoretică în parteneriat cu CELFIS va fi susținută de prof. Sorin Bangu (Universitatea din Bergen). Mai multe detalii despre vorbitor sunt accesibile aici: https://sites.google.com/site/sorinbangu/

Titlul prezentării sale este ‘An analogous investigation? Later Wittgenstein on psychological and mathematical discourse’. Iată și rezumatul:

‘In a remark in what has come to be known as the second part of his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein says that “An investigation is possible in connection with mathematics, which is entirely analogous to our investigation of psychology.” The aim of this talk is to explain what he may have had in mind.’

Conferința se va desfășura ȋn limba engleză luni, 21 februarie, orele 20-22. Detaliile de conectare via Zoom vor fi distribuite celor ce își indică dorința de participare scriind la adresa andrei.marasoiu@filosofie.unibuc.ro

Mai multe detalii sunt disponibile prin anunțul de pe pagina Facebook a seminarului: https://www.facebook.com/Seminarul-Departamentului-de-Filosofie-Teoretica-UniBuc-285279685738329  sau pe PhilEvents: https://philevents.org/event/show/93365 

ALEF Seminar: Constantin Vică, „Livin’ la vida loca: Moral Outrage and Judgment Online”

The ALEF research group (Cluj-Napoca, Romania) announces an online talk by Constantin Vică (University of Bucharest) entitled „Livin’ la vida loca: Moral Outrage and Judgment Online”. The talk is part of the group’s regular seminar and takes place on Friday, FEBRUARY 11, 18.00 EET (Eastern European Time). Please write to alef.group.cluj@gmail.com or check our Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ALEF-100692348488914) if you want to participate. For more information about ALEF, as well as the schedule for the seminar in the 2021-2022 winter semester, please visit https://sites.google.com/view/alefgroupcluj.
Here is the abstract of the talk:
Outrage, as we all may know, is an emotion, a pretty intense one. Moral outrage is the emotional process triggered by an action, a fact, an idea etc., produced by another human being or group, that violates a moral norm or expectancy, or contradicts strong ethical beliefs. By signaling the violation of moral norms, moral outrage motivates people to respond. This action of signaling often comprises a demand for compensation or punishment for alleged wrongdoing and norm trespassing. These types of reactions are normally praiseworthy. For example, we are justified to be outraged by human rights abuses, racist or sexist attitudes, or unfair actions against other people or even animals. Moral outrage brings social benefits by requesting wrongdoers to be held accountable and sending a social message that such behavior is morally unacceptable. This is what I call the ‘intellectual mode’ of moral outrage, a rationalized impetus for public action; that is, a catalyst for political activism and social change. However, moral outrage in the digital age can escalate and deepen social conflict or political polarization. Viral online outrage could dehumanize those who are perceived to belong to a rival or simply different social group, transforming in online shaming and stigmatization. Many of our digital experiences take place in ambiguous, even noxious, online environments in which moral autonomy and judgment are impaired by information overload and dis/misinformation, to name just a few issues. The risk of generating corrupt practices raises the questions of how virtuous the digital expression of moral outrage is, and how agonistic is just for the sake of quarrel and virtue signaling. I dubbed this the ‘internetual mode’. To provide a tentative answer to these questions firstly we need to outline the psychological and social mechanisms of moral outrage, comprising the intuitions and emotions driving it within networks, and what the digital realm affordances add to this. Secondly, I will draw attention to the tacit moral life of (online) information. Finally, we should assess under what circumstances online moral outrage fails to advance public moral discourse and when it is morally reliable.
Philos-L „The Liverpool List” is run by the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/
Messages to the list are archived at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/philos-l.html. Recent posts can also be read in a Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosL/
Follow the list on Twitter @PhilosL. Follow the Department of Philosophy @LiverpoolPhilos

To sign off the list send a blank message to philos-l-unsubscribe-request@liverpool.ac.uk.

CfP: Rethinking Modernity – Transitions and Challenges

Call for presentations
Rethinking Modernity – Transitions and Challenges International conference
Bucharest, Faculty of Philosophy,

CCIIF – The Research Center for the History and Circulation of Philosophical Ideas
2022

Topic:

According to the general historical perspective of philosophy, modernity refers to a large period of time that has its beginnings at the heart of the Renaissance and the age of Cartesian rationalism. At a first glimpse, modernity has been deeply rooted on the principle of subjectivity as the source of knowledge, senses, wills and actions. Therethrough, modern philosophy consecrated the perspective that the subject, depicted as the creative force capable to secure the order and the structure of knowledge – might perform cultural, social and political actions by engaging ideals prescribed both by the power of reason – for Early Modernity – and by the association of intellective and sensitive capacities – for Late Modernity. However, this rigorous and systematic approach of modernity became later on complicated, suffering certain transitions and amendments raised especially by Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s philosophical works, challenging “modern theories” to embody a new way of thinking for which traditional “fundaments” should be absent. This new understanding which became symptomatic for postmodernist philosophers considered modernity as:

  1. A historical homogenous era, dominated by the ideal of a historical evolution of human thought as a continuous vision on temporality, strengthened by the use of reason as an infallible source of knowledge;
  2. An ethos determined by a nomological order prescribed by reason considered as a fundamental source to access principles;
  3. A self-legitimation of scientific knowledge, in the spirit of Thomas Kuhn.

However, as Rossi claims in his Comparison between modern and postmodern ideas (1989), we cannot tackle the multiple understandings of modernity and its cognitive approaches without evaluating the impact of Bacon’s “idols”, that reflected, in the spirit of the beginning of modernity, reductive and illusionary images. In fact, debates referring to the use of reason, the complexity of the subject, the ambiguity of sciences and the contribution of technology to the new spirit of our era are not “dogmatic”, as postmodernism rather claimed. Such debates reflected a deep awareness of the historical and social continuous dynamics that created multiple – and sometimes, contradictory – conditions for different philosophical traditions, that have not been excused of transitive processes, conceptual challenges and critical clashes, complicating any hermeneutical attempt of deconstructing modernity as a whole (as Derrida or Gadamer rightfully observed). Transitivity capacitates not only cultural realms, values and norms, but also logical relationships that engage core-notions such as identity, equality, temporal succession, spatial movement. These transitions affect the power of discourses and propositional knowledge to prescribe the norms and values of truth.

The linguistic analysis has been challenged to address those changes that take place between an active and a passive propositional knowledge. In the generative grammar of Noam Chomsky, transformation is an operation capable of projecting a syntactic structure in terms of another syntactic structure. As communication has been reshaped, spirituality faced, at its turn, new milestones, partially impacting the rise of capitalism and the ascetical value of work, as Weber would argue. Religious modernity reflects the Christian heritage facing modern andcontemporary manifestations of culture and science, whereas the Jewish modernism of the 19th century accelerates social and cultural changes of modern European societies.

As Early and Late Modernity dispute their authority on different ideologies – Rationalism, Enlightenment, Romanticism – and cultural revolutions – from which the Renaissance and the Rise of the Protestant Reform are the most notorious – artistic modernity and the 19th century confront the rise of authoritarian regimes and the effects of the Industrial Revolution: Baudelaire, in the name of artistic modernity, and the tradition of the Frankfurt School, in the name of post-industrial societies, are the most reputed figures that explained this particular historical time.

Last, but not least, this social and political dynamics reframed the centres and peripheries of the modern world. Imm. Wallerstein indicated the role played by economic processes in creating the system of global economy which is still active nowadays and which is based on a complex balance between states of the centre and those belonging to the periphery. This system is dominated by the extension of a central influence that creates a pole of trends, values and beliefs that are widespread progressively by engaging mimetic reactions of underdeveloped communities facing the success of progressist societies. Modernity overcomes, therefore, a powerful wave of Western commitments that created the idea that modernity has, by all means, an Occidental paternity, and a holistic trend of centralising and uniformalising lifestyles, that made possible globalization.

Taking into consideration such aspects of transitions and challenges addressed to modern thought we invite you to take part at the international conference Rethinking Modernity – Transitions and Challenges. Participants are welcomed to submit papers that originally and creatively address topics from any philosophical area: Practical and theoretical philosophy, philosophy of culture, philosophy of art, ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of religion etc.

Considering the impact of the COVID-19 on education, philosophical trends and social challenges, we invite scholars and researchers to submit papers to a special panel on Modern responses to pandemic challenges.

Deadline: Participants are welcomed to submit the applications (abstracts of 300 words and a short narrative CV) by the end of 20th February at cciif.fil.unibuc@filosofie.unibuc.ro Evaluation results will be communicated by the end of February. The conference is scheduled on April 8, 2022.

Profesori din Facultatea de Filosofie invitați la masa rotundă online „Filosofie, Învățare, Dezvoltare personală”

La masa rotundă „Filosofie, Învățare, Dezvoltare personală”, care va avea loc sâmbătă, 22 ianuarie 2022, la Universitatea de Stat din Moldova, Facultatea Istorie și Filosofie, Laboratorul de Filosofie Teoretico-practică și Epistemologie Aplicată, sâmbătă, 22 ianuarie 2022, au fost invitați:

  • prof. univ. dr. Mircea Dumitru
  • univ. dr. Viorel Vizureanu
  • univ. dr. Romulus Brâncoveanu
  • univ. dr. Constantin Stoenescu
  • univ, dr. Sorin Costreie
  • Lector univ. dr. Marin Bălan

Seminar cercetare DFT ‘Free Will and the Metaphysics of Time: Is there a Future for Freedom?’

Următoarea conferință din cadrul seminarului de cercetare al Departamentului de Filosofie Teoretică în parteneriat cu CELFIS va fi susținută de drd. Bogdan Dumitrescu (Universitatea din București). Mai multe detalii despre vorbitor sunt accesibile aici: https://unibuc.academia.edu/DumitrescuBogdan

Titlul prezentării sale este ‘Free Will and the Metaphysics of Time: Is there a Future for Freedom?’. Iată și rezumatul:

‘Traditionally, the problem of free will is viewed as a conflict between the concept of freedom and the concept of determinism. However, a less popular way of re-framing the problem, that’s been proposed by Carl Hoefer (2002), is through the idea that our concept of freedom could be actually in tension with our metaphysics of time, not with determinism. We generally think that the past is fixed and settled, that the present is a constantly changing instant of time and that the future is unfixed, unsettled and open to possibilities.

Philosophers that define freedom as the ability to do otherwise often claim that a requirement for free will is that there be open possibilities available to the agent to choose from at the moment of deliberation. Often such authors appeal to the metaphysical picture of a Forking Road in order to show that free will requires the existence of alternate possibilities. Such a libertarian conception of free will, I argue, assumes that the future is ontologically open. For an agent to have the ability to do otherwise than how in fact they did, it’s necessary that the future be open to possibilities. Thus, arguably, any metaphysical conception of time that assumes a non-open, fixed and existent future is in tension with this conception of freedom. What may be compatible with freedom, then, is a theory of time that assumes an open future.

In this talk, my aim is to briefly survey the most popular metaphysical theories within the analytic philosophy of time (A-theories and B-theories) and argue that an A-theoretic branching theory of spacetime such as the one developed by Storrs McCall (1994) is compatible or consistent with freedom understood as the ability to do otherwise’

Conferința se va desfășura ȋn limba engleză luni, 17 ianuarie, orele 20-22. Detaliile de conectare via Zoom vor fi distribuite tuturor celor ce își indică dorința de participare scriind la adresa andrei.marasoiu@filosofie.unibuc.ro

Mai multe detalii sunt disponibile prin anunțul de pe pagina Facebook a seminarului: https://www.facebook.com/Seminarul-Departamentului-de-Filosofie-Teoretica-UniBuc-285279685738329 sau pe PhilEvents: https://philevents.org/event/show/93365

Seminar cercetare DFT ‘Informational skills and agency on social media’

Următoarea conferință din cadrul seminarului de cercetare al Departamentului de Filosofie Teoretică în parteneriat cu CELFIS va fi susținută de dr. Lavinia Marin (TU Delft). Mai multe detalii despre vorbitor sunt accesibile aici: https://www.laviniamarin.eu/  https://www.tudelft.nl/…/postdocs/drir-l-lavinia-marin

Titlul prezentării sale este ‘Informational skills and agency on social media’. Iată și rezumatul:

‘Researchers from various disciplines have shown the various detrimental effects of using Social media platforms, mostly by highlighting the decline in the well-being of their users. Complementing these approaches with a perspective drawn from the philosophy of information, I will highlight an additional problematic effect of social media usage, namely how users as informational agents are deprived of informational agency. This talk will propose a concept of informational skills inspired by situated cognition and social epistemology. By linking informational skills with informational agency and digital flourishing, I will examine the limits of Social media platforms as informational environments. I will show that Social media platforms are usually constraining on the informational agency of their users and lead, in the long term, to the deskilling of said users.’

Conferința se va desfășura ȋn limba engleză miercuri, 12 ianuarie, orele 18-20. Detaliile de conectare via Zoom vor fi distribuite tuturor celor ce își indică dorința de participare scriind la adresa andrei.marasoiu@filosofie.unibuc.ro

Mai multe detalii sunt disponibile prin anunțul de pe pagina Facebook a seminarului: https://www.facebook.com/Seminarul-Departamentului-de-Filosofie-Teoretica-UniBuc-285279685738329 sau pe PhilEvents: https://philevents.org/event/show/93365