de Lilian Ciachir | iun. 3, 2019 | Anunturi, Seminar cercetare DFT
Miercuri, 5 iunie, în cadrul Seminarului de cercetare al Departamentului de Filosofie Teoretică, Adrian Luduşan, de la Universitatea Babeş Bolyai, va susţine prezentarea intitulată „Identity and discernibility in mathematical structuralism”. Întâlnirea va avea loc în amfiteatrul Titu Maiorescu, începând cu ora 18.
Câteva cuvinte despre tema prezentării, transmise de invitatul nostru: „Recent discussions in the philosophy of mathematics have been revolving around the topics of identity and (in)discernibility of mathematical objects, especially within the ante-rem structuralist stance. In the first part of the talk, I will present several notions of discernibility along with some technical results concerning their relationships. Then, I will examine several principles of identity of indiscernibles (based on these notions of discernibility) by applying them to some non-rigid mathematical structures. In the second part, I will focus on one recent proposal of a notion of structural discernibility –articulated by (Menzel, 2018), which falls short of providing a viable principle of identity of indiscernibles for mathematical structuralism. I will highlight some difficulties of applying the notion to certain mathematical structures, and conclude with some remarks about naming objects in mathematical practice.”
de Lilian Ciachir | mai 20, 2019 | Anunturi, Extracurricular, Seminar cercetare DFT
Miercuri, 22 mai, în cadrul unei sesiuni comune a Seminarului de cercetare al Departamentului de Filosofie Teoretică și Seminarului Wittgenstein al ICUB, Babrak Ibrahimy, de la Universitatea din Derby, va susţine prezentarea intitulată „‘Einstimmung’ and ways of life in Wittgenstein – a political interpretation”. Întâlnirea va avea loc în amfiteatrul Titu Maiorescu, începând cu ora 18.
Câteva cuvinte despre tema prezentării: „Wittgenstein uses the terms Einstimmung (consensus) and Lebensformen (ways of life) in a peculiar way. In his own work, they are rarely used politically, and yet, for students of political theory it is hard to see how these terms can been understood apolitically. It is therefore not surprising that, while always implicitly present, recent years have seen a rise of explicit use of Wittgenstein’s work in political theory. In this paper, I want to borrow Wittgenstein’s insights and connect his view to Carl Schmitt’s notion of the political. On the one hand, the move is not too radical precisely because at the outset of his treatise Schmitt refers to politics as competing ways of life. On the other hand, Schmitt and Wittgenstein could not be more different. This paper does not therefore aim to synthesise the two scholars, but only to show a possible political reading of Wittgenstein’s work.”
de Lilian Ciachir | mai 13, 2019 | Anunturi, Seminar cercetare DFT
Miercuri, 15 mai, în cadrul Seminarului de cercetare al Departamentului de Filosofie Teoretică, Octavian Puric, de la Universitatea din București, va susţine prezentarea intitulată „Plato’s Image Metaphor”. Întâlnirea va avea loc în amfiteatrul Titu Maiorescu, începând cu ora 18.
Câteva cuvinte despre tema prezentării: „The image metaphor is for Plato`s metaphysics not just one way of bridging the gap between the ontologically different worlds of forms and sensibles but, I will argue, imaging as relation is the principle by which such a two world ontology is possible to begin with. The main points of this presentation will consist in 1) defending a Model-lmage interpretation of participation, 2) unwrapping the concept of image and consequently that of the imaging relation and 3) presenting the difficulties that come with this position and offering some possible solutions.”
de Lilian Ciachir | mai 6, 2019 | Anunturi, Seminar cercetare DFT
Miercuri, 8 mai, în cadrul Seminarului de cercetare al Departamentului de Filosofie Teoretică, Alexandru Dragomir, de la Universitatea din București, va susţine prezentarea intitulată „Imaginability, Possibility and Post-personhood”. Întâlnirea va avea loc în amfiteatrul Titu Maiorescu, începând cu ora 18.
Câteva cuvinte despre tema prezentării: „Recent results in pharmaceutics and genetic engineering have led bioethicists to venture the thought that the cognitive enhancement of human beings might lead to the emergence of a new moral status category, that of post-personhood – beings that might claim rights detrimental to us, mere persons. The aim of this talk is to sketch an argument that we are not justified in believing that post-persons are technologically possible. For this purpose I will assume the following two theses: (1) that imaginability-evidence for P is sufficient for having a justified belief in the metaphysical possibility of P, unless the seeming of possibility can be explained away, and (2) that if we are justified in believing that P is physically or technologically possible, then we are justified in believing that P is metaphysically possible. I will aim at explaining away the seeming that post-persons are possible, therefore establishing that we do not hold evidence for believing that they are metaphysically possible, and, by using the contrapositive of (2), that we are not justified in believing their technological possibility.”
de Lilian Ciachir | apr. 22, 2019 | Anunturi, Avizier studenti, Seminar cercetare DFT
Marți, 23 aprilie, în cadrul Seminarului de cercetare al Departamentului de Filosofie Teoretică, Mihai Rusu, de la Universitatea Babeș-Bolyai din Cluj-Napoca, va susţine prezentarea intitulată „Strategies for realist epistemologies of modality: a critical discussion”. Întâlnirea va avea loc în Sala de Consiliu, începând cu ora 18.
Câteva cuvinte despre tema prezentării: „The main part of the talk will consist of a discussion of various types of realist modal epistemologies, most of which are well-known in the literature and have been the subject of vital debates: imagination-based accounts, counterfactual epistemology, theory-based accounts, and their offshoots. The aim is to argue for some rather modest general points about the strategies that are employed in these accounts in order to explain our knowledge of modal truth. The main question appears to be how much of the content of metaphysical modal notions can be informed through everyday (or perhaps naturalistic) cognitive and linguistic practices. If there is a gap between these practices and the content of our metaphysical modal assertions, as we believe there is, it appears that these accounts need to be supplemented by various principles, rules, tenets, etc. But this reflects back on the nature and content of philosophical notions: e.g., it seems that one may not be able to endorse an extreme externalist account of philosophical expressions and concepts, of the kind Williamson for instance favours, and at the same time draw out a substantial epistemology of these notions, as a robust interpretation of metaphysical modal truth seems to require.”
de Lilian Ciachir | apr. 15, 2019 | Anunturi, Seminar cercetare DFT
Miercuri, 17 aprilie, în cadrul Seminarului de cercetare al Departamentului de Filosofie Teoretică, Dan Zeman, de la Universitatea din Viena, va susţine prezentarea intitulată „Disagreement in Attitude and the Semantics of Perspectival Terms”. Întâlnirea va avea loc în amfiteatrul Titu Maiorescu, începând cu ora 18.
Câteva cuvinte, din partea vorbitorului, despre tema prezentării: „In this talk, I tackle the notion of “disagreement in attitude”, as it has been employed in the recent debate over the semantics of perspectival expressions (expressions for the interpretation of which appeal to perspectives is needed – predicates of taste (“tasty”, “disgusting”), aesthetic adjectives (“beautiful”, “ugly”), moral terms (“good”, “bad”), epistemic vocabulary (“know”, “justified”) epistemic modals (“might”, “must”) etc.). I investigate the notion both as originally proposed, in the expressivist tradition, by C. L. Stevenson and as used by present day contextualists to fend off the challenge from faultless disagreement. My aim is to raise several critical points showing that the notion is problematic and thus that its use is not ultimately advisable for contextualists.”
