Skip to main content

Graduate Work in Progress Seminar

The Departmental Graduate Seminar is a student-organised seminar providing an opportunity for all Warwick philosophy graduate students, and occasionally students from other universities, to present their work to a general philosophy audience. It’s also a great chance to meet and socialise with fellow graduate students, and discuss each other’s research.

Talks take place every other Wednesday from 4:00pm to 6:00pm in room S0.17 (Term 2) in the Social Sciences Building, and are normally followed by a short (i.e. 5–10 minute) response from another student, questions and discussion chaired by a PhD student or member of the faculty, and drinks at The Dirty Duck from around 6pm. All PhD, MPhil and MA students are encouraged to attend, and faculty members and visitors are very welcome.

Notes for Presenters

Talks should be between 30 to 45 minutes long and may be circulated in advance, in which case the paper should be forwarded to the seminar organiser or chair no later than 9am the preceding Monday. Alternatively, speakers may wish to chair a discussion on a philosophical topic or reading of interest, or some other format suitable for group presentation.

A list of seminars for the current academic term is listed below. To reserve a slot, please e-mail F dot Niklas at warwick dot ac dot uk with your preferred date(s) and a provisional title or topic for your talk.

Please note that the new convenors are, starting from next term are:

M.Giavazzi@warwick.ac.uk
S.Honsbeek@warwick.ac.uk

Suggestions for the audience


 

2017/2018 Seminars

 
Wed, Oct 18, '17
4pm - 6pm
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar
S0.17

Dino Jakušić Christian Wolff and the Invention of Ontology Respondent: Samuel Honsbeek

Wed, Oct 25, '17
4pm - 6pm
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar
S0.17

Simon Wimmer Williamson on belief: How (not) to go knowledge-first about belief

While knowledge-first accounts of a variety of phenomena, for instance the norm of assertion and justified belief, have received much attention, knowledge-first accounts of belief have received very little. This paper aims to remedy this situation. It discusses two knowledge-first accounts of belief, based on Williamson (2000, pp.46-47)’s tentative suggestion that to believe p is “to treat p as if one knew p”. Here is the plan. In §§2-4 I introduce the two accounts I focus on. Then (§5), I argue that they are subject to counterexample: given some orthodox assumptions, both imply that one believes many propositions that are metaphysically impossible to know, which we would not expect one to believe. By way of conclusion, §6 then introduces an amendment to the accounts, which helps one of them avoid the counterexample.

Wed, Nov 8, '17
4pm - 6pm
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar
S0.17

Michele Giavazzi will present a paper titled 'A Civic Arguement for Epistocracy', followed by discussion and drinks at The Dirty Duck. The seminar will take place at 4pm on Wednesday in S0.17. All students and staff are welcome.

Abstract:
Most political philosophers converge on the idea that an equal right to vote is a requirement of democratic political legitimacy. The purpose of this talk, on the contrary, will be to defend the claim that it can be legitimate to disenfranchise some citizens, namely those who are politically incompetent.
The structure of the argument is the following. (1) I start with outlining a generic civic that all members of a political community should comply with. (2) Subsequently, I argue that voting is to be conceived as an institutional practice that serves to identify and pursue what represents the common interest of the polity. As such, the civic duty’s demands apply to whomever takes part in a procedure of voting. (3) Among these demands, epistemic responsibility has a crucial place. If the argument is correct, then incompetent voters fail to honour a commitment implicit in their institutional role, violating a duty that they have towards institutions and fellow citizens as well.
Given that violations of this kind usually justify some form of reproach, their power of voting can be justifiably removed or reduced.

Wed, Nov 22, '17
4pm - 6pm
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar
S0.17

Johan Heemskerk Appearance and Discrimination in Concept Acquisition

Wed, Dec 6, '17
4pm - 6pm
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar *CANCELLED*
S0.17
Wed, Jan 17, '18
4pm - 6pm
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar
S0.17
Wed, Jan 31, '18
4pm - 6pm
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar
S0.17
Wed, Feb 14, '18
4pm - 6pm
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar
S0.17
Wed, Feb 21, '18
4pm - 6pm
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar
S0.17
Wed, Mar 7, '18
4pm - 6pm
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar
S0.17