Dino Jakusic will present ‘M.R. Antognazza and Christian Wolff on Knowing as Assenting’.

Thursday June 13, 2–4pm: Chapter 7: Love and Morality

Seminars will take place in R3.25. All colleagues, including undergraduate and postgraduate students, are very welcome.

“Love often seems uncontrollable and irrational, but we just as frequently appear to have reasons for loving the people we do. In Love’s Vision, Troy Jollimore offers a new way of understanding love that accommodates both of these facts, arguing that love is guided by reason even as it resists and sometimes eludes rationality. At the same time, he reconsiders love’s moral status, acknowledging its moral dangers while arguing that it is, at heart, a moral phenomenon—an emotion that demands empathy and calls us away from excessive self-concern. Love is revealed as neither wholly moral nor deeply immoral, neither purely rational nor profoundly irrational. Rather, as Diotima says in Plato’s Symposium, love is “something in between.””

WiP Week 8 - 'An inheritance to come: Derrida on history, the undecidable future, and the metaphysics of presence' - Efan Owen

The next postgraduate Work in Progress (WiP) seminar is taking place this Thursday 13th June from 5-6:15 PM in S2.77 and on Teams. Efan Owen will present 'An inheritance to come: Derrida on history, the undecidable future, and the metaphysics of presence'. Everyone welcome!

Abstract:

In this presentation I will explore the conclusions I came to in a recent essay and the questions they pose for my dissertation. I will give an overview of Derrida’s understanding of the relationship between that which is already past and that which is yet to come. I will examine here Derrida’s engagement with Heidegger’s rejection of a “metaphysics of presence,” as well as the specific implications of his own notion of différance, in the construction of meaning. Derrida holds meaning to be ultimately non-present and always referring to a presence beyond itself, and at the same time grounded in the material trace which signifies it.

In this sense, a future which is truly futural can only be comprehended as an anticipation of that which will never arrive. It is nevertheless determined by its origin, or past, in the trace signifier. I will argue that this leads Derrida to an understanding of the future as taking the form of an inheritance of things passed.

Finally, I will suggest that this approach allows Derrida to think of our relationship both to history and to the future in a manner which refutes the rationalism and calculability which characterise Kant and Husserl’s philosophies of history. In anticipation of my dissertation, I will also suggest that the decidability of inheritance nevertheless leaves it bearing resemblance to the regulative Idea as employed by Kant and Husserl. I will try to examine avenues I might take in exploring these similarities.

Teams link:

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3aa49e6af9675349fda02fee164134326a%40thread.tacv2/1718009669263?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%2209bacfbd-47ef-4465-9265-3546f2eaf6bc%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22fdb1bbe9-d582-4ba3-8da8-3fb0a6c42dc8%22%7d

We are in the process of putting together an exciting programme of talks and activities for this End of Year Celebration.

Don't forget to save the date and watch this space for updates!

Everyone welcome!

WMA Graduate Research Seminar: pre-MindGrad reading

in weeks 4-7 and 9, Wednesdays 14:00-16:00.

Room S1.39

link: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/news/seminars/consciousness

Thursday June 20, 2–4pm: Afterword: Between the Universal and the Particular

Seminars will take place in R3.25. All colleagues, including undergraduate and postgraduate students, are very welcome.

“Love often seems uncontrollable and irrational, but we just as frequently appear to have reasons for loving the people we do. In Love’s Vision, Troy Jollimore offers a new way of understanding love that accommodates both of these facts, arguing that love is guided by reason even as it resists and sometimes eludes rationality. At the same time, he reconsiders love’s moral status, acknowledging its moral dangers while arguing that it is, at heart, a moral phenomenon—an emotion that demands empathy and calls us away from excessive self-concern. Love is revealed as neither wholly moral nor deeply immoral, neither purely rational nor profoundly irrational. Rather, as Diotima says in Plato’s Symposium, love is “something in between.””

​**Please note the change of day for this week. This is also the last WiP of term - there is no WiP in Week 10.**

Dear all,

The next postgraduate Work in Progress (WiP) seminar is taking place this Friday 21st June from 5-6:15 PM in S2.77 and on Teams. Chris Hall will present 'Intending, doing and the broadness of the progressive'. Everyone welcome!

Abstract:

Following Anscombe, one purported feature of practical knowledge is that it is non-observational. A challenge for accounts committed to this feature is to explain how we can have non-observational knowledge of both what we intend to be doing and what we are doing, with the latter considered a more perplexing claim. One strategy for meeting this challenge involves appealing to the broadness of the progressive to highlight a strong connection between intending and doing, so that in certain circumstances knowledge of what we intend amounts to knowledge of what we are doing. In this talk I explore this strategy. I identify two distinct directions in which the idea of the broadness of the progressive is taken, and I raise some preliminary challenges for views in both directions.

Teams link:

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3aa49e6af9675349fda02fee164134326a%40thread.tacv2/1718630397055?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%2209bacfbd-47ef-4465-9265-3546f2eaf6bc%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22fdb1bbe9-d582-4ba3-8da8-3fb0a6c42dc8%22%7d

 “Love often seems uncontrollable and irrational, but we just as frequently appear to have reasons for loving the people we do. In Love’s Vision, Troy Jollimore offers a new way of understanding love that accommodates both of these facts, arguing that love is guided by reason even as it resists and sometimes eludes rationality. At the same time, he reconsiders love’s moral status, acknowledging its moral dangers while arguing that it is, at heart, a moral phenomenon—an emotion that demands empathy and calls us away from excessive self-concern. Love is revealed as neither wholly moral nor deeply immoral, neither purely rational nor profoundly irrational. Rather, as Diotima says in Plato’s Symposium, love is “something in between.””