Programme

Thursday 26^th September

10.30 – 12.00

Maria Rosa Antognazza (KCL) ‘Knowledge and the first person’

12.00 – 1.30

Ioannis Evrigenis (Tufts) ‘The Fly on the axletree: Hobbes on self-knowledge and judgment’

2.30 – 4.00

Mark Philp (Warwick) ‘Godwin and Wollstonecraft: deliberation and self-knowledge '

4.30 – 6.00

Ursula Renz (Klagenfurt/Warwick) ‘Rousseau's solution to a Rousseauean problem’

7.15 Dinner (Radcliffe house)

Friday 27^th September

9.00 – 10.30

Mario De Caro (Roma Tre/Tufts) ‘Machiavelli's naturalism’

10.30 – 12.00

Guy Longworth (Warwick) ‘Descartes on how the mind is better known than the body’

12.00 – 1.15

Johannes Roessler (Warwick) ‘Judgement and self-understanding in Montaigne’s Essays’

Expression and Self-knowledge

Warwick University, Friday 4^th October 2019

Humanities H0.03

Programme

11.00 – 12.30
Lucy Campbell (Warwick)
‘Self-knowledge: expression without expressivism’

12.30 – 2.00

Dorit Bar-On (University of Connecticut)
‘No ‘How’ Privileged Self-Knowledge’

3.00 – 4.30

Cristina Borgoni (Bayreuth University)

‘Primitive forms of first-person authority and expressive capacities’

Speaker: Adam Neal

Title: 'Social Poverty'

Respondent: Simon Gansinger

ABSTRACT:

The paper explores the relationship between material deprivation, and our needs as social beings. It argues that those who suffer at that intersection do so in two distinct but sometimes overlapping ways: 1) their needs for friendship, human contact and intimacy; and 2) status driven harms. The paper then conceptualises these harms as social poverty and argues that any complete account of poverty should include the impact on our social needs and our social position. The paper explores the ways in which each aspect of social poverty can lead to a worsening of material conditions. These include the social capital we gain from our social relationships, the impact of social poverty on our ability to participate in the job market and the impact on our ability to make and sustain social connections. The paper contextualises social poverty by discussing studies on the residents of Chicago who died during the 1995 Heatwave, poverty in inner city areas and low-income pensioners. After assessing different accounts of poverty, the paper shows that assessing poverty using income fails to do justice to the many factors which determine the extent of one's deprivation, including people's environments, social situation, social norms, friends and family, unemployment and life expectancy. This leads to an assessment of poverty as capability deprivation which, the paper argues, is more effective in assessing deprivation in respect of our nature as social beings. However, the paper argues that capability deprivation goes too far from our ordinary understanding of poverty. Instead, the paper outlines a conception of social poverty and argues that should be prominent in our thinking about deprivation.

Speaker: Jae Hetterley

Title: 'Heidegger's Kantianism in Being and Time'

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates Heidegger's intellectual development at a specific historical moment: the centrality of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason to Heidegger's understanding of ontology in the late 1920s. Why does fundamental ontology become a specifically transcendental philosophy, and how ought we to understand the transcendental thread in relation to the wider systematics of Being and Time? Regarding the first question, I argue that Heidegger's thought undergoes its own 'Copernican Revolution' in response to a methodological aporia Heidegger is confronted with - namely, how can phenomenology address the question of the meaning of being whilst going beyond mere anthropology? The Copernican Revolution, I argue, signals a way out insofar as it demonstrates that intentional conditions coincide with ontological conditions - and with this in place, structures of Dasein are consequently structures of being. Secondly, in filling out Heidegger's transcendental conception of ontology, I draw an analogy between Kantian imagination and Heideggerian disclosedness as the root of their systematic unity - that what both philosophers foundationally recognise ontologically is a structure of ambiguity at the heart of the human subjectivity, between intuition and understanding, existentiality and facticity. Ontological interpretation, in turn, is structually projective for both Kant and Heidegger - which is to say, the formal structures of their respective ontologies cohere. Finally, I consider the question of transcendental idealism in relation to Kant and Heidegger, and set out how the primarily systematic argument that I provide in the thesis can provide the basis for closer readings of Being and Time.

The seminar will be followed by a Q&A session and drinks in The Duck.

Speaker: Zak Stinchcombe

Title: 'This Moral Vision: Martha Nussbaum and the Novel'

ABSTRACT:

This talk is interested in examining the relations that hold between ethical and literary value with a particular focus on whether they are in tension, do not neatly complement one another, perhaps violently disagree, and so on. Initially we will look at two competing accounts of this tension, namely Ethicism (wherein ethical deficiency, or merit, corresponds to literary deficiency or merit) and Aestheticism (there is no real tension to discuss - aesthetic value and ethical value do not occupy the same space, have nothing to do with one another, that ethical considerations are irrelevant to aesthetic judgements, and so on). Neither account is satisfactory, treating the relationship too superficially. Martha Nussbaum's account of the novel, particularly in the Jamesian novel, points to a deeper, more textured account of the relationship. Quite apart from the ethical and literary value covarying. or else standing independently of one another, Nussbaum argues: 1) novels are themselves works of moral philosophy. 2) it is in novels that one finds the most appropriate articulation of the, or this, moral vision. 3) we can find in novels a paradigm of moral activity. I shall assess the plausibility of these claims, taking into consideration some interpretative ambiguities that exist in her account. I will then be in a position to say something of how this might be applied to the tension we began with. Nussbaum says that there exists a 'dynamic tension between two possible irreconcilable visions...' I agree that this tension exists. Moreover, though, I intend to claim something stronger. The dynamic tension is not merely present; it is an essential component of the relationship between ethical and aesthetic value.

Speaker: Naomi Waltham-Smith (Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies, Warwick)

Title: 'Homofaunie: Non-Human Tonalities of Listening in Derrida and Cixous'

Warwick PAIS and Philosophy have organised a roundtable to discuss Martina Tazzioli's new book, The Making of Migration: The Biopolitics of Mobility at Europe's Borders (London: SAGE, 2019). The book addresses the rapid phenomenon that has become one of the most contentious issues in contemporary life: How are migrants governed as individual subjects and as part of groups? What are the modes of control, identification and partitions that migrants are subjected to? Bringing together an ethnographically grounded analysis of migration, and a critical theoretical engagement with the security and humanitarian modes of governing migrants, The Making of Migration pushes us to rethink notions that are central in current political theory such as multiplicity and subjectivity. This is an innovative and sophisticated study, deploying migration as an analytical angle for complicating and reconceptualising the emergence of collective subjects, mechanisms of individualisation, and political invisibility/visibility.

Contributors:

Stuart Elden (PAIS, Warwick)

Daniele Lorenzini (Philosophy, Warwick)

Vicki Squire (PAIS, Warwick)

Maurice Stierl (PAIS, Warwick)

and Martina Tazzioli (Goldsmiths, University of London)

Contributors:

Alison Downham Moore (Western Sydney University)

Lisa Downing (University of Birmingham)

Stuart Elden (PAIS, Warwick)

Daniele Lorenzini (Philosophy, Warwick)

Federico Testa (Institute of Advanced Study, Warwick)

Supported by Centre Michel Foucault, Institute of Advanced Study, Warwick, and The University of Warwick.

Speaker: Josh Robinson (School of English, Communications, Philosophy, Cardiff)

Title: 'Crisis in Theory'

Josh Robinson teaches modern and contemporary critical theory in the School of English, Communication and Philosophy at the University of Cardiff. Most recently, he is author of Adorno’s Poetics of Form, which appeared last year in SUNY’s Contemporary Continental Philosophy series): https://www.sunypress.edu/p-6556-adornos-poetics-of-form.aspx

Crisis in Theory: Beyond the Representational Paradigm

This paper aspires to offer a critical account of a set of assumptions that are widespread in literary and critical theory, both in its historical emergence (as seen primarily through its institutional histories) and in several more recent developments (including the various ‘turns’ that arise from time to time. My focus is on what I term the representational paradigm: in its simplest and broadest formulation, the assumption, explicit or otherwise, within literary studies that works of literature matter insofar as they are representative; that what matters about literary works is their representative character.

This paradigm persists in multiple, not always interdependent (or even necessarily compatible) manifestations, which include: an analytical focus on events represented within works of literature (what might be called a focus on content at the expense of form); a set of analytical procedures that rely on an implicit theory of allegory whereby readings are produced that see elements of a work as representing elements outside it; attempts to reconfigure the canon and/or redesign our curricula such that the works and authors within it are more representative of global society. I outline a tentative taxonomy of these different versions of representationalism, and relate them to a set of shared democratic assumptions about political representation—assumptions which have a tendency to place themselves beyond scrutiny. I argue that while the democratic aspirations expressed at least in progressive versions of representationalism paradigm constitute a commendable alternative to the (not only cultural) conservatism of the tendencies against which they are in many respects a reaction, these underlying assumptions ultimately overlook or even limit the potential of literature’s ways of thinking to contribute to a transformation of our understanding of the political. I thus set out some of the ways in which criticism and theory might move beyond the representational paradigm.

Speaker: Kate Soper (Philosophy, University of Brighton/London Metropolitan University)

Title: 'The Dialectics of Progress: Towards a Post-Growth Aesthetic and Politics of Prosperity'

Speaker: James MacDowell (Department of Film and TV, Warwick)

Title: 'Regarding YouTube as Art'

Please contact Johan Heemskerk for further information (j.heemskerk@warwick.ac.uk)

This session will feature a paper from PhD student Carline Klijnman, who will be interviewed by Benjamin Ferguson. The abstract for Carline’s paper is below. We look forward to seeing you there! 

Epistemic Injustice and Expertise

A fundamental characterization of modern societies is epistemic dependence. We rely on (expert-)testimony of others to inform ourselves on complex, politically relevant matters. Especially in the online epistemic environment, the increasing spread of misinformation and the disintermediation of traditional epistemic gatekeepers (a combination I call Epistemic Pollution) have made it harder for citizens to determine the credibility of different information sources.  

Take for example the vaccination debate. In anti-vaccination echo-chambers, the testimony of health-care experts is persistently undermined, whilst the anecdotal stories of concerned parents claiming their child’s disease was caused by vaccination are believed without evidence. These mechanisms of distrust seem to echo Miranda Fricker’s account of ‘testimonial injustice’, wherein the speaker “receives a credibility deficit owing to identity prejudice in the hearer”. However, unlike Fricker’s central cases of systematic testimonial injustice, prejudice against healthcare experts is not rooted in social injustice. Still, as I will argue, the severity of testimonial injustice shouldn’t be measured only by its impact on the individual speaker. Structural prejudice, even if not rooted in social injustice (e.g. against healthcare experts) can undermine epistemically fair conditions of public discourse (in this case re. vaccination debate). This is both epistemically and ethically problematic. 

Please contact Johan Heemskerk for further information (j.heemskerk@warwick.ac.uk)

This session will feature a paper from MPhil student Thaddee Chantry-Gellens, who will be interviewed by David Bather Woods. The abstract for Thaddee’s paper is below. We look forward to seeing you there!

Primitivist Violence? An alternative to Sarkissian’s argument on the darker side of Daoist Primitivism

Violence is a historical fact. It has permeated the development of human history for millennia, sometimes bringing it to the brink of the abyss, other times leading it to the highest peaks. Violence of the oppressor on the oppressed, violence of the oppressed on the oppressor, forcing one’s will on others through aggressive means is multi-faceted and should not be understood as a monolithic phenomenon. Violence can be liberating, and it can be repressive. China has known political violence throughout many of the periods and forms of its long existence. The moment in time this essay focuses on is a transitory one: the shift between the aptly-named Warring States period and the first unification of China under the Qin Dynasty. It will try to depict some of the arguments made in the Primitivist section of the Zhuangzi anthology. This will be done in the context of Hagop Sarkissian’s (2010) article on the “darker side” of Daoist primitivism.

Please contact Johan Heemskerk for further information (j.heemskerk@warwick.ac.uk)

This session marks the last WiP seminar of Term 2. We will be looking at a paper from PhD student Jonathan Clarke-West. The abstract for Jonathan’s paper is below. We look forward to seeing you there!

 Imagination in Proust’s A La Recherche du Temps Perdu. 

 This paper introduces my thesis before staging the first chapter. It addresses the requirement to study the role of imagination in Recherche before drawing out examples of its operation from Recherche. It outlines three categories by which I understand imagination to operate within the novel: firstly, its operation as a faculty; secondly, its role in the context of artistic production; finally, its articulation in the presentation of society. It then moves to consider the presentation of imagination as a faculty in the novel – the imagination. It looks at the positions held by different commentators – who mostly centre upon the ampliative powers acquired once imagination and sense conspire. It elects to focus upon the operation of imagination articulated by the phenomena of Proustian sensation and involuntary memory. Deleuze’s reading of Kant’s Sublime grants a point of entry to this operation. The similarities enable the claim to be made that Proust articulates a literary analytic of the encounter in these phenomena.

Please contact Johan Heemskerk for further information (j.heemskerk@warwick.ac.uk)

Theme: 'Continental Philosophy and Its Histories'

Keynote Speakers:

Professor Stella Sandford (Kingston University)

Dr Mogens Laerke (CNRS)

Dr Francey Russell (Columbia University)

Continental Philosophy often focuses its efforts on studying, comparing, and criticising the thought of past philosophers. One would be hard-pressed to find a thinker in the Continental tradition who has not understood and presented their own thought in relation to an Ancient Greek, or a Modern philosopher. But these philosophers do not approach historical figures as ‘historians of ideas’ or as ‘experts’ on a historical period. Rather, the new philosophy is seen as standing in contrast to, or as a continuation of, the problems and questions of the past. As such, Continental Philosophy often places a strong emphasis on the construction of, and the engagement with, its histories, thereby understanding and differentiating itself on the basis of traditions, schools, and systems, rather than theories, disciplines, and problems.

One of the aims of this conference is to investigate different ways in which Continental Philosophy engages with the thinkers that belong to its history: what is it to ‘read’ Plato, Spinoza, Kant, or Nietzsche in Continental Philosophy? How important is the canon and what is its methodological and philosophical significance? Should we keep putting forward various creative (mis)readings of the past philosophers or, as Husserl has suggested early on, is it better to get rid of the past and proceed afresh with a new method?

History, however, is more than a ‘tool’ utilised by Continental Philosophy. From Hegel’s Philosophy of History and Marx’s materialisation of it, to Heidegger’s distinction between Historie and Geschichte, and Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment Continental Philosophy makes the phenomenon (in contrast to the discipline) of history the very object of its investigations. Hence, we wonder: what does it mean to write a ‘philosophy of history’ and what possible form can such an enquiry take today?

But it must not be forgotten that Continental Philosophy can itself be seen as a period in the longer history of philosophy. This makes the very concept of Continental Philosophy open to inquiry by philosophers, but also to historians, sociologists, political scientists, etc. What does it mean to address Continental philosophy as a historical period? Can methods, approaches, traditions, and theories from other disciplines illuminate and inform philosophical understandings of Continental Philosophy? Can such approaches be helpful to disciplines other than philosophy? This is another crucial topic that this conference aims to investigate.

This conference is made possible by generous funding provided by the University of Warwick Philosophy Department and British Society for the History of Philosophy. It is an annual event within The Centre for Research in Post-Kantian European Philosophy (University of Warwick).

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/research/activities/postkantian/events/wcpc

Two talks on memory by James Openshaw (Warwick) and Thomas Crowther (Warwick)