<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-AU" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi everyone,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This week's speaker in the University of Sydney Philosophy Seminar Series is Stephen Finlay<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The title of the talk is "Why We Should Only Be Quasi-Expressivists". Here is an abstract for the talk:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Quasi-expressivism assigns to conversational pragmatics those features of discourse that expressivism-proper essentially assigns to meaning. Building on others' work, I argue that there are compelling reasons
to think that the Frege-Geach problem for expressivism is irresolvable. Expressivists can opt for a single- or a dual-attitude strategy. It's now recognized that single-attitude strategies are committed to an explosion of attitude-types, an implication some
thinkers have begun to embrace. I'll object not to the number, but to the types of some of these required attitudes. Whereas dual-attitude strategies escape the Frege-Geach problems, my objection is that they accomplish this only by abandoning central expressivist
motivations. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The seminar will take place at 3:30pm on Wednesday Sep 11 in the Philosophy Seminar Room (N494).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Enquiries about the seminar series can be directed to ryan.cox@sydney.edu.au<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ryan Cox<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Associate Lecturer in Philosophy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Discipline of Philosophy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">School of Humanities<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">University of Sydney<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ryan.cox@sydney.edu.au<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>