From kevin.walton at sydney.edu.au Mon Mar 12 14:33:49 2018 From: kevin.walton at sydney.edu.au (Kevin Walton) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 03:33:49 +0000 Subject: [SydPhil] JSI Seminar (22 March): Nicole Roughan Message-ID: Dear all The next Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence seminar will take place at 6pm on Thursday 22 March in the Common Room on the fourth floor of Sydney Law School. Nicole Roughan from the University of Auckland will present a paper entitled "Why Authority? A Jurisprudence Between Plurality and Pluralism". You can find out more and register (for free) here. A draft of the paper is attached. If you would like to join us for dinner after the seminar, please let me know. For information about future JSI events, see here. Best wishes, Kev DR KEVIN WALTON Senior Lecturer, Sydney Law School Director, Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY T +61 2 9351 0286 E kevin.walton at sydney.edu.au W www.sydney.edu.au/law -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Roughan Why Authority.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 353563 bytes Desc: Roughan Why Authority.pdf URL: From calendar-notification at google.com Tue Mar 13 12:59:55 2018 From: calendar-notification at google.com (Google Calendar) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:59:55 +0000 Subject: [SydPhil] Notification: Luke Russell @ Wed 14 Mar 2018 13:00 - 14:30 (AEDT) (Seminars) Message-ID: <94eb2c1ea934775b200567419ddc@google.com> This is a notification for: Title: Luke Russell Have You Forgiven Me?Over the past thirty years, philosophers have engaged in detailed disputes over the nature and the moral status of forgiveness. These philosophers have neglected interesting epistemic questions relating to forgiveness: Can I know when I have forgiven others, and can I know when I myself have been forgiven? Are these kinds of knowledge easy to come by? Are there specific circumstances in which victims or perpetrators are unable to know whether forgiveness has taken place, and is this lack of knowledge a practical or a moral problem? When: Wed 14 Mar 2018 13:00 ? 14:30 Eastern Time - Melbourne, Sydney Where: Muniment Room, Sydney Uni Calendar: Seminars Who: * Sam Shpall- creator Event details: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/DzQYCK1qJZtZqwj8SM0JL6?domain=google.com Invitation from Google Calendar: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VaaoCL7rK8tlPOJNiqn0_B?domain=google.com You are receiving this email at the account sydphil at arts.usyd.edu.au because you are subscribed for notifications on calendar Seminars. To stop receiving these emails, please log in to https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VaaoCL7rK8tlPOJNiqn0_B?domain=google.com and change your notification settings for this calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn more at https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/JwEyCMwvLQTv58QxsJ2jnh?domain=support.google.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arts.cave at mq.edu.au Thu Mar 15 09:39:50 2018 From: arts.cave at mq.edu.au (Centre for Agency, Values, and Ethics) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 22:39:50 +0000 Subject: [SydPhil] CAVE Workshop: The ethics of pathologising ugliness, 19 March, MQ Message-ID: Hi all, The next Macquarie University Research Centre for Agency, Values, and Ethics (CAVE) workshop is on Monday 19 March. All welcome, but please contact Yves for catering purposes. INTERDISCIPLINARY WORKSHOP ON THE ETHICS OF PATHOLOGISING UGLINESS 19 March 2018, Monday 10:00-16:30 The Incubator (8 Hadenfeld Ave), Macquarie University [S8 on campus map] The aim of the workshop is to foster an interdisciplinary discussion on the ethics of pathologising ugliness. By ?pathologising ugliness? we mean the process of reframing physical features deemed unattractive as disorders. Pathologisation of ugliness arises from the interplay of aesthetic, socio-cultural, legal and medical norms. Medical and surgical procedures that modify physical attributes purely for cosmetic reasons are increasing in scope and frequency, fostering the belief that ugliness can and should be treated as a medical problem. The pathologisation of ugliness has serious ethical implications regarding the goals of medicine, as well as our understandings of health and disease. In this workshop, we hope to examine the extent to which gendered, able-bodied and racial norms merge in the pathological framing of ugliness. Workshop speakers include experts in the fields of philosophy, law, medicine and gender and cultural studies, who will explore various norms that inform our understanding of ugliness and the factors that promote its pathologisation. Speakers * Prof Anand Deva (Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Macquarie University Hospital): "Motivations behind medical aesthetic practice and their consequences to the health and well-being of the patient and the system" * Yves Saint James Aquino (Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University): "Ugliness as disease: Ethical conflicts between cosmetic surgery and the goals of medicine" * A/Prof Robert Sinnerbrink (Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University): "Body aesthetics: Physical beauty, cultural biases, and moral confusions" * A/Prof Joanna Elfving-Hwang (Asian Studies, University of Western Australia): "Beauty as a moral imperative? Cosmetic surgery in South Korea" Please email yves-saint-james.aquino at students.mq.edu.au for catering purposes. Kelly Macquarie University Research Centre for Agency, Values and Ethics (CAVE) Department of Philosophy Macquarie University Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia CAVE website: mq.edu.au/cave www.facebook.com/MQCAVE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From calendar-notification at google.com Thu Mar 15 12:59:48 2018 From: calendar-notification at google.com (Google Calendar) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 01:59:48 +0000 Subject: [SydPhil] Notification: James Lancaster @ Wed 21 Mar 2018 13:00 - 14:30 (AEDT) (Seminars) Message-ID: <089e08284e70b42b36056769d849@google.com> This is a notification for: Title: James Lancaster From Matters of Faith to Matters of Fact: The Problem of Priestcraft in Early Modern EnglandThis paper details philosophical responses to the problem posed by the existence, whether real or perceived, of ?priestcraft?, a problem that boiled down to a fear that, if the custodians of God?s tabernacle were corrupt, so too were the contents of the tabernacle. It first explores the attempts of Edward Herbert and Thomas Hobbes to guarantee the truth of revealed matters of faith in response to their perception of widespread priestcraft, arguing that while each sought to undermine sacerdotal authority, they ultimately exempted matters of faith from the litmus test of reason. This resulted in a less-than-satisfactory solution to the problem. It turns next to Locke?s Essay (1690) and Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), exploring how empirical notions of evidence, fact, and probability, as framed in these works, enabled a radical re-evaluation of the grounds of Christian faith, which subsequently influenced the writings of John Toland, Anthony Collins, and Peter Annet between the 1690s and 1740s. These ?Lockean free-thinkers?, I argue, were in fact closer to the position of the Essay and Reasonableness than to the deism of Edward Herbert in their efforts to tackle priestcraft. Concluding, I propose that the problem of priestcraft served as a catalyst for early modern philosophers to increasingly narrow the grounds of faith, until faith was deemed legitimate only when grounded upon fact. When: Wed 21 Mar 2018 13:00 ? 14:30 Eastern Time - Melbourne, Sydney Calendar: Seminars Who: * Sam Shpall- creator Event details: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/sI55CBNZwLizMgzNHzfOE4?domain=google.com Invitation from Google Calendar: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/4SFJCD1jy9tDnRDZs5FUvy?domain=google.com You are receiving this email at the account sydphil at arts.usyd.edu.au because you are subscribed for notifications on calendar Seminars. To stop receiving these emails, please log in to https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/4SFJCD1jy9tDnRDZs5FUvy?domain=google.com and change your notification settings for this calendar. Forwarding this invitation could allow any recipient to modify your RSVP response. Learn more at https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/ArBMCE8kz9tkgQkjFpmwXa?domain=support.google.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From h.ikaheimo at unsw.edu.au Thu Mar 15 17:05:47 2018 From: h.ikaheimo at unsw.edu.au (Heikki Ikaheimo) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 06:05:47 +0000 Subject: [SydPhil] =?windows-1252?q?UNSW_Philosophy_Seminar=2C_20_March?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_12=2E30-2pm=2C_Lachlan_Umbers=3A_=91Compulsory_Votin?= =?windows-1252?q?g_=96_A_Defence=92=2C?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/XhpjCoVzGQi6882QF1GswT?domain=gallery.mailchimp.com] Invitation You are invited to the joint Philosophy & Practical Justice Initiative Seminar: ?Compulsory Voting ? A Defence? by Lachlan Umbers (UNSW, Sydney). Abstract: Turnout is in decline in established democracies around the world. Where, in the mid-1800s, 70%- 80% of eligible voters regularly participated in US Presidential elections, turnout has averaged just 56% since 1972. Average turnout in general elections in the UK has fallen from 76.64% during the period 1945-1992, to 64.68% since 1997. Average turnout in Canadian federal elections has fallen from 74.52% during the period 1940-1979, to 62.5% since 2000. For most democrats, these numbers are a cause for alarm. ?Rule by the people? looks far less attractive with an effective electorate of only 60% of the population. Compulsory voting is among the most effective means of raising turnout. However, compulsory voting is also controversial. Most of us think that coercion may only be employed against the citizenry if it is backed by a justification of the right kind. Opponents of compulsory voting charge that no such justification is available. This paper resists this line of argument in two ways. First, I offer an argument from free-riding which, though gestured towards by others, and widely criticised, has yet to be defended in any depth. Second, I consider a range of objections to compulsory voting as such, arguing that none succeeds. About the speaker: Lachlan Umbers is a post-doctoral research fellow with the Climate Justice stream of the Practical Justice Initiative. He was awarded his doctorate in philosophy from the Australian National University in February 2018. His dissertation engaged in a series of debates concerning the justification of contemporary democratic institutions, including compulsory voting, bans on vote buying, majority rule, and universal suffrage. He has ongoing research interests in democratic theory, as well as distributive justice, moral philosophy, meta-ethics, and applied ethics ? especially climate ethics. More information can be found on his website here. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D3BB97.5C483C10] Date: 20 March, 2018 Time: 12.30-2pm Location: Room 310, Level 3, Morven Brown Building, UNSW Kensington Registration: Not required Map reference: C20 Contact: e:h.ikaheimo at unsw.edu.au t: (02) 9385 2373 RSVP UNSW Arts & Social Sciences UNSW Sydney, NSW 2052 Australia arts.unsw.edu.au CRICOS Provider Code 00098G, ABN 57 195 873 179 [Facebook] [Twitter] [Linked In] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 31013 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2327 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2431 bytes Desc: image004.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2385 bytes Desc: image005.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5347 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From michael.olson at mq.edu.au Fri Mar 16 08:21:45 2018 From: michael.olson at mq.edu.au (Michael Olson) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:21:45 +0000 Subject: [SydPhil] MQ Philosophy Seminar on Tuesday the 20th of March in Blackshield Room: Dejan Simkovic (Notre Dame) Message-ID: <37DB7EB4-9552-4D60-B652-E51795C426F8@mq.edu.au> Can Epistemically Virtuous Agents Be Monotheists? Dejan Simkovic (University of Notre Dame) Date: Tuesday, 20th of March Time: 13:00 - 14:00 Venue: Blackshield Room, W3A (6 First Walk) 501 * All welcome *Note the changing venues this semester Abstract: Hume is one of the great advocates of scepticism, and his sceptical arguments, together with his critique of the accepted views of the time, have challenged our epistemic standpoint in various spheres of life, including religion. In the Natural History of Religion (NHR) for example, Hume claims that the suspension of religious (monotheistic) judgment is not only possible but also necessary. This negative aspect of Hume?s work was, in the eyes of the intellectual public of Hume?s time, a clear indication of Hume?s subversive and destructive intentions. In this paper, I wish to depart from this negative view on Hume?s approach to religion by revealing a long-neglected aspect of Hume?s discussion of monotheism in NHR: namely, that Hume attacked neither religion in general nor monotheism specifically in that book but argued that monotheism as the best available rational articulation of theism can be corrupted and sink into dogmatism and superstition. I also try to show that Hume has hereby established the distinction between what I will call the genuine and dogmatic versions of monotheism. Hume simultaneously articulates the criteria for assessment of the credibility of monotheistic agency in all three of its aspects ? religious, epistemic, and moral ? which, as I will argue, contains a subtle distinction between two types of monotheists: the epistemically and morally virtuous monotheist who is useful to society, and the opposite, the vicious monotheist who is a threat to society. This argument is useful, since it allows us to obtain better insight into sections 10 through 15 and offer a novel interpretation of the concluding passage of NHR. It is not necessarily the case in that work that Hume is suggesting the suspension of all religious judgments or beliefs is necessary; it could be, and I will argue that we have reason to believe that it is, the case that Hume is suggesting that the suspension of some religious judgments is necessary, with the dogmatic religious judgments being the relevant kind. This is important because it implies that the genuine monotheist, who is epistemically and morally virtuous, can join Hume in ?the calm, tho? obscure, regions of philosophy? (NHR 15.13, 505) without being accused of insincerity, inconsistency or contradiction. Contact: Adam Hochman (adam.hochman at mq.edu.au) or Mike Olson (michael.olson at mq.edu.au) A google calendar with details of other events in this series is available here. --- Dr Michael Olson Lecturer, Modern European Philosophy Department of Philosophy | 2nd Floor, Australian Hearing Hub Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia T: +61 2 9850 6895 | arts.mq.edu.au | www.michael-olson.com [cid:0A2B6DFB-5CD1-4783-9F76-DE022B68184D at mqauth.uni.mq.edu.au] CRICOS Provider Number 00002J. Think before you print. Please consider the environment before printing this email. This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of Macquarie University. --- Dr Michael Olson Lecturer, Modern European Philosophy Department of Philosophy Level 2, The Australian Hearing Hub 16 University Avenue Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia T: +61 2 9850 6895 | arts.mq.edu.au | www.michael-olson.com [cid:3596ED19-5228-475A-B9E2-1A47F40D70C4 at iinet.net.au] CRICOS Provider Number 00002J. Think before you print. Please consider the environment before printing this email. This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of Macquarie University. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.png Type: image/png Size: 4605 bytes Desc: unknown.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.png Type: image/png Size: 4605 bytes Desc: unknown.png URL: From s.lumsden at unsw.edu.au Sat Mar 17 10:52:43 2018 From: s.lumsden at unsw.edu.au (Simon Lumsden) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 23:52:43 +0000 Subject: [SydPhil] =?utf-8?q?=27Inner_West_Council_Philosophy_Talk=27=2C_?= =?utf-8?q?Tim_Rayner_=28UTS=29=2C_=E2=80=9CStoicism_as_a_Way_of_Life?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9C=2C_Thursday_March_22=2C_6=3A30-8=3A00pm=3A_Leichhardt?= =?utf-8?q?_Library=2E?= References: <8DDC2F6D-4FD1-48C1-A2E9-51C3F5E4DCF3@unsw.edu.au> Message-ID: <5986C453-CE53-4DF9-9854-2A7F94DE361D@unsw.edu.au> Details of this Thursday's ?Inner West Council Philosophy Talk" Title: ?Stoicism as a Way of Life? Speaker: Dr Tim Rayner (UTS) Abstract: The ancient Greek and Roman Stoic philosophers sought to vanquish the passions and prized rational self-control over all else. Come and find out why this stringent form of philosophy is undergoing a surge of popularity today, particularly in the world of entrepreneurship. Thursday March 22 6:30pm - 8pm Leichhardt Library (Piazza Level - Italian Forum, 23 Norton St, Leichhardt) Free event - All welcome - Light refreshments provided Bookings online or call 9367 9266 Full details as well as registration for the event are available from this link: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/g8r2CNLwM9iw1vJqumhb0m?domain=eventbrite.com.au Upcoming talks: April 26, Nicholas H. Smith (Macquarie), ?Work in a Free Society?. Information and registration https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/wJm5COMxNytEoqlLTvwwdz?domain=eventbrite.com.au May 31, Markos Valaris (UNSW),?Your Brain and You" Simon Lumsden (Inner West Council philosophy talks program coordinator) Simon Lumsden | Philosophy Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of New South Wales | Sydney | NSW 2052 | Australia work + 61 2 9385 2369 s.lumsden at unsw.edu.au https://hal.arts.unsw.edu.au/about-us/people/simon-lumsden/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael.olson at mq.edu.au Sun Mar 18 07:42:15 2018 From: michael.olson at mq.edu.au (Michael Olson) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 20:42:15 +0000 Subject: [SydPhil] CHANGE: MQ Philosophy Seminar on Tuesday the 20th of March: Robert Sinnerbrink (MQ) Message-ID: <482FD149-1A91-45B2-B635-78802B2BD863@mq.edu.au> There?s been a change in the program for this week. The new details are as follows: ?None of all that deserves to be shown': Cinematic Ethics in Haneke's Amour Robert Sinnerbrink (Macquarie) Date: 20 March Time: 13:00-14:00 Venue: Blackshield Room, W3A (6 First Walk) 501* All welcome *Note the changing venues this semester Abstract: Michael Haneke?s celebrated film Amour (2012), depicting the mercy killing of ailing ex-music teacher Anne [Emmanuel Riva] by her devoted husband Georges [Jean-Louis Trintignant], offers a fascinating case study in cinematic ethics. While most critics have focused on the theme of euthanasia, praising the film for its sympathetic presentation of it (or criticising it for the same reason), I suggest that the film does not offer a straightforward cinematic argument for or against euthanasia, or a ?violent? depiction of existential finitude, or a deflationary critique of the moral egoism at the heart of romantic love and altruistic ethics (including euthanasia). Rather, my approach to the film is concerned with its potentiality as a work that enacts a cinematic ethics, by which I mean cinema?s capacity to solicit ethical experience through emotional, cognitive, and aesthetic engagement. Amour engages the spectator in an experiential encounter that is confronting and compassionate, fraught with moral-cognitive dissonances that thwart our attempts at moralising judgement. In short, the film stages a complex provocation to think: it elaborates an ethically charged, emotionally ambiguous situation that we are invited to experience and reflect upon, without, however, being coerced into judging hastily the characters? moral-psychological condition. By focusing on the couple?s conflicting attempts to cope with the reality of Anne?s illness, culminating in Georges? unexpected and brutal mercy killing, the film offers spectators a provocative form of ethical proximity (witnessing characters? responses sympathetically but maintaining an aesthetic distance that eschews psychological interiority). From this point of view, Haneke?s Amour is a powerful example of a cinematic ethics: one that both solicits and resists our emotional engagement and moral judgment, evoking and exploring the ethical ambiguities and emotional ambivalences of romantic love and existential care. Contact: Adam Hochman (adam.hochman at mq.edu.au) or Mike Olson (michael.olson at mq.edu.au) A google calendar with details of other events in this series is available here. --- Dr Michael Olson Lecturer, Modern European Philosophy Department of Philosophy Level 2, The Australian Hearing Hub 16 University Avenue Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia T: +61 2 9850 6895 | arts.mq.edu.au | www.michael-olson.com [cid:3596ED19-5228-475A-B9E2-1A47F40D70C4 at iinet.net.au] CRICOS Provider Number 00002J. Think before you print. Please consider the environment before printing this email. This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of Macquarie University. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.png Type: image/png Size: 4605 bytes Desc: unknown.png URL: