Liberal as Methodological Naturalism

Dr Cathy Legg will be giving a special presentation at the University of Hildesheim, Germany, Monday 11th June 2018:

Liberal as Methodological Naturalism

Many philosophers hold that Philosophy should learn at least something from the spectacular success of the natural sciences since the 17th century. Yet what exactly should be learned, and how after this learning Philosophy would continue to be practiced, is still contested. Disappointment with the rich suite of ‘human things’ dismissed by philosophers seeking to be ‘more scientific’ has recently produced influential calls for a liberal naturalism. Thus de Caro and Voltolini urge, “there may be philosophically legitimate entities that are… ineliminable and…not only irreducible to scientifically accountable entities but also ontologically independent from them” (2010, p. 70) .

Whilst applauding such broad-mindedness, as a philosopher not a scientist I seek a logical not an ontological solution to this problem. I draw on Charles Peirce’s pragmatist semiotics to reconceive ‘objectivity’ in a more open-minded and fallibilist manner than standard naturalisms, whereby the true key to science’s success lies in an indexical normative pragmatics which does not represent the world so much as provide a guiding function for a flow of experiences .At this point, the key question of naturalism concerning a given discourse becomes merely: Is what you’re talking about a reflection of your own idiosyncracies – or can the object itself guide your thoughts about it – in other words, does it have a nature?
 
BIO
Catherine Legg is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Deakin University(Melbourne, Australia). She completed her PhD at Australian National University with a thesis on the implications of Charles Peirce’s three fundamental categories for realism. Her research builds bridges between Peirce’s thought and mainstream analytic philosophy regarding philosophical methodology, truth,meaning, and founding logic in diagrammatic reasoning. She also has research interests in computer science in the area of formal ontology.

Cathy Legg interviewed by APA blog

Life is too short and precious to trudge through dreary philosophy papers allegedly ‘solving’ problems about which you struggle to care. After graduate school (and often even within graduate school – give it a try!) you don’t need the permission of someone powerful to do the work that most inspires you. Truth is a marathon not a sprint, so try to settle in and make yourself comfortable.

Deakin’s Dr Cathy Legg has just been interviewed by the blog of the American Philosophical Association. You can find Cathy’s full interview here.

Deakin Philosophy Seminar – October 10

James Phillips (University of New South Wales), “Towards an Ethics of the Close-Up: Josef von Sternberg and Marlene Dietrich”
 
Abstract:
This paper addresses some phenomenological questions concerning film spectatorship, as prompted by Josef von Sternberg’s Dietrich cycle (1930-35). I propose that there is something distinctive about cinema’s relationship toward its objects of depiction when compared with the representational arts and that it lies in the look or framing of the shot. As a site of artistic agency on the part of the filmmaker, the look differentiates itself from the technological automatism of the camera’s recording of the pro-filmic. This agency of the look does not extend to the cinematic spectator, whose gaze is disconnected from his or her sensorimotor nexus, since the changes in the space that we see on the screen do not result from movements we make with our bodies in the auditorium. This passivity of the cinematic gaze does not support the claims made concerning the gaze’s reifying oppressiveness. As Dietrich’s appearance in Sternberg’s films has been cited (by Laura Mulvey among others) as a prime example of the objectifying power of the gaze, I ask what traction this description has. Sternberg’s close-ups of Dietrich, I argue, can be read differently – as an assertion of female autonomy and as an exploration of a spatiality that does not collude with the off-screen in the viewer’s head to create a world.
 
Bio:
James Phillips is Associate Professor in Philosophy at the University of New South Wales. He has, as author, published with Stanford University Press Heidegger’s Volk: Between National Socialism and Poetry (2005) and The Equivocation of Reason: Kleist Reading Kant (2007) and, as editor, Cinematic Thinking (2008). He has also written over two dozen journal articles on political philosophy and aesthetics, broadly conceived.

Where and when:

Tuesday, 10 October, 4.00pm to 5.30pm, Deakin Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Hwy, Room C2.05

The seminar is free to attend and all are welcome.

 For any inquiries, please email Daniela Voss: [email protected]
 
Hosted by the PHI research group and the School of Humanities and Social Science.

Between the Individual and the Collective: Processes of Sociopolitical Formation

September 25, 2017, Burwood Corporate Centre, Burwood Campus

The dichotomy of the individual and the collective has been a classic problem of philosophy and political theory since the beginning. Perennial questions have emerged around the nature and the viability of social bonds. Are social relations forged by consent to a social contract? Are they the expression of a common will of the people? Do they require the abandonment of natural rights and individual freedom? The sense of conflict or contradiction between the individual and the collective, the one and the many, has been a constant source of theoretical difficulty. There have been numerous attempts in contemporary theory to deal with this dilemma by rethinking traditional categories such as the ‘humanist individual,’ ‘the mass’ as an aggregate of isolated units, or ‘the people’ as a substantial metaphysical entity. One approach, for example, is to explore a mode of subjectivity that in some way is always-already part of a de-essentialised community. The political question then becomes that of enhancing the capacities of this subjectivity for thought, action, self-expression and practical freedom. According to this view, the non-social individual is an abstraction. In order to overcome the duality individual/collective, further categories such as the ‘group-individual,’ ‘transindividual,’ ‘multitude’ or ‘generic humanity’ have been put forward.

This workshop will explore conceptions of the political subject and ask what may constitute collective subjectivities in the twenty-first century. Is the subject still the locus of a radical left politics of collective transformation and systemic change? What are the practical conditions requisite to the realisation of political subjectivity? Do changes in modes of production caused by cultural and economic globalisation and technological development provide an opportunity for emancipatory struggles, or do they rather make it more difficult to resist a hegemonic world-capitalism? What are the possibilities and limitations of articulating collective politics today? How can we theorise a collective that is more than simplistic unity, other than a ‘natural’ or national identity, and that remains inclusive and open to continuous extension? The workshop invites contributions that pose and critically examine these and related questions.

Program:

10.00-10.50 Charles Barbour: ‘The Secret Society: Testimony, Perjury, and Oath in Derrida’s Later Work’

10.50-11.35 Miguel Vatter: ‘Dignity and Humanity: Averroistic, not Christian’

11.45-12.30 John Morss: ‘We Is A Thing: On the Political Grammar of Peoplehood’

13.30-14.15 Robert Boncardo: ‘The Individual as Constitutive Power: Jean-Paul Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason

14.15-15.00 Sean Bowden: ‘The Expression of Collective Intentions in Unstructured Groups’

15.10-15.55 Daniela Voss: ‘Simondon and Transindividuality’

15.55-16.40 Andreas Hetzel: ‘Transformations of Natural Right: Hegel’s Contribution to a Philosophy of a Non-Exclusive Community’

For details please contact Dr Daniela Voss.

Deakin Philosophy Seminar – September 26

Andreas Hetzel (University of Hildesheim, Germany), “Breaking Out of the Cycle of Fear: Exodus Politics”
 
Abstract:
Participants in those protests, which gave rise to the Arab Spring and to the Gezi-movement, repeatedly mentioned a decisive moment, of which it is difficult to say whether it preceded or rather resulted from the occupation of public spaces: breaking the cycles of fear. The paper explores the role of fear in the affective economy of subjectification techniques, and, apart from that, indicates, why and under which conditions the breaking of a cycle of fear may be regarded as a political event. For this purpose, the paper draws on concepts of an exodus-politics, as it has been outlined in Walzer’s and in Virno’s respective accounts of the biblical exodus-myth. For the exodus constitutes both for Walzer and for Virno a model for a ‘presentic,’ inner-worldly eschatology, which appreciates the departure from Egypt in terms of an in-subordination, that is, of a liberation from a fear, which has been identified as an instrument of domination and eventually disenchanted. At the same time, this in-subordination constitutes a new and genuinely political subject, which is associated by confidence and not by fear anymore.
 
Bio:
Andreas Hetzel is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hildesheim (Germany). Previously, he was Full Professor at Fatih University (Istanbul), Interim Professor at the University of Magdeburg (Germany), visiting Professor in Vienna (Austria), and Private Lecturer in Darmstadt (Germany). His research interests include social and political philosophy, cultural theory, environmental ethics, pragmatism, and classical rhetoric. Currently he focuses on the philosophical relevance of rhetorical concepts of speech and on Ethics of Biodiversity. He is co-editor of the journal Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie and of the book series Contemporary Discourses on the Political. He published a book on culture as praxis (Zwischen Poiesis und Praxis. Elemente einer kritischen Theorie der Kultur, 2001) and a book on language between classical rhetoric and modern pragmatics (Die Wirksamkeit der Rede. Zur Aktualität klassischer Rhetorik für die moderne Sprachphilosophie, 2011).
 
Where and when:
Tuesday, 26 September, 4.00pm to 5.30pm, Deakin Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Hwy, Room C2.05
 
Virtual Meeting Point: ARTSED VMP SHSS. Direct dial number: (+613) 5223 9354 
On joining a VMP, see here.
 
The seminar is free to attend and all are welcome.
 
For any inquiries, please email Daniela Voss: [email protected]
 
Hosted by the PHI research group and the School of Humanities and Social Science.

 

One-Day Workshop – September 25

Between the Individual and the Collective: Processes of Sociopolitical Formation”
 

The dichotomy of the individual and the collective has been a classic problem of philosophy and political theory since the beginning. Perennial questions have emerged around the nature and the viability of social bonds. Are social relations forged by consent to a social contract? Are they the expression of a common will of the people? Do they require the abandonment of natural rights and individual freedom? The sense of conflict or contradiction between the individual and the collective, the one and the many, has been a constant source of theoretical difficulty. There have been numerous attempts in contemporary theory to deal with this dilemma by rethinking traditional categories such as the ‘humanist individual,’ ‘the mass’ as an aggregate of isolated units, or ‘the people’ as a substantial metaphysical entity. One approach, for example, is to explore a mode of subjectivity that in some way is always-already part of a de-essentialised community. The political question then becomes that of enhancing the capacities of this subjectivity for thought, action, self-expression and practical freedom. According to this view, the non-social individual is an abstraction. In order to overcome the duality individual/collective, further categories such as the ‘group-individual,’ ‘transindividual,’ ‘multitude’ or ‘generic humanity’ have been put forward.
This workshop will explore conceptions of the political subject and ask what may constitute collective subjectivities in the twenty-first century. Is the subject still the locus of a radical left politics of collective transformation and systemic change? What are the practical conditions requisite to the realisation of political subjectivity? Do changes in modes of production caused by cultural and economic globalisation and technological development provide an opportunity for emancipatory struggles, or do they rather make it more difficult to resist a hegemonic world-capitalism? What are the possibilities and limitations of articulating collective politics today? How can we theorise a collective that is more than simplistic unity, other than a ‘natural’ or national identity, and that remains inclusive and open to continuous extension? The workshop invites contributions that pose and critically examine these and related questions.

Program:

10.00-10.50 Charles Barbour (University of Western Sydney): ‘The Secret Society: Testimony, Perjury, and Oath in Derrida’s Later Work’

10.50-11.35 Miguel Vatter (University of New South Wales): ‘Dignity and Humanity: Averroistic, not Christian’

11.45-12.30 John Morss (Deakin University): ‘We Is A Thing: On the Political Grammar of Peoplehood’

13.30-14.15 Robert Boncardo (University of Sydney): ‘The Individual as Constitutive Power: Jean-Paul Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason

14.15-15.00 Sean Bowden (Deakin University): ‘The Expression of Collective Intentions in Unstructured Groups’

15.10-15.55 Daniela Voss (Deakin University): ‘Simondon and Transindividuality’

15.55-16.40 Andreas Hetzel (University of Hildesheim, Germany): ‘Transformations of Natural Right: Hegel’s Contribution to a Philosophy of a Non-Exclusive Community’

Where and when:
Burwood Corporate Centre (BCC), Deakin Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood VIC 3125
*Please ask at the reception for room details*

Monday, September 25, 2017
From 10.00am to 5.00pm

The seminar is free to attend and all are welcome.

For any inquiries, please email Daniela Voss: [email protected]

The event is hosted by the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation and the PHI research group at Deakin University.

Deakin Philosophy Seminar – September 12

Petra Brown (Deakin University), “Hannah Arendt: Natality as Ethical Education”
 
Abstract:
In recent years, higher education across the globe has been increasingly marketized, accompanied by a technocratic approach that views education as a utilitarian tool in service of economic ends. Rationalization and standardization are prioritized over individual discipline traditions, particularly in the arts and humanities where character-formation and developing subjectivity are considered key aspects of education. As a result, key skills and qualities that enable civic and democratic life are effaced. This paper addresses the contemporary crisis of education through the work of Hannah Arendt, and her critique of education in the context of her phenomenological account of subjectivity in modernity, particularly through her concepts of action and natality, and her description of the changing social and relational structure of modernity. It critically examines Arendt’s vision of education in the context of the organization of human life, particularly as she relates it to political freedom, and outlines some examples of how Arendt might be applied to the challenges that face the contemporary university.
 
Bio:
Petra Brown is an academic at Deakin University, Australia. Her research expertise is in religion and ethics, political theology, German mid-20th century philosophy, Carl Schmitt, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Soren Kierkegaard. New research interests include reading the political philosophy of Hannah Arendt through a feminist perspective, in particular Arendt’s critique of sovereignty and violence, and her vision of a political community that is grounded on the idea of ‘natality’ as the founding basis for human relationships. ([email protected])
 
Where and when:
Tuesday, 12 September, 4.00pm to 5.30pm, Deakin Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Hwy, Room C2.05
 
Virtual Meeting Point: ARTSED VMP SHSS. Direct dial number: (+613) 5223 9354 
On joining a VMP, see here.
 
The seminar is free to attend and all are welcome.
 
For any inquiries, please email Daniela Voss: [email protected]
 
Hosted by the PHI research group and the School of Humanities and Social Science.

Buddhist Studies in India

Ari’s image from inside a hand-painted Tibetan Buddhist temple, Vajra Vidya, in Sarnath

One of Deakin’s philosophy students, Ari Moore, has just published an account of her experience on our Buddhist Studies in India study tour:

I would recommend the Buddhist Studies in India tour to anyone with a few philosophy units under their belt, an interest in world religions, and a thirst for adventure. If you have the chance to study in India with Deakin, don’t think twice – it’s the trip of a lifetime.  

Read all about Ari’s time in India here.

Deakin Philosophy Seminar – August 29

Christopher Watkin (Monash University), “Not More of the Same: Michel Serres and the Question of Alterity in Recent French Thought
 
Abstract:
The themes of difference and alterity are commonly thought to characterise French thought in the second half of the twentieth century, with canonical thinkers such as Lévinas, Derrida and, latterly, Nancy elaborating diverse ethical positions that nevertheless each accord a privileged and positive place to otherness. In recent years, however, a new philosophy of sameness has emerged, most prominently in the thought of Alain Badiou, claiming that the ethics of alterity is bankrupt, disingenuous and dangerous, and that it is identity and sameness, not difference and alterity, that are of positive ethical value. In this talk I introduce into this debate the thought of Michel Serres, in the light of which we can see that Badiou shares more in common with his supposed opponents than either he or they are ready to admit. For all that distinguishes Badiou’s position from that of his antagonists, they share the fundamental assumption that either identity or difference should be coded positively, but not both equally. In a move more radical than Badiou’s own intervention, Serres offers a different account, one in which neither sameness nor difference is ethically privileged over the other. Couched in the language of asymmetry, parasitism, inclination and enantiomorphy, Serres’s approach shows us how we can move on from the conflict between identity and alterity to a more scientifically informed and, I argue, more ethically compelling account of the relation between identity and alterity.
 
Bio:
Christopher Watkin lectures in French Studies at Monash University. His recent publications include French Philosophy Today: New Figures of the Human in Badiou, Meillassoux, Malabou, Serres and Latour (Edinburgh, 2015) and Difficult Atheism: Post-Theological Thinking in Alain Badiou, Jean-Luc Nancy and Quentin Meillassoux (Edinburgh, 2011). He is currently preparing a book-length critical introduction to the thought of Michel Serres. He blogs at christopherwatkin.com and you can find him on Twitter @DrChrisWatkin.
 
Where and when:
Tuesday, 29 August, 4.00pm to 5.30pm, Deakin Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Hwy, Room C2.05
 
Virtual Meeting Point: ARTSED VMP SHSS. Direct dial number: (+613) 5223 9354 
On joining a VMP, see here.
 
A live video of the presentation will be tweeted. Please see
http://www.twitter.com/DrChrisWatkin
 
The seminar is free to attend and all are welcome.
 
For any inquiries, please email Daniela Voss: d.voss@deakin.edu.au
 
Hosted by the PHI research group and the School of Humanities and Social Science.

 

Deakin Philosophy Seminar – August 1

 

Lisa Guenther (Vanderbilt University): “An Abolitionism Worthy of the Name: From Death Penalty Reform to Prison Abolition”

In Derrida’s lectures on the death penalty, the United States figures as “both exemplary and exceptional.”  Derrida acknowledges the racist structure of state violence in the United States, and he cites data and specific cases to support this point, but he does not develop a critical analysis of race or racism in the lecture series.  Drawing on the work of incarcerated intellectual Mumia Abu-Jamal, critical race theorists Cheryl Harris and Angela Davis, and contemporary prison abolitionists, I argue that racism is an issue, not only in the particular context of the United States, but also for the logic of the death penalty that Derrida proposes to deconstruct.  Derrida’s own account of indemnity, interest, and condemnation in the Tenth Session is incomplete without a supplementary analysis of black civil death and the construction of whiteness as property.  In conclusion, I argue that an abolitionism worthy of the name would have to move beyond the death penalty, towards the (im)possible project of prison abolition and the abolition of white supremacy.

Bio

Lisa Guenther is Queen’s National Scholar in critical prison studies at Queen’s University, Canada.  Her most recent book, Solitary Confinement: Social Death and its Afterlives, develops a phenomenological critique of solitary confinement by drawing on the work of Husserl, Merleau-Ponty and Levinas, as well as legal and historical documents in the history of the U.S. penitentiary system. Currently she is working on a book that is tentatively entitled, Life Against Social Death: From Reproductive Injustice to Natal Resistance. The book explores the structural and historical connections between reproductive politics and the politics of mass incarceration and capital punishment in the United States. Guenther facilitates a discussion group with men on Tennessee’s death row called REACH Coalition.

Where and when:

Tuesday, 1 August, 4.00pm to 5.30pm, Deakin Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Hwy, Room C2.05

Virtual Meeting Point: ARTSED VMP SHSS. Direct dial number: (+613) 5223 9354. On joining a VMP, see here.

The seminar is free to attend and all are welcome.

For any inquiries, please email Daniela Voss: [email protected]

Hosted by the PHI research group and the School of Humanities and Social Science.