We’re trying to get a sense of whether people are interested in summer meetings or events. Please take a minute to respond to this survey. Only the first question requires an answer, but answering the other questions will help us better plan out any meetings or events over the summer.
During the summer semester there will be Ethics Bowl practice sessions every Thursday at 2:00 p.m. in FAO 222 (“the fishbowl”). The first meeting is this week. To prepare for the meeting, please read the 2007 regional cases (here) and make a list of the cases you find interesting. For more information about the Ethics Bowl team or if you are interested in participating but unable to attend the practice sessions this summer, e-mail the team’s coach, Steven Starke, at sstarke [at] mail [dot] usf [dot] edu.
At this week’s meeting, the last of the semester, Michael Jenkins will give a talk on a topic to be announced.
We meet from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. in MSC 2707.
On Tuesday, April 22 Philosophy Organization will host its annual symposium in MSC 2702 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. At this year’s symposium Dr. Sidney Axinn and Dr. Eric Winsberg of the Philosophy Department will discuss some of their research. Dr. Axinn works in military ethics and Dr. Winsberg works in the philosophy of science. Food (probably pizza) will be available at the symposium.
At this week’s meeting Paul Clarke will give a talk entitled “Lowe’s Version of the Modal Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.”
Abstract: In recent years E. J. Lowe has formulated and defended a version of the modal ontological argument for the existence of God. My talk will consist of three parts. First, I will present Lowe’s interpretation of Anselm and Descartes’s versions of the ontological argument and his defense of these arguments against standard objections. This will serve as an introduction to the ontological argument as well as informally set up some of the moves Lowe uses in his own argument. In the second part I will present Lowe’s own version of the argument. Lowe takes God to be, amongst other things, a necessary concrete being. He argues that such a being must exist because the existence of necessary abstract beings can only be explained by a necessary concrete being. Finally, in the third part, I will rehearse some objections offered by Graham Oppy.
I will discuss the following papers, which I’ve made available online if you’re interested in reading them:
E. J. Lowe, “The Ontological Argument”
E. J. Lowe, “A Modal Version of the Ontological Argument”
Graham Oppy, “Lowe on ‘The Ontological Argument’“
This year USF will host the Florida Philosophical Association’s annual meeting on November 14th and 15th. The call for papers is here. In addition to the FPA’s normal program of speakers, there are also competitions for the best undergraduate and graduate papers; the winners will have their papers published in The Florida Philosophical Review and receive a monetary prize.
At this week’s meeting we will have a few short debates on a variety of topics, which will be announced at the meeting. We will also have elections for next year’s officers. Pizza will be served at the meeting.
We meet from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. in MSC 2707.
Two reminders about this week’s meeting: First, we will have a series of short formal debates. If you are interested in competing, contact Michael Jenkins at michaelj [at] mail [dot] usf [dot] edu for more details. Second, we will have elections for next year’s officers. If you are interested in running for President, Vice President, or Treasurer, contact Paul Clarke at ppclarke [at] mail [dot] usf [dot] edu or plan on attending this week’s meeting.
See here for a list of online resources about diversity in philosophy and implicit bias provided by Dr. Brook Sadler.
At this week’s meeting Dr. Brook J. Sadler will give a lecture with Q&A titled “Racist and Sexist Philosophy for Everyone!” Pizza will be served. We meet in MSC 2707 from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Summary: Several recent stories in the national and international media have brought negative attention to the discipline of philosophy as a place where sexual harassment and sexism are commonplace. (There is far less discussion of racism in the discipline, a point worth further comment.) This negative portrayal of philosophy is based in fact, and it may lead some to abandon philosophy as irredeemably sexist (and racist). I begin with the question: Is philosophy an inherently racist and sexist discipline? My answer is firmly “no.” Yet, the academic discipline of philosophy has a very poor record of integrating women and racial and ethnic minorities and the work they produce. Further, the discipline has been extremely reluctant to incorporate race, gender, sexuality (and other aspects of minority identity and related issues) either as subjects or as methodologies. I will discuss how and why academic philosophy fails to address adequately gender and race in its curriculum and the many effects on the discipline of this exclusion, marginalization, and silencing. I will suggest ways that philosophers can effect positive change to improve the climate of philosophy so that it might become a discipline genuinely open and welcoming to everyone.
Biography: Dr. Brook Sadler earned tenure in the philosophy department at USF. She is now Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Humanities and Cultural Studies. A past President of the Florida Philosophical Association and winner of the USF Outstanding Undergraduate Teaching Award, Dr. Sadler has published widely in ethical theory. She specializes in Kantian ethics, feminist theory, and philosophy of love and sex. She also has interests in film and philosophy, philosophy of emotion, and poetry. She has been vocal and active in promoting diversity in philosophy for many years.