Nova PhDs http://novaphds.powerblogs.com/ en-us 2006-10-22T18:10+00:00 Iris Marion Young http://novaphds.powerblogs.com/posts/1154478207.shtml I wanted to pass along the sad news that Iris Marion Young died yesterday, July 31. See here for more information. Prof. Young is something of a hero of mine... J.C. Berendzen 2006-08-02T00:08+00:00 here for more information. Prof. Young is something of a hero of mine for the way she combined interest in Merleau-Ponty (see "Throwing Like a Girl") with work on (particularly Habermasian) critical theory (see especially Justice and the Politics of Difference).

The University of Chicago's obituary for Prof. Young can be found here.]]> SPEP O6 Program http://novaphds.powerblogs.com/posts/1151432140.shtml As many of you have probably seen, the SPEP 2006 program is out. Following is a rundown of the Nova PhD grads on the main program (followed by some other Nova-related... J.C. Berendzen 2006-06-27T18:06+00:00
The first time slot, THURSDAY AFTERNOON 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m., is a big one for Nova PhDs, and includes:

The Promise of Memory: History and Politics in Marx, Benjamin, and Derrida
Moderator: Kym Maclaren, Northern Arizona University
Speaker: Andrew Cutrofello, Loyola University, Chicago
Speaker: Jonathan Maskit, Dennison University
Respondent: Matthias Fritsch, Concordia University

and

The Contemporary Import of Hegel’s Aesthetics
Moderator: Tom Brockelman, LeMoyne College
“On the Lyrical Presentation of History: Hegel and the Modern Poem,”
Ammon Allred, Villanova University
“The Public Design of the Shape of Spirit: Hegel and Contemporary Architecture,” J. C. Berendzen, Loyola University, New Orleans
“Radical Passivity, Resistance, and Art: Agamben’s Unworking Of
Hegel’s Aesthetics,” Theodore George, Texas A&M University

(I imagine that Ammon and Ted will join me in being somewhat dissapointed that our panel is at the same time as Matthias’s book session.)

On SATURDAY AFTERNOON 1:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m., look for:

“Reduction or Subtraction: Marion, Badiou & the Recuperation of
Truth,” Adam S. Miller, Collin County Community College

In a panel titled “Immanence and Truth.”

I believe that there are no other papers being delivered by Nova PhDs, but on FRIDAY AFTERNOON 4:15 p.m. – 5:30 p.m., one should look for:

Paul Ricoeur and the Nazis
Speaker: David Kaplan, University of North Texas
Respondent: Farhang Erfani, American University

I am sure Farhang will give this Kaplan fellow the buisness!

As for other Nova PhD’s participating on the main program, Shannon Mussett (“New Efforts at Containment”), Jamey Findling (“A Weak Cousin No Longer: Gadamer’s Rhetorical Imaginary as the Inversion of Philosophy”), and Dana Belu (“Political Phenomenality, Marxism, and the Praxis of Phenomenology”) are all moderating panels.

See future Nova PhDs, on SATURDAY MORNING 9:00 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.:

Deleuze, Badiou, and Ranciere on Literature and the Work of Art
Moderator: Gary Aylesworth, Eastern Illinois University
“To Be a Man Without References: The End of Tragedy and the Task of
the Comic,” J. Eric Butler, Villanova University
“Truth and Master: Badiou Reads Mallamaré,” Alexi Kukuljevic, Villanova University
(Along with “‘I dream of war…of utterly unforeseeable logic’: Rancière Reads
Rimbaud,” Sid Littlefield, Gordon College)

Regarding Nova professors, it will be a big SPEP for Walter Brogan. There is a book session for his work Heidegger and Aristotle: The Twofoldness of Being on Thursday afternoon at 3:45 p.m. AND at Saturday 12:00 Noon he is giving the Andre Schuwer Lecture, “On Giorgio Agamben's Naked Life: The State of Exception and the Law of the Sovereign”
(It is also worth noting that at 9:00 am on Friday Denny Schmidt is speaking on a panel on comedy and philosophy and at 4:15 on Friday Jack Caputo will be giving a paper on Derrida and Marion.)

If I missed anything or anyone has something to add, mention it in a comment and I will amend the post.]]> North American Society for Philosophical Hermeneutics http://novaphds.powerblogs.com/posts/1149007317.shtml Jamey Findling posted the following in a recent comments thread. I thought it would be worthwhile to have it on the front page, so I am taking the liberty of posting... novaphds 2006-05-30T16:05+00:00
"I thought I would pass along this link. It's the homepage for the (rather awkwardly named) society that Ted and I, along with some others, have been working on. Our first conference is this coming weekend, so it'll be nice to see things come to some measure of fruition. There will also be a satellite session at SPEP this Fall, at the usual Thursday morning time, for those arriving early."]]> Experimental Philosophy and Continental Philosophy http://novaphds.powerblogs.com/posts/1141941309.shtml If one cruises the internet for philosophy sites, one gets the impression that the hot new thing in (analytic) philosophy is something called “Experimental Philosophy.” I have been hearing this term... J.C. Berendzen 2006-03-09T21:03+00:00
After looking at some of this discussion, I wondered to myself, "what might all of this have to do with things happening in Continental philosophy?" I then figured I would post some of my own thoughts and ask you all about it.

First, though, lets have a brief description of Experimental phil from the horse's (Knobe's) mouth:


"Since the earliest days of analytic philosophy, it has been a common practice to appeal to intuitions about particular cases. Typically, the philosopher presents a hypothetical situation and then makes a claim of the form: ‘In this case, we would surely say....’ This claim about people’s intuitions then forms a part of an argument for some more general theory about the nature of our concepts or our use of language.
One puzzling aspect of this practice is that it so rarely makes use of standard empirical methods. Although philosophers quite frequently make claims about ‘what people would ordinarily say,’ they rarely back up those claims by actually asking people and looking for patterns in their responses. In recent years, however, a number of philosophers have tried to put claims about intuitions to the test, using experimental methods to figure out what people really think about particular hypothetical cases. At times, the results have been extremely surprising."



So, experimental philosophers actually do the empirical legwork (the most popular form of which seems to be adminstering surveys--a practice which is not strictly speaking an experiment, I think, but what the hell...). As an aside, it strikes me that the only thing that is at all new about this is that some guys who have philosophy degrees have hit the streets and administered surveys and so-forth, rather than relying on psychologists, etc. to do the empirical work.

Now, I don't know how interested I am in the specific work that is getting called "Experimental Philosophy." I do wonder, however, how the emphasis on empirical research jibes with continental philosophy. Well, one quick answer (which I think is ultimately a half truth) is that it doesn't fit with most of Continental phil, because it is based on the valorizing of the methods of the empirical natural sciences, and that is something of which continental philosophy is generally critical...

Consider, though, Horkheimer's early Frankfurt School plan for interdisciplinary research. It clearly included a strong commitment to using empirical data (and they even used surveys and questionairres...). There is still a commitment in critical theory (say, for example, in the attention Honneth pays to people's experiences of injustice) to such research.

In any event, I am interested to hear what you all think about the relation of continental philosophy to empirical research, both in terms of the history of continental phil (for--a possibly lame--example, is there room for empirical research in Heidegger's project) and in terms of your own research. Could there be an "Experimental Continental Philosophy"?]]> On academic blogs http://novaphds.powerblogs.com/posts/1136737413.shtml (Sorry I have not said much recently. I have been meaning to respond to Jaime's entry on the cont/analytic post but things have been a little crazy.)... Farhang Erfani 2006-01-08T16:01+00:00
You all may have run across the article Ivan Tribble in the Chronicle. (It requires subscription; let me know you have no means of getting the piece.) It basically advised folks on the market, as well as young untenured faculty to worry about their blogs. Tribble contended that since hiring committee members tend to google candidates, having a blog — personal or professional — may hurt one's chances.

I just read this piece about someone getting fired because of a blog. Granted, she was fired from DeVry and not Harvard, but it does show that this could be an issue.

On our blog, mostly folks who have a phd AND a job post stuff. Nothing here is of the nature that would be detrimental to our careers either, I think. Would anonymous blogs be better?]]> Louis Pojman http://novaphds.powerblogs.com/posts/1134062189.shtml I just heard about this today. Louis Pojman passed away a couple of months ago. He died of Hepatitis C, contracted years ago through a contaminated blood transfusion. He was the... Farhang Erfani 2005-12-08T17:12+00:00
I have taught a number of his essays in my ethics courses. Though I never found myself in agreement with him, he was a formidable figure in the field of ethics. He also had a kind of honesty that I found refreshing, particularly in his work on capital punishment. There again, I could never agree with him but he was very much worth reading and teaching.

There will be a memorial service in NY during the APA: 2pm at the All Souls Unitarian Church in Manhattan on the 30th of December.

Here is his site: http://www.louispojman.com

]]> Thoughts on SPEP http://novaphds.powerblogs.com/posts/1130869197.shtml Here are a few things that I thought were notable about SPEP this year:... J.C. Berendzen 2005-11-01T18:11+00:00
1. Selfishly, I will mention first that I thought that the von Trier panel (with Joshua Ramey and myself) went well. The panel was buoyed by the presence of the University of Colorado-Denver undergrad philosophy club, who were fairly enthusiastic.

2. The other Nova-related panels that I attended also went well. Adriel Trott's paper on Plato and Irigaray generated a good deal of discussion, as did Farhang and Greg's panel.

3. Notably, there were a number of Nova-related people who had new books out in the book display area. Continuum had Jamie's Derrida Live Theory book out, Jennifer Gossetti (I forget the second part of her last name) had a book out with Fordham, and Matthias Fritsch had a book out with SUNY. Also in the SUNY display was Walter Brogan's long-anticipated book on Aristotle and Heidegger, and Paul Livingston had a book on display as well.

4. I don't know that I have a good answer as to what is "hot" now, exactly, but it was notable that after a few years without any papers on Sartre, there was a panel commemorating his 100th Birthday (with Bill Martin, Tom Flynn, and Robert Bernasconi, which Tom Busch moderated) that drew a really big crowd.

5. Otherwise, the conference seemed pretty pluralistic in the issues discussed. There was a lot of stuff on Derrida, as one might imagine. There was also, however, a panel on Husserl and Robert Brandom, which has to be pretty noteworthy for SPEP (it was a very enjoyable panel, as well).

6. I also got the sense that it was sort of a small turnout for SPEP, possibly because it was in Salt Lake City. SLC lacks hustle and bustle (and it is really difficult to find a place to eat on Sunday), but is overall an enjoyable place. All in all I thought the conference went really well. Props to our Shannon Mussett (and her colleague at UVSC, Pierre Lamarche), for a job really well done. It will be fun to see how Nova matches up when they host in Philly next year.]]> Wittgenstein, Gadamer and John Roberts http://novaphds.powerblogs.com/posts/1126017872.shtml ... Farhang Erfani 2005-09-06T14:09+00:00
I am not sure if you folks caught this. A couple of days ago, an Op-Ed piece in the LA Times dealt with "The Subtext of the John Roberts nomination". The author, Crispin Sartwell, whom you may have read elsewhere, uses Wittgenstein and Gadamer for his analysis. I am not convinced that the word "subtext" is really what he was after, but it is good to see philosophy in a major newspaper. Also to notice: the author rightly went beyond "objectivism and relativism" of hermeneutics, by showing that Gadamer cared about context without being a skeptic or a relativist. ]]>