Sara J. Bernstein Curriculum Vitae
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Annual Report 2020 1
ACLS Annual Report 2020 1 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES Annual Report 2020 2 ACLS Annual Report 2020 Table of Contents Mission and Purpose 1 Message from the President 2 Who We Are 6 Year in Review 12 President’s Report to the Council 18 What We Do 23 Supporting Our Work 70 Financial Statements 84 ACLS Annual Report 2020 1 Mission and Purpose The American Council of Learned Societies supports the creation and circulation of knowledge that advances understanding of humanity and human endeavors in the past, present, and future, with a view toward improving human experience. SUPPORT CONNECT AMPLIFY RENEW We support humanistic knowledge by making resources available to scholars and by strengthening the infrastructure for scholarship at the level of the individual scholar, the department, the institution, the learned society, and the national and international network. We work in collaboration with member societies, institutions of higher education, scholars, students, foundations, and the public. We seek out and support new and emerging organizations that share our mission. We commit to expanding the forms, content, and flow of scholarly knowledge because we value diversity of identity and experience, the free play of intellectual curiosity, and the spirit of exploration—and above all, because we view humanistic understanding as crucially necessary to prototyping better futures for humanity. It is a public good that should serve the interests of a diverse public. We see humanistic knowledge in paradoxical circumstances: at once central to human flourishing while also fighting for greater recognition in the public eye and, increasingly, in institutions of higher education. -
Legal Theory Workshop UCLA School of Law Asya Passinsky
Legal Theory Workshop UCLA School of Law Asya Passinsky Visiting Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill “NORM AND OBJECT: A NORMATIVE HYLOMORPHIC THEORY OF SOCIAL OBJECTS” Thursday, March 4, 2021, 5:00-6:00 pm Via Zoom Draft, February 19, 2021. For UCLA Workshop. Please Don’t Cite Or Quote Without Permission. Norm and Object: A Normative Hylomorphic Theory of Social Objects Asya Passinsky ABSTRACT: This paper is an investigation into the metaphysics of social objects such as political borders, states, and organizations. I articulate a metaphysical puzzle concerning such objects and then propose a novel account of social objects that provides a solution to the puzzle. The basic idea behind the puzzle is that under appropriate circumstances, seemingly concrete social objects can apparently be created by acts of agreement, decree, declaration, or the like. Yet there is reason to believe that no concrete object can be created in this way. The central idea of my positive account is that social objects have a normative component to them, and seemingly concrete social objects have both normative and material components. I develop this idea more rigorously using resources from the Aristotelian hylomorphic tradition. The resulting normative hylomorphic account, I argue, solves the puzzle by providing a satisfying explanation of creation-by-agreement and the like, while at the same time avoiding the difficulties facing extant accounts of social objects. 1. Introduction This paper is an investigation into the metaphysics of social objects such as political borders, states, and organizations. Roughly speaking, social objects are things that can be created through the performance of social acts such as agreement, decree, declaration, or the like. -
Michael Jraven
MICHAEL J RAVEN Department of Philosophy | University of Victoria P.O. BOX 1700 STN CSC | Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2 | CANADA [email protected] • raven.site RESEARCH INTERESTS metaphysics • ground; fundamentality; essence; social items; time; change language/mind • de re thought; mental states; aesthetic judgment epistemology • explanation; epistemic relativism ACADEMIC POSITIONS Professor, Philosophy, University of Victoria 2021— Affiliate Professor, Philosophy, University of Washington 2018— Associate Professor, Philosophy, University of Victoria 2013—2021 Visiting Scholar, Philosophy, University of Washington 2016-2017, 2012-2013 Assistant Professor, Philosophy, University of Victoria 2009-2013 Instructor, Philosophy, New York University 2008-2009 EDUCATION PHD, Philosophy, New York University 2009 [Kit Fine (chair), Ted Sider, Crispin Wright] MA, Philosophy, New York University 2007 [Ned Block (adviser) BA, Philosophy, Reed College 2002 [Mark Hinchliff (adviser)] GRANTS & FELLOWSHIPS Connection Grant ($15,640), Social Science & Humanities Research Council 2020 Humanities Faculty Fellowship (course release), University of Victoria 2020 Insight Grant ($152,589), Social Science & Humanities Research Council 2018-2022 [principal investigator: 2021-2022, collaborator: 2018-2020; co-applicant with Kathrin Koslicki] Connection Grant ($15,965), Social Science & Humanities Research Council 2018 Internal Research Grants ($29,428 total), University of Victoria 2010-2014,2016,2020 Conference Grant ($2000 - declined), Canadian Journal of Philosophy -
Metaphysical Emergence: Weak and Strong∗
Metaphysical Emergence: Weak and Strong∗ Jessica Wilsony Draft: September 1, 2014 Introduction Why care about what emergence is, and whether there is any? To start, many complex entities of our acquaintance|tornados, plants, people and the like|appear to be com- posed of less complex entities, and to have features which depend, one way or another, on features of their composing entities. Yet such complex entities also appear to be to some extent autonomous, both ontologically and causally, from the entities upon which they depend. Moreover, and more specifically, many `higher-level' entities (particulars, systems, processes) treated by the special sciences appear to be broadly synchronically dependent on `lower-level' (and ultimately fundamental physical) entities.1 Yet, as is sug- gested by the associated special science laws, many higher-level entities appear also to be ontologically and causally autonomous, in having features in virtue of which they are dis- tinct from and distinctively efficacious relative to the lower-level entities upon which they depend, even taking into account that the latter stand in configurational or aggregative relations. An account of emergence making sense of these appearances would vindicate and illuminate both our experience and the existence and tree-like structure of the spe- cial sciences, as treating distinctively real and efficacious higher-level entities and their features. Reflecting these motivations, nearly all accounts of emergence take this to involve both ∗Thanks to Benj Hellie, an anonymous referee for this collection, students in my seminars on emergence at the University of Toronto, and members of audiences at the many talks on different aspects of emergence that I have given over the past decade, for helping to shape and improve my views on this topic. -
Genealogical Debunking Arguments, Moral Realism, and the Possibility of Moral Knowledge
Taking the Helm: Genealogical Debunking Arguments, Moral Realism, and the Possibility of Moral Knowledge by Joshua D. McBee A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland April 2019 © Joshua McBee 2019 All Rights Reserved Abstract Genealogical debunking arguments aim to show that, given their provenance, none of our moral beliefs are justified, at least assuming moral realism. In particular, they claim that this is so because the best, complete explanation of why we hold the moral beliefs we do neither presupposes nor entails their truth. I dispute this explanatory claim, suggesting instead that, in at least some cases, the best explanation of our beliefs must appeal to our capacity to acquire moral knowledge through reflection. To defend this suggestion, I respond to three different rejoinders debunkers might offer. One of these contends that the proposed explanation is redundant: if we want to explain why someone judges some action wrong, all we need to know is the character of their moral sensibilities. Two other rejoinders appeal to general skeptical challenges. According to the first, if realism is true, the evidence available to us in reflection necessarily underdetermines the truth of our ethical beliefs. Like the so-called Benacerraf-Field challenge to mathematical platonism from which it derives, the second challenge involves two distinct charges: first, that knowledge requires there be a causal or explanatory connection between our beliefs and the facts that realism precludes, and second, that realists cannot explain our reliability in ethics. Making novel use of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s remarks about following rules, I argue that that each of the first two rejoinders rests on a confused view about the ways we are liable to go wrong in ethical reflection. -
Fundamental Determinables, As Directions for Future Research
Philosophers’ volume 12, no. 4 Introduction Imprint february 2012 Contemporary philosophers commonly suppose that any fundamental entities there may be are maximally determinate. More generally, they commonly suppose that, whether or not there are fundamental entities, any determinable entities there may be are grounded in, hence less fundamental than, more determinate entities. So, for example, Armstrong takes the physical objects Fundamental constituting the presumed fundamental base to be “determinate in all respects” (1961, 59), and Lewis takes the properties characterizing things “completely and without redundancy” to be “highly specific” (1986, 60). Here I’ll look at the usually cited reasons for these Determinables suppositions as directed against the case of determinable properties, in particular, and argue that none is compelling (Sections 1 to 3). The discussion in Section 3 will moreover identify positive reason for taking some determinable properties to be part of a fundamental (or relatively fundamental) base. I’ll close (Section 4) by noting certain questions arising from the possibility of fundamental determinables, as directions for future research. 1. Preliminaries 1.1 Fundamentality vs. relative fundamentality Let a fundamental base at a world w be a minimal collection of entities that, either individually or in combination, provide a complete Jessica Wilson metaphysical ground for the entire inventory of w. Then an entity e at University of Toronto a world w is fundamental iff: (i) at w, there is a fundamental base; and (ii) e is in this fundamental base.1 Here and elsewhere ‘entity’ is used ontologically generally, as accom- modating, e. g., particulars, properties, tropes, events, states of affairs, © 2012 Jessica Wilson 1. -
Metaphysics, History, Phenomenology 341
METAPHYSICS,HISTORY,PHENOMENOLOGY Kris McDaniel Abstract: There are three interconnected goals of this paper. The first is to articulate and motivate a view of the methodology for doing metaphysics that is broadly phenomenological in the sense of Husserl circa the Logical Investigations. The second is to articulate an argument for the importance of studying the history of philosophy when doing metaphysics that is in accordance with this methodology. The third is to confront this methodology with a series of objections and determine how well it fares in light of them. 1 Introduction Here is an easy observation. In one respect, we all know the methodology of philosophy as it is currently practiced today, at least among large portions of the ‘analytic tradition.’ Some person—sometimes it is more than one person—has an idea. She talks about it with colleagues or friends, either in person or by email. Eventually it is written up as a talk or as a paper, and either way is vetted in some sort of public venue. If things go well for her and her idea, the written thing eventually appears as a publication in a journal, book chapter, or whatnot; if things go not so well, it ends up as a blog post. Either way, other philosophers might eventually read the written thing, and might then have some new ideas as a consequence. Is there a plausible explanation of how this way of doing things could be justified or reasonable given that the goal of philosophy is the acquisition of philosophical knowledge, that is, the acquisition of true and appropriately warranted beliefs about characteristically philosophical questions?1 Call such an explanation a justificatory story. -
Grounding Is Not Causation (Forthcoming, Philosophical Perspectives; Please Cite Published Version)
Grounding is not Causation (forthcoming, Philosophical Perspectives; please cite published version) Sara Bernstein Grounding is not causation, and is not even substantively like causation, contra its contemporary characterizers. Apparent similarities between causation and grounding are mostly superficial, and utilizing causation as a way to illuminate ground glosses over their important dissimilarities while failing to untangle distinct, subtle problems that both grounding and causation face. Or so I will argue. By way of background: recent years in metaphysics have seen a surge in literature on grounding, roughly, the relation that connects more and less fundamental entities.1 Proponents of grounding (hereafter: groundhogs2) mean to explain a plentitude of interlevel relationships, including the various relationships between makers and makees, including “littler” things at the bottom levels of reality and the “bigger” things they make up, as well as the relationship between the physical and the mental, nonmoral facts and moral facts, generalizations and their instances, aesthetic properties and natural properties, and knowledge and true belief, to name a few. The ascent of the notion of grounding has given rise to several forms of pushback. One form (which Schaffer calls grounding nihilism) denies that grounding is a distinctive notion apart from other making-up relations like composition, constitution, supervenience, and the determinate/ determinable relation.3 Other challengers hold that grounding, taken as a metaphysical primitive, is too opaque to do the explanatory work on which its hopefuls bank: it is supposed to be the glue that holds reality together, but is irredeemably mysterious. One popular response to this latter form of grounding skepticism is to illuminate the notion of ground by appeal to the more familiar notion of causation. -
Narrative As Philosophy: Methodological Issues in Abstracting from Hebrew Scripture
Narrative as Philosophy: Methodological Issues in Abstracting from Hebrew Scripture Jessica Wilson Trinity Evangelical Divinity School In the second half or so of the twentieth century, the dominance of modes of communication characterized primarily by “abstract propositions arrived at through rational argument”1 in what were considered to be paradigmatic works of Christian systematic theology came under fire on several fronts. Attempts to assert (or reassert) the value of narrative for Christian theology gained support across a broad swath of theological orientations, and in some cases – like that of the Narrative Theology movement associated in various forms with Niebuhr, Frei, Lindbeck, and Crites2 - proponents of the rediscovery of narrative for theological methodology went so far as to argue that its employment is strictly indispensable for theology. Nevertheless, clearly, theology conducted primarily in terms of “propositional discourse” remains the norm. In contemporary analytic philosophy, too, the idea of philosophy’s incorporating (let alone consisting of) narrative at a deeper or more fundamental level than that of illustration or example – say, the occasional adventure story about a runaway trolley or sci-fi thriller about brains-in-vats and philosophical zombies – remains relatively exotic. But here, as in theology, the possibilities for a more substantial relationship between philosophy and narrative have not gone entirely unexplored. Among very recent works, for instance, Eleonore Stump’s Wandering in Darkness3 - along with earlier publications in which she explored related ideas4 - makes a particularly exemplary foray into this territory in connection with narrative in Hebrew Scripture, with implications for both philosophy and theology. And, now, Yoram Hazony’s Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture adds a new and important layer to the literature on the subject. -
A Tentative Theory for Chinese Contemporary Art Peng
paths to the middle 271 PATHS TO THE MIDDLE: A TENTATIVE THEORY FOR CHINESE CONTEMPORARY ART Peng Feng Chinese contemporary art can be divided into three stages: following the Other, being valuated by the Other, and finally getting its identity.1 Only in the third stage can Chinese contemporary art have its self- awareness or self-understanding, i.e., can Chinese contemporary art realize itself as Chinese contemporary art. However, according to Hegel and Danto, the history of art is at an end as soon as art has real- ized itself. By the same token, does Chinese contemporary art come to an end since it has realized itself in the third stage? Does art or Chinese or contemporary come to an end? What is the difference between them? If art comes to an end, it, according to Hegel and Danto, is sub- lated into philosophy.2 If Chinese art comes to an end, it, according to the scholars who advocate trans-cultural aesthetics, is substituted for by a new International Style.3 If contemporary art comes to an end, it, according to the scholars who advocate evolutionary aesthetics, welcomes “the return of beauty”.4 I propose to discuss the first issue in this paper and leave the others for other papers. If what comes to an end is not Chinese but contemporary art, it should be sublated into Chinese traditional philosophy. Ironically, once contemporary art takes shelter in Chinese traditional philosophy, it can refuse to come to an end and welcome a new beginning. With 1 Li Xiaofeng, “Preface for Chenxiang Exhibition,” in Chenxiang Catalogue (Shanghai: Shanghai Shipingxian Gallery). -
Grounding and Philosophy of Mind
Grounding in the Philosophy of Mind: A Defense Alyssa Ney Forthcoming in Scientific Compositon and Metaphysical Ground. K. Aizawa and C. Gillett, eds. Palgrave-Macmillan 1. Introduction One of the major trends in metaphysics in recent years has been in the development and application of novel conceptual frameworks for representing facts about realism, fundamentality, and metaphysical priority. Of particular interest have been the concepts of grounding (proposed by Paul Audi (2012), Kit Fine (2001), Gideon Rosen (2010), and Jonathan Schaffer (2009) among others)1, the concept of the real (proposed by Fine (2001)), and that of metaphysical structure (proposed by Ted Sider (2011)). All of these have been proposed as new primitive concepts, and often their introduction is motivated by the argument that other notions metaphysicians use in order to frame their positions are inadequate for the task of characterizing the important metaphysical issues. Formulations of metaphysical problems and views in terms of existence, quantification, and modal notions should be replaced (Fine, Schaffer) or supplemented (Audi, Rosen, Sider) with formulations in terms of these new distinctively metaphysical notions. Schaffer is especially direct. He complains that “contemporary metaphysics, insofar as it has been inspired by the Quinean task [of determining what exists], has confused itself with trivialities” (2009, p. 361). This confusion about what the important issues are is tied to not having the conceptual tools to represent the issues that matter. The deep questions are “not whether there are such things, but how.” We want to know not what exists, but what is grounded in what. Sider, in his Writing the Book of the World, 1 Witmer, Butchard, and Trogdon (2005) defend a related “in virtue of” notion. -
Philosophy California State University, Northridge
RONALD McINTYRE Professor Emeritus Department of Philosophy California State University, Northridge EDUCATION Ph.D. (philosophy), Stanford University, 1970 Dissertation: “Husserl and Referentiality: The Role of the Noema as an Intensional Entity” Dissertation Committee: Dagfinn Føllesdal, John Goheen, Jaakko Hintikka (Principal Adviser) M.A. (philosophy), Florida State University, 1966 Thesis: “On the Criterion of Empirical Meaningfulness” Thesis Director: Robert W. Beard B.S. (physics), Wake Forest College, 1964, magna cum laude TEACHING POSITIONS Professor, California State University, Northridge, 1981-2010 Associate Professor, California State University, Northridge, 1977-81. Assistant Professor, Case Western Reserve University, 1970-77. Lecturer, International Summer School in Philosophy, Bolzano (Bozen), Italy, 1990. Visiting Professor, University of Colorado, spring 1982. Visiting Assistant Professor, Stanford University, summer 1971. Visiting Instructor, Wake Forest University, summer 1967 and summer 1968. ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE Faculty President / Faculty Senate Chair, CSUN, 2004-06. Chair, Department of Philosophy, CSUN, 1996-2002. Coordinator, Instructional Development Program (ancestor of the Center for Innovative & Engaged Learning Opportunities), CSUN, 1988-90. PUBLICATIONS Books • Husserl and Intentionality: A Study of Mind, Meaning, and Language, with David W. Smith (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, Synthese Library, 1982), xxiii + 423 pp. Articles, Reviews, Editorships • “’We-Subjectivity’: Husserl on Community and Communal Constitution,” in Intersubjectivity and Objectivity in Adam Smith and Edmund Husserl, ed. by Christel Fricke and Dagfinn Føllesdal (Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2012), pp. 61-92. • Review of Science and the Life-World: Essays on Husserl’s “Crisis of European Sciences”, ed. by David Hyder and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, July 7, 2010 (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=20447).