|
Conference Program
|
To view the full text of papers in PDF (Adobe Acrobat) format,
click on the book icon following the title:  |
Brian Ballard
University of California Santa Cruz
(Santa Cruz, CA)
Discussant: Thomas Bennett (SUNY
Oneonta)
Theism, Naturalism, and
Creative Anti-realism: a Modern Trilemma
Abstract: I
argue that, given the choice between theism, naturalism, and creative
anti-realism, theism is the most rational option. This is because naturalism
and creative anti-realism are self-referentially incoherent while theism is
not. This is true of naturalism because it provides its own defeater. Usually
naturalism is believed alongside some manner of unguided evolution. But nature
selects for fit behavior, and a creature could have fit behavior while also
having cognitive faculties that are not aimed at the production of true
abstract beliefs. Thus, natural selection has no way of favoring reliable
abstract faculties over unreliable ones. This means that the probability that
our abstract faculties are reliable is inscrutable for us. Naturalism thus
gives us a defeater for all our abstract beliefs, including belief in
naturalism itself. Therefore, naturalism is self-defeating. A theist, on the
other hand, can believe at least that God has given him faculties aimed at the
production of true theistic beliefs. Thus, theism avoids such self-defeat.
Creative anti-realism also has problems of self-reference. This is because a
creative anti-realist claims that truth depends on human mental activity in
some significant way. But this claim, being a claim about the nature of truth,
must be a necessary claim. And it is a necessary claim if and only if it is
true in all possible worlds. There is, however, a possible world in which
nobody believes in creative anti-realism. Thus, in that possible world,
creative anti-realism is false. Thus, creative anti-realism implies the
possibility of its own falsehood, and therefore cannot be necessarily true.
But since it is a necessary claim, all that’s left is for it to be necessarily
false. Theism, on the other hand, avoids this problem. For the theist can say
that God, being a necessary being, exists in every possible world, and the
thoughts of God are true in every possible world. Thus, God’s thought “that
theism is true” is true in every possible world, and theism does not imply its
own possible falsehood. Therefore, given the choice between theism,
naturalism, and creative anti-realism, theism is the best bet, since it avails
itself of such self-referential problems. This is significant because these
are the three most serious options for a modern
person.
Daniel Baron
Brandeis University (Waltham, MA)
Discussant: Samuel Alaimo (SUNY
Oneonta)
On
“Offensive Humor”
Abstract: Humor is anything that intends to or does induce
laughter. The point of humor is to offer, through words or acts, a remedy to
something which is wrong, incoherent, painful or even immoral. All humor, I
contend, is offensive. This is because all humor is rooted in the
negative—in essence, it makes the best out of a bad situation. All humor is
acceptable, but not in all situations. Therefore, I believe, it is immoral to
censor humor—unless it is inappropriate given the context. (Sexist and racist
jokes, for example, are inappropriate for a Kindergarten class but appropriate
for a humor magazine on a college campus.) Finally, I argue that if one person
can tell a joke, use a slur or mock an individual, then anyone else can act
identically. If one person can say or do x, then anyone else can. This,
of course, excludes matters of copyright infringement and other cases in which
repeating what someone else does would be illegal. Just like free speech,
humor can only be limited if there is a strong reason to do so, and
sensitivity (“hurt feelings”) is no such reason.
Carrie L. Bates
SUNY Potsdam (Potsdam, NY)
Discussant: Dave Naples (SUNY
Oneonta)
Augustine
and Plato via the Neoplatonists: Was Plato a Pre-Christian Christian?
Abstract: In
The City of God, Augustine claims that the Platonists represent the
pagan philosophy closest to Christian belief (1.8.5). In De Vera
Religione, he states that given the opportunity, the Platonists would have
become Christians. Augustine draws his understanding of Platonism almost
entirely from the writings of the Neoplatonists, and supports his claim by
focusing on Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Porphyry, with special attention
directed at Plotinus. Augustine relies largely on a copy of the
Enneads, written by Plotinus and edited by Porphyry, as he discusses
points of similarity and difference between Christianity and Platonism. Using
the statements of the Neoplatonists themselves, Augustine argues that their
own positions should drive them logically to reject worship of gods other than
the one true God who has revealed himself in the Christian
Scriptures.
This paper will use the City of God and the
Enneads to ask and briefly answer three questions: Was Augustine
justified in his belief that the Platonists (as represented by Plotinus), if
they could live over again after the incarnation, would have embraced
Christianity? Has he cited Plotinus appropriately? Why does Augustine use the
City of God to engage in conversation with pagan
philosophers?
Ronald Baumiller
Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, PA)
Discussant:
Del Sentimiento
Trágico de la Vida and die Ewige Wiederkehr: an
Essay Concerning the Immortality of the Soul
Abstract: Beginning most notably with Plato, an inquiry
concerning the immortality of the soul has persisted for centuries. This
investigation has even found itself in one of the most recent and prominent
movements in philosophy, existentialism. Kierkegaard, a theistic philosopher,
is popularly accepted as the founder of existentialism along with his
historical contrary Nietzsche, an atheistic philosopher. What is crucial to
the above investigation is also a distinguishing factor for the previously
mentioned fundamental thinkers of existentialism—does God exist? Due to
Kierkegaard’s unique but ambiguous style, I will utilize Miguel de Unamuno, an
explicit Kierkegaardian, to endorse the theistic approach concerning the
immortality of the soul. In this essay, I will rehearse the philosophies of
Miguel de Unamuno and Friedrich Nietzsche regarding the immortality of the
soul. Then, I will contrast the two contraries to see if any light maybe shed
on the subject by these two diverse existentialists.
William J. Brady
University of North Carolina (Chapel-Hill, NC)
Discussant: Corin Fox
(Virginia
Commonwealth University)
Qualia-States and
Event-Memory: Empirical Support for the Deconstruction of
Qualia
Abstract:
Qualia (subjective experiences, sensations, etc) have long been viewed as the
“last stand” against a completely materialist or computational explanation of
mind. I will address the issue by problematizing qualia in epistemic terms. I
use empirical data on event-memory (and its fallibility) to support Daniel
Dennett’s project in “Quining Qualia” (1988).
I start by discussing Dennett’s idea that
qualia-states are indistinguishable from reactive attitudes. I then support
his claim with empirical evidence on the fallibility of memory. I argue that
both first-person knowledge and third-person “scientific objective” knowledge
cannot shed light on qualia-states with epistemic certainty, and by extension
they also cannot shed light on qualia experienced in the present. I conclude
that any empirical theory of mind cannot incorporate qualia with epistemic
certainty – with the hopes of supporting an eliminativist view on qualia.
Rocco J. Carbone III [Presentation canceled]
Elmira College (Elmira, NY)
Discussant: Thomas Bennett (SUNY
Oneonta)
An Ethic for
Holocaust Art
Abstract: Why
is Holocaust art created today? Theodor W. Adorno stated, “After Auschwitz it
is barbaric to continue writing poetry.” This statement goes beyond just
condemning the creation of poetry, but all forms of artistic expression. If we
follow Adorno’s line of reasoning one must ask what kind of ethical obligation
must one follow in creating, not just art, but specifically art relating to
the Holocaust. As the years increasingly separate us from the horrors of the
concentration camps, and the individuals who lived through these atrocities
die, how should we represent this moment in history in a morally responsible
manner that accurately represents the events, while still engaging individuals
to remember? This paper will start by reviewing the current philosophical
position on the ethics of memory based on Avishai Margalit’s work. Following
this Ernst Van Alphen’s “Art, Morality, and the Holocaust” will overview
several positions relating directly to art inspired by the Holocaust. Finally,
there is an analysis of an art exhibition held at the Jewish Museum in
New York City where there was a Lego version of
Auschwitz and other suspect pieces shown.
This paper concludes with the author’s position of what, if any, is the ethic
of memory for Holocaust art.
Thomas
Carnes
United States
Military Academy (West Point, NY)
Discussant: Roy Allen Otto III
(Trinity
University)
The
Moral Permissibility of Euthanasia: A Response to Daniel
Callahan
Abstract: I
attempt to show how the practice of euthanasia should not be regarded as
immoral. I do this by trying to elucidate the problems that comprise the
Callahan piece, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok,” to which I am responding.
My aim is twofold: (1) I am replying to the charge against euthanasia that it
involves acts of coercion, something that must be accepted if we accept other
of Callahan’s claims throughout his paper, by showing that no unjust
coercion—indeed no coercion at all—takes place when euthanasia is conducted as
intended (an important yet legitimate
assumption I make from the beginning); and (2) I am countering Callahan’s
charge that allowing euthanasia amounts to our self-determination running
amok. By showing that the decision of a patient to be euthanized is a single,
mutual decision made by both the patient and physician together after
earnest deliberation, with neither person having any control over the other,
it should become clear that coming to this sort of decision does not amount to
an unreasonable extension of self-determination—either for the physician or
for the patient. I conclude by emphasizing that I am arguing that euthanasia
out to be regarded as morally permissible rather than morally
obligatory, or morally prohibited, which serves as an
extension of my treatment of the physicians’ perspective of the
issue.
Bradley Elicker
Temple University (Philadelphia, PA)
Discussant: Peter G. Res (Hartwick College)
Mimesis, Catharsis, and
Pleasure: An Investigation into Aristotle’s Tragic
Pleasure
Abstract:
Aristotle writes the Poetics as an investigation into representational art
and, more specifically, as an investigation into the art form of tragedy.
While Aristotle goes into great detail regarding the technical aspects of
creating and appreciating a work of tragedy, he is somewhat lacking in his
descriptions of how tragedy is enjoyed by an audience. Aristotle speaks of
this tragic pleasure in two ways; as the pleasure of mimesis, and as the
pleasure of catharsis. If we come to understand the Aristotelian concept of
pleasure as an activity as opposed to a process, and the distinction between
essential and accidental pleasures, we can better understand the source of
Aristotle’s tragic pleasure and how it relates to mimesis and catharsis. I
will argue that Aristotle, based on his ethical writings, would not have
believed that catharsis is pleasurable. If catharsis is not the pleasure of
tragedy, there must be some other pleasure associated with tragic works. This
pleasure is the pleasure of experiencing mimetic representations and is the
essential pleasure of tragedy. If we come to understand tragic pleasure in
this way, we can allow for a definition of catharsis that does not hold the
sole responsibility of creating the pleasure of tragic works. In this way we
are able to give catharsis its proper designation as an accidental pleasure
while still admitting to an essential pleasure of tragedy: the pleasure of
mimesis.
Corin T. Fox
Virginia Commonwealth University (Richmond, VA)
Discussant: Lawrence Faulstich
(Binghamton University)
The Case for Kalderon’s
Moral Fictionalism
Abstract: In
this paper, I will discuss problems with Mark Eli Kalderon’s hermeneutic moral
fictionalism. First, I will introduce fictionalism and its varied
applications. Second, I will describe the thesis of moral fictionalism (of the
Kalderonian variety) and explain its different commitments and sub-parts.
Third, I will object to Kalderon’s view. Specifically, I will show that his
explanation of moral acceptance is flawed. I will argue that without a more
plausible understanding of moral acceptance, Kalderon’s fictionalism fails to
be preferable over rival views, such as error theory.
Jesse Hancock
SUNY Potsdam (Potsdam, NY)
Discussant: Kenneth Brenner (SUNY Oneonta)
Negligence of
Belief
Abstract: An
overview of W.K Clifford’s “Ethics of Belief” is presented and critiqued using
William James’ “The Will to Believe” as a foil and reference, as well as some
of the authors own ideas. The paper seeks to recognize and analyze both the
limits of Clifford’s essay as well as the relevance and applicability of
“Ethics of Belief” today.
Of particular importance, the claim is made that faith
and science are paradoxically inseparable in humans, with faith being
necessarily concomitant with science and logic. In the essay both faith
(belief) and Science/logic are classified as separate social contracts that
complement one another, equally vital factors in the evolution of
humanity.
Christopher Hallquist
University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI)
Discussant: Paul Tritschler (SUNY Oneonta)
A Minimal Argument from
Evil
Abstract:
(first paragraph) This is a polemical essay on the argument from evil, the
claim that the evils in this world in some way provide reason to deny the
existence of God. I use the word “polemical” here in the sense used by Frank
Jackson in his famous critique of reductionism. Jackson noticed that the arguments around at
the time had premises which were not clear to everyone, and found this fact
alone sufficient reason to be dissatisfied with them. In response, he
developed his “knowledge argument,” which, he hoped, had premises no one could
deny.
Lorin Jackson
Haverford College (Haverford, PA)
Discussant: Joel Reynolds (University of Oregon)
Sacred and Vicious
Circles: The Impact of Limits on Understanding and Possible Worlds in
Derrida
Abstract:
This paper follows three examples in Derrida’s work to form commentary on the
impact of setting limits to theory. Inevitably with the creation of a
boundary, as Derrida suggests, one enacts a circular shape to their possible
understanding. Through the examples of J.L. Austin’s avoidance of the
unordinary, the impact of editing and distribution of images in technology,
and the out-casting of foreigners as a kind of threat, Derrida’s work reveals
how the insider’s logic traps them as they disallow the inclusion of
the outside, thus limiting possible worlds for the sake of a false, sacred,
pure security.
Ali Kinsella
University of Dayton (Dayton, OH)
Discussant: Christopher
Hallquist (University of Wisconsin)
Pluralism as Agnosticism
in William James
Abstract: Throughout his Lowell lectures which are
collected as the book, Pragmatism, William James speaks of religion and
religious people in various ways, but it is not entirely clear how he regards
them. This paper is an attempt to clarify what he means by
“religion.” My investigation shows that James’s feelings
would most closely align with those of today’s agnostics.
The question of the existence of God was apparently not a lively one
for him. Not surprisingly, James was most concerned with
the impact one’s beliefs had on one’s willingness to work to bring about
change in the world. In his conception, religiosity was not
about one’s personal relationship with God or chances of avoiding hell;
rather, it was a matter of being a pessimist, optimist, or, his personal
favorite, a meliorist.
Alex Krogh-Grabbe [Presentation canceled]
Connecticut College (New London, CT)
Discussant: Jeremy Redlien (SUNY
Oneonta)
Selfishness in the Realm
of Popularism: Dawkins and Metaphor in Science
Abstract:
Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene was once considered a seminal text in
philosophy of biology. Reading it now, however, there seems to be something
wrong about his thesis and the way he conducts his argument. In this paper, I
defend the contention that it is not Dawkins’ extensive use of metaphor that
causes this intuitive opposition, but rather something
else.
Tanja Magas
Barnard College, Columbia University (New York, NY)
Discussant: Dan Oliver (Ashland
University)
Turned Away: The
Exclusion of the Mentally Incompetent from the Electorate
Abstract:
Today, only two groups of American citizens over the age of eighteen are
disenfranchised: the felons and the mentally incompetent. While we might argue
that the former are being “punished” for their misdeeds, how can we justify
the disenfranchisement of the latter? I argue that we cannot. My approach is
based on political philosophy. I will address issues that arise from upholding
the ban: from failing to reach democratic ideals to the negative consequences
of differential and unfair treatment of the electorate. Consequently, I will
conclude that no proper reason exists as to why we should uphold the
disenfranchisement of the mentally incompetent. As a result, the United
States will fail to be a complete democracy
until it recognizes this.
Michael Mesceda
SUNY Oneonta (Oneonta, NY)
Discussant: Andrew
Stoecker
Time’s Broken Arrow: An
Examination of Time, Time Travel, and Temporal Paradox
Abstract:
This paper deals with aspects of time, time travel, and temporal paradox.
Beginning with standard dictionary definitions of time the paper goes on to
look at the scientific and philosophical concepts of time through human
history. How during the Enlightenment the Newtonian view of time as an
absolute dominated the physical and philosophical views through the beginning
of the 20th century when the theories of Albert Einstein altered these
concepts of time and space. The paper then explores the consequences of this
new theory such as the expanding universe hypothesis, the “Big Bang theory”
and “String Theory.” After which it looks at the multiple worlds or
multi-verse hypothesis, the theoretical possibility of time travel, the common
temporal paradoxes that would arise, and their philosophical implications as
represented in Science Fiction literature. Also examined are implications
suggested by “string theory” which proposes the concept of the universe
existing in the form of a four dimensional moebius in which the point of
creation and the point of destruction are in the same; where the beginning is
the end and the end is the beginning. In this proposed model of space-time the
universe and by extension time are created and destroyed in the same instant,
leading to an infinite cycle of end and beginning. It concludes with a brief
summary of the various materials discussed and that the theoretical
possibility of time travel provides fertile ground for philosophical
speculation.
Matthew D. Mingus
Ashland University (Ashland, OH)
Discussant: Matt LaVine (SUNY Potsdam)
A
Comparison of the Historical and Theoretical Approaches to the Visual
Aesthetic
Abstract:
This project juxtaposes the historical interpretation of Jonathan Brown and
the theoretical understanding of Michel Foucault in reference to Diego
Velazquez’s Las Meninas. By comparing these two approaches to
understanding art, I explore several fundamental differences and similarities
between the art historian and the art theorist.
Andrew Olesh [Presentation canceled]
Loyola College (Baltimore, MD)
Discussant: Joshua Simmonds
(Hartwick
College)
Martin Buber’s Critique
of Heidegger’s Being-with: An exploration of a disagreement between two of the
most significant thinkers of the 20th century
Abstract:
Part of Heidegger’s philosophy of Dasein with which Martin Buber takes
considerable issue is the idea of interpersonal relation, which Heidegger
addresses in his discussion of Mitsein or Being-with. For Buber,
authentic interpersonal relation requires a mutuality that he accuses
Heidegger of lacking completely. He views Heidegger as still trapped within
the self, a monad for which there is no escape because the self is only ever
conscious of its relations with the World, not the things themselves. Buber is
unfortunately guilty of misreading Heidegger, who allows for the mutual
relations that Buber deems necessary but only wishes to establish that it is
because Mitsein is of the character of Dasein that such
relations are even possible in the first place.
Roy Allen Otto III
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX)
Discussant: Matthew Cedar (SUNY
Oneonta)
Pornography as the
Downfall of Nozick
Abstract:
Nozick outlines three distinct reasons why he believes distributive justice is
irrational and improbable. First, he argues that end-state principles of
distribution, like the theory that Rawls presents, are flawed. Second, as an
extension of the first argument, he analyzes the contradiction of the ability
of society to voluntarily transfer its property. Last, he analyzes the idea
that taking from one person to give to another is comparable to making the
first person a slave. Though each of these arguments is extremely interesting
and rich in textual support, the second assertion in particular brings up
truly critical questions of the theories that Rawls presents: it implies an
indictment of the system of justice itself if such a critique is left to
stand. Therefore, I find it essential that we pull out this argument and
address it independently of the other two; more specifically, I will be
analyzing whether or not Nozick’s rhetorical critique has far-reaching
implications in distributive philosophers’ theories. Additionally, using
Kantian theories of human dignity, I will analyze a specific case example
(pornography) with which I will try to unravel some of the implications that
Nozick is attempting to highlight in order to address the legitimacy of his
argument. I will demonstrate that Nozick fails to address these implications,
inevitably undermining his own theories.
Jeremy Redlien
SUNY Oneonta (Oneonta, NY)
Discussant: David Naples (SUNY Oneonta) or Matthew D. Mingus (Ashland University)
The Proper Place for
Homosexuality in the Doctrine of Creation and the Inherent Immorality of
Discrimination
Abstract: In
recent years the issues of same sex marriage, gay adoption, along with a
Supreme Court Case regarding whether or not to allow homosexuals to be members
of the Boy Scouts of America, have at different points come to the forefront
of awareness in American culture and politics. All of these issues are
relevant to the larger topics of human sexuality and its associated morality.
Many people would argue that homosexuality
is morally degrading and sinful; a view that is largely based upon Biblical
sources as well as the doctrine of creation. They therefore argue for laws
promoting discrimination against homosexuals. However this paper shall attempt
to demonstrate that such discrimination is inherently immoral in of
itself.
Joel Michael Reynolds
University of Oregon (Eugene, OR)
Discussant: Ross Laurence
Wolfe (Penn State)
The End of
Anthropodicy: Suffering, Eschatology, and Symmetrics in
Levinas
Abstract: One of the guiding principles behind Emmanuel Levinas’ thought is
that “the justification of my neighbor’s pain is the beginning of all
immorality.” Passing through his probings
of war and eschatology, we will explore Levinas’ ethics of asymmetry and
non-reciprocal responsibility for the other, locating the fundamental role
suffering plays therein. We will then question whether Levinas’ ethics indeed
precludes the possibility of anthropodicy, of the justification of the
suffering of another human. Reading his phenomenology of the face contra his
metaphysics of asymmetry, we will argue that in the end both
receptivity and responsibility and both symmetry and asymmetry are
necessary for the end of anthropodicy. Lastly, we will connect this “end” to
the future, to a vision of a messianic eschatology of peace, both present and
to come.
Guy Schoettl
SUNY Oneonta (Oneonta, NY)
Discussant: Tyler Vice (SUNY
Oneonta)
Marx’s Revolution
that Was Not to Be, and the Problem of Estrangement that It Leaves Behind:
Analyzed, Explained, and Considered through the Theories of
Adorno
Abstract: According
to Marx, the Capitalist system that we all live in today should have been
overthrown giving way to the ideal Communist state, realizing this has not
happened, the question is: why? Before
this question can be answered, an examination of the steps toward a Marxian revolution
must be explored and understood so that we may see what has not been satisfied.
As well as a discussion of the revolutionary motions Marx foresaw in Capitalism
that have not surfaced, this paper is an examination of the estrangement issue
left in its wake. While acknowledging areas of Marx's theory that seem to
require revision, there is no hesitation to continue the examination of the
problems Marx saw facing individuals within the Capitalist system. Using
Adorno's writings and discussions upon this issue, a critique of Marx and the
Capitalist system he theorized upon, are focused from several key areas: the
melting visible boundaries of class structure; pop-culture's message and
ensnaring behaviors; and the inadequate state- of-being encouraged by
Capitalism that assists in tightening its grip over the individual. The
estrangement of the individual, being placed on him/her from all directions, is
posed as the issue in need of resolution; this paper is an examination of that
issue, as well as an inquiry into what (if anything) may be done about that
problem.
Benjamin Schultz
Swarthmore College (Swarthmore, PA)
Discussant: Ali Kinsella (University
of Dayton)
Heidegger, Irigaray, and
the Critique of Nietzsche’s Subjectivity
Abstract: In
this paper, I compare the very different critiques of Nietzsche’s thought that
Martin Heidegger and Luce Irigaray present principally in two works. I argue
for an area of meaningful convergence in the way both philosophers treat
Nietzsche both as a culmination of Western (male) metaphysics and as a
critical voice against it. Heidegger and Irigaray interpret the concept of the
eternal return as an expression of totalizing subjectivity and both react
against this by emphasizing what it must exclude or appropriate. I see this
shared concern as useful in understanding the seemingly dissimilar
philosophical projects of Heidegger and Irigaray, as well as in situating
Nietzsche in the history of Western thought.
Robert Talley
St
John’s College
(Annapolis, MD)
Discussant: Kristin Williams
(Reed
College)
An Aristotelian Critique
of the Mathematical Approach to the Study of Being
Abstract:
Some of the most accessible passages in Aristotle’s writings which emphasize
the ways in which the guiding assumptions of modern mathematical physics
differ from those of Aristotle’s study of nature can be found in Book XIII Ch.
1-3 of the Metaphysics. In Ch. 2 and 3 Aristotle offers a critique of
the mathematical study of being as derived from ancient Greek geometry,
astronomy, harmonics, and optics. Although pieces of the argument are
obviously in need of revision if modern doctrines are to be included in the
critique, perhaps Aristotle has something serious to say about how any sort of
mathematical account of being should be interpreted, be it ancient or modern.
In this paper, I will offer a reading of the arguments presented in Ch. 2-3 in
order to understand what manner of being may be attributed to mathematical
objects and how the mode of inquiry employed by the mathematician may be not
at all different from the general mode of inquiry Aristotle favors in all
sorts of knowledge. Taken independently of all other sorts of knowledge the
mathematician’s inquiries, like all other isolated inquiries, only reveals
what has being in potency regarding the perceptible
things.
Paul
Turner
Marshall University (Huntington, WV)
Discussant:
Sincerity and
Living Wisely
Abstract: A
quick look at a wall of greeting cards or motivational posters will show that
“sincerity” is a word that has been worn threadbare; it has been rendered
cliché. The word is seemingly more of a sound with cheerful feelings attached
than any kind of describable discrete concept. In this comparative
investigation, I attempt to restore some of the nascent dignity of sincerity
by calling upon several different sources for wisdom: lectures from Zen master
Shunryu Suzuki, tales of Hassidic zaddiks, and finally my own experience and
beliefs about sincerity. I also aim to distill the wisdom found in this
eclectic group of sources into a coherent account of what sincerity is, what
it has to do with wise conduct, and finally how one uses it as a method or
style of living. Ultimately, this discussion examines why sincerity is
important to wisely carrying out the project of existing as a human being, or
living the good life, and culminates in an account of how deeply personal the
issue of true sincerity is in my own life.
Marina Michelle van Overhagen
Hamilton College (Clinton, NY)
Discussant: Brian Ballard
(University of California, Santa Cruz)
The Ontological Argument
of Saint Anselm of Canterbury; William Rowe Sheds New Light on
an Old Subject
Abstract:
William Rowe’s article has helped to clarify the more obscure nuances of Saint
Anselm’s eleventh century Ontological argument. St.Anselm continued the work
of his Monologium in the Proslogium, where he succeeded in his
goal of formulating one single argument as proof for the existence of God; the
idea of the Being than which none greater can be conceived. His case rests on
the idea of existence of a concept in the mind as proof of possibility; and on
the idea of existence itself as a parameter of stature that is in comparison
better than non-existence. Rowe carefully constructs an explanation of the
relationships between the existent, non-existent, the contingent and the
necessary in order that we may realize the connection between existence in the
understanding, existence in reality, and the defining greatness causing the
necessity of the real existence of God.
David Whitehead
Buffalo State College
(Buffalo, NY)
Discussant: Emily Carroll – presented
with the assistance of Samuel Alaimo (SUNY
Oneonta)
Ms. Goode and Mr.
Fairborne: A Dialog
Abstract:
This dialog, in the Socratic style, between Ms. Goode, a one-time
professor of logic and philosophy and now a distinguished volunteer with the
Honors’ Society, and Mr. Fairborne, the United States Secretary of Education,
has Ms. Goode making a cogent argument against the use of
standardized testing and the No Child Left Behind program. She draws Mr.
Fairborne into answering questions, which his answers to display the
contradictions of the program. While Ms. Goode challenges Mr. Fairborne to
explain these flaws, the dialog challenges students, their
parents, and faculty to reexamine the way our current educational system rates
students’ intelligence levels.
Michael Willenborg
University of Hawaii (Honolulu, HI)
Discussant: Samuel Alaimo
(SUNY Oneonta)
An Attempted Resolution
of a Paradox Concerning Engagement with Fiction
Abstract: One
of the many interesting issues with which the philosophy of film is concerned
has to do with the nature of our response to fictional characters. The
fundamental motivation undergirding this concern is the paradox generated by
three theses, each of which appear individually plausible, though when taken
together seem jointly inconsistent. This has led some to deny one or more of
the theses in order to escape the grips of what seems to be certain
contradiction. However, in each case the cost of doing so seems significant
enough to warrant the search for an account that resolves the logical conundrum
while preserving the basic content of our intuitions concerning the theses. In
what follows we will attempt to do just that, by first making clear the nature
of the paradox through an examination of the individual theses, and then suggesting
a way in which the problem may be circumvented without the sacrifice of any
firmly entrenched commonsensical notions.
Kristin Williams
Reed College (Portland, OR)
Discussant: Thor Kasenko (SUNY
Oneonta)
A Denial of
Photocopy Virtue: A Problem of Student Passivity in Moral
Education
Abstract: The
way in which moral education is portrayed by the virtue ethicist’s critics
misunderstands her program. The emulation model is often criticized due to a
problem of finding the object of emulation, an ideal virtue exemplar. It is
thought that the virtue student morally improves by following the example of
the ideal virtue exemplar. My paper examines John Doris’s criticism of a
neo-Aristotelian emulation model and raises a few objections against accepting
a model of moral education in which the virtue student chooses the morally
right action by depending on the example set by the virtue exemplar. First I
critique Doris’s argument, then go on to examine his argument in light of
contemporary scholarship. Finally, I argue that to accept Doris’s model of
moral education is to break with moral education of an Aristotelian spirit.
Doris’s model makes the virtue student’s moral development depend passively on
an example of right action rather than depending on the ability of the student
to appreciate the moral worth of their actions.
Ross Laurence Wolfe
Penn
State (State College,
PA)
Discussant: Matthew D. Mingus
(Ashland University)
Substance,
Causation, and Free Will in Spinoza and Leibniz
Abstract: The
17th-18th century continental debate over the
possibility of rescuing the idea of free will was largely a reaction to the
conclusions reached by Spinoza in his work, The Ethics. This paper
examines the logic of Spinoza’s refutation of Providence and human free will, as well as
G.W. Leibniz’s critique of Spinoza’s refutation in Discourses on
Metaphysics and the Monadology. It finds the pertinent metaphysical
issues for both thinkers to rest in the rational ideas of Substance (as that
upon which existence subsists) and Causation (along with subordinate
relations of Possibility/Actuality and
Contingency/Necessity).
I propose that Leibniz’s system implicitly solved the
problem of Spinoza's causal argument against God's own free will, though he
did not specifically address it. This involves a different conception of the
causa sui, in which this First Cause
is not logically determined (by geometric necessity) but is itself an act of
God’s will. The notion of God as perpetually affirming (a volitional feature) His own
existence, later adopted by F.W.J. Schelling, provides a way out from
Spinozism.
Website constructed and maintained
by
Douglas Shrader / Department
Chair
Philosc@Oneonta.edu
March 7, 2008
Updated April 6,
2008
