TITLE:
On what it is&\;#8230\;
The philosophy of philosophy
DATE:
13-15 February 2015
LOCATION:
Eö\;tvö\;s Jó\;zsef Collegium (Budapest\, Hungary)
FACEBOOK EVENT:
https://www.facebook.com/events/263163050534572/
CONTACT:
arrolhogymi@gmail.com
DESCRIPTION:
Since the first third of the 19th century philosophy has undergone
fundamental changes that radically transformed its nature and the way we
think about it. Though the Enlightenment had held out the prospect of the
unity of philosophy\, by this time it became clear that this unity was more
of a wish rather than reality\, and the task the philosophy of Enlightenment
undertook appeared to be far too ambitious and misguided. The political\,
social\, economical and ecological calamities of the 20th century deepened
the paradoxes disclosed by philosophy&\;#8217\;s long 19th century even more. They
irrevocably undermined the belief that philosophy is able to deal with its
problems within the framework of rational discourse and present us the world
as a whole.
Today the questions concerning the foundations of philosophy are becoming
more and more pressing. What kind of role can philosophy play in our
globalized\, rapidly changing age that seems to be in crisis constantly? Is
it possible or even desirable to unite the bitterly opposed philosophical
traditions? Does philosophy have a goal beyond merely answering scholarly
questions? Whose philosophy is academic philosophy\; who can think of it as
their own\, and to whom is it completely alien? Is it meaningful to talk
about timely and untimely philosophy? Is the philosophy of tomorrow a
contemplative\, highly theoretical dialog among academics\, or an essentially
interdisciplinary activity that plays a formative role in bringing about
social change? How can we define what counts as philosophy and who counts as
a philosopher today\, and tomorrow? What forces shape philosophy now and in
the future? And finally: is there a future to philosophy at all?
PANELS AND INVITED KEYNOTES:
\nOpening talk: Tibor Sutyá\;k\; Closing talk: Má\;ria Ludassy
\n1. What is philosophy. (Keynote speaker: Nenad Miscevic\; Chair: Á\;gnes
Erdé\;lyi)
Does and should philosophy have a definition? Should we bring the divergent
traditions to a common ground and create a unified discipline? Or should we
instead promote specialization and fragmentation within the discipline? Are
there questions unique to philosophy\, or those movements of the 20th century
are on the right track that do not recognize a clear boundary between
philosophy and art or philosophy and science? Is there\, and should there be\,
a purpose of philosophy? Are the categorical distinctions of history of
philosophy and theoretical philosophy\, continental and analytic philosophy
meaningful?
2. The method of philosophy. (Keynote speaker: Já\;nos Tőzsé\;r\; Chair: Judit
Szalai)
Does philosophy have a special method? Are the methods used in contemporary
philosophy adequate or do they need to be revised? How are we to think about
the challenge of experimental philosophy? Can the rationality of
philosophical inquiries be grounded?
3. Who is a philosopher? (Keynote speaker: Lá\;szló\; Nemes\; Chair: Zsó\;fia
Zvolenszky)
What is special about the profession of the philosopher? How can one become
a philosopher? What causes the gender and racial inequalities in philosophy
departments and what are their consequences? Can different philosophical
traditions have different standards as to who counts as a philosopher? Can
someone be today a philosopher outside of the academy? Can someone be today
an activist philosopher? What is the difference between the philosopher\, the
sage\, and the spiritual leader?
4. What is history of philosophy? (Keynote speaker: Gá\;bor Boros\; Chair:
Dá\;niel Schmal)
What is the role and significance of inquiries into the history of
philosophy? Had there ever been an authentic history of philosophy\, or it is
also &\;#8216\;written by the victors&\;#8217\;? Is it meaningful to use such notions in the
history of philosophy\, like &\;#8216\;rationalism&\;#8217\;\, &\;#8216\;empiricism&\;#8217\;\, &\;#8216\;idealism&\;#8217\;\,&\;#8216\;materialism&\;#8217\;? If so\, under what constraints? Whose perspectives are embraced in the &\;#8216\;mainstream&\;#8217\; histories of philosophy (the ones taught at high schools and universities) and in the &\;#8216\;alternative&\;#8217\; ones? Is the history of Western philosophy &\;#8216\;the&\;#8217\; history of philosophy\, or philosophy can only be
treated as a unity\, perhaps we have to approach trends on a smaller scale?
Do analytic and continental philosophy have their own history\, or is this
distinction artificial from the historic point of view? Is history of
philosophy anything over and above the catalogue of great dead philosophers?
5. What makes a work philosophical? (Keynote speaker: Tibor Schwendtner\;
Chair: Veronika Darida)
What makes a work - be it a book\, an essay\, or a dialog - philosophical? Are
there any unrecognized works in philosophy? Is it possible to create works
in philosophy that do not fit any academic genre? For example\, is it
possible that works of art\, public speeches\, or actions become works in
philosophy? To what extent is the content of a work in philosophy influenced
by its form and genre? Are philosophical works the product of their author
or rather their age? To whom and in whose language does works in philosophy
speak?
6. Philosophy and politics (Keynote speaker: Zsolt Bagi\; Chair: Szabolcs
Pogonyi)
What is the relationship between politics and philosophy? Is there
philosophy without politics and politics without philosophy? Does philosophy
have a social mission? Can philosophy be a value-free area of scholarship?
What is the distinction between philosophy and ideology? Is there such a
thing as national or state philosophy and court philosopher? Can a
philosophy be morally &\;#8216\;good&\;#8217\; or &\;#8216\;evil&\;#8217\;?
7. Philosophy and science (Keynote speaker: Já\;nos Laki\; Chair: Lá\;szló\; E.
Szabó\;)
What is the relationship between philosophy and the rest of the academic
disciplines? Is it continuous with science? Is it necessary for philosophy
to become a &\;#8220\;rigorous science&\;#8221\; or\, on the contrary\, it is opposed to
science? Or maybe they complement each other?
9. Philosophy and life (Keynote speaker: Anna Ré\;z\; Chair: Korné\;l Steiger)
Has philosophy really lost contact with everyday life? And if it has\, is
this a problem or a sign of the maturity of the discipline? Should
philosophy be more present in public life? Should we enhance philosophical
thinking in our day to day lives either through public education or other
means? How can philosophy contribute to the amelioration of human life\, and
advancement of public good? Is it possible\, or even necessary\, to reform
philosophy so that it fits the demands of the 21th century?