Intensionalists claim that necessarily equivalent propositions are identical\; hyperintensionalists deny this. Whereas possible worlds semantics provides a canonical intensionalist framework\, there is no canonical hyperintensionalist framework. Recent years have rather seen a thousand flowers bloom with the \; development of truthmakers semantics\, aboutness theory\, grounding theory\, and logics of essence\, to mention but a few hyperintensionalist theories. \;
\nA lot of recent work has focused on various paradoxes that threaten hyperintensionalism - the so-called Russell-Myhill paradox in particular. We now have reason to think that these paradoxes can be resolved. \;
\nThe mere consistency of hyperintensionalist theories does not\, obviously\, mean that they are worth having. Even staunch adherents of hyperintensionalists approaches would admit that they are more complicated than their intensionalist competitors. So\, what work can be done by hyperintensionalists theories that cannot be done by their intensionalist competitors? Is the work being done worth the price of the greater complexity? The goal of the workshop is to bring together some leading proponents and opponents of hyperintensionalism to discuss these questions.
\nThe workshop will be held at St John's College\, Oxford\, 1-2 OCtober 2026.
\nDue to space constraints\, we ask participants to regsiter in advance at the following address: \;https://forms.office.com/e/mFnskUJKAb.
\nRegistration deadline is 2 weeks before the workshop\, or once the available spaces are filled.
\nUpdates to the timins and schedle will appear on this site.
ORGANIZER;CN="Øystein Linnebo";CN=Jon Litland;CN=Nicholas K. Jones: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260922T175358Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261001T091500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261002T170000 SUMMARY:Does Hyperintensionality Earn Its Keep? UID:20260922T175359Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:fc13:84ff:feef:467f%3 TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:St John's College\, Oxford\, United Kingdom\, ox1 3jp DESCRIPTION:Intensionalists claim that necessarily equivalent propositions are identical\; hyperintensionalists deny this. Whereas possible worlds semantics provides a canonical intensionalist framework\, there is no canonical hyperintensionalist framework. Recent years have rather seen a thousand flowers bloom with the \; development of truthmakers semantics\, aboutness theory\, grounding theory\, and logics of essence\, to mention but a few hyperintensionalist theories. \;
\nA lot of recent work has focused on various paradoxes that threaten hyperintensionalism - the so-called Russell-Myhill paradox in particular. We now have reason to think that these paradoxes can be resolved. \;
\nThe mere consistency of hyperintensionalist theories does not\, obviously\, mean that they are worth having. Even staunch adherents of hyperintensionalists approaches would admit that they are more complicated than their intensionalist competitors. So\, what work can be done by hyperintensionalists theories that cannot be done by their intensionalist competitors? Is the work being done worth the price of the greater complexity? The goal of the workshop is to bring together some leading proponents and opponents of hyperintensionalism to discuss these questions.
\nThe workshop will be held at St John's College\, Oxford\, 1-2 OCtober 2026.
\nRegistration is now closed. If you have not registered and would like to attend\, please contact Nicholas Jones.
\nSchedule
\n1 October
\n09.25-09.30: Welcome
\n09.30-10.45: Introductory remarks (Jones\, Linnebo\, Litland)
\n10.45-11.00: coffee break
\n11.00-12.15: Rosen\, "Worldly Hyperintensionality and the Metaphysics of Explanation"
\n12.15-1.30: lunch
\n1.30-2.45: Ditter \, "Non-Naturalism\, Supervenience\, and Essentialism about Modality"
\n2.45-3.00: break
\n3.00 - 4.15: Moltmann\, "Object-Based Truthmaker Semantics and the Generation of Modal Objects"
\n4.15-4.45: coffee &\; cake break
\n4.45 - 6.00: Correia\, &ldquo\;Factual Equivalence\, Its Logic\, and Higher-Order Identity&rdquo\;
\n2 October
\n09.30-10.45: Williamson\, "Semantically Complex Directly Referential Expressions"
\n10.45-11.00: coffee break
\n11.00-12.15: Mahtani\, "Hyperintensionality and Action-Guiding Principles"
\n12.15-1.30: lunch
\n1.30-2.45: Jones or Litland (TBC)
\n2.45-3.00: break
\n3.00 - 4.15: Krä\;mer\, "Intensional Ground?"
\n4.15-4.45: coffee &\; cake break
\n4.45 - 6.00: Schnieder (TBC)
ORGANIZER;CN="Øystein Linnebo";CN=Jon Litland;CN=Nicholas K. Jones: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260922T175358Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20261002T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20261003T170000 SUMMARY:Theories of First Principles in Early Modern Metaphysics UID:20260922T175400Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:fc13:84ff:feef:467f%3 TZID:America/Chicago LOCATION:Oriel Square\, Oxford\, United States\, OX1 4EW DESCRIPTION:ABOUT THE WORKSHOP
\nThe aim of the workshop is to discuss the conception\, demonstration\, formulation\, and logical implications of first principles in early modern metaphysics leading up to and including Kant.
\nScholars of the early modern period often struggle to describe philosophical developments in early modern metaphysics without resorting to anachronistic descriptions like &ldquo\;rationalism&rdquo\; or &ldquo\;speculativism&rdquo\;. Nevertheless\, since most early modern philosophers drew extensively on their immediate predecessors and contemporaries\, classifications that go beyond one author and enable a focus on philosophical developments in the period are clearly fruitful. We suggest that the theories of first principles provide a promising and non-anachronistic perspective on early modern metaphysics. This is because theories of first principles were a core aspect of early modern philosophical systems\, from Suarez to Kant. Core questions that resonated with early modern authors were thus:
\nAlthough early modern authors grappled with these shared questions\, their conceptions of what the first principles are\, if and how they are to be demonstrated\, and how the different first principles relate to each other are interestingly different. Our workshop seeks to discuss the different theories of first principles that were developed in early modern metaphysics.
\nOn a meta-level\, the workshop seeks to address the role of the theories of first principles in the history of metaphysics and to thereby gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of &ldquo\;metaphysics&rdquo\; in the early modern period. Did Aristotle and the Scholastics also understand metaphysics as a science of first principles? Do contemporary philosophers understand metaphysics as a science of first principles? Or is this conception of metaphysics unique to the early modern period?
\nThe event is free and everyone is welcome to attend. Please register at clara.carus@uni-heidelberg.de by 30th of September.
ORGANIZER;CN=Clara Carus;CN=Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260922T175358Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261113T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261114T170000 SUMMARY:University of Oxford's 30th Annual Graduate Philosophy Conference UID:20260922T175401Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:fc13:84ff:feef:467f%3 TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Oxford\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:17th Sept\, 2026 update
\nRegistration will open at 10 am BST on 30th Sept\, 2026 on our website (https://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/oxford-philosophy-graduate-conference).
\nSpots are limited on a first-come-first-served basis.
\n\nGraduate student speakers:
\nAnusha Celly (Princeton)\, 'Aristotle on Slave-Virtue: Non-Deliberative Virtue and External Reason'
\nCaterina Pavoni (LMU Munich)\, 'Aristotle's Minimal Essentialism in the Topics'
\nEther Lin (LSE)\, 'In Defence of Carnapian Constitutive Functionalism'
\nGeorgie Newson (University of Edinburgh)\, 'Large Gametaphysics: Misapplications of Biological Teleology in Gender-Critical Feminism'
\nKevin Jia (University of Notre Dame)\, 'Non-Accidental Intuition and Global Revelation'
\nMaxime Daniel Barbier (Università\; degli studi di Milano)\, 'A Semantics of Smell: Olfactory Denotation Beyond Source Representation'
\nMeichen Liu (UCL)\, 'Moral Responsibility and the Opacity of Attitudes: A Critique and Revision of Smith&rsquo\;s Rational Relation View"
\nShao-An Hsu (The Ohio State University)\, 'An Epistemological Argument for Numerical Perception'
\nTania Bteish (LSE)\, 'Targets of Intervention in Structural Injustice'
\nTatiana Sitnikova (University of Cambridge)\, 'Code Words and Self-Deception'
\nVictor Tremblay-Baillargeon (University of Montreal)\, 'A Quark's Dream and a Panpsychist's Need: Microphenomenology for Panpsychism'
\nZhengping Zhang (University of Virginia)\, 'Toward a Relational Picture of Self-Trust'
\n\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
\n5th August\, 2026 update:
\nWe have notified all the accepted and waitlisted authors via email\, and rejections will be sent out this Thursday. If you do not receive anything from us by \;Friday\, please let us know (our email address: gradconf@philosophy.ox.ac.uk)
\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
\n5th May\, 2026 update:
\nSubmissions \;are now CLOSED.
\nWe expect that we will notify the authors of accepted papers via email by early August 2026.
\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
\n4th Feb\, 2026 update:
\nCALL FOR PAPERS:
\nWe invite submissions from all graduate students working in philosophy for the 30th Annual Oxford Philosophy Graduate Conference\, to be held on the 13th-14th November 2026 at the University of Oxford.
\nPapers can be on \;any topic in philosophy. We aim to represent a broad range of philosophical debates and traditions in our final selection\, across theoretical philosophy\, practical philosophy\, and the history of philosophy.
\nEach selected graduate student will be asked to present their paper in a 30-40 minute presentation. Each presentation will be followed by a response\, typically from a member of the Oxford Philosophy Faculty.
\nWe are also delighted to announce our keynote speakers for this year&rsquo\;s conference: \;
\nDavid Chalmers (New York University)\,
\nMonima Chadha (University of Oxford)\, \;
\nRob Simpson (University College London)\,
\nIn addition\, \;
\nAdrian Moore (University of Oxford) \;will be holding a workshop on how to publish in philosophy journals.
\n
Eligibility:
Submission details: \;
\nIf you have any questions\, feel free to email \;gradconf@philosophy.ox.ac.uk
\nWe look forward to your submission!
ORGANIZER;CN=Reginald Chua;CN=Wanda von Knobelsdorff;CN=Xichen Li;CN="Otto Räsänen";CN=Meredith Ross-James;CN=Mhairi Tait: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260922T175358Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261119T140000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261120T170000 SUMMARY:Grimoires as scholarship\, scholarship as grimoires UID:20260922T175402Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:fc13:84ff:feef:467f%3 TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:21 St Giles\, Oxford\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:'The pluralism of a postcolonial or decolonial philosophy of religion should be &ldquo\;on both ends&rdquo\; of the discipline\; that is\, both the phenomena and subjects considered and contemplated by the discipline should be diverse\, but also the people\, perspectives\, and methods engaged in this project should come from diverse backgrounds&mdash\;not only in terms of race\, class\, gender\, geography\, etc. but also in terms of ritual practice\, training (both academic and otherwise)\, initiation or membership in tribes\, societies\, or &ldquo\;religious&rdquo\; traditions.&rsquo\;
\n&mdash\;Oludamini Ogunnaike\, &ldquo\;Expanding the Menu or Seats at the Table? Grotesque Pluralism in the (Post)Colonial Philosophy of Religion.&rdquo\; Journal of the American Academy of Religion 89\, no. 2 (2021): 734.
\n&lsquo\;It was in the context of the colonial encounter that Christendom granted other communities and traditions the name it had only ever given itself&mdash\;religion&mdash\;and reincarnated it as &ldquo\;secular.&rdquo\;&rsquo\;
\n&mdash\;Erica Lagalisse\, Occult Features of Anarchism (Oakland: PM Press\, 2019)\, 7.
\n&lsquo\;Occultism is the metaphysic of dunces.&rsquo\;
\n&mdash\;Theodor Adorno\, Minima Moralia (London: Verso\, 1951)\, §\;151-VI.
\nThe term &ldquo\;grimoire\,&rdquo\; refers to a genre of magical literature\, specifically denoting manuals of magic or sorcery whose etymological roots in the Old French word grammaire (grammar) reflect its origin as a repository of specialized knowledge and constitutes a codified manual of occult ritual techniques and illustrations. The grimoire is a culturally and historically situated textual artefact appearing predominantly in the form of the manuscript or printed handbook. These books systematize ritual\, symbolic\, and operative knowledge within a magical or occult framework. This can be seen especially through spirit lists\, prescriptive instructions for the manipulation of supernatural agencies (e.g.\, spirits of the dead\, angels\, demons)\, the production of efficacious objects (e.g.\, talismans\, amulets)\, guides for various forms of divination and the intentional use of technologies to create new forms of spirituality among many others.
\nThese claims to hidden or occulted knowledge have rendered many scholarly traditions grimoire-like in form and function. However\, unlike disciplines like theology where the influence of theistic discursive traditions on scholarship is rendered explicit\, the intersubsumption of esotericism\, occultism\, and magic with the study of such is often occulted. So how have scholarly texts functioned as these repositories of magical or occult knowledge?
\nThis conference invites scholars to explore the idea of any form of scholarly text as grimoire.
ORGANIZER;CN=Scott Ryan Maybell;CN=Kachine Moore: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR