In Conversation: Exploring the Philosophy of Money and Finance &ndash\; Series III
\nA series of interviews with contributors to The Philosophy of Money and Finance (Hardcover\, OUP 2024\; Paperback\, fall 2025)
\nSchedule
\n"Bitcoins Left and Right: A Normative Assessment of a Digital Currency"
Authors: Lars Lindblom and Joakim Sandberg
Interviewer: Violet Victoria
Date and Time: October 6\, 2026\, 12 pm EST (18:00 CET)
[Thi is the final interview in the series. Recordings of prior interviews can be found on Phinance.]
ORGANIZER;CN=Lisa Warenski;CN=Emiliano Ippoliti: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260429T210000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261126T170000 SUMMARY:Séminaire Arendt 2026 UID:20261026T191955Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Le Ré\;seau Arendtien Francophone\, cré\;é\; en 2024\, vise à\; favoriser une synergie entre celles et ceux qui\, des amateurs aux chercheuses\, fré\;quentent la pensé\;e de Hannah Arendt. Dans cette optique\, nous cherchons à\; mettre en place un rendez-vous ré\;gulier pour en discuter les diffé\;rents interpré\;tations et aspects.
\nDu fait de l&rsquo\;é\;tendue de la francophonie\, ces sé\;minaires auront lieu en ligne. Leur principe sera le suivant : les participant-e-s auront tous et toutes pré\;alablement lu un article ou un chapitre ré\;cent\, lequel sera pré\;senté\; trè\;s rapidement par souci de prioriser les é\;changes (10 minutes) par son autrice ou auteur. À\; partir de celui-ci\, un-e membre du ré\;seau ouvrira (5 min) à\; un dé\;bat plus large afin de discuter\, outre l&rsquo\;article\, les diffé\;rents interpré\;tations et aspects de l&rsquo\;&oelig\;uvre d&rsquo\;Arendt (1h30).
\nProgramme 2026\nEn 2026\, nous proposons quatre sé\;ances ordinaires du sé\;minaire et une sé\;ance spé\;ciale : «\; Arendt et la science é\;conomique »\;\, «\; Arendt et le travail »\;\, «\; Liberté\;\, volonté\;\, politique »\;\, «\; Arendt et la violence »\;\, «\; Philosophie\, é\;ducation et politique »\;.
\nLe sé\;minaire est ouvert à\; toutes et tous sans inscription pré\;alable \; n&rsquo\;hé\;sitez pas à\; venir y assister et y participer. Les articles et textes discuté\;s sont disponibles sur le site du RAF. N&rsquo\;hé\;sitez pas non plus à\; nous contacter pour toute demande d&rsquo\;information complé\;mentaire.
\nLe RAF ?\nLe Ré\;seau Arendtien Francophone (RAF) se veut un espace divers et pluriel\, rassemblant une communauté\; de doctorant-e-s\, enseignant-e-s\, chercheurs/ses\, intellectuel-le-s et toute personne inté\;ressé\;e ou engagé\;e dans l'é\;tude et la diffusion de la pensé\;e d'Hannah Arendt en France et le monde francophone. À\; travers cette plateforme\, nous souhaitons favoriser les é\;changes intellectuels\, offrir une visibilité\; accrue aux travaux de recherche et cré\;er des liens solides entre francophones s'inté\;ressant à\; et puisant dans l'&oelig\;uvre de cette autrice majeure du XXe siè\;cle.
\nOutre l&rsquo\;organisation de ce sé\;minaire et d'é\;vè\;nements acadé\;miques lié\;s à\; la pensé\;e d'Arendt\, le ré\;seau actualise continuellement un site web qui met à\; disposition : une bibliographie des textes de langue franç\;aise consacré\;s à\; Arendt ou la mobilisant\, un annuaire des membres du ré\;seau\, un agenda des activité\;s francophones qui lui sont dé\;dié\;es et une lettre d'information mensuelle.
\nN'hé\;sitez pas à\; rejoindre le ré\;seau ou à\; nous contacter pour rejoindre l&rsquo\;é\;quipe d&rsquo\;animation !
\n ORGANIZER;CN="Rémi Zanni": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260924T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261231T170000 SUMMARY:Reading Gramsci: Context\, Concepts\, and Critique UID:20261026T191956Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Join us for a weekly close reading of Gramsci&rsquo\;s Prison Notebooks! The group has a twofold goal: first\, to analyze contemporary political events through the categories formulated in the text\; and second\, to critically examine potential blind spots in Gramsci&rsquo\;s work regarding race\, gender\, and empire\, while keeping in mind the historical context in which he wrote.
TIME
THURSDAYS: weekly\, beginning September 24\, 2026.
5-6 PM Eastern US Time.
FACILITATOR
Giusi \;Russo is an associate professor of History at Montgomery County Community College in the greater Philadelphia area. Her research focuses on the relationship between the Italian left and internal colonialism\, as well as the entanglements between bodies and European empires. She is the author of \;Women\, Empires\, and Body Politics at the United Nations\, 1946&ndash\;1975 \;(University of Nebraska Press\, 2023) and has published extensively on the colonial history of the United Nations and on the construction of colonial and post-colonial narratives. She is currently working on a book project under contract with Routledge\, titled\, \;The Aesthetics of Third-Worldism in Italy: Bodies\, Spaces\, and Oppression.
ABOUT INCITE SEMINARS
We are a mix of rogue scholars\, disgruntled academics\, disenchanted buddhists\, enchantment-hungry anarchists\, radical therapists\, and general weirdos looking to create autonomous and accessible forms of &ldquo\;higher education.&rdquo\;
We offer online seminars and reading groups to incite personal exploration and inspire community action. Incite Seminars offers an educational experience. We do so by gathering an engaged group of participants for a dynamic exchange of ideas\, led by skilled facilitators. All of our facilitators have a deep relationship to a subject or topic through intensive study or practice.
Incite Seminars is a 100% member-supported learning community. We depend on member contributions to continue holding space for radical study and practice groups\, putting on rigorous seminars and courses\, and providing our facilitators and organizers with fair compensation. If you are unable to pay the full amount for a session or membership at this time\, we invite you to join us at reduced or no cost with our Solidarity option.
Call for Abstracts for The Zicklin Center Normative Business Ethics Workshop Series
\nOver the 2026-2027 academic year\, the Zicklin Center for Governance and Business Ethics at the Wharton School\, University of Pennsylvania\, will convene a regular works-in-progress series for scholars working in normative business ethics (NBE). In particular\, the Series will workshop papers pursuing business ethics issues from a normative perspective\, or papers in moral or political philosophy with implications for the market\, distributive justice\, labor relations\, the role of business in society\, etc.
\nWorkshop Objectives
\nThe Series is part of an effort to foster normative business ethics in the academy and the public sphere. This particular initiative has two key objectives: First\, it endeavors to provide a regular forum for scholars working on business ethics from a normative perspective. The community of such scholars is relatively small\, and dispersed across numerous institutions\, and there are few opportunities for these individuals to convene and share work. This Series is an effort to connect these scholars and to enrich their shared intellectual life. Second\, the Series aims to be especially valuable to junior faculty and advanced graduate students\, by providing them with feedback from\, and opportunities to interact with\, more established members of the normative business ethics community. To that end\, we hope to have (at least) one junior author and one senior author at each session.
\nWorkshop Format
\nThe workshop will meet six times over the academic year. Any academic or practitioner with an interest in normative business ethics is invited to attend the sessions. Attendees are expected to read the papers in advance\, and to come with feedback for the paper authors. To maximize the opportunity for paper improvement\, authors will not present their papers\; we will instead spend our time together on questions and comments for the author.
\nSessions will be held on Fridays\, beginning at 1:00 pm unless otherwise indicated. We will discuss two to three papers at each session. Attendees are expected to read the papers in advance\, and to come prepared to offer feedback.
\nWe plan to hold all sessions in-person\, on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania\, in Philadelphia.
\nSession Dates:
\nSeptember 25th\, 2026
\nOctober 30th\, 2026
\nJanuary 29th\, 2027
\nFebruary 26th\, 2027
\nMarch 19th\, 2027
\nApril 16th\, 2027
\nCall for Abstracts
\nWe invite abstract submissions from \;faculty and post-docs\, and from graduate students who have advanced to the ABD stage. \;Preferential treatment will be given to those who have not presented work at the Series before\, and we especially welcome submissions from women and under-represented minorities.
\nThe abstract should propose a paper in normative business ethics\, as described above. We ask that submissions offer a fairly detailed sense of the paper without exceeding 500 words.
\nWe ask that applicants identify three of the above dates\, in order of preference\, at which they would like to present their work. Please send your abstract to Brian Berkey &ndash\; bberkey@wharton.upenn.edu -- by July 15th\, 2026. Individuals will be notified about whether their paper has been selected for presentation by August 3rd\, 2026.
\nInformation for Selected Authors
\nThe Zicklin Center will cover reasonable travel and accommodation expenses for paper authors for the session at which their paper will be discussed.
\nReimbursement for travel expenses is subject to two conditions. By accepting the offer to workshop a paper\, the paper author pledges that:
\n1. \; \; \; \; The paper they will share is at a stage of development where the author can incorporate feedback gained at the workshop (e.g.\, the paper is not yet in page proofs or in print)\; and
\n2. \; \; \; \; The paper author will send their draft paper to the organizers no fewer than 14 days before their presentation date.
\nFor co-authored papers\, we can ordinarily only provide travel funding for one of the authors\, though other co-authors are welcome to attend.
\nPlease address any questions about the CFA or the workshop to one of the organizers: Brian Berkey (bberkey@wharton.upenn.edu)\, Amy Sepinwall (sepin@wharton.upenn.edu)\, Julian Jonker (jonker@wharton.upenn.edu)\, or Paul Forrester (pforr@wharton.upenn.edu).
ORGANIZER;CN=Brian Berkey;CN=Amy J. Sepinwall;CN=Julian Jonker;CN=Paul Forrester: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Madrid:20261009T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Madrid:20270115T170000 SUMMARY:Technology and citizenship - V IF Conference · First International Conference UID:20261026T191958Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Madrid LOCATION:Gijón\, Spain\, Gijón\, Spain DESCRIPTION:Hello! We are the IF Group (Engineering and Philosophy - Ingenierí\;a y Filosofí\;a)\, a working group of the MediaLab at the University of Oviedo that develops its work from a hybridization between the two branches of knowledge that give us our name. We have a great invitation for you: come to Gijó\;n on March 29\, 30\, and 31\, 2027.
\nWe are preparing the V IF Conference (our first international conference!)\, in which\, once again\, we will address technological issues from a hybrid\, reflective\, and collaborative perspective. The title for this edition is IF 9.0: Technology and Citizenship. We want to open a space to discuss different technological and engineering issues that affect citizenship in a broad sense. We will debate questions\, problems\, and possible solutions that technology offers to people. We will listen to researchers\, but also to companies\, teachers\, civil society organizations\, and anyone interested in reflecting on technology and its relationship with people. The general reflections will revolve around questions such as the following: can we make fairer technologies?\; are our designs the most appropriate for people and the environment?\; do we lead and control the technologies we use?\; does technology serve people\, or do people serve technology?\; what capabilities does it provide us and which ones do we give up by delegating more and more decisions to it?\; who is behind the dominant technologies\, and how do they use them to dominate us?\; and what about more horizontal\, democratic\, accessible\, belligerent...\, in short\, human technological approaches?
\nFor this reason\, we have proposed the following thematic axes:
\nEducation: technologies and tools that transform teaching and learning processes\, as well as the forms of access\, participation\, and knowledge creation.
\nHealth: the influence of technology on care\, well-being\, prevention\, and the improvement of people's quality of life.
\nDesign: criteria\, processes\, and practices to develop more accessible\, usable\, inclusive\, and responsible technologies.
\nAutonomy\, governance\, and politics: relationships between technology\, decision-making capacity\, power\, and citizenship\, promoting transparent\, responsible management models oriented towards the public interest.
\nSustainability and territory: responsible models that integrate environmental\, social\, and economic challenges with the inequalities and technological transformations of the territory and the spaces inhabited by humans and other species.
\nDo you want to participate? We encourage you to submit contributions that analyze these phenomena from interdisciplinary\, critical perspectives aimed at imagining more habitable digital futures. If you develop research or teaching\, political\, business\, social\, artistic\, or relational activities linked to the aforementioned topics\, you can send us a proposal in text format (maximum 500 words) through the following form before January 15\, 2027. We hope to see you soon!
\nYou can find more information and learn more about us on our website.
\nWe thank you in advance for your time and collaboration in disseminating this event. We remain at your entire disposal for any questions or queries.
\nKind regards\,
\nIF Group (Engineering and Philosophy) MediaLab\, University of Oviedo
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Mexico_City:20261026T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Mexico_City:20261027T170000 SUMMARY:Innovation and tradition: intersections\, interactions and disputes in culture UID:20261026T191959Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:America/Mexico_City LOCATION:Cuernavaca\, Mexico DESCRIPTION:This colloquium emerges from the need to think and propose new epistemological positions to the cultural frame. From an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspective\, our aim is to bring together researchers from fields like sociology\, communication science\, Cultural Studies\, anthropology\, history\, computational sciences\, political science\, and others\, to explore critical \;reflections on cultural tradition and cultural innovation. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Omar Cerrillo: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20261027T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20261028T170000 SUMMARY:Race\, Ethnicity\, Religion - Categories of Descent-Based Difference UID:20261026T192000Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Zurich LOCATION:Bern\, Switzerland DESCRIPTION:Call for Abstracts
\nCategories of Descent-Based Difference: Race\, Ethnicity\, Religion\, and Ethnoreligion
\nTwo-day workshop\, University of Bern
\nOctober 27 &\; 28 2026
\nAcross Europe &ndash\; and elsewhere &ndash\; politically significant boundaries often turn on forms of belonging treated as inherited: ethnic\, religious\, ethnoreligious\, or mixed. The oppression organised through such boundaries is sometimes described as racism\, even when it does not map neatly onto the colour line. This raises a general question about how race\, ethnicity\, religion\, and ethnoreligion relate to one another. Do they name distinct kinds of group\, overlapping forms of classification\, or different configurations of descent-based difference? Under what conditions do ethnic or religious groups become racialised?
\nThis workshop invites papers addressing these questions. Bosnia and Herzegovina offers one revealing example. The categories Bosniak\, Croat\, and Serb draw together national belonging\, religious affiliation\, family history\, and attributed descent. They shape political membership\, yet are neither simply religious nor straightforwardly racial categories. Belief\, practice\, self-identification\, and classification by others need not coincide\, while institutions and social practices may nevertheless treat membership as inherited and enduring. The same problem arises\, in different forms\, well beyond Southeast Europe.
\nOver recent decades\, philosophers have developed sophisticated accounts of race and racialisation. Ethnicity\, religious belonging\, and ethnoreligion have been studied extensively in history\, sociology\, anthropology\, and religious studies. Although philosophers have compared race and ethnicity\, religion and ethnoreligion have seldom been included in the same social-ontological analysis. \; Building on Morning and Manieri&rsquo\;s (2022\, 2024) proposal to compare concepts of descent-based difference\, the workshop asks whether these categories can be analysed within a common frame.
\nOne possible point of comparison is descent-based ascription: the construction of group membership as genealogically inherited and transmitted across generations. This need not involve belief in biological descent. Names\, religious practices\, language\, culture\, place of origin\, and family history may instead become signs of inherited membership. We take this proposal as a starting point for exploring the relations among race\, ethnicity\, and religion\, rather than as a framework to be assumed. What can descent-based ascription explain about these groups\, and which differences does it obscure? How does racialisation interact with ethnic\, religious\, or ethnoreligious classification\, and what follows for debates about racism?
\nSoutheast Europe\, especially former Yugoslavia\, will provide one comparative point of reference. We welcome work on European and extra-European contexts more broadly\, including papers that develop\, challenge\, or mark the limits of the proposed framework.
\nTopics
\nPossible topics include:
\nWe particularly welcome papers that expose the limits of the proposed framework or offer a different account. We also welcome historically and empirically grounded papers that use their cases to develop\, test\, or challenge an explicit conceptual or ontological claim.
\nFormat
\nPapers will be allocated 30 minutes for presentation\, followed by 30 minutes for discussion.
\nConfirmed speakers:
\nAnn Morning (New York University)
\nAdam Hochman (Macquarie University)
\nSandra King-Savić (University of Zurich)
\nVita Zalar (European University Institute)
\nSubmissions
\nPlease submit:
\nSend submissions to descent-bern@protonmail.com by September 6 2026. Decisions will be communicated by September 16.
\nWe especially encourage submissions from early-career researchers\, precariously employed or independent scholars\, and researchers working on regions and traditions underrepresented in contemporary social ontology.
\nFunding
\nFunding covering travel and accommodation costs is available for a limited number of early-career and underfunded researchers. Please indicate in the separate document if your participation depends being partly or fully funded.
\nOrganisation
\nArmin Ma&scaron\;ala\, University of Bern
\nDaniel James\, Freie Universitä\;t Berlin
ORGANIZER;CN=Daniel James;CN="Armin Mašala": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Paris:20261027T180000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Paris:20270427T170000 SUMMARY:"Ricœur\, Dead or Alive?" Fonds Ricœur Monthly Seminar (ENS\, Paris) UID:20261026T192001Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Paris LOCATION:École Normale Supérieure\, 45 rue d'Ulm\, Paris\, France\, 75005 DESCRIPTION:Presentation of the Seminar
\nThe seminar "Actualité\;s de Ric&oelig\;ur" ("Ric&oelig\;ur Studies Today") aims to offer a space for discussion and development for early-career research on Ric&oelig\;ur. Hosted at the É\;cole Normale Supé\;rieure for the 2026&ndash\;2027 academic year\, it welcomes proposals from doctoral students\, postdoctoral researchers\, and early-career scholars who wish to explore\, extend\, or put to the test the resources of Paul Ric&oelig\;ur's philosophy.
\nThe first edition of this seminar is entitled "Ric&oelig\;ur\, Dead or Alive?" &mdash\; a deliberately ambiguous formulation\, one that invites us to question both the internal vitality of his &oelig\;uvre and its capacity to nourish the philosophical\, ethical\, and political debates of today.
\nIs Ric&oelig\;ur's hermeneutic phenomenology not defined\, in essence\, by its defense of &mdash\; and\, as it were\, its "vow" (v&oelig\;u) in favor of &mdash\; life\, the living\, and the lively? But is he still a living interlocutor\, or has his thought sedimented into heritage?
\nThe seminar will follow this format: two speakers per two-hour session\, with 30 minutes of presentation and 30 minutes of discussion for each speaker.
\nFor paper proposals\, we welcome submissions engaging with three thematic axes.
\nAxis I. Life as Resistance &ndash\; Language\, Time\, and Action
\nHow does life affirm\, narrate\, and configure itself in the face of what negates it? Ric&oelig\;ur's hermeneutic phenomenology is traversed by a fundamental tension between the power to act and the multiple forms of its hindrance. Confronted with evil\, forgetting\, or indeed death\, Ric&oelig\;ur explores the diverse forms of resistance at work within life &mdash\; metaphors\, narratives\, memories\, history. These resistances\, as actions\, possess an intrinsic logic and continue to create the meaning of life.
\nSuggested Lines of Approach
\n1. Language as resistance: How does the "living metaphor" (The Rule of Metaphor\, 1975) constitute a form of resistance to the "entropy of language\," which freezes meaning? In what sense is semantic innovation a vital act\, a "revival"?
\n2. Narrative as resistance: In Time and Narrative (1983&ndash\;1985)\, emplotment is presented as a provisional victory over temporal discordance. How are we to think this victory in the face of the radicality of Heideggerian "being-towards-death"?
\n3. Memory as resistance: Memory\, History\, Forgetting (2000) distinguishes between forgetting kept in reserve and forgetting through effacement. In what way does this distinction commit us to an ethics of memory as a form of fidelity to life?
\nAxis II. A Life of One's Own &ndash\; Selfhood\, Vulnerability\, Ethicity
\nHow might vulnerability\, far from being a limit of subjectivity\, be its very condition of ethical possibility? Ric&oelig\;ur's hermeneutics of the self is built upon the recognition of a constitutive fragility: narrative identity is always exposed to rupture\, to suffering\, to undergoing the action of the other &mdash\; the other inscribing at the very heart of the self. This axis proposes to deepen reflection on the relation between the self and the other\, and to explore the modes by which a "good life" may be accomplished\, starting from the concrete ordeals of vulnerability: trauma\, the quest for mutual recognition\, and the precariousness of existence.
\nSuggested Lines of Approach
\n4. The ordeal of narrative identity: Oneself as Another (1990) articulates idem-identity and ipse-identity around the self-constancy under trial. What becomes of this articulation when the trial is that of identity's collapse &mdash\; serious illness\, exile\, trauma? Ric&oelig\;ur's hermeneutics of narrative identity also resonates with debates on the performativity of identity and with gender studies (Butler).
\n5. The reciprocity of recognition: In The Course of Recognition (2004)\, Ric&oelig\;ur moves from self-recognition to mutual recognition. How might this course enter into dialogue with contemporary theories of vulnerability (Weil\, Levinas) or of care?
\n6. The ethical life: The "ethical aim" defined in the "ethical studies" (Oneself as Another\, Studies 5-7) seeks to realize a "good life." Does this notion remain operative in the face of situations of thwarted life\, precarity\, or desubjectivation?
\nAxis III. Ric&oelig\;ur&rsquo\;s Survival &ndash\; Present Legacies
\nRic&oelig\;ur maintained a singular relationship with his own era\, marked as much by fruitful resonances as by sharp conflicts. This axis seeks to interrogate the philosophical actuality of these past debates: what extensions\, what corrections\, and what ruptures does Ric&oelig\;urian thought call for today? Proposals will place Ric&oelig\;ur's texts in critical dialogue with contemporary problematics\, without confining themselves to historical reconstruction.
\nSuggested Lines of Approach
\n7. Radical alterity in phenomenology: Ric&oelig\;ur engaged in a twofold critical dialogue with Derridean deconstruction and Levinasian ethics &mdash\; two distinct contestations of the autonomy of the self\, the one through the play of language\, the other through the ethical injunction of the face. How do these confrontations\, taken together\, illuminate the limits and the resources of the hermeneutics of the self in the face of the contemporary challenges of hospitality\, communication\, and responsibility?
\n8. Philosophical anthropology: Is the human being\, understood as the "capable human being" (From Text to Action\, 1986)\, in a position to accommodate new forms of agency &mdash\; collective\, distributed\, digital &mdash\; or do its anthropological presuppositions constrain it? In this regard\, Ric&oelig\;urian philosophy could enter into fruitful dialogue with the theories of Stiegler (tertiary retention) and Arendt (collective action).
\n9. Justice today: How might Ric&oelig\;ur's reflections on justice\, collective memory\, and forgiveness (Memory\, History\, Forgetting\, Epilogue) be articulated with the contemporary stakes of memory conflicts\, politics of reconciliation\, or postcolonial reparations? Ric&oelig\;ur's philosophy is bound up with figures such as Halbwachs\, Derrida\, and Honneth. His reflection on memory and forgiveness continues to shed lasting light on the practices of transitional justice.
\nSubmission Guidelines
\nTo submit a proposal or for any inquiries\, please write to us at the following address: seminaire.actualites.ricoeur@gmail.com. Proposals are welcome from doctoral students\, postdoctoral researchers\, and early-career scholars of any discipline (philosophy\, literary studies\, theology\, social sciences\, law)\, provided that they are grounded in Ric&oelig\;ur's texts and in contemporary debates for which Ric&oelig\;urian theory could be fruitfully mobilized. Comparative and transdisciplinary proposals are welcome. We will accept proposals in French and in English.
\nPractical Information
\nContact: seminaire.actualites.ricoeur@gmail.com
\nVenue: É\;cole Normale Supé\;rieure\, 45 rue d'Ulm\, Paris (75005)
\nUpdate for Oct 27 meeting: Venue has changed : \;at the Institut Protestant de Thé\;ologie (83 Boulevard Arago\, 75014 Paris)\, Building A\, Room 11.
\nFrequency: monthly (2026&ndash\;2027 academic year)\, normally on the last Tuesday of each month\, beginning on Tuesday 27 October.
\nSchedule: 27/10 \; 24/11 \; 15/12 (due to the holiday break) \; 26/01 \; 23/02 \; \; 16/03 \; 30/03 \; 27/04.
\nMeeting Link To join the videoconference\, please click on this permanent link : https://visio.numerique.gouv.fr/how-ewzn-pjk \;
\nTo join by phone\, dial +33 9 79 94 06 78 and enter code: 940 979 8403#
ORGANIZER;CN=Barberousse Tristan;CN=Hu Kexin;CN=Lodi Martina;CN=Chen Qiyu: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Brussels:20261029T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Brussels:20261030T170000 SUMMARY:Melancholic historicity: lost pasts and past losses UID:20261026T192002Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Brussels LOCATION:Utrecht\, Netherlands DESCRIPTION:Melancholic historicity: lost pasts and past losses
\nOrganizers: Katherina Kinzel and Robert Vinkesteijn
\nUtrecht University\, 29+30 October 2026
\nRecent reconceptualizations of historicity&mdash\;most notably in the work of Walter Benjamin and related thinkers&mdash\;have challenged the modern ideal of progress by foregrounding historical experiences of loss and destruction. These approaches question the assumption that history unfolds as a continuous movement in which past suffering is redeemed by future advancement. Instead of viewing the past as dead or completed\, they envision the past as a site of continuous unease and questioning within the present. Forgotten\, suppressed\, or destroyed pasts unsettle present self-understandings and expose their complicity in the ongoing reproduction of loss. \;
\nThis conference explores the question what a &ldquo\;melancholic&rdquo\; conception of historicity that is oriented around experiences of loss\, destruction and defeat looks like. What does it mean to think historically from a standpoint that refuses to forget or &ldquo\;accept&rdquo\; historical losses\, that interrupts linear temporality and breaks with the perpetuation of historical violence in the present. What is the political valence of different attempts at confronting historical loss? What constitutes a philosophically fruitful attitude to lost pasts (the pasts that have been forgotten or suppressed) and past losses (past experiences of loss\, injustice and defeat) that are haunting the present?
\nThis conference brings together \;critical approaches to the philosophy of history\, postcolonial perspectives on loss\, \;theoretical reflections on displacement and genocide\, accounts of ecological loss and destruction and psychoanalytic discussions of (historical) mourning and melancholia.
\nIf you would like to contribute as a speaker\, please send an abstract of maximum 500 words to r.w.vinkesteijn@uu.nl\, the deadline for abstracts is Saturday 28 February 2026. If you have further questions about the scope and topic of this conference\, do not hesitate to get in touch.
ORGANIZER;CN=Katherina Kinzel: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Vancouver:20261030T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Vancouver:20261031T170000 SUMMARY:Can social ontology change the world? UID:20261026T192003Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:America/Vancouver LOCATION:Vancouver\, Canada DESCRIPTION:The International Social Ontology Society workshop "Can Social Ontology Change the World?" will take place October 30-31\, 2026 at the Harbour Centre Campus of Simon Fraser University in downtown Vancouver\, British Columbia. \;
\nIn recent years\, the sub-discipline of social ontology has undergone a decidedly political reorientation. In non-ideal\, emancipatory\, and critical social ontology\, theorists explicitly ask whether our theorizing should have political goals or be relevant for political ends. An uptick in investigations on the metaphysics of race and gender has centered anti-racist\, feminist\, and trans struggles. These projects (e.g.\, Haslanger 2000\; Dembroff 2016\; Jenkins 2023\; Richardson 2023) explicitly theorize with a political purpose\, and so presuppose that social ontology can play a role in the struggle for social justice. But\, taking a step back\, this workshop questions the precise relationship between social ontology and politics. Are social ontologists changing the world\, or merely interpreting it? Given the former\, are there social ontological theories or methods better suited for direct political intervention\, and\, if so\, what makes them better? Given the latter\, what is the relationship\, if any\, between description and political intervention? \; \; \;
\nWe invite the submission of abstracts of 500-700 words for 20-minute presentations of papers related to the theme of the conference. Please send anonymized abstracts to \;social.ontology.and.the.world@gmail.com. The deadline for submitting is \;June 15th\, with notice of acceptance by July 15th. \; \;
\nSome \;travel grants and support for accommodations \;will be available for graduate students and faculty members who do not have access to research funds\; please indicate in your submission email if you would like to be considered for support. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Zara Anwarzai;CN=August Faller: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261030T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261030T234500 SUMMARY:Medically Assisted Dying for Persons with Mental IIlness: Philosophical\, Ethical\, and Legal Perspectives UID:20261026T192004Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Call for Chapters: Medically Assisted Dying for Persons with Mental IIlness: Philosophical\, Ethical\, and Legal Perspectives
\n\;(Edited Volume)
\nPlanned publisher: Springer (contract in preparation)
Planned series: The International Library of Bioethics
Editors: David Černý\;\, Tomá\;&scaron\; Doležal\, Adam Doležal (Czech Academy of Sciences)\, Manuel Trachsel (University of Basel)
Rationale and Scope
\nOver the past decades\, debates on euthanasia and physician-assisted dying (PAD) have matured in many respects. Yet one domain remains both conceptually unsettled and practically urgent: psychiatric euthanasia and PAD for persons with mental disorders. A small but growing number of jurisdictions&mdash\;most prominently the Netherlands\, Belgium\, and (more recently) Canada&mdash\;have opened legal pathways for cases where psychiatric suffering is the primary indication\, provoking intense controversy across psychiatry\, bioethics\, law\, and public policy.
\nThis edited volume aims to provide a comprehensive\, systematic\, book-length treatment of psychiatric euthanasia\, integrating philosophical analysis\, normative bioethics\, comparative law\, and clinical/empirical perspectives. We welcome contributions that are philosophically rigorous and normatively ambitious while carefully engaging with clinical and legal realities.
\nWhat we are looking for
\nWe invite proposals for original chapters offering:
\nrigorous argumentation and conceptual clarity\,
\ncareful engagement with clinical and legal realities\,
\nempirical grounding where relevant\,
\nan interdisciplinary orientation (chapters may be philosophical\, bioethical\, legal\, psychiatric\, or genuinely interdisciplinary)\,
\naccessibility to an international scholarly readership.
\nThe volume is envisaged as a four-part collection&mdash\;moving from conceptual groundwork through normative debates and legal frameworks to clinical practice and lived experience.
\nSuggested Topics (non-exhaustive)
\nPart I &mdash\; Conceptual and historical foundations
\nConcepts\, definitions\, and key distinctions (psychiatric vs somatic vs &ldquo\;mixed&rdquo\; cases)
\nHistory of euthanasia debates in relation to mental illness
\nThe nature of mental suffering\; the badness (or possible acceptability) of death
\nAutonomy\, competence\, and decision-making capacity in psychiatric contexts (incl. fluctuating capacity and ambivalence)
\nPart II &mdash\; Normative arguments and ethical frameworks
\n&ldquo\;Parity&rdquo\; arguments (and their limits): somatic vs psychiatric indications
\nBeneficence\, non-maleficence\, autonomy\, justice in psychiatric euthanasia
\nVulnerability\, coercion\, and structural injustice (stigma\, poverty\, loneliness\, access to care)
\nSlippery-slope arguments\, expressivist concerns\, and symbolic meanings
\nPart III &mdash\; Legal frameworks and comparative law
\nThe Netherlands: statutory framework\, guidelines\, review practice
\nBelgium: regulation\, case law\, oversight bodies and landmark cases
\nCanada: MAiD and the contested expansion to mental disorders
\nComparative and human-rights perspectives\; emerging jurisdictions and models of professional self-regulation
\nPart IV &mdash\; Clinical practice\, empirical evidence\, lived experience
\nTreatment resistance\, prognosis\, and &ldquo\;irremediability&rdquo\;: epistemic limits in psychiatry
\nAssessing voluntariness and stability of the wish to die\; distinguishing suicidality-as-symptom from a sustained request
\nEmpirical studies: patient profiles\, clinician and review-body reasoning\, procedural experiences
\nSuicide prevention\, palliative psychiatry\, recovery-oriented care\, and &ldquo\;reasonable alternatives&rdquo\;
\nFuture directions: research priorities\, policy implications\, professional guidance
\nVolume profile and review process
\nThe book is planned for Springer&rsquo\;s International Library of Bioethics (contract in preparation). We anticipate approximately 16&ndash\;17 chapters (including an overall introduction and concluding chapter). All chapters will undergo peer review through an editor-coordinated review process.
\nSubmission guidelines
\nPlease submit an abstract including:
\nprovisional title
\nabstract (recommended 400&ndash\;800 words)
\n4&ndash\;6 keywords
\nshort author bio (100&ndash\;150 words)
\nFull chapters should be original\, written in English\, and prepared to align with Springer&rsquo\;s book-manuscript requirements.
\nTimeline
\nExtended abstracts due: 28 February 2026
\nFull chapters due: 30 October 2026
\nFinal manuscript submission to Springer: 30 December 2026
\nHow to submit
\nPlease send your abstract (single PDF or DOCX) with the subject line:
&ldquo\;Psychiatric Euthanasia &ndash\; Chapter Proposal&rdquo\; \;to: David Černý\; (david.cerny@ilaw.cas.cz)
The 2027 Telos-Paul Piccone Institute Annual Conference
March 19&ndash\;20\, 2027
The John D. Calandra Italian American Institute\, Queens College/CUNY
New York\, NY
Deus et Machina: Technology\, Politics\, and Theology in the Age of AI
\nCo-sponsored by the John D. Calandra Italian American Institute\, Queens College/CUNY
\nConference Description
\nOpenAI&rsquo\;s release of ChatGPT in November 2022 ushered in a new era of &ldquo\;artificial intelligence\,&rdquo\; represented by large language models\, the effects of which remain tenebrous and contested. This new technology has been rapidly adopted throughout society\, impacting many areas of everyday life and triggering an investment boom that has come to dominate U.S. economic activity\, yet it remains quite unclear what this portends. Predictions range from optimistic aspirations to free human beings from drudgery (the long-standing promise of new technologies) and bring widespread prosperity\, to serious warnings\, most particularly from inside the AI industry itself\, that AI might intentionally exterminate humanity. In between the two lie dire concerns about the implications for the labor market and perverse aspirations for AI to replace human beings as the dominant form of intelligence in the universe.
\nWe propose to turn our critical attention to this extraordinary conjuncture and revisit the question of the relationship of technology to politics and theology. What becomes of politics in an age of apparent subordination of humanity? And what becomes of religion in an age when mankind creates a power that threatens to outstrip our own understanding and become a god? Does this represent a moral crisis\, as Pope Leo has suggested? And can anything be done to avert the trajectory we are seemingly on?
\nFrom the point of view of the Telos circle\, technological acceleration poses a significant conundrum for our ongoing attempts to understand our society. If the political can be understood using theological categories\, what does this imply as it mutates due to the eruption of technology within it? Is technology itself amenable to a theological understanding\, as many have suggested? And if it might be understood alternatively as a cold god or apocalyptic event\, might this not place it on the same plane as the state\, envisaged at least since Hobbes as both machine and mortal god?
\nAbstract Submissions
\nWe invite papers dealing with the intersection of technology with politics and theology\, and most particularly of technology with political theology\, as well as contemporary reflections on the relationship of politics to theology more generally.
\nThose interested in speaking at the conference should submit a short c.v. and an abstract of up to 250 words by \;October \;30\, 2026\, to \;telos2027@telosinstitute.netwith &ldquo\;The 2027 Telos Conference&rdquo\; in the email&rsquo\;s subject line.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20261031T234500 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20261031T234500 SUMMARY:Why Political Philosophy of Technology and Engineering? Concepts\, Problems\, Methods (Proposed SPT 2027 Symposium) UID:20261026T192006Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Asia/Shanghai LOCATION:The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences\, Beijing\, China DESCRIPTION:Why Political Philosophy of Technology and Engineering? Concepts\, Problems\, Methods
\nProposed Full-Day Symposium at SPT 2027
\nJune 16-19\, Beijing
\nWhat distinguishes political philosophy of technology and engineering from political philosophy\, applied ethics\, or philosophy of technology? Emerging and disruptive technologies increasingly require us to revisit existing political concepts and\, in some cases\, to develop new normative principles for issues such as artificial agency\, responsibility gaps\, value alignment\, algorithmic governance\, infrastructural power\, and technologically mediated forms of collective life.
\nYet political philosophy of technology and engineering has only recently begun to emerge as a field that seeks to provide analytic frameworks for addressing the political dimensions of technology and engineering. Such a field must ask not only how political philosophy can be applied to technology\, but also how technologies and engineering practices reshape political concepts\, institutions\, forms of power\, conditions of agency\, and possibilities for collective life.
\nThe Political Philosophy of Technology and Engineering SIG invites submissions for a proposed full-day symposium at SPT 2027. The symposium will serve as a platform for work that contributes to field-building by proposing new ways to think about the concepts\, problems\, and methods of political philosophy of technology and engineering.
\nWe especially welcome papers that do not merely apply existing ethical or political frameworks to technological cases\, but ask how technology and engineering challenge\, transform\, or extend the conceptual and normative resources of political philosophy. While the theme of SPT 2027 invites reflection on AI and new modes of human existence\, the symposium welcomes work on AI as well as on other technologies\, infrastructures\, and engineering systems that raise political-philosophical questions.
\nPossible topics include\, but are not limited to:
\nWe welcome submissions from scholars working in philosophy of technology\, political philosophy\, political theory\, philosophy of engineering\, engineering ethics\, STS\, philosophy of AI\, social and political epistemology\, and related areas. Contributions from early-career researchers and scholars working outside dominant Anglophone or European traditions are especially encouraged.
\nSubmission instructions
\nPlease submit the following materials by 31 October 2026:
\nSubmissions should be sent to \;sptppetsig@gmail.com \;with the subject line: &ldquo\;SPT 2027 Political Philosophy of Technology Symposium.&rdquo\;
\nPlease note that according to SPT\, no one will be permitted to present more than one contribution at the SPT2027 conference\, though it is allowed to be involved in further contributions in another role (such as co-author or discussant).
\nAI use and authorship policy
\nWe are aiming for a symposium featuring work that reflects contributors&rsquo\; their own research\, reasoning\, and scholarly voice. A such\, limited use of generative AI tools for editing\, proofreading\, or improving clarity is acceptable\, provided that the intellectual content\, argument\, and statement of fit are written by the submitting scholar.
\n\;
\nReview process
\nAbstracts will be reviewed competitively. Selection will be based on philosophical quality\, originality\, fit with the symposium theme\, and contribution to the development of political philosophy of technology and engineering as a field.
\nWe expect to select approximately ten papers for inclusion in the proposed full-day symposium submission to SPT 2027. Please note that selection for the symposium proposal does not guarantee acceptance by SPT\; the full symposium proposal will be submitted to the SPT 2027 review process.
\nAuthors of selected abstracts may be asked to revise their abstracts lightly in order to strengthen the coherence of the symposium proposal.
\n\;
\nTimeline
\nSubmission deadline for abstracts: 31 October 2026
Expected notification of selection for symposium proposal: 23 November 2026
Confirmation of participation due: 30 November 2026
About the SIG
\nThe Political Philosophy of Technology and Engineering SIG was established to create a scholarly community around political-philosophical approaches to technology and engineering. The SIG aims to foster work that examines how technological and engineering practices shape political concepts\, institutions\, forms of power\, collective responsibilities\, and conditions of human flourishing.
\nThis proposed symposium continues that mission by creating an ongoing forum for scholars contributing to the development of political philosophy of technology and engineering as a field.
\nFor questions\, please contact: avigailf@technion.ac.il.
Michael Schmidt\, KIT
\nPaige Benton\, Johannesburg
\nAvigail Ferdman\, Technion
\nSIG co-leaders
ORGANIZER;CN=Avigail Ferdman;CN=Paige Benton;CN=Michael W. Schmidt: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20261031T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20261031T234500 SUMMARY:Rethinking Agency under Non-Ideal Conditions UID:20261026T192007Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Vienna LOCATION:Graz\, Austria\, 8010 DESCRIPTION:CfP: \;Rethinking Agency under Non-Ideal Conditions
\nConfirmed \;speakers: Maria Alvarez\, Havi Carel\, Hanne Jacobs\, Quill Kukla\, Kristina Musholt and \;Caleb Ward.
\n\nThe notion of agency plays a central role across many areas of philosophy\, including philosophy of action\, ethics\, political philosophy\, epistemology\, feminist philosophy\, and phenomenology. \;While traditionally conceptualized in terms of intentional action\, rational control\, and autonomy\, our understanding of agency has recently come under intense scrutiny and is now being increasingly transformed. \;Feminist and phenomenological approaches\, in particular\, have emphasized the need for a richer and more fine-grained conception of agency&mdash\;one that takes seriously the social\, historical\, and relational contexts in which agents are situated. From this perspective\, agency cannot be adequately understood without acknowledging that agents are not only rational decision-makers\, but also emotional\, embodied\, desiring\, creative\, and affective beings.
\nThis conference invites new investigations into agency as it is lived and exercised under non-ideal conditions\, such as vulnerability\, dependency\, uncertainty\, coercion\, structural injustice\, affective ambivalence\, or crisis. Rather than presupposing idealized models of action and rational control\, the conference aims to analyze how agency isreconfigured \;under such conditions. We also particularly welcome contributions that examine how rational and virtuous agency should be rethought under non-ideal conditions and in times of crisis.
\nPossible questions include (but are not limited to):
\nIn addition to contemporary approaches\, we explicitly welcome historical-philosophical work\, including contributions engaging with the phenomenological tradition\, as well as those that critically engage with accounts of agency from marginalized figures and traditions in the history of philosophy.
\nContributions from early-career researchers are especially encouraged.
\nThe conference is planned as an in-person event only.
\n\;
\nWe invite you to submit an anonymized abstract of up to 500 words \;by \;October 31\, 2026 \;to \;laurentia.adam@uni-graz.at
\nPlease include a separate file with your name\, email address\, the title of your talk\, and your affiliation (if any) and put &lsquo\;Rethinking Agency Graz 2027&rsquo\; in the subject line.
\n\;
\nOrganizing Team: Emanuela Carta\, Denis Dzanic\, and Daniel Neumann.
ORGANIZER;CN="Denis Džanić";CN=Emanuela Carta;CN=Daniel Neumann: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261031T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261031T234500 SUMMARY:Translation—Semiotics—Music UID:20261026T192008Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Title:
\nTranslation&mdash\;Semiotics&mdash\;Music
\nGuest editors:
\nAnna Rędzioch-Korkuz (University of Warsaw)
\nMałgorzata Grajter (The Grazyna and Kiejstut Bacewicz Academy of Music in Lodz)
\nJournal:
\nStudia Semiotyczne (Semiotic Studies)
\nhttp://studiasemiotyczne.pts.edu.pl/
\nDeadline for submissions:
\nthe 31st of October 2026
\nDescription
\nStudia Semiotyczne (Semiotic Studies) invites submissions for a special issue of the journal. Papers should be written either in English or in Polish and prepared for blind review.
\nThe field of translation and music has been attracting increased attention recently: this is evident in numerous monographs\, research papers\, and conferences focused on the complex relationship between words and sounds (see also Bennett\, 2025: 1). As Susam-Sarajeva (2008: 189-190) has noted\, this relationship appears at best challenging\, since translation scholars are &ldquo\;more comfortable dealing with written texts\,&rdquo\; and consequently\, &ldquo\;end up sliding into a predominantly textual analysis.&rdquo\; Similarly\, Desblache (2019: 58) argues that the two fields\, which are genuinely interested in that relationship &ndash\; namely\, translation studies and musicology &ndash\; remain separate because both are practice-oriented disciplines that primarily focus on either verbal translation or music.
\nAgainst this backdrop\, we would like to bring the two fields together through semiotics-based research on musical texts\, believing that this perspective has the potential to create resonance for general translation studies. It has been argued that semiotics is good for translation studies (Stecconi 2007\; Marais 2019\; Kourdis 2023)\, which means &ndash\; at least potentially &ndash\; that there is a good deal of methodological and theoretical capital that can be utilized. Research on translation and music can definitely espouse a movement away from words\, verbal artefacts and textual research towards the understanding of the performative\, enacted\, embedded and embodied nature of meaning making within translation\, i.e. towards a deeper understanding of material processes of cultural practices\, which necessitate moving beyond the verbal fixation and concentrating on more semiotically-informed approaches.
\nIn the special issue\, we would like to see how the actual go-between of semiotics bridges the fields of translation studies and musicology. We encourage scholars from across the academy to explore and provide their unique insight within the suggested thematic focus of translation\, music and semiotics. We welcome both conceptual and empirical research. Possible topics include\, but are not limited to the following questions:
\n● Can (and if yes\, then how can) semiotics contribute to solving the conceptual confusion within translation studies as exemplified by translating musical texts?
\n● How can translation and music capitalize theoretically on various theories of semiotics and vice versa?
\n● Can we (and if yes\, then how can we) apply conceptual frameworks developed by various schools\, e.g. the Moscow-Tartu School of Semiotics\, Paris School\, Eco&rsquo\;s interpretative semiotics\, Groupe &mu\;\, Peircean semiotics\, etc. to the study of translating musical texts?
\n● What methodologies can we use to research the synergy of semiotic systems in musical texts?
\n● How can the concept of &ldquo\;textuality&rdquo\; be rethought when applied to musical compositions as texts to be translated?
\n● How can the study of translating musical texts through semiotics help to challenge the traditional hierarchy between linguistic and non-linguistic forms of meaning-making?
\n● How can semiotics challenge the literal and the human in translating musical texts?
\n● How can semiotic approaches account for the performative\, enacted\, embedded and embodied dimensions of musical translation?
\n● How can semiotics bridge the disciplinary gap between musicology and translation studies?
\nIn order to submit the paper\, one is kindly asked to submit the manuscript by sending it to:
\nannaredzioch@uw.edu.pl\, malgra@amuz.lodz.pl and studiasemiotyczne@pts.edu.pl
\nAll submitted papers will be double-blind peer-reviewed.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261031T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261031T234500 SUMMARY:Lessico di Etica Pubblica - The Divine and the Digital (2/2026) UID:20261026T192009Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Lessico di Etica Pubblica \;
\nSpecial Issue - The Divine and the Digital
\n(XVII\, n. 2\, 2026)
\nEdited by Gemma Serrano (Collè\;ge des Bernardins\, Paris).
\nThe relationship between technology and culture is an increasingly discussed topic in the humanities. The analysis of the consequences of the so-called digital turn\, sometimes regarded as an unprecedented cultural transformation\, has developed within an interdisciplinary field encompassing philosophy\, history\, anthropology\, and sociology\, as well as theology and religious studies. Like any technological transformation\, the social implementation of digital technologies has had an impact on religious and spiritual practices on a global scale. For years\, the study of religions has examined how the spread of digital media has influenced our experience of transcendence\, rituals\, communal life\, and belief. At the same time\, theology and religion can offer cultural and theoretical tools to deepen our understanding of technology and can also provide an original perspective on the meaning of transformations in contemporary society.
\nBeyond analysing the fate of theology and religion in the digital age\, it is crucial to recognize that the field of digital technologies opens up horizons of meaning and reflection that are closely intertwined with the domain of spirituality. Our relationship with technology\, more broadly\, is permeated by religion: a wide range of metaphors and notions&mdash\;either explicitly theological or rooted in religious language and practices&mdash\;are pervasively present in public and academic debates on the meaning of technology. In this sense\, many philosophers of technology&mdash\;including\, to name just a few\, Gü\;nther Anders\, Walter Benjamin\, Jacques Ellul\, Martin Heidegger\, Ivan Illich\, Emanuele Severino\, and Norbert Wiener&mdash\;have grounded their reflections in terms imbued with a theological resonance\, and have assigned a central role to the sphere of the divine in their interpretations of technology\, even when working from a secular perspective. A critical engagement with our religious tradition can help us develop analytical models for understanding our relationship with technology\, as well as for analysing our desires\, our fears\, and the socio-technical imaginaries that structure the social space.
\nThis task\, of course\, also entails theoretical and methodological challenges. First\, thinking about the relationship between technology and religion means recognizing the need for an intercultural study of different models for understanding the technical phenomenon. If the European interpretation of technology is rooted in Christian culture\, it becomes crucial to consider other traditions and other frameworks of reference.
\nAt the same time\, reference to digital technologies requires us to address the problem of technology from a historical perspective. The advent of artificial intelligence has made it even clearer that what we call the &ldquo\;digital turn&rdquo\; is in fact a layered and complex phenomenon\, and that digital technologies already have a long history\, which prevents us from thinking of &ldquo\;the digital&rdquo\; as a unified dimension. What\, then\, are the specific features of the so-called &ldquo\;digital age&rdquo\;? How can the analysis of the imaginaries and narratives associated with digital technologies help us shed light on our present?
\nIssue 2/2026 of Lessico di Etica Pubblica will address these themes from an interdisciplinary perspective\, with contributions from philosophy\, theology\, cultural and technological history\, sociology\, and media theory. The following are some of the topics that will be explored:
\nSubmission Guidelines for Article Proposals
\nPapers must be submitted by October 31\, 2026 to the following address:redazione.eticapubblica@gmail.com.
\nContributions in Italian\, English and French are accepted. Maximum length: 35\,000 characters\, including spaces and notes. Authors are also required to include an abstract of no more than 150 words in both Italian and English. The article file must be prepared in anonymous form to comply with the blind peer review process. In a separate file attached to the same email\, authors should provide their full name\, email address\, the title of the article\, and its abstract.
\nSubmissions must conform to the editorial guidelines available at the following link:
https://www.eticapubblica.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/LEP_Norme_redazionali.pdf.
Authors are also invited to use the journal&rsquo\;s style sheet available here:
https://www.eticapubblica.it/norme-editoriali/.
Famously\, infamously\, and cited ad nauseum\, Fredric Jameson wrote in 1994&rsquo\;s Seeds of Time that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism\, a formulation that Slavoj Zizek later borrowed to ask why we cannot even seek to reform capitalism at all. More recently\, the late Mark Fisher returned to this line of inquiry to demonstrate how Capitalist Realism depends upon the mantra that there is no viable alternative to capitalism. At last\, we have begun to see some scattered indications that our apocalyptic imaginaries may have begun to cross this threshold\, carving out fictional spaces wherein we can imagine otherwise or mourn our own entrapment in a system that will survive us all. At last\, our &ldquo\;monsters&rdquo\; may be taking on post-capitalist forms. Their images do not merely furnish fertile ground for the imagination &mdash\; they oblige us to think what may come after capitalism&rsquo\;s collapse.
\nReading contemporary pop-cultural texts through Fredric Jameson&rsquo\;s critique of late capitalism and his theorization of the apocalypse as the horizon of ideological imagination\, we ask how it is possible to stage the persistence of capital\, grief\, and meaning after the end of history has already been announced or enacted. A paradigmatic example is the 28 Later series. The 2002 film 28 Days later arguably rebooted the zombie apocalypse as faster\, stronger\, and scarier pandemic nightmare for the new millennium\, an apt rebrand for the undead in the era of advanced capitalism. But can the first two installments of the 28 Years Later cycle (2025\, Danny Boyle &\; Alex Garland)\, sequels to the 2002 film\, be read as imagining the emergence of hope that humanity might persist beyond the collapse of capitalism through communities organized around mutual aid\, shared resources\, and collective protection? Or does this narrative suggest that a few will always revert to strategies of appropriation over collaboration (as exemplified by Jimmy&rsquo\;s marauding gang)?
\nThe imagination of apocalypse can also be subverted. Rather than staging catastrophe as spectacular rupture\, some texts reimagine the &ldquo\;post-apocalypse&rdquo\; as displaced continuation. The Leftovers (HBO\, 2014&ndash\;2017) is exemplary here\, recasting the post-apocalyptic not as the end of the world but as its afterlife &mdash\; an extended\, undramatic continuation organized around endless\, unresolved mourning. In this afterlife of social relations\, catastrophe is no longer an event but becomes an ordinary form of existence. Rupture is no longer something to be survived but a condition to be inhabited. A different variation on this logic can be found in Fallout\, which invites us to reflect on the post-apocalypse as a continuation of capitalist realism rather than its rupture. Here\, ruin becomes aestheticized order and survival is fully absorbed into systems of extraction and control\, repackaged as commodity\, spectacle\, and routine. The series stages a world in which the end of the world is endlessly repeated\, without exit\, a catastrophe normalized to the extent that it forecloses any possible outside\, except for nostalgic affects.
\nThese texts are valuable not because they accurately depict a future society marked by failure or mourning\, but because they estrange the present. In Jameson's sense\, they reveal that what appears natural and inevitable&mdash\;capitalism\, private property\, wage labour\, and the organization of social life itself&mdash\;is historically contingent and therefore open to transformation.
\nBy contrast\, the recent series Pluribus (admittedly still an unfinished text\, with only its first season released) asks us a different question altogether: whether the end of the individual subject position-- and with it the end of an exploitative system working for the benefit only of the few-- would really amount to an apocalypse\, or could it be the Utopia we haven&rsquo\;t dared to dream of. These are just some of the many recent apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic texts that ask us to consider where we are\, in this moment so steeped in apocalyptic affect\, in relation to Jameson&rsquo\;s proclamation that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. The decisive issue is not whether these narratives depict a more perfect society\, but whether they expand the horizon of what can be politically imagined.
\nWe welcome submissions on any recent (pre- to post covid) pop cultural texts that contribute to our contemporary understanding of apocalyptic imaginaries. While we expect submissions on film\, television\, videogames\, literature and graphic novels\, we would be happy to consider offerings that defy medial boundaries or work within other disciplines\, such as performance or art. We welcome contributions that transcend the fictional conventions of known genres but also works that flesh out apocalyptic imaginaries by drawing from unconventional aesthetic means.
\nProspective contributors may consider examining texts such as:
\nWe imagine contemporary pop-cultural case studies speaking to these themes could engage convincingly with a large variety of texts (Pluribus\, Disco Elysium\, Fallout\, Station Eleven\, The Last of Us\, Severance\, 28 Years Later vol. 1 &\; 2\, Department of Truth and others)
\nWe also welcome submissions engaging other perspectives and topics.
\nPlease submit your abstract (250 words) alongside a short biographical note (50 words) to \;slauro@ut.edu \;by October 31\, 2026.
\nIf your abstract is accepted\, we will invite you to submit a full article by January 31\, 2027. Full articles will be about 8\,000 &ndash\; 9\,000 words long (including an abstract of 250 words\, 3-5 keywords\, references\, footnotes\, etc.)
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20261101T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20261101T234500 SUMMARY:Epistemic Injustice and AI UID:20261026T192011Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Amsterdam LOCATION:Nijmegen\, Netherlands DESCRIPTION:AI systems now play a role in many practices through which people are heard\, interpreted\, assessed\, and trusted. This raises questions that are not just ethical or political\, but also epistemic in nature: whose testimony is treated as credible\, whose experiences are made intelligible\, and who is able to participate in shared practices of knowledge production? The workshop focuses on these questions by bringing work on epistemic injustice into conversation with current debates about AI\, including debates about algorithmic bias\, transparency\, linguistic exclusion\, trust\, institutional decision-making\, and the distribution of epistemic authority. We welcome contributions on the philosophical\, ethical\, social\, and political dimensions of epistemic injustice and AI. \;
\nTopics include\, but are not limited to:
\nWe welcome abstracts of up to 500 words\, excluding references. Submissions should be anonymised\, argumentative\, and clearly engage with the workshop theme.
\nThe workshop will feature both oral presentations and a poster session\; all presentations must be in person.
\nWe encourage submissions from students and early-career researchers. \;
\nImportant dates:
\nFurther information and submission details can be found on the workshop website.
ORGANIZER;CN=Corien Bary;CN=Eline Ensinck;CN=Harmen Ghijsen;CN=Bob van Tiel;CN=Nina Poth: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261101T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261101T234500 SUMMARY:Philosophical Perspectives on Homelessness\, Home-making and Belonging UID:20261026T192012Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Berlin LOCATION:Tromsø\, Norway DESCRIPTION:Call for abstracts:
\nThe 4th Tromsø\; Conference in Ethics and Political Philosophy:
\nPhilosophical Perspectives on Homelessness\, Home-making and Belonging
\nUiT The Arctic University of Norway\, Tromsø\;
\nDecember 8th-9th\, 2026.
\nKeynote speakers:
\n\nHomelessness and unbelonging are often cited as causes when one seeks to explain the rise of the political right or nationalist movements\, both historical and contemporary. At the same time\, not all responses to experiences of homelessness and unbelonging are totalitarian\, conservative or nationalist\, and one certainly does not have to be a nationalist to take the phenomenon of homelessness seriously. Philosophers working on migration and exile as well as on unhoused people have similarly underpinned the struggles and questions associated with what it means to &ldquo\;be at home&rdquo\; or to &ldquo\;have a home&rdquo\; somewhere. Feminist scholars have developed theories that advocate the reappropriation and resignification of &ldquo\;home&rdquo\;\, or that embrace the tension-filled experiences of home-making &ldquo\;in-between&rdquo\; different cultures\, languages and traditions.
\nAcknowledging at the outset the tension between possible political responses to the phenomenon of homelessness\, this conference seeks to bring together scholars working on the problems and concepts of homelessness/ home and unbelonging/ belonging. Questions the conference will address include\, but are not limited to\, the following:
\nThe organizing team welcome abstracts on any of these questions as well as related issues. We hope for a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches. We are especially interested in how different areas of scholarship can be bridged fruitfully around the topics of home\, homelessness\, and (un)belonging\, and how critical\, feminist and phenomenological perspectives on these topics can contribute to or supplement contemporary debates within analytic political philosophy and migration ethics.
\nPlease send a 300 word abstract to Kaja Jenssen Rathe (kaja.j.rathe@uit.no) by November 1st\, 2026. You can expect a decision on your abstract by November 9th\, 2026.
\n ORGANIZER;CN=Kaja Jenssen Rathe: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261101T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261101T234500 SUMMARY:The Relevance of Michel Foucault in the Face of Global Surveillance\, Post-Truth and New Forms of Governance UID:20261026T192013Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Labyrinth: An International Journal of Philosophy\, Value Theory\, and Sociocultural Hermeneutics \;is preparing a special issue in honor of the 100th \;anniversary of Michel Foucault's birth. The publication aims to highlight the continued relevance of Foucault&rsquo\;s conception of power. His analyses of power are particularly pertinent in the present age because he describes power not only as domination of a person/group over other individuals or groups\, but also as extensive networks such as those involved in money laundering\, drug trafficking\, and the Epstein network\, to name but a few examples. Furthermore\, his theories on discipline\, surveillance\, and governmentality are essential for comprehending digital surveillance and the optimization of power and social control in today's world. Foucault also pointed out ways in which the subject can free itself from external influences and begin to "govern" itself. His revelations about the relationships between power and truth\, as well as power and knowledge\, are crucial in this regard.
\nScholars working in the field of Foucault's philosophy are invited to submit a \;brief abstract and bio-bibliographic information \;by \;April 30\, 2026. The bio-bibliographic information should include the following: name\, academic degree\, academic position\, academic affiliation\, and five to seven main publications.
\nAuthors with finished\, unpublished papers are welcome to submit them with an abstract. Final papers should be proofread and formatted according to the journal guidelines (i.e.\, print-ready) and submitted no later than \;November 1\, 2026.
\nAs a multilingual Journal \;Labyrinth \;accepts papers in English\, French\, and German.
\nFor more information about the journal policies and the submission guidelines please visit: \;https://www.axiapublishers.com/ojs/index.php/labyrinth/AuthorGuidelines
\n\;All abstracts and papers should be sent to labyrinth[at]axiapublishers.com
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261101T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261101T234500 SUMMARY:Journal of Global Human Rights UID:20261026T192014Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Call for Papers: Journal of Global Human Rights &ndash\; Inaugural Volume
\nThe \;Journal of Global Human Rights \;invites submissions for its inaugural volume.
\nThe \;Journal of Global Human Rights \;is an international\, interdisciplinary\, double-blind peer-reviewed\, open-access journal devoted to the study of human rights. The journal is an initiative of Research Committee 26 on Human Rights (RC26) of the International Political Science Association (IPSA).
\nWe welcome original research articles addressing the philosophical\, legal\, political and social dimensions of human rights.
\nContributions in philosophy are particularly welcome on topics including\, but not limited to:
\nHuman rights theory
\nPolitical philosophy
\nPhilosophy of law
\nEthics and human rights
\nJustice and equality
\nDemocracy and the rule of law
\nFreedom of expression
\nMinority rights and multiculturalism
\nDiscrimination and hate speech
\nMigration and refugee rights
\nGender and human rights
\nDigital technologies and human rights
\nGlobal justice
\nContemporary challenges to human rights
\nThe journal particularly encourages work that connects philosophical and normative analysis with contemporary human rights problems\, as well as interdisciplinary contributions engaging philosophy with law\, political science\, sociology and international relations.
\nAll research articles undergo double-blind peer review.
\nThe journal is fully open access. There are no article processing charges (APCs) or publication fees.
\nSubmissions for the inaugural volume are now open.
\nJournal and submission information:
https://journalglobalhumanrights.webphilosophia.com/index.php/OJS
The first contributions to Volume 1 are already available on the journal website.
\nWe warmly invite scholars working in human rights\, political philosophy\, legal philosophy and related fields to submit their research to the \;Journal of Global Human Rights.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Athens:20261105T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Athens:20261107T170000 SUMMARY:Hegel on Historicity UID:20261026T192015Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Athens LOCATION:Athens\, Greece DESCRIPTION:10th Conference of the International Network Hegel&rsquo\;s Relevance
\nHegel on Historicity
\nAthens\, Greece
\n5-7 November 2026
\nDespite important precedents in Augustine\, Bossuet\, Voltaire\, Kant\, and Herder\, Hegel is widely regarded as the first philosopher of history&mdash\;not only because he subjected history to philosophical inquiry\, but above all because he thematized the historicity of philosophy itself. Alongside his much-debated philosophy of world history\, Hegel repeatedly stressed\, throughout his oeuvre and especially in numerous programmatic and introductory remarks\, that philosophy\, including all metaphysical categories\, and even rationality itself is substantially conditioned by history&mdash\;by world history as well as by the histories of empirical sciences\, art\, religion\, and philosophy. For Hegel\, history articulates the very possibility of the actual spirit (Geist) in all its forms: there is no subjective\, objective\, or absolute spirit without history. This emphasis famously inspired Marx to describe the &ldquo\;science of history&rdquo\; as the &ldquo\;sole science.&rdquo\;
\nThis conference aims to discuss central aspects of history and historicity in Hegel&rsquo\;s philosophy from a systematic perspective. Possible guiding questions include\, but are not limited to:
\nWe invite postdoctoral researchers working in the field to submit an abstract (maximum 500 words) addressing one or more of these topics. The conference will include four postdoctoral slots. Coverage of accommodation costs is subject to available funding.
\nA collected volume based on the conference papers is planned for publication in the series Critical Studies in German Idealism (BRILL). The publication language will be English.
\nLength of papers: 30 minutes presentation\, followed by 15 minutes of discussion
\nDeadline for submissions: 15 June 2026
\nEmail address for abstract submissions: HegelOnHistoricity@gmail.com
\nNotification of acceptance: 30 June 2026
\nConference languages: English\, German
\nConfirmed speakers: Christophe Bouton\, Paul Cobben\, Maria Daskalaki\, Allegra De Laurentiis\, Georges Faraklas\, Diogo Ferrer\, Guido Frilli\, Antonios Kalatzis\, Jean-Franç\;ois Kervé\;gan\, Jannis Kozatsas\, Christian Krijnen\, Thomas Noutsopoulos\, Tim Rojek\, Panagiotis Thanassas\, Klaus Vieweg
\nOrganizers: Georges Faraklas (Department of Political Science and History\, Panteion University)\, Jannis Kozatsas (Department of Primary Education\, University of Thessaly)\, Ermylos Plevrakis (Department of History and Philosophy of Science\, University of Athens)
\n ORGANIZER;CN=Ermylos Plevrakis;CN=Georges Faraklas;CN=Jannis Kozatsas: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Madrid:20261105T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Madrid:20261106T170000 SUMMARY:Workshop for The Journal of Ethics Special Issue on Meritocracy UID:20261026T192016Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Madrid LOCATION:Barcelona\, Spain DESCRIPTION:DESCRIPTION:
\nMeritocratic ideals have played a central role in shaping educational systems\, labor markets and public narratives about fairness and social mobility in modern societies (Bell 2015\; Kett 2013\; Khanna &\; Szoni 2022\; Mulligan 2018\, 2022\; Wooldridge 2021).
\nHowever\, meritocracy \;has been criticized extensively \;in recent years (Littler 2018\; Markovits 2019\; Sandel 2020\; Thomas\, Archer &\; Engelen 2024). These critiques are part of a long tradition\, spanning educational theory\, moral theory\, political philosophy\, and sociology (Arendt 1961\; Fox 1956\; Guinier 2015\; Napoletano 2024\; Rawls 1999\; Sen 2000\; Young 1958\, 2001). The word &lsquo\;meritocracy&rsquo\; itself was\, in fact\, coined by Michael Young in his dystopian novel The Rise of Meritocracy (1958). In it\, people revolt against social stratification based on innate talents. Young&rsquo\;s account has become a reference point for critics of meritocracy.
\nMeritocracy is a notoriously slippery concept. As the economist and philosopher Amartya Sen once quipped: &ldquo\;[t]he idea of meritocracy may have many virtues\, but clarity is not one of them&rdquo\; (2000\, 5). This lack of conceptual clarity complicates both normative assessment and institutional evaluation\, \;often leading critics and defenders to talk past one another. It may be the case that not all possible notions of meritocracy are vulnerable to the same objections (Daniels 1978\; Miller 1996\; Mulligan 2018).
\nThe purpose of this special issue is to provide a \;philosophical examination of meritocracy \;in light of recent critiques. \;Possible topics include\, but are not limited to:
\n&bull\; What exactly is a meritocracy? Is it a normative principle of justice\, an ideology that legitimizes inequality\, or something hovering between the two?
\n&bull\; What is the relation between meritocracy and equality of opportunity? And what is the relationship between meritocracy and responsibility?
\n&bull\; What is the distribuendum of meritocracy? Is meritocracy necessarily about the distribution of social positions and income? Or is it limited to the distribution of social positions?
\n&bull\; What is the appropriate base of merit claims? Is it talent and effort\, as Young claimed? Or is it another base\, such as productive contribution\, social contribution\, or again something else?
\n&bull\; What is the normative ground of merit claims? Are they grounded in people&rsquo\;s appreciative attitudes\, for instance? Or are they perhaps a special type of requirement?
\n&bull\; What is the connection between meritocracy and the market?
\n&bull\; What is the connection between meritocracy and related concepts\, such as desert and efficiency? How should these concepts be distinguished and/or integrated within a broader theory of justice?
\nCONFIRMED SPEAKERS:
\n- Andreas Bengtson (Aarhus University)
\n- Ryan Cox (University of Sydney)
\n- Blake Harris (University of Virginia)
\n- Gloria Mä\;hringer (Ludwig Maximilian University)
\n- David Miller (Oxford University)
\n- Pascal Mowla (Oxford University)
\n- Thomas Mulligan (Georgetown University and RAND Corporation)
\n- Ryan Semery-Palumbo (Oxford University)
\n- Huub Brouwer (Tilburg University) and Jahel Queralt (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)
\nPROCEDURE:
\nPapers are recruited through a call for abstracts for a pre-read workshop at Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF)\, in Barcelona\, on 12-13 November 2026. The workshop is designed to facilitate in-depth discussion of draft papers and to foster constructive feedback among contributors. All papers presented at the workshop will be considered for inclusion in the special issue.
\nThe organization of the workshop associated with the Special Issue is supported by funding from an ICREA Academia grant awarded to Jahel Queralt. \;Travel and accommodation costs for workshop participants will be covered by the workshop organizers.
\nAbstracts for the workshop should address the special issue theme and consist of an abstract 750-1.000 words in length (citations not counted). These extended abstracts are intended to allow authors to clearly articulate their central argument\, methodology\, and contribution to the existing literature. All submissions should be prepared for blind review. Abstracts should be submitted to \;meritocracyworkshop@gmail.com \;by 31 March 2026.
\nTIMELINE:
\nAuthors of accepted abstracts will need to adhere to the following timeline for the full development of the paper:
\n&bull\; All contributors will participate in-person in a special issue workshop on 12-13 November 2026\, with a draft paper.
\n&bull\; The workshop will be held at UPF (Barcelona).
\n&bull\; Draft papers are due by 31 October 2026 (8.000 &ndash\; 11.000 words).
\n&bull\; Revised papers have to be submitted to \;The Journal of Ethics \;by 28 February 2027.
\n&bull\; All papers will then undergo the journal&rsquo\;s peer review process that must be concluded by the end of 2027. The special issue will be published in 2028.
\nEDITORIAL PROCESS:
\nAll submissions will go through the standard review procedure of \;The Journal of Ethics \;(publication only on the basis of an editorial decision based on at least two double blind reviews). Final acceptance is contingent upon successful completion of the journal&rsquo\;s peer review process. At that time\, all manuscripts should be prepared according to the journal&rsquo\;s guidelines provided on \;The Journal of Ethics \;website.
\nThe Special Issue will follow all Springer Journal Policies\, including \;Peer Review Policy\, Process and Guidance and peer review selection policy.
\nParticipants will be informed that the journal offers the option to publish \;Open Access \;and that they are allowed to publish open access through \;Open Choice.
\nCONTACT:
\nFor more information and questions\, please contact the Editors at \;h.m.brouwer@tilburguniversity.edu \;and \;jahel.queralt@upf.edu
ORGANIZER;CN=Huub Brouwer;CN=Jahel Queralt: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261105T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261106T170000 SUMMARY:Security-Relevant Research in Academia - Debates\, Definitions\, and Best-Practices UID:20261026T192017Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Berlin LOCATION:Kaiserstraße 93\, Karlsruhe\, Germany\, 76133 DESCRIPTION:Date: 5-6 November 2026
Location: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)\, Germany
Submission Deadline: 15 August 2026
Contact: scott.robbins@kit.edu
Universities stand at the critical intersection of open inquiry and societal responsibility. The ongoing war in Ukraine has illustrated how rapidly scientific advances can be repurposed for conflict\, raising the stakes for research touching on national security\, cryptography\, dual-use technologies\, and emerging weapon systems. To address these challenges\, we invite submissions for a conference dedicated to exploring the complex area of Security-Relevant Research (SRR) within higher-education institutions.
\nWe seek contributions from scholars\, administrators\, ethicists\, defense professionals\, policy makers\, and engineers/technology developers that examine the fundamental questions surrounding SRR. We are particularly interested in papers that address:
\nWhile advocates argue that academic freedom fuels innovation and that university-based research offers transparent\, ethical alternatives to opaque military labs\, critics warn of accelerating arms races\, the exposure of students to dual-use dilemmas\, and conflicts of interest with defense sponsors. This workshop aims to navigate these tensions\, fostering a dialogue that balances innovation with ethical stewardship.
\nSubmission Guidelines
We invite abstracts of 300&ndash\;500 words (excluding references) that propose a paper for presentation. Submissions must include the author's name and affiliation. Please send your abstracts via email to scott.robbins@kit.edu by 15 August 2026.
Presentation Format
Selected authors will be invited to present their work during the workshop. Each presentation will be allocated 20 minutes\, followed by 10 minutes for Q&\;A and discussion.
Publication Opportunity
A primary goal of this workshop is to synthesize the insights\, case studies\, and draft guidelines generated during the event. Following the conference\, all participants will be invited to submit their full manuscripts for consideration in a special issue dedicated to Security-Relevant Research in Academia. We will have more information about this in due time.
This conference is supported by BMFTR\, as part of the "MilEth" project (Military Defense Technologies and Ethics).
\nKeynotes:
Michiel Bot (Tilburg University)
Lonneke Peperkamp (Radboud University Nijmegen &\; Netherlands Defense Academy)
Conference Organizers:
\nScott Robbins &mdash\; Post-Doctoral Researcher\, KIT\, ARRTI
Nathan Wood &mdash\; Junior Research Group Leader\, TUHH
Alexander Bagattini &mdash\; Senior Researcher\, KIT\, ARRTI
Volker Gollnick &mdash\; Professor\, TUHH
Nico Brä\;hler &mdash\; Managing Director\, ARRTI\, KIT
KIT &mdash\; TUHH
ORGANIZER;CN="Nico Brähler": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Belgrade:20261105T100000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Belgrade:20261106T170000 SUMMARY:Emerge 2026: Contested Futures UID:20261026T192018Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Belgrade LOCATION:Kraljice Natalije 45\, Belgrade\, Serbia\, 11000 DESCRIPTION:EMERGE: Contested Futures\, raises pressing questions about power and agency in the age of AI. Rather than treating technological change as inevitable or neutral\, the conference invites critical reflection on how emerging technologies are developed\, governed\, narrated\, and contested\, and how they reshape democratic processes\, social relations\, environmental conditions\, education\, media\, and cultural production. Whether you are a researcher\, practitioner\, or policy professional\, EMERGE offers a rare interdisciplinary space to interrogate the futures being built around us\, and to imagine alternatives. More information at \;https://emerge.ifdt.bg.ac.rs/
ORGANIZER;CN=Jelena Novakovic: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20261105T150000 DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20261107T170000 SUMMARY:2026 Latinx Philosophy Conference UID:20261026T192019Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:America/Chicago LOCATION:College Station\, United States DESCRIPTION:For questions reach out to Sofia Landaeta (sofialandaeta@tamu.edu) or Nora Tsou (noratsou@tamu.edu)
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20261106T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20261107T170000 SUMMARY:Twenty-first Annual NYU Conference on Issues in Modern Philosophy: The Social Contract UID:20261026T192020Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:America/New_York LOCATION:5 Washington Place\, New York\, United States\, 10003-6611 DESCRIPTION:Friday\, November 6
\n9:30&ndash\;9:55 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Check&ndash\;in and Coffee
\n9:55 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Welcome
\n10:00&ndash\;12:00 \; \; \; \; Thomas Hobbes
\nSpeaker: Sharon Lloyd (University of Southern California)
\nCommentator: Kinch Hoekstra (University California\, Berkeley)
\n12:00&ndash\;2:00 \; \; \; \; \; Lunch Break
\n2:00&ndash\;4:00 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; John Locke
\nSpeaker: Daniel Layman (Washington University)
\nCommentator: Gopal Sreenivasan (Duke University)
\n4:00&ndash\;4:30 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Coffee Break
\n4:30&ndash\;6:30 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Jean-Jacques Rousseau
\nSpeaker: David Lay Williams (DePaul University)
\nCommentator: Rafeeq Hasan (Amherst College)
\n6:30&ndash\;7:30 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Reception
\n\;
\nSaturday\, November 7
\n9:30&ndash\;10:00 \; \; \; \; \; Check&ndash\;in and Coffee
\n10:00&ndash\;12:00 \; \; Immanuel Kant
\nSpeaker: Arthur Ripstein (University of Toronto)
\nCommentator: Japa Pallikkathayil (University of Pittsburgh)
\n12:00&ndash\;2:00 \; \; \; \; \; \; Lunch Break
\n2:00&ndash\;4:00 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
\nSpeaker: Axel Honneth (Columbia University/Goethe-Universitä\;t Frankfurt am Main)
\nCommentator: Andreja Novakovic (University of California\, Berkeley)
\n4:00&ndash\;4:30 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Coffee Break
\n4:30&ndash\;6:30 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Contemporary
\nSpeaker: Claire Finkelstein (University of Pennsylvania)
\nCommentator: Ryan Muldoon (University at Buffalo)
\n6:30&ndash\;7:30 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; Reception
ORGANIZER;CN=Anja Jauernig;CN=Don Garrett;CN=Michelle Kosch;CN=John Richardson: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20261106T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20261107T170000 SUMMARY:Social Categories of the Future UID:20261026T192021Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:America/Los_Angeles LOCATION:1156 High Street\, Santa Cruz\, United States DESCRIPTION:Recent years have seen an explosion of work on social categories\, including gender\, race\, disability\, and sexual orientation. But little attention has been paid to what these and other categories might look like in the future. \;
\nFor example\, trans philosophy is just beginning to broach the topic of futuristic social categories\, while social metaphysics has just begun to investigate gender abolitionism (the view that gender categories should be abolished in a more just future.) Philosophers of AI have just begun thinking about how artificially intelligent entities will fit into human-constructed social structures\, or whether they will develop their own social hierarchies.
\nWe plan to bring together researchers from different approaches and viewpoints working on these and related topics. Topics for abstracts include\, but are not limited to:
\nThe existence and nonexistence of gender categories in the future\, and their level of grain
\nGender abolitionism
\nChanging notions of ability\, disability\, and health given new technologies and scientific breakthroughs
\nChanging notions of biological sex given advances in reproductive technology
\nRacial\, ethnic\, and religious categories of the future
\nAmeliorative construction and destruction of social categories \;
\nSocial categories and hierarchies of artificial intelligent agents
\nThis workshop is generously funded by the International Social Ontology Society and the Department of Philosophy at University of California\, Santa Cruz.
\nOrganizers: Sara Bernstein and Nico Orlandi
\nPlease send extended abstracts of no more than 1500 words to socialcategoriesofthefuture@gmail.com. Deadline: August 15\, 2026 (anywhere in the world).
\nSmall travel bursaries may be available for graduate students and precariously employed attendees. Please email the organizers to find out more.
ORGANIZER;CN=Sara Bernstein;CN=Nico Orlandi: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261107T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261108T170000 SUMMARY:Responsible Trusting without Prejudice Workshop 2 UID:20261026T192022Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:University of Stirling\, Stirling\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:The Responsible Trusting without Prejudice project is jointly hosted by the University of Stirling and the University of Edinburgh\, and is funded by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Our first in-person workshop will take place on the University of Stirling campus on the 7th and 8th of November 2026.
\nIn addition to a number of invited speakers (TBA)\, we are pleased to invite the submission of extended abstracts to be considered for presentation at this workshop. Abstracts should include a short bibliography\, should be no longer than 800 words in total\, and should be anonymised for review. Abstracts should be sent to Sharon Coull thoughtmanagingeditor@gmail.com\, by the end of day on Wednesday 30th of September\, 2026. Proposed presentations can be on any aspect of the project\, though we particularly invite abstracts on what is involved in being a responsible epistemic agent\, and whether epistemic responsibility raises any distinctive issues not already raised by responsibility for action in general. Following review\, selected authors will be invited to attend the workshop and give a presentation based on their submissions\, with 2-3 nights of accommodation and the workshop dinner paid for by the project (unfortunately\, we are unable to cover the cost of travel to Stirling).
\nOverview
\nOne lesson of Wittgenstein&rsquo\;s On Certainty is that responsible inquiry requires that we take certain things on trust rather than seeking evidence in their favour\, and yet\, accepting things without evidence can be a manifestation of prejudice. How can we distinguish cases in which accepting something without evidence is demanded of us as responsible epistemic agents from those in which it must be avoided? What steps might we take as an epistemic community to promote responsible inquiry\, given the risks of falling into prejudicial thinking?
\nThese questions have particular urgency in the present social context\, in which real social harm is caused both by unjustified doubts&mdash\;such as climate change denial\, distrust of experts etc. &mdash\;and unjustified acceptances&mdash\;as seen in the phenomenon of online echo chambers\, the proliferation of conspiracy theories etc. \;This project will clarify what it takes to be a responsible inquirer in a world that is so uncooperative\, and where the consequences of lapsing into prejudicial thinking are so harmful.
\nSome issues to be explored draw on and evaluate hints and insights from On Certainty and views advanced in the extensive literature of what has come to be known as hinge epistemology. What should be included in the range of presuppositions that inquiring rational agents cannot but &lsquo\;take for granted&rsquo\; as background to the responsible formation of belief&mdash\;for example\, propositions about the effectiveness of their own cognitive capacities and the suitability of the circumstances in which they are deployed for the effective function of those capacities. Some of these propositions will admit of independent investigation\, but that of course will rest upon a further set of propositions.
\nMore specific questions to be addressed at the workshop include:
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; What are the nature and limits of rationally unavoidable epistemic trust?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; What is the nature of epistemic responsibility?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; What are the conditions for the effective transmission of reliable information?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; What is the significance of &lsquo\;inherited&rsquo\; backgrounds and echo chambers.
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; Why are people susceptible to disinformation?
\nFor additional information go tohttps://crispinjwright.com/rtwp_workshop/ \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Aidan McGlynn;CN=Alan Millar: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261107T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261108T170000 SUMMARY:Responsible Trusting without Prejudice Workshop 2 UID:20261026T192023Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:University of Stirling\, Stirling\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:The Responsible Trusting without Prejudice project is jointly hosted by the University of Stirling and the University of Edinburgh\, and is funded by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Our first in-person workshop will take place on the University of Stirling campus on the 7th and 8th of November 2026.
\nIn addition to a number of invited speakers (TBA)\, we are pleased to invite the submission of extended abstracts to be considered for presentation at this workshop. Abstracts should include a short bibliography\, should be no longer than 800 words in total\, and should be anonymised for review. Abstracts should be sent to Sharon Coull thoughtmanagingeditor@gmail.com\, by the end of day on Wednesday 30th of September\, 2026. Proposed presentations can be on any aspect of the project\, though we particularly invite abstracts on what is involved in being a responsible epistemic agent\, and whether epistemic responsibility raises any distinctive issues not already raised by responsibility for action in general. Following review\, selected authors will be invited to attend the workshop and give a presentation based on their submissions\, with 2-3 nights of accommodation and the workshop dinner paid for by the project (unfortunately\, we are unable to cover the cost of travel to Stirling).
\nOverview
\nOne lesson of Wittgenstein&rsquo\;s On Certainty is that responsible inquiry requires that we take certain things on trust rather than seeking evidence in their favour\, and yet\, accepting things without evidence can be a manifestation of prejudice. How can we distinguish cases in which accepting something without evidence is demanded of us as responsible epistemic agents from those in which it must be avoided? What steps might we take as an epistemic community to promote responsible inquiry\, given the risks of falling into prejudicial thinking?
\nThese questions have particular urgency in the present social context\, in which real social harm is caused both by unjustified doubts&mdash\;such as climate change denial\, distrust of experts etc. &mdash\;and unjustified acceptances&mdash\;as seen in the phenomenon of online echo chambers\, the proliferation of conspiracy theories etc. \;This project will clarify what it takes to be a responsible inquirer in a world that is so uncooperative\, and where the consequences of lapsing into prejudicial thinking are so harmful.
\nSome issues to be explored draw on and evaluate hints and insights from On Certainty and views advanced in the extensive literature of what has come to be known as hinge epistemology. What should be included in the range of presuppositions that inquiring rational agents cannot but &lsquo\;take for granted&rsquo\; as background to the responsible formation of belief&mdash\;for example\, propositions about the effectiveness of their own cognitive capacities and the suitability of the circumstances in which they are deployed for the effective function of those capacities. Some of these propositions will admit of independent investigation\, but that of course will rest upon a further set of propositions.
\nMore specific questions to be addressed at the workshop include:
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; What are the nature and limits of rationally unavoidable epistemic trust?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; What is the nature of epistemic responsibility?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; What are the conditions for the effective transmission of reliable information?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; What is the significance of &lsquo\;inherited&rsquo\; backgrounds and echo chambers.
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; Why are people susceptible to disinformation?
\nFor additional information go tohttps://crispinjwright.com/rtwp_workshop/ \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Aidan McGlynn;CN=Alan Millar: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20261109T234500 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20261109T234500 SUMMARY:2027 GSCOPE (Graduate Student Conference on Philosophy and Education) UID:20261026T192024Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:America/New_York LOCATION:525 W 120th St\, New York\, United States\, 10027 DESCRIPTION:Contact: gscope.committee@gmail.com
\nThe intention of this conference is to offer a space to think critically about pressing questions to do with the interrelated concepts of interdisciplinarity and education. These questions might include: what is the purpose of education\, how can educational aims best be achieved\, what counts as knowledge\, what counts as teaching\, where do the boundaries of individual academic disciplines (as well as the academic/non-academic distinction) serve as a barrier or limitation\, and how can these boundaries be addressed.
ORGANIZER;CN=Fiona Tuschling Brady: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Rome:20261112T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Rome:20261113T170000 SUMMARY:Reappraising nostalgia: The times and places of mindful yearning An international colloquium UID:20261026T192025Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Rome LOCATION:Macerata\, Italy DESCRIPTION:Reappraising nostalgia: The times and places of mindful yearning An international colloquium
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261112T084500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261113T170000 SUMMARY:Normative Perspectives on the Armed Forces and Civil–Military Relations UID:20261026T192026Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London LOCATION:Oxford\, United Kingdom DESCRIPTION:Russia&rsquo\;s full-scale invasion of Ukraine\, alongside ongoing processes of democratic backsliding\, has renewed attention to the political role of military institutions and the relationship between armed forces and democratic societies. Political scientists have produced rich empirical and institutional accounts of civil&ndash\;military relations\, from Huntington and Janowitz to Feaver&rsquo\;s principal&ndash\;agent framework\, but the normative questions underlying those accounts have received little sustained philosophical attention. While classical republican thought devoted considerable attention to the armed forces and civil&ndash\;military relations\, contemporary political philosophy and theory has engaged these issues only sporadically. \;Yet military institutions raise a wide range of important normative questions. This workshop therefore aims to advance normative theorising on military institutions and civil&ndash\;military relations.
ORGANIZER;CN=Tom Simpson;CN=Sven Altenburger: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20261112T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20261114T170000 SUMMARY:2026 Policing\, Policy\, and Philosophy Initiative (3PI) Symposium UID:20261026T192027Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:America/Chicago LOCATION:New Orleans\, United States DESCRIPTION:The Policing\, Policy\, and Philosophy Initiative (3PI) is accepting submissions for its 2026 Paper Prize. The prize winner will be recognized this November at the Philosophy\, Politics\, and Economics (PPE) Society Annual Meeting in New Orleans\, LA.
\nThe prize committee will evaluate papers based on their originality in advancing philosophical debates on policing and their skill in translating insights from philosophy into concrete implications for policy. The winner of the 3PI Paper Prize will receive a $1\,000 award. Also\, should the author(s) choose\, the paper awarded the 3PI Paper Prize will receive consideration for publication in the \;Journal of Public Policy. \;
\nFaculty\, postdocs\, graduate students\, and independent scholars with advanced degrees all are eligible to submit a paper for consideration. (Past prize winners are not eligible.) Submissions for the 3PI Paper Prize should be (1) unpublished manuscripts\, (2) anonymous\, and (3) no more than 3\,500 words (excluding abstract\, notes\, and references). \;The deadline to apply is May 8\, 2026. Please submit your paper at the following link: https://forms.gle/nGgsBLPwWsPRfphHA. \;Decision notifications will be sent in late May.
\nThe winner and runner-up of the prize will present their papers at the 3PI Symposium\, which for the first time in 2026 will be in person. The symposium will take place at the 2026 PPE Society Annual Meeting\, November 12&ndash\;14 in New Orleans. The exact day of the symposium/panel featuring the 3PI prize winner and runner-up will be announced this summer. Symposium participants will need to register for and travel to the PPE Society Annual Meeting.
\nAbout 3PI: The Policing\, Policy\, and Philosophy Initiative (3PI) draws on tools from philosophy to understand policing&rsquo\;s role in society and inform policy. Through its events and resources\, 3PI fosters collaboration among philosophers and ethicists\, highlights research in philosophy on policing\, and connects scholars with policymakers and community leaders. 3PI has been supported by funding from the American Philosophical Association \;and Rock Ethics Institute \;at Penn State\, where it is based. For more information about 3PI\, visit: https://3pi.la.psu.edu/. If you have questions about 3PI or its paper prize\, please email contact3pi@psu.edu.
ORGANIZER;CN=Ben Jones;CN=Raff Donelson;CN="Désirée Lim": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Rome:20261112T230000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Rome:20261112T230000 SUMMARY:Reappraising nostalgia: The times and places of mindful yearning An international colloquium UID:20261026T192028Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Rome LOCATION:Macerata\, Italy DESCRIPTION:Reappraising nostalgia: The times and places of mindful yearning\n \;\nAn international colloquium organized by Silvia Pierosara and Guido Giglioni\n \;\nUniversità\; di Macerata\, Italy\n \;\n12-13 November 2026\n \;\nBy focusing on contextual clusters of meaning and historical interpretations dealing with notions of loss\, identity and impermanence\, this conference intends to explore the philosophical relevance of nostalgia for both contemporary thought and the history of ideas.\nFrom Johann Hofer in the late seventeenth century to Karl Jaspers in the twentieth century\, nostalgia has been described as a particular kind of affliction (Weh\, woe) involving emotional\, cognitive and physical symptoms. The origin of the word\, coined by Hofer by combining two Greek words\, sheds light on its meaning and history: nostos (&lsquo\;homecoming&rsquo\;) and algos (&lsquo\;pain&rsquo\;): a wistful longing for familiar surroundings (in Hofer&rsquo\;s case\, Switzerland). While being coterminous with such states of the mind and the body as yearning\, melancholy\, grief and regret\, and while overlapping such places of human action as dispossession\, exile and utopia\, nostalgia cannot be reduced to any of the states and places above. The observation and recording of the features underpinning the syndrome that took shape between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries testify to the slow accretion of cultural\, geographic and social meanings: the forced displacement from one&rsquo\;s native surroundings\; the distinctive landscape of the Alps\; the air\, the water and the food indispensable for the life of a community\; the emotions associated with the folk music of the area. And yet\, despite its being historically and geographically localized\, the story of nostalgia extends before and after the seventeenth century\, and beyond the confines of western sensibilities. After all\, nostos tells us of archives of immemorial myths\, while algia reminds us of contemporary and global anxieties.\nPossible directions and subjects of research include critical review of current models of identity and autonomy\; history of medical and psychiatric accounts of homesickness\; memories and the many precarious ways in which they can be recovered\; landscapes of longing and geographies of desire\; utopianism and imagined futures\; solastalgia and our disorientation at being confronted by the acceleration of environmental change\; non-western nostalgia. We want the scope of our conference to be bold\, far reaching and open to a diversity of approaches and interpretations\, both thematically and chronologically. The kind of nostalgic yearning on which we would like to focus our attention is associated with mindful reflection\, seen as way of enriching our thinking of human and non-human experiences of time.\nWhile featuring keynote addresses\, the conference invites speakers interested in the event&rsquo\;s themes through a call for papers. Applicants should send a title\, an abstract of about 250-500 words\, either in English or in Italian\, name\, affiliation and contact details to the following email addresses:\ns.pierosara@unimc.it\; guido.giglioni64@gmail.com\nThe deadline for submission is 15 June 2026. Successful applicants will be notified by 15 July 2026. ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Istanbul:20261113T070000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Istanbul:20261113T070000 SUMMARY:The Right of War in Grotius and Hobbes UID:20261026T192029Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Istanbul LOCATION:Middle East Technical University Üniversiteler Mahallesi\, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No:1\, Ankara\, Turkey\, 06800 DESCRIPTION:The Hobbes Scholars International Association Sixth International Conference
\n13-14 November\, 2026
&ldquo\;The Right of War in Grotius and Hobbes&rdquo\;
Department of Philosophy - Middle East Technical University
Ü\;niversiteler Mahallesi\, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No:1\, 06800 Ç\;ankaya/Ankara Turkey
We invite papers on theories of war in Grotius and Hobbes for presentation and discussion during the Sixth International Conference Thomas Hobbes organized by the Hobbes Scholars International Association which is to be held on 13-14 November 2026 at the Middle East Technical University.
\n
Format of the conference :
Presentation of 20 minutes and discussion
Languages :
English and French
If you would like to present a paper\, please send a short abstract (no more than 500 words) by August 20 2026 to Liang PANG (Email : ).
\n
We will inform you of the result of the selection by August 31 2026.
If your contribution is accepted\, you will have to send the complete paper by October 15 2026.
Keynote lectures :
Yves Charles ZARKA\, Emeritus Professor at the Sorbonne\, Université\; Paris Cité\;
James GRIFFITH\, Assistant professor\, Middle East Technical University
----------------------------
Pr. Didier MINEUR
President of the Hobbes Scholars International Association
Professor at Sciences Po Rennes \; Researcher at PHILé\;POL\, Université\; Paris Cité\;
Format of the conference :
Presentation of 20 minutes and discussion
Languages :
English and French
Another Sense of Earth at the End of Worlds: Environmental Humanities in the Face of Crises
The Fourth Philosophy and Religion Graduate Student Conference \;
at the University of North Texas (UNT) \;
In a time of crises overshadowed by impressions of the precarity and contingency of the plurality of worlds we live in\, we invite interdisciplinary\, critical reflection on the meaning and stakes of our senses of world and ending. While totalizing narratives of crises oscillate between techno-optimistic visions of geoengineering and dystopic pessimism\, this conference seeks to contextualize dominant understandings of endings to envision new conceptions of time\, relations\, and finality beyond the hegemonic imaginaries.
For whom and what do the apocalyptic bells of the end of the world sound? What does it even mean to conceive of &ldquo\;our&rdquo\; world as ending? Who&rsquo\;s included and excluded from this sense of world? What does it mean for traditions in which the end of the world is inevitable\, cyclical\, or has already come to pass? What would this so-called &ldquo\;end of the world&rdquo\; even mean for people who&rsquo\;ve already endured innumerable ends to their ways of life?
Taking up the gauntlet thrown by Thomas Nail in Theory of the Earth\, we ask for submissions that problematize static\, dominant conceptions of world and think with him on what it means\, in the context of crises\, to imagine how &ldquo\;this stable ground is becoming increasingly unstable&mdash\;for some of us more than others.&rdquo\; In this spirit\, the conference seeks to engage with forms of thought that emphasize the radically plural character of sense-making\, ways of knowing\, and temporal existence. We welcome submissions that build upon these critical and marginalized perspectives to challenge assumptions of crisis and delimit what worlds are at stake. Within these broad thematic horizons\, we aim to bring together a diverse set of perspectives into dialogue and reconceptualize our relationship to planet Earth. \;
\n\nWe cordially invite graduate students from all fields and disciplines to submit their research and perspectives on the following themes:
\nIndigenous &\; non-Western conceptions of world-making\, cataclysm\, and/or time
\nFeminist/Queer theories on resistant subjectivities and spaces in the face of precarity
\nGeophilosophical approaches from traditions historically excluded from philosophy (ex. Sikhism\, Buddhism\, Hinduism\, etc.) \;
\nPhilosophies of science and normative theories that utilize a planetary approach \;
\nRelational ontologies\, specifically those with nonhuman and more-than-human beings
\nPhenomenological accounts of temporality\, &ldquo\;world collapse\,&rdquo\; and futurity
\nCritical theories on the &ldquo\;Anthropocene&rdquo\; and the role of capitalism in the ongoing environmental crisis
\nEcocritical perspectives on the role of technology and natural science in organizing our sense of the Earth
\nConference Details
\nThe conference will be held in-person at the University of North Texas\, Denton\, TX\, from November 13th-15th. This conference does not require registration fees. \;\nThe conference will feature Thomas Nail\, a Distinguished Scholar and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Denver\, as the keynote speaker\, whose materialist interventions in conceptions of earth and planet\, particularly in Theory of the Earth\, pose deep and transformational reflections on imaginaries of time\, space\, and world for our context of apocalypse and crisis.\n ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20261115T234500 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20261115T234500 SUMMARY:5th Annual Penn-Georgetown Digital Ethics Workshop UID:20261026T192032Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:America/New_York LOCATION:Washington\, D. C.\, United States DESCRIPTION:We invite submissions for the 5th Annual Penn-Georgetown Digital Ethics Workshop\, to be held at Georgetown University on April \; 9th-10th\, 2027. Submissions in any area of digital ethics\, broadly construed\, are welcome.
Conference presentations will be 30 minutes\, and each paper will be assigned a commentator. Papers of roughly 4000-4500 words will be due to commentators on February 15th\, 2027.
Please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words\, formatted for blind review\, to \;pgdeworkshop@gmail.com. Abstracts should be submitted in PDF form\, single-spaced\, with no references. Please name the file after the title of the paper\, e.g.\, "A Theory of Justice.pdf". Please include your name and institutional affiliation in the body of your email.
Abstracts are due November 15th\, 2026. Applicants will be notified of decisions by December 15th\, 2026.
The workshop is generously sponsored by the Georgetown Center for Digital Ethics and the Wharton Accountable AI Lab.
\nSome funding will likely be made available to at least some speakers and commentators to defray accommodation costs. We have limited funds\, and we will decide precisely how to distribute them after the review process.
Questions can be addressed to either of the conference organizers:
Brian Berkey: \;bberkey@wharton.upenn.edu
Will Fleisher: \;will.fleisher@georgetown.edu
What happens when communities need answers before institutions have them?
\nIn this Q&\;A\, Mike Steer reflects on communicating with South Australian communities during the unprecedented algal bloom\, when rapidly evolving science could offer probabilities rather than definitive answers &ndash\; while communities\, media and political leaders demanded explanations.
\nRather than asking simply how we combat misinformation\, this conversation asks a more difficult question: \;what are the ethical responsibilities of institutions when certainty is impossible?
\n(Note: This session will be held at Australian Eastern Dayligh Time\, which is \;UTC +11)
\nFacilitated by: Dr Larelle Bossi
\nLarelle is CEO and Founder of Ethical Ocean\, a Research Fellow at Griffith University&rsquo\;s Institute for Ethics\, Governance and Law\, and Vice President of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics. Her research and advisory work focuses on ocean ethics\, biocultural ethics and transformative ocean governance\, drawing on ecofeminist theory and First Nations kinship worldviews. She has developed ethical frameworks for aquaculture\, offshore wind and wave energy\, and works across ocean governance\, place attachment\, cultural licence and the decolonisation of marine spaces. Larelle is also an advisory member of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy.
\nProf Mike Steer
\nProfessor Steer brings over two decades of expertise in marine science to his role at the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI). His expertise spans various fields including fish biology\, fisheries science\, cephalopod ecology\, molecular science\, fishery reform\, gear selectivity\, and fleet dynamics\, providing direction for numerous applied research initiatives that have advanced Australia&rsquo\;s seafood industry.
\nProfessor Steer's strategic leadership centres on forging genuine relationships to facilitate collaborations with stakeholders and industry partners\, ensuring SARDI's work remains pertinent and impactful in fisheries management and sustainable livestock practices. He drives meaningful advancements\, bridging the gap between academia and industry to address critical challenges in South Australia's aquatic ecosystems and livestock industries.
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T100000 SUMMARY:Not Born Yesterday: Why humans are less gullible than we think (Closing Keynote) UID:20261026T192034Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Closing Keynote: AAPAE Symposium 2026
\nIt is often thought that humans are gullible\, easily manipulated by demagogues\, advertisers\, and politicians. I will argue that the opposite is true: humans are equipped with a set of psychological mechanisms that allow them to properly evaluate communicated information\, and to reject information that is false or harmful. I will rely on experimental psychology data\, as well as studies showing the failures of mass persuasion\, from Nazi propaganda to American presidential campaigns. I will also suggest that\, when people do accept false beliefs\, they often do so only in a superficial manner. \;
\n\;(Note: this event will be hosted on Australian Eastern Daylight Time\, which is UTC+11).
\nHugo Mercieris a cognitive scientist working at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris. He studies human reasoning and communication\, as well as cultural evolution. He is the co-author\, with Dan Sperber\, of The Enigma of Reason\, and the author of Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who we Trust and What we Believe. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T100000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T110000 SUMMARY:Anticipatory Obedience: Living in the Autocrat's Reality UID:20261026T192035Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Unlike the dictators of the past\, today's autocrats gain power through democratic elections and then consolidate it by co-opting society's primary institutions\, from the judiciary and business to universities and cultural life. Their central tool isn't force but reality. Autocrats seek to draw everyone into the world they construct\, because that is what secures their control. This talk examines how anticipatory obedience\, or conforming to the autocrat's wishes before being required to do so\, accelerates the rise of autocracy and the erosion of democracy.
\n(Note: this is an online event hosted in Australia. All times are in Australian Eastern Daylight Time. \;Australian Eastern Daylight Time (AEDT) is UTC+11\, meaning it is 11 hours ahead of Coordinated Universal Time)
\n\nJoanne B. Ciulla is a pioneer in the field of leadership ethics. Her research focuses on the ethical challenges of leadership. She has also written extensively on topics in business ethics such as meaningful work. Before joining RBS\, she held the Coston Family Chair in Leadership and Ethics at the Jepson School of Leadership Studies (University of Richmond)\, where she was one of the school&rsquo\;s founders. Jepson was the first degree-granting liberal arts school of its kind in the world. Ciulla has held academic appointments at Harvard Business School\, The Wharton School\, LaSalle University. Her visiting positions include the UNESCO chair in Leadership Studies at the United Nations International Leadership Academy (Jordan)\, the Gourley Professor of Business Ethics\, University of Melbourne (Australia) and visiting professorships at the University of Fort Hare (South Africa)\, Nyenrode Business School (Netherlands)\, Oxford University (Green College)\, and the Harvard&rsquo\;s Kennedy School. She has also been a Fulbright Specialist.
\nFor her scholarship\, Ciulla has received Lifetime Achievement Awards from The Society for Business Ethics\, the International Leadership Association\, and the Network of Leadership Scholars at the Academy of Management. In addition\, she is the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award for Service to the field of business ethics from the Society for Business Ethics\, a Master Teacher Award from The Wheatley Institution at Brigham Young University\, an Outstanding Faculty Award from the Virginia State Council of Higher Education\, and a Distinguished Educator Award from the University of Richmond.
\nCiulla sits on the editorial boards of The Business Ethics Quarterly\, The Leadership Quarterly\, and Leadership and edits the New Horizons in Leadership Studies Series (Edward Elgar)\, one of the largest collections of books from the humanities and the social sciences on leadership. She has served as president of The Society for Business Ethics and The International Society for Business\, Ethics\, and Economics. In addition\, Ciulla has also worked with the Aspen Institute\, The Brookings Institution\, and the World Economic Forum. She has been an expert witness\, consulted and given lectures and seminars to business\, government\, and non-profit organizations worldwide.
\n\n\n\n ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T110000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T120000 SUMMARY:Trustworthy Institutions Stick Their Necks Out: Prediction\, Accommodation\, and the Ethics of Public Health Communication UID:20261026T192036Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\n\; Abstract
\nIn February 2020\, US public health authorities advised the public that wearing masks was unnecessary\, only to reverse this guidance a few weeks later\, explaining that the earlier advice had partly reflected concerns about supply shortages. Millions of people noticed. For many of them\, the lesson was not that science self-corrects but that official announcements track something other than the truth. Episodes such as this one\, I&rsquo\;ll argue\, are central to understanding why medical misinformation and conspiracy theories continue to flourish\, and they also suggest how health institutions and medical professionals might best respond.
\nI begin from a claim that has become increasingly plausible in recent philosophy of medicine (Goldenberg 2021\; Levy 2022\; Kelsall 2025): that distrust of health institutions is not (mainly) a failure of individual rationality\, but is instead a reasonable response to the evidence that distrustful people actually possess\, including documented patterns of institutional non-honesty (Brown and Barra 2023) and of experts who meet criticism with derision rather than engagement (Brooks 2025). If we take this seriously\, then the standard toolkit of debunking\, labeling\, and content moderation treats the symptom while feeding the disease.
\nI&rsquo\;ll then offer a diagnosis of what distinguishes trustworthy from untrustworthy communication\, drawing on the distinction between prediction and accommodation in the philosophy of science. The slogan is Popper&rsquo\;s\, but the account is not: what matters is not falsifiability but the confirmational asymmetry defended by weak predictivists (Maher 1988\; Hitchcock and Sober 2004\; Barnes 2008)\, on which successful prediction is evidence about the reliability of the method that produced a claim. Conspiracy theories fail this test not because they never predict\, but because the methods that generate them would have delivered a theory whatever the evidence had been. Institutional communication\, I&rsquo\;ll argue\, can fail it in the same way. Guidance that shifts without acknowledgment\, for example\, or thresholds that move when convenient\, tells reasonable audiences that the process behind the guidance is tracking something other than the evidence\, and they discount it accordingly. On this analysis\, the crucial difference between legitimate expertise and its imitators is not who speaks\, but whose methods have made checkable commitments and survived them.
\nThis diagnosis motivates a constructive ethics of institutional communication\, which I&rsquo\;ll develop in terms of three interlocking professional obligations. 1. Institutions ought to communicate in dated\, checkable predictions whose failure would be recognized as such\, wherever the evidence permits. 2. They should acknowledge uncertainty honestly rather than projecting a confidence they do not have. 3. Labels such as &ldquo\;misinformation&rdquo\; and &ldquo\;conspiracy theory&rdquo\; should be reserved for claims that fail the predictive test\, rather than being deployed against dissent as such.
\nI will conclude by considering both the promise and the (real) limits of predictive communication. Trust\, on this account\, is earned in the way that theories earn confirmation\, since in both cases what is being estimated is the reliability of the process behind the claims. Institutions cannot simply demand it from us\, but can only underwrite it.
\n\nAbout the Author
\nBrendan Shea (PhD\, University of Illinois) teaches philosophy and computer science at Rochester Community and Technical College and is a Resident Fellow of the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science. His research spans bioethics\, philosophy of science\, and the ethics of computing and AI\, and he serves as a public member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee at Mayo Clinic. He is the author of several open-access textbooks on logic\, ethics\, and computing\, and of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Karl Popper.
\n ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T134500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T144500 SUMMARY:Democratic Understanding UID:20261026T192037Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\nAbstract:
\nThis paper is about the value of understanding to democratic politics. It seems obvious that there is something of value to understanding one another in politics. The wheels of our discussions would be oiled\, and decisions would be easier and\, likely\, more just&mdash\;perhaps citizens would be disposed to compromise more\, or make decisions with their fellow citizens&rsquo\; interests in mind&mdash\; if citizens were more willing and able to understand where their fellow citizens were coming from.
\nBut then\, of course\, things are more complicated\, even with something that seems so obviously valuable as understanding. One problem\, which has received attention as of late\, is that it doesn&rsquo\;t always seem valuable&mdash\;for others\, or for us&mdash\; to understand\, particularly with empathy\, those who hold views that we think abhorrent\, for doing so may give credence to such views.
\nHowever\, there is yet another problem\, one which has been severely overlooked by theorists writing on understanding and democracy (see\, e.g.\, Hannon 2025\; Lepoutre 2023\, 2026\; Prescott- Couch 2025a\, 2025b\; see\, relatedly\, Goodin 2000\; Morell 2010\; Scudder 2020). The problem is that\, even if we accept that there is something valuable about understanding others in deliberative democracies\, particularly as a key source of the very justification of democracy\, democracies are made up of millions of people who are limited by time and resources and distance. In these circumstances\, we should reasonably ask: who should citizens be expected to understand? How should one decide\, among the millions that make up a modern democratic polity\, who one ought to spend one&rsquo\;s time and energy trying to understand? I outline a non-ideal approach to political understanding\, and suggest that\, far from being an unattainable ideal that throws into question the justification of democratic rule\, citizens already possess existing\, but different\, forms and degrees of understanding of their fellow citizens\, with particularly informed understandings of those they know personally.
\nAlas\, even with this more realistic approach to understanding and democracy\, one might reasonably ask: How does our actual\, if limited and even deficient\, understanding of certain others scale up to the level of democratic politics writ large? (For more on the &lsquo\;scaling up problem&rsquo\; of deliberative democracy\, see Tanasoca 2020). To address this question\, I first argue that there is particular democratic value in understanding others who understand us\, where such reciprocal processes change us\, and so change what is available to be understood in the process. Second\, I argue there is democratic value in our understanding others who understand others (i.e. those who we don&rsquo\;t know directly). This enables us to have a limited understanding of\, as well as informed deference towards\, those whom we may never know directly. Third\, I argue that this meso-level analysis of how we actually understand others scales up through a daisy-chain model of overlapping connections. Ultimately\, this &lsquo\;scaling up&rsquo\; justifies democracy even amidst the ways in which ordinary citizens fail to live up to ideal of reciprocal understanding.
\nAbout the Author:
\nJaclyn Rekis is a postdoctoral fellow with David Enoch&rsquo\;s &lsquo\;Liberalism Rekindled&rsquo\; Project out of the Department of Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She lives in Kingston\, Ontario\, Canada.
\nJaclyn specialises in political philosophy\, particularly at the intersection of ethics\, epistemology\, and religion. Her work is mainly concerned with why citizens\, and persons more generally\, ought to better understand one another\, and how they should do so. Jaclyn has recently been interested in how ordinary and flawed human practices can be good for democracy and liberalism. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T143000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T153000 SUMMARY:From Aligned Outcomes to Conditions of Judgment: AI\, Deep Disagreement\, and Democratic Public Discourse UID:20261026T192038Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\n\; \; \; Abstract:
\nAIincreasinglymediatesdemocraticdisagreement.Itrecommendswhatcitizensencounter\,ranks competingclaims\,moderatesspeech\,andisbeginningtoparticipatedirectlyindeliberationitself. Much of the debate about these systems therefore asks how they might identify misinformation more reliably or better reflect the values of the people affected by them. These are important questions. But they begin too late.
\nAlignment research has often approached normative disagreement through value extraction\, preference aggregation\, or the search for sufficiently shared values (Christiano et al.\, 2017). More recent pluralistic approaches explicitly resist collapsing human values into a single aggregate and seek instead to preserve diverse perspectives (Sorensen et al.\, 2024\; Fazelpour &\; Fleisher\, 2025). Yet disagreement still tends to appear as something a system must represent\, accommodate\, aggregate\,ortranslateintoausablenormativeoutput.Theunderlyingquestionremains:giventhat people disagree\, what should the system do?
\nDeep disagreement unsettles this framing. Some political conflicts concern not only competing judgments but the standards by which those judgments are assessed: what counts as relevant evidence\, a good reason\, or a consideration that ought to matter. Where the evaluative framework itself is contested\, there may be no neutral procedure capable of converting disagreement into a uniquely correct answer\, or even an uncontested compromise. Democratic theory confronts a structurally similar problem. Persistent normative disagreement is a normal feature of pluralistic politicallife(Rawls\,1993)\,yetcitizensmuststillmakecollectivedecisionsandjustifythemtoone another when substantive agreement remains out of reach (Gutmann &\; Thompson\, 1996).
\nThis matters for alignment becauseAI systems do not merely produceanswers from judgments that people have already formed. They increasingly shape the conditions under which judgment itself develops: which perspectives become visible\, how a disagreement is framed\, what counts as a reason worth answering\, and whether people have opportunities to challenge assumptions andrevisetheirpositions.Ifdeepdisagreementcannotsimplybetransformedintothecorrectnormative output\, alignment cannot be concerned only with outputs.
\nI therefore develop an account of alignment as normative coordination. Drawing on Bex-Priestley andShemmer's(2017)accountofdisagreementwithinsharedprojects\,Iarguethattherelevantaim is to sustain practices in which people can exchange reasons\, remain mutually answerable\, contest one another's claims\, and revise their judgments without presupposing eventual consensus. Their account does not itself resolve deep disagreement\; rather\, it helps identify what can remain normatively important when substantive resolution is unavailable.
\nThisreframesthegovernanceofAI-mediatedpublicdiscourse.Truthstillmatters\,andsomefactual claims are simply false. But correcting falsehoods cannot settle the normative disagreements through which citizens decide what matters\, what follows from the facts\, or what they owe one another. The paper therefore develops criteria for evaluatingAI-mediated discourse in terms of visibility\, authority\, mutual answerability\, and opportunities for revision.Alignment should be assessed not only by the outcomes systems produce\, but by the conditions of judgment they help create.
\nAbout the Author:
\nYifan Li recently completed his PhD in Philosophy at the University of Essex. His research focuses on moral responsibility\, agency\, and the ethical and political implications of artificial intelligence. His current work examines AI alignment\, distributed responsibility\, democratic disagreement\, and the conditions under which AI-mediated environments shape human judgment and accountability.
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T153000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T163000 SUMMARY:How to Handle Conspiracy Theories? UID:20261026T192039Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\nAbstract:
\nConspiracy theories &ldquo\;have been and continue to be mainstream&rdquo\;. Nonetheless\, in ordinary language\, the term &lsquo\;conspiracy theory&rsquo\;is predominantly pejorative\, suggesting that all such theories are false. Politically the term is often used to easily dismiss opponents. This is evident\, for example\, in the official position of the White House under Trump surrounding conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 pandemic. Some scholars interpret the available empirical research as suggesting &ldquo\;that conspiracy theories are harmful&rdquo\;: These theories can be dangerous\, particularly when they exacerbate existing problems\, such as anti-vaxxers sentiment\, climatechange denial and hate speech against minorities. Belief in conspiracy theories is said to hinderanadequateunderstandingofreality\, \;andcould\,inturn\,destabilizesocietyasawhole by diminishing trust in epistemic authorities and fostering paranoia. Thus\, it is clear\, that conspiracy theorising poses a threat to democracy.
\nDespite the pejorative use in ordinary language\, not all conspiracy theories can be false\; some\, such as the Watergate scandal of 1972\, have been proven true. Consequently\, the philosophical debate seems to have settled on the approach that the plausibility of each conspiracy theory must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In order to avoid dismissing promisingconspiracy theories prematurely\, each one must be investigated from a neutral point of view with sufficient research effort.
\nHowever\, this seems to be an unrealistic expectation: Typically\, the necessary expertise\, cognitive capacity and time are too limited to thoroughly investigate every conspiracy theory before forming an epistemic position on its plausibility. Instead\, it should be possible to swiftly dismiss absurd conspiracy theories\, such as the idea that reptilians rule the world or that the Earth is flat\, without investing research effort. One&rsquo\;s capacities should instead be reserved for more meaningful conspiracy theories that seem more probable\, such as the Watergate scandal. So far\, literature providing guidance on how to handle conspiracy theories pragmatically and epistemologically has been scarce. Furthermore\, there is a lack of nuanced\, established definitions of conspiracy theories.
\nThe aim of this paper is to address this issue. It seeks to provide a conclusive definition that distinguishesbetweendifferenttypesofconspiracytheory\,whileacknowledgingboththepejorative use of the term in everyday language and the possibility that some theories may be true. The paper suggests a pragmatic three-step process for determining the type of a given conspiracy theory\, enabling one to dismiss absurd theories and focus their efforts on thoroughly investigating only the more meaningful ones. As evaluation criteria the epistemic virtues proposed by Kuhn were chosen and are used to determine the loveliness and thus the likeliness of a conspiracy theory\, building on Lipton's considerations regarding the inference to the best explanation. The resulting framework provides a nuanced understanding of conspiracy theories\, offering a reliable basis for responsible handling.
\nAbout the Author:
\nEva Pö\;ll was awarded a Master's degree in Philosophy earlier this year. She completed her studies with a thesis on the epistemic status of conspiracy theories\, a topic that also inspired her presentation here. She is currently completing a Master's degree in Information Systems\, focusing on Software Development and Process Management. Until summer 2023\, she was a research assistant in the philosophy department at the university of Mü\;nster. During this time\, she worked on the interdisciplinary BlockTechDiVer project\, analysing the demands\, preconditions\, and possible implementations of blockchain applications from a consumer perspective. Her current research interests lie in applied ethics\, particularly conspiracy theories and conceptual engineering.
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T161500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T171500 SUMMARY:The Principle of Habeas Mentem and the Democratic Harms of Digital Misinformation UID:20261026T192040Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\n
Abstract:
The central claim of this presentation is that the democratic harm of misinformation does not lie only in the circulation of false or misleading content. It also lies in the infrastructural transformation of the conditions under which citizens form beliefs\, assign trust\, recognise expertise\, deliberate with others\, and participate in collective decision-making. For this reason\, democratic theory requires not only protections for freedom of expression\, but also a more explicit normative framework for safeguarding mental autonomy and epistemic self-government. I propose to conceptualise this framework through the principle of habeas mentem\, understood as a contemporary counterpart to habeas corpus.
\nThe starting point of the paper is the relationship between truth\, trust\, and democratic legitimacy. Democratic politics presupposes citizens who are able to access reliable information\, contest public claims\, evaluate reasons\, and revise their judgements in light of evidence. Yet digital communication increasingly takes place within environments structured by algorithmic curation\, platform incentives\, data extraction\, behavioural profiling\, and personalised persuasion. In such contexts\, misinformation and disinformation do not merely distort isolated opinions. They can alter the epistemic and affective conditions under which citizens form beliefs\, assign credibility\, and participate in public deliberation. The harm is thus not only cognitive\, but also political. It concerns the erosion of the conditions that allow citizens to judge\, deliberate\, and act together as members of a democratic community.
\nAgainst this background\, the paper proposes habeas mentem as a regulative principle for democratic societies confronted with misinformation\, disinformation\, and epistemic manipulation. Historically\, habeas corpus protected individuals against arbitrary detention by affirming that political authority could not dispose of the body without public justification. By analogy\, habeas mentem affirms that political\, technological\, and commercial powers should not be allowed to capture\, manipulate\, or bypass the conditions of mental self-determination. This does not imply a right to be free from all influence. Democratic communication necessarily involves persuasion\, rhetoric\, disagreement\, and contestation. The relevant distinction is between forms of public persuasion that remain answerable to reasons and forms of manipulation that exploit opacity\, asymmetry\, profiling\, or cognitive vulnerability in order to circumvent reflective agency.
\nThe presentation concludes by outlining the institutional implications of this principle. These include digital rights against manipulative profiling\, political microtargeting\, synthetic propaganda\, and behavioural steering. They also include transparency duties for algorithmic curation\, public repositories for targeted political messages\, independent auditing of recommender systems\, safeguards against biometric and affective surveillance\, and restrictions on the political use of cognitive or neural data. More broadly\, the protection of mental autonomy requires a separation of digital power\, supported by antitrust measures against dominant platforms\, limits on the integration of data extraction\, content distribution\, advertising\, and AI infrastructures\, as well as democratic oversight.
\nThe paper argues that responding to misinformation requires a shift from a narrow concern with false content to a broader account of communicative and epistemic self-government. Citizens must be protected not only in their capacity to speak\, but also in their capacity to think\, judge\, trust\, disagree\, and participate in democratic life.
\nAbout the Author:
\nGabriele Giacomini is Assistant Professor at the University of Udine and Scientific Coordinator of the Master&rsquo\;s programme in Philosophy of the Digital and Artificial Intelligence. His research lies at the intersection of political theory\, digital media\, and the social sciences\, with a particular focus on the political and societal implications of digital technologies and artificial intelligence. He holds a PhD in Neuroscience from Vita-Salute San Raffaele University in Milan and the IUSS University School for Advanced Studies in Pavia\, and he has held research positions at the Center for Advanced Studies Southeast Europe in Rijeka\, Croatia\, and at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona\, Spain. His publications include "The Arduous Road to Revolution. Resisting Authoritarian Regimes in the Digital Communication Age" (Mimesis International\, 2022).
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20261117T203000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Amsterdam:20261117T223000 SUMMARY:Free Speech and Experimentality UID:20261026T192041Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Amsterdam LOCATION:Vesteplein 1\, Delft\, Netherlands\, 2611 WG DESCRIPTION:Why do liberal societies value free speech so highly? Political philosopher Robert Simpson (UCL) argues that one ethical foundation of free speech is the ideal of experimentality: there is value in people testing boundaries and defying established norms. Drawing on the cultural politics of popular music\, Simpson explores both the promise of experimentality and the question of whether norm-breaking really deserves the esteem we often give it.
\nEach year\, TU Delft hosts the Van Hasselt Lecture\, which gives a stage to leading thinkers on topics of "ethics\, peace and justice in our technological age"\, and brings the university community and the wider Delft public together for an evening of stimulating ideas. The lecture commemorates Frans van Hasselt\, a Delft student who publicly protested the dismissal of Jewish professors at the university in November 1940\, and who was murdered in Buchenwald concentration camp two years later.
\nThe lecture is jointly organised by the Department of Values\, Technology and Innovation at TU Delft and Studium Generale TU Delft. It is in English and admission is free\, but registration via Theater de Veste is required.
ORGANIZER;CN=James Hutton: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20261118T143000 DTEND;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20261118T160000 SUMMARY:Fair Play For Whom? A Social Imaginaries Analysis of TERF Propaganda UID:20261026T192042Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Australia/Melbourne LOCATION:Tower 2 level 12/727 Collins St\, Melbourne\, Australia\, 3008 DESCRIPTION:Fair Play For Whom? A Social Imaginaries Analysis of TERF Propaganda
\nLouise Richardson-Self \;(University of Tasmania)
Abstract: \;Veronica Ivy argues that TERFs are propagandists and that well-intentioned\, relatively uninformed cis people are vulnerable to this propaganda. Taking Fair Play For Women as a case study\, I argue that such propaganda succeeds when it triggers\, via the images of &lsquo\;sex&rsquo\; and &lsquo\;science&rsquo\;\, a hermeneutical shortcut that disposes deferential trust in TERFs. This is significant because TERF logics are co-extensive with right-wing extremist logics. TERF propaganda may thus solicit more extremist attitudes among otherwise well-intentioned cis people while worsening trans oppression. A social imaginaries analysis reveals why highlighting the falsehood of such propaganda is insufficient for eliminating its risks.
\nBio: \;Louise Richardson-Self is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Gender &\; Diversity at the University of Tasmania. She was an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow (2019-2025) researching the social imaginaries that sustain sexism and misogyny online\, and was part of an Australian Research Council Discovery Project team (2020-2024) researching LGBTQ+ non-discrimination and religious freedom. In 2019 she was awarded the Australasian Association of Philosophy&rsquo\;s Annette Baier prize for her article &lsquo\;Offending White Men.&rsquo\; Her research projects all focus on contemporary issues of social justice and are unified through the theoretical frameworks of social imaginaries\, embodiment\, and intersectional feminist theory.
\nZoom Link: \;https://deakin.zoom.us/j/81187365426?pwd=N3aaK9cRYauBbrc7nvTXcQAQoXcECK.1&\;from=addon
\nMeeting ID: 811 8736 5426 \;// Password: \;13679090
\nThis meeting is at 2:30pm Australian Eastern Daylight Time (AEDT) 18 November 2026 [03:30am UTC 18 November 2026]
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261026T164100Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Rome:20261119T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Rome:20261120T170000 SUMMARY:Winter School in Phenomenology: "Phenomenology of the We. Intersubjectivity\, Collective Emotions\, and the Constitution of the Social World" UID:20261026T192043Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-96mdd TZID:Europe/Rome LOCATION:Via Porta di Massa 1\, Napoli\, Italy\, 80133 DESCRIPTION:The Winter School \;Phenomenology of the We \;invites graduate students\, doctoral researchers\, and early-career scholars to explore phenomenological approaches to \;intersubjectivity and emotions. The event aims to foster discussion on the structures of shared experience\, collective intentionality\, affective relations\, and the constitution of social life\, bringing classical phenomenological perspectives into dialogue with contemporary debates. The Winter School will feature keynote lectures by \;Dan Zahavi \;and \;Sophie Loidolt.
\nMorning Programme
\nThursday\, 19 November
\nDan Zahavi
The Unity and Plurality of Emotional Sharing
Anna Donise \;
Empathetic Relationships and the Original Self
Friday\, 20 November
\nSophie Loidolt
Philosophy as a Communal Form of Life: Assessing Husserl&rsquo\;s Political Visions in the Kaizo Articles
Anna Pia Ruoppo
Back to the Origins: Ethics and Politics in Martin Heidegger
The \;morning lectures are open to the public\, while the \;afternoon workshops are reserved for 20 selected participants. The workshops are designed to encourage intensive discussion and close interaction among participants and keynote speakers.
\nApplications and presentations
\nThose wishing to participate in the Winter School are invited to submit a \;short motivation letter\, accompanied by a \;brief biographical note. Applicants who would also like to present their work during the afternoon workshops should additionally submit an \;abstract of no more than 1\,000 words. Abstracts should address topics related to the general themes of the Winter School and should be written in English. Of the \;20 participants admitted to the Winter School\, 6 will be selected to give a 15-minute presentation\, followed by discussion. Applicants who are not selected to give a presentation may therefore still be admitted as participants and take part in all afternoon workshops.
\nWe particularly welcome abstracts addressing topics including\, but not limited to:
\nSubmission deadline: \;1 October 2026
Notification of acceptance: \;15 October 2026
Abstracts should be submitted to: \;lorenzo.cavallo2@unina.it \;and \;giulia.salzano@unina.it
\nFurther information regarding the venue and programme will be communicated to selected participants.
ORGANIZER;CN=Anna Donise;CN=Anna Pia Ruoppo: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR