Saturday, January 31, 2009
Cfp: "Ricoeur: On Memory, Politics and Forgiveness," Faculty of Philosophy and Regent’s Park College, University of Oxford, March 20-21, 2009.
- Nicole Anderson, Critical and Cultural Studies Department, Macquarie University, Australia, General Editor, Derrida Today
- H. Peter Steeves, Professor of Philosophy, DePaul University, Chicago
Cfp: "Charles Darwin's ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES after 150 Years," Virginia Tech University, November 4, 2009.
- Issues about the interpretation and reception of the Origin;
- Issues about the social and political influence of the Origin and its relevance to the current century; and,
- Continuing scientific debates related to issues raised or addressed in the Origin.
Six papers will be accepted for each of the concurrent sessions, with speaking time limited to one-half hour. The conference is strongly interdisciplinary: we encourage submission of papers that will be intelligible to a general university audience. Submissions by individuals from diverse backgrounds, including groups underrepresented in the sciences, are particularly encouraged. We anticipate arranging for publication of some or all of the papers derived from the conference presentations.
Please submit your abstract, with a maximum length of 500 words. Your abstract must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 15. The submissions will be refereed and notification of the panel's decision will be sent by Friday, June 19.Further information may be found here: http://www.cpe.vt.edu/darwin.
- the relation of language, ethics, politics;
- the connection between rhetoric and Judaism; the relation between Levinas's work and that of other rhetorical theorists;
- Levinas's notions of trauma, suffering and/or otherness as foundational for rhetoric and writing;
- the performative dimension of Levinas's idea of utterance;
- other topics welcome.
Deadline for completed papers is 1 May 2009; papers should be between 6000 and 8000 words in length. Questions and completed tss. (as attachments) should be sent to Professor Michael Bernard-Donals (firstname.lastname@example.org). Tss. can also be sent by mail to Professor Bernard-Donals at the Department of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Helen C. White Hall, 600 North Park Street, Madison WI 53706.
Cfp: "Philosophy and its Others," 4th Annual Conference, North American Levinas Society, University of Toronto, June 28-30, 2009.
- How has the discipline and history of philosophy affected Levinas’ thought, and how has Levinas impacted the discipline and history of philosophy?
- How has Levinas’ philosophical critique of ‘the tradition’ been received and appropriated by other domains of inquiry, such as religious studies, Jewish studies, political science, women’s studies, gender studies, sociology, history, performance and media studies, race theory, legal studies and jurisprudence, literature, cultural studies, disability studies, environmental and ecology studies, medicine, and others?
- How has Levinas’ reception and application in these various fields in turn affected the discipline of philosophy?
Certainly, these are only a few questions regarding “Philosophy and Its Others” broadly posed, but it is clear that such questions open our own work to a more difficult, and perhaps edifying, scrutiny. We are also interested in receiving panels that address the relation between philosophy, the ethical, community, justice, and pedagogy. Submissions: ● Individual paper proposals: Individual abstracts, prepared for blind review, should be 500 words outlining a 20-minute presentation. Accepted papers will be organized into panels of two or three presentations. ● Panel proposal: Panel proposals, consisting of 2-3 speakers, should be 1000 words for a 75-minute session. Please include the session title, name of organizer, institutional affiliations, discipline or department, along with the chair’s name and participants’ names in addition to 250 word abstracts detailing the focus of each paper. Prepare panel proposals for blind review as well. Please send materials via email attachment (preferably Microsoft Word) to: email@example.com. If you have questions regarding the Society or the conference, please send inquiries to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Cfp: "Communities and Transformations in Africa and African Studies," Queens University, May 4-7, 2009.
Cfp: "Cicero Rewriting Plato," Seminar Series, Centre for the Classical Tradition, University of Durham, February 6, February 27, and March 13, 2009.
- Seminar 1: Cicero, de Republica 1.65-67 ~ Plato, Politeia 8. 562c - 563c.
- Seminar 2: Cicero, de Republica 3.27 ~ Plato, Politeia 2.360e - 362b.
- Seminar 3: Cicero, de Republica 6.26-29 ~ Plato, Phaidros 245cff.
Dates and times:
- Seminar 1: Friday, 6 February, 1 - 2.30 pm
- Seminar 2: Friday, 27 February, 1 - 2.30 pm
- Seminar 3: Friday, 13 March, 1 - 2.30 pm
Oksala, Johanna. Review of Marc Djaballah's KANT, FOUCAULT, AND FORMS OF EXPERIENCE. NDPR (January 2009).
Cfp: "Enabling Complexities: Communities / Writing / Rhetoric," Rhetoric and Writing Program, Michigan State University, October 7–9, 2009.
Access the conference website here: http://kairos.wide.msu.edu/~femrhet/.
Original Post (November 8, 2008):
The 7th Biennial Conference on Feminism(s) and Rhetoric(s) of Coalition of Women Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition.
We invite proposals that:
- reflect the complexity and diversity of who "we" are as a scholarly community;
- make manifest the deep structure of the connections, intersections, and overlaps that actually make us a community;
- help articulate who "we" are as a deliberate community of scholars, and what that means about our responsibilities and relationships to one another across scholarly areas and institutional positions;
- highlight scholarly and teacherly activities that deliberately create space for more complex notions of scholarship and teaching within the discipline of Rhet/Comp;
- include and significantly engage communities outside of the academy;
- focus on antiracist pedagogies and scholarship; present interdisciplinary scholarship in Afrafeminist Rhetorics; American Indian Rhetorics, Chicana Rhetorics, Asian American Rhetorics, post/neo-colonial rhetorics;
- highlight the intellectual traditions of women’s communities, especially communities constellated around specific identity markers such as race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation issues, geographic origins;
- explore the relationships between written, oral, and material discursive production;
- and other topics that address the connections in the conference theme.
For more information: Contact Malea Powell (email@example.com), Nancy DeJoy (firstname.lastname@example.org), or Rhea Lathan (email@example.com).
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Familiarize yourself with the types of articles that a journal publishes and only submit work appropriate for that journal. Pay close attention to the tone and style of work published in the journal and try to duplicate it in your own work. Follow, religiously, the style guide used by the journal. No hybrid styles! Only submit work that you believe to be final, publishable copy. A poorly proofread manuscript wastes your time and mine. Placing your work in the context of articles previously published in the journal is good scholarly practice and helps make your article a better "fit" for the journal. Follow the journal's submission rules — exactly. Develop a healthy attitude toward rejection. You know from the outset that competition is fierce, so maintain a positive attitude. . . .Brown, Kevin. "What Professors Want from Editors and Peer Reviewers." Inside Higher Ed October 2, 2008:
(Read the rest here: http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/09/2008090801c.htm)
As professors we are not afraid of a healthy debate about ideas, and we seek honest feedback on our work. However, insults, whether directed at those ideas or at us personally, have no place in the critical debate. We would never allow our students to write essays using some of the responses I have seen from readers, nor would we write those comments on our students’ papers. Instead, we would tell them to focus on the ideas of the critics, as we focus on the ideas our students present in their essays. We put aside our personal feelings about the students and try to truly engage the ideas in and of themselves.Bauerlein, Mark. "The Future of Humanities Labor." Academe Online (September-October 2008):
What professors truly want is constructive feedback that will make them better writers, thinkers and researchers. If, especially in our early days, we have somehow overlooked a seminal work (or a work that a reader at least believes is seminal), or have faulty logic, then, please, tell us so, but do so in an effort to make us and, therefore, the discipline, stronger. . . .
(Read the rest here: http://insidehighered.com/views/2008/10/02/brown)
“Publish or perish” has long been the formula of academic labor at research universities, but for many humanities professors that imperative has decayed into a simple rule of production. The publish-or-perish model assumed a peer-review process that maintained quality, but more and more it is the bare volume of printed words that counts. When humanities departments and committees and chairpersons examine a professor’s record, all too often they measure the output, not the excellence. And the other duties of mentoring and service slip into secondary requirements. Middling teaching does not much hurt, and great teaching does not help. Administrative work pleases colleagues, but it does not lead to promotions from within or offers from without. Research is all, or rather, research mass eclipses everything else. We have witnessed a steady slide into quantification, evaluation by lines of the vitae containing words in italics.Çakmak, E. Efe and Mark C. Taylor. "Forget Journals! An Interview." Eurozine December 30, 2008:
A friend who teaches at a large midwestern school says that salary increases correlate with book and article publication to the dollar, and he hopes that his next book comes out before year-end recommendations are due. “What if your book isn’t any good?” I ask with a half-smile. “Doesn’t matter,” he replies. When I returned to my own institution after two and a half years of government work and wondered how much credit I would get for pieces appearing during my time away, a dean skipped the quality question and replied, “Well, you have lots of titles, but how many pages do they amount to?” . . .
(Read the rest here: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2008/SO/Feat/baue.htm)
Books and journals as we have known them are a thing of the past. Unfortunately, the last to understand this fact are universities and academics. Having said that, the question of how to respond remains to be addressed. In the coming decades, computing will become increasingly distributed and embedded. The movement from the PC to the handheld radicalizes decentralization and changes the nature of communication. People often complain – at least, professors do – that young people do not read anymore. But that is not true. They read all the time but they do not read books or long texts. Mobile technologies scramble everything and make it necessary to recast the terms of analysis. I do not think "transnational" is a useful term here. Again, it smacks of the past and does not help us to understand the reconstitution of political space that has already occurred. Think of everything as a web with constantly shifting nodes, which might be personal, social, economic or biological. The question is where and how to plug into this network.For the most part, presses and journals as they now exist do not serve the interests of intellectual or cultural development. To the contrary, their proliferation is symptomatic of increasing hyper-specialization in which there is more and more about less and less. This is going in the opposite direction of history, in which there is increasing interconnectedness. So my advice is to forget journals – I no longer read any academic journals and I stopped publishing in them years ago. The only function presses and journals serve is to authorize those who write for them among a dwindling group of peers. If ideas are to matter – and I believe it is crucial that they do – we must completely change the way in which they are communicated. . . .McLemee, Scott. "Here Comes the Flood." Inside Higher Ed January 21, 2009:
(Read the rest here: http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-12-30-mctaylor-en.html)
In the January issue of The Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Lindsay Waters, an executive editor at Harvard University Press, tries to imagine a world in which “the well-wrought, slowly gestated essay” has replaced the monograph as the gold standard for scholarship in the humanities. Some of his argument seems familiar. For one thing, Waters tried out an earlier version as a keynote address to the Council of Editors of Learned Journals when they met at MLA in 2007, where I heard it. For another thing, one idea in it came from me: the daydream of a world in which people would be penalized for publishing too much and too early in their careers. This is among the most cherished of my crackpot ideas. By now Waters has doubtless been subjected to some variation of it at lunch, probably more than once. Of course there would be occasions when some wunderkind had so many ideas that brisk and frequent publication became a matter of urgent necessity. But that would be rare. A strictly enforced set of proscriptions would add excitement to things. Picking up a book or journal, you would know that it had involved some risk. Scholars might begin to publish pseudonymously, if they felt it was absolutely urgent to get a piece of research out. The spirit of adventure would probably be good for people’s prose as well. Well, someone has to draw up the floor plans for utopia. I found the page proofs of Waters’s article while trying to clear my desktop before the start of the new administration. (Emphasis on “trying.") The title of the essay is “Slow Writing; or, Getting Off the Book Standard: What Can Journal Editors Do?” Another version ran as a Views piece here at Inside Higher Ed last year — and if you missed it, as I did at the time, I’d recommend a look. . . .Waters, Lindsay. "A Call for Slow Writing." Inside Higher Ed March 10, 2008:
(Read the rest here: http://insidehighered.com/views/2009/01/21/mclemee)
What will it take to make essays the standard of achievement once again in the scholarly world? This is not where we are: Books are the gold standard for tenure in most of the humanities and some of the social sciences, so much so that journal articles almost don’t even count. As august a figure as Helen Vendler assured me recently that essays could never replace books as a basis for tenuring junior colleagues. So, in departments of English as on Wall Street, counting is all that counts. “It’s the bottom line, stupid.” Countability is the thing whereby you’ll catch the conscience of the dean, as a friend of Hamlet might advise the young Danish assistant professor or the young Shakespeare scholar. Articles don’t make a thumping sound when you drop them on a table the way a body might in Six Feet Under. I have claimed elsewhere (subscription required) that the book-for-tenure system is coming to an end, that it is unsustainable, that its growth has been an obscenity, because it was mindless, because it sought to make something automatic and machine-like play the role that should only be played by the soul. Please excuse my antiquated language: The “soul,” I remind you, is that faculty of the human body whose juices are made to flow by the exercise of judging myself whether something is of merit. In earlier publications I have charged that professors have been seeking to dodge the one activity that is most essential to their own development when they outsource tenure decisions to bureaucracies and counting replaces reading as the central job of tenure committees, because in that situation content goes by the by. Personally, for me as a publisher, the situation that has arisen is sad beyond endurance. I believe the contents of the books I publish matter. I am not selling milk, which does sustain life, but is homogenized by comparison to book. In fact, milk’s the very definition of homogenized. Each of the books I publish is different. . . .
(Read the rest here: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2008/03/10/waters)
CFP: "Nietzsche and Phenomenology," Annual Conference, British Society for Phenomenology, St Hilda’s College, University of Oxford, April 3-5, 2009.
- Ulli Haase (Manchester Metropolitan University)
- David Farrell Krell (DePaul University)
- Jill Marsden (University of Bolton)
- Will McNeill (DePaul University)
- David Parkes (University College Cork)
- Andrea Rehberg (Bilkent University)
- John Sallis (Boston College)
- Jim Urpeth (University of Greenwich)
If you have any queries, please contact: David Webb Faculty of Arts Media and Design Staffordshire University College Road Stoke-on-Trent ST4 2XW UK firstname.lastname@example.org
Further information, including registration details, will appear on the web-site of the British Society for Phenomenology in due course: see, http://www.britishphenomenology.com/.
Cfp: 31st Annual Meeting, Nietzsche Society in conjunction with the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy, Virginia, October 29, 2009.
Cfp: "Resistances: Technologies and Relationalities," Philosophy, Interpretation and Culture Program, SUNY Binghamton, April 17-18, 2009.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Cfp: "Kierkegaard and the Religious Crisis of the 19th Century," ACTA KIERKEGAARDIANA 4 (forthcoming).
Cfp: 10th International Conference on the Study of Persons, University of Nottingham, August 3-7, 2009.
Cfp: "MacIntyre at 80: What Happened in and to Moral Philosophy in the Twentieth Century?," School of Philosophy, UC Dublin, March 6-8, 2009.
- Alasdair MacIntyre, “On Having Survived the Moral Philosophy of the Twentieth Century”
- Kelvin Knight, “MacIntyre’s Revisionary Aristotelianism”
- Owen Flanagan, “What do the Human Sciences have to do with Ethics?”
- Raymond Geuss, “Marxism and the Ethos of the Twentieth Century”
- Richard Kearney: “Forgiveness: Possible or Impossible? - Arendt, Derrida, Ricoeur, Jankelevitch”
- Stephen Mulhall, “Naturalism, Nihilism and Perfectionism: Stevenson, Williams and Nietzche in 20th Century Moral Philosophy”
- Jonathan Rée, “The Fetishism of Morality”
- James McEvoy, “Parallel projects: Alasdair MacIntyre's Virtue Ethics, Thomistic Moral Theology (Servais Pinckaers OP) and thirteenth-century Pastoral Theology (Leonard Boyle OP)”
- Adam Chmielewski, TBA
- Arthur Madigan, “Alasdair MacIntyre, Thomistic Aristotelianism, and Revolutionary Aristotelianism.”
- David Solomon, “MacIntyre and the Applied Ethics Revolution”
- Joseph Dunne, "Strong Demands: What Sources?"
- Michael Sherwin, “Rediscovering Aquinas’ Augustianism: An interpretation of Some twentieth century Dominican Theologians.”
- Steven Long, “The Perfect Storm: On the Loss of Natural Teleology as a Normative Theonomic Principle in 20th Century Moral Philosophy”
- Elijah Milgram, “Relativism, Coherence, and the Problems of Philosophy”
- Hans Fink, “Against the Self Images of the Age. MacIntyre and Løgstrup”
- Philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre: Adam Chmielewski, Joseph Dunne, Owen Flanagan, Kelvin Knight, Arthur Madigan, David Solomon;
- Aquinas' Moral Philosophy: Steven Long, James McEvoy, Michael Sherwin .
Cfp: "The Spirit of German Idealism," Nordic Network for German Idealism, Department of Philosophy, University of Aarhus, March 10-12, 2009.
Moriarty, Michael. Review of Thomas Parker's VIOLITION, RHETORIC AND EMOTION IN THE WORK OF PASCAL. NDPR (January 2009).
Cfp: "Disorderly Conduct," Interdisciplinary Conference, Wilfrid Laurier University and University of Waterloo, July 24-26, 2009.
- What relationship (if any) holds between the concepts, diagnosis and treatment of gender identity disorder and disorders of sexual development?
- What lessons should the editors of the inchoate DSM V take from the DSM IV?
- Is old age treated as a disorder? Should it be?
- What role does "big pharma" play in the identification of various disorders?
- Does our current notion of a disorder adequately reflect our understanding of the social determinants of health?
- In what ways is the language of 'disorder' open to deployment and/or interrogation by post-structuralist or analytic ethicists?
Conference organizers are currently seeking federal funding to support this conference. Contingent upon their success, they may be able to financially assist speakers with their travel and accommodations costs.Submissions Deadline: February 27, 2009 For more information on "Disorderly Conduct," see the conference website at http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~sjdea/.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Cfp: Second Annual Conference of Film and Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Dundee, July 16-18, 2009.
Cfp: "Nietzsche and the Becoming of Life," Institute of Humanities, Diego Portales University, Santiago de Chile, November 2-4, 2009.
Cfp: Colloquium on Plato’s PHAEDRUS, Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge, April 16-18, 2009.
Noël Carroll's latest book contains what we have come to expect from him: above all, clarity of exposition and argument directed at the fundamental issues in the topic under discussion. His topic here is art (construed broadly) criticism, and he lays out for us in greater detail than before his positions on the interpretation and evaluation of works in different genres. Carroll is one of the major figures in aesthetics, and anyone interested in the field will have to know and address his views. The main thesis of his book is that criticism aims ultimately and essentially at the evaluation of works, aims to uncover their artistic value, and that it supports its evaluations with reasons. In indicating the sources of value in artworks, critics help audiences to appreciate the works. Criticism is distinguished from other related fields, such as art history, by its evaluative aim. Reasons supporting evaluations are provided by classification, description, analysis, and interpretation of the works, all of which activities are analyzed by Carroll. He maintains that evaluations backed by reasons can be objective, in that categorization or classification of works into types is objective, and these types of works pursue certain artistic purposes in terms of which the works can be evaluated. Critics evaluate artworks, as we evaluate other things, in terms of how well they fulfill their intended purposes. Artworks are therefore to be judged on their own terms, and the central question is always whether the artists succeeded in fulfilling the artistic aims they intended. . . .
Read the rest here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=15026.
We are not our genes and they are not us. Knowing what copies of genes we carry can tell us a little about getting sick and losing our hair, and maybe even add insight into our ancestry. But that does not tell us about how and why we do the things that we do. Steven Pinker, in his recent New York Times Magazine article My Genome, My Self, argues that genes do have great influence on our behavior. As an anthropologist, evolutionary theorist, and a researcher of human and other primate behavior I am here to tell you that he is overshooting the mark. Human behavior is simultaneously biology, culture, experience and more. (http://neuroanthropology.net/2009/01/16/my-genome-is-not-my-self/)See also the links to other critical responses to Pinker found at the end of Fuentes' post. Original Post (January 12, 2009): ONE OF THE PERKS of being a psychologist is access to tools that allow you to carry out the injunction to know thyself. I have been tested for vocational interest (closest match: psychologist), intelligence (above average), personality (open, conscientious, agreeable, average in extraversion, not too neurotic) and political orientation (neither leftist nor rightist, more libertarian than authoritarian). I have M.R.I. pictures of my brain (no obvious holes or bulges) and soon will undergo the ultimate test of marital love: my brain will be scanned while my wife’s name is subliminally flashed before my eyes. Last fall I submitted to the latest high-tech way to bare your soul. I had my genome sequenced and am allowing it to be posted on the Internet, along with my medical history. The opportunity arose when the biologist George Church sought 10 volunteers to kick off his audacious Personal Genome Project. The P.G.P. has created a public database that will contain the genomes and traits of 100,000 people. Tapping the magic of crowd sourcing that gave us Wikipedia and Google rankings, the project seeks to engage geneticists in a worldwide effort to sift through the genetic and environmental predictors of medical, physical and behavioral traits. . . . Read the whole article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html?_r=3.