Cfp: Annual Conference, Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric, Concordia University, June 2-4, 2010.

Special Session: "Rhetorics of the Exception, the Exceptional, Exceptionality" (Chair: Michael Purves-Smith, Wilfrid Laurier University) Scholars are invited to propose papers on the topos of the exception and exceptionality. When and how does "exception" create a rhetorical space? How does rhetoric depend on a dialectic of the expected as opposed to the exceptional? Is there then a tension between endorsing the unusual and distancing oneself from something when we make or take exception? The answer might include any rhetorical strategies that may be described or defined in connection with "to except." The subject may encompass both exceptional rhetoric and the exceptional rhetor. A few possible approaches: • What persuasive strategies are available to those who would rise in the court of public opinion when everyone and everything is seen to be exceptional? • Is the appeal to the exceptional, pervasive in the realm of advertising, the last resort of rhetoric in the midst of a landscape of communication dominated by "twitter?" • What is the rhetorical impact of American exceptionalism? Do we have permission to take it for granted and is there any parallel between it and the exceptionality implied by Quebec as a distinct society or special status for aboriginal people? • Finally, is the subject of exception contained by the classical topos of difference? Open Sessions on Rhetoric: Papers concerning more general aspects of rhetoric are always welcome: • Rhetorical theory • Rhetorical criticism • History of rhetoric • Rhetoric in popular culture • Media communication • Discourse analysis • Rhetoric of political and social discourse • Pedagogy of communication • Rhetoric and the media • Sociolinguistics and pedagogy • Semiotics • Professional and technical communication Further information is available at the CSSR website: www.cssr-scer.ca.

Wiedebach, Hartwig. Review of Benjamin Pollock, FRANZ ROSENZWEIG AND THE THE SYSTEMATIC TASK OF PHILOSOPHY. NDPR (November 2009).

Pollock, Benjamin. Franz Rosenzweig and the Systematic Task of Philosophy. Cambridge: CUP, 2009. In 1921, Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929) published his philosophical-theological opus magnum: Der Stern der Erlösung (The Star of Redemption, SE), in the Kauffmann-Verlag in Frankfurt, a renowned publishing house for Jewish studies. The book had a mixed reception, marked by both interest and puzzlement. Consequently, four years later, Rosenzweig published "additional remarks" regarding the book. He explained that SE was not a Jewish book in the common understanding of the term. Almost provocatively, Rosenzweig wrote: "rather it is merely a system of philosophy". Benjamin Pollock's book is the most extensive and detailed study to date on this assertion. It presents all the earlier stages in Rosenzweig's thought that led to this conception, and then discusses the systematic construction of SE itself. The presentation is clear and understandable (and particularly accessible because of its wise use of cross-references and frequent restatements of the main theses). Pollock documents in a highly illuminating manner the extensive dispute Rosenzweig waged with Kant, with the tradition of German idealism nourished by Spinoza and Jacobi's counter-criticism, and with a number of contemporary comrades in thought and friends in his own circle. That is manifest, for example, in looking at the question of what actually motivated Rosenzweig to engage in constructing a system. Pollock discovers this motivation in Rosenzweig's well-known early works. . . . Read the whole review here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=18066.

Polt, Richard. Review of Martin Heidegger, BASIC CONCEPTS OF ARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHY. NDPR (November 2009).

Heidegger, Martin. Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy. Trans. Robert D. Metcalf and Mark B. Tanzer. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 2009. This volume presents a lecture course delivered by Heidegger in Summer Semester 1924 at the University of Marburg in which he examines a variety of Aristotelian texts, elucidating key concepts and exploring how these concepts are rooted in the Greek experience of the world. The book was first published in German in 2002 as volume 18 of the collected edition of Heidegger's writings. We now have access to many of Heidegger's interpretations of Aristotle from the 1920s, and most of these are now available in English. Texts such as these make it clear that, despite the revolutionary impact of Being and Time (1927), Heidegger developed some of its central ideas by the most traditional of routes: commentary on the Philosopher. To be sure, Heidegger's is an unusual sort of commentary, which retrieves Aristotle as a proto-phenomenologist and reads him in terms of a larger agenda that is not always explicit. So it would be wrong to call Heidegger an Aristotelian, but it would also be wrong to say that he turns Aristotle into a Heideggerian. Such labels presume that a philosophy consists of a set of propositions to which a philosopher has given assent. But for Heidegger, propositional meaning depends on a deeper, lived engagement with one's situation; he tries to cultivate that engagement in his students and himself by finding evidence of such engagement in Aristotle. In this way, antiquity may give a "jolt to the present, or better put, to the future" (5). No theorems of Aristotelian or Heideggerian philosophy are brought into a system here. Instead, by weaving through a wide range of Aristotle's texts, Heidegger gradually familiarizes us with the Greek sense of being and tries to motivate us to attend to the phenomena just as seriously as Aristotle did (12, 229). If this is not what one expects from a philosopher, then Heidegger prefers not to call what he is doing philosophy at all: let it be called philology (4, 225). As for biographical considerations, he makes the famous statement, "Regarding the personality of a philosopher, our only interest is that he was born at a certain time, that he worked, and that he died" (4). The volume under review presents a major textual challenge that the editor, Mark Michalski, has met in a responsible and reasonable way. The frequent quotations and paraphrases from Aristotle and others require numerous footnotes; a more serious problem is that only about a third of Heidegger's lecture notes are extant, and the rest of what Heidegger actually said must be reconstructed from student transcripts (not "Student Writings", as the translation has it [1]). Since Heidegger's notes are brief and often cryptic, we must admire the improvisational skill with which he apparently delivered an organized, fleshed-out presentation at the lectern. We must also be grateful for the shorthand skills of Walter Bröcker and Gerhard Nebel, the students who recorded Heidegger's spoken German and Greek (275); thanks to their efforts, we can imagine ourselves following along in the lecture hall in 1924. If we had actually been there, we would have had some very gifted classmates, including Hans-Georg Gadamer, Helene Weiss, Jacob Klein, Hans Jonas, Leo Strauss, and Karl Löwith. These promising students were drawn to Marburg by a "rumor of the hidden king", as Hannah Arendt, who joined them in the next semester, was to recall. Heidegger was developing a reputation for thinking in a fresh and exciting way, for bringing the ancients back to life, and even for reviving philosophy itself in Germany. Courses such as the one reconstructed in this volume were to inspire Heidegger's students permanently, even if most came to resist his thought after the shock of his support for the Nazi regime. . . . Read the whole review here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=18065.

Cfp: GLOSSATOR (Fall 2010).

The editors of Glossator: Practice and Theory of the Commentary (glossator.org) invite submissions of COMMENTARIES for the next open issue, Fall 2010. Essays and articles relating to commentary will also be considered. What is commentary? Although the distinction between commentary and other forms of writing is not an absolute one, the following may serve as guidelines: A commentary focuses on a single object (text, image, event, etc.) or portion thereof. A commentary does not displace but rather shapes itself to and preserves the integrity, structure, and presence of its object. The relationship of a commentary to its object may be described as both parallel and perpendicular. Commentary is parallel to its object in that it moves with or runs alongside it, following the flow of reading it. Commentary is perpendicular to its object in that it pauses or breaks from reading it in order to comment on it. The combination of these dimensions gives commentary a structure of continuing discontinuity and a durable utility. Commentary tends to maintain a certain quantitative proportion of itself vis-à-vis its object. This tendency corresponds to the practice of "filling up the margins" of a text. Commentary, as a form of discourse, tends to favor and allow for the multiplication of meanings, ideas, and references. Commentary need not, and often does not, have an explicit central thesis or argument. This tendency gives commentary a ludic or auto-teleological potential. Submissions may be sent through the journal website or as Word attachment to glossatori@gmail.com. Deadline: March 1, 2010. ABOUT GLOSSATOR Glossator publishes original commentaries, editions and translations of commentaries, and essays and articles relating to the theory and history of commentary, glossing, and marginalia (catena, commentum, gemara, glossa, hypomnema, midrash, peser, pingdian, scholia, tafsir, talkhis, tika, vritti, zend, zhangju, et al). The journal aims to encourage the practice of commentary as a creative form of intellectual work and to provide a forum for dialogue and reflection on the past, present, and future of this ancient genre of writing. By aligning itself, not with any particular discipline, but with a particular mode of production, Glossator gives expression to the fact that praxis founds theory. Glossator is a peer-reviewed open-access journal, sponsored by The Graduate Center, CUNY. It is available online at http://glossator.org/. Editors: Nicola Masciandaro (Brooklyn College, CUNY), Karl Steel (Brooklyn College, CUNY), Ryan Dobran (Cambridge University). Section Editors: Nadia Altschul (Johns Hopkins), Stephen A. Barney (UC Irvine), Erik Butler (Emory University), Mary Ann Caws (Graduate Center, CUNY), Alan Clinton (Georgia Institute of Technology), David Greetham (Graduate Center, CUNY), Bruno Gullí (Long Island University), Daniel Heller-Roazen (Princeton University), Jason Houston (University of Oklahoma), Heather Jackson (University of Toronto), Eileen A. Joy (Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville), Anna Klososowka (Miami University), Erin Labbie (Bowling Green), Carsten Madsen (University of Arhaus), Sean McCarthy (Lehman College, CUNY), Reza Negarestani, Daniel C. Remein (NYU), Sherry Roush (Penn State University), Michael Sargent (Graduate Center, CUNY), Michael Stone-Richards (College for Creative Studies), Eugene Thacker (Georgia Institute of Technology), Frans van Liere (Calvin College), Jesús R. Velasco (Columbia), Robert Viscusi (Brooklyn College, CUNY), Valerie Michelle Wilhite (Miami University), Scott Wilson (Lancaster University), Yoshihisa Yamamoto (Chiba University). FORTHCOMING THEMED VOLUMES The Poetry of J. H. Prynne. Special Co-Editor: Ryan Dobran. Spring 2010. Contributors: Justin Katko, Sam Ladkin, Ian Patterson, Neil Pattison, Reitha Pattison, Robin Purves, Thomas Roebuck, Matthew Sperling, Josh Stanley, Michael Stone-Richards, Keston Sutherland, Mike Wallace-Hadrill, John Wilkinson. Occitan Poetry. Special Co-Editors: Anna Kłosowska & Valerie Wilhite. Spring 2011. Contributions: Vincent Barletta, Bill Burgwinkle, Charles Fantazzi, Marisa Gálvez, Virginie Greene, Cary Howie, Erin Labbie, Deborah Lyons, Simone Marchesi, Jean-Jacques Poucel, Jesús Rodríguez-Velasco, Luke Sunderland, Valerie Wilhite. Black Metal. Special Co-Editors: Nicola Masciandaro & Reza Negarestani. Spring 2012. Contributors: Lee Barron, Ray Brassier, Erik Butler, Dominic Fox, Nicola Masciandaro, Reza Negarestani, Benjamin Noys, Steven Shakespeare, Aspasia Stephanou, Eugene Thacker, James Trafford, Stewart Voegtlin, Scott Wilson, Alex Williams, Evan Calder Williams, Ben Woodard.

Vessey, David. Review of John Arthos, THE INNER WORD IN GADAMER'S HERMENEUTICS. NDPR (November 2009).

Arthos, John. The Inner Word in Gadamer's Hermeneutics. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 2009. Gadamer refused to separate doing philosophy from doing the history of philosophy. To philosophize well, he argued, you had to become conscious of the role tradition plays in shaping your concepts and your conclusions. To do the history of philosophy well you have to philosophize well, for to understand a philosopher's views you need to discern what questions his or her views are answering, and that means understanding what questions are good philosophical questions to ask and what would count as good philosophical answers to those questions. Consequently, Gadamer's philosophizing is done in constant dialogue with philosophers of the past and often lying behind even brief references are unarticulated intellectual richness. Readers of Gadamer are just now starting to appreciate all that is in play in his readings of the history of philosophy. John Arthos' 400-page book -- essentially on nine pages of Truth and Method -- will be a model for future scholarship on Gadamer's intellectual inheritance. In the section "Language and Verbum" in the third part of Truth and Method Gadamer makes the remarkable claim that "the human relationship between thought and speech corresponds, despite its imperfections, to the divine relationship of the Trinity." He inststs that a proper understanding of how language connects to the world can only come through reflecting on Augustine's doctrine of the Verbum interius. Arthos not only presents Augustine's doctrine (in Chapter Three, "Hermeneutic Anticipations: The Circular Ontology of the Word in Augustine") he explores in great detail the historical, philosophical, and theological background to Augustine's views. His first chapter, "The Graeco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian Word" presents the origins of the Logos doctrine in Hebrew scripture; in ancient, pre-Attic, Greek; in Hellenistic Greek and Judaism (Philo); in Neo-Platonism; and, leaping ahead in time, in early Protestant theology. His second chapter, "Immanence and Transcendence in the Trinity", covers the developments of Patristic Christology and Trinitarian theology. Chapters 4-6 look more closely at the Thomistic (Chapter Four, "'The Word Is Not Reflexive': Mind and World in Aquinas and Gadamer"), Hegelian (Chapter Five, "The Pattern of Hegel's Trinity: The Legacy of Christian Immanence in German Thought") and Heideggerian (Chapter Six, "Heidegger: On the Way to the Verbum") influences on Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. As you can tell from his widely cast net, Arthos provides a general overview of Gadamer's thought. His presentation is distinctive not only for how it emphasizes medieval theological influences on Gadamer's philosophy of language, but also for how it highlights Gadamer's debts to humanism and to the history of rhetoric. In the second part of his book, Arthos provides a new translation of, and an extraordinarily detailed and insightful commentary on, the "Language and Verbum" section from Truth and Method. In that section Gadamer claims that

there is an idea that is not Greek that does more justice to the being of language, and so prevented the forgetfulness of language in Western thought from being complete. This is the idea of Christian incarnation.

The "forgetfulness of language" is the view that since Plato (according to Gadamer) language is understood as standing in a merely semiotic, instrumental relationship to things. Words are signs, they typically have a different kind of being than the things they signify, and we relate to them as tools of use for thought and communication. Gadamer disagrees with this view and argues over the course of the final third of Truth and Method that there is a fundamentally ontological connection between words and things and that language is not first and foremost a tool for our use, but the medium through which the world is disclosed to consciousness. Gadamer holds that we are able to escape the "forgetfulness of language" only because we've inherited the conceptual resources generated by medieval interpretations of the Trinity. He is quick to point out that he is not interested in the theological implications of Trinitarian thought; still, we owe a great debt to Arthos for working out in detail how something that is literally a theological mystery can provide substantive conceptual resources for solving a philosophical problem absolutely central to Gadamer's hermeneutics. Indeed because it sheds light on Gadamer's theory of language, and language is so fundamental to his hermeneutics, through addressing this topic Arthos provides a coherent, systematic overview of Gadamer's philosophy. Although his focus is the small section of Truth and Method, he draws widely from Gadamer's Gesammelte Werke. . . . Read the rest here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=18105.

Cfp: "Academic Writing and Beyond in Multicultural Societies," Tel-Aviv, July 28-29, 2010.

Hosted by the Institute of Research, Curriculum and Program Development for Teacher Education. At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, more and more educators have come to realize theimportance of academic writing programs both in and beyond academia. The view that thoseentering higher education are able to cope with their writing tasks without guidance has been widelychallenged. The need for quality writing ability after leaving higher education is clear. Beyond theacademy, with globalization in today’s worlds of business, research, and culture, writing skills are anecessity for all who wish to advance professionally. Especially in multicultural societies wherestudents come from many different cultural and linguistic traditions and are often expected to writein more than one language, supporting student writers at all levels of study and preparing them forwriting after their studies are pedagogical imperatives. Two years ago, the Israel Forum for Academic Writing held its first meeting at Tel Aviv University.Its purpose was to connect people engaged in the teaching and research of academic writing in Israel. Instructors in academic writing in Hebrew and English from colleges and universities throughout thecountry attended this meeting. Since then, our organization has grown – we now have over 150members on our mailing list. Visitors from abroad as well as local members have addressed issuessuch as responding to and assessing student writing, the use of technology in the teaching of writing,and how to gain administrative support for our programs. We have been fortunate in finding a homeand support for our organization through the MOFET Institute. In keeping with the intercultural and multi-linguistic nature of today’s societies, invited speakers atthe first international conference on academic writing in Israel will address current issues in firstlanguage, second (third, fourth, etc.) language and foreign language writing. We are also planning to present a panel of writers in English, Hebrew, Arabic, and perhaps other languages on the topic,“Universals and Specifics of Academic Writing across Languages”. Participants will address thequestion of what it means to write in their various languages. Parallel sessions will include individualpresentations, round table discussions, and workshops. The program is designed to engage all those interested in academic writing programs and the writersthey educate. Keynote and plenary sessions will be delivered in English. Papers and small grouppresentations may be given in Hebrew, English, or Arabic. Research-based contributions, as well aspractical approaches to the teaching and learning of academic and professional writing are welcome. Types of Presentations • Individual paper or presentation: 40 minutes including at least 10 minutes for discussion • Panel presentation: three 25-minute presentations with 15 minutes for discussion • Workshop: 90 minutes allowing at least 30 minutes for non-presenter participation • Round-table discussion: 90 minutes including non-presenter participation • Poster presentation Organizing Committee: Trudy Zuckermann — Achva Academic College of Education; Hebrew University of Jerusalem Bella Rubin — Tel Aviv University Hadara Perpignan — Bar Ilan University Sue Schneider — David Yellin College of Education; Open University of Israel Michael Dickel — Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Ohalo College Miri Yochanna — Seminar Hakibbutzim College of Education; CET (the Center for EducationalTechnology) Bev Stock — David Yellin College of Education Ziona Snir — Tel Aviv University; Seminar Hakibbutzim College of Education Cherryl Smith — California State University in Sacramento Further information is available from the conference chair, Dr. Trudy Zuckermann, mailto:trudy@vms.huji.ac.il

"Nietzsches Wissenschaftsphilosophie / Nietzsche's Philosophy of Science," Technische Universität Berlin, July 18–21, 2010.

Science in the wide sense of the German word 'Wissenschaft', covering the natural and the social sciences as well as the humanities, is one of the most significant and efficient features of modern culture. Nietzsche's philosophical work counts among the most prominent and influential reflections on this modern culture and he always put special emphasis on 'Wissenschaft'. From Nietzsche's philosophical point of view, science on the one hand is a specific mode of constructing and defending knowledge-claims, which could be qualified epistemologically, but on the other hand it is a historically contextualized and socially relevant cultural technique. On the basis of these ideas, this conference focuses on the significance and current topicality of Nietzsche's philosophy of science. Moreover, we would like to contextualize Nietzsche within the framework of his contemporary debates and investigate how his thoughts about "the problem of science" influenced the development of the 20th and 21st centuries' philosophy of science. Therefore, we will have keynote- lectures and contributed papers on these four internally connected fields: 1. Topicality: What would be Nietzsche's contribution to current issues in the philosophy of science? 2. Reception: How were Nietzsche's ideas adopted by philosophers of natural and social sciences and humanities in the 20th and 21st centuries? 3. Content: How should we understand central themes and motives of Nietzsche's philosophy of science? 4. Context: What is the significance of Nietzsche's reception of the sciences and contemporary and classical text for his philosophy of science? Conference languages are German and English. If you want to contribute to this conference, please send a one page abstract of your paper and a brief CV to Dr. Helmut Heit: helmut.heit@tu-berlin.de. Deadline for contributed papers is Jan.,17th 2010. For further information please consult: http://www.nietzsche-colloquium.de/.

Cfp: "The Futures of Phenomenology," Department of Philosophy, National University of Ireland, Galway, March 6-7, 2010.

Spring Conference of Irish Philosophical Society. Keynote Speaker: Prof. Rudi Visker (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium) The conference is dedicated to raising and addressing some of the fundamental issues and concerns in post-Husserlian thought. Hence, we are seeking papers which address the theme of phenomenological critique, its limits and its relevance, from both a historical and a contemporary perspective. Papers which take up the relationship between phenomenology and other philosophical traditions such as hermeneutics, feminism, Thomism, critical theory, analytic philosophy, etc., are also welcome. We invite individual e-mail submissions for papers on any aspect of Husserlian and post-Husserlian phenomenology, including critiques and applications of phenomenological thinking in any area of contemporary continental thought. Please send an abstract of approximately 750 words, which should be formatted for anonymous review and sent by email to Dr. Michael Dunne (michael.w.dunne@nuim.ie), Dr. Niall Keane (niall.keane@mic.ul.ie) and Dr. James McGuirk (James.McGuirk@hibo.no) by December 15th, 2009. In addition, on a separate sheet please include your full contact details. Submitters will be notified of the committee’s decision regarding their submission via e-mail no later than January 15th, 2010.

"The Future of Philosophy: Metaphilosophical Directions for the 21st Century," Institute of Philosophy, University of London, December 11, 2009.

PROGRAMME 9.00 Registration & coffee 9.30 Terrell Ward Bynum (Southern Connecticut State), "Two Philosophers of the Information Age" 11.00 Timothy Williamson (Oxford), "Philosophical Expertise and the Burden of Proof" 12.30 Lunch (own arrangements) 1.30 Philip Kitcher (Columbia), "Philosophy Inside Out' 3.00 David Papineau (King's College London), "The Importance of Philosophical Intuition" 4.30 Tea 5.00 Panel: The Future of Philosophy: Metaphilosophical Directions for the 21st Century Chair: Armen T. Marsoobian (Editor in Chief, Metaphilosophy) 6.00 Reception hosted by Metaphilosophy Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Further information is here: http://www.philosophy.sas.ac.uk/Metaphilosophy.htm.

"Subject and Appearance: On Alain Badiou's THEORY OF THE SUBJECT and LOGICS OF WORLDS, Middlesex University, November 20, 2010.

Hosted by the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy. 10.00 Registration 10.20 Introduction, Peter Hallward 10.30 SUBJECT

• Bruno Bosteels, Theory of the Subject (Cornell University, NY)
• Kristin Ross, "Badiou, Mallarmé and the Commune" ( New York University)

11.15 Discussion Chair: Peter Hallward

12.30 Lunch Break

1.45 APPEARANCE

• Alberto Toscano, Logics of Worlds (Goldsmiths, London)
• Ali Alizadeh "Badiou and Hegel" (CRMEP, Middlesex University)

2.30: Discussion Chair: Peter Osborne

3.45 Break

4.00 Subject, Appearance, Politics Panel:

Ali Alizadeh, Bruno Bosteels, Nina Power, Kristin Ross, Alberto Toscano Chair: Éric Alliez 4.30 Closing discussion 5.00–6.30 Reception Further information is here: http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/CRMEP/EVENTS/Subject&Appearance.htm.

Macarthur, David. Review of Jack Ritchie's UNDERSTANDING NATURALISM. NDPR (November 2009).

Ritchie, Jack. Understanding Naturalism. Cheshire: Acumen, 2008. Naturalism is the current orthodoxy within Anglo-American philosophy, an outlook that shapes the way philosophers understand the mission and problems of philosophy. But what is naturalism? This is not an easy question to answer although the general outlines of an answer are clear. Naturalism wants to make philosophy properly responsive to the successes of modern science (rather than traditional philosophy) in providing fruitful explanations and extensive knowledge of natural phenomena. It also wants to make sense of the human condition in non-supernatural terms. Ritchie takes these two tasks to align so that making philosophical sense of ourselves and our world is best approached by looking to science, and only science, for guidance. But how is one to go beyond a general attitude of admiration for science or chanting such vague slogans as "Philosophy is continuous with science" and "There is no first philosophy"? Ritchie's clearly written, well-exampled and engaging book is an attempt to answer this question by distinguishing various kinds of naturalism within the landscape of contemporary scientific naturalism and by providing an overview of some of the most prominent naturalistic projects and programs over the past 50 years concerning knowledge, ontology, science, mind, meaning and truth. Collected volumes have covered this ground before but this is the first book that I am aware of to do so from a single point of view . . . Read the whole review here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=18045.

"Thirty Years After: Richard Rorty & the Mirror of Nature," Royal Holloway College & Institute of Philosophy, University of London, November 6, 2009.

Update: Download podcasts of the presentations here: http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2009/11/rorty-and-the-mirror-of-nature/. Original Post (April 10, 2009): Programme: 9.30 Registration & coffee 10.00 Bjorn Ramberg (Oslo), "For the sake of his own generation: Rorty on destruction and edification" -- Respondent/Chair: Neil Gascoigne (Royal Holloway) 11.30 Robert Brandom (Pittsburgh), "Global Anti-Representationalism?" -- Respondent/Chair: Tadeusz Szubka (Szczecinski) 1.00 Lunch (own arrangements) 2.30 Albrecht Wellmer (Berlin), Rereading Rorty (II) -- Respondent/Chair: Andrew Bowie (Royal Holloway) 4.00 Tea 4.30 Michael Williams (Johns Hopkins), "" -- Respondent/Chair: Mark Kalderon (UCL) 6.00 Close Further details are available at: http://www.philosophy.sas.ac.uk/Rorty.htm

Cfp: "Marxism and Psychology," Department of Psychology, University of Prince Edward Island, August 5-7, 2010.

In the history of social thought, it is difficult to find a more divisive figure than Karl Marx. For many, the mere mention of his name conjures up images of totalitarian regimes dominating nearly every aspect of an individual’s existence. Yet for others, Marx’s critique of the capitalist mode of production draws attention to the fact that our beliefs, thoughts, and desires inevitably emerge against the background of specific cultural, historical, and social practices. The purpose of this conference is to bring students, scholars, and activists together to discuss exciting issues at the intersection of Marxism and Psychology. While it is clear that a number of organizations are making important contributions to this area of study, we believe that the time is right to open up a space for students, scholars, and activists from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds to reflect on the role that Marxism can play in psychological theory, research, and practice. In bringing together scholars at the forefront of research in Marxism and Psychology, we also hope to give new students and activists an opportunity to interact with individuals who have made significant contributions within this area. By organizing an impressive collection of plenary participants, we hope to foster an environment where students, activists, and scholars can identify potential graduate advisors, research assistants, and participatory investigators. This year, confirmed plenary participants include: John Cromby Raquel Guzzo Lois Holzman Gordana Jovanovic Joel Kovel Athanasios Marvakis Morten Nissen Ian Parker Carl Ratner Hans Skott-Myhre Thomas Teo Biographical information for the plenary participants can be found on the conference website. We welcome submissions for individual papers and panel sessions. For individual papers, please submit an abstract (150-200 words) no later than January 15, 2010. For panel submissions, please include an abstract (150-200 words) for each paper as well as a brief description of the panel (150-200 words). Please submit all materials to marfken@upei.ca. Abstracts should either be in the body of the email or sent as an attachment (DOC or PDF format). For further information, please visit the conference website: http://vre.upei.ca/mprg/

Jacobson, Eric. Review of Stephane Moses, THE ANGEL OF HISTORY. NDPR (November 2009).

Mosès, Stéphane. The Angel of History: Rosenzweig, Benjamin, Scholem. Trans. Barbara Harshav. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2009. Stéphane Mosès's The Angel of History is a classic in modern Jewish philosophy and a fine choice for the Stanford series Cultural Memory in the Present edited by Mieke Bal and Hent de Vries. The new translation by Barbara Harshav has made a meaningful contribution to this chain of tradition, carefully rendering complicated phrases from French that once served as interpretations in thought and deed from German. Since the first publication of this pioneering study in 1992, it is surprising to note how much has changed in the scholarship on Franz Rosenzweig, Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem. For one, it is no longer common to place Benjamin under the lens of Marxism. Equally, Rosenzweig is more commonly viewed in the light of Levinas, Expressionism and Heidegger today than in the shadow of Martin Buber. But perhaps even more, our picture of Scholem has considerably changed with the ongoing scholarship of the Kabbalah. We have generally come to see all three figures in their intellectual context more deeply rooted in modern German history and our understanding of the tensions evident in their work -- between thought and action, rupture and causality, and indeed a Jew in a Christian world -- has expanded considerably since the first publication of this book. The first English translation cannot help but raise questions regarding the study of modern German-Jewish thought two decades on. The book is divided into three equal parts with each figure receiving three chapters, yet Rosenzweig emerges as the dominant figure. This is perhaps inevitable from a scholar whose earlier work entitled System and Revelation is a close reading of Rosenzweig's magnum opus, The Star of Redemption. Still there are formal grounds for Rosenzweig's preeminence. An exchange of letters from 1921 establishes the influence of The Star of Redemption on Benjamin and Scholem. There is evidence to suggest that Benjamin shapes his early Messianism in relation to The Star. Scholem's debt to Rosenzweig is evident in many places, not least in a 1930 lecture delivered in Rosenzweig's memory. With Rosenzweig as the benchmark, Mosès seeks to uncover the affinities between the three figures in the notions of history, time and language. He is the first to recognize the conceptual mutuality of the three authors and the need to understand them as part of a common tradition. However, in emphasizing their commonality, thematic structures meant to suggest fraternity occasionally ring hollow and the contrasts insufficient. For example, the association of the three with the categories of "religion", "revolution" and "Zionism", as Mosès suggests in the opening chapter, yields very little ground. Whereas the religion as leitmotif for Rosenzweig is self-evident, there is a very narrow road to revolution in Benjamin and little practical Zionism in Scholem. Much stronger is the notion of a common approach to history, which Mosès understands as a revolt against the idea of progress, a history leading to greater forms of reason that finds an epiphany in Hegel. As he remarks: "Past suffering is not abolished even by a triumphant future, which claims to give them meaning, and more than thwarted hopes are refuted by the failures that seem to sanction them" (11). . . . Read the whole review here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=18006.

Frazer, Michael L. Review of J. G. Pocock's POLITICAL THOUGHT AND HISTORY. NDPR (November 2009).

Pocock, J. G. A. Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method. Cambridge: CUP, 2009. As J. G. A. Pocock is wholly aware, Thomas Kuhn's paradigm of "paradigms" is of only limited usefulness outside the natural sciences. It can, however, help give us some sense of Pocock's place in recent intellectual history. Just as political philosophers today cannot help but understand their work in terms of its relationship with that of John Rawls, historians of political thought cannot help but understand their work in terms of its relationship with the Cambridge School, of which Pocock was a founding member. Pocock was coauthor of a paradigm -- or, as he would now put it, a "political language", a new method for talking about political phenomena. The essays collected in the volume under review were selected by their author because they "indicate what I have taken (and still take) this method and its intimations to be" (vii). The method developed by Pocock and his Cambridge colleagues now wields hegemony within its self-proclaimed domain, which includes all scholars of political thought who consider themselves historians, and pointedly excludes those who consider themselves philosophers. The Cambridge School placed a barrier between political theorists and their history. It is incumbent upon those living comfortably on their respective sides of the fence, as well as those who attempt to breach it, to understand why it was erected in the first place. As such, Political Thought and History is an indispensible volume for all of those working within and across these enclosed fields today. The essays collected in this volume span most of Pocock's career. Those in Part I -- entitled "Political Thought as History" -- are, by and large, older, the last dating from 1987. Although Part II -- "History as Political Thought" -- contains two essays from the 1960s, the other three are much more recent, as is an "intermezzo" on Quentin Skinner. For those new to Pocock's take on the Cambridge method, these essays can serve as an accessible introduction. For those already familiar with Pocock's work, the convenience of having many (if not all) of his major methodological writings together is considerable. Political Thought and History is meant not only as an elucidation of the Cambridge method, but also as an application of it. At this late stage in his career, Pocock can look back at his place in the emergence of the Cambridge School in a distinctly Cantabrigian way. While others have already begun explaining the emergence of Cambridge contextualism as a product of its historical context, there is something strange and fascinating in watching a great scholar attempt this procedure on himself and his own ideas. . . . Read the whole review here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=18005.

"Animal(s) Matter(s): the Future of Critical Animal Studies," Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool, April 23, 2010.

Sponsored by the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, Society for Applied Philosophy, Mind Association. Speakers: Alistair Currie (PETA) Gauging, Changing and Mobilising Public Opinion: Challenges for AR Advocates. Prof Celia Deane-Drummond (Chester & CAFOD) Taking leave of the animal: transhumanity as transanimality. Jasmijn de Boo (Animals Count) Animal protection on hold in conservative UK Prof Robert Garner (Leicester) In Defence of Sentiency: A Critique of One Version of Animal Rights Dr Simon James (Durham) Animal Minds and the Demand for Evidence Dr Dan Lyons (Uncaged Campaigns) Advancing animal protection: Strategic action in an adverse structural context Dr Karen Morgan (Cardiff) Ethical veganism and animal rights: learning from feminist research and activism Dr Anat Pike (UEL) Creaturely Ethics: Beyond the Discourse of Rights Dr Richard Twine (Lancaster) Putting the ‘critical’ in Critical Animal Studies. What does it mean? Dr Richard White (Sheffield Hallam) Building Alliances between academic and activist communities. Cost (including lunch & refreshments): £40 (waged); £30 (students & unwaged), payable to University of Liverpool. Further information from Stephen R. L. Clark, Dept of Philosophy, University of Liverpool, 7 Abercromby Square, Liverpool L69 7WY or srlclark@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK.

DEATH: Claude Levi-Strauss (1908 - 2009).

Update: See the following obituaries:

• Anon.: Claude Lévi-Strauss Telegraph November 3, 2009
• Anon.: Claude Lévi-Strauss French Social Anthropologist Times November 4, 2009
• Bloch, Maurice: Claude Lévi-Strauss Obituary Guardian November 3, 2009
• Droit, Roger-Pol: L'Ethnologue Claude Lévi-Strauss est mort Le Monde November 3, 2009
• Kuper, Adam: Claude Levi-Strauss . . . Father of Modern Anthropology Independent November 4, 2009
• Rothstein, Edward: Claude Lévi-Strauss, 100, Dies New York Times November 4, 2009

Original Post (November 3, 2009): Claude Levi-Strauss, the eminent Structuralist anthropologist, died today, November 3. For more information on his life and career, see the Wikipedia entry in English here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss) or for information on his publications, visit his PhilWeb page here (http://www.phillwebb.net/History/TwentiethCentury/Continental/(Post)Structuralisms/Structuralism/Levi-Strauss/L%C3%A9vi-Strauss.htm). See also the BBC article on his passing here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340936.stm.

"Symposium on Joshua Glasgow, A THEORY OF RACE." SGRP (Fall 2009).

Glasgow, Joshua. A Theory of Race. London: Routledge, 2009. The SGRP has posted its Fall 2009 Symposium on Joshua Glasgow's book, A Theory of Race. Commentaries are by Michael O. Hardimon (UCSD), Sally Haslanger (MIT), Ron Mallon (U. Utah), and Naomi Zack (U. Oregon) with Joshua Glasgow's reply. Please have a look and post your comments! Download the symposium here: http://sgrp.typepad.com/sgrp/2009/10/symposium-on-joshua-glasgow-a-theory-of-race.html.

McWhorter, John. "The Cosmopolitan Tongue: the Universality of English." WORLD AFFAIRS JOURNAL (Fall 2009).

What makes the potential death of a language all the more emotionally charged is the belief that if a language dies, a cultural worldview will die with it. But this idea is fragile. Certainly language is a key aspect of what distinguishes one group from another. However, a language itself does not correspond to the particulars of a culture but to a faceless process that creates new languages as the result of geographical separation. For example, most Americans pronounce disgusting as “diss-kussting” with a k sound. (Try it—you probably do too.) However, some people say “dizz-gusting”—it’s easier to pronounce the g after a softer sound like z. Imagine a language with the word pronounced as it is spelled (and as it was in Latin): “diss-gusting.” The group speaking the language splits into two groups that go their separate ways. Come back five hundred years later, and one group is pronouncing the word “diss-kussting,” while the other is pronouncing it “dizz-gusting.” After even more time, the word would start shortening, just as we pronounce “let us” as “let’s.” After a thousand years, in one place it would be something like “skussting,” while in the other it might be “zgustin.” After another thousand, perhaps “skusty” and “zguss.” By this time, these are no longer even the same language. This is exactly why there are different languages—what began in Latin as augustus became agosto in Spanish and, in French, août, pronounced as just the single vowel sound. Estonian is what happened when speakers of an earlier language migrated away from other ones; in one place, Estonian happened, in the other, Finnish did. And so while Finnish for horse is hevonen, in Estonian it’s hobune. Notice that this is not about culture, any more than saying “diss-kusting” rather than “diz-gusting” reflects anything about one’s soul. In fact, all human groups could, somehow, exhibit the exact same culture—and yet their languages would be as different as they are now, because the differences are the result of geographical separation, leading to chance linguistic driftings of the kind that turn augustus into agosto and août. In this we would be like whales, whose species behave similarly everywhere, but have distinct “songs” as the result of happenstance. Who argues that we must preserve each pod of whales because of the particular songs they happen to have developed? The diversity of human languages is subject to the same evaluation: each one is the result of a roll of the dice. One school of thought proposes that there is more than mere chance in how a language’s words emerge, and that if we look closely we see culture peeping through. For example, in its obituary for Eyak, the Economist proposed that the fact that kultahl meant both leaf and feather signified a cultural appreciation of the unique spiritual relationship of trees and birds. But in English we use hover to refer both to the act of waiting, suspended, in the air and the act of staying close to a mate at a cocktail party to ward off potential rivals. Notice how much less interesting that is to us than the bit about the Eyak and leaves and feathers. For the better part of a century, all attempts to conjure any meaningful indication of thought patterns or cultural outlook from the vocabularies andgrammars of languages has fallen apart in that sort of way, with researchers picking up only a few isolated shards of evidence. For example, because “table” has feminine gender in Spanish (la mesa), a Spanish speaker is more likely—if pressed—to imagine a cartoon table having a high voice. But this isn’t exactly what most of us would think of as meaningfully “cultural,” nor as having to do with “thought.” And in fact, Spanish speakers do not go about routinely imagining tables as cooing in feminine tones. Thus the oft-heard claim that the death of a language means the death of a culture puts the cart before the horse. When the culture dies, naturally the language dies along with it. The reverse, however, is not necessarily true. Groups do not find themselves in the bizarre circumstance of having all of their traditional cultural accoutrements in hand only to find themselves incapable of indigenous expression because they no longer speak the corresponding language. Native American groups would bristle at the idea that they are no longer meaningfully “Indian” simply because they no longer speak their ancestral tongue. Note also the obvious and vibrant black American culture in the United States, among people who speak not Yoruba but English. The main loss when a language dies is not cultural but aesthetic. The click sounds in certain African languages are magnificent to hear. In many Amazonian languages, when you say something you have to specify, with a suffix, where you got the information. The Ket language of Siberia is so awesomely irregular as to seem a work of art. . . . Read the rest here: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009%20-%20Fall/full-McWhorter-Fall-2009.html.

IN OUR TIME with Melvyn Bragg. BBC Radio 4 October 29, 2009.

Melvyn Bragg is joined by A.C. Grayling, Beatrice Han-Pile, and Christopher Janaway to discuss the dark, pessimistic philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, which set the tone for much twentieth century thought. Download the podcast here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/iot/rss.xml.