---

Taobuk 2021, IX edizione. La Metamorfosi
Taormina, 17-21 giugno 2021

Le fascinazioni della letteratura unite alla bellezza di un luogo unico al mondo. È l’equazione perfetta di Taobuk, festival letterario internazionale, che raccoglie la tradizione di Taormina quale capitale cosmopolita della letteratura, e delle arti in genere, rifugio di personalità eccentriche ed eccellenti, da Tennessee Williams a Truman Capote, da Picasso a Richard Strauss.

Palazzo Ciampoli, 17 giugno, h 12.00
Metamorfosi dei Big Data. Lavagna universal del mondo digitale

Tra gli scenari odierni caratterizzati dai più radicali e repentini cambiamenti spicca quello della proliferazione – senza precedenti – di dati e documenti. La portata straordinaria del fenomeno, che investe persone e mezzi, rapporti sociali e umani, è magistralmente descritta da Maurizio Ferraris in Documanità. Filosofia del mondo nuovo (Laterza), in cui si analizza l’emergere dei big data come merce di scambio di incomparabile valore.

L'autore dialoga con Antonio Siracusano, de La Gazzetta del Sud.
Webpage

---

Seminar Series - Ethics and Technology: Fiorella Battaglia
17 June, h 17

The seminars are part of a 3-year interuniversity project (PRIN) on "New challenges for applied ethics. The moral impact of scientific and technological advances". The seminar series on Ethics and Technology is organized by Sofia Bonicalzi (Roma Tre) Mario De Caro (Roma Tre & Tufts), Benedetta Giovanola (Macerata & Tufts). For info, please write at sofia.bonicalzi@uniroma3.it

Fiorella Battaglia (LMU, Munich), Predictive Algorithms and Epistemic Injustice

Zoom link (ID meeting: 950 6540 6997; PW: 674726)
Webpage

---

Labont Seminar: Ronald Day
University of Turin, 21 June, h 16-18

Ronald Day, Trauma, Time, and “Unconscious Information”
 

Teoria del progetto architettonico. Critica della ragione architettonica
Politecnico di Torino, 3-25 giugno

Description: The aim of the CAT initiative is to foster networks of excellent early-career researchers dedicated to devising new ideas to understand and to tackle current or emerging societal challenges. Although the programme has a strong focus on the societal relevance of the projects, it is entirely blue sky, bottom-up and non-thematic. CAT encourages a collaboration with stakeholders outside academia (industry, policymakers, NGOs...) who are willing to support or engage in innovative research initiatives. In order to engage in fruitful discussions and mature their ideas, the groups will be given the opportunity to meet for shortstaysin different participating institutes, and to be put in contact with the institutes’ fellows and local research communities. With few guidelines and a very light application process, CAT is designed to maximize the creativity of research groups. This call has been incubated in the Network of European Institutes for Advanced Study (NETIAS) and also involves institutes beyond the network. The collaboration between twelve different institutes in different countries aims at giving these groups access to a great variety of high-level thinkers and researchers in order to go beyond the current frontiers of knowledge and to develop highly innovative ideas on how to address very complex societal issues.

Instructions: Please submit your application documents in English as PDF files. Applications should include the following materials:
(1) a 300-word abstract;
(2) a 3000-word max project proposal (references not included in the count) OR a video of 15 min max (in this case, please include the web link in the abstract), describing the team’s research question and how it plans to address it. The team’s motivation as well as the societal issues addressed and the interdisciplinary aspects of the project should be specified;
(3) a work plan for the whole project duration, including meetings (tentative dates and possibly preferred hosting IAS) and activities with an indicative calendar;
(4) a short description of the team;
(5) a PDF file with CVs for each participant and an indication of where they will travel from to the meetings;
(6) letters of support: at least two from academic researchers; additional letters from extra-academic stakeholders outside academia are encouraged.
Download the full Cfa

---

Description: Actually philosophical thought in Italy is now attracting increasing interest outside of Italian borders. Philosophy in Italy has had a significant influence on Western philosophy for centuries. But the Russian readers know Italian philosophy insufficiently and fragmentally. What makes Italian philosophical thought so special? What makes it so similar to our type of perception? The issue dedicated to Italian philosophy we hope will open a unique synthesis of contemporary philosophy and the greatest traditions of the Past. This point was proved by Italian thinkers in Aesthetics and Semiology studies where they have invented a shaped culture that unites analytical origins of contemporary methodology with humanitarian questions. The Italian soil is proving to be an extraordinarily fertile ground for new concepts and innovative engagements between philosophy and those disciplines with which it proves itself capable of communicating, from law to theology, from linguistics to anthropology, politics, and beyond.
Instructions: We welcome academic articles, scientific translations, critical reviews (on books or scientific events), philosophical interviews, written by young researchers (students; postgraduates and researcher).
Instructions: Papers are submitted by the e-mail: vita.cogitans@yandex.ru or in z.nikolaeva@spbu.ru; zh.v.nikolaeva@gmail.com. Languages for publication: English, Russian. Submissions are getting through double-blind peer review. All the articles of “Vita Cogitans” will be in the open access; will be indexed of the Russian Science Citation Index & visible under agreement with Clarivate Analytics on the Web of Science platform (in the form of a separate database of RSCI). The webpage of the journal "Vita Cogitans. Almanac of Young Philosophers" on the web site of  Herzen University (in Russian). Additional information & finally guidelines to authors will also be available after 1 september, 2021 via the website too.

---

Rivista di Estetica (1/2023)

Description: “Sociality” is a fuzzy word that can be found in a wide range of scopes and debates, from antiquity to the contemporary age. Notwithstanding or rather just in virtue of its wide currency, however, there is no explicit consensus on the meaning “sociality” has. While biology and sociology have rather wide notions of sociality, the focus of social ontology is on the social world, that is, the ontological domain which is populated by social entities. While according to some sociality occurs as long as there is interaction among people, involving joint commitments and plural subjects, others refer to the social world as mostly made of institutional facts or social objects, or deal with social actions and practices.
This issue of Rivista di Estetica aims at shedding light on sociality by addressing two core classic subjects of social philosophy: groups and solidarity. Indeed, groups are the most obvious result of sociality as the tendency of grouping, depending on living and interacting with others. On the other hand, as another branch of sociality, solidarity has only recently attracted remarkable attention from social and political philosophers; while some propose to unpack it in terms of joint action, others explore the forms of mutual recognition that are combined in solidarity.
Topics and research questions include (but are not limited to):

 

Instructions: Submissions focusing on other aspects of social groups and solidarity, both from a theoretical and an ethical point of view are welcome. Articles must be written in English or in Italian and should not exceed 40.000 characters, notes and blank-spaces included.

Advisory editors: Giovanna Pinna, Serena Feloj, Robert Clewis
 

Description: The last few decades have seen an increased interest in the aesthetics of German Idealism. In particular, this turning point in the history of philosophical reflection on beauty and art has been made fruitful for explorations of contemporary artistic practices. The focus, however, has so far been put primarily on a limited number of themes and authors, with a marked prevalence of investigations into Hegel and the issue of the ‘end of art’. The publication of the transcripts of Hegel’s lectures and new annotated editions of other works (such as Schelling’s Philosophie der Kunst or Solger’s Vorlesungen über Ästhetik) have significantly broadened the textual base. This fresh material has allowed scholars to explore in more depth the development of the thought of individual authors, as well as the relationships, affinities and distances between their differing positions. The aim of this volume is to reconsider post-Kantian aesthetics by dwelling on the variety of thinkers, and theoretical issues that defined it, in order to discuss the outcome – in terms of aesthetic theory – of these positions and their possible contribution to current discussions on art and its social and philosophical relevance.
 

Instructions: Submissions focusing on the relationship between German Idealism and Romanticism, or on the position of authors like Hölderlin, Fichte, Schelling, Vischer, or Solger within the framework of post-Kantian aesthetic thought, or on specific aspects of the theory of Idealism, including relatively overlooked topics like the comical or humorous, are welcome. Articles must be written in English or in Italian and should not exceed 40.000 characters, notes and blank-spaces included. Mail to: giovanna.pinna@unimol.it and redazionerivistadiestetica@gmail.com

---

The Monist
Transgenerationality, community and justice
Deadline for submissions: 31 December 2021
Guest editors: Tiziana Andina (University of Turin), Fausto Corvino (University of Turin)
 

The research on intergenerational justice has followed in the last decades three main directives: neo-contractualist models that aim to demonstrate that there can be mutual advantage in indirect cooperation or to find moral patches based on intra-familiar love; studies on the implications that utilitarianism, prioritarianism and sufficientarianism have with respect to future generations (e.g., the social discount rate, the repugnant conclusion, the hermit’s paradox, and so forth); analysis of how it is possible to conceive intergenerational harm in the face of the non-identity problem. There is, however, a third possible line of research, which, despite having received much less attention over the years, presents much less theoretical complications than the approaches set out above, and this is transgenerational communitarianism. Avner De Shalit outlined, more than twenty years ago, the concept of transgenerational community, that is, a community that despite the lack of face-to-face interactions between all its members (due to obvious temporal asymmetries) manages to ensure moral similarity between them through free and rational processes of collective reflection.

Although this idea is able to give normative foundation to intergenerational obligations without incurring the theoretical complications that meet the most known and discussed theories that are based on a strict methodological individualism, such as complications related to the identity of future people and population ethics, it has not been developed in the literature as due. At the same time, however, a consistent metaphysical research has gone ahead on the concepts of transgenerationality and of transgenerational actions, i.e., actions that can be realized only with the contribution of subjects other than those who initiated them – which is, in essence, the theoretical assumption of any transgenerational community.

Accordingly, the purpose of this special issue is to investigate the relationship between transgenerationality, on the one hand, and a community-based normative foundation of justice towards future generations, on the other. In particular, we are interested in addressing three theoretical issues:

– What are the metaphysical underpinnings of the concept of transgenerationality and under which circumstances one or more transgenerational actions can create duties of justice, positive or negative, towards future generations?

– What is a transgenerational community and what kind of obligations does it create among its members belonging to different generational cohorts? And what is the temporal extension of these obligations?

– What are the drawbacks of a communitarian approach to intergenerational justice? For example, can it give the right theoretical value to intergenerational problems, such as climate change, which have a clear cosmopolitan scope?

Invited authors

Avner de Shalit (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)

Luigi Bonatti (University of Trento, Italy) and Lorenza Alexandra Lorenzetti (Università Cattolica, Milan, Italy)

Janna Thompson (La Trobe University, Australia)

Jean Comaroff (Harvard University, USA) and John Comaroff (Harvard University, USA),

May Sim (College of the Holy Cross, MA, USA)

Ferdinando G. Menga (Università della Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Italy)
Submission Information: All submissions should be prepared for anonymous review and sent to:
tiziana.andina@unito.it <mailto:tiziana.andina@unito.it> and fausto.corvino@unito.it <mailto:fausto.corvino@unito.it>

Word limit: 8000 words, including notes and references.

---

  DEADLINE APPROACHING  Argumenta
Special Issue: The Source of Modality
Submission deadline: 21 June 2021
 
Guest Editors: Giacomo Giannini (LSE), Joaquim Giannotti (University of Birmingham)

Invited Contributors: Jessica Leech (King’s College London ), Michael Wallner (University of Graz), Jennifer Wang (Simon Fraser University), Tobias Wilsch (University of Tübingen), Al Wilson (University of Birmingham)

Description: It is hard to overestimate the centrality of modality and modal notions in philosophy. As Boris Kment notes, ‘since the work of Kripke, Lewis, and others ushered in the modal turn in analytic philosophy, modality has become one of the most active areas of research in metaphysics and modal notions have been central to philosophical theorizing across the board—from the foundations of logic to moral theory’ (2014:1). Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in the topic of the foundation of modality: in virtue of what, if anything, do modal facts and truths hold? What is it to be necessary or possible?  Traditional answers, involving possible worlds (whose nature has been central to discussions in modal metaphysics for most of the second half of the last century), have, on the one hand, received new blood from unexpected sources, such as Everettian interpretations of quantum mechanics (Wilson 2020), and, on the other hand, have been joined and challenged by new theories that give possible worlds a much less central role (Cameron 2010). These include primitivist theories about modality (Wilsch 2017, Wang 2013) or counterfactuals (Lange 2009), non-descriptivist theories (Thomasson 2020), as well as ‘hardcore actualist’ (Contessa 2009) approaches, which seek to ground modality in something more fundamental than simple possibility, necessity, or primitive counterfactuals, while also attempting to do away with possible worlds altogether, thereby identifying the sources of modal truths only in local features of the actual world. For instance, Dispositionalists (Vetter 2015; Borghini and Williams 2008; Jacobs 2010) claim that dispositional properties of actually existing things are the loci of modal truths, while Essentialists aim to ground modality in the essences of actually existing entities (Fine 1994; Hale 2013; Correia 2012; Lowe 2013; Leech forthcoming). This flourishing literature not only reveals that we are far from any consensus as to the source of modality, but also invites productive conversations and debates to be had between the proponents of these new theories. The question of whether these alternatives to classic possible-worlds approaches can deliver what they promise remains. To the purpose of advancing the debate concerning the metaphysics of modality, we invite submission of original work on new theories of modality, broadly construed, that address the following non-exhaustive list of questions:

• Are there promising candidates for grounding modality that have not yet been canvassed by the literature?
• What is the source of possibility and necessity? What does it mean to provide the source of modality?
• What is the relationship between the various recent theories of modality? How do they fare with respect to one another?
• Should we get rid of possible worlds, at least for the purpose of grounding alethic modality? What is the role of possible worlds models in theories of modality that do not take them to offer the foundation of modality?
• Is there a fundamental (alethic) modality from which the others can be derived, or are there irreducible varieties of (alethic) modality? Do they have the same foundation?
• Can Blackburn’s dilemma (Blackburn 1986) be solved, and if so, how? Do any of the recent theories have a unique advantage in tackling it?
• What notion of locality is at play in New Actualist theories of modality? Is there a common notion across the board?

Instructions: Articles must be written in English and should not exceed 8000 words.  For the presentation of their articles, authors are requested to take into account the instructions available under Information for Authors. Submissions must be suitable for blind review. Each submission should also include a brief abstract of no more than 250 words and four keywords for indexing purposes. Notification of intent to submit, including both a title and a brief summary of the content, will be greatly appreciated, as it will assist with the coordination and planning of the special issue.
Webpage

---

Journal of Transcendental Philosophy
Kant and the Role(s) of Doctrines of Method
Submission deadline: 1 April 2022

Guest editors: Andrew Chignell (Princeton University), Gabriele Gava (University of Turin)

Description: Each of Kant’s three Critiques includes a ‘doctrine of method’. There is a ‘Transcendental Doctrine of Method’ in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787), a ‘Doctrine of Method of Pure Practical Reason’ in the Critique of Practical Reason (1788) and a ‘Doctrine of Method of the Teleological Power of Judgment’ in the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790). Additionally, there is an ‘Ethical Doctrine of Method’ in the Doctrine of Virtue, which is the second book of the Metaphysics of Morals (1797). These doctrines of method have been comparatively neglected by Kant scholars. In part this is no doubt because these chapters come at the end of very long and complicated books. In part, this is due to the false assumption that Kant only included these sections to adhere to a traditional architectonic division of philosophical works (see Kemp Smith 1918: 563).
Recently, however, there has been a wave of studies thatshow that Kant’s doctrines of method contain materials that were important to Kant and relevant to debates among Kant scholars as well as to some contemporary discussions. For example, consider the distinction between the methods of philosophy and of mathematics that Kant discusses in the ‘Discipline of Pure Reason’ chapter in the Doctrine of Method of the first Critique. The past thirty years has witnessed a series of important interpretations that appreciate the relevance of this distinction (see Wolff-Metternich 1995; De Jong 1995; Carson 1999; Shabel 2003; Sutherland 2004; Dunlop 2014), especially in relation to Kant’s philosophy of mathematics. Another group of scholars have highlighted the significance of the ‘Architectonic of Pure Reason’ chapter (also in the first Critique) to understanding Kant’s effort to generate a scientific metaphysics (see La Rocca 2003; Manchester 2003 and 2006; Sturm 2009; Gava 2014; Ferrarin 2015). More recently, the ‘Canon of Pure Reason’ chapter has attracted the most attention -- in particular the last section, wherein Kant develops a sophisticated account of different types of ‘taking-to-be-true’ (Fürwahrhalten). Among these are ‘opinion’ (Meinung), ‘belief’ (Glaube), ‘conviction’ (Überzeugung), persuasion (Überredung), and ‘knowledge’ (Wissen) (see Stevenson 2003; Chignell 2007a, 2007b, forthcoming 2022; Pasternack 2011 and 2014; Höwing 2016; Willaschek 2016; Gava 2019). Still other works have investigated what is peculiar to the ‘practical’ doctrines of method contained in Kant’s practical works (see Bacin 2002 and 2010). Despite this recent and growing interest in Kant’s doctrines of method, there is much about them that remains unclear. For one thing, in addition to ongoing debates and remaining questions regarding the issues that have already attracted scholarly attention, large sections of Kant’s doctrines of method are comparatively neglected. We welcome contributions that seek to refine our understanding of the familiar issues as well as those that explore new territory. Second, there are outstanding questions about what a doctrine of method is exactly, and what unifies the various doctrines of method found in Kant’s works. While the first and third Critiques connect their doctrines of method to the issue of whether a body of cognition can be considered a science, Kant explicitly denies that the ‘practical’ doctrines of method play this role (see 5:151). Therefore, one question that urgently needs discussion is just: what do ‘theoretical’ and ‘practical’ doctrines of method’ have in common that justifies their sharing a name? But even focus just on the ‘theoretical’ doctrines of method: how do their different components belong to a common project and contribute to showing that a body of cognition is a science (Wissenschaft)? We welcome contributions that seek to answer these unifying questions, as well as those that connect Kant’s doctrines of method to previous or subsequent methodological discussions (e.g. in the German rationalist, German idealist or pragmatist traditions).
We will organize and fund a workshop with the authors of the accepted papers at Princeton University in October 2022. The workshop will give authors the opportunity to receive additional feedback from other authors and various distinguished auditors before they submit final versions of their contributions. Participation in the workshop is mandatory for inclusion in the volume.

Instructions: Papers should be submitted by April 1st 2022, using the journal’s submission site. Upon submitting your manuscript, please specify in your cover letter that the manuscript is meant for this special issue, so that it can be assigned to the appropriate guest editors. Papers must be no longer than 10.000 words, including notes and references, and be prepared for blind review, removing all self-identifying references. The formatting of the submission is up to the author; accepted papers will be asked to adhere to journal style (see the journal’s website for further information: https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/jtph/jtph- overview.xml). No more than one submission per author is accepted.

Description: “When we go out in the morning to collect trash…” “When we fly with our private jets…” “At 6 AM, when all of us prisoners wake up…” None of the aforementioned examples do sound like typical examples for the Everyday Aesthetics discourse. Looking critically at examples mentioned in articles on everyday aesthetics, one easily gets the feeling, that they touch mostly upon the aesthetics of the lives of the Western middle class. There are, of course, differing approaches too. Some touch upon issues like junkyards and roadside clutter (Leddy), and, of course, a lot in the discussion is just about theoretical frameworks, e.g. about seeing the everyday as a set of objects (Saito) or patterns that we are routinized to do and experience (Haapala). This special issue of Popular Inquiry would like to explore perspectives in Everyday Aesthetics from this point of view: what is lacking in the discussion? Everyone has an everyday life, and everybody has an everyday aesthetics. What does the aesthetics of the everyday look like in rural areas in Sahel and Central Asia, in an Inuit village in the Artic, in the slum in the outskirts of Delhi or Lagos – or on a farm in Ukraine? What about refugee camps, prisons and hospitals? And what is the everyday for someone living in the streets, or for the mentally ill who does not share experiences with fellow individuals? In what way does aesthetics and particularly Everyday Aesthetics make sense and offer theoretical concepts for characterising, analysing, understanding, and improving different forms of the everyday, that we haven’t thought of yet?
We ask for reflections on the aesthetics of the everyday, in particular, but not exclusively, in relation to the Everyday Aesthetics debate, to discuss the critical potentials of the discussion (this includes the possibility to claim that there is no such thing). The editors of this special issue would like to challenge the Western middleclass approaches. We encourage authors to dive into history, unseen lifestyles, forced lifestyles (prisons, hospitals) and any other topics, that, through their examples, might also touch upon a string in the more theoretical frameworks typical for the topic.

Instructions:  We welcome contributions in different academic stylistic traditions.
Deadline for articles: August 10. E-mail: popular.inquiry@aalto.fi
Manuscript Submission Guidelines
Read our articles
CfP webpage

 DEADLINE APPROACHING  ESPES. The Slovak Journal of Aesthetics
Everyday Aesthetics: European Perspectives
Submission deadline: 15 July 2021

Guest Editors: Elisabetta Di Stefano, (University of Palermo), Sanna Lehtinen (Aalto University)
Host editor: Adrian Kvokacka (University of Prešov)
 

---

Philosophy of Technology and the French Thought
Submission deadline: 1 August 2021

Guest Editors: Alberto Romele (University of Tuebingen), François-David Sebbah (Paris Nanterre University)

Description: French philosophers have never been very interested in technology, but surely, a French or francophone philosophy of technology indeed exists. Parrocchia (2009) has reconstructed the history of it from Descartes to the present day. More recently, the contributions of prominent contemporary authors in this field have been collected in a single volume (Loeve, Guchet, and Bensaude-Vincent 2018). Numerous French philosophers of technology are experiencing great success on an international scale. Consider, for instance, the case of Gilbert Simondon, whose work is now receiving extensive recognition after a long period of slumber (Bardin, Carrozzini, Rodriguez 2019). One should also consider the important contribution given by French scholars such as Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, and Madeleine Akrich to the development of the science and technology studies (STS). Not to mention the relevance, in France, of the epistemology and history of science and technology as a proper field of study. However, this TC of Philosophy & Technology does not wish to focus on the French philosophy of technology, but rather on the relations between philosophy of technology and the “French thought”. With this term, we express something broader than the so-called “French theory”. Cusset (2008, p. 305) ironically defined French theory as “an American interpretation of French readings of German philosophers.” According to Esposito, who refers to authors such as Derrida, Foucault, Nancy, Lyotard, and Deleuze, the French theory has “neutrality” as its core category. For instance, Derrida’s deconstruction “is neutral, suspended between yes and no, positioned at their point of intersection. It marks its distance both from the paradigm of crisis and that of critique. [...] The distancing (and self-distancing) aims for a certain self-ironic quality that, at a certain point, might inhibit any position, be it negative or affirmative” (Esposito 2015, 109-110). While the expression “French theory” mainly indicates a limited list of heretical, radical, and critical French theorists, mainly philosophers, “French thought” aspires to include all those French authors whose reflections, especially from the second half of the Twentieth century onwards, had a strong impact on the global debate in philosophy, as well as in other human and social sciences. This TC builds on the observation that while most of the representatives of the French thought have not shown any particular interest in technology, an increasing number of scholars is importing ideas and insights from the French thought into the philosophy of technology. Recent publications in this journal engage, for example, with authors such as Foucault (Dorrestijn 2012), Ricoeur (Reijers and Coeckelbergh 2018), Levinas (Bergen and Verbeek 2020), and Bourdieu (Floridi 2019; Romele 2020).
The goal of this TC is twofold. Firstly, it wishes to question the reasons of what appears to be a sort of rehabilitation. In fact, the “empirical turn” (Achterhuis 2001) of the philosophy of technology could be understood as a rejection of the “logocentrism” that characterizes the approach of many representatives of the French thought. Is there now a partial dissatisfaction for some consequences of the empirical turn? Is the French thought offering an alternative means for a critical, both ethical and political, understanding of technology? Secondly, it proposes to investigate new paths that have not been explored yet: authors whose perspectives have not been mobilized, applications of the French thought to new technological fields and objects, and so on.

Instructions: We seek submissions of roughly 8,000 words in length. While the motivating questions should be of a philosophical nature, we welcome high-quality submissions regardless of philosophical tradition or research. Questions addressed may include, but are not limited to:

Timetable:
August 1s, 2021t: deadline for paper submission
October 1st, 2021: decision and revisions returned
December 1st, 2021: deadline for revised papers
February 1st, 2022: publication of the TC

To submit a paper for this TC, authors should go to the journal’s Editorial Manager http://www.editorialmanager.com/phte/
The author (or a corresponding author for each submission in case of co- authored papers) must register into EM.
The author must then select the special article type: “Philosophy of Technology and the French Thought” from the selection provided in the submission process. This is needed in order to assign the submissions to the Guest Editors.
Submissions will then be assessed according to the following procedure:
New Submission Journal Editorial Office ⇒ Guest Editor(s) ⇒ (double-blind) Reviewers ⇒ Reviewers’ Recommendations ⇒ Guest Editors’ Recommendation ⇒ Editor-in-Chief’s Decision ⇒ Author ⇒ Notification of the Decision.
The process will be reiterated in case of requests for revisions.

For any further information please contact: Alberto Romele, romelealberto@gmail.com.

Invited contributors: Angela Breitenbach (University of Cambridge), Helga Varden (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

Description: The XXXV (2022) volume of Studi Kantiani will host a special section dedicated to Kant and Environmental Ethics. The topic is broadly construed to include contributions that tackle this problem from different angles. We welcome submissions that focus on the interpretation of Kant’s works, asking whether there is space for anything like a concern for the environment in them. We also seek papers that defend a Kantian approach in current debates around environmental ethics.

Instructions: Papers should be sent to clr@unige.it by September 1st 2021. They must be prepared for blind review, removing all self-identifying references. They should not exceed 50.000 characters (spaces included) and must include an abstract of 1.500 characters and key words. Papers will be selected through a process of double-blind review. Studi Kantiani accepts contributions in 5 languages (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish).

---