Calls
Summerschool
DEADLINE APPROACHING Summer school “Orientarsi nel pensiero: filosofia e mondi digitali”
1-3-4-5 giugno 2021 – online
Scadenza per l'iscrizione: 26 maggio
Descrizione: Ripensare i rapporti fra Oriente e Occidente significa rendere possibile una concreta comparazione delle diversità, costruire una bussola per superare lo spaesamento, ricercare un linguaggio comune che avvicini senza omologare. Rivolgendosi a giovani studenti, appassionati e ricercatori, la Summer School intende essere un luogo di applicazione, di rilancio e di sperimentazione della forza del metodo filosofico, mostrando come la riflessione critica possa costituire uno sforzo prezioso per abitare il presente e per affrontare al meglio le sfide di un mondo sempre più complesso.
Consiglio di corso: Prof. Luca Taddio (Università di Udine) Direttore, Prof. Simone Furlani (Università di Udine), Prof. Luca Grion (Università di Udine), Prof. Salvatore Lavecchia (Università di Udine), Prof. Andrea Tabarroni (Università di Udine), Dott. Paolo Bussotti (Università di Udine)
Webpage
Projects
G20 TechSprint 2021
Submission deadline: 31 May 2021
Description: Banca d’Italia together with the BIS Innovation Hub have launched the second edition of the G20 TechSprint, an international contest to search for innovative solutions. This year’s contest focuses on operational problems in green and sustainable finance. The G20 TechSprint 2021 challenges the international community of innovators, entrepreneurs, startuppers, changemakers, creators, developers, data scientists, designers, digital marketing and communication experts who are passionate about creating extraordinary impact by solving one of three operational problems in the field of green and sustainable finance. If you have what it takes and share the desire to use your talents to change how things are done, well, this is the place. Join forces with other talented people and take part in this challenge.
Istructions: Participation is open to all those interested in technology and innovation from any country or jurisdiction. Participation is free of charge and is expected in the form of teams. Parental consent is required for team members who are younger than 18 years of age at the time of the registration. Eligible participants must sign in and submit proposals to address one or more of the identified problem statements for this year’s G20 TechSprint. Banca d’Italia will award 50,000 euro final prize to each of the three winning solutions and a 10,000 euro competition prize to all shortlisted teams.
Webpage
Journals
NEW! Rivista di Estetica (1/2023)
Unpacking the social world: groups and solidarity
Submission deadline: 8 January 2022
Advisory editors: Francesco Camboni (University of Eastern Piedmont), Raul Hakli (University of Helsinki), Valeria Martino (University of Genoa)
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):
- The nature and identity of social groups;
- Is sociality a constitutive feature of groups of people?
- The nature of solidarity, and – if any – its opposite;
- The kind of psychological mechanisms involved in dynamics of solidarity;
- Is solidarity related to some distinctive group kind?
- Is solidarity a necessary or sufficient condition for group formation?
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.
In order to submit your paper, please register and login to: http://labont.it/estetica/index.php/rivistadiestetica/login
Please notice: when asked “What kind of file is this”, please select the relevant CFP.
Rivista di Estetica (3/2022)
The Aesthetics of Idealism. Facets and Relevance of a Theoretical Paradigm
Submission deadline: 30 June 2021
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 EXTENDED 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.
Popular Inquiry
Forgotten everydays: Expanding Everyday Aesthetics
Submission deadline: 10 August 2021
Guest editors: Elisabetta Di Stefano, Carsten Friberg and Max Ryynänen
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
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)
Description: Everyday Aesthetics is a trend of philosophical aesthetics that has been strongly developed in the early years of the 21st century. Firstly, Everyday Aesthetics has been concerned with defining the everyday and its fields by renowned authors like Yuriko Saito (2007; 2017), Thomas Leddy (2012), Kevin Melchionne (2013; 2014), Katya Mandoki (2007; 2020) and Ossi Naukkarinen (2013; 2014; 2017). Later on, it has extended to different topics (environment, city, design) and perspectives, intertwining Anglo-American and European approaches (Arto Haapala, 2005; 2017; Giovanni Matteucci, 2015, Elisabetta Di Stefano, 2017; 2020, Dan-Eugen Ratiu, 2013; 2017, and Barbara Formis 2010). The thematic issue seeks to highlight a turning point in the further articulation of Everyday Aesthetics, making explicit the distinct European traditions (phenomenology, semiology, marxism, hermeneutics, and so forth). For this reason, we invite authors to discuss whether and how the European thinking or Europe-originated perspectives on everyday life can be elaborated to develop the debate on Everyday Aesthetics, showing new methodologies, categories, and fields, taking into account analytical, comparative and historical approaches. The editors of this thematic issue recognize and respect the multilingual tradition in philosophical and applied Everyday Aesthetics. For this occasion, however, we are calling forth contributions in English to engage with the discussion that takes place globally.
● Submissions may focus on all aspects of Everyday Aesthetics, including, but not limited to the following areas:
● Methodological questions
● Everyday Aesthetic categories
● Comparative approaches to Everyday Aesthetics
● Everyday Aesthetics and design/fashion/food/city/environment
● Future of Everyday Aesthetics
Instructions: Research articles are original contributions that initiate a debate, offer a point of view on current trends in aesthetics and the philosophy of art, or introduce a scholarly discussion. Contributions to the Research articles section should not normally exceed 7,500 words (including bibliography). An abstract in English should be added of no more than 150 words. Interviews offer a portrait of the life and work of leading figures in contemporary Everyday Aesthetic debates. Contributions to the Interviews section should not exceed 3500 words and the proposal must be formerly discussed with the editors before submission. Translations include seminal essays in different languages newly translated into English. The translated essays are selected based on their relevance for the development of current discourses in Everyday Aesthetics. Contributions to the Translations section should not normally exceed 7,500 words and must be formerly discussed with the editors.
Language of Contribution: English. The complete formatting instructions are available at: shorturl.at/dLRY8. Submissions that do not comply with these instructions will be returned to the author. All submissions will undergo a double-blind review process.
Submission deadline: July 15, 2021
Publication date: December 2021
Submission via espes.ff.unipo.sk.
If you have any questions, please contact the editors at: espes@ff.unipo.sk
Philosophy & Technology
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:
- The reasons for the (re)discovery of the French thought in the philosophy of technology;
- The historical role of the French thought in the philosophy of technology;
- The role, present or potential, of various authors of the French thought in the contemporary philosophy of technology;
- The intersection between French philosophy of technology and French thought;
- New intersections between the French thought and the philosophy of technology;
- Applications of the French thought to specific technological fields and objects;
- The risks and limits of the use of the French thought in the philosophy of technology.
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.
Bollettino Filosofico
Deconstruction and Psychoanalysis: from Derrida onwards
Submission deadline: 30 April 2021
Description: In the multifaceted and jagged scene of the second half of the twentieth century, in which almost all fields of knowledge experienced the fruitfulness and the drift of contamination between disciplinary areas, methodological procedures and objects of investigation, Derrida’s paradigm of “deconstruction” had particular resonance. Already from the first appearance of the philosopher’s works, telluric movements of small or great intensity have shaken the consolidated rigidity of disciplines such as anthropology, linguistics, literary criticism, and history of philosophy. In fact, the readings of Derrida aimed at tracing the genesis of the concepts that have supported various forms of knowledge, and tried to show how the whole architecture of these concepts was less solid or grounded than tradition had believed. Husserl’s phenomenological project, as well as the rethinking of the question of being and its oblivion, and, at the same time, the overstepping (Überwindung) of metaphysics theorized by Heidegger, constitute the ground in which what would soon be called “deconstruction” would germinate, a term which, among other things, was coined in reference to the Heideggerian Destruktion, albeit with the intent of destabilizing the conceptual structures of the onto-theological tradition, instead of aiming at recovering an original and forgotten sense of being. Slowly, but inexorably, categorical sagging, textual cracks, cracks that affected the history of metaphysics, linguistic theories, but also biology or architecture began to appear as the epistemological foundations of forms of knowledge were put to the test and questioned from oblique perspectives. The terrain of psychoanalysis, which, in the same period, was experiencing in France a “return to Freud” hypothesized by Jacques Lacan, would immediately become a place of confrontation not without controversy that still today, more than fifty years after their first appearance, feed debates and theoretical pathways. “Deconstruction” and psychoanalysis, therefore, can be considered as the poles of a voltaic arc that continues to generate questions on the subject’s constitution, on his relationship with the world, on what is considered real, and on the temporalities in which the social bond coalesces. Once the heated disputes are over and the passions of the Derridean and Lacanian moments have come to an end, it will first be a question of reconsidering the terms of the questions which, in any case, have not lost the character of urgency both in the philosophical and in the psychoanalytic; in recognizing the specificity of paths to each of these areas, it will therefore be necessary to relaunch questions that arise (or perhaps come together) in the broader question of the meaning and destiny not only of disciplines and knowledge but, above all, of those who make themselves spokespersons and agonists.
“Bollettino Filosofico” suggests some possible themes:
- the debate between deconstruction and psychoanalysis
- the statutes of the subject at the proof of deconstruction and psychoanalysishistory of the deconstructionist paradigm
- phenomenology and deconstruction
- the psychoanalysis of deconstruction and the deconstruction of psychoanalysis
- the new languages of knowledge starting with deconstruction
- Hermeneutics and deconstruction
- psychoanalysis and epistemological challenges
Instructions: The journal publishes articles in several languages – Italian, English, Spanish, German and French – and submits them to a procedure of peer review. The papers must be no longer than 50.000 characters, including spaces and notes, they must include a list of 5 keywords and an abstract in English (no longer than 900 characters, including spaces), and they must respect the following Authors’ Guidelines: http://www.bollettinofilosofico.unina.it/index.php/bolfilos/about/submissions
The submissions must be addressed to the Director (pio.colonnello@unical.it) and to the Editorial staff (bollettinofilosofico@gmail.com).
Since all articles will be double-blind peer reviewed, they must be submitted in two copies, one of which must be anonymous, with no personal references, followed by a separate file containing the personal data of the authors, a short bio-bibliographical note and the affiliation.
The deadline for the submission is 30 April 2021. The issue XXXVI/2021 of the journal will be published by December 2021.
Webpage
The Journal for the Philosophy of Language, Mind and the Arts. Leibniz on Language and Cognition
Submission deadline: May, 31 th , 2021
Notification of acceptance: June, 30 th , 2021
Advisory editors: Matteo Favaretti Camposampiero, Luigi Perissinotto
Invited Contributors: Stefano Gensini, Massimo Mugnai, Lucia Oliveri, Jean-Baptiste Rauzy
Description: Leibniz’s investigations into the structures of both natural and artificial languages as well as into the impact of language use on human cognition are widely acknowledged to have achieved real breakthroughs with respect to the early modern standard assumptions. Leibniz linked his linguistic interests with his views on mental activity by expounding the idea that language plays a fundamental role not only in communication but also in human cognition, insofar as words and signs in general serve as the indispensable thread for human thought. He used this insight into the linguistic component of thought to approach semantic phenomena such as metaphorical speech and “empty” words or phrases as well as psychological phenomena such as cognitive errors and the weakness of the will. Furthermore, his views on psycho-physical parallelism led him to explore the hypothesis that even abstract, conceptual representations have a physical counterpart in the human brain insofar as they are necessarily verbalized in a language or expressed in any other system of perceptible symbols. Only a minority of Leibniz’s writings on these topics were published during his lifetime. Most were posthumously discovered during the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century, while several manuscripts are still unpublished. This state of affairs has fostered a tendency to consider Leibniz’s contributions to the philosophy of language and cognition as a sort of hidden treasure that had (and partly has) to wait for the modern scholar in order to be adequately appreciated and understood. However justified in terms of the history of manuscripts, this picture has the drawback that it obscures how much Leibniz’s ideas on language and cognition actually contributed to shaping our modernity by inspiring or influencing diverse – sometimes even
opposite – philosophical trends. On the one hand, his universalistic commitments – the possibility to discover the alphabet of human thoughts, the rational grammar, and the Universal Character – fueled various modern attempts at unveiling the genuine, logical form of propositions, describing the deep structure of languages, and introducing an artificial notation for the perspicuous expression of thoughts. On the other hand, his recurring emphasis on the linguistic or generally symbolic character of blind thought became a prominent source for later accounts of higher cognitive activities as dependent on language acquisition and therefore influenced by the specific language acquired. Thus, even the origins of the so-called linguistic relativity could be traced back to some Leibnizian root. This journal issue aims, first, to expand our knowledge of Leibniz’s views on language, its cognitive function, and its role in other dimensions of human nature and behavior, especially moral agency; and second, to reassess Leibniz’s influence on modern philosophy of language and cognition up to the present day. Contributions may address one or more topics related to this Call and focus on Leibniz’s works, his reception, or his contemporary significance.
Instructions: Articles must be written in English and should not exceed 6.500 words. The instructions for authors can be consulted in the journal’s website: ‘Editorial Guidelines’. Submissions must be suitable for blind review. Each submission should also include a brief abstract of no more than 650 words and five 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 issue. Please submit your proposal by email to jolma_editor@unive.it or using the specific section ‘Contacts’ of the ‘Journal info’ page.
Studi Kantiani, XXXV (2022)
Special section on Kant and Environmental Ethics
Submission deadline: 1 September 2021
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).
Journal for general Philosophy of Science
Special Issue: Classic Methodologies in the Philosophy of Science
Deadline for submissions: April 30th, 2021
Guest editors: María de Paz (Universidad de Sevilla), Pietro Gori (NOVA University of Lisbon)
Description: Philosophy of science as we know it is a relatively recent creation, on which the analytic turn still casts its shadows. Its general characterization indeed is grounded on a philosophical method for analysing the scientific enterprise whose origin rests on the view elaborated by the Vienna Circle and its legacy, taking as a point of departure 1922, when Moritz Schlick was appointed to the Chair of History and Philosophy of inductive sciences.
This perspective has been contested by many authors from Kuhn onwards, and has seen many ‘turns’ in the past forty years or so. From the historical turn (e.g. Kuhn and Lakatos), to the turn to practice (Hacking, Kitcher), through the social studies of science (e.g. Latour, Pickering), and historical epistemology (Daston, Rheinberger), etc. However, in many philosophical perspectives nowadays there still is an emphasis on the methods of logical analysis as the only rigorous ones. Such a view implies a widespread devaluation of the role historically played by authors that, before the analytic turn and the foundation of the Vienna Circle, either as scientists or as philosophers, reflected differently on the method of scientific inquiry. In an attempt to recover their value, we aim to call these approaches ‘classic’.
Among the different methods that scientists and philosophers have offered we aim to focus this special issue on the period known as the ‘long nineteenth century’, that is, authors who worked between 1789 (the French Revolution) and 1918 (end of World War I). Several kinds of contributions are possible, but some examples are the Comtean combination of historical and dogmatic methods, the historical-critical method promoted by Mach and others, the combination of ideas from psychology, physiology and epistemology carried out by Helmholtz, Fechner and others, etc.
We aim to show that these “classic” approaches to the philosophy of science can supply us with alternative views on issues of current philosophical interest (e.g. on scientific realism; explanation; or causation) which are worth to be revitalized and reintroduced into today’s debate. We are specifically inviting contributions that address the relevance of these methodologies for current debates in philosophy of science, as well as possible outlooks for future philosophy of science. From a historical viewpoint, or, better, from the viewpoint of an integrated history and philosophy of science which aims to show “how the historical perspective may aid and augment philosophical reflection” (Arabatzis & Schickore, Perspectives on Science 20/4 (2012): 399), it is thus possible to engage profitably with both the way philosophers tried to assess what is “scientific” and the way the scientific method inspired a variety of philosophical methodologies. The question the present issue aims to deal with is in fact a broad one, involving the very relationship between philosophy and science and the possibility of casting new light on the philosophy of science itself.
Instructions: Papers should be submitted through the Editoral Manager website of the Journal for General Philosophy of Science (https://www.editorialmanager.com/jgps/default.aspx), selecting the article type “S.I. Classic Methodologies”.
Questions should be addressed to the Guest Editors of the special issue (María de Paz: maria.depaz@hotmail.com; Pietro Gori: pgori@fcsh.unl.pt)
Argumenta
General Call for Papers
Argumenta has now a new Editorial Board. You can check it here.
The Editorial Board of Argumenta invites scholars in the disciplines listed below to submit a paper, according to the rules of the Journal listed in this page. In order to submit a paper, please click on the “Submit your paper” button on the Home page of the journal. Papers will be double-blind refereed and, if accepted, published in the first available issue. Here is the list of disciplines within which the journal will consider submissions:
- Aesthetics
- Epistemology
- Ethics
- History of Analytic Philosophy
- Metaphysics
- Ontology
- Philosophical Logic
- Philosophy of Action
- Philosophy of Language
- Philosophy of Law
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Mind
- Political Philosophy
Argumenta is the official journal of the Italian Society for Analytic Philosophy (SIFA). It is published in English twice a year only in electronic version, and has already benefitted from the cooperation of some of the most distinguished Italian and non-Italian scholars in all areas of analytic philosophy.
All the contributions will undergo a standard double-blind refereeing procedure.
Webpage
EXTENDED DEADLINE Argumenta
Modelling the Covid-19 Pandemic: Epidemiological, Epistemological and Ethical Challenges
Submission deadline: 30 May 2021
Guest Editors: Francesco Barone Adesi (Crimedim, Research Center in Emergency and Disaster Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont) Margherita Benzi (Department of Law and Political, Economic and Social Sciences, University of Eastern Piedmont) Raffaella Campaner (Department of Philosophy and Communication Studies, University of Bologna)
Invited Contributors: Virginia Ghiara (Early Intervention Foundation), Tyll Grüne-Yanoff (Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm), Carlo Martini (Università Vita e Salute, Milan), Elena Rocca (Norwegian University of Life Sciences), Paolo Vineis (Imperial College, London)
Description: The emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic has prompted a wide-ranging reflection in many disciplines, from medicine to sociology and economics. Many scholars in different fields have contributed from various points of view and in different manners to the understanding of the pandemic, and philosophers too have taken an active part in the debate, addressing methodological, conceptual and ethical issues. The persistence of the Covid-19 pandemic worldwide, with its serious impact on individual and social lives, urges further reflections and calls for theoretical tools to address an increasingly complex situation. This special issue aims to present critical investigations of different modelling strategies, trying to answer questions arising from the difficulty of understanding the pandemic and the way in which it is evolving. Examining how evidence is collected, how models are elaborated, evaluated and transmitted will shed some light on the risks of our uncertain reasoning in the current context, on scientific expertise and individual trust, and on trade-offs between health prevention and economic measures.
Questions tackled in the issue might include—but will not be limited to—the following:
– Which models of the pandemic are competing to give the best representation?
– How can models be based on risk analysis in uncertainty of data and models?
– Which biases may impinge on the construction of models of the pandemic?
– How can normative values influence the construction of a model, and how could this influence
be made transparent?
– How can we evaluate different models of the development of the pandemic?
– How can philosophers contribute to our understanding of the pandemic?
– How can we trust experts, and which expertise is relevant to understanding a pandemic?
– Does a shift from a short-run to a long-run perspective on the pandemic impinge on the
elaboration, dissemination and evaluation of models?
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, would be greatly appreciated, as it will assist with the coordination and planning of the special issue.
Download the Cfp
|
Politiche virali
"Documanità. Filosofia del mondo nuovo” (Editori Laterza, 2021)
