BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Philosophy events - ECPv6.16.3//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Philosophy events
X-ORIGINAL-URL:/philevents
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Philosophy events
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/London
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20230326T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20231029T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20240702T120000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20240702T140000
DTSTAMP:20260614T033342
CREATED:20240602T063851Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240627T093926Z
UID:10002096-1719921600-1719928800@www.st-andrews.ac.uk
SUMMARY:Language and Mind seminar
DESCRIPTION:
URL:/philevents/event/language-and-mind-seminar-68/
CATEGORIES:Language and Mind Seminar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20240702T120000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20240702T140000
DTSTAMP:20260614T033342
CREATED:20240628T094840Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240702T100941Z
UID:10002108-1719921600-1719928800@www.st-andrews.ac.uk
SUMMARY:Language and Mind seminar: Derek Ball (University of 58łÔąĎ)
DESCRIPTION:Title: “Immanent Interpretation”\nBryan Pickel and Derek Ball\n\nAbstract: Famous arguments purport to show that all\, or a substantial fragment\, of language is indeterminate in meaning.  Quine and Davidson motivated indeterminacy arguments by attending to the possibility of different translations of a foreign language and to the possibility of differing uses of homophonic expressions among speakers of the same language; more contemporary versions focus on the interpretation of context-sensitive expressions such as quantifier domain restrictions (Heck\, Buchanan).  We show that these arguments fail because they ignore evidence that is available to interpreters – evidence that arises from the interpreters themselves as language users.  But our aim is not merely to rebut indeterminacy arguments.  We construct a research strategy for interpreters to meet the concerns of the proponents of indeterminacy arguments.  The strategy is available to interpreters in a wide range of cases\, but (time permitting) we will also discuss cases (such as the interpretation of AI\, or of non-human animals) in which it might fail.
URL:/philevents/event/language-and-mind-seminar-derek-ball-university-of-st-andrews/
LOCATION:Edgecliffe G03 and via MS Teams
CATEGORIES:Language and Mind Seminar
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20240702T150000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20240702T170000
DTSTAMP:20260614T033342
CREATED:20240602T063851Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240702T100941Z
UID:10002097-1719932400-1719939600@www.st-andrews.ac.uk
SUMMARY:CANCELLED FPST Seminar – Clare Chambers (Cambridge)
DESCRIPTION:Title: Respect\, Religion\, and Feminism: Political Liberalism as Feminist Liberalism?\nAbstract: This chapter considers whether political liberalism\, specifically\, can be used for feminist ends. There is significant disagreement among feminists and liberals about the compatibility between their two doctrines. Political liberalism is vulnerable to particular criticism from feminists\, who argue that its restricted form of equality is insufficient. In contrast\, Lori Watson and Christie Hartley argue that political liberalism can and must be feminist. This chapter raises three areas of disagreement with Watson and Hartley’s incisive account of feminist political liberalism. First\, the chapter argues that an appeal to a comprehensive doctrine can be compatible with respecting others\, if that appeal is to the value of equality. Second\, the chapter takes issue with Watson and Hartley’s defence of religious exemptions to equality law. Third\, the chapter argues that political liberalism can be compatible with feminism\, but that it is not itself adequately feminist. The chapter concludes that political liberalism is not enough for feminists.
URL:/philevents/event/fpst-seminar-clare-chambers-cambridge/
LOCATION:Edgecliffe G03
CATEGORIES:Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR