this but unironically:
philosophical hot takes
In our third workshop, six folks from Philosophy Twitter will make their best case for an unpopular and (too-)easily dismissed philosophical view. (Join us for more hot takes on August 21st for Part II!)
PART I
@noamchompers
Mason Westfall (aka Noam Chompers)
Polarization is Epistemically Innocuous
Contrary to appearances, (some) processes that lead to polarization are rational and result in justification, and reflective subjects who understand their situation should not necessarily reduce confidence. finally, polarization enjoys some overlooked epistemic benefits.
with comments by
Speaker Name (TBA)
@twitter_handle
8:30am-9:30am PDT · Jul 17 · Zoom Room B
@SiobhanFTB
E.C. Hamilton
Putting the "Judge" in "Prejudice": Neutralizing Anti-Discrimination Efforts Through Mischaracterizing the Motives for Prejudice
What is prejudice and why do people do it? Weaknesses of two conventional views, the popular "hatred motive" and the feminist "dehumanization cause" are discussed before I argue in favour that prejudice is often a manifestation of moral condemnation instead.
with comments by
Speaker Name (TBA)
@twitter_handle
8:30am-9:30am PDT · Jul 17 · Zoom Room A
1
8:30am-9:30am PDT
"apa-style"
sessions
Schedule
2
10:30am-11:30am PDT
"coffee hour"
sessions
Tom Herok
Intuitions are never used as evidence in philosophy and there is no such thing as
“the method of cases”
Gettier cases, Frankfurt cases, trolley cases: supposedly these are all examples of a distinct philosophical method and the goal of metaphilosophy must be to describe and assess it. I argue there’s no method to describe or assess. Also that philosophers never rely on intuitions
10:30 AM · Jul 17 · Zoom Room B
Néstor de Buen Alatorre
10:00am-11:00am PST
A semantic ontology of rights
Do rights exist?
a) Yes
b) No
Answer is actually secret option c) Question makes no sense
Just be a logical positivist about it!
10:30 AM · Jul 17 · Zoom Room A
Daniel Collette
Descartes’ Provisional Morality is Fake News
Scholars claim Descartes’ Discourse has an early framework for ethics. But really he doesn’t care about ethics at all there. In this text, he mimics skeptics, and their end's ataraxia. His "ethics" are skeptic roleplay that he abandons when he pivots to certitude in the cogito.
10:30 AM · Mar 17 · Zoom Room C
3
1:00pm-3:00pm PDT
"colloquium"
session
@lone_griffter
Amber L. Griffioen
@kristopherGphil
Kristopher Phillips
Via Transformativa: Reading Descartes’ Meditations as a Mystical Text
Everybody knows Descartes was a rationalist. What our paper argues is, maybe he isn't? We argue that reading the Meditations as a straightforward, discursive treatise is a mistake that ignores the eponymous genre of "mystagogical literature" in which he wrote.
1:00pm-3:00pm PDT · Jul 17, 2021 · Zoom Room C
join us!
Zoom links will be made available via email upon registration.
We'll also be live streaming on YouTube!
Check back here on the day of the workshop for the streaming link, or follow us on Twitter (@CogtweetoSeries) for updates.
sponsor the cogtweeto
help fund free, accessible philosophy