|
“The OWL of Minerva at D.S.P.T. is the most fun some of
us are allowed to have.”
-
Br. Christopher Fadok, O.P.
Thursday, March 6th, 7:30 to 9:00 pm
‘Jesus, Dostoevsky,
and Nietzsche: Reading Matthew 18:3
through the lens of
Dostoevsky's The Idiot and
Nietzsche's The
Antichrist.’
Presented
by: Justin D'Agostino (DSPT), William Corban (PSR) and Sophia Leahy Stone
(DSPT)
In the gospel of Matthew 18:3, Jesus declared
“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will
never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest
in the kingdom of heaven.” In
Dostoevsky's Idiot, Prince Myshkin is childlike and arguably shares
resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. Nietzsche's
Antichrist finds fault with the childlike innocence praised in Christian
teaching. Nietzsche sees a resemblance
of Prince Myshkin to the historical Jesus and praises
Dostoevsky's characterization of Jesus in Myshkin as idiot. Our talk will
focus on passages in Nietzsche and
Dostoevsky to
understand these authors' ideas on Jesus and some of his teachings. What does
it mean for us to become childlike in our faith?
Tuesday,
December 4th, 7:30 to 9:00 pm
Seneca:
The Pursuit of Knowledge as Self-Therapy
Presented
by Trevor Murphy, Associate Professor of Classics at U.C. Berkeley
The
topic will address the work by Seneca’s Investigations into Nature, where we see ancient philosophy
struggling to account
for
phenomena such as rainbows, lightning, earthquakes, the Nile
flood, and comets. This book is a stirring invitation to confront
the
bizarre and alarming mysteries of nature by means of the human
intellect. But is it science? For Seneca, pursuing knowledge
about
nature is not a worthy end in itself, nor is it in any way justified as the
pursuit of social good; it is a contemplative means of self-therapy.
Thursday,
November 15th, 7:30 to 9:00 pm
Say
What You Mean: Wittgenstein and the Mad Tea Party
Presented
by Eric Gerlach, M.A. in History and Cultures of Religions, GTU: B.A.
Philosophy, UC Berkeley
Alice In Wonderland was one of
Wittgenstein's favorite books in English. One of the most interesting
connections between Lewis Carroll's nonsense work and
Wittgenstein's Philosophical
Investigations is between the Mad Tea Party of Wonderland and the Mad Tea
Party of Trinity (Russell's philosophical circle).
Closely reading the 'mean what I
say'/'say what I mean' passage, we can gain insights into our differing uses
of the word 'mean' and forms of logic.
Tuesday, October 18th, 7:30 to 9:00 pm
What
is Art?
Presented
by Frederick M. Dolan, Professor Emeritus of Rhetoric at UC Berkeley
and
Dean of Graduate Studies and Professor
of
Humanities at the California
College of the Arts.
Classically
– that is, in Plato and Aristotle – art was identified with
imitation or representation (mimesis). Moderns identified
art less with imitation and more with beauty,
though
they sometimes saw art as the imitation of an ideal rather than a natural
beauty. Does the question then become: What is beauty? But
much art of our own time questions
the
equation of art with beauty whether ideal or natural. Given the
historical and cultural diversity of art, must we abandon the attempt to
define it?
Monday, May 7th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
“Where, Now, O
Biologists, Is Your Theory?” Fallacies in Intelligent Design
Creationism
Presented by Dr. Andrew
Porter, GTU
Intelligent Design,
whether you call it creationism or a replacement for creationism, trades on
widespread
philosophical mistakes: the
idea that will-directed motion works like a physical force, and can be used
as
an explanation for human
actions and then divine actions. This way of understanding transcendence (as
the modern, not Thomistic, supernatural) is a kind of
Naturalism, despite the
protests of those who would define naturalism as rejection of the
supernatural. With attention to how the pertinent language and concepts of
action work, there are better models of both
human and divine
action. The mistakes in creationism
are shared by many Liberals, and by many opponents of creationism, e.g., the
recent “new atheism”.
Monday,
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:30pm:
Does
Science Track Truth?
Presented
by Bodhi Stone
Scientific
Realists claim that their view is the only one that does not make the success
of modern science a miracle or cosmic coincidence; that the only scientific
answer for the progress of science is the increasing truth of its
theories. Is this kind of inference to
the best explanation a sound application of scientific method or a case of
assuming what is precisely in question?
Along with truth, Scientific Realism also claims that our best
theories give us epistemic access to what is an objective,
observer-independent world of natural kind objects- a kind of ultimate
reality. Can we remain good
empiricists and believe in this kind of metaphysics?
Monday,
February 19th, 2007 at 7:30pm:
Justice and Friendship: An Analysis of Aristotle’s virtues exhibited by the judicial reasoning in Brown v. Board of Education. Presented by Sophia Leahy Stone, M.A. Philosophy (DSPT) B.A. Philosophy (UC Berkeley) When we read the landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the arguments presented seem redundant to the values we hold today. This is because we take as a matter of fact that all citizens, regardless of race, need a good education in order to be able to participate fully in the democratic process of government. Yet what is remarkable about reading Brown today is that the case formed and re-shaped American law so that now, when we think of equal education for all, we think of it as a matter of fact, we don’t even question it. We would not have come to this understanding and belief in education if it weren’t for Brown, and the case, I will argue, goes beyond judicial activism, it extends a kind of virtue that rarely belongs in legal case decisions. That virtue is friendship, "philia", as described in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, Books VIII and IX. While the decision itself is just, I will argue the reasoning that brings the Warren Court to their final decision is not based on justice, "dike", but on friendship.
Monday, November 27, 2006 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Mary Astell’s
Serious Proposal: Mind, Method, and Custom
Presented by:
Professor Alice Sowaal, San
Francisco State University
In Mary AStell's "A Serious Proposal to the
Ladies" (1694) she argues that women are educable, and proposes the
construction of a women's academy. In Part II (1697) she proposes a method for
the improvement of the mind. In this presentation, I contextualize
Astell's arguments and proposals within her theory of mind and her account of
the kind of skepticism that is endemic among women. I argue
that Astell's two proposals are best understood as strategies that, when
employed, will allow women to protect themselves from prejudice and custom.
Monday, October 30th 7:30pm
Natural Moral Law
Presented by: Dr. Fred E. Foldvary, Lecturer
in Economics at Santa Clara
University
Natural
moral law is an ethic which is universal to humanity, and applies to all
human action. John Locke in The Second Treatise of Civil Government
proposed
that there is a moral "law of nature" which can be derived using
reason, and provides the basis for legitimate governance. Fred Foldvary
will
discuss
how we can know that this universal ethic exists. He will derive it
from premises of human nature, and discuss how the ethic endows us with moral
rights.
He
will also discuss how the universal ethic applies to law and government
policy as well as in personal relationships.
Thursday, October 12th
7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Consciousness: Can Science Account for it? Can Philosophy Make Sense of it? Br. Raphael Mary Thomas, O.P., M.A., Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology
Every view of the world
has serious problems accounting for consciousness. The various forms of
materialism, which rely on experimental science alone to explain it,
continuously run up against the in-principle problem: How can physical,
third-person stuff give rise to first-person experiences? I
will discuss this problem, talk briefly about how materialists of various
stripes have tried to solve it, and then try to point us towards what a true
solution might look like. Discussion will then continue into the night
(or until we solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction).
Tuesday, May 9th 7:30 to
9:00 p.m.
End of Reason: End of Science?
Presented by Mark Damien Delp, Ph.D.
Plotinus maintained that the
highest actualization of the human capacity for knowledge is achieved by the
cessation of rational inquiry. For
over a thousand years the major trends in Latin and Greek (not to speak of
Jewish and Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) philosophy and theology
agreed. Prof. Delp will present a
sympathetic interpretation of this tradition, and clarify its apparent
antipathy towards empirical inquiry into natural phenomena. He will also draw some general conclusions
about what “cessation of rational inquiry” might mean for those
of us who are not ready to abandon Western science.
Wednesday, March 8th 7:30
to 9:00 p.m.
Walking on Eggshells or Trampling on Freedom of
Speech?
Moderated discussion by Sophia Leahy
In a country where freedom of the press is highly valued, are we bound to these two views with respect to the publication of the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed? If, out of respect for religious views we prohibit the publication of certain images are we in danger of undermining all that freedom stands for, or, are there alternative views we must consider? The worldwide protests and violent opposition in the Muslim world regarding the publication of the Danish cartoons uncovers deep philosophical and ideological issues regarding belief and value. Come join our open discussion to see if there can be some common ground reached between faith and freedom.
Wednesday, November 30th,
7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Music and Virtue Ethics: Living Authentically in
Today’s Atomized World.
Presented by Br. James Junipero Moore, O.P.
Br. James proposes to look at both positive and
negative aspects of music on a
diachronic and synchronic community.
Thursday, October 13th,
7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Is Science Science? Presented by Jason Escalante, M.A. Philosophy at D.S.P.T. The primacy of empirical-metric method in learning is often assumed. I think that this is a mistake and so did the founders of modern natural science. This talk will examine the nature, scope, and context of the “scientific method” in the range of human ways of knowing and being in the world.
Thursday, May 12th, 7:30 to
9:00 p.m.
Rectifying Our Taste for Punishment Presented by Sophia Leahy, M.A. Philosophy at D.S.P.T. From the beginning of written law, man has incorporated ‘an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,’ the law of equivalence for justice. Today capital punishment is justified based on the need to take a life in exchange for a life that has been taken. Even though there are recognized injustices in prosecuting capital punishment cases, some still maintain that punishment is necessary for deterrence and retribution. I argue that we cannot get rid of capital punishment until we acknowledge that we have acquired a taste for punishment and realize that it is something that we ought to give up. My discussion will include insights from Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals, Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, and Lock’s Two Treatises of Government.
Thursday, May 5th, 8:00 to
9:30 pm
I-am-he-as-you-are-he-as-you-are-me-and-we-all-act-together? Participation and the Goo-goo-ga-joob of John Paul II's Intersubjectivity Presented by Br. Robert King, O.P., M.A. Philosophy at D.S.P.T.
What is going on when two
or more of us work together on one project? What do we mean when we speak of
"taking common action"? Why
do these sentences use the second person plural? Br. Robert King, OP takes a look at some
extraordinary implications of some very common activities in the light of
Karol Wotyla's philosophical work.
Thursday, March 31st, 7:30
to 9:00 pm.
Great Chains and
Handmaidens: Philosophy’s Relationship with Others
Presented by Lowell Moorcroft
In addition to philosophy
itself, we often encounter phrases that combine philosophy with some other inquiry
or field, such as "philosophy of history", or "philosophy of
biology". How is it that any of these fields can lay claim to having a
philosophy? What sort of "philosophy of whatever" would that be? Is
it really a philosophy? Does any field really need a philosophy
- or does it really need something else?
Tuesday, February 22nd,
7:30 to 9:00 pm.
Geo-Libertarianism
Presented by Fred
Foldvary, Professor of Economics at Santa Clara University
Fred will present the universal
ethic, a formulation of natural moral law. He will apply it to a
geo-libertarian political philosophy with no taxes, no crimes without invaded
victims,
no government money, and
unbridled free enterprise.
Monday, December 6th, 8:30
to 10:00 p.m.
Just
War: Open Discussion
St. Augustine originated Just War theory; a just war
must have right authority and a right cause. St. Thomas Aquinas improved upon
Augustine’s requirements, adding that a just war must have not only
right authority and right cause but also right intention. Opponents of Just War Theory argue that in
today’s global community, Just War Theory can no longer be applied to
current situations dealing with terrorism, nuclear threats, and civil war.
Proponents for Just War Theory argue that we still need Just War Theory as a
barometer to indicate when a war is being fought justly. Does Just War Theory
still apply to the wars being fought today? Should Just War Theory be
amended, and if so, how?
You are invited to come discuss
the issue of Just War Theory and the contemporary presence of war. This OWL
will be different from other presentations. Rather than have a speaker
present on a topic, the topic will be open for discussion immediately after
the topic is presented. You are welcome to prepare a short thesis or simply
come and argue or defend your position.
Monday, November 15th, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
The
Just Balance: The psycho-politics of rhetoric and dialectic
Presented by Jason van
Boom, B.A. Liberal Arts, Thomas Aquinas College; M.A. Philosophy, Dominican
School of Philosophy and Theology, PhD candidate, Church History, Graduate
Theological Union
Van Boom bases his argument on the method of Plato's Republic, which asserts a relationship of analogy between the interior structure of the soul and the exterior structure of a polity. The supremacy of rhetoric is a distinguishing mark of tyrannical states, while free or liberal polities subordinate rhetoric to dialectic. Unbridled rhetoric necessarily leads to massive lapses in practical judgment; hence, free societies are wiser than tyrannical ones. Plato's dialogues are poetical representations of "outer dialectic," and help the budding philosopher to create an "inner dialectic" indispensable for ascending to Wisdom.
Monday, October 18th,
7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Why does Plato use humor
in his dialogues?
Presented by Sophia Leahy,
B.A. Philosophy, U.C. Berkeley; M.A. Philosophy, Dominican School
of Philosophy and Theology
John Morreall blames the
negative valuation of humor in philosophy on Plato and Aristotle. Further, Morreall argues that Plato’s
philosophy of humor adheres to the superiority theory of humor coined by
Hobbes two thousand years after Plato.
I will counter Morreall’s claims, arguing that Plato’s
philosophy of humor cannot be limited to a superiority theory of humor and I
will contend that Plato has a more charitable view of humor, as Plato uses
humor and the comedic genre more than any other literary device for teaching
his philosophy.
Monday, September 27th, 7:30 to 9:00 pm.
Rhetoric and Reason: Is
rhetoric reasonable?
Presented by Jason
Escalante, M.A. Philosophy, Dominican
School of Philosophy
and Theology, PhD. Student, G.T.U.
Many philosophers hold
that rhetoric is merely the art of persuasion and has little or no real
cognitive value. I will argue that
rhetoric, when its great masters such as Aristotle, Quintilian, and Vico are
correctly understood, is not only an art which aids cognition proper but
indeed does so more globally than the art of logic.
Monday, August 16th, 7:30
to 9:00 pm.
Justice and Morality
Presented by Professor
Nicolaus Tideman (economics) Virginia
Tech University
What is the relationship
between justice and morality and how can we justify requiring people to be
good? Professor Tideman’s
argument draws from Henry George and the philosophical tradition of Left
Libertarianism.
Tuesday, April 27th, 7:30
to 9:00 p.m.
Dreaming Skepticism
Presented by Derek Baker, B.A. (philosophy) U.C.
Berkeley
Dreaming skepticism was first
raised by Descartes. I’d like to approach the issue by delving deeper
into the initial question. How do we think about dreaming? What value do we
attach to a dream? What do we mean when we say something is real?
Tuesday, March 30th, 7:30
to 9:00 p.m.
How Do We Know That Nature is Uniform?
Presented By: Br. Raphael Mary Thomas, O.P., B.S. (applied
Physics) Calif. Inst. Of Tech.; M.S. (electrical engineering) U.C. San Diego;
MDiv (in progress) Dominican
School of Philosophy
and Theology
If I drop a ball 1000 times and
each time it falls, will it fall the 1001st time? The answer to most of us is obvious, but
not to all philosophers. Sure, I believe
it will fall, but how do I justify that belief? Can I even give a reason for such a
claim? Ever since David Hume,
philosophers have been struggling with how we can justify our belief in the
uniformity of nature. I will explain
the problem, examine some proposed solutions to it, and then attempt to give
a solution of my own.
Tuesday, February 24th,
7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
When You Know You Know: Locating Scepticism in a
Theory of Knowledge
Presented by Br. Christopher Fadok, O.P., B.A. (philosophy), University of Arizona,
M.A. (philosophy candidate), Dominican
School of Philosophy
and Theology
Sceptical about scepticism? If we are confident about what we know,
must we refute scepticism, or can it play a role in our thinking about
knowledge?
Tired of that friend who
took a class in modern philosophy and now says he doesn't really know he owes
you money? In contemporary theory of
knowledge, turnabout is fair play. If
I think scepticism is more dubious than what I think I know, I won't try to
refute it, I'll just soup up my epistemology.
Thursday, December 4th,
7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
How do I know what you believe?
Presented by Bodhi Stone, B.A. (philosophy), University of California
at Berkeley
Do we need to assume a
speaker to be rational in order to interpret their linguistic behavior as
meaningful? Following the work of Davidson, I will answer yes and attempt to
explain how 'rationally' partly consists in the ascription of mostly true
beliefs to a speaker. This leads to the important question of on whose
authority do those ascribed beliefs rely, if not your own?
Tuesday, November 18th,
7:30 to 9:30 p.m.
The Primacy of Play: All Work and No Play Makes Jack
a Dull Boy
Presented by Br. Robert King, O.P.,
M.A.(philosophy), Dominican
School of Philosophy
and Theology
Br. Robert doesn't like to
work; he likes to play. If he did like
to work, would it still be work? If he
didn't have fun, would it still be play?
What is the difference between work and play, and what is most
important for human life? Come hear
Br. Robert work through the playful side of being human.
Thursday, October 18th, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Can Science Explain
Consciousness?
Presented by: Jennifer
Hudin, PhD. (philosophy)(linguistics), University
of California at Berkeley
I hope to show that there
are two notions of consciousness, one which science can explain, the other
notion of consciousness is in principle unexplainable by science, i.e., a
third person report. This other notion of consciousness is our everyday
working notion of it, our particularized contentful states which are always
from a point of view, a first person point of view. I will then provide three examples of
particularized contentful states which cannot be captured by neuronal
descriptions: simple visual percepts, visual percepts of representations, and
rational action.
Thursday, May 15, 2003, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Plato and Freud on the Health of the Soul
Presented by Classics Professor John Ferrari, University of California
at Berkeley
Plato’s and
Freud’s psychology resemble each other in their focus on the health of the
soul, thought of as a balance between parts of the soul. But in crucial
respects, Plato’s and Freud’s psychological theories are quite
opposite, and suggest very different prospects for human fulfillment.
Wednesday, April 2nd , 7:30
to 9:00 p.m.
Can wisdom be funny?
Presented by Sophia Leahy,
B.A. (philosophy) University of California
at Berkeley; M.A. (philosophy candidate)
Dominican School
of Philosophy and
Theology
Why are things funny? How does
humor help us cope in the world? Is it even possible to philosophize about
humor? Can humor be taken seriously?
Come experience humorous
stories about learning Ancient Greek, Chess, and Philosophy. Then hear a
philosophical account on humor based on Wittgenstein’s discussion of
aspect perception in his Philosophical Investigations and why Plato uses the
ridiculous when he is talking about something serious.
Thursday, March 6th, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
WHAT IS JUSTICE?
Open group discussion.
There are different views on what is just. Is justice a material
notion, each given to according to his need or contribution? Is justice
“the advantage of the stronger?” Could our moral sense of justice
be the product of resentment and psychological defense? Is justice
necessarily a democratic institution? Come and be prepared to talk about what
your notion of justice is. This is a wonderful opportunity for community
participation and contribution to philosophical dialogue.
“Hence the result of the discussion, as far as I’m
concerned, is that I know nothing, for when I don’t know what justice
is, I’ll hardly know whether it is a kind of virtue or not, or whether
a person who has it is happy or unhappy,” Plato, Book I Republic.
Thursday, December 12th, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
The News vs. Nous
Presented by Maureen Baldwin, M.A.
(philosophy) Dominican
School of Philosophy
and Theology
Is the philosophical life possible in the 21st
Century?
Come hear how the market, media and
modern convenience sap the roots of philosophy; why you are at risk; and what
spiritual training and discipline can transform you from a mere philosophy
student to a noetic freedom fighter. TG 13 Thomistic Guidance recommended
(May contain strong Platonic language)
Tuesday, November 19th, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Solipsism vs. Common Sense in
Middle-Late Wittgenstein
Presented by Bodhi Stone, B.A.
(philosophy) University of California at Berkeley
Wittgenstein used characteristic phrases of
metaphysical solipsism in his Philosophical Remarks and the Blue Book. How
does his use compare with their common sense use? What does this show about
their actual normative role in everyday language? Wittgenstein claimed that
solipsism is unthinkable. How does the normative role of putative solipsistic
phrases lead to that conclusion? Why is it tempting to say "I can only
know my own experiences," when I must be mistaken?
Monday, October 28th, 7:30 to 9:00
p.m.
The Role of the Individual in an
Intelligent Universe
Presented by Jack Phillips, J.D.,
Lecturer, HAAS School of Business
How do individual ethics fit into a Cosmic order?
Drawing upon the work of Joseph Campbell, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, and
others, the presentation will highlight a theory of philosophy-in-action that
equally validates the gift of human creativity and its relationship to a
higher order of intelligence.
Tuesday, September 24th at 7:30 pm
Being Someone, Being Oneself
Presented by Br. Tom Irish, O.P., M.A.
(philosophy) Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology
What does it mean, and how is it possible, that I am
the person that I am? To some, notably Wittgensteinians, this question is
pointless, but I wish to argue that it is both interesting and important. It
is not a Cartesian trap, but a significant metaphysical problem.
Tuesday May 7, 2002
WHAT IS THINKING?
Presented by Craig Sutphin, M.A.
(theology candidate) Dominican
School of Philosophy
and Theology
The Phenomenology of Thinking: What is thinking, why
do we think, and what is its relation to the nature of self? A survey of
contemporary cognitive science and philosophy of mind.
Thursday, April 18, 2002 at 7:30pm
THE STATISTICS OF FREEDOM
Presented by Br. Anselm
Ramelow, OP, M.A. (history) U. of Freiburg, Germany; PhD
(philosophy) U of Munich; M.A. (theology), MDiv., Dominican School
of Philosophy and Theology
Freedom is supposed to be unpredictable. How, then,
can it be that sociology is a science? If we are free, how can it be that we
obey the laws of criminal statistics and demographic development? Is it
possible to have a revolution against these laws?
|
