Men discussing Aristotle

To learn why we call attention to all-male conferences, check out our Gendered Conference Campaign page.


INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM “Aristotle in Translation: the Organon

University of Lisbon, Faculty of Letters, room 5.2.

23, 24, 26 April 2018
The Center of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon brings forth the international symposium “Aristotle in Translation: the Organon” the 23rd, 24th and 26thApril 2018 in the Faculty of Letters of the University of Lisbon.

The meeting is organized by the Group of History of Philosophy of the Centre of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon (HPhil) and the Project of the Annotated Translation of the Complete Works of Aristotle (PTDC/MHC-FIL/0787/2014).


David Bronstein (Georgetown University): “The Structure of Aristotelian Demonstration”

Paolo Crivelli (Université de Genève): “Truth and Formal Validity in the Prior Analytics

Paolo Fait (University of Oxford): “The Fallacy of Equivocation in Aristotle’s On Sophistical Refutations

Paulo Tadeu Ferreira (Universidade Federal de São Paulo): “On the Fallacy of Accident in Aristotle’s SE

Pieter Hasper (Indiana University Bloomington): “The Textual History of the Organon: With Preliminary New Texts for Chapters from the Analytica Priora, Analytica Posteriora, Topica and Sophistici Elenchi”; and “Editing and Translating the Sophistical Refutations: Some Difficult Passages”

Marko Malink (New York University): “On the Meaning of Einai in Aristotle’s account of Deductive Inference”

Richard McKirahan (Pomona College): “As in a Battle when a Rout has Occurred”

António Pedro Mesquita (Universidade de Lisboa): “Differences and Predicables”

Pierre-Marie Morel (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne): “How to Translate Deiknunai in APo?”

Bernardo Mota (Universidade de Lisboa): “Proposals for Translating and Interpreting Aristotle’s Analytica from Early-Modern Courses of Logic”

Pierre Pellegrin (CNRS): “Etiology and demonstration in Posterior Analytics II 11”

Ricardo Santos (Universidade de Lisboa): “Aristotle on Term Negation and the Invalidity of Obversion”

Hermann Weidemann (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster): “A Trouble-Maker for Translators: The Aristotelian Phrase τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι”

Marco Zingano (Universidade de São Paulo): “Aristotle’s Categories and the Doctrine of General Traits of Being”

Marx 2.0: All Male

Marx 2.0
A symposium at UNSW Sydney, School of Humanities and Languages
February 22-23, 2018
Morven Brown G3

Thursday, February 22
9.30 Welcome
9.45-11.00 Michael Quante (University of Muenster): Positive liberty as realizing the essence of man
11.00-12.15 Douglas Moggach (University of Ottawa): Marx as Post-Kantian Perfectionist? Reconsidering Left-Hegelian Debates
12.15-1.45 Lunch
1.45-3 Thomas Gutmann (University of Muenster): Marx, Alienation, Individual Rights?
3-4.15 Heikki Ikäheimo (UNSW Sydney): Rehabilitating Species Essence
4.15-4.45 Coffee
4.45-6.00 Charles Barbour (Western Sydney University): The Young Republican: Marx Before Communism

Friday, February 23
9.30-10.45 Samuel Chambers (Johns Hopkins): As The Hart Pants…; Or, Money is Not a Commodity: Marx’s Unorthodox Account of Money, and Why it Matters
10.45-12.00 Carleton Christensen (Australian National University): Abstractly Human Labour and the Reduction to Concrete Labour
12.00-1.30 Lunch
1.30-2.45 Jean-Philippe Deranty (Macquarie University): Marx in the age of automation
2.45-4.00 Andy Blunden (Independent, Melbourne): Capital and the Ur-praxis of the fight for socialism
4.00-4.30 Coffee
4.30-5.45 Thomas Meyer (University of Muenster): Was Engels the first causal interventionist?


If you’re wondering why we call attention to this, check out the Gendered Conference Campaign page.

Debating debates, with men (just men)

From Philos-l:

The Philosophy Faculty at the New College of the Humanities (NCH) and the Duesseldorf Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science (DCLPS) are pleased to announced the one-day workshop: Debating Debates.

The workshop aims to bring together scholars engaged in debating the conditions under which object-level debates are worth having and hence in the corresponding meta-level debates. Two specific areas are used as case studies: meta-ontology and the debate surrounding the scientific realism debate. We hope that by transcending the particularities of their areas, scholars can find out whether anything general can be said about when and why object-level debates are worthwhile.

Date: 10 November 2017
New College of the Humanities, 19 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3HH

Speakers and Provisional Programme:

09:15 – 09:30 Welcome Note
09:30 – 10:30 Matti Eklund (Uppsala)
10:30 – 10:45 Coffee Break
10:45 – 11:45 Brian Ball (NCH)
11:45 – 12:00 Coffee Break
12:00 – 13:00 Simon Blackburn (Cambridge)
13:00 – 14:30 Lunch Break
14:30 – 15:30 Ioannis Votsis (NCH)
15:30 – 16:30 Juha Saatsi (Leeds)
16:30 – 16:45 Coffee Break
16:45 – 17:45 Gerhard Schurz (Duesseldorf)

Oxford Dictionaries and All Male Panels

Thanks to a reader for pointing out this entry on the Oxford Dictionaries blog:

The Gendered Conference Campaign (GCC) has for some time pointed out various instances of all male panels, but now we can have a term to refer to them, namely a “manel.” Not to be confused with an indie pop band from Barcelona.

The term manel, used to refer to an all-male panel of speakers, has recently emerged to join the ranks of the ever growing lexicon of words that are formed by blending the word man with an existing word. While slightly older examples of such terms like mankini, a typically revealing bathing suit for men, or murse, a purse for a man, drew attention to how traditional western concepts of manhood might be in flux, the most recent wave of man- words has had a decidedly different effect. Words like mansplaining or manspreading aim to put names to social phenomena that represent the ways in which those traditional concepts still carry on, typically without the men engaging in them even realizing it.

The social phenomenon of men wearing small bags seems less worth pointing out than the social phenomenon of men being seen as default experts on most topics, so while I  tend to be skeptical about the usefulness of words like “murse,” words like “manspreading” and “manel” do seem to me to be helpful. Feel free to browse some manels of your own on Twitter.  Or look up an array of old GCC posts on this site.

Men discuss Sellars

Oh look!  It’s a book on Sellars.  By men.


Wilfrid Sellars, Idealism, and Realism is the first study of its kind to address a range of realist and idealist views inspired by psychological nominalism. Bringing together premier analytic realists and distinguished defenders of German idealism, it reveals why psychological nominalism is one of the most important theories of the mind to come out the 20th century.

The theory, first put forward by Wilfrid Sellars, argues that language is the only means by which humans can learn the types of socially shared practices that permit rationality. Although wedded to important aspects of German idealism, Sellars’ theory is couched in bold realist terms of the analytic tradition. Those who are sympathetic to German idealism find this realist’s appropriation of German idealism problematic. Wilfrid Sellars, Idealism and Realism thus creates a rare venue for realists and idealists to debate the epistemic outcome of the mental processes they both claim are essential to experience. Their resulting discussion bridges the gap between analytic and continental philosophy.

In providing original and accessible chapters on psychological nominalism, this volume raises themes that intersect with numerous disciplines: the philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics. It also provides clarity on arguably the best available account of why humans can reason, be self-aware, know, and act as agents.

Table of contents

Abbreviations of Sellars’ Texts
Introduction: Psychological Nominalism and German Idealism, Patrick J. Reider, University of Pittsburgh, USA
Part I: Psychological Nominalism and Realism
1. “Psychological Nominalism” and the Given, from Abstract Entities to Animal Minds, James R. O’Shea, University College Dublin, Ireland 
2. Hegel and Sellars’ “Myth of Jones”: Can Sellars have more in common with Hegel than Rorty and Brandom suggest?, Paul Redding, University of Sydney, Australia
3. The Metaphysics of Sensation: Psychological Nominalism and the Reality of Consciousness, Ray Brassier, American University of Beirut, Lebanon 
4. Language, Norms, and Linguistic Norms, Willem deVries, University of New Hampshire, USA
Part II: Psychological Nominalism and Idealism
5. On the Pittsburgh School, Kant, Hegel, and Realism, Tom Rockmore, Peking University, China
6. Reading Wilfrid Sellars’ “Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man,” with Robert Brandom
at One’s Side, Joseph Margolis Temple University, USA
7. A Kantian Critique of Sellars’ Transcendental Realism, Johannes Haag, Universität Potsdam, Germany
8. Psychological Nominalism and Conceptual Relativism: an Idealist’s Take, Patrick J. Reider, University of Pittsburgh, USA

Oh look! 9 male speakers

Which probably isn’t the cultural crisis under discussion.


The speakers:

Ian Angus (Vancouver, Canada)

Thomas Arnold (Heidelberg, Germany)

Diego D’Angelo (Würzburg, Germany)

Eddo Evink (Groningen, the Netherlands)

Cees Leijenhorst (Nijmegen, the Netherlands)

Corijn van Mazijk (Groningen, the Netherlands)

Ovidiu Stanciu (Paris, France)

Christian Sternad (Leuven, Belgium)

Claudio Tarditi (Torino, Italy)


Why am I telling you about this?  Find out about Gendered Conference Campaign here.