Philosophy and History Workshop

Our last session this academic year will be a talk by Prof. Joseph Karbowski of the Philosophy department, entitled “Two Methods of Inquiry in Aristotle and Two Ways to Do the History of Philosophy.”  This session will be held Wednesday, May 2nd at 3 p.m. in 339 O’Shaughnessy.  Join us for refreshments, a brief talk, and lively conversation.

The workshop is pleased to announce that Lloyd P. Gerson, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, will be at Notre Dame to give a lecture Friday, March 9th at 3 PM.  The venue will be 204 Debartolo, where unfortunately refreshments cannot be offered.  Instead there will be several free copies of Prof. Gerson’s successful, thought-provoking book, “Aristotle and Other Platonists” available to attendants.  I hope you will be able to join us for this exciting event!

For more information on Prof. Gerson’s work, visit his webpage: http://philosophy.utoronto.ca/people/faculty/lloyd-gerson

Join us Thursday, February 16th at 3:30 pm in 339 O’Shaughnessy Hall for a talk by Nathan Sawatzky, Political Science department, entitled “Cicero on the History of Philosophy from Plato to Us.”  Refreshments will be provided.

Abstract:

Why should we study the history of philosophy?  Is there ever a danger in doing so?  Cicero’s answers to these questions are unusual in 21^st century approaches to philosophy.  As the De Legibus, De Re Publica, and other works show, Cicero weighs the relative merits of studying philosophy for its own sake vs. doing so as a means to becoming a great statesman.  In doing so, he presents reasons for why one ought to study the great philosophers of the past – especially Plato.  Philosophy is indispensable for discovering the truth, for establishing the natural basis of justice, for developing one’s own virtue, and for persuading others in word and deed to live lawfully in a republic.  Nevertheless, there is also a time to stop studying philosophy.  Moreover, a close reading of De Legibus reveals that Cicero presents himself (in the tradition of Plato) as an extraordinary model for future philosophers.  So should we be studying him as such?  Or are there risks, too, in that?  A discussion will follow the talk.

David O’Connor, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Concurrent Associate Professor of Classics, will be giving a talk entitled “Iconoclasm as the History of Philosophy” in 339 O’Shaughnessy, Tuesday January 31st at 3:30 pm.  Prof. O’Connor has chosen to leave the contents of his talk a mystery, but with a title like that, who can resist?

In February, Nathan Sawatzky from the Political Science department will be giving a talk on Cicero’s approach to the history of philosophy.  Details TBA.

Prof. Lloyd Gerson will be coming from the University of Toronto to give a talk on Friday, March 9th at 3 pm in 204 DeBartolo.  The title of his lecture is “The History of Philosophy for Philosophers.”  There will be several free copies of one of his books available to the attendants of this talk.

Last but not least, Prof. Joseph Karbowski of the Philosophy Department will be giving a talk in April.  Details TBS.

Please join us for a talk by Michele Anik Stanbury 10:30-11:30, Wednesday November 30th in 339 O’Shaughnessy.

Refreshments will be provided.

Abstract:

The history of philosophy is generally thought of in terms of the ‘greats’, and not without reason.  Theophrastus and Simplicius are interesting in their own right, but where would they have been, intellectually speaking, without Plato and Aristotle?  In this talk I will address the question of the value of historical commentaries for our understanding of the primary sources, considering in particular the example of Alexander of Aphrodisias.  Dubbed ‘the commentator’, he was for several hundred years considered the secondary source on Aristotle.  Though this fact makes him historically interesting, it obviously does not make him an unquestionable authority on Aristotle; it is not impossible that for several hundred years scholars were led astray in their understanding of Peripatetic doctrine.  Moreover, in principle a good interpretation of Aristotle should look first and foremost to Aristotle’s own writings rather than to commentaries, whether ancient or modern.  What reason do we have to think that Alexander has something to offer us as students of Aristotle, or students of philosophy generally?

Join us Wednesday, November 2nd at 10:30 a.m. in 119 O’Shaughnessy Hall for a talk by Anne Peterson entitled “Distinguishing Universals from Particulars: Historical Contexts, Contemporary Debates, and Methodology”.  Refreshments will be provided.

Abstract: Debates surrounding the nature of universals as opposed to particulars have had a central place in metaphysics since ancient times.  But what, precisely, is it that distinguishes universals from particulars?  Contemporary debates have aimed to answer this question, but they meet time and again with the objection that they categorize as a universal something which is clearly a particular, or vice versa.  From the failure of this contemporary project, some have concluded that the age-old claim to a distinction between universals and particulars must be jettisoned.  I will argue that this conclusion misses the mark.  What is at fault is not the distinction itself, but rather a presumption behind the contemporary debates – the presumption that an acceptable articulation of the distinction must be theoretically neutral, that is, that it must be acceptable to all philosophers who believe in universals and particulars regardless of what their other metaphysical commitments may be.  A more fruitful way to proceed, I will argue, is by seeking an account of the distinction from within the context of one’s own metaphysical system.  The concepts of a universal and of a particular, after all, came to be within the context of richly developed metaphysical systems throughout the history of philosophy.  And although, on my proposal, philosophers who espouse different systems will likely arrive at different accounts of the distinction, it does not follow that they cannot have genuine debates about the nature of universals and particulars.  That would be an unacceptable result, given the prominence of such debates throughout history.  I will argue that if we pay attention to the prominent aims held by the parties to these debates throughout history, we find a role played by the concept of universals as opposed to particulars which is strong enough to anchor these debates.

Prof. Catherine Zuckert will be giving a talk entitled “Political Philosophy and History” on September 7th, 10:30-11:30 AM in 119 O’Shaughnessy Hall.  She will be discussing her most recent book as an illustration of what she considers the value of the history of philosophy, and how best to approach it.

We will be giving away several FREE copies of her award-winning book, Plato’s Philosophers: The Coherence of the Dialogues . (first come, first serve)

Mid-morning snacks will also be provided.

In order to facilitate discussion, Prof. Zuckert has recommended a couple of readings.  If you would like electronic copies of the readings for this session, please email workshop.phil.hist@gmail.com; for hard copies, visit 715 Hesburgh Library.  Don’t hesitate to join us even if you don’t have time to do the readings!

Prof. Zuckert is the Nancy Reeves Drew Professor of Political Science.  Her list of publications is extensive, but perhaps most impressive is her recent work on the coherence of the Platonic dialogues.  Plato’s Philosophers is nearly 900 pages and took 12 years to write.  It received the R. Hawkins Award for the Best Scholarly Book Published in 2009, an award for “Excellence in Humanities, the Best Book Published in Philosophy, and Outstanding Academic Title, Choice, 2009.