以下の要領で大学院進学説明会が開催されます。進学を検討しておられる方は是非御参加ください。
Date: 2017年5月13日(土), 14:00-17:00
Place: 京都大学文学部 新館第1, 第2講義室
プログラム等の詳細情報はこちらをご覧ください。
大学院進学説明会（思想文化学系）開催のお知らせ
Category: お知らせ
-
大学院進学説明会のお知らせ
-
CAPEレクチャー（Prof. Javier Perez-Jara）のお知らせ
以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。ぜひご参加ください。
Date: Jun. 2 (Friday) , 18:00 -19:30
Place: 文学部新館1階会議室, (1F, Faculty of Letters Main Bldg., Kyoto Univ.)
Speaker: Prof. Javier Perez-Jara (Beijing Foreign Studies University)Title:
World, God, and Being in Heidegger’s Ontological PhenomenologyAbstract:
Heidegger insisted from Being and Time to the end of his life in the correlativity of man and being, understood as the meaningful presence of things through time. In order to prove this point, I will pay attention to the development of Heidegger’s theological positions. Until 1928, Heidegger maintained that true philosophy has to be methodologically a-theistic, and that his own thinking denied the ontic existence of God. Nevertheless, after being unable to write the projected second part of Being and Time due to the insufficiencies of traditional metaphysical language, Heidegger started to use poetic and prophetic language around the concept of being. In Contributions to Philosophy, Heidegger, influenced by Hölderlin, talked about a future and mysterious “last god” linked to a new understanding of being in general, hidden now in the epoch of planetary technology. In his Letter on Humanism, Heidegger rejected Sartre’s consideration of his own philosophy as atheistic, and in other texts Heidegger divided the world into earth, sky, mortals, and the god(s). Finally, in his Der Spiegel interview from 1966, but which was only allowed to be published posthumously, Heidegger famously held that only a god can save us.Simultaneously, Heidegger presented his thinking as a Destruktion of onto-theo-logy, understood as the worldview that considers God as the Supreme Being that explains all the other beings. With the death of the ontotheological God, mankind’s technological prowess has generated the dangerous illusion of man as the new Lord of beings. Using the language of prophecy, Heidegger held that the only salvation from this situation was to wait for the future coming or absence of the last god. Moving away from some known scholars’ perspectives, my paper will investigate who this enigmatic god is, and why Heidegger decided to combine the language of philosophy, poetry, and prophecy in order to lead towards a deeper understanding of existence.
-
CAPEレクチャー（Dr. Hsun-Mei Chen）のお知らせ
以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。是非ご参加ください。
Date：Apr. 17 (Monday) , 18:15 -19:45Place：文学部新館1階会議室, (1F, Faculty of Letters Main Bldg., Kyoto Univ).Speaker：Dr. Hsun-Mei Chen (National Taiwan University/Kyoto University)Title：
Is Vimalakīrti’s Silence a Denial of Language Expression?Abstract：
This paper presents an English translation and a novel
philosophical interpretation of the original Sanskrit text of the Entrance
into Non-daulity (Advayadharmamukhapraveśaparivarta), a core fascicle in
Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa sūtra. Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa sūtra, an influential
Mahayana Buddhist sūtra in East Asian, is well known for its profound
explanation of emptiness (śūnyatā) and non-duality (advaya), especially in
chapter on the Entrance into Non-duality. In this chapter, thirty-one
Bodhisattvas expound how one should enter the gate of non-duality
by examining the deluded differentiations made by sentient beings, and then
Mañjuśrī Bodhisattvas concludes that all the previous explanation are still
in the realm of duality and the non-duality should transcend all language
proliferation. Finally, Vimalakīrti, a lay Buddhist practitioner,
demonstrates the ultimate understanding of non-duality by keeping silence
in front all bodhisattvas in the end of this chapter. Traditionally, this
important silence is understood as a denial of any language expression of
the truth. However, in this paper, I will argue that Vimalakīrti’s
silence is not a denial but rather a non-dual embrace of all language
expression. -
台湾 政治大学でのカンファレンスのお知らせ
以下の要領で、カンファレンスが開催されますのでご案内いたします。
Quadrangle Graduate Conference on Asian Philosophy
日時：4月29日・30日
場所：台湾国立政治大学プログラム・アブストラクト集が届きましたので、併せてご案内いたします。ご確認ください。
Program of Quadrangle Graduate Conference on Asian Philosophy -
2017年度前期授業開講日及び連絡
哲学専修に関連する前期授業の開講日についてお知らせいたします。ご確認ください。
開講日（レギュラー授業）
・月4 哲学演習 I（前期）：出口康夫：論理学入門 –> 4月10日
・月5 哲学ポケゼミ（前期）：出口康夫 –> 4月10日
・火4 哲学特殊講義（前期）：大塚淳：因果性 –> 4月11日 (教室変更有：変更後, 教育学部第五演習室)
・火5 哲学講義（通年）：出口康夫 –> 4月11日
・水5 哲学演習 I（前期）：出口康夫：Dialetheism and Analytic Asian Philosophy –> 4月12日
・金1 哲学演習（前期）：大塚淳：因果性（リーディング）–> 4月14日
・金2 哲学卒論演習（通年）：出口康夫, 大塚淳 –> 4月14日（初回は全員出席）
・金4, 5 哲学第三演習（通年）：出口康夫, 大塚淳 –> 4月14日（教室変更有：変更後, 教育学部第七演習室）開講日（不定期, 集中講義等）
・月2 哲学（特殊講義）：八木沢敬：Introduction to Analytic Asian Philosophy –> 5月15日
・哲学（集中講義）：Jay Garfield：Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature (from the Inside Out) –> 5/8, 11, 15, 18, 22, 25, 29, 6/1, 7/10, 13, 20, 24, 27（16:30-18:00）
・哲学（集中講義）：Mark Siderits：内容未定 –> 6/27, 29, 7/4, 6, 11, 13, 18, 20（時間帯未定）
・哲学（集中講義）：Yumiko Inukai：内容未定 –> 未定
・哲学（集中講義）：入不二基義：現実（性）についての考察 –> 未定（9月予定）未定となっている講義に関しても随時更新しますので、KULASISと併せて、繰り返しご確認頂けますようお願いいたします。
-
「道元の思想圏」研究会のお知らせ
以下の要領で研究会が行われましたのでご連絡いたします。
「道元の思想圏」研究会
日時：3月27日（月）14:00-18:00
場所：京都大学文学部校舎1階会議室
発表者：
頼住光子（東京大学）：『正法眼蔵』「現成公案」巻の思想
出口康夫（京都大学）：Welcome to Analytic Asian Philosophy!
-
Kyoto Nonclassical Logic Workshopのお知らせ
哲学的論理学に関するワークショップが開催されましたので、ご案内いたします。
【日時】2017年2月28日
【場所】京都大学 楽友会館 1階会議室
【ウェブサイト】https://sites.google.com/site/hitoshiomori/home/workshops/kplw2017
【プログラム】
Session 1: Conditionals
09:30–11:00: Andreas Kapsner “Plausible World Semantics”
11:00–11:15: Coffee break
11:15–12:00: Ryo Ito “Bradley, the unity of the proposition and material implication”
12:00–12:45: Chi-Yen Liu “Conditional Probability, Conjunctive Probability, and defective truth table”
12:45–14:00 Lunch
Session 2: Modal and intuitionistic logics
14:00–14:45 Ryosuke Igarashi “The Law of Explosion and Intuitionistic Logic”
14:45–15:30 Wei Zhu “A contribution to ranking theory concerning belief revision”
15:30–15:45 Coffee break
Session 3: Paraconsistency and dialetheism
15:45–16:30 Timo Weiss “Some Notes on Inconsistent Arithmetic”
16:30–17:15 Maiko Yamamori “Paradoxes of Self-Reference and Contraction”
17:15–17:30 Coffee break
17:30–19:00 Massimilliano Carrara “Rejecting and Assuming (with a sketch of DLEAC, a Dialetheic Logic of Exclusive Assumptions and Conclusions)”
19:30– Workshop dinner
-
CAPEレクチャー（Dr. Damian Szmuc）のお知らせ
以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。皆様の参加をお待ちしております。
日時：2017年4月4日(火), 16:30–18:00
場所：京都大学 文学部校舎１階 会議室
話者：Damian Szmuc (University of Buenos Aires, CONICET)
言語：英語
題目：
Infectious Logics and Their Philosophy
概要：
Infectious logics are a family of peculiar non-classical logics which count
with a truth-value that acts infectiously. By this, it is understood that
every compound sentence which receives this value, has a component that is
assigned this very same value. Thus, these values behave according to the
motto “one bad apple spoils the whole barrel”. But infectiousness not
necessarily has to be a bad feature. In fact, in this talk I present a
plethora of philosophical motivations for embracing infectious logics,
going from Buddhist philosophy to computational errors, and from
meaninglessness to analytic logical relations of various kinds. -
CAPEワークショップ（Dr. Kasaki & Dr. Szmuc）のお知らせ
以下の要領でCAPEワークショップが開かれます。みなさまの参加をお待ちしております。
日時：2017年3月24日(金), 16:00–19:30
場所：京都大学 文学部校舎１階 会議室
話者：
Masashi Kasaki (Nagoya University, Osaka University)
Damian Szmuc (University of Buenos Aires, CONICET)
言語：英語
プログラム：
16:00–17:30: Damian Szmuc “Paraconsistent logics, Meta-paraconsistent logics and beyond”
17:30–17:45: Break
17:45–19:15: Masashi Kasaki “How Many Cartesian Skepticisms?“
概要：
Szmuc:This paper discusses paraconsistent logics, paracomplete logics, connexive logics and logics of formal inconsistency which deserve to be called that way not because of the properties they exhibit at the inferential level, but at the meta-inferential level. To achieve this goal, we use the framework of abstract consequence relations, due to Blok and Jonson. In doing so, we draw some connections between many-valued non-classical logics (as conceived by Bochvar, Hallden, Da Costa, Priest, Kleene, Dunn and Belnap), on the one hand, and q-matrices and p-matrices (as conceived by Malinowski and Frankowski), on the other. This brings the opportunity to talk about what relates logical many-valuedness and inferential many-valuedness (as conceived by Wansing and Shramko). Finally, it also suggests the reasonability of asking, yet again, what exactly a logical system is.
—Kasaki:Cartesian skepticism appeals to a skeptical hypothesis and makes a case for the claim that S does not know that the skeptical hypothesis is false. The claim, then, constitutes an important premise of the argument for the skeptical conclusion that S does not know most, if not all, of ordinary empirical propositions. Some argues that there are two radically different versions of Cartesian skepticism, depending on what skeptical hypothesis is at stake. One version of Cartesian skepticism invokes the brain in a vat hypothesis or the evil genius hypothesis, and the other version does the dreaming hypothesis. There are several ways of demarcating these two kinds of skeptical hypotheses. First, unlike the brain in a vat hypothesis and the evil genius hypothesis, the dreaming hypothesis is compatible with the truth of ordinary empirical propositions. Second, while the possibilities envisioned in the brain in a vat hypothesis and the evil genius hypothesis are esoteric and far-fetched, those in the dreaming hypothesis are not. Third, it is even easier to establish as a genuine metaphysical possibility the dreaming hypothesis than the brain in a vat hypothesis or the evil genius hypothesis.Each of the three ways of demarcating the two kings of skeptical hypotheses entails that certain solutions to the skepticism with the brain in a vat hypothesis or the evil genius hypothesis won’t
work for the skepticism with the dreaming hypothesis. If the first way is correct, the denial of closure cannot be marshalled against the skepticism with the dreaming hypothesis. If the second way is correct, the safety-based response to the skepticism with the brain in a vat hypothesis or the evil genius hypothesis does not fare well with the skepticism with the dreaming hypothesis. And yet, if the third way is correct, it is difficult to dispel the dreaming hypothesis as metaphysically impossible.
In this paper, I will argue that the three ways of differentiating between the two kinds of skeptical hypotheses are not well-grounded. Notice that even the brain in a vat hypothesis is compatible with, or even strongly, cannot contradict certain ordinary empirical propositions, such as there are computers, there are scientists, there are brains, and so on. On the other hand, the dreaming hypothesis includes some true ordinary empirical propositions. Once the brain in a vat hypothesis is set up so as to include little true ordinary propositions, there is no reason to differentiate between the brain in a vat hypothesis and the dreaming hypothesis, and hence the first way fails. The same can be said of the relationship between the evil genius hypothesis and the dreaming
hypothesis. Indeed, if the dreaming hypothesis includes less true ordinary propositions, then the possible worlds in which it is true are more distant from the actual world. Thus, the second way also fails. The same consideration is advanced against the third way. If my arguments are correct, one needs no distinct response to the skepticism with the dreaming hypothesis. Good news! -
Prof. Stephen Jenkinsセミナーのお知らせ
以下の要領でCAPEセミナーが開催されます。みなさまの参加をお待ちしております。
日時：3月17日（金）16:30-18:00
場所：文学部1階会議室
講演者：Prof. Stephen Jenkins (Humboldt State University)
言語：英語
題目：Once the Buddha was a Warrior: Compassionate Killing, Torture and Warfare in Indian Buddhist Scriptures and Commentaries
要旨：Buddhist traditions offer a richly nuanced ethic for compassionate warfare and punishment that supported regimes of vast geographical and cultural diversity for millennia. The Euro-American concept of Buddhist pacifism undermines the ability of cultures to engage their own ethical resources in times of crisis and to understand their history. Mainstream, Madhyamaka, Yogācāra and tantric traditions validate harsh use of force to rehabilitate criminals, overthrow tyrants, kill enemies of the Dharma, recover what is wrongly taken, or prevent greater harm etc. The theory of compassionate killing is rooted in hypothetical situations presented through narrative tales, which allows attention to the complex ambiguity of lived reality. A complex array of concerns is evident that resist the constraints of Western ethical categories. For instance, to kill one’s own mother leads straight to hell, but killing someone else’s mother does not. Historiography and narrative offer many examples of kings waging war for Buddhist motivations or committing mass violence against religious “outsiders.” Buddha’s past lives include snipers, war ministers, martial artists, soldiers, warhorses, war elephants, kings etc., who often heroically die in battle. The touchstone commentarial example of Buddha killing in a past life, deployed in many cultures and times, parallels modern terrorist situations. There is also concern for avoiding armed conflict [including maintaining an intimidating and well paid military], humane treatment of prisoners, limits to punishment and torture, minimizing enemy casualties, spiritual harm to warriors, economic exploitation, ending multigenerational cycles of violence, damage to infrastructure and natural environment, and postwar reconciliation. Warfare should only be pursued when all alternatives have failed; compassion is a state’s first defense [and literally makes an individual arrow-proof]; kings must question their own culpability for exploitation that creates enemies; physical punishment, even torture and killing, must benefit the recipient; the destruction of infrastructure and the natural environment is forbidden. Superficially selfish policies of economic exploitation and conquest undermine national security. A nation will thrive or fail based on its capacity for compassion, rather than on the ethics of self or national interest. A broad range of past research will be summarized and issues from Aśokan edicts to tantric sādhanas for killing may be addressed.
なお、本CAPEレクチャーは、グローバル展開プログラム（グローバル人文学：日本文学・芸術・思想の普遍性の探求；道元の思想圏：分析アジア哲学的アプローチ（研究代表者：出口康夫・京都大学））との共催によって行われます。