Author Archives: kyotophil

CAPEレクチャー(Prof. Hoffmann)のお知らせ

以下の要領で二件のCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。奮ってご参加ください。

日時：12月10日(月)17:00-18:30
場所: 京都大学文学部校舎１階会議室 (No.8 of this map)
スピーカー: Aviv Hoffmann  (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
タイトル: Facts As Truth-Makers
アブストラクト: I offer a theory according to which facts are mereological fusions of regions of what I call exemplification space, where each point is either a positive or a negative world-specific fact (such as the fact that Sophia is sad at w and the fact that it is not the case that Sophia is sad at w’, respectively). Then, I define propositional facts: facts which correspond to propositions. The definition refers to basic facts, which I define, and requires closure under Boolean operations of negation and conjunction on facts, which I also define. Thus characterized, facts are hyperintensional: necessarily equivalent facts need not be identical. Their hyperintensionality is grounded in a notion of aboutness which I define. Next, I offer a truth-maker theory that adds a new twist to the familiar view that facts make propositions true: I assign world-specific facts as world-specific truth-makers to propositions. This strategy avoids the pitfalls that beset the orthodox definition of truth-makers. Subsequently, I throw away the world-specific ladder: I define truth-makers that are not world-specific by fusing together world-specific truth-makers. My theory of facts is part of a doctrine I call metaphysical pointillism, which also includes a theory propositions. Taken together, the two theories have the consequence that truth-maker maximalism holds: every truth has a truth-maker.
————-
日時：12月13日(木)16:30-18:00
場所: Yoshida-Izumidono (No.76 of this map)
スピーカー: Aviv Hoffmann  (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
タイトル: Biregional Propositions
アブストラクト: Consider two fundamental questions in the metaphysics of propositions. What in the nature of a proposition enables it to be true (or false)? What in the nature of a proposition enables it to be about a given thing (especially, what enables necessarily equivalent propositions to be about distinct things)? To answer these questions, I offer the biregional theory of propositions. According to this theory, propositions inhabit what I call exemplification space where each point is a world-specific fact. I propose that propositions are (some) ordered pairs of disjoint regions of exemplification space: the first component of a pair corresponds to the truth of the proposition, and the second component of the pair corresponds to the falsity of the proposition. I answer the questions above as follows. A proposition is true (false) at a possible world iff some fact in the truth (falsity) region of the proposition is specific to that world. A proposition is about a thing iff some fact in either the truth or the falsity region of the proposition is about the thing.

CAPEレクチャー(秋吉亮太博士)のお知らせ

以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。奮ってご参加ください。

日時：11月26日(木)18:00-19:30

場所: 京都大学文学部校舎１階会議室( 8番の建物)

スピーカー: 秋吉亮太 博士（早稲田大学　高等研究所）

タイトル: 形式主義の新展開に向けてー竹内外史を手がかりにー

アブストラクト：数学の哲学の文脈における形式主義はヒルベルトによって1920年代に導入され，その目的は有限的な対象に関する有限的な操作のみを許す「有限の立場」において，形式化された数学の無矛盾性を証明することにあった．ゲーデルの不完全性定理（1931年）によってこのプログラムが実行不可能であると受容された後，ゲンツェンが有限の立場を拡張することでペアノ算術の無矛盾性を証明した(1935, 36, 38年)ことはよく知られている．

戦後の混乱期の中で，金沢出身の論理学者である竹内外史(1926-2017)はこのプログラムを高階へと拡張することを構想し，高階論理の式計算体系を定式化してそこでカット消去定理が成り立つことを予想した（GLC予想，1953年）．竹内は1950年代にGLC予想の部分解を何度も出版しており，1958年には解析学が展開できる程度の体系の無矛盾性証明を出版している．なお，この時期に竹内は『科学基礎論研究』などに哲学的な論文を発表している．特に，無矛盾性証明に必要な順序数とその身分に関して，竹内は様々な考えを述べている．

1960年代以後，スタンフォードのクライゼルやフェファーマン，ミュンヘンのシュッテをその源流として，竹内の結果をよりわかりやすく証明してさらに拡張しようとする試みが盛んに行われた．（発表者が専門としているブフホルツのΩ規則は，この流れの中で登場した無限個の前提をもつ推論規則である．）この流れにおいては，証明論の目的は「形式体系の無矛盾性を証明するのに必要な最小限の順序数」と専ら数学的に定義されることが多く，現在では「順序数解析」の名前で知られている．

これまで竹内の証明論はその数学的な側面に注目が集まってきたと言ってよいが，上で述べたように（主に日本語で）哲学的著作が残されている．本発表ではこれらの著作を分析し，その背景を探ってみたい．より具体的には，竹内が「有限的」であると主張する順序数の整列性の証明を取り上げる．そして，京都学派の哲学との繋がりを指摘することで，竹内の証明論に対するヴィジョンをスケッチしてみたい．

本研究はパリ第一大学哲学科アラナ氏との共同研究に基づいている．

CAPEレクチャー(Prof. Nic Bommarito)のお知らせ

以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。奮ってご参加ください。
Date：28th November, 2018
Time: 16:30-18:00
Venue: Meeting Room on the 1st floor of Faculty of Letters Main Bldg, Kyoto University (Building No.8)
Speaker: Asst. Prof. Nic Bommarito (University at Buffalo)
Title: On Understanding Evil
Abstract: People often find evil incomprehensible. When confronted with radical immorality we often say things like, “I just can’t understand how someone could do that.” I defend an explanation of why this can be morally virtuous. The nature of certain types of explanation make it impossible for those with certain moral commitments. When those moral commitments are good, a lack of understanding can reflect well on one’s moral character. This helps to distinguish this phenomenon from false friends like certain types of moral naivety, close mindedness, sanctimoniousness, and morally irrelevant types of understanding.

「自己」に関する京都ーブリュッセル共同ワークショップのお知らせ

「自己」に関するワークショップが行われますので、学部生・院生問わず奮ってご参加下さい。

Kyoto-Bruxelles Joint Workshop on Self

Date: 22th November, 2018

Time: 13:00-17:00

Venue: Meeting Room on the 1st floor of Faculty of Letters Main Bldg, Kyoto University (No.8 of this map https://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/access/main-campus-map.html)

Program

13:00-13:45   Roman Paşca (Kanda University of International Studies)

13:45-14:30   Takeshi Morisato (Université Libre de Bruxelles)

14:30-15:15   Pierre Bonneels (Université Libre de Bruxelles)

15:15-15:30   Break

15:30-16:15   Sylvie Peperstraete (Université Libre de Bruxelles)

16:15-17:00   Baudouin Decharneux (Université Libre de Bruxelles)

CAPEレクチャー(Prof. Rein Raud)のお知らせ

Rein Raud氏講演会（CAPEレクチャー）のご案内

(京都大学文学研究科・哲学専修／日本哲学史専修共催)

11月29日(木)にエストニア・タリン大学教授、日本文学研究家、作家でもありますRein Raud氏をお招きして、以下の要領で京都大学文学研究科におきまして講演会を開催いたします。

みなさまのご参加を心よりお待ち申し上げております。

Rein Raud氏講演会（CAPEレクチャー）

日時：2018年11月29日（木）午後4時30分

場所：京都大学　京都大学文学部校舎・1階会議室 (地図8番の建物 https://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/access/main-campus-map.html)

講演者：Rein Raud氏　エストニア・タリン大学教授、日本文学研究家、作家

題目：The Genesis of the Dynamic Particular: Dogen and Nishida on Selfhood and Reality

アブストラクト：One of the central problems in Dōgen’s as well as Nishida’s thought is how an individual relates to the totality of the surrounding reality, and both of them refuse to reduce such an individual to a static, continuous and essentialistically describable entity. The similarities do not end there. The lecture analyzes concrete examples taken from the work of both thinkers to show how they share crucial insights, while differing in the interpretation they give to these.

プロフィール：1961年、エストニア・タリン生まれ。サンクトペテルブルク（レニングラード）大学卒業後、1994年ヘルシンキ大学で博士号取得。1995年から2016年まで、ヘルシンキ大学で日本学の教授、2006年から2011年までタリン大学の学長(Rector)を務める。現職は、タリン大学アジア文化学部(Asian and Cultural Studies)教授。専門は文化論、比較哲学（とりわけ道元）、東アジア文学。著作は“Meaning in Action: Outline of an Integral Theory of Culture” (Polity 2016) 、“Practices of Selfhood” (with Zygmunt Bauman, Polity 2015)など多数。また、優れた翻訳家、作家、詩人としても知られ、18冊の小説と詩集の著者でもある。

————-

Date: November 29th, 2018

Time: 16:30-18:00

Venue: Meeting Room on the 1st floor of Faculty of Letters Main Bldg, Kyoto University (No.8 of this map https://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/access/main-campus-map.html)

Speaker: Prof. Rein Raud (Tallinn University)

Title: The Genesis of the Dynamic Particular: Dogen and Nishida on Selfhood and Reality

Abstract:　One of the central problems in Dōgen’s as well as Nishida’s thought is how an individual relates to the totality of the surrounding reality, and both of them refuse to reduce such an individual to a static, continuous and essentialistically describable entity. The similarities do not end there. The lecture analyzes concrete examples taken from the work of both thinkers to show how they share crucial insights, while differing in the interpretation they give to these.

Biography: Rein Raud was born in Tallinn, Estonia in 1961. He graduated from the Oriental Faculty of the St.Petersburg (then Leningrad) University in 1985, earned a PhD from the University of Helsinki in 1994 and has been working in various academic capacities from that time. He was the professor of Japanese Studies at the University of Helsinki from 1995 till 2016, and served in the meantime as the rector of Tallinn University from 2006 till 2011. Currently he is the professor of Asian and Cultural Studies in Tallinn University. His research is dedicated mainly to cultural theory, comparative philosophy (with a particular interest in the thought of Dōgen) and East Asian literatures, his recent books include “Meaning in Action: Outline of an Integral Theory of Culture” (Polity 2016) and “Practices of Selfhood” (with Zygmunt Bauman, Polity 2015). He is also a well-known writer, the author of 18 books of fiction and poetry as well as many translations from various languages.

 

CAPEレクチャー(Profs. Tanaka, Finnigan)のお知らせ

以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。奮ってご参加ください。
Date: Thursday, 11th October, 2018
Time: 15:00-18:00
Venue: Yoshida-Izumidono (No.76 of this map https://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/access/main-campus-map.html)
Speakers: Koji Tanaka (ANU) (15:00-16:25) and Bronwyn Finnigan (ANU) (16:35-18:00)
Title and Abstract:
Koji Tanaka: The Logic of Emptiness

An error theorist about morality holds that it is an error to think that there are facts we can appeal to in making moral judgements and also it is an error to think that moral claims can be true. A global error theorist holds that it is an error to think that there are facts of any kind and no statement of any kind is true. The Buddhist philosophers, Mādhyamikas, can be described as global error theorists. What, then, are we to make of their position that there are no facts or that there are no true statements? It seems to be self-refuting to say that it is a fact that there are no facts or that it is true that there are no truths. Even if one can make such claims coherent as Mādhyamikas seem to think they can, how can anyone come to claim that there are no facts or truths to begin with? In this paper, I will investigate the possibility of a method that can establish global error theory. I will show that a global error theorist can have a coherent view about logic and reasoning that can show that there are, ultimately, no facts or truths of any kind.

Bronwyn Finnigan: Conceptuality and Mathematical Thinking in Aristotle: an Ancient Intervention into the McDowell-Dreyfus Debate

John McDowell and Hubert Dreyfus argue that human beings have a capacity for ‘situation-specific skilful coping’. Both claim that they are articulating Aristotle’s notion of phronēsis or practical wisdom. And both insist that it is best understood as a kind of perceptual capacity. They disagree, however, about whether it is a form of conceptual rationality. I argue that neither provides an accurate analysis of Aristotle, but I consider whether there are textual grounds for extending Aristotle’s position to include McDowell’s idea that conceptuality is a rational capacity that informs perceptual experience. I derive an account from Aristotle’s debate with Plato on the nature and presuppositions of counting. This debate fundamentally concerns the boundary conditions for rationality. I argue that their differences imply distinct models of perceptual activity and I give reasons to think that Aristotle’s position corresponds broadly to that of McDowell. It has a problem, however. It implies that animals cannot perceive, or not in the same way as human beings, and there is reason to think that Aristotle thinks their perceptual capacities are structurally similar. I conclude by proposing a (partial) solution that is inspired by Plato’s views about the role of calculation in resolving inconsistencies in perception.

Contact: Shinya Aoyama tipsypixy@gmail.com

CAPEレクチャー(Prof. Phenpinant)のお知らせ

以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。奮ってご参加ください。

Date: Tuesday, 31st July, 2018
Time: 14:45-16:15
Venue: Meeting room on the 1st floor of Faculty of Letters main building, Kyoto University (No.8 of this map https://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/access/main-campus-map.html)
Speaker: Asst. Prof. Kasem Phenpinant (Chulalongkom University)
Title: Hospitality as the Acceptance of the Others: Recasting the Ethics of Deconstruction

Abstract:
Jacques Derrida provides a novel notion of hospitality as an ethics of deconstruction. This emerges from his textual reading of Emmanuel Lévinas’ works. For Derrida, hospitality consists of the acceptance of the other, while addressing the hospitable welcome. It is a necessary relation to the other with an absolute hospitality as the obligation to welcome the other without conditions. Although this absolute hospitality is unconditional, but hospitality must be conditioned by a responsible response to all condition upon it. This makes the ethics of hospitality possible, when it entails the acceptance of the other.

A. Moore教授のワークショップとセミナー

以下の要領でワークショップとセミナーが開催されますので、奮ってご参加ください。

Making Sense Of: A Workshop with and about Adrian Moore
Date: 29th July 2018
Time: 9:00-19:00
Venue: Yoshida-Izumidono No.76 of this map https://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/access/main-campus-map.html)
Speakers: Adrian Moore, Hitoshi Omori, Ryo Ito, Chi-Yen Liu, Shinichi Takagi, Naoya Fujikawa

CAPE Seminar: Prof. Moore “The Bounds of Nonsense”
Date: 31st July 2018
Time: 16:30-18:00
Venue: Meeting room on the 1st floor of Faculty of Letters main building, Kyoto University (No.8 of this map https://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/access/main-campus-map.html)

Contact: Takuro Onishi takuro.onishi@gmail.com , Filippo Casati filippo.g.e.casati@gmail.com

CAPEレクチャー(Prof. Tagore)のお知らせ

以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。奮ってご参加ください。

Speaker: Prof. S.Tagore (NUS)
Date and Time: Thursday, July 5, 2018; 17:30-19:00
Venue : Seminar room no. 8; (Research Bldg No 2)
Title: Husserl, Lebenswelt, Culture

This paper concerns the rather difficult concept of the life-world (lebensewelt) that Husserl developed in some length in the Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. I wish to understand in these remarks the cultural world in terms of the life-world. Husserl primarily develops the life world concept in relation to a science-world and a mathematics-world. His main point in this regard indicates that the scientific-mathematical process is a regional vocation that works itself out against a pre-given world-structure wherein common-life is lived out:

Science is a human spiritual accomplishment which presupposes as its point of departure, both historically and for each new student, the intuitive surrounding world of life, pre-given as existing for all in common.

The stress is on singularity positing a unitary life-world shared by all in common. Under the sign of singularity, worlds are not yet emergent in multiples wherein cultures are situated. Values in general, motivated by cultural forms, inclusive but not exhausted by science-mathematics, are enabled by the life-world against which their structures are constituted. The argument here is this: as a matter of fact, cultures are plural, thus if life-world is conceived under the sign of singularity, it must be pre-given to values as such and not just to scientific value alone, assuming that values are taken to be co-extensive with culture. World-regions—one Galilean another Mahlerian (as examples)—are governed by their own teleologies and are framed against the original structure of the unitary life-world. Just as the life-world (in David Carr’s translation) is the “meaning-fundament” of the natural science so is it of musical expressions, indeed any cultural expression whatsoever. According to this construal, plurality of worlds presupposes the pre-given (vorgegeben) structure of the singular lifeworld. Running against such a construal Føllesdal observes that in the earlier lectures on Phänomenologische Psychologie (1925), Husserl appears to endorse the plurality of life-worlds:

We do not share the same life-world with all people, not all people “in the world” have in common with us all objects which make up our life-world and which determine our personal activity and striving even when they come into actual association with us, as they always can (to the extent that, if they are not present, we come to them and they to us).

Thus the question: are there many life worlds, each naming a particular cultural horizon, or is the life-world singular? I wish to address this question first and then proceed to deploy the obtained result to provide the grounding for an ethics of cosmopolitanism.

Tagore先生の「自己の現象学」に関するセミナーのお知らせ

「自己の現象学」に関するセミナーが行われますので、学部生・院生問わず奮ってご参加ください。
この講義はシラバス上の規定の授業ではありませんので、単位は取得できません。

講師　 Tagore先生 (シンガポール国立大学)
日時　 月曜・木曜２限（7/9,12　10:30-12:00）
場所　 第8演習室(総合研究2号館1階東側)

概要：

Teaching Seminar 1 (9th July 10:30-12:00):

I propose to show how Husserl worked out the implications of the philosophies of Descartes, Hume, and Kant to work out his phenomenologically motivated transcendental account of self.

Teaching Seminar 2 (12th July 10:30-12:00):

I propose to show how Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty used Husserl as the background to their effort at dismantling transcendental phenomenology to assemble an phenomenological-existential account of self.

In both these teaching seminars the effort will be to disclose varied phenomenological conceptions of self/subjectivity.