Category: セミナー

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。

以下の要領で論理学上級の番外編が行われます。ぜひご参加下さい。

論理学上級番外編：完全性定理と不完全性定理
講師：矢田部俊介
日時：2017年3月25日（土）10：30 ～ 17：30
テーマ：
（10:30-12:00）古典述語論理の完全性定理
（13:00-15:00）モデルの中でモデルをつくる
（15:30-17:30）不完全性定理のモデル論的証明

場所:
京都大学文学部第11演習室（総合研究2号館1F南側）
キャンパスマップの34番のたてものです。
http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/access/campus/yoshida/map6r_y/
土曜は建物の西側の入り口のみあいていますのでご注意ください。

本年度も研究科横断型授業Ｂタイプ「論理学上級I」「論理学上級II」を、矢田部俊介先生、村上祐子先生をゲスト講師にお招きして開講いたします。

シラバスは以下のページよりダウンロードできます。

http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/education-campus/cross/2016/b.html

日時

論理学上級Ｉ（矢田部先生）

2017年  2月4日、5日（10時30分～17時00分）

論理学上級ＩI（村上先生）

2017年  2月6日（13時00分～17時00分）2月7日（10時00分～17時00分）2月8日（10時00分～15時00分）

場所

京都大学文学部第９講義室（総合研究2号館　南側地下1階）

キャンパスマップの34番のたてものです。

http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/access/campus/yoshida/map6r_y/

土日は建物の西側の入り口のみあいていますのでご注意ください。

以下のようにCAPEワークショップが開催されます。奮ってご参加ください。
————–
「非古典メレオロジー研究会」
日時：12月20日（火）14:45-16:15
場所：京都大学文学部校舎1階会議室
発表者：藤川直也（首都大学東京 准教授）
発表タイトル：Plurality in Fictional Discourses
言語：英語
要旨：
A fiction may describe a plurality without specifying the `dossier’ of each of its individual (atomic) constituents enough to distinguish them from each other. In particular, it may be the case that a fiction gives the exactly same characterization to each of the constituents of a plurality, as is described in Everett (2013). For example, `we are told in Tess of the d’Urbervilles that 16 policemen came to arrest Tess but we are not given any more specific descriptions of any of these policemen’ (Everett, 2013, p. 191). Let us call a plural fictional character without specification of each of its constituents a plurality with indiscernible constituents. In this paper, I develop a theory of pluralities with indiscernible constituents, based on nuclear Meinongianism (cf. Parsons, 1980) and non-idempotent mereology (cf. Cotnoir, 2015). Nuclear Meinongianism of fictional characters claims that a fictional character in a fictional story S is a nonexistent object x which has all nuclear properties x is characterized as having by S. According to non-idempotent mereology, a mereological sum can have one and the same object as its two or more different parts.  Combining these two theories, I propose that `16 policemen’ in Tess of  d’Urbervilles refers to a mereological sum which has one and the same nonexistent policeman as its 16 different parts.

以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。皆様のご参加をお待ちしております。

日時：2016年11月14日(月) 16:30–18:00

講師：Dr.Yuri Cath (La Trobe University)
日時：2016年10月27日（木） 16:30-18:00
場所：京都大学 文学部校舎地下１階 大会議室
地図：http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/access/campus/yoshida/map6r_y/ (構内MAP8番の建物）
言語：英語

題目：
Knowing What It Is Like, Choice, and Consent

要旨：
Can I know what it is like to deliver a stand-up comedy routine, give birth to a child, or go to war, without having had those experiences myself? Is it possible to gain this ‘what it is like’ (WIL)-knowledge by reading stories or talking with the experienced? Philosophers often hold a pessimistic attitude towards this possibility on the grounds that one can only know what it is like to have an experience if one has had an experience of that same type oneself (Lewis 1998, Paul 2014). And endorsements of this pessimistic attitude can also be found in novels, films, and pop music. But, I shall argue, a puzzle now arises because there are also countless examples of everyday practices and judgments that testify to our holding an optimistic attitude towards this same possibility. In this paper I discuss how this puzzle can be illuminated and potentially dissolved by appealing to recent work in epistemology on knowledge-wh and in the philosophy of mind on empathy. I also show how my solution to this puzzle can help us to evaluate recent arguments by Paul (2014, 2015) concerning WIL-knowledge and transformative choices, and discussions in applied ethics concerning WIL-knowledge and informed consent (Bayne and Levy 2005, Dodds and Jones 1989, Oakley 1992).

以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開かれます。みなさまぜひご参加下さい。