성균관대학교 "철학과인문교육" 연구소의 제20회 논문발표회를 2월 2일(금요일) 12:50~18:00에 퇴계인문관 31709호에서 개최하게 되어 아래와 같이 알려드립니다.

이번 발표회에서는 김영성, 인유림, 두 분의 대학원생과, 박성수, 남기혁, 이병덕 선생님 이렇게 총 다섯 분을 모시고 아래와 같이 발표를 진행하고자 합니다. 학생분들과 선생님들의 많은 관심과 참여 부탁드립니다. 

일 시: 2024년 2월 2일 금요일 오후 12:50~6:00
장 소: 성균관대학교 퇴계인문관 7층 709호(#31709)

일 정:
12:50~1:00 등록 및 개회 인사
1:00~1:45 김영성 (성균관대 박사수료)
                   합의 이론을 통해 친구와 연인 구분하기
1:45~2:30 인유림 (성균관대 석사수료)
                   How to Achieve Practical Rationality
2:40~3:40 남기혁 (연세대)
                   The Primitivist’s Dialectic
3:50~4:50 박성수 (성균관대/연세대) 

                   Against an Anti-Realist Account of Theft in Virtual Reality: Why Virtual Objects Exist

5:00~6:00 이병덕 (성균관대)
                   A Kantian Critique of Benatar’s Annihilation Account

김영성
발표 제목: 합의 이론을 통해 친구와 연인 구분하기
초록: 본고에서는 '친구와 연인의 구분에 의한 논증'이 제시된다. 이 논증에 의하면, 자발적이고 친밀한 인간관계에 대한 기존의 모든 이론들은 친구관계와 연애관계를 적절히 구분해줄 수 없다는 점에서 문제가 있다. 나의 합의 이론은 그렇지 않다.

인유림
발표 제목: How to Achieve Practical Rationality
초록: This paper deals with how to achieve practical rationality, specially focusing on the discussion surrounding the formulation of a requirement for means-end coherence (“MEC” for short). A significant amount of recent debate has focused on how to formulate this requirement, with two views predominant among philosophers: narrow-scope and wide-scope formulations. However, I argue that neither of them is satisfactory. The narrow-scope formulation is excessively restrictive, failing to accommodate an agent’s rational decision to abandon her end. Meanwhile, the wide-scope formulation is overly permissive, licensing wishful thinking. Consequently, I propose a middle ground by advocating the medium-scope formulation as the preferred rational requirement for MEC. Additionally, I extend my argument to formulate another requirement of practical rationality known as ‘Enkrasia.’ If these arguments prove successful, they convey an important lesson: one cannot achieve practical rationality by dropping one’s belief.

남기혁
발표 제목: The Primitivist’s Dialectic
초록: Many would agree that, in case it is shown that other things are equal, a reductive theory ought to be preferred over a non-reductive, primitivist theory. For example, it is extremely rare for one to reject the reductionist position of a given domain while conceding that the proposed reductive procedure is successful. Typically, the opposition consists in denying that the subject matter can be reduced. This suggests an unspoken rule of the dialectic that, if something can be reduced, then it should be reduced. In a similar light, conventional metaphysical wisdom tells us that primitivist positions should only be accepted as a last resort. In this talk, I argue that these two attitudes reflect some interesting features of the dialectical obligations one takes on by virtue of advocating a primitivist position. This, I argue, is not merely a psychological or sociological explanation of why these attitudes are so widespread, but instead is something that has profound implications for our epistemic evaluation of theories.

박성수
발표 제목: Against an Anti-Realist Account of Theft in Virtual Reality: Why Virtual Objects Exist
초록: This paper delves into the philosophical debate surrounding the existence of virtual objects. According to an influential anti-realist view about virtual objects, virtual objects are mere pretended game objects and therefore do not exist. I disagree with this view since I believe that there is a fundamental difference between make-believe games and virtual realities. This paper aims to clarify what this difference is and present a prima facie good argument for a realist view about virtual objects.

이병덕
발표 제목: A Kantian Critique of Benatar’s Annihilation Account
초록: Benatar argues that our lives are overall bad. But he denies that his pessimist view supports suicide, claiming that death is also bad. He defends the latter claim partly by advocating the annihilation account, which holds that one’s annihilation is an independent bad. In support of this account, he offers two reasons. His primary reason is that the annihilation of an individual thwarts their interest in continued existence. His secondary reason is that if damaging an object of value is bad, then annihilating the object is bad as well. The purpose of this paper is to argue against Benatar’s annihilation account from a Kantian point of view. For this purpose, I argue mainly for three things. First, even if one’s interest in continued existence is thwarted, this in itself does not support Benatar’s claim that one’s annihilation is an independent bad. Second, while there are situations where damaging an object of value is considered bad, the destruction of such an object in itself is not bad. In a similar vein, while there are situations where annihilating someone is considered bad, the annihilation of an individual in itself is not bad. Third, even if one’s annihilation is an independent bad, this does not provide a reason to refrain from suicide.

오시는 방법: 지하철 4호선 혜화역에서 내리셔서 1번 출구로 나온 후 전용 정류장에서 성균관대 셔틀 탑승 (400원; 교통카드 사용 가능)

발표회와 관련하여 궁금하신 점이 있으시면 아래의 연락처로 문의해 주시기 바랍니다.

철학과인문교육연구소 연구소장 이정규 / 02-760-0208 / jeonggyulee@skku.edu
철학과인문교육연구소 조교 인유림 / in.yr0805@gmail.com

성균관대학교 "철학과인문교육" 연구소의 2023 해외학자 초청강연을 9월 2일(토요일) 16:00~18:00에 퇴계인문관 31609호에서 개최하게 되어 아래와 같이 알려드립니다.

이번 발표회에서는 University College Dublin의 Tatjana von Solodkoff 교수님께서 "Appreciating Perfumes"라는 제목으로 발표하실 예정입니다. (발표의 일부로 Von Solodkoff 교수님이 가져오신 향수들을 맡아보실 기회도 있습니다.) 선생님들과 학생분들의 많은 관심과 참여 부탁드립니다.

발표 제목: Appreciating Perfumes
초록: Perfumes have long held a captivating allure, engaging our senses, evoking emotions, and enriching our imagination. Yet, perfume appreciation has rarely been the topic of philosophical investigation. In this talk, I will distinguish the different ways in which we can appreciate perfumes. Drawing inspiration from Kendall Walton's framework of content-oriented and prop-oriented games of make-believe, I will explore the fascinating interplay between our olfactory experiences, narratives, and games of make-believe. Through this exploration, we will uncover ways to engage with and derive enjoyment from perfumes.

Tatjana von Solodkoff 교수님 웹사이트: https://people.ucd.ie/tatjana.vonsolodkoff/about

Bio: Tatjana is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University College Dublin. Before joining UCD, she finished her PhD at the University of Sheffield, UK, held a postdoc position at the University of Barcelona in Spain, and was an assistant professor at the Humboldt University in Berlin, Germany. Tatjana's main interests are in ontology and metaontology, as well as the philosophy of fiction broadly construed. She is also curious about the desirability of immortality and the value of death.

아울러 해외학자 초청강연 전에 대학원생들의 발표도 있을 예정입니다. 발표는 모두 영어로 진행됩니다. 역시 관심 있는 분들의 많은 참여 부탁드립니다.

전체 일정은 다음과 같습니다.

일 시: 2023년 9월 2일 토요일 오후 1:30~6:00
장 소: 성균관대학교 퇴계인문관 6층 609호(#31609)

일 정:
1:30~1:35 개회 인사
1:35~2:15 인유림 Yoorim In (성균관대 석사과정)
                   Parallelizing Universalism and Nihilism
2:20~3:00 안태규 Taegyu An (중앙대 석사과정)
                   Grounding as an Identity Dependence – A Defense of Grounding from an Essentialist View
3:05~3:45 김정균 Jungkyun Kim (성균관대 박사과정)
                   Defending Contextualism on Singular Existential
4:00~6:00 Tatjana von Solodkoff (University College Dublin)
                   Appreciating Perfumes

인유림 Yoorim In
발표 제목: Parallelizing Universalism and Nihilism
초록: This paper critically reviews permissivism, with a specific focus on universalism. In Section 1, I outline the universalists’ main thesis and two arguments supporting it. In Sections 2 and 3, I argue that none of them are promising. Additionally, I demonstrate that universalists are confronted with a dilemma regarding perceptual beliefs since their principal arguments are founded on premises that rely on perception. In Section 4, I consider a potential strategy to avoid this predicament and assess its effectiveness. Then I conclude that universalists need a different solution that does not depend on perception.

안태규 Taegyu An
발표 제목: Grounding as an Identity Dependence – A Defense of Grounding from an Essentialist View
초록: This paper defends the introduction of Grounding by elucidating its concept and role. Contemporary metaphysicians try to capture the structure of reality with Grounding. Wilson (2014), however, expresses concern about the project due to the incomprehensibility of Grounding. I expect that Grounding essentialism can relieve the worry. Grounding essentialism understands Grounding through essentialist connection. However, not all theories can do the job successfully. The forthcoming discussion will introduce two views: one positing that Grounding entails an essentialist connection, and the other positing that it is synonymous with it. The former is Wallner’s theory, according to which full support for Grounding is challenging. In this regard, I point out its two problems. And as one of the latter views, I propose an approach that amalgamates the theories of Correia&Skiles (2019) and Zylstra (2019). And this approach will show how can relieve Wilson’s concern while evading Wallner’s problems. As a result, this paper indirectly defends the introduction of Grounding.

김정균 Jungkyun Kim
발표 제목: Defending Contextualism on Singular Existential
초록: This paper defends contextualism on singular existential (“contextualism” for short), which contends a singular sentence including an existence predicate can have different semantic content depending on the context of the utterance of it. Those who presented a contextualist approach such as Thomason (1999), von Solodkoff (2014), and Spewak (2016) defended their views by focusing on explaining seemingly true negative existential sentences. In the first part of this paper, I suggest there are further considerations to accept contextualism. In the second part, I consider the two major problems of the previous contextualists' approach. And then, I present my version of contextualism, which can address those problems successfully.

오시는 방법: 지하철 4호선 혜화역에서 내리셔서 1번 출구로 나온 후 전용 정류장에서 성균관대 셔틀 탑승 (400원; 교통카드 사용 가능)

발표회와 관련하여 궁금하신 점이 있으시면 아래의 연락처로 문의해 주시기 바랍니다.

철학과인문교육연구소 연구소장 이정규 / 02-760-0208 / jeonggyulee@skku.edu
철학과인문교육연구소 조교 인유림 / in.yr0805@gmail.com

"철학과인문교육" 연구소 제19회 논문발표회  

성균관대학교 "철학과인문교육" 연구소의 제19회 논문발표회를 6월 30일(금요일)에 개최하게 되어 아래와 같이 알려드립니다. 이번 발표회에서는 박성수 선생님께서 "Are Names Variables?"라는 제목으로, 원유나 선생님께서는 “Engineering Silencing”라는 제목으로 발표하실 예정입니다. 학생분들과 선생님들의 많은 관심과 참여 부탁드립니다.

박성수 선생님 웹사이트: https://sites.google.com/site/seongsooparkphilosophy/

원유나 선생님 웹사이트: https://sites.google.com/view/yunawon2021/home

- 아래-

일 시: 2023년 6월 30일 금요일 오후 3시 00분~6시 00분

장 소: 성균관대학교 퇴계인문관 6층 604호(#31604)

주최: 성균관대학교 철학과

주관: 성균관대학교 철학과인문교육 연구소

3:00~3:05 개회 인사

3:05~4:25 박성수

제목: "Are Names Variables?"

4:25~4:40 휴식

4:40~6:00 원유나

제목: “Engineering Silencing”

- 발표논문1 (박성수)

제목: " Are Names Variables?”

초록: Variabilism about proper names is the view that proper names should be semantically interpreted as variables, similar to how pronouns are interpreted. This view conflicts with the orthodox view of proper names, according to which proper names are constants in their semantic contributions. Since the orthodox view aligns better with our intuition, proponents of Variabilism (Cumming, 2008; Ninan, 2012; Schoubye, 2017, 2020) need to present persuasive reasons to justify their view. In fact, they attempt to do so by primarily employing two types of strategies: Theoretical and practical. The aim of this paper is to show that the strategies supporting Variabilism are not compelling.

- 발표논문2 (원유나)

제목: “Engineering Silencing”

초록: Catharine McKinnon famously claimed that pornography silences women as part of her arguments for anti-pornography legislation. Langton and Hornsby provide the very first philosophical defense of the silencing claim using Austin’s speech act theory. Their ingenious approach gave rise to rich debates on the notion of silencing and speech-related harms and injustice. There are two general methodological concerns about Langton and Hornsby’s project. First, their speech act theoretic definition of silencing is immediately challenged by various counterexamples. Sometimes philosophers even have conflicting intuitions about some critical cases. Such an intuition impasse raises methodological concerns. Second, it can be asked whether it is acceptable to defend a controversial claim with significant practical implications by devising a new concept or redefining an existing term, and when such an approach is regarded as successful. I argue that the silencing literature is a collective conceptual engineering project. And, we can address the two issues using this new angle and the recent metaphilosophical debates on conceptual engineering.

오시는 방법: 지하철 4호선 혜화역에서 내리셔서 1번 출구로 나온 후 전용 정류장에서 성균관대 셔틀 탑승 (400원; 교통카드 사용 가능)

궁금하신 점이 있으시면 아래의 연락처로 문의해 주시기 바랍니다.

철학과인문교육연구소 연구소장 이정규 / 02-760-0208 / jeonggyulee@skku.edu

철학과인문교육연구소 조교 정대휘 / 010-2543-3664 / dh960120@naver.com

"철학과인문교육" 연구소 제18회 논문발표회  

성균관대학교 "철학과인문교육" 연구소의 제18회 논문발표회를 12월 17일(토요일)에 개최하게 되어 아래와 같이 알려드립니다.

이번 발표회에서는 박사학위를 받은지 얼마 되지 않으신 신진 학자 선생님들의 발표를 듣는 기회를 갖고자 합니다. 먼저 the University of Southern California에서 학위를 하신 이준효 선생님께서 "'Ought' and Intervals"라는 제목으로, the University of Kansas에서 학위를 하신 최동용 선생님께서는 “The Nature of Achievement: The Comparative Value Approach”이라는 제목으로 발표하실 예정입니다. 대학원 학생분들과 선생님들의 많은 관심과 참여 부탁드립니다.

- 아래-

일 시: 2022년 12월 17일 토요일 오후 3시 00분~6시 00분 

장 소: 성균관대학교 퇴계인문관 4층 409호(#31409)

주최: 성균관대학교 철학과

주관: 성균관대학교 철학과인문교육 연구소

3:00~3:05 개회 인사 

3:05~4:25 이준효 

제목: "Ought" and Intervals

4:25~4:40 휴식

4:40~6:00 최동용 

제목: The Nature of Achievement: The Comparative Value Approach

- 발표논문1 (이준효)

제목: "Ought" and Intervals

초록: Over the last few decades, the semantics of “ought” has proliferated along with an expanding diversity of conceptions of both what and how we communicate with deontic modals. Examples include classical semantics, contrastive semantics, and conflict accounts. However, most of these views do share one striking feature – the idea that “ought” claims are evaluated on an ordinal scale. I argue in this paper that this assumption is mistaken. By considering some new data that haven’t been considered before, I show why deontic “ought” claims require at least an interval scale, and why this creates an adequacy problem for a wide range of existing views. I will also show, by considering two other proposals, that simply incorporating particular interval scales into our semantics does not suffice. I will argue that we need the difference between values, not just values on an interval scale. In closing, I will show how my account of “ought”-claims can be extended to capture the unity of epistemic and deontic “ought”-claims. 

- 발표논문2 (최동용)

제목: The Nature of Achievement: The Comparative Value Approach

초록: While investigating the value of achievements, Dunkle claims that lucky achievements are possible. For instance, if a person does great works, then it is possible that the works have the status of achievements, even if luck plays a crucial role in doing the great works. Rather than examining Dunkle’s claim, this paper proceeds discussion under the assumption that lucky achievements are possible. In particular, based on this assumption, this paper suggests a new approach to the nature of achievement named the Comparative Value Approach. According to the comparative value approach, a product can have the status of an achievement if the product is valuable in an achievement-relevant domain, and in that domain the product is valuable more than most other items which either have been achieved or can be achieved by others. This paper shows that the comparative value approach successfully explains the cases of achievements, including the cases of lucky achievements. Besides this reason, this paper provides three more reasons to support the comparative value approach. The approach can accommodate the fact that there are various kinds of achievements, such as artistic and historical achievements; the approach can explain the relation between the nature of achievement and the achievement-value of a product; and the approach can show why in determining the status of a product it matters that for average people achieving a similar kind of product is sufficiently difficult. Based on these four reasons, this paper concludes that the comparative value approach is a plausible understanding of achievements.

오시는 방법: 지하철 4호선 혜화역에서 내리셔서 1번 출구로 나온 후 전용 정류장에서 성균관대 셔틀 탑승 (300원; 교통카드 사용 가능)

궁금하신 점이 있으시면 아래의 연락처로 문의해 주시기 바랍니다.

철학과인문교육연구소 연구소장 이정규 / 02-760-0208 / jeonggyulee@skku.edu

철학과인문교육연구소 조교 정대휘 / 010-2543-3664 / dh960120@skku.edu

"철학과인문교육" 연구소 제17회 논문발표회  

성균관대학교 "철학과인문교육" 연구소의 제17회 논문발표회를 6월 18일(토요일)에 개최하게 되어 아래와 같이 알려드립니다. 이번 발표회에서는 두 명의 신진 철학자들이 발표자로 참여할 예정입니다. University of Illinois at Chicago에서 학위를 하신 김준영 선생님께서 "라이프니츠의 공가능성 개념에 대한 조합론적 이론"라는 제목으로, Purdue University에서 학위를 하신 오근창 선생님께서는 “시민다움으로서 시민적 매너”라는 제목으로 발표하실 예정입니다. 대학원 학생분들과 선생님들의 많은 관심과 참여 부탁드립니다.

- 아래-

일 시: 2022년 6월 18일 토요일 오후 3시 00분~6시 00분

장 소: 성균관대학교 퇴계인문관 6층 609호(#31609)

주최: 성균관대학교 철학과

주관: 성균관대학교 철학과인문교육 연구소

3:00~3:05 개회 인사

3:05~4:25 김준영

제목: "라이프니츠의 공가능성 개념에 대한 조합론적 이론"

4:25~4:40 휴식

4:40~6:00 오근창

제목: “시민다움으로서 시민적 매너”

- 발표논문1 (김준영)

제목: "라이프니츠의 공가능성 개념에 대한 조합론적 이론"

초록: 라이프니츠는 신이 가능한 모든 세계들 중 최선의 세계를 선택하여 창조하였다고 주장한다. 대부분의 라이프니츠 학자들이 인정하듯이, 이러한 소위 "최선의 세계 선택 논제"는 라이프니츠의 철학과 신학에서 뿐만 아니라 그의 학문 체계 전체에서 가장 핵심적인 역할을 담당하고 있다. 무엇보다도 이 논제는 그의 공가능성(compossilbity) 개념과 변신론(Theodicy)적 기획과 매우 밀접히 연관되어 있다. 그러나 문제는 이 최선의 세계 선택 논제를 정확히 어떻게 이해해야 하는지 불분명하다는 것이다. 이 논제를 올바르게 이해하기 위해서는 신이 어떠한 방식으로 가능 세계들을 비교하고 평가하는지를 알아야 하는데, 라이프니츠 학자들은 이에 대한 명확한 해답을 내놓지 못하고 있는 상태이다. 보다 근본적으로, 라이프니츠의 철학 체계 내에서 가능세계들이 정확히 어떻게 구성되는지에 대한 물음도 완전히 해소되지 못한 상태이다. 이 발표에서 나는 라이프니츠의 공가능성 개념에 대한 조합적 이론을 개진함으로써, 이러한 물음들에 대한 새로운 해답을 제시하고자 한다. 라이프니츠는 가능세계들의 구성과 평가의 과정에서 일종의 "신적 수학" (Divine mathematics) 혹은 "형이상학적 메커니즘"(metaphysical mechanism)이 작용하고 있다고 말한 바 있다. 나의 목적은 문헌적 근거를 바탕으로 이러한 "신적 수학"을 엄밀하게 발전시키는 것이다. 나의 해석에 따르면, 창조 과정에서 신은 일종의 1인 조합론적 게임을 하고 있는 것으로 비유될 수 있다. 신은 우선 가능 실체들의 공가능성 관계를 바탕으로 모든 가능한 가능 실체들의 조합을 판단하고, 이를 통해 가능 세계들을 구성한다. 그리고 각각의 가능세계에 속한 가능 실체들의 완전성(perfection)을 바탕으로 가능세계의 완전성을 판단하고, 이들 중 최선의 가능 세계를 선택한다. 나는 이러한 해석을 발전시킴으로써, 공가능성과 악의 문제에 대한 여러 해석상의 난제들에 대해 새로운 해결책을 제시할 수 있음을 보일 것이다.

- 발표논문2 (오근창)

제목: “시민다움으로서 시민적 매너”

초록: 이 글에서 나는 시민적 매너라는 것이 존재할 수 있고 하나의 시민적 덕성으로서 그 함양을 권장할 수 있다고 주장할 것이다. 이를 위해 나는 시민적 매너에는 크게 두 가지 기능, 도덕적 태도의 드러냄이라는 표현적 기능과 도덕적 덕성의 함양이라는 발달적 기능이 있음을 보이고자 한다. 이 두 가지 측면에서 볼 때 시민적 매너는 기존의 정치철학이 간주했던 것처럼 부차적인 에티켓에 지나지 않는 것이 아니다. 마지막으로는 시민적 매너가 지나치게 형식적이고 외면적인 문제에 골몰한다는 반론에 대해 응답한다. 결론적으로, 시민적 에티켓은 단순히 일상 생활에서의 개인적 덕목일뿐만 아니라 갑질, 혐오발언, 모욕, 불화 등이 만연한 갈등적인 정치적 양극화 시대 등에 있어서 시민적 덕성의 기능을 수행할 수 있다고 기대된다.

오시는 방법: 지하철 4호선 혜화역에서 내리셔서 1번 출구로 나온 후 전용 정류장에서 성균관대 셔틀 탑승 (300원; 교통카드 사용 가능)

궁금하신 점이 있으시면 아래의 연락처로 문의해 주시기 바랍니다.

철학과인문교육연구소 연구소장 이정규 / 02-760-0208 / jeonggyulee@skku.edu

철학과인문교육연구소 조교 정대휘 / 010-2543-3664 / dh960120@skku.edu