The Special Composition Question: An Analysis of Carmichael’s Commonsense Account

Marta Campdelacreu

University of Barcelona

17 February 2023, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: This is Peter van Inwagen’s well-known Special Composition Question: when do some things compose something? Recently, Carmichael has proposed and defended an appealing new answer which, unlike the current most popular answers, agrees with common sense regarding composition. Moreover, he claims, it helps to solve the puzzle of The Ship of Theseus and the puzzle of Dion and Theon. In this talk, I will argue that Carmichael’s proposal includes an unjustified and arbitrary distinction between the relation that common sense bears to objects and the relation that it bears to events. Moreover, I will also argue that, against what he claims, his proposal does not help to solve the puzzles mentioned before.

Faculty of Arts and Humanities. Centre of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon. University of Lisbon (Lisbon, Portugal)

We invite submissions to the PLEXUS inaugural conference, which will take place on May 24-26 at the Centre of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon, Portugal. Submissions can be on any topic related to substructural logics and should be suitable for 45 minutes presentations.

Please send an anonymised abstract of at most 500 words alongside a separate title page, containing the name of the author and the title of the presentation to bdicher@edu.ulisboa.pt before 15 February 2023. Please include the acronym ‘PLEXUS’ in the email’s subject field. Notifications of acceptance will be sent before 15 February 2023.

Submissions from early-stage scholars and postgraduate students, as well as from members of groups currently underrepresented in academia, are strongly encouraged. Some financial support to cover travel and accommodation costs will be available for postgraduate students. Should you wish to be considered for financial support, please state so on the ‘title page’.

Date: November 17 and 18, 2022.

The Cogito research group (University of Glasgow) and the LanCog research group (University of Lisbon) are glad to announce the upcoming Epistemology Workshop, which will take place on November 17 and 18, 2022, at Faculty of Letters, University of Lisbon.

Programme November 17 (Thursday) 2.00-3.45 – Mona Simion (University of Glasgow) 4.00-5.45 – Matt McGrath (Washington University St Louis) November 18 (Friday) 9.00-10.45 – Michel Croce & Matt Jope (University of Genoa & University of Edinburgh) 11.00-12.45 – Claire Fields (University of Stirling) 12.45-2.00 Lunch 2.00-3.45 – Domingos Faria (University of Porto) 4.00-5.45 – Chris Kelp (University of Glasgow) Location Faculty of Letters, University of Lisbon, B112B Room (Library building)   Organizers Mona Simion and Domingos Faria

Inferential Constraint and If φ ought φ Problem

Una Stojnić

Princeton University

23 September 2022, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: The standard semantics for modality, together with the influential restrictor analysis of conditionals (Kratzer 1986; 2012) renders conditional ‘ought’ claims like (1) trivially true:

1. If John’s stealing, he ought to be stealing.

While this might seem like a problem specifically for the restrictor analysis, the issue is far more general. For any account must predict that modals in the consequent sometimes receive obligatorily unrestricted interpretation, as in (1), but sometimes appear restricted, as in (2):

2. If John’s speeding, he ought to pay the fine.

And the problem runs deeper, for there are non-conditional variants of the data. Thus, the solution cannot lie in adopting a particular analysis of conditionals, nor a specific account of the interaction between conditionals and modals. Indeed, with minimal assumptions, the standard account of modality will render a massive number of claims about what one ought to, must, or may, do trivially true. Worse, the problem extends to a wide range of non-deontic modalities, including metaphysical modality. But the disaster has a remedy. I argue that the source of the problem lies in the standard account’s failure to capture an inferential evidence constraint encoded in the meaning of a wide range of modal constructions. I offer an account that captures this constraint, and show it provides a general and independently motivated solution to the problem.

Argument Rodizio
LANCOG DAY 2022

01 July 2022, 15:00
Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa
Sala Mattos Romão (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract:
1. Federico Lauria: Desires are not motivational states: The argument of satisfaction conditions.
2. João C. Miranda: Desires are question-sensitive.
3. Gabriel Malagutti: Greco’s dilemma for testimonial knowledge.
4. Domingos Faria: An argument against individualistic accounts of group belief.
5. Diogo Santos: On whether one ought to do what one ought to do.
6. Hugo Luzio: On Human Enhancement at Cryo-Revival.
7. Delia Belleri: Conservatism about concepts: testing the argument.
8. José Mestre: Frege’s objection to Neo-Fregeanism.

The Argument Rodizio is a seminar in which each participant presents a short, desirably surprising, thought provoking and philosophically provocative argument in 5-10 minutes, to be exhaustively (and exhaustingly) discussed in the following 5-10 minutes.

On Wednesday 22 June Hans Christian Öttinger (ETH Zürich) will give a talk titled “A robust approach to quantum field theory: A give-and-take situation for philosophy” (abstract below).

The series of online seminars is organized in the context of the activities of the LanCog Research Group at the Centre of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon, and will focus on the foundations of quantum and spacetime physics.

The meeting will be online on Zoom (17:00-19:00 CEST). If you have not registered yet, you can do so here.

You can address any question to Andrea Oldofredi (aoldofredi@letras.ulisboa.pt).

ABSTRACT:

I present an intuitive and robust mathematical representation of fundamental particle physics based on a novel approach to quantum field theory, which is guided by four carefully motivated metaphysical postulates. More concretely, I explore a dissipative approach to quantum field theory [1] and propose a possible explanation of the Planck scale in quantum gravity. Offering a radically new perspective on this topic, my presentation focuses on the conceptual foundations of quantum field theory and ontological questions [2]. It also suggests a new stochastic simulation technique in quantum field theory which is complementary to existing ones.

[1] H.C. Öttinger, A Philosophical Approach to Quantum Field Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2017).
[2] A. Oldofredi and H.C.Öttinger, The dissipative approach to quantum field theory: conceptual
foundations and ontological implications, Euro Jnl Phil Sci 11, 18 (2021).

Desires don’t have desire-like direction of fit
Bence Nanay (University of Antwerp)

24 June 2022, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET) | Sala Mattos Romão (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: Desires are widely, in fact, universally, taken to have, well, desire-like direction of fit. The aim of this paper is to argue that – at least on one important understanding of what direction of fit is – this is not so. I give a two-step argument: The goal state of desires is represented by mental imagery and if the goal state of desires is represented by mental imagery, then desires don’t have world-to-mind (or prescriptive) intrinsic direction of fit. In other words, desires don’t have desire-like direction of fit.

The room has a limited number of seats. Pre-registration is required at <info@lancog.com> until a day before the event.

Monism and Qualitativism
Trevor Teitel (University of Toronto​)

24 June 2022, 11:00 (Lisbon Time – WET) | Sala Mattos Romão (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: This talk is about the relation between two venerable yet revisionary metaphysical doctrines. The monist doctrine says, roughly, that reality is in some sense one. The qualitativist doctrine says, roughly, that reality contains no facts about particular objects, but is rather purely qualitative. In this talk I’ll distinguish various versions of each doctrine, and in each case argue that champions of the monistic doctrine should instead embrace an analogous qualitativist doctrine. I conclude that monists should be qualitativists.