From Spacetime in Physics to Space and Time in Human Experience

Thomas Sattig (University of Tübingen)

20 June 2025, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão [C201.J] (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: The development of the physics of space and time is a story of alienation. Today we face a deep gap between the way humans experience space and time and the way space and time are understood in contemporary physics. In the world of human experience, space and time are very different: space organizes things in a static way, while time organizes things in a dynamic way. In the world of contemporary physics, however, space and time are very similar: space and time form aspects of a single spacetime that organizes all things in a static way. It is a significant task of contemporary philosophy to bridge the gap between the physics of spacetime and the human experience of space and time. This talk will describe the gap and outline a path of reconciliation.

This activity is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310/2025, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
(https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00310/2025)

The Problem of Expressive Action in Philosophical Action Theory

Luca Bellini (LMU Munich)

6 June 2025, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão [C201.J] (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: There is a wide range of expressive actions we do. We kick cars that refuse to start, we kiss and talk to pictures, we wreck damage to the belongings of someone who cheated on us, and many others along the same lines. The problem of expressive action is the problem of explaining why we do such bizarre things. According to the received view, these are just actions out of emotion. Instead, I argue they are much more like make-believe games. Having to firstly clarify what makes expressive actions expressive – i.e. what, if anything, they express –, I draw on a hitherto overlooked analogy with both children’s games (e.g. duelling with make-believe swords) and rituals (e.g. burning in effigy) to claim that expressive actions, too, prescribe what is fictionally the case. While furthering our understanding of the role that imagination plays in justifying our conduct, this talk sheds light on the nature of rational agency and the problem of action – the problem of explaining what makes something an action in the first place. In doing so, I aim to show that our standard model of action explanation, encapsulated in the slogan “beliefs and desires cause actions”, has finally run its course.

This activity is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310/2025, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
(https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00310/2025)

Grasping Models as Epistemic Tools: From Scientific Representation to Engineering Design

Michael Poznic (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology)

16 May 2025, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão [C201.J] (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: Models can be used for different kinds of projects in scientific or engineering contexts. Representational uses haven been predominantly discussed in philosophy of science. Next to such uses, the perspective on models as designs is equally important. What is common to most if not all target-directed modeling projects is that grasping the models is a first step to use the respective models for understanding their target phenomena. This talk sketches an account of grasping models that is primarily tailored to approaches that focus on objectual understanding. A central element is the evaluation of the models in terms of their direction-of-fit to their targets. Whether other epistemic achievements can be spelled out with such an account of grasping is something that the proposal does not preclude. An open question is the relevance for exploratory or other uses of models that are not directed at representing or designing targets.

This activity is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310/2025, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
(https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00310/2025)

Know-How, Action and Proximity

Adam Carter (University of Glasgow)

2 May 2025, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão [C201.J] (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: Few theses at the intersection of action theory and epistemology have more adherents than the Simple View, according to which, if an agent φ-s intentionally, then she knows how to φ. That view struggles, however, to account for cases of intentional actions performed in novel circumstances, or when facing novel tasks. We propose to reject the Simple View and instead explain the relationship between intentional action and know-how by appeal to proximity, a relation encoding the extent to which the means for one task (ψ) can be co-opted to reliably succeed in another (φ). According to our Proximity View, if an agent φ-s intentionally, then she knows how to ψ, where ψ is sufficiently proximal to φ. Not only does the Proximity View explain intentional actions performed when facing novel circumstances or tasks, but it also illuminates both the process of learning by doing and the luck that action per se tolerates. (Joint work with Tim Kearl [Flagler College].)

This activity is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310/2025, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
(https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00310/2025)

How Inference Can Be Explained in Terms of Logical Consequence

Rachel Boddy (IUSS Pavia)

11 April 2025, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão [C201.J] (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: Philosophers have held that validity of inference can be explained in terms of logical consequence. In today’s debate on the normativity of logic, however, it is commonly taken for granted that this view is mistaken. Harman’s (1986) criticism appears to have settled the matter: Current logic fails to explain what beliefs may or should be inferred from what other beliefs. The issue here is that logical principles are not defeasible, whereas principles of belief revision are. I argue that this criticism does not settle the matter because it relies on a notion of inference that logical accounts do not share. The focus of this talk is on the question this raises: What is an inference supposed to be in logic? Starting from the view that inference is an epistemic notion, I argue that the notion of inference at play in logic should be expressed in terms of knowledge, not in terms of belief.

This work/event is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310/2025, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
(https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00310/2025)

Subjectless Certainty

Joshua Rowan Thorpe (LanCog, University of Lisbon)

4 April 2025, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão [C201.J] (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: Descartes claims to find certainty in the cogito. Lichtenberg responds: ‘one should say it is thinking, just as one says, it is lightning. To say cogito is already too much as soon as one translates it as I am thinking.’ (Lichtenberg, K 76, translated in Gomes 2024.) Here we have the negative claim that ‘I am thinking’ is not certain. We also have the positive claim that ‘it is thinking’ is certain. The aim of this paper is to assess these claims. I first argue that the negative claim is correct. I also argue that there is something right about the positive claim. We can be certain (only) of the occurrence of something subjectless. However, we should characterise this something in a way that is neutral as to whether it counts as thinking.

The Many-Objects Interpretation of Relativistic Change

Damiano Costa (Università della Svizzera Italiana)

28 March 2025, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão [C201.J] (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: I explore a new solution to Sattig’s problem of relativistic change. First, I provide a reassessment of the problem, according to which the numerically same object appears to have something as a part in one frame but not at another (i.e. its “corner slices”). Second, I present a new solution that takes this mereological difference seriously, thus entailing that the relevant ordinary object is frame-bound. Finally, while this solution is naturally coupled with four-dimensionalism, I explore the possibility of coupling it with three-dimensionalism in order to provide an answer to Gilmore’s location question.

This work/event is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310/2025, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
(https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00310/2025)

Necessary in the Highest Degree — Whatever That Means

Cian Dorr (New York University)

21 March 2025, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão [C201.J] (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: There are many reasons to think that the ‘necessity’ in the title and topic of Naming and Necessity is intended to be understood as minimally inclusive, in the sense that whenever it is necessary (tout court) that something is the case, it is also necessary in every other way that it is the case. It is also clear that Kripke believes he has identified a powerful and general technique for arguing for claims of necessity, by appealing to the necessity of identity—a technique that can be applied not just to identities involving proper names, but to “theoretical identifications”, thereby establishing necessity tout court for many facts that Kripke’s immediate predecessors would have classified as merely nomically necessary. But many authors find the modal claims supported by this technique so implausible when ‘necessary’ is read as minimally inclusive that they reject the straightforward interpretation of Kripke as intending such a reading.

            In this talk, I will defend both the straightforward interpretation and the claim that his argumentative technique really does have the power and generality that Kripke attributes to it, for “theoretical identifications” as well as identities involving proper names. My initial focus will be on property identities like ‘The property of being made of gold is the property of being composed of atoms with 79 protons’, as well as related infinitival identities, like ‘To be made of gold is to be composed of atoms with 79 protons’. I will argue that such sentences are plausibly true and support attributions of necessity, even on a minimally inclusive reading of ‘necessary’. This requires rebutting views that either reject such identities, or reject the validity of substituting them into the necessity of identity, on the grounds that this implies false claims involving propositional attitudes such as ‘Everyone who knows that something is made of gold knows that it is composed of atoms with 79 protons’. In response to the proponents of such views, I will sketch a view of speech and attitude verbs as semantically ill-behaved (in a way somewhat reminiscent of quotation). Finally, I will argue that although Kripke’s paradigm “theoretical identifications”—sentences like ‘Water is H₂O’ and ‘Heat is molecular motion’—have readings on which they are not identities of any sort, they also admit readings as equivalent to corresponding infinitival identities (e.g., ‘To be water is to be H₂O’), and are thus equally capable of playing the relevant argumentative role.

This work/event is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310/2025, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
(https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00310/2025)

The Guise of the Rewarding

Jeremy Pober (LanCog, University of Lisbon)

14 March 2025, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão [C201.J] (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: Among empirically sensitive theories of desire, a prominent strain (Arpaly and Schroeder 2014; Schroeder 2004; Pober forthcoming) defines desire in terms of ‘reward’, where ‘reward’ is a technical term derived from its use in the psychology of decision-making. Per these Reward Theories, desires are realized in states of the reward learning system. This system records and constantly updates the reward value of various objects an agent/organism encounters, such that the more rewarding an object type, the more, ceteris paribus, the agent/organism is disposed to behave in ways that support obtaining it. Meanwhile, among other theories of desire, representational, or ‘guise of the good’ theories claim the defining characteristic of desires is that they represent their objects as good in some way. The most influential strain take the vehicle of the representation to be a quasi-perceptual state (Oddie 2005; Tenenbaum 2007). I propose that these two families of views can be fruitfully combined. The core idea is that ‘rewarding’ is understood as a sort of evaluation of goodness, in particular a subjective valuation (Levy and Glimcher 2012), and, in turn, the reward learning system is the vehicle of the evaluations that constitute desire. The resulting ‘Guise of the Rewarding’ view has, I shall argue, advantages over each of its constituents.

Higher-Order Metaphysical Resolutions of the Continuum Hypothesis

Peter Fritz (University College London)

7 March 2025, 16:00 (Lisbon Time – WET)

Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa

Sala Mattos Romão [C201.J] (Departamento de Filosofia)

Abstract: I aim to draw a connection between higher-order metaphysics and the philosophy of mathematics, in particular set theory. Higher-order metaphysics means carrying out metaphysical debates in higher-order logic, using higher-order quantifiers to regiment talk of propositions, properties, and relations. A prominent topic in this area is grain science, the investigation of individuation conditions of propositions, properties, and relations. These topics seem purely metaphysical. But I will argue that they are intimately connected to questions in (the philosophy of) mathematics. In particular, I will argue that views about grain science can resolve the continuum hypothesis. To do so, I will present an example of such a view. I won’t argue for it, but I hope to motivate, first, that the view is attractive, or at least not implausible; second, that the view doesn’t obviously prejudge controversial questions in (the philosophy of) set theory; and third, that the view nevertheless settles the continuum hypothesis. The view assumes that sets obey the principles of ZFC set theory, and that propositions form a structure which corresponds to a particular complete Boolean algebra. Adapting standard forcing results using Boolean-valued models, we can show that this higher-order metaphysical view entails the failure of the continuum hypothesis.

This work/event is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310/2025, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
(https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00310/2025)