糖心TV

Postgraduate Work-In-Progress Seminar A weekly seminar for Philosophy postgraduates to present their in-progress work, followed by a well-spirited trip to the pub for food and drinks. Useful Info The WIP provides a risk-free and supportive space for postgraduates to present their work and receive feedback from other graduates and faculty. When: Every Thursday (5pm to 6:15pm) Where: Room S1.50 (Social Sciences Building, First Floor) What: 30-minute presentation, followed by Q&A. Attendance optional but highly recommended. All postgraduates are welcome to present or attend -- whether MA, MPhil, PhD, Visitors, etc. 馃搮 Format Presentation: 30 minutes Open Discussion / Q&A: 30 minutes Material: Anything, really -- assessed essay (for MAs), a supervision essay (for MPhils), or a thesis section (for PhDs), ... Style: Flexible -- slides, handouts, or simply talking. Audience: No prior reading or background knowledge expected. Visiting PhDs ~~should~~ can present. 馃 Should I present? ("I have nothing to present; I hate public speaking; etc.") Are you a postgraduate? Then yes, you should present. In other words, all graduates are encouraged to present at least once. The WIP is a unique opportunity for graduates to develop their public speaking / writing skills, take risks, test out theses, and get constructive feedback from peers.* Presentations need not (in fact, should not) be watertight or polished pieces at all. You are encouraged to present work at all stages of the writing process -- first drafts, substantial sets of notes, etc. Simply signing up for a date is a great way to give yourself a deadline to work towards. (This is what most people do.) Term 1 Wk 1 (09/10) \| Tiago Rodrigues (MPhil) "Can you know the value of parenthood before having a child?" Wk 2 (16/10) \| David Lopez Baeza (MPhil) "Internalism About Reasons and the Tutelage of Experience" Wk 3 (23/10) \| Shaun Clamp (MPhil) "Testing the Limits of Feeling and Form: Reappraising Langer's Aesthetic Theory in Light of the Poetic Sublime" Wk 4 (30/10) \| 陌smail Deniz Demirkan (PhD) "Incompleteness of the Philosopher King: G枚del and the Concept of Truth in Politics" Wk 5 (06/11) \| Alicia Klemm Silva (MPhil) "Frege on Sense and Reference" Wk 6 (13/11) \| n/a >> NO WIP DUE TO READING WEEK << Wk 7 (20/11) \| Ben Long (MPhil) "Knowledge Through Alchemy?" Wk 8 (27/11) \| Dmitry Sereda (Visiting PhD) "No Surrender? Capital Flight, Tax Competition, and Egalitarian Taxation Reforms" Wk 9 (04/12) \| Jos茅 Xarez (Visiting PhD) "Free-Will Scepticism, Desert, and the Justification of Punishment" ~~Wk 10 (11/12) \| Emily Boocock (PhD)~~ CANCELLED Term 2 Wk 1 (15/01) \| Juyong Kim (PhD) "Hegel's Intersubjective Logic: Hegel and the Possibility of a New Social Ontology?" ~~Wk 2 (22/01) \| Emma Clinton (MPhil)~~ CANCELLED Wk 3 (29/01) \| Harland Cossons (UG) "Gareth Evans on Proper Names: An Interpretation" Wk 4 (05/02) \| Emily Boocock (PhD) "Support and Legitimation of Extremist Acts" Wk 5 (12/02) \| Evgenia Sonnabend (Visiting PhD) "The Relation of Logic to Realphilosophie in G.W.F. Hegel" Wk 6 (19/02) \| n/a >> NO WIP DUE TO READING WEEK << Wk 7 (26/02) \| Mirko Prokop (Visiting PhD) "Reading Grice with Merleau-Ponty: Intention and the Foundations of Creative Expression" Wk 8 (05/03) \| Simon Courtenage (PhD) "How to Make a Self" ~~Wk 9 (12/03) \| Lumeng Liu (PhD)~~ CANCELLED Wk 10 (19/03) \| Tiago Rodrigues (MPhil) "Lib Epistemology: Can We Make Coherent Sense of Political Liberals?" Term 3 Wk 1 (30/04) \| Fridolin Neumann (PhD) Heidegger鈥檚 Realism and His Appropriation of Kant Wk 2 (07/05) \| Ignacio Pe帽a (PhD) Intentions and Behaviourist Theories of Consent Wk 3 (14/05) \| Alin Simon (MA) TBC Wk 4 (21/05) \| Joe Horspool (MPhil) TBC Wk 5 (28/05) \| Tom Geeson (PhD) TBC Wk 6 (04/06) \| Rozemin Keshvani (PhD) TBC Wk 7 (11/06) \| Leo Deng (MA) TBC Wk 8 (18/06) \| Oscar Jenkinson (MA) TBC Wk 9 (25/06) \| Chris Hall (PhD) TBC Wk 10 (02/07) \| Anpeng Liu (MA) TBC 鉁嶏笍 Guidance for Presenters What can I present? Any kind of in-progress work (within reason). E.g. Drafts of assessed essays, thesis sections, writing samples, conference papers, project outline, ... Recommended Length Aim for 3,000 to 4,000 words. Anything closer to the 5,000-word mark will be hard to fit in the 30-minute presentation time. Presentation Structure Presenters have complete liberty with regards to how to structure their presentation: handout, slideshow, etc. Worth noting a common pitfall: spending too much time on background/exposition and not having enough time to present your main thesis and argument. A good rule of thumb: aim for 10 minutes of exposition, and 20 minutes for whatever parts you actually want feedback on. Submission Deadline Presenters should email title and abstract to the organisers by the Sunday before their presentation. E.g. If presenting Thurs Week 5, email us by then end of Sunday Week 4.		NEXT TALK Ignacio Pe帽a Caroca (PhD) Consent Thursday 07/05/2026 5pm - 6:15pm S1.50 ORGANISERS Tiago Rodrigues Lucas Menezes

Show all calendar items

PG Work in Progress Seminar

5pm - 6pm, Thu, 26 Jan '23 Export as iCalendar

Location: S2.77/MS Teams

Oscar North-Concar (PhD)

Title: Thick concepts and Objectivity; Assessing Vayrynen's Pragmatic view.

Thursday 26th in S2.77 and on teams. Everyone welcomed!

Abstract:

Moral and ethical concepts are sometimes divided into two categories, 鈥榯hin鈥� and 鈥榯hick鈥�. The difference can be characterised in the following way: when we describe an action thinly as 鈥榳rong鈥�, we evaluate it negatively. However, when we evaluate an action with a thick concept like 鈥榮elfish鈥� or 鈥榗ruel鈥�, we also describe the way in which it is wrong. Bernard Williams uses the notion of thick concepts to challenge the idea that objectivity is possible in the domain of ethics through claiming that they are both central to ethics and constitutively linked with particular ethical outlooks. However, the notion of thick concepts has proven to be problematic. The coherency of any metaethical view that puts thick concepts front and centre stage has been challenged on the grounds that there might not be anything distinctively significant about them after all. In this paper I鈥檒l explore this tension. Specifically, I鈥檒l discuss an argument from Pekka Vayrynen (2013) that claims thick concepts do not have distinctive significance. I aim to argue that Vayrynen does not demonstrate that thick concepts have no bearing on questions surrounding objectivity in ethics.

Tags: Home Page Graduate WIP Seminar

Show all calendar items

Postgraduate Work-In-Progress Seminar

Useful Info

馃搮 Format

馃 Should I present? ("I have nothing to present; I hate public speaking; etc.")

NEXT TALK

ORGANISERS

PG Work in Progress Seminar