Schedule :: 27 July, 2023
Location: Technische Universität Berlin
Format
Each session will have 30 minutes for presentation, and 20 minutes for discussion.
9:45–10:00 Coffee & Welcome
10:10–11:00: W. Starr (Cornell), "Social Norms and Conversational Injustice"
Our conversations contain moves that reflect and create deep inequities. What general mechanisms are responsible for this, and what does this mean for practical efforts to make our conversations more just? This talk proposes a central role for social norms in conversation, and explores how this can shed light on these questions.
Chair: Quill Kukla
11:10–12:00: Nikki Ernst (Pittsburgh), “The Desolation of Philosophy”
To so-called ‘non-ideal’ philosophers of language, our messy whirl of political discourse calls for a critical reassessment of methodology. Alas, the movement’s ideology-critical bite is neutralized by a commitment to normative neutrality, an illusion of philosophical authority, and a desolate picture of language as divorced from the activities into which it is woven.
Chair: Quill Kukla
12:00–13:30: Lunch
Reservation for presenters @ Cafe Hardenberg (Hardenbergstraße 10, 10623 Berlin)
13:30–14:20: Quill Kukla (Georgetown), "The Ethics of Retraction"
Using speech act theory, I explore the nature and ethics of retraction. We are fundamentally imperfect beings who make mistakes, as any ethics usable in the actual world needs to acknowledge. Because we make mistakes, repair is an essential category of ethical action. Retraction has many uses, and not all of them are reparative. But, I will argue, retraction is a central tool of repair. We use retraction to repair ourselves, and to repair the social world, including our relationships. I begin by offering a pragmatic analysis of retraction and its success conditions. I then ask: When is retraction possible; when is it ethically permissible; and, finally, when is it ethically advisable or obligatory, as part of a project of repair.
Chair: W. Starr
14:30–15:20: Elin McCready (Aoyama Gakuin), "On Ideological Arguments"
It’s hard to have a rational argument when things get ideological. This is a problem because ideology and signaling social identity more generally plays a prominent role in much discourse about politics and social issues. This talk gives a diagnosis of why these kinds of conversations so often go bad — an entrance to a hypervigilant mode of interpretation which comes with a highly irrational mode of evaluation — and offers a possible method of addressing the issue involving appeals to other modes of affect production.
Chair: W. Starr
15:20–15:50: Coffee Break
15:50–16:40: Penelope Freund (TU Berlin), "Persuasive Speech — When Hate Speech is Most Dangerous"
Hate speech is harmful, this much is evident in numerous arguments made in the philosophical debate. It can incite violence, degrade people who have been historically marginalized, and even silence them. However, two assumptions of many of these arguments are 1) that hate speech is a uniform phenomenon and 2) that hate speech can persuade people of their messages and by that means effect violence, degradation, or silencing. In my talk, I want to counter the first assumption and suggest a philosophical explanation for the second one.
Chair: W. Starr
16:50–17:40: Cassie Herbert (Illinois St.), "Very Online Misogyny"
I explore practices of online misogyny and harassment, such as sealioning, couching, and receipt denial. Unlike harassment that contains hate speech or slurs, these forms of harassment take place at the pragmatic level and the harm they inflict can be difficult to call out. I highlight the unique dimensions of online speech that enable these forms of harassment and make them particularly powerful and insidious.
Chair: W. Starr
17:40–18:00: Adriene Takaoka (Cornell): Concluding Discussion
Concluding discussion among participants, facilitated by Adriene Takaoka.