The Philosophy in the Community
Lecture & Discussion Series
@ The Refinery
Sponsored by the Department of Philosophy and the College of Arts and Science
Philosophy in the Community is a lecture and discussion series organized by the Philosophy Department at the University of Saskatchewan. It is in place as a public service, so that we may share the rewards and pleasures of philosophical reflection with the members of our community. Philosophical thinking, reading and analysis is part of the life well-lived.
This series is free, no registration is needed. No philosophical background is required; intellectual curiosity is. Coffee provided.
For more information, contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
|Location:|| The Refinery
Emmanuel Anglican (formerly St. James) Church Basement
609 Dufferin Avenue
(at 12th Street, just off Broadway)
|Time:||7:00 – 9:00 PM|
|Dates:||Second Friday of each month (<< Note: new night!),
September through March
|Sep. 11||"Knowledge, Power and Prisons: The Strength and Limitations of Foucault's Critique"
Professor Ria Jenkins
(Philosophy, St, Thomas More College)
What is the connection between knowledge and power? Foucault famously states that knowledge and power "directly imply" one another, and he uses this belief as a basis for his critical analysis of prisons. This talk will explore not just the meaning of this connection for Foucault, but also its strengths and limitations.
|Oct. 9||"Is Liberal Democracy Working for You?"
Professor Charles Smith
|Nov. 13||"When Should We Protect Free Speech?"
Professor Susan Dieleman
Philosophers have provided a variety of arguments in favour of protecting free speech. One of these arguments is the epistemological argument, endorsed most famously by John Stuart Mill, who argues that free speech is valuable because it helps us discover the truth. The only time we’re warranted in limiting free speech, he thinks, is when it’s likely to lead to physical harm. In this presentation, I will suggest that the epistemological argument for free speech can actually lead to a different conclusion: if we’re interested in free speech because it helps us find the truth, then we’re warranted in limiting it not only when it is likely to lead to physical harm, but also when it is likely to lead to humiliation
Humans seem to be free, and moral responsibility may require free will. But, neuroscientific evidence suggests behaviour is determined by physical processes. (How) can we be free if our behaviour is determined by unconscious brain processes? After briefly objecting to several proposed answers to this question, I offer a proposal that secures autonomous agency yet remains consistent with microphysical determinism.
|Jan. 8||"How Do We Deceive Ourselves?"
Professor Leslie Howe
Professor Pierre-Francois Noppen