Wednesday

Next talk: 'The Promise and Challenge of Feminist Epistemology' by Billy Holzberg on Tuesday 12 June 2018

Abstract
Feminist epistemology was born out of and continues to develop in close relationship with political struggles for gender equality, emancipation and feminist liberation by contesting the exclusion of women’s intellectual labour from the halls of philosophy. In doing so, however, feminist epistemology has not only challenged exclusions of gender, race, class and sexuality in the sites of knowledge production but it has also deconstructed fundamental assumptions about the objective nature of science and philosophy. In this lecture, I will focus on three key insights that feminist epistemology has brought to philosophical debate: positionality, subjectivity and interdisciplinarity. Going through these concepts, I will elaborate on the promises and challenges of situated knowledges that take subjectivity seriously, that draw from a variety of sources, and that highlight how power relations shape the way we understand and make sense of the world. 



Saturday

Next Talk: A Royal Institute of Philosophy Talk by Dr Christian Piller - 'Beware of Safety'


Abstract:
Beware of Safety:
Philosophers have suggested that a belief has to be 'safe' in order to qualify as knowledge. This means that in order to know something, one's belief need not only be true it, furthermore, needs to remain true in 'close-by possible worlds'. In other words, a belief, if true, is safely true, if it could not have easily been wrong. In my talk I argue against such views. I ague that a concern for the safety of our beliefs would get things 'the wrong way round'. This talk is of interest to those who want to know more about knowledge and about why philosophers tend to make mistakes (myself, of course, excepted.)

Sunday

Next talk: 'The Limits of Scepticism' by Grant Bartley (Editor, Philosophy Now) 10 April 2018 - 7.30 pm - 9 pm

Abstract:
The Limits of Scepticism
Just how useful is scepticism? Nowadays philosophers use the possibility of doubt to argue against everything from free will to morality, the self, even the existence of our own minds. But is this a good way of arguing? Does it prove anything? Or is scepticism instead about showing the absolute limits of our knowledge? In this talk I will be sceptical about scepticism itself, to try to see just how far it can get us.