Philosophy
& Curiosity

• Back

ABOUT

Curiosity + Philosophy = Lots of Questions

我们希望能够通过一系列比较轻松来去自由的活动增加全系师生之间的互相了解, 为师生普及学术技能及规范的相关知识, 激发大家对于哲学宗教学各子领域研究的好奇心, 让博士生们也有机会"拉出来溜溜", 试图营造一个开放、平等、友好、严谨并且真诚的科研氛围。活动包括（但不限于）：- 学术技能及规范讲座
- 青年教师沙龙
- 哲学宗教学子学科方法论交流
- 哲学家想问但不好意思问的X
- 研究生论文阶段性成果报告会欢迎大家基于各自的好奇心提供问题和想法！你来挖坑我们(找人) 填!组织者: 王彦晶 李卓擎联系我们

*logo designed by Zhuoqing Li & Yanjing Wang

• Back

Next Talk

Special online seminar:- Philosophy of Language and Linguistics: Why are they different? Can they help each other?
- Xuhui Hu (胡旭辉) School of Foreign Languages,
- March 20, 2020 10:00 (Beijing time)
- Tencent meeting: https://meeting.tencent.com/s/5QTyLGK1084ad
- Tencent Conference ID：905 091 186- Abstract: The aim of this talk is to share with philosophers a linguist’s contemplation over the relationship between philosophy of language and linguistics. In this talk, I will firstly present the objective of modern linguistics by introducing some simple linguistic data to illustrate what is special about language. Based on this, I will provide a very sketchy introduction of Chomskyan linguistics which I hope can summarise what modern linguists (at least some of them) take as their tasks: to study the nature of language and even explore the cognitive mechanisms underlying languages. I will then turn to philosophy of language, arguing that philosophers are interested in language for at least two reasons: (a) language represents a picture of the world in which philosophers are interested; (b) the study of linguistic meaning and the creation of a new (formal) language can describe meaning in a precise/scientific way, hence eradicating confusions in philosophical inquiries that are often caused by ‘defective’ natural languages. In the second half of the talk, I will take two case studies, nominal structure (reference) and event structure, to discuss to what extent these two areas overlap and benefit each other, and at what level they differ from each other.- Short bio: 胡旭辉, 2015年获剑桥大学理论语言学博士，研究方向主要是句法理论、语用学、形态学。胡老师现为北京大学外国语学院外国语言学及应用语言学研究所助理教授、研究员，已在牛津大学出版社出版英文专著一部，在国内外期刊发表论文多篇，包括形式语言学顶级期刊Natural Language and Linguistic Theory，并有一篇论文近期被形式语言学公认第一的期刊Linguistic Inquiry 录用。

• Back

Past talks

#1
- 时间: 3月27日(周三) 中午12:00-13:00
- 主题: 欲善其事，先利其器: 辅助研究的信息化工具介绍
- 地点: 哲学系 106
- 主讲人: 王彦晶
- 主要内容: 跟大家介绍一些文献搜索/整理/分析, 论文写作/报告/分享的一系列信息化工具, 希望对大家的科研有所帮助.
- Slides

#2
- 时间: 4月10日(周三) 中午12:00-13:00
- 主题: 人情与礼制——以三年丧期的争论为例
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人: 孟庆楠
- 主要内容：儒家以礼来规范人伦生活的基本秩序与价值。同时，面对春秋战国之际礼废乐坏的危机，儒家也在不断反思礼得以确立的依据。这样的努力伴随着对“天经地义”与“人之常情”的探索。早期儒家围绕三年之丧的争论，即通过对三年丧期这样一个具体仪节的探讨，不断深化着对人情及其与礼法关系的认识。
- Slides

#3
- 时间: 4月24日(周三) 中午12:10 （12点就可以来吃饭了）
- 主题: 思想实验与哲学理论建构：通过案例分析的简要展示
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人: 李麒麟
- 摘要：此次讲座将主要介绍思想试验在哲学（特别是分析哲学）当中的应用以及该方法对于推进哲学理论建构方面的意义与作用。思想试验作为哲学方法论意义上的重要工具，在本次讲座中主讲人会简要介绍和提及围绕该思想工具展开的相关理论争议（例如，知识论意义上对于思想试验能否提供先天知识、直觉的认知地位、心理学上框架效应、启动效应等对于思想试验的影响、实验哲学所揭示出的思想试验判断在文化、族群和性别差异，等等）；但是，上述内容将不是此次讲座的重点。此次讲座主要内容是选取和组织知识论当中的一组盖梯尔案例作为思想试验的典型代表（当然，其中也包括一些经过主讲人改造而生成的准盖梯尔案例），展示伴随着相关案例的一层层展开，相关思想试验案例中的要素是如何推进知识论理论的理论建构的，并通过这种方式体现出在分析哲学理论探讨的实践操作过程中，思想试验在推进哲学理论逐步精细化的同时，是如何保持原初理论洞见的核心实质的。
- Slides

#4
- 时间: 5月15日(周三) 中午12:10-13:30
- 主题: 闔閭的靈符 ——《太上靈寶五符序》所見的道教啟示敘事
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人: 程乐松
- 摘要：在歷史的超越性和啟示的神聖建構共同構成的雙重語境之中，道教經典一方面要遵循中國古典文化中的歷史意識及其內蘊的超越感，建立神聖啟示及文本的歷史性聯結；另一方面又要明確面向生命超越的技術價值，建構經典啟示的“真實性”，不得不將仙傳式的超越敘事融入到歷史記載之中，形成一種獨特的文體和寫作策略。道教研究並不是要論證其信仰的正確或錯誤，而是用必要的學術方法解析并建立道教文本及其觀念的分析框架。從大禹到吳王闔閭的天文，直至靈寶方與道法的敘事聯結，可以作為這一方法論進路的嘗試性例釋。
- Slides

#5
- 时间: 5月29日(周三) 中午12:10-13:30
- 主题: 哲学家的健身选择: 让好身体配得上好头脑的经验分享
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人: 徐凤林（跑步） 朱效民（徒步）
- 徒步 ：朱效民老师结合自己徒步健身的经历和实践，逐渐从竞争性、专业化、挑战式的徒步理念转到如今不随便挑身体战极限、不走专业化道路、徒步日常生活化的理念， 并提出三不、三随的组织模式：不用报名、不必联系、不见即散， 一切随性、随意、随缘。至今在国内外组织徒步300多次， 其中北京园林徒步（主要在圆明园、颐和园、香山、北京植物园、元大都遗址公园等）200多次。大道至简，我们随时在生活中、工作中快乐享受大自然，一步一世界，一步一天国。来者不拒，去者不追。随缘而行，自然自在。
- 跑步 : Slides

#6
- 时间:6月5日(周三) 中午12:10-13:30
- 主题:如何写一封得体的信？——尺牍与书信
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人: 韩水法
- 主要内容：
千百年来，书信一直是人们彼此联系、交流和沟通的一个基本手段。
今天，以纸笔书写信函的方式日趋式微，电子邮件和微信等手段替代了笔和信笺，而信的格式和交流方式亦相应地起了变化。不过，人们交往中的礼貌和得体依然是书信的起码要求，而独特和别致的风格或可透过此类新样式展露出来。一个礼貌和得体的电子邮件或微信亦正是人的教养和品味的体现。本次午餐会，我们从现今可见的最早书信实物说起，看看古人如何写信，顺便议一议今天当有何种形式？
- Slides

#7
- 时间:10月5日(周三) 中午12:10-13:30
- 主题:科学抑或哲学？
——从遗传率消失之谜说起
- Science or Philosophy? -- A case study of the missing heritability problem
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人: 陆俏颖
- 主要内容：
全基因组关联分析（GWAS）所计算得到的遗传率比用传统方法得到的遗传率要小得多，这被称为“遗传率消失之谜”。此谜题是遗传学家急需解决的问题，而生物哲学家也非常关注这个话题。本次报告试图从“遗传率消失之谜”入手，探讨当今生物哲学的问题域和研究方法，也会宽泛地讨论哲学与科学之间的区分和联系。Heritability estimates obtained in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are much lower than those of traditional quantitative methods. This has been called the “missing heritability problem”. By analyzing and comparing these two kinds of methods, we first show that the estimates obtained by traditional methods involve some terms that GWAS do not. Second, the estimates obtained by GWAS do not take into account epigenetic factors transmitted across generations, whilst they are included in the estimates of traditional quantitative methods. Once these two factors are taken into account, we show that the missing heritability problem can be largely dissolved.
- Slides

#8
- 时间:11月5日(周三) 中午12:10-13:30
- 主题:现代数学与逻辑学中的公理—符号化方法———从欧氏几何谈起
- The Axiomatic-Symbolic Method in Modern Mathematics and Logic - A Discussion from Euclidean Geometry
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人:钟盛阳
- 主要内容：
根据现有文献，欧氏几何是数学中第一个使用公理化方法建立的理论，它也是公理化方法乃至数学理论的典范。本次报告将以此理论作为具体例子，讨论建立数学理论、逻辑学理论以及其他抽象理论（包括哲学理论）的方法及其相关问题。特别地，本次报告将讨论在现代数学和逻辑学中被广泛运用的公理—符号化方法的动机、后果、好处和应用。如有时间，也将提及一些引伸自公理—符号化方法的问题，例如逻辑学的研究对象和逻辑学理论的结构；现代逻辑学对哲学的影响；数学在描述自然现象方面的作用；以及物理学的公理化与量子逻辑。
数学家和逻辑学家大量使用各种符号，原因之一是，他们所研究的理论基本上都是用公理—符号化方法建立的；而公理—符号化方法背后的动机只是为了把能说清楚的话尽可能说清楚。为了说明这一点，本次报告试图阐明：第一，为了界定一个理论中的初始（基本）概念从而保证讨论有意义，公理化方法是自然（甚至唯一）的选择。第二，在一个公理化的理论中，被用于指称初始（基本）概念的语词难免沦为在不同语境下有不同解释的符号。According to the existing literature, Euclidean geometry is the first theory in mathematics developed using the axiomatic method. It is also the paradigm of the axiomatic method and even of mathematical theories.
With this theory as a concrete example, in this talk I will discuss methods and other related issues in developing theories in mathematics, theories in logic and other abstract theories (including theories in philosophy). In particular, this talk will be about the motivation, consequences, advantages and applications of the axiomatic-symbolic method which is widely used in modern mathematics and logic. If time permits, some problems springing from the axiomatic-symbolic method will be discussed. These include the object of study in logic, the structure of a theory in logic, the influence of modern logic on philosophy, the role of mathematics in describing nature, axiomatization of physics and quantum logic.Mathematicians and logicians use a lot of symbols, partly because most of the theories in their research are developed using the axiomatic-symbolic method. The motivation behind this method is just to express as clearly as possible what is possible to be clearly expressed. To convey this point, in this talk I will try to explain: First, in order to clarify the initial (fundamental) concepts in a theory so that discussions involving them make sense, the axiomatic method is a natural (even the unique) choice. Second, in an axiomatized theory, terms that refer to initial (fundamental) concepts may inevitably become just symbols that have different interpretations in different contexts.
- Slides

#9
- 时间:11月13日(周三) 中午12:10-13:30
- 主题:RACE, METAPHYSICAL DETERMINISM AND THE GREAT CHAIN OF BEING
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人:Shuchen Xiang
- 主要内容：
This paper argues that the racism which governed European colonialism (i.e. since Columbus’ “discovery” of the “New World”) shares many similarities with the characteristics that A. O. Lovejoy discussed with regard to the Great Chain of Being in his classic, The Great Chain of Being. Under this racial worldview, difference is not understood as emergent but as ontological, this ontological difference is parsed hierarchically, and the only relationship which exists among the different ranks of difference is domination. This paper will use representative examples from European racism and colonialism, most notably the European colonisation of the Americas, to substantiate these parallels. Through the works of James Baldwin, William James and the Mary Douglas, this paper ends with a critique of the epistemological errors implicit in the ontologising and hierarchising of difference and the moral failures attendant upon these epistemological errors. These epistemological and moral failings, it is argued, are attributable a fatalism that sees no human agency in ordering the world and a failure of nerve in being responsible for the order that we do create.

#10
- 时间:11月27日(周三) 中午12:10-13:30
- 主题: Intuitive Skill
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人:Sebastian Sunday
- 主要内容：
I shall present the outlines of a philosophical account of the nature, and epistemic value, of intuitive skill. I argue that intuitive skill must be understood as a broad category typically including, besides what is often called ‘intuitive expertise’ (that is, a high level of ability at getting things right, and not wrong, intuitively), an element that might be called ‘sceptical skill’ (that is, a high level of ability at detecting instances of getting things wrong intuitively so as to avoid forming incorrect intuitive judgements). I will discuss a range of interesting puzzles and illusions, and I will offer a brief review of relevant work in psychology (including sport and performance psychology). I will conclude by explaining, on the basis of my account, the importance of philosophy for high-level performance and innovation in sport and science—and two ways of becoming a great philosopher.
- Slides

#11
- 时间:12月11日(周三) 中午12:10-13:30
- 主题: Love, Death, Grief
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人: Julius Schönherr
- 主要内容：
Recent years have seen a surge in philosophical work on the rationality of grief. Much of this research is premised on the idea that people tend to grieve much less than would be appropriate or, as it is often called, fitting. Strikingly, although grieving feels bad, many argue that it would in some sense be better if we felt more rather than less of it. In this talk, I will argue that this assumption is largely mistaken: people tend not to grieve much less than would be fitting. In the first part of the talk, I will show that there are two, often conflated, problems of fitting grief: one metaphysical, the other psychological. According to the metaphysical problem, grief is rationalized entirely by facts about the past. And because the past is unchangeable, grief is often said to remain forever fitting. According to the psychological problem, humans’ emotional resilience causes grief to diminish at a faster rate than would be fitting. In the second part of the paper, I will address these problems. The metaphysical problem can be debunked, the psychological problem deflated.
- Slides

#12
- 时间:12月18日(周三) 中午12:10-13:30
- 主题: Truthmaker-conditions and Inquiry: Some Modesty and Impossibility
- 地点: 哲学系 B114
- 主讲人: Arthur Schipper
- 主要内容：
It is often assumed by those who use the language of ‘making true’ that whatever role truthmaker theory has to play in inquiry is subsumed by the role that truth-conditions play in inquiry. I shall argue that this is mistaken by (1) distinguishing truth-conditions from truthmakers and from truthmaker-conditions; and (2) sketching an alternative conception of inquiry which puts a central focus on truthmaker-conditions rather than truth-conditions. This type of inquiry allows for a very congenial fineness of grain and precision. For a truthbearer’s truthmaker-conditions should be understood in a novel way: in terms of its exact-aboutness conditions, and thereby the truthbearer’s possible and impossible intentional objects, rather than merely the truthbearer’s possible truthmakers, which is more common. The main task of this paper, then, is to use (1) and (2) to argue that inquiry based on truthmaker-conditions understood in terms of exact-aboutness is sui generis and useful.In §1, I present the novel truthmaker-conditions-based two-step conception of inquiry. In §2, truthmaker-conditions are defined and then distinguished from truth-conditions, both of which are also distinguished from truthmakers. Finally, in §3, I argue against the orthodox view that understanding a claim’s truthmakers requires knowing the nature of its truthmakers.

#13
- 时间:3月20日(周五) 上午10:0-12:00
- 主题: Philosophy of Language and Linguistics: Why are they different?Can they help each other?
- 地点: 腾讯会议（线上）
- 主讲人: Xuhui Hu（胡旭辉）
- 主要内容：
The aim of this talk is to share with philosophers a linguist’s contemplation over the relationship between philosophy of language and linguistics. In this talk, I will firstly present the objective of modern linguistics by introducing some simple linguistic data to illustrate what is special about language. Based on this, I will provide a very sketchy introduction of Chomskyan linguistics which I hope can summarise what modern linguists (at least some of them) take as their tasks: to study the nature of language and even explore the cognitive mechanisms underlying languages. I will then turn to philosophy of language, arguing that philosophers are interested in language for at least two reasons: (a) language represents a picture of the world in which philosophers are interested; (b) the study of linguistic meaning and the creation of a new (formal) language can describe meaning in a precise/scientific way, hence eradicating confusions in philosophical inquiries that are often caused by ‘defective’ natural languages. In the second half of the talk, I will take two case studies, nominal structure (reference) and event structure, to discuss to what extent these two areas overlap and benefit each other, and at what level they differ from each other.
- Short bio: 胡旭辉, 2015年获剑桥大学理论语言学博士，研究方向主要是句法理论、语用学、形态学。胡老师现为北京大学外国语学院外国语言学及应用语言学研究所助理教授、研究员，已在牛津大学出版社出版英文专著一部，在国内外期刊发表论文多篇，包括形式语言学顶级期刊Natural Language and Linguistic Theory，并有一篇论文近期被形式语言学公认第一的期刊Linguistic Inquiry 录用。
- 新闻链接

Next Talk

** Truthmaker-conditions and Inquiry: Some Modesty and Impossibility**Arthur Schipper12月18日（星期三）
12:10（12:00开饭）
哲学系 B114摘要

如准备参加请点击报名帮助我们统计人数，我们会准备简单的餐食，数量有限，优先报名的听众。哲学不能当饭吃，也欢迎吃完饭来参加。

Next Talk

Philosophy of Language and Linguistics:
Why are they different? Can they help each other?Xuhui Hu （胡旭辉 北大外院）3月20日（星期五）
10:00 北京时间
时间有变动在线腾讯会议：点击链接直接加入会议：
https://meeting.tencent.com/s/5QTyLGK1084ad或者在腾讯会议软件中输入会议 ID：905 091 186摘要

---