91¸£Àû

Skip to main content Skip to navigation

Postgraduate "Work In Progress" Seminar

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.


Overview

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: Presentation + Q&A

Attendance optional but highly recommended. All postgraduates are welcome to present or attend -- whether MA, MPhil, PhD, Visitors, etc.


Useful Info

The WIP is a unique opportunity for graduates to develop their presenting and writing skills, take risks, test out ideas, and receive constructive feedback from peers.

  • Presentation: 30 minutes
  • Open Discussion / Q&A: 40 minutes
  • Material: Work in progress (essay drafts, thesis sections, a substantial set of notes, ... ).
  • Style: Flexible. Slides, handouts, or neither.
  • Audience: No prior reading or background knowledge expected. All are encouraged to attend and present (including visiting postgraduates).

Presentations need not be watertight or polished pieces at all. You are encouraged to present work at all stages of the writing process.


Should you present?

Are you a postgraduate? Then yes, you should present.

 
NEXT TALK

Rozemin Keshvani

(PhD)

Kant


Thursday 25/06/2026

5pm - 6:15pm

S1.50


ORGANISERS

Tiago Rodrigues

Lucas Menezes 

   

 

Show all calendar items

Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar: Giulia Luvisotto - 'First-Person Authority: The Prospects for a Hybrid Explanation and the Explanatory Role of Agency'

- Export as iCalendar
Location: Room S0.17

Abstract:

There is wide consensus amongst philosophers on the specialness of self-ascriptions as particularly authoritative, i.e. as usually taken by the audience to be true and non-evidentially justified to the point that questioning them would equate to charge the speaker of irrationality, granted his/her sincerity. However, it is still far from being as widely agreed what can elucidate the phenomenon. In particular, it is unclear whether we should prefer an epistemic or non-epistemic explanation of it, i.e. whether one is authoritative in that one knows one's own attitudes in a privileged way or for some other reason. After briefly presenting the two alternatives, the present paper considers Moran's account, whose attractiveness depends on the fact that both epistemic and non-epistemic (agential) elements are involved. Hence, it emerges that an adequate explanation should make reference to both. However, it is not straightforward how this combination could look like. The last part of the paper puts forth a weaker and a stronger reading: we can consider Moran as giving an epistemic, yet non-theoretical explanation of FPA, or as rejecting the dichotomy altogether by means of a hybrid explanation.

The talk will be followed by a response from Tristan Kreetz; discussion and drinks at The Dirty Duck.

Show all calendar items

Let us know you agree to cookies