Postgraduate "Work In Progress" Seminar
Postgraduate Work-In-Progress SeminarA weekly seminar for Philosophy postgraduates to present their in-progress work, followed by a well-spirited trip to the pub. OverviewThe WIP provides a risk-free and supportive space for postgraduates to present their work and receive feedback from other graduates and faculty.
Attendance optional but highly recommended. All postgraduates are welcome to present or attend -- whether MA, MPhil, PhD, Visitors, etc. Useful InfoThe 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.
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 TALKRozemin Keshvani (PhD) Kant Thursday 25/06/2026 5pm - 6:15pm S1.50 ORGANISERS |
|
|
|
PG Work in Progress Seminar
This week, Samuel Honsbeek and Johan Heemskerk will be discussing Samuel's paper "The Intellect is a Mere Tool: Nietzsche, Kant and Is a Critical Philosophy Possible at All?"
Abstract:
As is well known, Kant鈥檚 first Critique seeks to identify the limits of all possible knowledge by way of the conditions of possibility of cognition. In this paper I reconstruct a Nietzschean argument against this project. It can hardly be disputed that Nietzsche鈥檚 assessment of the Critique of Pure Reason is absolutely scathing. It is less clear, however, why he felt compelled to this assessment in the first place. In this paper I aim to show that his reaction to the critical project is in fact a considered one. I argue that Nietzsche鈥檚 dispute with Kant over the possibility of a critical philosophy is motivated by a disagreement over the proper way of grounding intellectual norms: Kant thinks that these can be grounded in the uninhibited activity of the human mind, whereas Nietzsche denies that, given Kant鈥檚 critical ambitions, there is an adequate way of grounding them at all. I conclude by showing that Nietzsche has a compelling argument for this view.