Conference “Reasons: Action, Belief, Perception”
October 10-12, 2013
Terence Cuneo (Vermont)
Gerhard Ernst (Erlangen)
Jennifer Hornsby (Birkbeck)
Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (Aarhus)
The aim of the conference is to bridge the gap between reasons in action theory/ethics and reasons in epistemology, particularly with respect to the distinction between motivating and normative reasons. Main questions are: What do reasons for actions and reasons for belief have in common? Are reasons of both kinds normative or motivating or explanatory in the same sense? What can be learned from reasons of the one kind for understanding reasons of the other kind, for example with respect to their ontology? Are reasons of both kinds facts, states of affairs, or propositions? If there are normative reasons for belief, are they evidence, truth-makers, mental states, or their contents? Can our understanding of reasons for belief be improved by transferring the conceptual apparatus of action theory to epistemology (or the other way around)? Could distinctions from action theory be fruitfully put to work in the debate between intentionalism and disjunctivism in the epistemology of perception?
Call for papers:
Papers for talks of up to 30 minutes, followed by 30 minutes of discussion. Deadline is March 31st 2013. Strong preference will be given to papers explicitly devoted to connections and/or differences between reasons for action and epistemic reasons. Papers concerned only with reasons of one of these types will be considered only if some open slots cannot be filled otherwise. Please send an abstract with no more than 1500 words to conference.reasons (at) gmail.com. Please state your full name, address, institutional affiliation, as well as your current status (PhD student, post-doc, professor, etc.). Up to seven presentations can be accepted. We intend to fill at least half of the slots with speakers in early stages of their career, if possible. We will try to acquire some funding for travel and accommodation of speakers who cannot raise sufficient funds at their home institution, but how much we can do remains to be seen.
Universität des Saarlandes, Philosophisches Institut,