Skip to main content

Exciting Life Updates

I know I haven’t been updating this blog because I’m too lazy. Years 2 and 3 have been an exciting flurry of business (both work and busy-ness). I constantly spew bite-sized thoughts that stream into my mind on Instagram Stories anyway, and I am remarkably easily bored and excitable, so longer, more considered pieces on Blogger aren’t sustainable. I digress. Many exciting life updates! I’m now officially done with my undergraduate PPE programme at King’s College London. I loved every bit of it: the depth, rigour and intellectual intensity of the course, the international student community, the bustling city of London and all the travel opportunities around Europe. Words can’t do justice to the profundity of the experience. In typical Quincean fashion, I milked everything I could out of the three years: went to Cumberland Lodge (for free) as a photographer with the Philosophy Department in Years 1 and 3, clinched the Principal’s Global Leadership Award (PGLA) in my second year (spending

The 47th International Hume Society Conference 2021

I attended the 47th International Hume Society Conference organised by the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá, Colombia, from 6 July 2021 to 11 July 2021.

Typically exclusive to members of the Hume Society, this year’s conference was atypical in that it was made accessible by the COVID-19 pandemic. Registration was free and open to the public. It was held virtually on Zoom too, so you could tune in from anywhere in the world. As far as I know, I was the only (incoming!) undergraduate present. It was pretty cool to see Hume scholars of all levels in action: PhD students, postdoctoral fellows and professors, among whom big names in philosophical world, including Brown’s Paul Guyer, Oxford’s Peter Millican and NYU’s Don Garrett.

Oh, and I LOVE the graphic design. Hume on the hills of Bogotá holding a teacup with a Colombian coffee bean painted on it. I need to try Colombian coffee one day! ∎


Conference Programme (UTC-5)

Day 1 — Tuesday, 6 July 2021

8:30 - 9:00 Opening Remarks. Jorge Humberto Peláez Piedrahita, S.J., Rector Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Luis Fernando Cardona Suárez, Dean of Faculty of Philosophy, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

9:00 - 10:15 Keynote Talk. Hume and Kant on Utility, Freedom, and Justice. Paul Guyer, Brown University. Chair: Don Garrett, New York University.

10:15 - 10:45 Break

10:45 - 11:45 Concurrent Session A: Hume’s Dual Aspectism. Tim Black, California State University, Northridge. Commentator: Benjamin Nelson, University of Connecticut. Chair: Daniel Jenkins, Montgomery College.

10:45 - 11:45 Concurrent Session B: Hume on Envy. Enrico Galvagni, University of St Andrews. Commentator: Willem Lemmens, University of Antwerp. Chair: Spartaco Pupo, Università della Calabria.

11:45 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 15:00 Concurrent Session A: What Is Hume’s New Question? Lewis Powell, University at Buffalo, SUNY. Commentator: Lorne Falkenstein, University of Western Ontario. Chair: Karánn Durland, Austin College.

14:00 - 15:00 Concurrent Session B: Moral Defect and Aesthetic Deformity: Moralism in Hume’s “Standard of Taste”. Danielle Brown, University of Alberta. Commentator: Manuel Vásquez Villavicencio, Universitè du Québec á Montréal. Chair: Mark Spencer, Brock University.

15:00 - 17:00 Socializing event

Day 2 — Wednesday, 7 July 2021

9:00 - 10:30 Book Panel: The Philosophical Progress of Hume’s Essays by Margaret Watkins, Saint Vincent College. Critics: Jacqueline Taylor, University of San Francisco and Andre Willis, Brown University. Chair: Richard Dees, University of Rochester.

10:30 - 11:00 Break

11:00 - 12:00 Concurrent Session A: Hume’s Empiricist Metaphysics. Donald L.M. Baxter, University of Connecticut. Commentator: Jonny Cottrell, University of Edinburgh. Chair: Janet Levin, University of Southern California.

11:00 - 12:00 Concurrent Session B: The General Point of View and Berkeleyan Perception of Distance. Katherine Dunlop, University of Texas, Austin. Commentator: Jason Fisette, University of Nevada, Reno. Chair: Ruth Weintraub, Tel Aviv University.

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 15:30 Break

15:30 - 16:30 Concurrent Session A: Did Hume Adopt a Labor Theory of Value? Margaret Schabas, University of British Columbia. Commentator: Andy Sabl, University of Toronto. Chair: Graciela De Pierris, Stanford University.

15:30 - 16:30 Concurrent Session B: Hume’s Self-Diagnosis in his Letter to an Unnamed Physician. Gabriel Watts, Freie Universität Berlin. Commentator: James Harris, University of St Andrews. Chair: Nathan Sasser, University of South Carolina.

Day 3 — Thursday, 8 July 2021

9:00 - 10:15 Keynote: Hume’s Ciceronian vs. Ramist Rhetoric. Catalina González, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá. Chair: Lisa Shapiro, Simon Fraser University.

10:15 - 11:00 Break

11:00 - 12:00 Concurrent Session A: Philo on ‘the Incomprehensible Nature of Supreme Being’ on Dialogues 2. Todd Ryan, Trinity College. Commentator: Stanley Tweyman, York University. Chair: Tito Magri, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’.

11:00 - 12:00 Concurrent Session B: Why Hume’s Censure of the Monkish Virtues Isn’t Question Begging. Jennifer Welchman, University of Alberta and Ron Wilburn, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Commentator: Lorraine Besser, Middlebury College. Chair: Alison McIntyre, Wellesley College.

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 15:30 Break

15:30 - 17:00 Themed Panel: Sympathy, Happiness and the Virtues. Livia Guimaraes, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Jane MacIntyre, Cleveland University and Anik Waldow, University of Sydney. Chair: Lorenzo Greco, Oxford University.

Day 4 — Friday, 9 July 2021

9:00 - 10:30 Book Panel: Hume’s Skepticism: Pyrrhonian and Academic by Peter Fosl, Transylvania University. Critics: José Raimundo Maia Neto, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais and Miriam McCormick, University of Richmond. Chair: Annemarie Butler, Iowa State University.

10:30 - 11:00 Break

11:00 - 12:00 Concurrent Session A: Cultural Embeddedness. Marissa Espinoza, Saint Louis University and Rico Vitz, Azuza Pacific University. Commentator: Katie Paxman, Brigham Young University. Chair: Maité Cruz, Union College.

11:00 - 12:00 Concurrent Session B: Rough Heroes. Chris Williams, University of Nevada, Reno. Commentator: Tina Baceski, Rockhurst University. Chair: Angela Coventry, University of Portland.

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 15:30 Break

15:30 - 16:30 Concurrent Session A: Hume on Whether Perceptions Are Mental. Dario Perinetti, Universitè du Québec á Montréal. Commentator: Corliss Swain, St. Olaf College. Chair: David Landy, San Francisco State University.

15:30 - 16:30 Concurrent Session B: Two Epicureans on Happiness: How Hume Read Rousseau’s Julie. Ryu Susato, Keio University. Commentator: Abraham Anderson, Sarah Lawrence College & The American University in Cairo. Chair: Amy Schmitter, University of Alberta.

Day 5 — Saturday, 10 July 2021

9:00 - 10:30 Themed Panel: Imagination. Donald Ainslie, University of Toronto, Sofía Calvente, Universidad Nacional de La Plata and Karánn Durland, Austin College. Chair: Ángela Calvo, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

10:30 - 11:00 Break

11:00 - 12:00 Concurrent Session A: Rethinking the Common Point of View in Hume’s Treatise and Enquiry. James Chamberlain, University of Nottingham. Commentator: Pablo Aristizábal, Independent Scholar. Chair: Mikael M. Karlsson, University of Iceland & University of the Faroe Islands.

11:00 - 12:00 Concurrent Session B: Hume’s Passion-Based Account of Agency. Taro Okamura, University of Alberta. Commentator: Karl Schafer, University of California, Irvine. Chair: Max Grober, Austin College.

12:00- 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 15:00 Concurrent Session A: Hume’s Incredible Demonstrations. Graham Clay, University of Notre Dame. Commentator: Wade Robison, Rochester Institute of Technology. Chair: Michael Jacovides, Purdue University.

14:00 - 15:00 Concurrent Session B: The Chief Business of the True Judges in Hume’s Aesthetics. Byoungjae Kim, Durham University. Commentator: Marta de la Vega, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana – Bogotá. Chair: Yumiko Inuaki, University of Massachussets, Boston.

15:00 - 15:30 Break

15:30 - 16:30 Concurrent Session A: How the Mind Spreads itself onto the World: An Interpretation. Miren Boehm, University of Wisconsin. Commentator: Elena Gordon, University of Sydney. Chair: Dominic Dimech, University of Sydney.

15:30 - 16:30 Concurrent Session B: Personal Identity Regarding the Passions in the Treatise. Haruko Inoue, Sapporo University. Commentator: Jane McIntyre, Cleveland University. Chair: Elizabeth Radcliffe, William and Mary.

Day 6 — Sunday, 11 July 2021

9:00 - 10:30 Book Panel: A Philosopher’s Economist: Hume and the Rise of Capitalism by Margaret Schabas, University of British Columbia and Carl Wennerlind, Barnard College. Critics: Jimena Hurtado, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá and Estrella Trincado, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Chair: Juan S. Santos, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

10:30 - 11:00 Break

11:00 - 12:00 Concurrent Session A: Hume’s Combinatorial Modal Theory. Ariel Melamedoff, New York University. Commentator: Liz Goodnick, Metropolitan State University of Denver. Chair: Nir Ben-Moshe, University of Illinois.

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 15:15 Keynote Talk: A Taste for Friends: Happiness, Virtue and the Aesthetics of Friendship in Hume. Amy Schmitter, University of Alberta. Chair: Tina Baceski, Rockhurst University.

15:30: Closing Concert

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Analysis of "This I Fear Most" by Ng Yi-Sheng

When I first found this gem of a poem in "A Book of Hims", I knew it would be my favourite for a long time. The poem is so sweet, it's ridiculous. If Ed Sheeran's "Perfect" was a sonnet, this would be it. This I Fear Most Ng Yi-Sheng That I am not a light to guide you home, No shining beacon and no candle flame. That I am but a ragged burden thrown Against the bony shoulders of your frame, And every path you tread into the night I do encumber. That I do mistake That sunny grin for spirit and delight, Though it is worn to better bear the ache. This I fear most. So I command you: should You tire of me, strip me from your back And burn me like a hecatomb of wood. With raging heat, the heavens I’ll attack Until the dark dissolves away like foam. Then step ahead. My light shall guide you home. Analysis "This I Fear Most" by Ng Yi-Sheng is a Shakespearean sonnet about the selfless nature of love and the re

H2 Knowledge and Inquiry (KI): Should You Take It?

Choosing your A Level subject combination can be quite a nerve-racking experience, especially if you don't have any strong interest in particular subjects. The stakes are high too: it's the A Levels, the culmination of 12 years of formal education. No one wants to screw up and pick the wrong combination that will lead to 2 years of extra suffering. I faced the same problem after I graduated from the High School section. Physics, Math, Literature and KI was the combination of my dreams, but it wasn't a standard combination the College section offered. I made a compromise and chose the closest combination on the standard list: KI, Literature, Math and Economics (KILME). When I tell people I take KILME, they usually respond with confusion or shock. "Harh, simi combi is that?" "You take KI?!?!?!" These reactions are basically caused by the mystery that is KI. It's a phantom subject: one that has no textbook, no published notes,

Hume on Reason and the Passions — A Reply to Zizai

The Awkward Yeti on Facebook I thank  Cui Zizai  — my old friend, former classmate, collaborator and interlocutor — for this opportunity to revisit Hume. Zizai sent me an email (one of his periodic circulars on mathematics, politics and philosophy) regarding his take on Hume, in particular the infamous line “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions” in Hume’s  A Treatise of Human Nature (“ Treatise ”). Sent 1:28 am, 26 December 2020 (UTC+08:00) Zizai has two concerns which I shall attempt to address: Is the bipartite claim “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions” is–ought fallacious? Does Hume offer an argument for his “ought” claim? How can it be justified? Is the bipartite claim “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions” is–ought fallacious? Let us refer to Hume’s introduction of the is–ought problem ( Treatise  3.1.1.27 ): I cannot forbear adding to these reasonings an observation, which may, perhaps, be found of some importance.