[The Philosophers' Guild] Senior Departure and Breakfast Snacks Friday

[Phil Sophia]

Greetings All,

Please join the Philosopher’s Guild for its last event of the
semester, Senior Departure, this Friday April 30, 2010 in room 1207 on
the 12th floor of the 34 Peachtree St. Building. This location is one
floor up from the Philosophy Department inside the 34 Peachtree St.
Building. The event runs from 10am to 11:45am and will feature three
paper presentations from the following GSU philosophy majors: Travis
Web, Maria Caruso and Jamie Bernhardt. Each presenter shall have 25
minutes (20 to present plus 5 for Q&A). This event is a Philosophers’
Guild meeting, not a contest. So, there will be no prizes or judges.
If this is not exciting enough, there will be light breakfast snacks!
Attached to this email is a word document containing abstracts from
all three presenters.

We hope to see you all on April 30 for Senior Departure. If you have
questions or concerns, please email them to
jbern...@student.gsu.edu.

Good Luck with Finals and Term Papers,

Jamie Bernhardt
The Philosophers’ Guild
President

----

Senior Departure Spring 10 Abstracts

Graduating senior Travis Web will present his paper, “Forty Terrible
Cakes.” Below is a paraphrased abstract of Travis’ paper:
This paper aims to elucidate what is meant by the use of the word and
notion of 'terrorism.' Its more implicit purpose is the endorsement of
terrorism as viable political assertion, which results from the
discursive dissection of the meaning of the word/concept: 1) What does
"terrorism" mean? and 2) What does it mean that "terrorism means p"?
This paper systematically debunks the following conceptions of
terrorism: a) Functional conceptions; b) Civilian violence conception;
c) Incidental and Intentional violence conceptions; d) Ideal and
resource war conceptions; e) Psyche: The lunatic conception. In doing
so, the paper exposes of the actual, functional meaning of “terrorism”
based on what terrorism expresses or asserts.

Junior Maria Caruso will present her paper, “The Expedience of Self-
narrative for Recognizing Bodily Value.” Her abstract follows below:
In Anthony Quinton’s essay, “The Soul,” he argues against a body
theory saying that bodies are only used as a reference tool for their
underlying souls. His argument is based on a few thought experiments
in which he attempts to show us that what in fact constitutes a person
is not the body but the soul, “a series of mental states connected by
continuity of character and memory” (65). I will argue that in fact,
our body (specifically its characteristics), while not sufficient for
identity, is integral to it, and present my own theory of personhood,
the narrativity view, that supports these ideas.
The essay first shows how Quinton’s soul theory would entail a
complete societal breakdown, and while attempting to eliminate bodies
merely redefines aspects of the body. Next I show how the body is
integral to our conception of the self through two examples: a thought
experiment and reference to the movie “Avatar.” Finally, I present the
narrativity view, while still drawing upon “Avatar,” to show that
construction of a self-narrative avoids the problems present in soul-
switching, and still allows us to create a consistent, reliable
version of a self.

Lastly, 4th year Jamie Bernhardt will present his essay, “Adopting
Hannah Arendt’s Separation of the Moral and Political.” His abstract
follows below:

This essay answers the following question: What does your own
experience tell you about the relationship between politics and ethics
and, in particular, what could be done to make politics more ethical?
Articulate with clarity an ethical issue you have encountered and
analyze what it has taught you about ethics and yourself.
The first section discusses the risks of theorizing an ethical
politics for everyone and the author’s suspension of judgment about a
universally applicable ethical politics in relation to the following
considerations: (i) basic theoretical roles of politics; (ii) A
general theory of what constitutes the well-being on an individual,
which the author calls “Socialized Ethical Concept” theory; (iii) A
general theory of obligation as a key factor for an individual’s well-
being; (iv) the author’s goals for theorizing politics.
The second section explains Hannah Arendt’s separation of the moral
and political as concerns for making politics more ethical, at least
for the self. The author explicates his adoption of Arendt’s
separation, but also elucidates what adopting Arendt’s separation
entails for those who do not share the author’s idiosyncrasies. In
short, the acumen of the kind of judgment and corresponding actions
appropriate for those who separate the moral and political shall be
recognizing and remembering the difference between ethical for me and
ethical for another.

--
***The opinions expressed here are not those of Georgia State University***

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "The Philosophers' Guild" group.
To post to this group, send email to philosop...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
philosophiagui...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/philosophiaguild?hl=en