Why do some disagreements – especially moral disagreements – seem so intractable and immune to resolution via reasoned argument and debate? Perhaps one reason is that, in the first place, we have an incredibly narrow conception of what we count as ‘reasoning’ or an ‘argument’. Moral debates easily become polarised because we dismiss narratives, imaginative works, and embodied forms of knowledge as genuine knowledge or arguments.
Over the course of four Mondays, starting today, my colleague Jana Sedlakova and I will be exploring these issues in a brand new seminar series, entitled ‘Enlarging Reason’, organised as part of the ANTITHESES research platform, for which we are both postdocs. Please do join us for these seminars and the discussion that we hope to inspire.
Enlarging Reason: Reasoning and radical value disagreements
Mondays, 4-5.30pm. Large Seminar Room, St Cross College, Oxford.
19 Oct: The Ethical Stance and Radical Self-Reflection (Jana Sedlakova)
26 Oct: Action and Embodied Reason (Michael Wee)
2 Nov: Moral Perception and Moral Reasoning (Michael Wee)
9 Nov: Embodiment, Mindfulness and Disagreement (Jana Sedlakova)
For more information on the individual talks, please visit the event page where you will also find a registration link at the bottom (registration is optional but encouraged – all are welcome):
https://www.antitheses.net/events/enlarging-reason-reasoning-and-radical-value-disagreements
Leave a Reply