ESEMP 2013Université de GrenobleEuropean Society for Early Modern Philosophy

The 3rd International Conference Programme et papiersDebates, Polemics and Controversiesin Early Modern Philosophy
January 30th-February 1st, 2013GrenobleThe 3rd International Conference of the European Society for Early Modern Philosophy, Debates, Polemics and Controversies in Early Modern Philosophy, will take place from January 30th to February 1st, 2013, at the Université de Grenoble, France.The Conference was announced here. There was a Call for papers. You may now find the Program and abstracts here.Should you want to come, we recommend a quite early registration. The Registration Forms are here, in English, German, or French. 0 0 1 23832 131077 Centre de Recherches juridiques de l'Université de 1092 309 154600 14.0 Normal 0 21 false false false EN-GB JA X-NONE

European Society for Early Modern Philosophy: 3rdInternational Conference

Debates, Polemics and Controversies in Early Modern PhilosophyJanuary 30th to February 1st, 2013, Université de Grenoble, France Contents1. Conference statement 2. General schedule 3. Abstracts 3.1. Plenary lectures 3.2. Papers 3.3. Colloquia

CONFERENCE STATEMENTThe general objective of the conference is to take an overview of the present historiographical situation regarding the study of controversies and to contribute to a reappraisal of the study of controversies in the history of early modern philosophy. It will aim not only at mapping the many philosophical controversies of the early modern period, but as well at making explicit the different methodological approaches that can be used to analyse controversies and at evaluating the different explanatory merits of those methodological approaches.1. Why should we study philosophical controversies?At least since the 1970s, studies of scientific controversies have become a well-defined domain within Studies of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), Science and Technology Studies (STS), and History and Philosophy of Science (HPS). In these fields, the analysis of controversies has come to be seen as an important methodological tool to grasp processes that are not always visible within the sciences. By contrast, the study of controversies does not yet constitute a major genre in the history of philosophy. There are some excellent isolated studies of controversies in the history of philosophy, but the most frequent genre remains a monograph devoted to an author or to a concept. As in the sciences however, the study of controversies in philosophy can help to reconstruct and understand the historical elaboration of new concepts, new methods, new arguments and new systems. Indeed, a controversy drives into a corner the philosophers whoare involved in it; they are obliged to make explicit what was implicit oreven unthought in their previous writings. Hence, the study of controversies fully belongs to the history of philosophy insofar as it aims at giving a rational reconstruction of a philosophical thought.Moreover, it can bring to the fore some usually hidden dimensions of philosophy, for example tacit conventions concerning its writing, or broad assumptions about its social functions. Thus, some socio-historical questions concerning the practices of philosophy may be addressed through the study of a controversy: Who was engaged in this controversy and through which medium? What was its forum? Which institutions, in a broad sense, played a role in it? How did external constraints and eventually censorship intervene in it?Finally, the study of philosophical controversies can be the occasion for testing tools borrowed from the contemporary pragmatic turn in the philosophy of language and for elaborating new formal tools.To sum up, the study of controversies is an important part of history of philosophy; it opens it up to intellectual history, as well as to more formal analysis.2. What is meant by “debates”, “polemics” and “controversies”?A debate/polemic/controversy should be distinguished from other forms of intellectual exchanges by the three following characteristics:i) By contrast with fictional dialogues and criticisms addressed to dead authors, a debate/polemic/controversy unfolds between at least two real living authors, with the result that neither of them can fully control its outcome.ii) By contrast with peaceful consensual exchanges, a debate/polemic/controversy includes confrontation, dissension and disagreement. This opposition plays out at different levels: it may be personal or impersonal; it may concern the relevance and extension of a concept or to the truth of a proposition; or it may relate to the content of a philosophy or to its communication. iii) By contrast with protracted discussions, a debate/polemic/controversy has a bounded nature: even when it deals with a so-called timeless problem, it is localised in space and time.That said, there are some differences betweens a “debate,” a “polemic,” and a “controversy.” And beside these three terms, there are still other terms used to describe exchanges that may present the three characteristics just mentioned: “discussion,” “dispute,” “quarrel,” etc. As these terms are not synonymous, they invite us to introduce distinctions according to the answers that are given to the following questions:— Are there recognised procedures for regulating and even closing the controversy? Unlike a discussion, what is commonly called a dispute is in principle endless, even when it comes to an accidental end, for example, through the death of the disputants. For, unlike “discutants,” the “disputants” do not agree on which procedures should be adopted to regulate or even to close their controversy.— What is the aim of the controversy? A discussion can aim at achieving a consensus, when the discutants agree, not only on the procedures to be adopted to close the controversy, but also on certain broad assumptions. A discutant can also aim at reaching a tolerant settlement; in that case, each discutant recognises that the broad assumptions on which the other discutants rely are legitimate, even though he does not personally accept them.— What kind of forum is chosen for the controversy? Is public opinion of some kind referred to in the controversy and if so what is its function? Even if they are embodied in publications, some controversies may be classified as “private,” insofar as they involve only the authors concerned. But there are also debates that involve a form or another of “public opinion,” whose delineation is a matter of debate as well.— How are rational arguments interwoven with more eristic considerations? The rational aim of a controversy is to settle a set of problems, whereas the eristic aim of a quarrel or a polemic is to defeat one’s adversaries. Hence, “quarrel” a