USUPhilosophy

Sponsored by the Department of Languages, Philosophy, and Speech Communication. This is just for students who have taken courses in the department. You should send in a 150-200 word abstract of your presentation by March 11th. Download the pdf with more submission details here:

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS-2010

I will add that last year this was a lost of fun. We had enough students for a special philosophy session, where discussion was freeflowing and good-natured. I strongly encourage philosophy students to submit an abstract of a paper they wrote for class last term, or one they are working on now.

… has extended its deadline for submissions until January 30th. Submit an abstract and present it at the University of Utah in March! Details on this page.

This is in regard to the current anti-trust lawsuit brought against the NFL which is at the Supreme Court.  An interesting intersection of philosophy (what is it to be a “single entity”) and football.

“In American Needle, the NFL argued that they are a single entity, and thus incapable of violating Section 1 [of the Sherman Act] (because a single entity cannot reach an agreement with itself). The NFL concedes that they do not look like a traditional single entity — that is, a single firm with a single owner. Instead, the NFL argues that they are a single entity because the NFL is a product that can only be created by cooperation among its teams, and none of its teams have any economic value without the league. The NFL’s argument is that the product created by the NFL teams is an interconnected series of games (the regular season) that leads to a playoffs, that eventually produces a Super Bowl champion, and that no individual team can produce this product on its own. Rather, the teams must make a series of agreements with each other–where to play, when to play, under what rules, etc. The NFL believes that this interdependence and need for cooperation renders the league a single entity, and that all of the agreements made by the league and its teams –ranging from scheduling to free agency restrictions to salary cap rules to franchise relocation restrictions –should thus not be subject to scrutiny under Section 1.”

Read a book review on the topic here. Sample passage:

Though clearly fond of the bioethicist-physicians, bioethicist-philosophers, and bioethicist-legal scholars they interviewed, Fox and Swazey describe themselves as “critical of what we regard as the field’s deficiencies and blind spots.” They identify these as the use of dumbed-down teaching formulae, an insensitivity to cultural differences, and the tendency of American bioethicists to emphasize “individual rights, and rationality” instead of “community, and common good,” which are the values that Fox and Swazey favor.

Fox and Swazey claim bioethicists would do better if they stuck to policy and economic questions, but the reviewer isn’t sure why.

… according to Business Week:

The financial and climate crises, global consumption habits, and other 21st-century challenges call for a “killer app.” I think I’ve found it: philosophy.

Philosophy can help us address the (literally) existential challenges the world currently confronts, but only if we take it off the back burner and apply it as a burning platform in business.