Here are the last of the abstracts for the concurrent sessions. (Abstracts for the first two sessions are available here and here, respectively.) Next week, I will post the abstracts for the plenary sessions. Enjoy!
Connotation and Disconnection
John Stigall (Florida State University)
Jonathan Schaffer has argued that all of the central connotations of causation (counterfactuals, statistics, explanation, inference, agency, and responsibility) figure into cases of causation by disconnection. Moreover, that if there is causation by disconnection, then there is causation by absence. I will be arguing that there are more central connotations of causation than Schaffer tells us about, that these other central connotations count against us taking causation by disconnection to be causation. The general idea of my paper is as follows, causation by disconnection does not satisfy all of the central connotations of causation because connection is a central of causation. But if connection is a central connotation of causation, then it is impossible for causation by disconnection to satisfy all of the central connotations of causation.
Issues with Acausality
Zack Stinson (Flagler College)
Jung repeatedly describes synchronicity as an “acausal connecting principle.” This description has been continued by contemporary advocates of synchronicity theory, such as Mansfield, Aziz, and von Franz. I shall argue that their use of the term ‘acausal’ is not only misleading, but also outright false on any seriously considered picture of synchronicity. Referring to synchronicity as ‘acausal’ is misleading as only one kind of causation is excluded from it – viz., efficient causation. Not only are these advocates explicitly committed to synchronicity as a final-causal connecting principle, but, as I shall show, they are also implicitly committed to it as a material and formal-causal connecting principle. Moreover, additional attempts by these advocates to qualify the ‘acausal’ label – such as the absence of mutual dependency and shared causes – serve only to further muddy the waters of any serious discussion of synchronicity theory.
In Praise of Self-Love
Van Tu (University of Florida)
The popular view sees self-love as the archenemy of virtue, but this distorted perception is based on fallacious beliefs regarding what self-love entails and the erroneous practice of treating self-love and self-indulgence as synonyms. Building on Harry Frankfurt’s work, I examine what authentic self-love entails, namely, the desire for one’s flourishing and the act of promoting the interests of those one loves and cares about. Second, I am committed to distinguishing a self-lover from a rational egoist since a certain version of rational egoism, such as David Brink’s in “Rational Egoism, Self and Others”, appeals to the concept of self-love to justify moral demands. This strategy is misleading however since one need not be a rational egoist to be a self-lover. My final objective is to show that because the self-lover wholeheartedly pursues his endeavors he necessarily possesses at least three virtues: courage, self-knowledge, and sincerity.