Upcoming and Recent Events by Richard Amesbury
Populist Power, Faith and Precarity in Europe, 8-9 November 2019
Krise und Kritik: Philosophische Analyse und Zeitgeschehen / Crisis and Critique: Philosophical A... more Krise und Kritik: Philosophische Analyse und Zeitgeschehen / Crisis and Critique: Philosophical Analysis and Current Events. 42nd International Wittgenstein Symposium. Kirchberg am Wechsel, Austria. 4-10 August 2019.
So-called democratic states rest upon acts of violence and exclusion which cannot themselves be justified democratically. Yet, much contemporary political theory takes these configurations for granted as the context for philosophical reflection. This paper explores some of the spatio-temporal paradoxes of popular sovereignty as conventionally understood – i.e., as the authorization of government through the consent of “the people.” I argue that, instead of treating the borders of popular sovereignty as given, philosophical reflection on political authority would benefit from greater attention to their continual contestation and critique.
Sovereignty, Religion, and Secularism: Interrogating the Foundations of Polity. Ludwig Maximilian... more Sovereignty, Religion, and Secularism: Interrogating the Foundations of Polity. Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich. 11-13 July 2018.
Reexamining Religion, Modernity/ies and Trans Modernity in the Populist Moment Working Group of t... more Reexamining Religion, Modernity/ies and Trans Modernity in the Populist Moment Working Group of the Contending Modernities research initiative. Chicago, 5-6 June 2018.
Co-organiser: Yale Law School Schell Center for International Human Rights. 10-11 January 2018.
"Law and Human Rights" panel, Centre for Religion, Conflict, and Globalization, University of Gro... more "Law and Human Rights" panel, Centre for Religion, Conflict, and Globalization, University of Groningen, 14 September 2017
Der Status der Ehre in unserer Gesellschaft ist prekär. Vielen gilt sie als patriarchales und gew... more Der Status der Ehre in unserer Gesellschaft ist prekär. Vielen gilt sie als patriarchales und gewaltproduktives Relikt einer hierarchischen Gesellschaftsordnung, als inkompatibel mit einer demokratischen, auf der gleichen Achtung jedes Einzelnen beruhenden Gesinnung. Die Anerkennung unter Gleichen hat dem Respekt fur die Angehörigen bestimmter Stände, Ämter oder Berufe den Rang abgelaufen, zumindest in ethischer Hinsicht. Heisst das, dass der Ehrbegriff jene universalisierende Transformation nicht geschafft hat, die dem Wurdebegriff seinen Aufstieg zu einem ethisch-rechtlichen Zentralbegriff ermöglicht hat? Ist Ehre nur noch ein Randphänomen, das z.B. im Sport als Ideal der sportsmanship, in der Wissenschaft in der Praxis von Festschriften, bei Klagen zu Ehrverletzungen im Internet oder bei „Ehrenmorden“ in Erscheinung tritt?
In den letzten Jahren sind vor allem in den USA zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Publikationen erschienen, die bestreiten, dass der Ehre in der Moderne der Abschied gegeben wurde und dass ein solcher Abschied überhaupt möglich und wünschbar ist. Sie plädieren dafür, wenigstens bestimmten Formen der Ehre eine höhere Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken, weil ihnen eine zentrale soziale und moralische Bedeutung zukomme.
Die internationale Tagung möchte diesen Impuls aufnehmen und in ethischer, theologisch-anthropologischer und philosophischer Hinsicht kritisch weiterreflektieren. Es referieren namhafte Wissenschaftler aus Theologie, Philosophie, Islamwissenschaft, Jurisprudenz und Politikwissenschaft.
----------------
The status of honor in our society is precarious. To many, it appears to be a patriarchal and violent relic of a hierarchical social order, incompatible with a democratic ethos of equal respect for each individual. Respect among equals is widely regarded as taking precedence over respect for the occupants of specific estates, offices, and professions, at least from an ethical perspective. Does this mean that the concept of honor has failed to achieve the universalizing transformation that has allowed the concept of dignity to become a central ethical and legal concept? Is honor only a marginal phenomenon – e.g., the ideal of sportsmanship in athletic endeavor; the Festschrift in academic life; internet libel lawsuits; or so-called “honor killings”?
In recent years, a body of academic literature has emerged, especially in the U.S., which denies that honor was abandoned in modernity – indeed, that such a rejection would be either possible or desirable. These authors advocate paying greater attention to specific forms of honor which are said to be of central social and moral significance.
This international conference takes up this challenge as an opportunity for critical ethical, theologico-anthropological, and philosophical reflection among leading scholars in the fields of theology, philosophy, Islamic studies, and jurisprudence.
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2017
Time: 18:15 h
Place: University of Zurich, Main Building
Rämistrasse 71... more Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2017
Time: 18:15 h
Place: University of Zurich, Main Building
Rämistrasse 71, 8001 Zurich
Room KOL-G-209
Religion and Human Rights. Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Symposium. 23-24 March ... more Religion and Human Rights. Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Symposium. 23-24 March 2017. Yale Law School.
The Macmillan Center Initiative on Religion, Politics and Society. 24 October, 12:00 p.m.
Schell Center for International Human Rights, Yale Law School, 29 September 2016, 12:10PM - 1:45PM
Prof. em. Dr. Jean-Luc Nancy (Université de Strasbourg) spricht über die aktuellen gesellschaftli... more Prof. em. Dr. Jean-Luc Nancy (Université de Strasbourg) spricht über die aktuellen gesellschaftlichen und ethischen Herausforderungen der Flüchtlingskrise
20. Mai 2016
18:15 – 19:45 Uhr
Veranstaltungsort: Theologisches Seminar UZH, Kirchgasse 9, 8001 Zürich. Raum: KIR 200
Organisation: Michael Braunschweig (Institut für Sozialethik), Anita Horn (Philosophisches Seminar), Friederike Rass (Collegium Helveticum).
North American Wittgenstein Society, American Philosophical Association. 30 March 2016.
The past... more North American Wittgenstein Society, American Philosophical Association. 30 March 2016.
The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the German jurist and philosopher Carl Schmitt, who defined political sovereignty in relation to the concept of the decision. A growing number of legal and political theorists — sometimes characterized as doing political theology — has argued that decision is an inescapable element of legal interpretation. Drawing on the later Wittgenstein’s so-called “rule-following considerations,” this paper challenges a certain metaphysical picture to which these theorists sometimes appeal, which envisions a necessary gap between law and its application, and a corresponding conception of the self that privileges will over reason.
Society for Philosophy of Religion. 25 February 2016.
Thirty-Seventh Annual Claremont Philosophy of Religion Conference. 19-20 February 2016.
Uploads
Upcoming and Recent Events by Richard Amesbury
So-called democratic states rest upon acts of violence and exclusion which cannot themselves be justified democratically. Yet, much contemporary political theory takes these configurations for granted as the context for philosophical reflection. This paper explores some of the spatio-temporal paradoxes of popular sovereignty as conventionally understood – i.e., as the authorization of government through the consent of “the people.” I argue that, instead of treating the borders of popular sovereignty as given, philosophical reflection on political authority would benefit from greater attention to their continual contestation and critique.
In den letzten Jahren sind vor allem in den USA zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Publikationen erschienen, die bestreiten, dass der Ehre in der Moderne der Abschied gegeben wurde und dass ein solcher Abschied überhaupt möglich und wünschbar ist. Sie plädieren dafür, wenigstens bestimmten Formen der Ehre eine höhere Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken, weil ihnen eine zentrale soziale und moralische Bedeutung zukomme.
Die internationale Tagung möchte diesen Impuls aufnehmen und in ethischer, theologisch-anthropologischer und philosophischer Hinsicht kritisch weiterreflektieren. Es referieren namhafte Wissenschaftler aus Theologie, Philosophie, Islamwissenschaft, Jurisprudenz und Politikwissenschaft.
----------------
The status of honor in our society is precarious. To many, it appears to be a patriarchal and violent relic of a hierarchical social order, incompatible with a democratic ethos of equal respect for each individual. Respect among equals is widely regarded as taking precedence over respect for the occupants of specific estates, offices, and professions, at least from an ethical perspective. Does this mean that the concept of honor has failed to achieve the universalizing transformation that has allowed the concept of dignity to become a central ethical and legal concept? Is honor only a marginal phenomenon – e.g., the ideal of sportsmanship in athletic endeavor; the Festschrift in academic life; internet libel lawsuits; or so-called “honor killings”?
In recent years, a body of academic literature has emerged, especially in the U.S., which denies that honor was abandoned in modernity – indeed, that such a rejection would be either possible or desirable. These authors advocate paying greater attention to specific forms of honor which are said to be of central social and moral significance.
This international conference takes up this challenge as an opportunity for critical ethical, theologico-anthropological, and philosophical reflection among leading scholars in the fields of theology, philosophy, Islamic studies, and jurisprudence.
Time: 18:15 h
Place: University of Zurich, Main Building
Rämistrasse 71, 8001 Zurich
Room KOL-G-209
20. Mai 2016
18:15 – 19:45 Uhr
Veranstaltungsort: Theologisches Seminar UZH, Kirchgasse 9, 8001 Zürich. Raum: KIR 200
Organisation: Michael Braunschweig (Institut für Sozialethik), Anita Horn (Philosophisches Seminar), Friederike Rass (Collegium Helveticum).
The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the German jurist and philosopher Carl Schmitt, who defined political sovereignty in relation to the concept of the decision. A growing number of legal and political theorists — sometimes characterized as doing political theology — has argued that decision is an inescapable element of legal interpretation. Drawing on the later Wittgenstein’s so-called “rule-following considerations,” this paper challenges a certain metaphysical picture to which these theorists sometimes appeal, which envisions a necessary gap between law and its application, and a corresponding conception of the self that privileges will over reason.
So-called democratic states rest upon acts of violence and exclusion which cannot themselves be justified democratically. Yet, much contemporary political theory takes these configurations for granted as the context for philosophical reflection. This paper explores some of the spatio-temporal paradoxes of popular sovereignty as conventionally understood – i.e., as the authorization of government through the consent of “the people.” I argue that, instead of treating the borders of popular sovereignty as given, philosophical reflection on political authority would benefit from greater attention to their continual contestation and critique.
In den letzten Jahren sind vor allem in den USA zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Publikationen erschienen, die bestreiten, dass der Ehre in der Moderne der Abschied gegeben wurde und dass ein solcher Abschied überhaupt möglich und wünschbar ist. Sie plädieren dafür, wenigstens bestimmten Formen der Ehre eine höhere Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken, weil ihnen eine zentrale soziale und moralische Bedeutung zukomme.
Die internationale Tagung möchte diesen Impuls aufnehmen und in ethischer, theologisch-anthropologischer und philosophischer Hinsicht kritisch weiterreflektieren. Es referieren namhafte Wissenschaftler aus Theologie, Philosophie, Islamwissenschaft, Jurisprudenz und Politikwissenschaft.
----------------
The status of honor in our society is precarious. To many, it appears to be a patriarchal and violent relic of a hierarchical social order, incompatible with a democratic ethos of equal respect for each individual. Respect among equals is widely regarded as taking precedence over respect for the occupants of specific estates, offices, and professions, at least from an ethical perspective. Does this mean that the concept of honor has failed to achieve the universalizing transformation that has allowed the concept of dignity to become a central ethical and legal concept? Is honor only a marginal phenomenon – e.g., the ideal of sportsmanship in athletic endeavor; the Festschrift in academic life; internet libel lawsuits; or so-called “honor killings”?
In recent years, a body of academic literature has emerged, especially in the U.S., which denies that honor was abandoned in modernity – indeed, that such a rejection would be either possible or desirable. These authors advocate paying greater attention to specific forms of honor which are said to be of central social and moral significance.
This international conference takes up this challenge as an opportunity for critical ethical, theologico-anthropological, and philosophical reflection among leading scholars in the fields of theology, philosophy, Islamic studies, and jurisprudence.
Time: 18:15 h
Place: University of Zurich, Main Building
Rämistrasse 71, 8001 Zurich
Room KOL-G-209
20. Mai 2016
18:15 – 19:45 Uhr
Veranstaltungsort: Theologisches Seminar UZH, Kirchgasse 9, 8001 Zürich. Raum: KIR 200
Organisation: Michael Braunschweig (Institut für Sozialethik), Anita Horn (Philosophisches Seminar), Friederike Rass (Collegium Helveticum).
The past decade has seen a resurgence of interest in the German jurist and philosopher Carl Schmitt, who defined political sovereignty in relation to the concept of the decision. A growing number of legal and political theorists — sometimes characterized as doing political theology — has argued that decision is an inescapable element of legal interpretation. Drawing on the later Wittgenstein’s so-called “rule-following considerations,” this paper challenges a certain metaphysical picture to which these theorists sometimes appeal, which envisions a necessary gap between law and its application, and a corresponding conception of the self that privileges will over reason.
Though clearly absorbed with ethical questions throughout his life and work, Wittgenstein's remarks about the subject do not easily lend themselves to summation or theorizing. Although many moral philosophers cite the influence or inspiration of Wittgenstein, there is little agreement about precisely what it means to do ethics in the light of Wittgenstein.
Ethics after Wittgenstein brings together an international cohort of leading scholars in the field to address this problem. The chapters advance a conception of philosophical ethics characterized by an attention to detail, meaning and importance which itself makes ethical demands on its practitioners. Working in conversation with literature and film, engaging deeply with anthropology and critical theory, and addressing contemporary problems from racialized sexual violence against women to the Islamic State, these contributors reclaim Wittgenstein's legacy as an indispensable resource for contemporary ethics.
Acclaim for "Morality and Social Criticism":
"Richard Amesbury has produced an excellent book. . . . Amesbury’s central project is to preserve –- as Rorty’s pragmatism self-admittedly cannot –- the rationality of radical criticism within the spheres of moral, political and religious thought and action. In doing this he finds himself confronting issues that relate quite generally to the nature of rationality and these he takes to be linked inextricably to the philosophy of language and to be fundamentally logical. It is this that gives Amesbury’s book a much wider appeal than that of most books of its size on social philosophy. Its critical momentum is grounded on a conception of rule-following behaviour which gives primacy to normative practices, which in some sense, lie at the roots of human beings’ actions and, thus, of human societies."
-- Guy Stock, University of Dundee, "Philosophical Investigations" 31:4 (2008)
“Amesbury provides a solid reconstruction of recent attempts in continental philosophy to theorize in a nonfoundational way about the status and function of social norms. He takes a middle ground between the strongly universalizing theory of discourse ethics (Habermas) and the rejection of universality represented by deconstruction (Derrida and to some extent Rorty). Norms are thus neither platonically ahistorical nor mere contingent posits. With the help of Robert Brandom's recent pragmatic account of norms, Amesbury argues that they are implicit in practices; the philosophical task is simply to make them explicit. Thus he avoids the regress of norms found in a position he calls ‘regulism.’ But he does think that no ethical reasoning can be done without a backdrop of certain moral commitments about which ‘doubts do not ordinarily arise.’ This is the key assumption of his ‘ordinary realism.’ The hope is that such a realist model of reasoning about norms can lend strong support to critique of problematic norms in a society. The book is accessible to those who have a modicum of background in contemporary continental ethics, but experts will garner much from it as well.”
-- James C. Swindal, Duquesne University, "Choice" 43:5 (2006)"
Faith and Human Rights argues that the idea of human rights is not exclusively religious, but that its realization in practice requires urgent action on the part of people of all faiths – and of none. The authors contend that while faith has much of value to contribute here, the world’s religions will require vigilant reappraisal if they are to function as genuine partners in the global struggle for human dignity. Acknowledging the ambiguous moral legacy of their own tradition, Christianity, the authors draw on Christological themes to draft blueprints for a culturally sensitive “theology of human rights.”
Acclaim for "Faith and Human Rights":
"This is an admirable little book. It gives a clear and authoritative introduction to human rights thinking and the difficulties that arise in relating the universal horizon of human rights to the particular traditions represented by the world's religions. . . . As an introductory text, I don't think this could be bettered."
-- Nicholas Sagovsky, Westminster Abbey, "Theological Book Review" 20:2 (2008)
"This lucid and persuasive articulation of universality is indicative of a second strength of this book: its democratic impulses. Not only does the very project of maintaining rights culture serve the goals of people rule, in that it protects people from domination at the hands of political and economic powers, but the tone in which the authors write serves democratic goals as well. When it comes to rights advocacy, the authors recognize that many different people must join together and engage in such advocacy for many different reasons. This is evident in their explanation of the proper understanding of universality. Their call for political unity from intellectual and spiritual diversity is consistent with the democratic goal of e pluribus unum. For Amesbury and Newlands, the many comprehensive doctrines of the people must become one in support of rights if rights are to thrive in Western political culture. This approach has the fortunate result of broadening the book’s readership, as a particularly Christian form of political reasoning becomes one way among many others to reinforce rights discourse. One need not accept the basic premises and sources of Christian theology as normative in order to read this book; and yet, in the later chapters one will still encounter a particularly Christian way of supporting rights. And although the voice and intended audience of this book are strongly democratic, the Christian political theory in the book’s second half does not suffer for being one possible approach among others."
--Daniel A. Morris, Augustana College, "Journal of Lutheran Ethics" 14:7 (2014)
"The book is a very helpful starting point for Christians in general and theological students in particular seeking to think through Christianity and human rights"
-- Stephen Plant, Trinity Hall, Cambridge, "Theology" CXII: 865 (2009)
-- an argument that the category “fideism” can be understood as a
by-product of the development of secular conceptions of rationality that,
while not overtly hostile to religion, moved God from the premises of
thought to its possible conclusions.
-- a discussion of Duncan Pritchard's "quasi-fideism."
-- and updated bibliography.
This dual loyalty is the stuff both of tragedy and of comedy. In Law and Love, his masterful study of King Lear, Kahn argues that Shakespeare’s play offers a tragic vision of the conflict between incommensurable ways of understanding our lives. In the final analysis, love cannot be reconciled with law or justice. This paper picks up on these three modes of thought in the hope of exploring their relation partly in the context of another of Shakespeare’s plays, Measure for Measure. My interest is not in attempting to reconcile competing conceptual logics, but in how, within the play, love is brought into relation with law and justice in a way that seems to forestall the tragedy of Lear. By depicting a social order in which love is subordinated to justice through the exceptionless application of law, Measure for Measure encourages the reader to dream of something beyond law: even when it is not administered unjustly, law – it is intimated – is inadequate without love. If a central theme of Lear is that love cannot be reconciled with law, Measure for Measure emphasizes our need of both.
temporally as that time in which religion occupies space. This paper draws upon Walter
Benjamin’s concept of “Messianic time” to gain critical leverage on the temporal horizons of the nation-state and the neoliberal market.
Journal of the British Association for the Study of Religions 18 (2016)