BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//CSAMP - ECPv6.17.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:CSAMP
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://csamp.utoronto.ca
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for CSAMP
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Toronto
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20170312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20171105T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20180311T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20181104T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20190310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20191103T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20181105T160000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20181105T180000
DTSTAMP:20181010T193840Z
CREATED:20180911T185708Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181010T193840Z
UID:803-1541433600-1541440800@csamp.utoronto.ca
SUMMARY:WIP Talk: Andree Hahmann
DESCRIPTION:Andree Hahmann (DAAD Visiting Professor of German and Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania) will give a presentation to the CPAMP Work-in-Progress seminar\, titled: \n“Did the Stoics distinguish between natural and artificial divination?” \nAbstract: Cicero’s  De divinatione is our major source for the Stoic account of divination. The distinction between natural and artificial divination plays a crucial role for the argumentative structure of the work. Most modern scholars assume that the Stoics distinguished between these two kinds of divination primarily on the basis of Cicero’s testimony. Examples of artificial divination are augury\, the inspection of entrails\, and astrology. Natural divination\, on the other hand\, is said to entail dreams or divination through frenzy. The distinction is particularly important because it seems to help determine the answer to the question of the scientific status of divination in general. At first glance\, it apparently follows from the division that only artificial divination relies on technique or scientific method whereas natural divination does not proceed artistically at all. Moreover\, the answer to this question significantly influences associated issues\, such as the correct delimitation of divination from related arts or the proper classification of divination in the overarching framework of Stoic philosophy. However\, as I want to argue in this talk\, Cicero’s presentation is not only inconsistent but also depends on un-Stoic sources. My thesis is that Cicero confused the original Stoic distinction in order to better link the Stoic account to the Peripatetic view on divination. The clarification of these points promises both a better understanding of the Stoic conception of divination as a science and sheds light on the role of Cicero as a mediator of Hellenistic philosophy.
URL:https://csamp.utoronto.ca/event/wip-talk-andree-hahmann/
LOCATION:Lillian Massey Building\, Room 205\, 125 Queens Park\, Toronto\, ON\, M5S 2C7\, Canada
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Toronto:20181126T160000
DTEND;TZID=America/Toronto:20181126T180000
DTSTAMP:20181119T184156Z
CREATED:20181119T184156Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181119T184156Z
UID:914-1543248000-1543255200@csamp.utoronto.ca
SUMMARY:WIP Talk: Marleen Rozemond
DESCRIPTION:On Monday\, November 26 we will have a work-in-progress talk from our very own Marleen Rozemond\, titled “Why mills can’t think: Leibniz on perception as internal action”. \nAbstract: Leibniz offers a famous thought experiment in the Monadology to argue against the possibility of thinking matter: if you imagine a thinking machine the size of the mill so that you can walk into it\, you won’t see anything to explain perception\, he claims. All you see is parts pushing each other. “Perception” is his general term for “mental states”. But what makes him confident that parts pushing each other can’t explain perception? Interpreters have usually thought that the argument appeals to a type of “unity of consciousness” argument that goes back to Plotinus. I argue instead that the argument relies on the idea that perception is “internal action”\, whereas motion is “external action”. I explain the argument drawing on the Aristotelian scholastic notion of immanent action and a Neoplatonic argument that goes as far back as Proclus.
URL:https://csamp.utoronto.ca/event/wip-talk-marleen-rozemond/
LOCATION:Lillian Massey Building\, Room 205\, 125 Queens Park\, Toronto\, ON\, M5S 2C7\, Canada
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR