One of our very own, Professor Sara Protasi, has recently published an article in the 85th issue of the Institute of Art and Ideas magazine. In her essay, Professor Protasi examines the troubling modern day conceptions of true love and its potential implications. To read her essay click here.
University of Nebraska–Lincoln have sent out a call for abstracts for their 2019 Ethics and Broader Considerations of Technology Conference. Submissions should be on topics of ethics and technology. This conference is open to both undergraduate and graduate students. Prof. Tubert will be a featured speaker at this conference.
Submission Deadline: June 15, 2019
Conference Dates: October 31–November 2, 2019
Students are also invited to create a game about ethics and technology for the The Ethics and Technology Game Jam.
For more information about submission requirements, featured speakers, or other conference inquiries, visit the conference website.
Professor Sara Protasi is being featured on this week’s episode of Philosophy Talk, a national syndicated radio show that “celebrates the value of the examined life.” Philosophy talk describes the episode by saying:
Bertrand Russell said that envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness, and it’s well known as one of the seven deadly sins. But is envy always a bad thing? Is it simply a petty emotion we should try to avoid, or could envy help us understand ourselves more? Is envy rooted in unhealthy comparison with others, or does it come from our own vision of excellence? Could envy even be used to improve ourselves? Josh and Ken consider whether to envy their guest, Sara Protasi from the University of Puget Sound.
The episode will be available to stream for free starting Friday, February 1st. It will be available for free for one week. To listen, visit this link.
Assistant Professor Sara Protasi recently had work featured in the digital magazine Aeon and also appeared in an episode of an Australian radio show, Radio National (RN).
Her paper on Aeon, titled “Love Your Frenemy” investigates love and envy as two sides of the same coin. Click here to read the full paper.
Loving wisely involves the cultivation, even if not the full achievement, of virtues such as compassion and unbiased self-reflection: it involves the capacity to feel envy toward the beloved in a way that is not only destructive but also constructive.
As a guest on an episode of RN, Prof. Protasi also discussed the connection between love and envy and how they are perpetuated in relationships. To listen to “Frenemies” click here.
The Bioethics Club has organized for Professor Ariela Tubert to give a talk about environmental racism on Wednesday, March 7.
Date: Wednesday, March 7
Place: Thompson Hall, Room 381
“We often hear the slogan that ‘everybody is beautiful.’ But what does that mean? This talk examines two possible interpretations, rejects both, and proposes a third one. According to the ‘No Standards View,’ the slogan means that everybody is maximally and equally beautiful. According to the ‘Multiple Standards View,’ the slogan means that we have to widen our standards of beauty. The former fails to be aspirational and empowering, while the latter fails to be sufficiently inclusive. I propose a third view, according to which everybody is beautiful in the sense that everybody can be perceived through a loving gaze (with the exception of evil individuals who are wholly unworthy of love). I show that this view is inclusive, aspirational, and empowering, and authentically aesthetical.”
Professor Justin Tiehen recently published a blog post on Ad Populum about how statistics of tweets about anti-Semitism may be misleading. You can read the post here.
“More realistically, a scenario in which lots and lots of people are writing occasional anti-Semitic tweets while a few people are writing tons of them (70% worth) doesn’t seem like much of an improvement on a scenario with the same overall number of people writing anti-Semitic tweets but with a more equal distribution. If this is right, the 70%-1,600 figure seems like the wrong way to try to get a handle on the extent of the problem.”