Organized by the USMB’s Languages, Literatures, Societies, Transborder and International Studies (LLSETI) laboratory and the Association of Public School Philosophy Teachers, the “Science, Opinion, Society” philosophy lecture series continues this Wednesday, March 15, at 6 p.m. with the theme “Toward a New Conflict of the Faculties? .” This lecture will take place at the University of Savoie Mont Blanc (USMB) administration building in Chambéry. It is open to the public with no registration required and will be held in Room 3 (27 Rue Marcoz, Chambéry).
There had been the “Conflict of the Faculties,” in which Kant asserted the philosopher’s freedom to speak out against theology—which was then all-powerful—but also against the legal system, which, in the name of political expediency, might have sought to dominate the discourse on its own.
Spinoza, before him, had distinguished between truth as expounded by philosophy—which, drawing on science, set forth the conditions of knowledge—and the “truncated and mutilated” truths put forth by public opinion under the influence of interpreters who considered themselves authorities.
Undoubtedly, theology can no longer claim to silence or even compete with philosophy and science, even if it still aspires to do so. Similarly, those in power cannot claim to rely on the law—which concerns itself solely with legality—to rival the arguments of science or to challenge the critical inquiry of philosophy.
But today, opinions—empowered by democracy—are creating new forms of ignorance. What tools does a philosophy department have today to push back against the encroachment of ignorance?
This lecture will be led by Martine Verlhac, professor emerita of philosophy.
About the "Science, Opinion, Society" series
Our democracy, which should allow for open conflict of opinions, has instead become the scene of agonistic clashes of sensibilities that seem to have disqualified reason and rationality. Science, which cannot be dogmatic, is often rejected as a form of power, no doubt because it is used by those in power. Does this mean that the struggle to understand and make others understand is futile? If methodical and reasonable skepticism is a prerequisite for enlightenment, it cannot degenerate into denialist relativism or open the door to harmful obscurantism without causing damage. How, then, can we create genuine spaces for discussion?
LEARN MORE
- 2022-2023 Philosophy Lecture Series Program
- Summary of lectures
- LLSETI laboratory website
- Contact:Pascal Bouvier, member of the LLSETI laboratory and organizer of this conference series