Gender and Philosophy in Jyväskylä

A nice poster summarizing the activities of the gender and philosophy related activities at Jyväskylä, by Martina Reuter and Erika Ruonakoski.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gifts for Feminist Philosophers!

View story at

h/t Eileen Hunt Botting.

(They’re fake cards, so not real gifts ideas, unfortunately).

Mary Wollstonecraft Pokemon cards!

My favourite:


And this one:



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Talk at Bilkent 22/06: Sandrine Berges on Sophie de Grouchy

Hesperus is Bosphorus


“Sophie de Grouchy and the publication of Condorcet’s Sketch of Human Progress: a tale of exclusion”.

Wednesday 22 June, 12:40 – 13:30, H235

In this paper I examine some of the evidence for collaboration between Condorcet and Sophie de Grouchy on the writing of the Sketch of Human Progress, but also, uncover the ways in which the publication and reception of that text worked to exclude a woman who was a philosopher in her own right from a work she clearly contributed to.

In 1795, the Convention of the French Republic, regretting its role in bringing about Condorcet’s death, commissioned 3000 copies of his last piece, a Sketch of Human Progress. Daunou was chosen to edit it and wisely, he asked Condorcet’s widow and collaborator, Sophie de Grouchy, to co-edit. This same text was re-edited by Grouchy in 1802 when she brought out the complete works of her…

View original post 209 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

International Workshop “Women Philosophers on Autonomy”, Yeditepe University, 5-6th May.

Hesperus is Bosphorus


“Women Philosophers on Autonomy”
International Workshop
Yeditepe University, Department of Philosophy
Istanbul, May 5-6th 2016
Contact: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Alberto L. Siani (

The workshop is organized in the frameworks of the newly instituted hub “Turkish European Network for the Study of Women in Philosophy” and of the newly instituted Joint Master Program “History of Women Philosophers/History of Philosophy” (University of Paderborn-Yeditepe University Istanbul). The overall aim of these two projects is the study of women philosophers and of the changes in the canonical history of philosophy resulting from a thorough consideration of the women contribution. Within this broader framework, this workshop addresses the women philosophers’ contribution to a particularly relevant topic: the notion of autonomy. Autonomy, together with its cognate concepts (self-determination, self-mastery, self-government etc.), is among the central concepts across the whole history and the whole spectrum of the philosophical debate, yet the women philosophers’…

View original post 323 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The New Narrative Conference, in pictures

The last night of the New Narratives Conference at Duke with:
Sandrine Berges, Bilkent University
Julia Borcherding, Yale
Deborah Boyle, College of Charleston
Jacqueline Broad, Monash University
Colin Chamberlain, Temple
David Cunning, University of Iowa
Marguerite Deslauriers, McGill University
Stewart Duncan, University of Florida
Don Garrett, NYU
Elizabeth Goodnick, MSU Denver
Sarah Hutton, University of York
Andrew Janiak, Duke
Marcy Lascano, CSU Long Beach
Antonia Lolordo, University of Virginia
Christia Mercer, Columbia University
Alison Peterman, Rochester
Lewis Powell, SUNY Buffalo
Anne-Lise Rey, CNRS
Eric Schliesser, University of Amsterdam
Alison Simmons, Harvard
Jacqueline Taylor, U San Francisco
Julie Walsh, Wellesley
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Follow the New Narratives Conference on Twitter

Follow @project_vox or #NNP2016 for live pictures and recordings of the talks. 


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lessons in essay writing from Mary Astell

I was reading Jacqueline Broad’s excellent book on Mary Astell, when I came across Astell’s six rules for thinking, and decided that they were in fact perfect advice for students writing philosophy essays. So here they are (from Jacqui’s book, pp.31-32 – references from footnotes are in square brackets).


  1. To ‘Acquaint our selves throughly with the State of the Question, have a Distinct Notion of our Subject whatever it be, and of the Terms we make use of, knowing precisely what it is we drive at.’ [Proposal II, 176]
  2. To ‘Cut off all needless Ideas and whatever has not a necessary Connexion to the matter under Consideration’ [Ibid] This entails that we ‘Reason only on those things of which we have Clear Ideas’. [177]
  3. ‘To conduct our Thoughts by Order, beginning with the most Simple and Easie Objects, and ascending as by Degrees to the Knowledge of the more Compos’d.'[Ibid]
  4. ‘Not to leave any part of our Subject unexamined.’ [Ibid] This entails ‘Dividing the Subject of our Meditations into as many Parts, as we can, and as shall be requisite to Understand it perfectly’ [178].
  5. Always to ‘keep our Subject Directly in our Eye, and Closely pursue it thro’all, our Progress.’ [Ibid]
  6. ‘To judge no further than we Perceive, and not to take any thing for Truth which we do not evidently know to be so.’ [Ibid]
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment