Wintersemester


Kurse auf English  

VO und UE What is rational belief? (Julien Murzi, 8 ECTS)
SE Perception (Christopher Gauker, 6 ECTS)
SE The cognitive foundations of fiction (Johannes Brandl und Josef Perner, 6 ECTS)
SE The aims of scientific metaphysics (Iulian Toader, 6 ECTS)
SE Climate ethics (Iulian Toader, 6 ECTS)
SE Colloquium seminar (Christopher Gauker, 2 ECTS)    

Kurse auf Deutsch

VO Die Philosophie von Leibniz (Jürgen Mittelstraß, 4 ECTS)
SE Wissenschaftstheorie und Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Jürgen Mittelstraß, 6 ECTS)
UV Sprachphilosophie (Pascale Lötscher, 4 ECTS)
SE Ausgewählte Themen der Angewandten Ethik (Alexander Hieke, 4 ECTS)  

Sommersemester

Kurse auf Englisch

VO und UE Vagueness (Julien Murzi, 8 ECTS)
SE Categories: their nature, heuristics and importance (Peter Simons, 6 ECTS)
SE Philosophy of climate Science (Charlotte Werndl, 6 ECTS)
SE Ethics: theoretical and applied (Christian Piller, 6 ECTS)
UV Theories of collective decision making (Laurenz Hudetz, 4 ECTS)
SE Colloquium seminar (Charlotte Werndl, 2 ECTS)
SE Masterseminar (Charlotte Werndl, 2 ECTS)   

Kurse auf Deutsch


UV Locke über den menschlichen Verstand (Christopher Gauker, 4 ECTS)
SE Kontexte in der formalen Semantik (Christopher Gauker, 6 ECTS)
VO Politische Philosophie (Leonhard Menges, 4 ECTS)
SE Ethische Interventionen (Georg Meggle, 6 ECTS)

Kurse auf Deutsch und Englisch

SE Colloquium seminar (Charlotte Werndl, 2 ECTS)

  

Kurze Lehrveranstaltungsbeschreibung (nur für Lehrveranstaltungen in englischer Sprache)  


wintersemester

Julien Murzi: What is rational belief? 

We typically value justified belief more than simple belief: after all, a justified belief is more likely to be true than a randomly selected one. Indeed, we value knowledge even more than justified belief, since, arguably, a belief that qualifies as knowledge is true. But when is a belief justified? Does our justification for a proposition depend on its likelihood to be true given our evidence? Can we rationally have inconsistent beliefs, such as the belief that no particular lottery ticket in a fair lottery will win? What is justification? And what is knowledge? Can it be defined? Is knowledge a particular kind of sensitive, or safe, belief? Do we know anything at all? Do you know that your cat is sleeping on the sofa, if you don't know that you're not a brain in a vat? Could we even understand the language of somebody whose brain was envatted, by an evil scientist, or malin génie? In this course, we'll investigate these and other epistemological questions, mostly by looking at some deeply puzzling sceptical arguments, some of which are probably as old as Philosophy is, and all of which have sprung very lively debates in the recent philosophical literature.

Christopher Gauker: Perception

What is the relation between a perception (e.g. visual or auditory) and what it represents? This is one of the mostly hotly debated questions in contemporary philosophy of mind. Do our perceptions represent objects as belonging to kinds (e.g., pine tree)? If so, which kinds can perceptions represent? If not, in what sense can perceptions be either accurate or inaccurate, and how do perceptions communicate with the rest of our thoughts? After introducing the basic concepts and issues, this course will focus on two topics: First, to what extent and in what ways can our perceptual representations be affected by our beliefs and other cognitions (the problem of cognitive penetration)? Do our perceptions depend, for intance, constitutively on our concepts? Second, in what way can our perceptions guide our thoughts? Shall we say, for instance, that perceptions justify beliefs, or is the guidance of some other kind? In connection with this latter question, we will also explore the semantics of “looks” sentences, as in “That fruit looks ripe”. Do such statements express the contents of perceptions, or is their relation to perception less direct?

Johannes Brandl und Josef Perner: The cognitive foundations of fiction

When we invent stories, engage in counterfactual reasoning, or imagine a possible future that may never come about, we think about fictional scenarios. The cognitive abilities that enable us to do so are of interest to both philosophers and psychologists. In this seminar, we want to bring these interests together and discuss some of the recent literature on how we create fictional scenarios in our minds. Starting from classical works by K. Walton (Mimesis as Make-Belief, 1990) and P.L. Harris (The Work of the Imagination, 2000), we will discuss among others the following topics: Which representational processes are involved in creating fictional scenarios? Does pretending depend on a distinctive attitude of imagination? How do children develop a sense of “nearest possible worlds”? How can we explain phenomena like imaginative resistance? Why is understanding what someone pretends to be the case so much easier for children than understanding what someone believes? How can thoughts about nonexisting entities be naturalized, e.g., captured with mental files?

Iulian Toader: The Aims of Scientific Metaphysics

Traditional criticisms consider metaphysics deficient insofar as it prevents cognitive progress or because it lacks theoretical content. More recently,  metaphysics has been judged deficient  for its lack of scientific standing. To overcome this latter deficiency, one typically requires that metaphysical views be continuous and harmonious with science, that they be tied into the results and practices of science. This seminar will analyze and evaluate such requirements. Students will become familiar with the historical and  conceptual motivations for the project of scientific metaphysics, its goals and limitations. We will follow the development of this project since the beginning of the 20th century, but will mostly focus on recent arguments.

Iulian Toader: SE Climate ethics 

Major climate changes, such as the increase of global temperatures due to accummulation of carbon dioxide in the air and the rise of global average sea level, as well as their undeniable harmful consequences, have called for transformations of both technology and human behavior. Mitigation based on emission cuts has been the main focus of our response strategies to keep global warming as far below under 2ºC as possible. This seminar will consider the moral questions raised by these strategies. In particular, we will discuss questions about fairness in sharing the associated economic burden among countries, questions about justice towards climate refugees, future generations, and non-human species, as well as questions related to what, if anything, each and every one of us is morally obligated to do in the face of imminent dangerous climate changes.

Christopher Gauker: Colloquium seminar

Christopher Gauker: SE Master seminar  


sommersemester

Julien Murzi: Vagueness

One grain of sand doesn’t make a heap. But if n grains of sand don’t make a heap, neither do n + 1 grains of sand. But then, by repeated applications of modus ponens, it follows — absurdly — that 1.000.000 grains of send don’t make a heap either! This is the Sorites Paradox. The paradoxes arises because of the tolerance of the great majority of natural language predicates: i.e. predicates such as ‘heap’, ‘red’, ‘child’, ‘happy’ are such that if they apply to an object o at all, then they also apply to an object that every so slightly differs from o in the relevant respect. Given tolerance, and a tiny bit of logic, we can prove all kinds of absurd conclusions, such that a 58 year old man is a toddler, that 0 grains of sand make a heap, and so on. Does this show that natural languages are inconsistent, or even incoherent? Or does the phenomenon of vagueness point to the need for a much more sophisticated understanding of an apparently simple, if inconsistent, phenomenon? And how are we to decide how to best account for vague predicates? Can empirical evidence be brought to bear on the question how to solve the Sorites Paradox and how to interpret vague predicates? In this course, we shall be looking at various different ways of understanding vagueness and various proposed treatments, old and new, of Sorites Paradoxes. We will be addressing questions such as: What is the source of vagueness? Is vagueness semantic, or can the world be inherently vague? Can vagueness be eliminated? What is the logic of vagueness? What is higher-order vagueness and is it a coherent notion? Does the Sorites Paradox rest on illicit shifts of context? Can empirical evidence adjudicate between different competing accounts of vagueness? Can there be vague objects?

Peter Simons: Categories. Their Nature, Heuristics and Importance

Since Aristotle’s early logical work Categories the concept of a category has played a crucial role in numerous areas of philosophy: ontology, epistemology, logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of science. Yet the existence, nature, and purpose of categories have all been disputed from the beginning. Whether categories divide things, or concepts, or words, or some combination, has never been consensually agreed. It has been doubted whether there is a definitive and absolute collection of categories, or whether they shift over time or vary with language and culture. The lists of categories proposed by different philosophers seem as varied as their modes of dress, and the methods by which they are determined are just as disputed as the contents of these lists. Some indeed deny that there are any categories, or that we can ever know what categories apply to the world, or that we need them in any way at all. Roughly speaking, when it comes to categories, nothing is agreed. This course will introduce the concept of category in its variant historical guises, highlighting prominent accounts from Aristotle to the present, their similarities and differences, but with the emphasis on more modern philosophy. Prominent figures in this story after Aristotle are Ockham, John of St. Thomas, Kant, Brentano, Frege, Husserl, Russell, Whitehead, Ingarden, Williams, Quine, Chisholm, Armstrong and Lowe. We will then move on to consider what categories might be, whether they are words, concepts, classes of things, or indeed more than one of these, jointly or severally.Given the widespread disagreement about what categories are, it is less surprising that there is little agreement as to which categories there are. One problem here is that the methods employed to discern or discover categories have varied widely. They can be broadly divided into linguistic, logical, and scientific in type. Each approach rests on substantive and debatable assumptions, though is not evident that they are mutually exclusive. We shall assess the various heuristics and their justifications. The overall aim however is not to do history of philosophy, but to use the history as a springboard to assess the role and significance of categories in contemporary ontology.

Charlotte Werndl: Philosophy of climate science.

This seminar will provide an introduction into the philosophy of climate science. Topics will include:
-- Values in science and climate science
-- confirmation and simulation in climate science
-- definitions of climate and climate change
-- detection and attribution of climate change.

Christian Piller: Ethics: Theoretical and Applied 

In this course we will discuss the following questions: Are sums of harms and benefits morally significant? Under what circumstances should we use lotteries in the distribution of benefits (or harms)? Is there a solid philosophical basis for wrongful-life lawsuits? What, if any, are our duties of procreation? Can actions be wrong which harm no one? What is the basis of our duties to future generations? These questions all point to a general issue in normative theory which concerns the relationship between facts about what is good for someone and facts about what is good. We will tackle this issue directly and, via the questions mentioned above, indirectly, thereby hoping to make some progress in both theoretical and applied ethics.

Laurenz Hudetz: Theories of collective decision making

The central question of this course is: How can we determine what a group believes or wants based on what the individual members of the group believe or want? This problem or versions of it arise in many contexts and for groups of various kinds and sizes. It concerns the foundations of democracy and welfare economics as well as decision making in small collectives such as committees, juries or working groups.There is a plethora of possible methods of collective decision making, ranging from widely-used majority rules to pathological ones such as dictatorship. However, many of these methods have undesirable properties. So in order to give a satisfactory answer to the question above, one has to come up with a method that satisfies certain desiderata (such as not being dictatorial or preserving rationality). We will see that the task of finding such methods is beset with severe difficulties. Often, one can prove that no method of a certain type satisfies all desiderata. In view of such impossibility theorems important philosophical questions arise: Which desiderata are we ready to give up? Could we avoid impossibility results by devising methods that take into account more information encoded in individual attitudes? Is it realistic that the required additional information is available in practice?
We will focus on the following topics:
1. Preference aggregation
2. Welfare aggregation
3. Judgement aggregation
4. Voting procedures (with special focus on the problem of manipulation by strategic voting)
5. Voting vs deliberation
6. Issues on the way from theory to practice

Charotte Werndl: Colloquium seminar

  • News
    Die frühere Standard-Chefredakteurin und jetzige Israel-Korrespondentin für die Süddeutsche Zeitung Alexandra Föderl-Schmid präsentiert ihr aktuelles Buch „Unfassbare Wunder“, in dem sie 24 Gespräche mit Holocaust-Überlebenden in Deutschland, Österreich und Israel aufgezeichnet hat. Dienstag, 28. Mai, 19.00 Uhr, Max Gandolph Bibliothek der Universität Salzburg.
    Die Universität Salzburg hat in 2019 unter der Führung des Europäischen Hochschulinstituts in Florenz an euandi (EU-and-I) mitgearbeitet, eine paneuropäische Onlinewahlhilfe, die europäische Bürgerinnen und Bürger einen Überblick über die politischen Positionen der nationalen Parteien in den 28 Mitgliedstaaten ermöglicht.
    Am 27. 4. verstarb Ass. Prof. i. R. Dr. Reinhard Rublack. Reinhard Rublack kam noch in der Pionierphase der Universität Salzburg als absolvierter Theologe (Studium u. a. bei Rudolf Bultmann) mit Professor Rudolf Gönner aus Saarbrücken an das (damalige) Institut für Pädagogik. Bereits 1970 vollendete er sein Zweitstudium mit der interdisziplinär angelegten geisteswissenschaftlichen Dissertation über „Die bildungspolitische Tendenz des ‚Salzburger Intelligenzblattes‘ 1784 – 1806.“
    Die Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg, die in vielen Aktionen die Initiative PLUS Green Campus unterstützt, hat in der Hauptbibliothek (2. Stock, Lesesaalfoyer) und der Fachbibliothek UNIPARK eine Sammlung mit Büchern zu Umweltschutz, Natur und Nachhaltigkeit bereitgestellt.
    Im Herbst vergangenen Jahres hat unsere Universität das Audit "hochschuleundfamilie" durchlaufen. Im Jänner wurden wir von der Bundesministerin für Frauen, Familien und Jugend, Dr. Juliane Bogner-Strauß, als familienfreundliche Hochschule ausgezeichnet.
    In Kooperation mit der Universität Freiburg bringt die Universität Salzburg für die bevorstehende Europawahl erstmals die digitale Wahlhilfe "WahlSwiper" nach Österreich.
    Der Kurt-Zopf-Förderpreis 2018 wurde gestern Mittwoch, dem 24. April 2019 an den Pflanzenökologen Stefan Dötterl, den Schlafforscher Manuel Schabus und an den Mathematiker Wolfgang Trutschnig vergeben. Die Salzburger Wissenschaftler erhalten für herausragende Publikationen jeweils 5.000,- Euro Preisgeld.
    Der Botanische Garten lädt ein zu einer kostenlosen Führung! Treffpunkt: Eingang zum Botanischen Garten. Dauer: ca. eine Stunde. Die Führung findet bei jedem Wetter statt. Botanischer Garten, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34.
    Dank einer großzügigen Hinterlassenschaft seitens Herrn Kurt Zopf schreibt die Universität Salzburg den mit 10.000,-- Euro dotierten Kurt-Zopf-Förderpreis für habilitierte Angehörige von Organisationseinheiten der Universität, welche die Fachgebiete Geistes-, Kultur- und/oder Sozialwissenschaft, Rechtswissenschaft oder Theologie umfassen, aus.
    Mit Alexandra Föderl Schmid, Israel-Korrespondentin der Süddeutschen Zeitung, und Marko Feingold, Präsident der Israelitischen Kultusgemeinde Salzburg, anlässlich seines 106. Geburtstags.
    Was ist ein gelungenes Leben? Die Begegnung mit der tot geglaubten, unkonventionellen Großmutter, die in einem verborgenen Haus mitten im Wald lebt, bringt einer jungen Frau unerwartete Erkenntnisse, die ihr Leben auf den Kopf stellen. (Picus Verlag)
    Es ist wieder so weit, am 29. Mai 2019 findet das Konzert des Universitätsorchesters für dieses Semester statt. Wir freuen uns auf Sie und ein tolles Programm!
    22. MAI: Marco RISPOLI (Padua): Zwischen Öffentlichkeit und Intimität: HEINES Federkriege // 29. MAI: Dirk ROSE (Innsbruck): „Ich bin Dynamit“ - NIETZSCHE als Polemiker // ÖFFENTLICHE RINGVORLESUNG // 6. März bis 26. Juni 2019, jeweils am Mittwoch um 18.00-19.30h im Unipark Nonntal // www.w-k.sbg.ac.at/de/kunstpolemik
    Gastvortrag Alte Geschichte, Altertumskunde und Mykenologie, Eine Stadt voller Stelen. Die Topographie der athenischen Inschriften, Dr. Irene Berti Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg, Montag, 3. Juni 2019, 18.30 Uhr s.t. Residenzplatz 1/4, SR. 1.42
    Der Botanische Garten lädt ein zu einer kostenlosen Führung! Treffpunkt: Eingang zum Botanischen Garten. Dauer: ca. eine Stunde. Die Führung findet bei jedem Wetter statt. Botanischer Garten, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34.
    06.06. Katharina PRAGER: Der Zeitkämpfer KARL KRAUS – polemische und satirische Praktiken in der Ersten Republik // 12.06. Uta DEGNER: Literatur als „Kampfgas“. Polemik als produktives Prinzip bei ELFRIEDE JELINEK // 19.06. Daniel FULDA: Polemik im Dienst der guten Sache? ROBERT MENASSES Hallstein-Zitate und der Streit über die europäische Einigung // 26.06. Herwig GOTTWALD: Der Kampf um die Gesinnungsästhetik. CHRISTA WOLF und der deutsch-deutsche Literaturaturstreit
    32. Tagung des Forums Friedenspsychologie zum Thema „Flucht, Migration, Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Rassismus“, 14.–16.06.2019, Universität Salzburg, Unipark Nonntal
    Das Weiterbildungsangebot für engagierte Pädagog/innen und Interessierte im neuen kompakten Tagungsformat in der Großen Universitätsaula Salzburg. Jetzt anmelden und aktiv erfahren, wie Sie Geborgenheit für Kinder und Jugendliche spürbar machen!
  • Veranstaltungen
  • 26.05.19 Streifzug durch den Garten
    26.05.19 Shona Skulpturen, Kunst aus Simbabwe im Botanischen Garten
    28.05.19 Romanlesung mit Thomas Sautner „Großmutters Haus“
    29.05.19 Personalisierung und Digitalisierung als Beispiele aktueller Trends in der Psychotherapieforschung
    29.05.19 „Ich bin Dynamit“ – Nietzsche als Polemiker
    29.05.19 Sprachwandel R/Evolution von unsichtbarer Hand ?
    29.05.19 Konzert des Universitätsorchesters Salzburg
  • Alumni Club
  • PRESSE
  • Uni-Shop
  • VERANSTALTUNGSRÄUME
  • STELLENMARKT
  • Facebook-Auftritt der Universität Salzburg Twitter-Auftritt der Universität Salzburg Instagram-Auftritt der Universität Salzburg Flickr-Auftritt der Universität Salzburg Vimeo-Auftritt der Universität Salzburg