Should university campuses be politically neutral? In this paper I focus mainly on whether professors can or should express political views in class. Its main contribution is to distinguish between absolutist arguments, often thought by proponents to apply universally to all institutions and contexts, and more nuanced context-dependent considerations. I argue that while there are lessons to be learned from each, the absolutist arguments fail. While this means that things are, and there may not be a one size fit all ideal prescription (Schliesser, 2024), the paper describes a plethora of considerations that should be considered when devising policies. The paper examines three absolutist arguments, one against neutrality and two in favor. The first is that neutrality is impossible, it is a myth that serves those in power, and therefore professors should not be neutral (Dea, n.d.; Giroux, 2020, p. 210) . The second is that when professors use their social status and role in classrooms to express their political opinions, it is an abuse of power. The third is that professors, when talking as professors, should talk only about their areas of expertise and research (Fish, 2008). When they express their political views, they are not doing so.
Monday July 6, 2026 8:30pm - 9:25pm AEST ONLINE ONLY
Baruch Spinoza is profound and insightful. He conceives the world from a geometrical standpoint, and his geometric method is demonstrative in imitation of Euclidean geometry. He believes that the same principles that govern the universe also govern the nature of things. In the universe, the conclusions of geometry necessarily follow their axioms. In the same way, the ethical and physical things follow from the nature of things. To this effect, he introduces some definitions from which he deduces a systematic structure whose parts are logically connected. Thus, he developed his theory by deductive reasoning.
His entire theory can be summed up in substance, attributes and modes. These are three parts of the universe and the fundamental structures of his entire thought. Substance is the framework of all reality. Attributes are the primary expressions of the substance, either in a bodily form or a conceptual form. The modes are the particular modifications of the substance.
This paper discusses the five interconnecting features in Spinoza's immanent ontology: substance monism, univocity of attributes, the status of modes, immanent causality and relational ethics. It argues that these interconnecting features comprehensively formulate Spinoza’s concept of substance.
Monday July 6, 2026 9:30pm - 10:25pm AEST ONLINE ONLY
This enquiry is motivated by two interrelated aims, at the core of which are two fundamental questions that troubled Descartes: ‘is a new metaphysics possible?’ and ‘is a free, autonomous enquirer possible?’. The search for a new metaphysics is not independent of but requires the attainability of freedom, transforming the self as locus of authority and autonomy. The attainability of both is predicated on Descartes’ constructive conception of scepticism, which is completely different from what is considered as ‘Cartesian scepticism’.
My first aim is to shed light on the ways in which Descartes’ response to scepticism has metaphysical and moral implications, and on his order of reasoning, which is indispensable to his metaphysical turn and ontological shift away from Scholasticism.
The second is to explore the connection between scepticism, habits, and freedom, as against misattributions to Descartes’ undertaking. Doubt requires reason and freedom. Without freedom from prejudicial intellectual habits and prevailing Principles, Descartes’ enquiry would not get off the ground. This triad of notions has far-reaching consequences for our philosophical concerns, yet it has gone unnoticed in the vast literature on scepticism. A sceptical enquirer is a searcher after truth. Descartes’ concern is not primarily the external world, but truth.
Monday July 6, 2026 10:30pm - 11:25pm AEST ONLINE ONLY
