The Epistemological Two-Object View of Kant’s Distinction between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Title: The Epistemological Two-Object View of Kant’s Distinction between Appearances and Things in Themselves

Our fourth 2024 Spring Research Seminar talk is on March 29 (Fri) 15:30-17:20. Information about this talk:
Speaker: Dr. Cheng-Hao Lin 林正昊(

Time & Place: March 29 (Fri) 15:30-17:20,
ZhiXing Building Room 321, Yang Ming campus in Taipei City, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
Format: In English

Kant’s distinction between appearances and things in themselves is the most important innovation and controversial part of his first Critique. The most common criticism is that the position of the things in themselves contradicts Kant’s principle of our ignorance of non-sensible objects. The views of contemporary Kant scholars who defend him can be roughly divided into three categories to interpret this distinction: the epistemological one-object (two aspects) view, the metaphysical one-object (two kinds of property) view, and the metaphysical two-object view. In this paper, I point out that none of these interpretations successfully resolves the interpretive dilemma: the epistemological one-object view as much as cancels the things in themselves and does not correspond to the text, while the metaphysical one- and two-object views cannot save the principle of ignorance. Therefore, I propose an epistemological two-object view that has not been seriously considered before. This view takes things in themselves to be putative objects that are distinct from appearances, but only for epistemological purposes. It corresponds to the text in that the concept of things in themselves is only a problematic and limiting concept and does not exceed the boundary of cognition for Kant.

Properties and Qualitative Parts

Our third 2024 Spring Research Seminar talk is on March 22 (Fri) 15:30-17:20. Information about this talk:
Speaker: Dr. Hsuan-Chih Lin (
Time & Place: March 22 (Fri) 15:30-17:20, ZhiXing Building Room 321, Yang Ming campus in Taipei City
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
Format: In English
Title: Properties and Qualitative Parts

It is relatively common to say that objects have parts, although the kinds of parts involved may vary. To begin with, it seems natural to say that the desk in the office has distinct spatial parts, and a perdurantist is comfortable saying that John-at-t is a temporal part of John. Are there other kinds of parts? I argue that objects have qualitative parts, as tropes. More specifically, given that Socrates is a philosopher, it would not be too far-fetched to say that being a philosopher is a qualitative part of Socrates. The account of properties developed in this paper belongs to mereological nominalism, the view that properties are fusions of some nominalist-friendly entities, and that instantiation is explained in terms of parthood. However, mereological nominalism suffers from several serious problems, such as the Co-Extension problem and the Inheritance problem. This is why it has remained underdeveloped for quite some time. In this paper, I shall develop an account of qualitative parts as tropes and demonstrate that it not only solves these problems but also provides a fruitful understanding of the mereological structure of properties.

Thinking about and operating the network application

Our second 2024 Spring Research Seminar talk is on March 8 (Fri) 15:30-17:20. Information about this talk:

Speaker: Dr. Chu-Chien Hsieh
Time & Place: March 8 (Fri) 15:30-17:20, ZhiXing Building Room 321, Yang Ming campus in Taipei City, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
Format: In English
Title: Thinking about and operating the network application
The concept of social network originated from sociology to test the inter-personal relationships by dyadic and triadic interactions among the engaging actors. The major network indicators include “degree centrality”, “betweenness centrality,” and “structural holes” to test who the centers, bridgers, and brokers are. The network concept can be applied to the topics of social studies which are related to mutual interactions, collaboration and partnerships. Hence, the definition for the research questions in the network domain need to concrete and to confirm the relationships existing in the real world by archival recoding and questionnaire survey. The practical cases I have examined are below: 1. To analyze the different stages of theoretical transfer through the reference (author) citations; 2. Actors’ collaboration in different policy networks: cross-sector collaboration, policy-learning, resource collaboration.
(Additional note: Network analysis has become a popular research method in diverse fields; some invited speakers at our institute from previous semesters also utilized the network method for philosophical inquiry. Dr. Hsieh has kindly agreed to bring his network analysis software that day for a short demonstration at the end of his talk. He will explain its reasoning and mechanics to showcase this currently trending research method.)

For more seminar information:……/ 

The 2024 Art history and Visual Culture Postgraduate and Early Career Conference

An academic exchange platform to enable research in art history and visual culture, integrate learning resources from various schools in Taiwan, promote mutual discussion and learning between teachers and students, and stimulate discussion as well as thinking on other related issues is an important component of the academic calendar. Each year, in rotation, The Graduate Institute of Art History at National Taiwan Normal University, The Art History and Visual Culture Section of the Master’s Program of the Department of Fine Arts at National Taipei University of the Arts, The Graduate Institute of Art Studies at National Central University, and the Institute of Visual Studies at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, have the privilege of hosting “The Art History and Visual Culture Postgraduate and Early Career Conference”. This is a significant opportunity for students to present papers in the fields of art history, art theory, and visual culture. The conference is open to master and doctoral students as well as early career researchers from all over the country.”

Call for Papers
M.A. and Ph.D. students and young alumni of departments related to art history and visual culture.

Please submit abstracts of 300-500 words (with a title and three keywords) and brief bio (which includes name and school information) to by May 26, 2024. Full papers should be submitted by September 1, 2024. Students are encouraged to use English to present their research findings. For those who are to present their papers in English, please submit their abstracts in English.

Notification of Result
June 30, 2024 (Sunday)

Submission of Full Paper
September 1, 2024 (Sunday)

Date of Conference
October 05, 2024 (Saturday)

Note: Manuscripts will be reviewed anonymously and sent to experts and scholars for approval before presentation.

𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻✨ 𝐒𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫 𝐀𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐭

𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻✨ 𝐒𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫 𝐀𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐭

𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘: March 22, Friday

𝗧𝗜𝗠𝗘: 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
𝗟𝗢𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: Room 201, Zhi-Xing Building, College of Social Sciences, NYCU 

𝗟𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗿: Christian Greiffenhagen (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)

𝗛𝗼𝘀𝘁: 彭松嶽 (國立陽明交通大學)
𝗣𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁: 陳盈羽 (國立陽明交通大學)

This short seminar will not discuss the practical aspects of doing video research, such as setting up cameras and microphones, working with video-editing software, transcribing verbal talk and embodied conduct, or subtitling videos for presentation. Instead, will dive into the methodological roots of video analysis in ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA), focusing on how recordings have been used in EMCA to study participants’ own analysis of each other’s conduct, rather than researchers analyzing recordings from an external perspective. 🔍 Additionally, we will discuss examples from three recent research projects: video calls in migrant families and how grandparents make sure that children greet their remote parents; mobile payments in service encounters and how merchants determine how customers intend to pay; how hotel guests change their behaviour when they are not recognised by a facial recognition kiosk in a self-service hotel.


Adversarial Collaboration: Snake Oil or Cure-all?

摘要 All sciences, and especially the social and behavioural sciences, have had to deal with serious crises, criticisms, and calamities in recent decades. Far too many research results do not replicate; far too often do social and behavioural scientists fail to predict events of massive reach;

 far too many ‘evidence-based’ policies have failed to bring about the desirable changes taxpayers were promised; and far too many disciplines within the social and behavioural sciences have been charged with ideological bias, which comes, or so argue the critics, at the expense of scientific standards. 

Adversarial collaboration (AdColl) is a relatively new research strategy that is hoped to help with a range of methodological problems the social and behavioural sciences face and restore trust in the field. Proponents of AdColl predict that the practice will lead to numerous desirable outcomes, among which to increase accountability and minimise bias among scholars, lead to more moderate, nuanced, and therefore more likely true claims, promote tolerance of genuine academic freedom and weed out scholarship with an agenda (Clark and Tetlock 2022).

The goal of this paper is to take a philosophical look at AdColl in the context of the social and behavioural sciences, to evaluate the strong claims that have been made in its support, and, more constructively, to develop practical roles for philosophers of social science as potential participants in AdColls. One major conclusion is that AdColl seems to work best when research opponents share many (theoretical, methodological, and normative) background assumptions so they can agree on experimental strategies. In Kuhnian terms, AdColls are a powerful tool for the progress of normal science within a single paradigm but less useful for deciding between paradigms. Thus, in cases where value judgements have wide ranging implications for how social phenomena are conceptualised, measured, and accepted as genuine, AdColls are unlikely to provide much support. I use the Cambridge Capital Controversy to illustrate this point. However, AdColl is a highly commendable research practice in many areas fields within the social sciences and should receive the attention they deserve, both from social and behavioural scientists themselves as well as philosophers of science.

時間:2024/03/01, 15:30-17:20

地點:國立陽明交通大學 知行樓321會議室
Venue:Zhi Xing Building 321,
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University -Yangming campus

講者: Julian Reiss (Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria) (
Julian Reiss is a Professor of Philosophy at Johannes Kepler University Linz, Head of the Institute for Philosophy and Scientific Method, and a past president of the International Network for Economic Method (INEM). His research focuses on methodological problems in the economic, social, and biomedical sciences and issues in political economy. He also has an interest in the role of scientific experts in democracies and the implications of value pluralism for socio-economic institutions.

Organized by 國科會人文行遠專書計畫〈最佳模型推論〉(計畫主持人:趙相科)」and Institute of Philosophy of Mind and Cognition