CFP – Religious Experience and Description

Second Regional Conference of the Society for the Phenomenology of Religious Experience

10-12 October, 2019 Valparaiso University, Indiana, USA

Keynote Speakers:
Bruce Ellis Benson (Logos Institute, University of St. Andrews)
Peter Costello (Providence College)

The purpose of this conference is to examine possibilities and difficulties, and the  theoretical problems and hands-on solutions arising in the description of religious experience.  Does religious experience harbor concealed empirical and phenomenological complexity, and how do we address complexity in a focused description which aims at revealing the essence of experience? We invite an interplay between pragmatics of describing religious experience, philosophical and theological issues involved in creation of description, and theoretical models of how religious and spiritual experience may be described.  The conference accepts papers dedicated to description of perception, imagination, body-awareness, recollection, social cognition, self-experience, temporality, etc., in the context of religious experience. How does phenomenological description of religious experience translates into ecology, history, or natural science? What are cultural influences in the description of religious experience? The papers should provide not just the description of experience per se, but an analysis of the process or outcome of description and reflection on what description of religious experience per se entails.  Such reflections must employ phenomenological philosophy, such as e.g. in the work of Anthony Steinbock or Jean-Luc Marion, but can also draw on contemporary dialogues between phenomenological philosophy and other philosophical and theological traditions, such as we see in the work of researchers like Espen Dahl, Matthew Ratcliffe, Dan Zahavi, Stanley Cavell, or Evan Thompson, to name a few.  We welcome paper proposals related to but not necessarily bound by the initial themes which are listed below:

Creating Descriptions of Religious Experience

    • How does one actually describe religious experience? What difficulties and delights are in this process? How do we clarify such descriptions?
    • How does the process/outcome of describing religious experience differ from of ordinary experience?
    • How does one approach the negative (absences) and the positive (presences) in these descriptions?
    • How does description capture embodied, affective, and metaphysical aspects of experience?
    • What are the relationships between the description and the essence of religious experience. What determines experience as religious, or spiritual, and gives it a unique character, intelligible to others?
    • How do the questions of otherness or strangeness play out in description and understanding a description of religious and spiritual experience?
    • Who can understand a description of religious experience? Academic researchers?  Religious practitioners or authorities?  Informed consumers?  Contemporaries or successors?
    • Can religious and spiritual experience be described by means of natural language, or does it require some kind of special language?Do neologisms clarify or do they obfuscate religious experiences?
    • What are the functions of language in description of religious or spiritual experience?
    • How does historicity impact a description of religious experience?
    • What are the communicological virtues in description of religious experience?
    • What are the relationships between the description and the phenomena “in excess”?
    • What are the purposes of description of religious experience, and how intentions in communication already presuppose the structure of description of religious experience we find in texts?

Models for Descriptions of Religious and Spiritual Experience

    • How do phenomenological theories and frameworks influence description of religious experience? For example, would a description intended to serve as a ground of phenomenological analyses along the lines of Husserl’s phenomenology be identical with a description of experience in the phenomenology of Jean-Luc Marion or non-intentional phenomenology of Michel Henry?  Or can such a description reflect a “view from nowhere”?
    • What role do religious beliefs play in religious experience, and can phenomenology provide a clarification of religious presuppositions?
    • How, and to what extent, can disciplines other than phenomenology (e.g. psychology, psychiatry, neurology, anthropology, theology) provide person-level descriptions of phenomenological relevance?
    • How can the phenomenological description of religious experience change existing models and theoretical assumptions in other fields of knowledge or in phenomenology itself? For instance, can empirical findings in religious experiencing refine and improve classical phenomenological analyses?
    • Can religious experience be subjected to constitutive phenomenological analysis, and can a phenomenological account of any given aspect of religiosity provide an accurate or adequate description of religious phenomena? How do claims to presuppositionlessness affect such accounts?
    • How does the question of authority play out in first person description and the analysis of second person description in texts? What ethical limitations exist in descriptions or discussions of religious experience from either a first or second-person standpoint?
    • Can common-sense metaphysics support the demands in description of religious experiencing?

Description of religious experience,  and ecology, environmental studies, health sciences, natural sciences, history, business studies, etc. 

Scientific Committee:
Jason Alvis (University of Vienna), Michael Barber (Saint Louis University), Peter Costello(Providence College), Neal DeRoo (The King’s University, Canada), Olga Louchakova-Schwartz (Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University and UC Davis), Kristof Oltvai (The University of Chicago)

Presidential address: Martin Nitsche (Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences)

Conference Directors: Jim Nelson, Ph.D., Psychology (, Aaron Preston, Ph.D., Philosophy (

Submission:  abstract of approximately 300 words to . You can also enclose a paper of 3000 words (i.e. 30 min reading time). Submissions with ready papers will be given a priority. Session proposals with at least three presentations are also welcome, and must include abstracts of at least three presentations, a clear title of the session, a name of its chair, and a short description of the session. Abstracts have to be written in English. Submission should have two copies of the abstract: a .doc file which includes your name, paper title, affiliation, up to five key words, and full contact information, and a .pdf file formatted for anonymous review.  Submission deadline July 1, 2019. Notifications of acceptance will be issued by August 1, 2019.

Selected papers from the conference will be invited for publication in the topical issue of Open Theology, De Gruyter, “Phenomenology of Religious Experience IV: The Description”, planned for 2020.  For more information on the conference or the OT publication, email Olga Louchakova-Schwartz  at

Extended Deadline – NASEP 2019. Early Phenomenology in Context

The North American Society for Early Phenomenology is extending the deadline for submissions to their upcoming conference, Early Phenomenology in Context, to Monday, February 11th, 2019.

The conference will be held Wednesday, May 22 through Friday, May 24 at Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland.

Keynote Speakers:
Thomas Vongehr (KU Leuven)
Smaranda Aldea (Kent State University)
Peter Trnka (Memorial University)

Abstracts should be 400-600 words, and include a short bibliography. Abstracts must be prepared for blind review and sent to Charlene Elsby (

Decisions will be sent out no later than March 1st, 2019.

Download the call for papers here.

CFP – Pragmatism and Phenomenology: Female Figures

King’s University College (UWO), London, Ontario, 27 – 28 April 2019.

This two-day workshop is a follow-up to the March 2017 Pragmatism and Phenomenology event at the University of Waterloo, in Waterloo, Ontario. Like its predecessor, this workshop presents an opportunity for scholars of both phenomenology and pragmatism to engage in a sustained round-table discussion on topics relevant to both groups. This year we wish to focus on the women of both movements, the significance of their ideas and the relevance they hold for philosophy today. This is not to say you cannot discuss a female figure or work from either movement in relation to a male figure or work, but the focus we wish to pursue is on the female figures and their contributions to these movements. A list of suggested figures for both pragmatism and phenomenology can be found below. The ways you engage these female thinkers is open and multifarious:  whether you compare or contrast ideas of a female phenomenologist and pragmatist or offer an exposition of one female thinker from either camp and show how their work/ideas are of importance for philosophers today, it’s all good and so valuable. Many of these female figures have received far too little attention. This workshop seeks to be a positive step in changing this. The organizers are interested in all topics and themes likely to be of interest to both pragmatists and phenomenologists.

The workshop is meant to be a discussion-type format and is not meant to be a formal presentation of papers. Workshop participants will be asked to lead or co-lead discussions on a topic of their choosing with discussion material circulated in advance. In order to facilitate this process, we ask that you submit a 150-word abstract of your discussion topic and one or two suggested readings for participants. It is not expected that participants are experts in both traditions, but merely that there is an interest in both and a willingness to learn more.

Submission due date: Abstract and supplementary reading deadline is 16 February 2019.

Please email your submission to Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray at

Female Figures in Pragmatism:

Anna Julia Cooper
Jane Addams
Mary Parker Follett
Marietta Kies
Susan Blow
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Ella Flag Young
Elsie Ripley Clapp
Lucy Sprague Mitchell
Jessie Taft

Two figures who probably don’t count as pragmatists but who worked closely with Peirce on logic and semiotic, respectively, are:

Christine Ladd-Franklin
Lady Welby

Female Figures in Phenomenology:

Edith Stein
Gerda Walther
Hedwig Conrad-Martius
Else Voigtländer
Hannah Arendt
Margarete Calinich
Käte Hamburger
Betty Heimann
Adelgundis Jaegerschmid
Zagorka Mićić
Erica Sehl
Edith Landmann-Kalisher
Gertrud Kuznitsky

We can also extend to later figures:

Simone Weil
Simone de Beauvoir

CFP – Early Phenomenology in Context

Annual conference of The North American Society for Early Phenomenology

22-­24 May, 2019
Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada

Keynote Speakers:
Thomas Vongehr (KU Leuven)
Smaranda Aldea (Kent State University)
Peter Trnka (Memorial University)

The theories, methods, and applications of early phenomenology arose within a complex context. For this meeting, we invite papers on the historical aspects of the phenomenological movement, broadly construed. The history of phenomenology has been heavily influenced by personal, political, and social factors. Women phenomenologists existed, but faced certain professional barriers. The rise of phenomenology during the First World War meant that its history would be indelibly marked by the political situation in Germany. The concepts of early phenomenologists developed out of personal relations between Husserl’s students, and Husserl’s phenomenology would itself be reframed under the varying interpretations of students like Edith Stein and Roman Ingarden. The theme of this meeting is to analyze the development of phenomenology within all of these contexts. We welcome papers on the development of particular concepts within phenomenology, analyses of how the early phenomenological period was influenced by external factors, and historical exposition of any aspect of the early phenomenological movement. We encourage submissions on Franz Brentano, Edmund Husserl, Hedwig Conrad-Martius, Eugen Fink, Roman Ingarden, Edith Stein, Dietrich Von Hildebrand, Adolf Reinach, Max Scheler, Martin Heidegger, Gerda Walther, Theodor Lipps, Moritz Geiger, Alexander Pfänder, Maximilian Beck, Jean Hering, et al. (As always, we welcome papers that deal with the full spectrum of early phenomenologists.)

Download the call for papers here.

Abstracts should be 400-600 words, and include a short bibliography. Abstracts must be prepared for blind review and sent to Charlene Elsby (

Deadline for submissions is February 1st, 2019.
Decisions will be sent out no later than March 1st, 2019.

Organizers: Charlene Elsby, Rodney Parker
Host: The Department of Philosophy, Memorial University Newfoundland

CFP – Phenomenology and the History of Platonism


Call for Papers

Phenomenology & the History of Platonism

Guest Editors: Daniele De Santis & Claudio Majolino

Since the second half of the last century the manifold relationships between the Phenomenological movement and the Aristotelian tradition have been at the center of scholarly interest. Themes such as the nature of intentionality, the question of being, the roots of virtue ethics or the idea of the “political” (to mention only a few) have been deeply investigated and submitted to close scrutiny as to flesh out the intimate connections between Aristotle and phenomenology. By contrast, the actual extent of Plato’s legacy on the various figures and concepts of the phenomenological movement has comparatively received far less attention. It is safe to say, however, that Phenomenology has never stopped assessing in many ways the different aspects of such “Platonic” legacy.

On the one hand, phenomenologists have never ceased to confront themselves with and experiment new “variations” on Plato’s conceptuality: from Husserl’s early appraisal of Lotze’s theory of ideas to his mature endorsement of an overtly Platonic “ideal” of philosophy; from Heidegger’s lectures on the Sophist to his claim that metaphysics as such is Platonism; from Patočka’s interpretation of the “care of the soul” as the spiritual “foundation” of Europe to his idea of “negative Platonism”; not to mention Antonio Banfi’s transcendental reading of Plato or Enzo Paci’s interest in the Parmenides and the Phaedrus; Levinas’ constant references to “the Good” in the Republic or Edith Stein’s systematic appropriation of Platonic and neo-Platonic “metaphysical” motives; Alexandre Koyré’s Platonic reading of Galileo or Jacob Klein’s approach to the eidetic numbers; Adof Reinach’s motto “Phänomenologie als Rückgang zu Platon” or  Roman Ingarden’s assessment of the doctrine of ideas as the basis for any possible material ontology.

But there is definitively more. For, on the other hand, if some “phenomenologists” have actually commented on Plato’s dialogues or openly tackled some of the claims characterizing the Platonic tradition, others have rather followed an entirely different path. Authors such as Sartre, Merleau-Ponty and Michel Henry, for instance, implicitly resort to Platonic ideas and mobilize Platonic themes without making their strategy perspicuous. For the presence of Plato’s legacy in phenomenology is far from being limited to the explicit discussion and/or critique of Plato’s texts and themes.

The ambition of the present call for papers is to invite scholars (both phenomenologists and Plato scholars) to explore the relations between 20th century phenomenology and “history of Platonism(s)” in order to provide what could be characterized as a first and systematic “cartography” of all those motives that—implicitly or explicitly, directly or indirectly, in a positive, negative or even opposite way—animate them and their intertwined histories.

* * *

We welcome submissions on any aspects of the relation between phenomenology and the Platonic legacy. These include, but are not limited to:

  • Phenomenology and the history of (ancient and modern) Platonism;
  • Phenomenology and Neo-Platonism;
  • The doctrine of principles;
  • Phenomenological interpretations of Plato’s doctrine of forms or Plato’s philosophy as a whole;
  • Phenomenological criticisms of Plato and the Platonic legacy;
  • Comparison between phenomenological readings of Plato’s philosophy and other interpretations (e.g., Neo-Kantianism, the Brentano school etc.);
  • Plato’s foundational role vis-à-vis the history of Western thought and the idea of philosophy;
  • Platonic paideia and the phenomenology of education;
  • The idea of Europe and the “care of the soul”;
  • Skepticism and the paradox of knowledge;
  • Intuitive and discursive form of cognition;
  • Platonic dialectics and the method of philosophy;
  • Plato and the “a priori”.

Deadline: May 31, 2019.

Languages accepted: English, French, German (maximum 60,000 characters including spaces and footnotes)

For more information about the Journal’s guidelines, visit the website:

Please, send your submissions to:

Click here for a .pdf version of this CFP. Please circulate widely.


Call for papers

Affects, Moods, Emotions, and Belonging

Interdisciplinary Coalition of North American Phenomenologists (ICNAP)

Tenth Annual Meeting

University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM)

May 31–June 3, 2018

Keynote Speakers:

Roberta de Monticelli (San Raffaele University, Milan)

Denis Fisette (UQAM)


Lived experience is not reducible to intellectual experience alone. Through various states of mind, we relate affectively to life, experience it in different moods, and react emotionally to various circumstances and situations. At critical moments, we become aware, on the one hand, that we belong to a place or to a social group. On the other hand, we can experience not belonging to a place or group with which we are associated. These terms – “affect”, “mood”, “emotion”, and “belonging” – refer to the various qualities of experience that we would like to explore as the topics for this year’s conference.

The conceptualization of affects, moods, and emotions, as well as of the subjective phenomenon of belonging or not belonging, first and foremost raises the question of the nature and description of these experiences. What kind of phenomena are they? How to describe them? What role do they play in consciousness? Are they more than mere feelings? What is their relation to intentional objects? In the case of belonging or not belonging, for instance, what is their relation to identity? Do these experiences involve acts of judgment? Are they already cognitive or how do they relate to cognitive experiences? Do they play any normative role, for instance, in aesthetics, ethics, politics, or economics? What is their linkage to action or social action?

As these experiences are very diverse, the question also arises of a consistent typology. Do we have phenomenological grounds to justify each of these concepts, and what are they? Shall we treat all these terms under the same generic concept – such as a type of perceptive or intuitive content – or not? The same question arises about the subcategories of these terms. How should we explore the diversity of affects, moods, or emotions that one can possibly experience? And what are the different affective and emotive dimensions that characterize belonging or not belonging? How shall we categorize each of them? Can we conceptualize them under some generic categories, for instance, considering whether they possess a positive or a negative, or an attractive or a repulsive, content when they are phenomenologically examined? Or should we oppose any kind of reduction to such a binary perspective?

Submission guidelines:
We accept proposals for papers, panels, and posters. Participants have 30 minutes for presentation and 20 minutes for discussion. We welcome volunteers to serve as moderators.
Please indicate whether you are willing to serve in this function.

Paper submissions should consist of two separate documents. The first document should include the title, a 250–500 word abstract of the paper, the presenter’s name, discipline, and contact information. The second document should contain, for anonymous review, only the title of the paper, the abstract, and the presenter’s discipline.

Panel submissions should also consist of two documents. The first document should include the titles of the panel and papers, a rationale of 250–500 words for the panel, abstracts of 250–500 words for the papers, the names of the chair and presenters, their respective disciplines, and their contact information. The second document should contain, for anonymous review, only the titles of the panel and papers, the rationale for the panel, the abstracts of the papers, and the disciplines of the presenters. Panels are limited to 3 presenters.

Poster submissions should follow similar guidelines as paper and panel submissions.

Deadline and contact information
Please send submissions as email attachments to George Heffernan ( Please put ICNAP SUBMISSION in the subject line, and format submissions in Word.doc or Docx (not PDF) to facilitate anonymous review. The deadline for submissions is March 15, 2018. Notifications of acceptances will be sent by March 31, 2018. Please address all logistical inquiries (regarding, e.g., travel, lodging, etc.) to Siegfried Mathelet (

A full PDF version of the Call for Papers can be found here.

CFA – NASEP 2018 – Time, Memory, and Eternity

Call for Abstracts

The North American Society for Early Phenomenology
in association with The Max Scheler Society of North America

Time, Memory, and Eternity

13-15 June, 2018

Duquesne University, Pittsburgh (PA)

Keynote Speakers:

Nicolas De Warren (Penn State)

Lanei Rodemeyer (Duquesne)

Carlo Ierna (University of Groningen)

Guido Cusinato (University of Verona)


Time-consciousness and memory have long been central to phenomenological research. With the publication of Husserl’s Bernau Manuscripts (Hua 33) and the “C manuscripts” (Hua Mat 8) we can now see the full development of Husserl’s thoughts on time-consciousness from 1905 through to the 1930s. Husserl begins by responding to Franz Brentano’s early conception of time, adding to it the notions of the temporal object as phenomenon and temporally constitutive consciousness, and furthers the distinctions between phantasy, memory, and retentional, impressional, and protentional consciousnesses – each having its own type of intentional object. Meanwhile, Brentano’s theory of time advanced beyond Husserl’s early characterization, developing the notion of time consciousness as the in obliquo form of inner consciousness by 1916. Edith Stein worked extensively with Husserl to rewrite and edit his 1905 time lectures. Today, we know that she contributed more than she is credited to the published version of this text. In her own work, Stein deals with the various modes of consciousness according to which we apprehend objects in time and in memory. Husserl’s early, middle and late manuscripts on time, time-consciousness, and temporalization provide a fecund background by which to understand this theme in the early movement more generally. In 1927, Martin Heidegger and Hedwig Conrad-Martius published Sein und Zeit and Die Zeit, respectively. Memory has also been a persistent theme of phenomenological investigation, as evidenced by Phantasie, Bildbewusstsein, Erinnerung (Hua 23). The notion of eternity is embedded among phenomenological discussions as well, notably in Stein’s Finite and Eternal Being, Dietrich Mahnke’s Der Wille zur Ewigkeit, and Max Scheler’s On the Eternal in Man. Scheler also introduced the early phenomenologists to the writings of Henri Bergson, in which time and memory play central roles. We encourage papers that engage the works of Brentano, Husserl, Scheler, Bergson, Conrad-Martius, Stein, and the full spectrum of early phenomenologists, including the early writings of Heidegger and Levinas.


Abstracts should be 400-600 words, and include a short bibliography. Abstracts must be prepared for blind review and sent to Rodney Parker (

Deadline for submissions is February 1st, 2018.

Decisions will be sent out no later than March 1st, 2018.


Organizers: Rodney Parker, Charlene Elsby, Zachary Davis, and Eric Mohr

Host: Jeff McCurry, The Simon Silverman Phenomenology Center, Duquesne University

A .pdf version of this Call for Abstracts is available here.

Phenomenological Perspectives on Negation – Program

Indiana Philosophical Association Spring Workshop

Phenomenological Perspectives on Negation

a workshop sponsored by the North American Society for Early Phenomenology

Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne

April 21-22, 2017

Meeting Program (.pdf)

Friday, April 21 Indiana Philosophical Association

Science Building 176

11-11:45 Indiana Philosophical Association Business Meeting
11:45-12 Welcome 
12:00-12:55 “Ingarden’s Concept of the Reality of Negative States of Affairs”

Rob Luzecky, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne

1:00-1:50 “The Question of Negativity between Hegel and Heidegger”

Ferit Güven, Earlham College

2:00-2:50 “Freedom and Negation in Sartre”

David Detmer, Purdue University Northwest

3:00-4:20 Keynote Address

“Against Negation”

Daniel W. Smith

Purdue University

5:30-7:30 Dinner at The Hoppy Gnome, downtown Fort Wayne. (We have reserved The Boiler Room.)
Saturday, April 22 Phenomenological Perspectives on Negation

Science Building 176

9:30-10:00 Registration and Coffee
10:00-10:50 “The Generativity of Self-Negation as Distinguishing Characteristic of Linguistic Expression”

Martin Benson, Stony Brook University

11:00-11:50 “On the Possibility of a Bilateral, Intuitionistic Logic”

Tyler Viale, Boston College

12:00-12:50 “Lev Shestov’s Meontologism”

Frederic Tremblay, St. Petersburg State University

1:00-2:00 Lunch (Provided)
2:00-3:20 Keynote Address

“Negation in Consciousness and Metaphysics”

Robin D. Rollinger

Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences

3:30-4:20 “Reinach, Daubert & Ingarden: An Ontology of Negative States of Affairs?”

Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray, King’s University College at Western University

4:30-5:30 Winners of the IPA Undergraduate Essay Prize 

“The Phenomenology of Loneliness”

Matthew Wyss, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne

“Defacing the Currency: A Defense of Ancient Cynicism”

Daniel Klinestiver, Ball State

5:30 Concluding Remarks 


Current Debates in Phenomenology and Overcoming the Continental-Analytic Divide

The Loyola-Marquette Phenomenology Research Group presents

Current Debates in Phenomenology &

Overcoming the Continental-Analytic Divide

Marquette University, Milwaukee WI
31 March – 1 April, 2017

Keynote speakers:

Dr. James Dodd (The New School)
Dr. Paul M. Livingston (UNM)
Dr. Sebastian Luft (Marquette)

Click here for the conference announcement, and here for the full conference programme.

Please RSVP for this event by March 21st by emailing Jered Janes (

Lotze’s Back!

Call for papers

Special Issue of the on-line journal Philosophical Readings

Lotze’s Back!

D. De Santis & D. Manca (eds.)

Rudolf Hermann Lotze was born in Bautzen on May 21st, 1817. Lotze was a philosopher and logician; he also had a medical degree and was versed in biology, psychology as well as physiology. He studied at the University of Leipzig, and then moved to Göttingen, succeeding Johann Friedrich Herbart in the chair of philosophy. With the publication of his monumental Mikrokosmus, and the two-volume work System der Philosophie, Lotze became the most important and influential thinker of his generation (the one recently described as late German idealism). His alleged influence on Frege has long been the topic of harsh debates (like the one between H. Sluga and M. Dummett on the objectivity of thought and the origin of the so-called analytic philosophy); his importance for the early Husserl, as well as for Heidegger, is well known and undeniable, like his influence on the neo-Kantian tradition (from Rickert to Windelband, Natorp, Bauch and even Emila Lask). According to Sandor Ferenczi, during his late psychology lectures, Lotze also anticipated some of Freud’s key insights (like the notion of unbewusste Vorstellung). Lotze was a “systematic” thinker, perhaps the last philosopher really to consider the system as the one and only possibility to grasp rationally and understand the world as a whole.

As shown by the recently increased number of publications on Lotze and his philosophy (see for example: Late German Idealism. Trendelenburg and Lotze by F. Beiser (2013), the monumental Hermann Lotze: An Intellectual Biography (2015) by W. Woodward, and the anthology of essays on Lotze et son héritage. Son influence et son impact sur la philosophie du XXe siècle (2015), edited by F. Boccaccini), the interest in this still partially unknown thinker is growing.
The present call for papers would like to contribute to what might be labeled Lotze Renaissance; topics would include:

– Logic and mathematics in Lotze’s philosophy
Lotze’s metaphysics
Lotze’s philosophy of nature and anthropology
– The method of philosophy, and the function of the philosopher
Lotze and the phenomenological tradition
Lotze, Frege and the objectivity of thought
Lotze and the neo-Kantian tradition
Lotze and classical German philosophy (Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Herbart)
– Spiritualism and materialism
Lotze and the development of natural science in the 19th century
Lotze and the Gestalt psychology
Lotze and American philosophy

Contributions can be written in Italian, French, English, Spanish and German, and sent to:;

Invited Contributors: William Woodward, Riccardo Martinelli

Deadline: August 31st, 2017