In the opening talk of our new series, Analysis by Synthesis, we explored with Kalevi Kull the core claims of biosemiotics and the conceptual framework it offers for understanding living systems. We discussed how biosemiotics, by placing communication, meaning, and interpretation at the center of biology, invites us to rethink issues such as speciation, arbitrariness, freedom, umwelt, and the aesthetic dimension. Many thanks to everyone who joined us, and to Prof. Kalevi Kull for his valuable contributions.

We met with Dr. Kaan Tabakçı from Koç University for an event titled “How Should We Philosophically Approach Logical Problems? The Liar Paradox as a Case Study.” By examining the proof structure revealed by the liar paradox, we discussed five non-classical logical systems and considered contemporary approaches in the philosophy of logic together.

Together with Zeynep Oğuzman from METU’s Cognitive Science and Philosophy MA programs, we discussed the limits of third-person diagnostic perspectives that dominate contemporary psychiatric approaches. We examined how the client’s first-person experience might be incorporated into this framework, and explored the possibilities that a neurophenomenological approach could offer for psychiatry.

In our first event, we were joined by Alper Yavuz, faculty member at Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University. In his talk titled “The Continental–Analytic Divide and Epistemic Injustice,” he examined the distinction between so-called continental and analytic philosophy through the lens of epistemic injustice. We discussed how the distrust that a philosopher on one side of this divide may feel toward someone working on the other side can lead to forms of epistemic injustice, and we reflected on what an appropriate attitude toward this divide in philosophy might look like.

We discussed one of the fundamental questions of meta-philosophy. Focusing on what intuition is and how it functions within philosophical methodology, we examined approaches that treat intuitions as a decisive criterion, as well as the reliability and language–world relation objections raised against such views. In the end, we considered the idea that intuitions are neither fully decisive nor wholly dispensable, but can instead play a role in philosophy as a starting point or a complementary assumption. Many thanks to everyone who joined.

We met with Assoc. Prof. Ahmet Çevik for a seminar titled “The Evolution of Mathematics.” We discussed how mathematics is not a static system but a continuously evolving history of thought shaped by changing assumptions, structures, and methods, and we reflected together on what this ongoing transformation tells us about the nature and future of knowledge.

In his talk, Ömer Batın, a master’s student at Boğaziçi University, focused on logical empiricists such as Neurath, Carnap, Frank, and Reichenbach to show how anti-communist Cold War conditions transformed the philosophy of science. We discussed how the philosophy of science was abstracted away from ethical, political, and social ideals, and examined how the academic and political pressures of the period were reflected in its intellectual developments.

We discussed with Dr. Serdal Tümkaya from Ibn Haldun University whether analytic philosophy can really be described as a “school” at all. By considering the major transformations it has undergone since its emergence and its present-day diversity, we questioned whether analytic philosophy can still be thought of within a common framework. Many thanks to everyone who attended, and to Dr. Tümkaya for his valuable contributions.

Ada from the University of Barcelona examined two philosophical approaches in physics in this talk. She discussed how reductionism aims to explain higher-level phenomena by reducing them to simpler structures, while emergentism defends the existence of irreducible properties. We focused in particular on how such irreducible features that arise at the intersection of physics and the philosophy of mind can be understood, and what they tell us about the hierarchical structure of the universe.

Ada from the University of Barcelona examined two philosophical approaches in physics in this talk. She discussed reductionism’s claim to explain higher-level phenomena by reducing them to simpler structures, and emergence’s insistence on the existence of irreducible properties. We focused in particular on how such irreducible features arising at the borderlands of physics and the philosophy of mind might be understood, and what they reveal about the hierarchical structure of the universe.