Kl. 13.00–14.00 Stofa 53 (3. mars)
Jóhannes Dagsson: Can we perceive goodness? (EN)
The study of moral perception has gained momentum within the last few years (see for example: Audi 2013, Cullison 2009, Döring 2007, Haji 2010). One of the most important components of many theories of moral perception is the belief that we can, using our sensory organs, have direct sensory access to moral properties. This often entails that moral properties are of similar kind as other sensory properties, such as color.
The relationship between physical properties that we have access to through perception, and value properties is one of the main subjects of aesthetics. In this lecture I draw a comparison between some classical problems within aesthetics and some of the problems that face theories of moral perception. My aim is to learn about how we perceive art through theories of moral perception, and learn about moral perception though how we perceive art.  
Dan Docherty: Towards a theory of typographic gatekeeping (EN)
The field of typography (both as a professional and academic specialisation) has historically been restrained in its outlook to both the quantifiable successes of typeface designs, and the cognitive recognition that they achieve. The underlying principles of these typefaces are often functionally if not entirely alike, leading to great similarities between many typefaces and a somewhat invariant typographic environment. This in effect creates a relatively static environment, around which repetition and homogenueity is commonplace. As a result of this, not only has concrete epistemological dialogue yet to emerge to the same extent as similar fields, but both the professional and academic spectrums have been dominated (almost entirely) by the Latin script. The users or designers of these scripts are still, despite increasing globalisation, largely if not almost entirely Western-born, Caucasian men. Inequality exists within the specialisation as a whole, and efforts to mitigate this often do not address greater, underlying issues. Consequently, relatively inqualitative means of knowledge distribution and educational progression have been interwoven to the common tapestry of typography.   
This discussion intends to identify the reasons behind these inequalities and establish localised means whereby they might be addressed or mitigated. It furthermore aims to highlight the reasoning, whether intentional or not, behind such broader decisions and demonstrate the effects that they have on both the present and potential future of typographic endeavours.