My name is Marie Bergesen Himle, and I am 22 years old, from Stavanger, Norway. I have just finished my bachelor’s degree in Philosophy at the University of Bergen, and I am also in the second year of a bachelor’s degree in Law at the University of Agder. This combination comes from my interest in jurisprudence and the philosophy of law, and from a desire to understand the “game” I am questioning. My academic interests lie in legal philosophy, particularly the question of whether law has a moral element.

My project asks whether law can be fully defined without reference to morality. Drawing on H. L. A. Hart, Gustav Radbruch and Ronald Dworkin, I argue that legal positivism is not false, but incomplete as an account of what law is. I test this against the legal concept of jus cogens, which I argue works as a real-world instance of Radbruch’s supra-statutory law.

I am in the second year of the MA program in philosophy at Uppsala University. My main areas of interest include epistemology (formal and traditional), philosophical methodology and ancient Greek philosophy. In general, I tend to be inclined to take a closer look at views which appear implausible at first glance. There is often more to such views than one would think. One such example is epistemological infinitism, which I will be presenting about. The threat of an infinite regress of reasons is enough to send shivers down most philosophers’ spines, but why must such a regress be so terrible?

Age: 27

Short background: Former pro/semi-pro football player, now doing a master's in philosophy. 

Academic interests: Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. 

Project description: This paper frames the circular problem of causal discovery as a coordination problem: one cannot determine a system’s underlying causal structure without causal assumptions, but one cannot directly verify those assumptions without already knowing that structure. I propose Hasok Chang’s method of epistemic iteration as a fruitful strategy for addressing this circularity, in which one accepts the circle and turns it into a spiral. On this view, successive stages of knowledge can be built from an imperfect starting point, provided we return to improve that starting point as we learn more during inquiry.

Age: 38

Background: Mechanical engineering degree from 2011, 14 years working in IT before going back to school in 2025. Currently enrolled in Stockholm University's one-year master program in theoretical philosophy.

Academic interests: Philosophy of physics and philosophy of mathematics.

What can mathematical formalism tell us about the metaphysics of physical theories? In this presentation we explore David Wallace's scientific realist interpretation of many-worlds quantum mechanics. What difficulties does he solve, and what questions are we left with?

I am 22 years old and a final-year Philosophy student at Vilnius University, completing my bachelor’s thesis in 2027. My academic interests lie in the philosophy of economics, the ontological commitments of science (especially the status of models and idealization), and formal and modal logic, particularly the problem of existential import.

My project examines neoclassical economic models through Daniel Hausman’s view that a model is a predicate without a truth value, not a claim about the world. Using the logical notion of existential import, I separate questions that economic practice tends to merge: what a model’s definition entails, whether anything in the model satisfies it, whether its diagram represents such an object, and whether any real economy instantiates it. I trace unjustified leaps to existence claims both at the model-reality boundary and inside the model itself, using the Edgeworth box, Arrow-Debreu equilibrium, Nash equilibrium, and comparative statics as test cases.

Anahita Solut (27) is an MA student in Educational Theory at Malmö University. With a background in English Literature and several years of practical experience working as a school teacher, her academic interests lie at the intersection of philosophy, educational theory, and the tradition of Bildung. She is particularly passionate about reimagining alternative forms for traditional schooling.

This project explores "pedagogical suspension" through Giorgio Agamben’s concepts of potentiality and inoperativity. It reframes educational "empty time" as a necessary space of resistance against contemporary instrumentalization.

Hej, I’m Angeliki Tsagri, thirty years old, and I have a heterogeneous academic background. I am originally from Greece, but I have studied at several Swedish universities over the years. Long story short, after a series of career and academic changes, I am pursuing what will be my fifth MA in Ethics, Science, and Policy with a specialization in Applied Ethics at Linköpings Universitet in Sweden. Yet I do not intend to work in Practical Philosophy in the long term. Instead, I pursue this MA to fill another gap in my philosophical formation and become a well-rounded philosopher and philosophy scholar.

Although I have always been interested in Continental-European philosophy and theory and was born on a phenomenological and philosophical day (!), for the last five years I have worked within the so-called Analytic/Anglo-American philosophy. That said, I am used to crossing disciplinary fields, philosophical traditions, and areas, and to engaging with various methodological tools, but always from a particular perspective. My fields of interest include the philosophy of mind, as well as of consciousness and of perception; some metaphysics and epistemology; and philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. This presentation falls within analytic philosophy of religion, analytic philosophical theology and systematic theology, as well as religious epistemology.

In particular, I argue that risk serves as a form of rational evidence within Christian faith and belief (CFB), unlike trust. And I identify this rational evidence in risk rather than in trust, as etymology expects, given that faith and belief correlate linguistically with trust. Although trust has a risky component from the beginning, what happens when you are rationally but non-instrumentally thrown at risk- not the calculated one of decision theory- for CFB from the outset, too?

I was born in the middle of the United States in 1976 (isn't math fun?).  Specifically, I was born in Kansas City, Missouri, but throughout my life, I've had the opportunity to live in other cities in the US and in Asia. More recently, I was a teacher and a teacher's assistant at a school in Kansas City. In 2024, I moved to Malmö, Sweden to do a master's program in educational philosophy. My current interest is exploring both educational philosophy and political philosophy through the lens of philosophical anthropology.  

My project is titled; Fundamental Rights, Government Authority and a Balanced State of Education. The paper first builds a case for fundamental human rights which is based, paradoxically, on an ethnological and linguistic account of an indigenous tribe whose language does not allow for the concept of fundamental human rights.  Once the paper has made the case that modern technological societies necessarily have fundamental human rights bundled together with the rational self as a conceptual package, it proceeds to argue for the legitimacy of a state as the protector of fundamental human rights.  The final section of the paper imagines how a state which was based on the protection of fundamental human rights could organize education.

I am 23 years old and currently a master's student in philosophy at Uppsala University. I come from an interdisciplinary academic background, having studied Philosophy & Economics for my bachelor’s at the University of Bayreuth, Germany. Apart from interdisciplinary discussions, I am particularly interested in (social) epistemology, feminist logic, and the philosophy of language.

My project reconsiders Andrea Nye’s terms reading and responding, which she proposes as alternative tools to logical evaluations of arguments. In response to Maryann Ayim’s critique and skepticism about whether there is a relevant difference between Nye’s ‘reading and responding’ and approaches to critical thinking, I propose a new understanding of reading and responding, which I label R&R.  Based on introducing a distinction between a macro and a micro level, which are different levels at which argumentation can operate within a discourse, I state that R&R differs from critical thinking as it operates differently on the micro level.

Coming soon

Coming soon

My name is Heini Kyllönen (b. 1974). I am a doctoral researcher at the University of Turku and work as a philosophy teacher in a general upper secondary school in Salla, Finnish Lapland. My research interests include the theory of recognition, non-human others, transhumanism, and posthumanism.

This presentation examines, at the intersection of transhumanism and posthumanism, how technological advancements – such as artificial intelligence and cyborgization – dissolve traditional boundaries between humans, machines, and non-human life. Digital advancements challenge established notions of human nature and a fixed human nature. This trajectory necessitates the abandonment of anthropocentric models in favor of an expanded framework of ethics and recognition that encompasses cyborgs, artificial intelligences, and the broader digital environment.