The Royal Institute of Philosophy

In this workshop, Dr Ema Sullivan-Bissett will invite you to consider the philosophy behind how delusions are formed.

• Book your free place 

Professor Charlotte Hempel will introduce participants to a cutting-edge research project on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Rural Economy of Judea and beyond. 

• Book your free place

Led by Dr Jodie Russell, this workshop will explore the function of roleplaying games which are a type of game where players pretend to be characters in an imaginary setting. 

• Book your free place

During this philosophy workshop, Dr Henry Taylor explores the future of technology in our lives. 

• Book your free place

Join Professor Lisa Bortolotti to explore the long considered question of what really constitutes your identity.

• Book your free place

Therapy-speak is the imprecise and superficial integration of psychotherapy language into everyday communication, especially by privileged or wealthy people. Despite the advantages of normalising psychotherapy language, such as resisting epistemic injustice and enhancing awareness of mental health issues, therapy-speak raises important concerns. On the epistemic front, therapy-speak is susceptible to the erosion of the meaning and relevance of psychotherapy terms, pathologising, and the risk of self-diagnosis. Regarding its ethical concerns, therapy-speak might be used to discredit individuals, evade responsibilities, and even signal social status, by taking an objective stance.

Beyond these epistemic and ethical concerns, therapy-speak can also be weaponised to promote and perpetuate some forms of epistemic injustice, and to generate affective injustice. In particular, the weaponisation of therapy-speak exploits the epistemic authority and the credibility excesses of medical evidence, the conflation between the descriptive and the normative, and the linguistic strategy of deniability to impose a specific way to manage emotions in challenging, and unjust, situations.

• Watch the recording of Carme's talk

Medical concepts shape who is recognised as a patient, what counts as evidence, and how care is delivered. In 2020, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) revised its long-standing definition - not due to new data, but because the previous concept excluded forms of suffering like chronic pain without tissue damage, or pain in neonates and cognitively impaired individuals. The new definition acknowledges that pain can be real even without visible injury. This is a case of conceptual choice in medicine: the selection among empirically adequate concepts based on practical, ethical, and epistemic values. I explore both the benefits of this change - greater inclusivity and alignment with clinical reality - and its trade-offs, including concerns about vagueness and overmedicalisation. This case illustrates why philosophical work on concepts is not abstract, but crucial to making medicine more responsive and just.

Importantly, conceptual frameworks can perpetuate or challenge epistemic injustice. Narrow definitions of pain have historically marginalised women, racialised patients, and others whose suffering is harder to objectify. Conceptual change, then, can be a tool for epistemic justice, enabling recognition where it was once denied. I reflect on what philosophy can offer to medicine and to people’s well-being. Our role is that of conceptual gardeners: tending to the concepts that take root in the medical field, asking who plants them, how they grow, and whether they serve those who live with illness.

• Watch the recording of Elisabetta's talk

A phenomenological approach towards the issue of gender in neurodiversity.

In the neurodiversity context, scientific studies have often been carried out on data samples that contained mostly or only accounts of experiences of males. This has impacted the development of diagnostic criteria and other diagnostic instruments (e.g. questionnaires, checklists). It is now recognised that the impact has, in many cases, caused these criteria and instruments to be biased towards the male presentation of the neurodivergent condition. For example, females with Autism Spectrum Disorder have historically been virtually absent from studies investigating ASD. Diagnostic criteria for ASD have been developed almost entirely using the male behavioural and symptomatic presentation. Furthermore, diagnostic criteria for ADHD have also been developed using predominantly male-based data samples, so that many diagnostic instruments may not be applicable to females. This can impact educational and employment prospects for neurodivergent females. For examples, ADHD in girls is associated with lower educational achievements, unplanned pregnancy, mental health conditions and self-harm. Thus, girls with ADHD are at risk of long-term cumulative adversity.

The aim of my talk is to shed light on gender identity in the context of neurodiversity, not only by appropriately and proportionately emphasising the lived experiences of females, but also by including subjects who recognise themselves as “queer”. In other words, I will focus on a vision of embodiment in terms of “lived body” and not as a mere biological substrate of our self: we are our body, we do not merely have it.

• Watch video of Valeria's talk

In this talk, I examine and respond to the so-called ‘challenge from adoption’ to the permissibility of natural and assisted procreation. According to this challenge, people who wish to become parents have a duty to adopt rather than procreate. Proponents typically ground this duty in a broader duty to rescue: Given the plight of many children worldwide, prospective parents are morally required to adopt existing children instead of creating new ones. After reconstructing the main argument underpinning this challenge, I examine the putative duties of people who wish to have children in the current, non-ideal context of adoption. In this context, I argue, forgoing procreation in favour of adoption is very costly. As a result, the proponent of the duty to adopt faces a dilemma: Either she relies on a demanding version of the principle grounding the duty to rescue - which yields counterintuitive implications for procreation, parenthood and adoption - or she embraces a more moderate version - which lacks the normative force to support the duty to adopt. I then consider putatively costless cases of adoption, where many of the costs associated with forgoing procreation in favour of this practice have been neutralised. ere I argue that, even under such conditions, there are substantive and methodological reasons to resist approaching procreation, parenthood, and adoption - and what we owe to each other in these and other normatively significant domains of our lives - through a purely or even primarily deontic framework.

In closing, I turn to the challenge from adoption to the permissibility of assisted procreation. I address the claim that public funding of fertility services is impermissible because it reduces children’s chances of being adopted. In response, I argue that the publicly funded provision of fertility services is not morally objectionable, and that state support for adoption and assisted procreation should be understood as logically and practically distinct.

We are often struck by the beautiful world around us. But can nature be art? After watching a short animated video, Dr Laura D’Olimpio will facilitate a philosophical discussion exploring the role and function of art, the relationship between art and nature, and whose opinion counts in interpreting a work of art.

• Based on: Peacock's Art Exhibition

We think of perfumes as objects that serve a purpose, that is, to make us smell nice. Even ants use scents to attract partners and communicate danger. But some perfumes are created to evoke places or emotions, some invite us to contemplate nature, and some challenge our idea of what perfumes should be. Indeed, some perfumes are best understood as works of art. This will be a journey into the hidden life of perfumes!

• Based on: The Ants and the Butterfly

Is there a human right to internet access? To answer this question, we need to know why internet access has become an essential utility, what downsides the internet can have, and what protections such a novel human right might provide. After watching a short animated video, Dr Merten Reglitz will ask whether recognising a human right to internet access might help bridge the global digital divide.

• Based on: The Tortoise and the Hare

Philosophers are interested in the notion of epistemic injustice. But what does that mean? When people are harmed in their capacity to share and produce knowledge, and are excluded from participation in debate and decision-making due to some negative stereotype, nobody wins. After watching a short animated video, Kathleen Murphy-Hollies will lead a discussion on the importance of having a variety of perspectives heard.

• Based on: The Fawn and the Mountain Lion

We disagree with each other on a host of moral, philosophical and religious matters. And our views often go to the heart of who we are. But in politics we need to make collective rules, and not everyone can have their way. What, then, does respectful political engagement look like, in a deeply pluralistic society like ours? Is it always acceptable to fight for our beliefs, and try to enact them, in the face of others’ opposition? Or might living together sometimes require putting those beliefs, and our most fundamental disagreements, aside? A workshop about the ethics of political dialogue, disagreement, and law-making.

• Based on: The Owl's Parliament

What is the role of conspiracy theories in society? How should we understand conspiracy theories beliefs? This webinar showcases the interdisciplinary nature of the work being done in this area, working alongside scholars in Theology, Psychology, and Philosophy. The webinar is part of the #PhilosophyMatters campaign by the British Philosophical Association and it is sponsored by The Royal Institute of Philosophy. Speakers include: Kathleen Murphy-Hollies, U-Wen Low, Joseph Pierre, and Nele Van de Mosselaer, and the chair is Lisa Bortolotti.

• To learn more, visit our Film, Storytelling, and Conspiracy project.
• Watch Zoom recording - Philosophy and Conspiracy Theories

In this webinar we look at how to promote philosophical reflection and discussion in unusual places: on nature walks, in pubs, in prisons, and literally everywhere. The webinar is chaired by Michael Rush and panellists include Bonny Astor, Paul Knights, and Helen Beebee. Bonny leads Thought Experiments in Pubs, creating more opportunities for people to meaningfully connect with one another sharing different ideas and perspectives. Paul leads Philosophy on Foot, a growing programme of 'walking enquiries' in the Yorkshire Pennines, working with arts, heritage and nature conservation organisations. Helen is Professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Leeds and together with Michael Rush, she is the author of Philosophy: Why it matters.

• Watch Zoom recording - Philosophy everywhere

In this webinar panelists discuss methods and resources to bring philosophy to young people. Watch to hear about the community of inquiry, The Philosophy Garden, and Philosophy Smash with Henry! The webinar is part of the #PhilosophyMatters campaign by the British Philosophical Association and it is sponsored by The Royal Institute of Philosophy. Speakers include: Laura D'Olimpio, Henry Taylor, and Lisa Bortolotti, and the chair is Kathleen Murphy-Hollies.

• Watch Zoom recording - Philosophy in the classroom

In this webinar, speakers discuss the application of the notion of epistemic injustice to the context of mental healthcare and offer some examples from their research. Panelists are partners of Wellcome-funded project EPIC (Epistemic Injustice in Healthcare) and contributors to the edited book, Epistemic Justice in Mental Healthcare (Springer 2025), edited by Lisa Bortolotti and available open access.

Content warning: some of the presentations in this webinar address issues of self-harm and suicide.

• Watch the recording - Philosophy and mental health

To mark Mental Health Awareness Week, on 15th May we hosted a webinar on the harms caused by stereotypes associated with unusual experiences and beliefs.

The event was supported by project EPIC and The Royal Institute of Philosophy.

• Watch a recording the Unusual experiences and Beliefs webinar