Radboud Annual Continental Philosophy Conference 2026

From Husserl’s ambitious project of a re-founded science to deconstruction and critical phenomenology, the phenomenological heritage bequeaths us several pressing imperatives: reflect, return to the things themselves, and describe. These imperatives are not merely epistemological; they are also practical, ethical, and political. From the outset, phenomenological reflection has implied a demand for responsibility, a form of distanciation and imaginative variation that is simultaneously a deep transformative engagement with the world and with reality.

But what are the things themselves? This foundational question points to the frequently overlooked metaphysical dimension of phenomenology. It invites us to reconsider our very definition of reality. In light of contemporary developments in speculative and new realisms, this dimension demands renewed attention. The dialogue between phenomenology and these trends can be reinforced.

At the same time, the conference theme urges us to confront the times of denial we inhabit, not only as a socio-political condition but as a layered and often opaque structure of consciousness. Denial is a mode of knowing without knowing, a form of disavowed awareness that phenomenological reflection is uniquely equipped to elucidate, especially when brought into dialogue with critical theory and psychoanalysis. Reflection in this sense becomes not a retreat into clarity but an excavation of what remains hidden in plain sight: the affective, embodied, and unconscious dimensions of our relation to crisis, to others, and to ourselves.

How does the reflecting subject uncover and enact all-pervasive, blinding structures? How can this reflection measure up to the planetary scale of contemporary crises? These questions resonate with particular urgency today, in a time when the rapid and radical transformation of the stabilized world – what Amitav Ghosh calls the “bourgeois reality” – challenges our understanding and often leaves us in denial, disoriented, and powerless.

Across various domains, there is a growing call for more reflective practices. Climate discourse and post-pandemic reflections call for renewed engagement with our embodied existence and with human and non-human agency. In technology and ethics, the rise of artificial intelligence invites urgent reexaminations of human agency and responsibility. Social movements demanding racial and epistemic justice invite us to become aware of entrenched power structures and inherited narratives. In the face of growing polarization, hatred, and division, reflection becomes a political act: a refusal of reactive thinking and a space for re-imagining shared worlds. Meanwhile, social and economic movements advocate for slowing down, halting escalation, and embracing post-growth models. Phenomenology itself was conceived as a critical method to resist the ossification of short-sighted, zombified perspectives and automated processes, inviting instead a lived, attentive encounter with phenomena that disrupts complacency and opens possibilities for transformation.

So is it a good time to reflect and to go back to the things themselves? If so, how, with what method and on which ontological grounds? In what way might this practice give us a better grip on the dramatic course of events that shape our world today?

We welcome contributions that engage with these themes from a variety of perspectives within and around the continental tradition.

The deadline for abstracts was 1 December 2025 and is now closed.

The second installment of the RACPC, took place on 14th March 2025, was entitled “Canon and Critique”. 

Theme

Continental philosophy is not conceivable without its history—one of its distinctive features is that it explicitly acknowledges the historical conditions of knowledge. Researching and teaching continental philosophy is not possible without engaging with the canon and the canonical thinkers who have helped shape the continental tradition. This engagement can take an affirmative form, by being influenced by the canonical authors, ideas, and arguments and by developing and improving their thought and seeing its continued relevance for contemporary questions and debates. Or, it can take a critical form: recognizing problematic or antiquated aspects of canonical authors’ thought, and analyzing the exclusions and blind spots that have been part of constructing this canon. Rather than adhering to the stark dichotomy of either uncritical celebration or outright dismissal ('canceling') of the canon, our starting point is that both approaches are equally crucial to continental philosophy and can go hand in hand. At the same time, this raises the question of the relation between commitments to the canon, the critique of the canon, and attempts to expand or revise the canon. The conference will reflect on this rich and ambivalent relationship between canon and critique from different perspectives and will address the positive as well as problematic legacies of the tradition. 

Programme

Radboud Annual Continental Philosophy Conference 2025 Programme v4.pdf

The first installment of the RACPC, took place on 13 and 14 March 2024, and was entitled “The End of History”. 

Theme

Ever since Hegel’s influential diagnosis of the ‘end of history’, this phrase and its many variations have become part and parcel of continental philosophy. Faced with climate disaster, potential nuclear wars and transhumanist endeavors, one speaks of the end of times, the end of the world, the end of democracy, the end of humanity. It seems as though the self-understanding of the ‘post-modern’ already implies a sort of ‘post-mortem’, in the sense that many deaths have been established: the death of the subject, of God, of philosophy itself. In this conference we invite participants to reflect on this contemporary fascination with endings and the end of times. In what ways has continental thought discussed endings? How have prominent continental thinkers dealt with this topic? What does it mean to exist in relation to an end of times? Is it even possible to conceptualize it? What is its history? Is it a messianic theme or a secular one? What is its relation to science? Does it help us deal with urgent global topics or does it render us passive?

Programme

Conference_programme_feb24v2.pdf