About Sebastian Verrelli
I am a sophomore at Columbia College. I am planning to study philosophy. My main interests in philosophy are ethics and philosophy of religion. My research looks into moral naturalism, neo-Aristotelian thought, and a little bit of moral psychology.
I am a/an:
University
Laidlaw Cohort Year
Research Topic
I am from:
I speak:
My hobbies/interests are:
I am open to participating in mentoring/buddy programmes
Influencer Of
Popular Content
Experts Like Sebastian Verrelli
Recent Comments
Hi Sebastian,
This project sounds really cool. You were clearly paying attention during our Ethics lecture last semester! I'm especially drawn to the comparison you make in this video between our Laidlaw leadership training--as well as the Laidlaw Foundation's general commitment to the cultivation of socially-conscious leaders--and the theories of moral exemplarity that you explored over the past few weeks. I'm curious where this work will take you in the second summer of your project: will you try to find examples of moral excellence in the real world (rather than in the abstruse--albeit thoroughly humanistic--moral theory of the 20th-century Neo-Aristotelian revival...)?
Hi Joseph! Thank you for checking out my video. Your question is one which I am still grappling with. A good deal of my recent work deals with metaethical concerns that troubled the 20th-century Neo-Aristotelians and offer similar difficulties for an exemplarist moral theory (this includes the creation of a precise image of flourishing). Next summer, I may continue my exploration of metaethical concerns regarding ethics of virtue coupled with some archival work or some more grounded formulation of ethics of virtue along the lines that you described.
You are very well- articulated and concise in what you have shared! I am wondering which specific moral theories were you taking into consideration while exploring your research? Were they from significant philosophers such as Kant, Aristotle? or not at all?
Hi! I apologize for the delayed response. One of the main pieces of literature I am working with is written by Linda Zagzebski (it draws a great deal from ethical theories of virtue). I also have been doing a lot of work with Aristotle and Neo-Aristotelian thinkers (Phillipa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, some John McDowell).
We had encountered various different obstacles when designing the experiment, and shortly before finalizing the experimental design prior to recruiting participants. The most primary concern for us was to ensure that the sound decibels for the noise cues were at a safe and comfortable volume decibel. We also had to ensure that the same was true for the Gaussian White Noise, while still masking the natural sound playing underneath it. What we learned, after much trial and error, was that it was Psychopy itself (and not the sound files) that was increasing the volume level. While we tried many different methods to reduce sound volume levels, we learned it was simply a matter of changing the settings in the application. My biggest takeaway from this experience was that, sometimes, the problem seems larger than it is, and the solution is simpler than expected.
Having support, patience, and kindness from the lab itself has been incredibly useful for me as I continue to learn more. The workshops we did on how to find research papers (such as on CLIO, and how to use Zotero, etc.) has also proven to be helpful as I continue reading more papers on topics related to this research project.
It is great to hear about the community of your lab and how it has supported your work! It is also refreshing to hear about the way that you and your lab have resolved some of the issues you have encountered. Even when a problem is more-than-meets-the-eye, the solution may very well be less-than-meets-the-eye.
Narrowing the scope of my research question has been the biggest challenge I have encountered so far. The field of virtue ethics that I am looking into is incredibly vast; countless individuals spanning thousands of years have dedicated their lives to contributing to the base of knowledge. Some of my background readings led me to a large number of areas that I found myself interested in. Despite my commitment to a well-reasoned, logical approach, I have taken a leap of faith to explore just one or two of those avenues. Philosophy, by etymology, is all about the big picture; I have found it to be quite different from work done in other disciplines within the humanities or STEM. With some guidance from my faculty advisor and graduate student mentor, I have been able to focus my work with greater precision.
The most useful resource is my faculty advisor. Without his knowledge, direction, and support it would be remarkably difficult for me to engage with my task as I am. Meeting with him regularly provides a litmus test for my ideas such that I can proceed with the ones that we find to be most worthy. I am incredibly grateful to have witnessed his intellectual fervor and voracity firsthand; it has inspired me to read and examine problems beyond the immediate scope of my work.
Looking at expectations for STEM projects is always a bit difficult because regardless of your expectations, if the data is not interesting, the is not interesting. While this could mean more experiments with better parameters need to be completed, but sometimes projects just run their course. On the flip side, if the data is great, then that opens up a whole host of different opportunities. Currently, I am working on my project with a PhD student, but the approach is mostly at my discretion. I have some promising initial findings that suggest that my protein of interest may help to increase cellular migration, but I will need to continue into some more technically advanced experiments that involve creating a knockout cell line to see if those initial findings are supportable. If it turns out that they are, then there is a possibility that I could publish a paper on the topic.
Since pancreatic cancer is often not found until it migrates to other organ sites, it is often a very challenging disease to treat. Due to this understanding, possible mechanisms that allow cells to migrate more effectively is important for understanding the overall scope of the disease as well as creating methods for earlier detection.
I was not previously aware of this difficulty in treating pancreatic cancer. The work that you are doing seems remarkably important for not just pancreatic cancer but cancer pathology as a whole. Regardless of whether the data is promising, the work that you are completing will be invaluable to the development of our knowledge base. There seems to be a tendency in STEM to overlook or disregard work that does not produce the flashiest results. It is nonetheless important for opaque work to be done - finding a dead end signals tells us a lot about where future research should be aimed.
I am planning to write a paper. Up until now, the work that I have completed has largely been catching up with discourse in the field of ethics. Ideally, my contribution will combine two perspectives on ethics. First, I will attempt to discuss normativity from the perspective of naturalism. I will then combine this with a moral theory that emphasizes the importance of identifying exemplars of goodness. I do not believe I will be able to finish the paper by the time my stay on campus ends, so I hope to continue my work throughout the summer until I have a polished piece that I may call my own.
Exemplar naturalism is an ethical framework that is endowed with extraordinary practical facets. Sometimes ethical thought is so abstracted from human action that it is no longer is clear that such thought is worth considering. Contemporary ethics inspired by Aristotelian thought, like the exemplar moral theory I discuss, maintains a groundedness that is not adequately considered by consequentialist or deontic theories. It also seems to describe an intuitively appealing way that we may develop certain traits in ourselves, looking to those we admire.
Coincidentally, my research topic is ethics itself. On the substantive level, I am trying to apprehend basic ethical questions regarding the nature of good, right, and wrong. I address these sorts of questions by reading the thoughts of my predecessors in the field. Evaluating the merit of their arguments is a complicated feat as it is, perhaps, impossible for any philosophical inquiry to provide the complete answer to any question. When I read and absorb differing perspectives, I attempt to simultaneously occupy my own perspective and perspectives that are not my own. Through this method, I am able to generate a set of objections and concerns that provide a worthy challenge to the philosophical outlook that I am examining.
To answer the ethical question on a level that precedes my substantive work, a difficulty that I must deal with is the charitable representation of work with which I disagree. In my discipline, it is always important to treat the arguments of others with earnest respect, even if the conclusions one encounters are seemingly wrong or repugnant. When I am taking notes on a particular philosopher, I try to thoroughly capture their thesis and supporting arguments while also making note of my own outlook on what I have read. This way, I can provide a substantive and compelling rebuttal to the conclusions that I find disagreeable.
As I have discussed a bit above, accounting for alternative perspectives is the bulk of the work that one must undertake in philosophy. Even if I am to encounter a stance that I find disagreeable, there is a good chance that the stance (or the disagreement that I have with it) will provide my own position a stronger foundation for argumentation. Alternative viewpoints may provide the impetus for a radical shift in position that I would have otherwise not considered. When writing a strong piece of philosophy, it is often good practice to include the refutations made by different perspectives so that one may demonstrate that one's position is worth taking seriously in light of the challenges of others.
The workshops that I attended this week broadened my understanding of the meaning behind the word “leadership”. Prior to participating in the events, the key component of being a leader for me was the ability to control the process and assign the projects/tasks to people as effectively as possible so that the project is done in the fastest way. However, I realized that the most important is the ability to understand and feel people, because it is about people who are taking part in the project, not the project itself.
“Leader beside” concept seemed the most natural for me when I am working in a lab with other people. Everyone is playing a crucial role in the project, and it is impossible to rank the tasks that different people are performing since they are all needed to achieve the ultimate goal.
My research is on the consequences of nuclear weapon testing on the Pacific Islands. I am most excited to work in a real laboratory setting as well as collaborate with my group mates on different projects. Such a study has never been conducted before. Thus, we feel a huge responsibility, but along with that comes the understanding of the importance of our research for the people who live on the islands.
"Leading beside" is often an understated kind of leadership. I appreciate that you acknowledge the importance of it in the lab setting that you will be entering. It is especially important when we consider that leadership is partially about setting an example. One does not need to be at the reigns of the operation to set an example. In utilizing "leadership beside," one (such as yourself) can demonstrate exemplary conduct in the collaborative laboratory setting. It is not always the most flashy form of leadership, but a team cannot function without good teammates.