With a presentation on a classic paradox, Sara Ipakchi won over the audience and the judging panel, thereby securing the trophy for the Institute of Philosophy. Ipakchi spoke about “true contradictions,” such as those found in self-referential sentences like “This sentence is false.” With great enthusiasm for the topic, she made it clear how engaging with such paradoxes has broadened her own horizons and used “true contradictions” as an example of the practical value of philosophy in everyday life. According to the winner, dealing with such topics not only leads to new insights but, in the best case, also to greater tolerance.

Alexander Clemen from the Department of Linguistics highlighted the opportunities and risks associated with using linguistic biomarkers to detect diseases. He demonstrated how the analysis of linguistic data can provide clear indications of ADHD, for which neurophysiological methods can also identify correlates in the brain. On the one hand, these new possibilities offer hope, as the earlier a disease is detected, the more effectively it can be treated. At the same time, however, he also pointed out the risks associated with such technologies, for example if health insurance companies were to use such data to make predictions about the health status of their policyholders.

Julian Kettermann, another representative from the Institute of Philosophy, entered the discussion with the question, “What happens when something happens?” Using everyday examples, he explained the concept of causality and presented various concepts of causality—for instance: when I cook pasta, does the water get hot because of thermodynamic processes, or because I turned the knob on the stove? Of course, both are related, but in philosophy there are different views on which of these is actually causally relevant.