No information is available at this time.

No information is available at this time.

The distinguished philosopher David Lewis once wrote, "We know a lot. To doubt that would be absurd," but he would not have bothered to say so had others not disagreed. In this course we will try to understand both why some philosophers have doubted that we know much at all, and why others consider such doubts absurd.

Doing so will require us to examine a number of important matters: the concepts of knowledge and of rationally justified belief; radical skepticism — think The Matrix; inductive skepticism — even if Matrix scenarios can be ruled out, and the world has been pretty much the way we think it has during our lifetimes, is there any good reason to expect the sun to rise tomorrow? is it reasonable to believe that it rose on June 1, 1755? Wittgenstein-inspired contextualism — if someone hanging out in Lou's bar says Jones knew his daughter was guilty, and someone else, testifying in court, says he didn't, is there some difference between bars and courts that might allow them both to be right? W. V. Quine's alleged proposal to "naturalize epistemology" — that rather than ask whether there is any rational connection between our evidence and our theories, we should just try to understand how we arrive at our theories from our evidence; the Gettier problem, raised in the best-known three-page epistemological essay of the 20th century — if knowledge is not justified true belief, then what is it? and, possibly, Richard Rorty's contention that the classical problems of epistemology — including most of those mentioned — are bogus, and that we should stop trying to sucker our students into taking them seriously.

Philosophical analysis of contemporary issues such as abortion, affirmative action, the treatment of animals, capital punishment, euthanasia, and famine relief. Written work: a take-home midterm and a take-home final, each consisting of 2 papers of about 5 pages in length, and an 8-page paper.

Classic and contemporary readings in liberal political thought: Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Rawls and Nozick. In spring 2011, I am likely to emphasize questions about freedom, consent and property. Main text: Arthur and Shaw, eds., Social and Political Philosophy. Additional material available on e-reserve.

The course will introduce the student to some of the most prominent philosophers of the Twentieth Century. It will include such figures as: Russell, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Quine, Putnam and Rorty. Some choices as to which figures to cover will be left to the class. The course will be centered around two themes that appear and reappear in this work. One is the search for the foundations of knowledge, and another the search for values. Philosophy in the twentieth century is thought be divided into two very different camps: the Analytic and the Continental schools. However one purpose of the class will be to show parallels rather than differences in thinking between the two traditions.

There will be weekly reading assignments drawn from the text, Twentieth-Century Philosophy 3rd ed. by F. Baird and W. Kaufmann (Eds.)

There will be a midterm and a final and 3 short papers (about 300 words each).

People everywhere are passionate about their moral attitudes and beliefs, and we all seem to think the values of our own culture are the right ones. Yet no one denies the existence of widespread disagreement about justice, human rights, and the best way to live. This course will explore the issue of moral diversity and how it bears on familiar debates in ethical theory. First, we'll survey research in anthropology and cultural psychology that document the nature of differences in moral values. We'll then examine the religious, biological, and cultural sources of this diversity. Finally, we will give detailed consideration to the philosophical implications of moral diversity for ethical discourse. Should the existence of diversity lead to greater tolerance of the standards and norms of other cultures? Can members of one culture justifiably criticize the values of another? What happens when the conflict arises within a particular society? Throughout the course we will examine a series of case studies, such as the burka ban in France and Belgium, the issue of female circumcision, and honor killings in some Muslim and Indian societies.

No information is available at this time.

What does the sentence "The President believes Hobbes is a tiger" mean? Every normal speaker of English understands this sentence, and they do so effortlessly, without having to consciously reflect on it. But it turns out to be very hard to answer our question. (The obvious answer—that it means that the President believes Hobbes is a tiger—doesn't seem terribly illuminating.) And, of course, there is nothing special (nor especially interesting) about this particular sentence of English—the problem is a general one, for all sentences, in all languages.

What do our words and sentences mean? How do we know what they mean? How do they get the meanings they have? We will address these central questions in the philosophy of language. Along the way, we'll read many of the classic works in philosophy of language, as well as several recent papers tackling the same issues.

Phil 3350, sec 31748
Phil 6350, sec 31862

This is an introduction to contemporary moral theory, focusing on normative ethics, rather than metaethics. The main readings will be from Darwall's anthology on Consequentialism and from Scanlon's contractualist theory in What we Owe to Each Other. We will also look briefly at contemporary examples in the deontological tradition. The main focus (if this isn't obvious) is on accounts of moral rightness and wrongness.

The main requirements are a midterm, a comprehensive final, and 2 or 3 short to medium length papers. (Requirements in 6350 will be different.)

Philosophy 3358: Classics in the History of Ethics

In this course we will read much of the most important ethical work of three central figures in the modern history of ethics: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), and Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900). Kant and Mill would very often be taken to be the two most important moral philosophers of the modern era: the most important representatives of, respectively, the deontological and the utilitarian traditions. It is less standard (though far from unprecedented) to give such prominence to Sidgwick; one of the aims of the course is to explore the idea that Sidgwick merits a place as prominent as the other two.

We will focus on our three philosophers' approaches to two central issues in moral theory: (i) the nature of morality: just what are moral rules, where do they come from, and why should we follow them?; (ii) the content of morality: just what does morality tell us to do? We will also attend to their views on the status of egoism.

There will be a take home midterm and a take home final, both consisting of two questions each requiring about 4-5 pages of writing, and a 7-8 page paper. The midterm and final will each be worth 35%, the paper 30%.

No information is available at this time.

Selected Topics in Philosophy: Philosophy of Biology
Prof. Josh Weisberg
Fall 2010

Our scientific understanding of the biological world is increasing at an amazing rate. New breakthroughs occur constantly, challenging our previously-held views of the natural world and our place in it. How does this science work and what are the implications of its research? This class addresses the philosophical issues arising from the science of biology. We will consider the nature of explanation in biological science; metaphysical questions concerning the nature of key biological entities and processes; issues arising from the theory evolution; the relationship between biology and other scientific domains; and the controversies generated by biological science in psychology, ethics, and religion. The goal of the course is to provide an introduction to this exciting sub-field of philosophy, and to provide students with the chance to explore some of the deep philosophical issues surrounding modern biological theory.

The course readings will be taken from the new anthology Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology, edited by Francisco Ayala and Robert Arp, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

A detailed introduction to the epistemological and metaphysical theories of three major figures in 18th-century philosophy: Hume, Berkeley, and Kant. There will be two exams (midterm and final). Students will also be required to submit a 10-12 page term paper (20-25 pages for graduate students) on a topic selected in consultation with the instructor.

Texts (required):

1. David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). ISBN: 978-0198751724. Amazon.com
2. George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge and Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, edited by Roger Woolhouse (Penguin Classics,, 1988). ISBN: 978-0140432930. Amazon.com
3. Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, edited by Gary Hatfield (New York: Cambridge University Pess, 2004). ISBN: 978-0521535359. Amazon.com

Texts (recommended)

1. Cambridge Companion to Hume, edited by David Fate Norton and Jacqueline Taylor, 2nd edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004). ISBN: 978-0521677349. Amazon.com
2. Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Paul Guyer (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). ISBN: 978-0521367684. Amazon.com

No information is available at this time.

Through the ages, philosophers have thought that mathematics embodies the highest standards for knowledge. Even our best science might get things entirely wrong, but we will never have to worry that 2+2 isn't 4. However, events such as the invention of non-Euclidean geometry, the discovery of paradoxes related to infinity, and Godel's demonstration that arithmetic is incomplete have raised deep worries about the foundations of mathematics. This course will present these and other challenges to confidence in mathematics, and then discuss a number of philosophical theories about how our confidence can be restored. A main concern will be to understand what accounts for the truth of the claims of mathematics. However along the way some other philosophical puzzles will arise, for example, what are the numbers?, and what are mathematical statements really about?

Although the course will cover some technical topics related to logic and infinity, it will assume no special knowledge of mathematics beyond simple algebra. Some experience with introductory logic is a prerequisite. There will be two quizzes and a final, and occasional homework exercises.

No information is available at this time.

This course will divide roughly into two parts. The first part is concerned with “micro level” issues, issues about medical decision- making, doctor patient relationships and mutual responsibilities.

Specific issues will include truth telling, autonomy/paternalism, and the proper role of surrogate decision-makers. The second part discusses “macro” policy issues: the nature of insurance, access to health care, and possible reforms.

I hope to teach the course mostly, if not entirely, from online materials and library reserves.

This course is an advanced survey of recent developments in feminist philosophy. Topics include the definitions of gender and sex, ethical theories, feminist epistemologies, disputes about essentialism, and assessments of the position of women in the history of philosophy. We will study and compare the assumptions and aims of various types of feminism (radical, socialist, liberal, psychoanalytic, French, multicultural, "Third Wave," etc.). No philosophy background is assumed, but readings will typically be fairly long and abstract. The class will involve roughly 50% lecture and 50% class discussion (often in small groups). Grading will reflect the requirements of regular reading, writing, and group participation.

Writing assignments include informal one-page reaction papers as well as three longer (5-page) essay papers on assigned topics.

Texts: TBA

No information is available at this time.

No information is available at this time.

No information is available at this time.

In this course we will examine the interaction between philosophy, science, and religion during the 17th century, the century of the Scientific Revolution. In particular, we will discuss the debates that arose over the nature of explanation, scientific methodology, the status of natural laws and their relation to miracles, and the status of so-called "occult qualities." All of these issues were joined in the protracted conflict that arose between Continental philosophers and scientists, most prominently Leibniz (1646-1716), and the English Newtonians (Newton: 1643-1727) over the status of gravitational force. This conflict involved a central methodological, debate, pitting the Newtonian "experimental philosophy" against the "mechanical philosophy" favored on the Continent. This conflict, in its many and varied forms, will be discussed in detail, as will the equally vexed debate about the "force of a body's motion" — the so-called vis viva controversy.

We will begin with a brief discussion of the Copernican re olution and the work of Galileo (1564-1642). We will then turn to an extensive examination of the influential version of the mechanical philosophy that was developed by Descartes (1596-1659) and his followers, as well as the objections made against it by Leibniz and Newton, among others. We will also discuss the influential work of the English scientist Robert Boyle (1627-1691), who was in Florence in 1642 when Galileo died in his nearby villa in Arcetri. Boyle quickly became a devotee of Galileo's philosophy and the new approach he advocated for studying the world through mathematics and mechanics. Boyle was a founding member of the Royal Society of London, which became the principal organ of the British scientific community. When Newton became president of the Royal Society in 1703, he used his position to bash his opponents, especially Leibniz, who had been elected a fellow to the Royal Society in 1673. Our final topics of discussion will the be dispute, mentioned earlier, between Leibniz and the Newtonians over the status of gravitational force and the vis viva controversy concerning the "force of a body's motion."

There will be a midterm and a final exam, as well as a 10-12 page term paper on a topic chosen by the student in consultation with the instructor. Graduate students will be required to submit a 20-25 page term paper.

Texts (Required)

• Boyle, Robert. Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle, edited by M. A. Stewart. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1991.
• Descartes, René. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. I, edited and translated by John Cottingham, et al. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
• Galileo. The Essential Galileo, edited by Maurice A. Finocchiaro. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2008.
• Leibniz, G. W. Philosophical Essays, edited and translated by Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989.
• Newton, Isaac. Philosophical Writings, edited by Andrew Janiak. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
• The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, edited by H. G. Alexander. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956.

Texts (Recommended)

• The Cambridge Companion to Descartes, edited by John Cottingham. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
• The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, edited by Peter Machamer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
• The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, edited by Nicholas Jolley. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
• The Cambridge Companion to Newton, edited by I. Bernard Cohen and George E. Smith. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

This is an advanced undergraduate/graduate level philosophy course in which we will conduct an in-depth investigation of fundamental philosophical questions that have arisen with respect to religion in the Western tradition (to this end, we also will study some non-Western philosophers who influenced the Western tradition). It requires prior study of Philosophy and/or Theology. The questions we will examine can be divided into roughly three classes:

1. Epistemological questions concerning the relationship between philosophical reasoning and religious belief.
2. Metaphysical questions concerning the nature of the divine.
3. Ethical and political questions concerning the proper relationship between religion, morality and society.

We will begin with the roots of philosophical reflections on these issues in the writings of ancient and medieval philosophers such as Aristotle, Anselm, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Maimonides, Averroes and Aquinas. We will then study some of the most devastating criticisms advanced against traditional views by early moderns such as Calvin, Spinoza and Hume. We will conclude by examining the alternative approaches taken in the 19th – 20th centuries by philosophers like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and James, as well as more recent articles. Assignments include papers, presentations and regular participation in class discussions.

No information is available at this time.

This course examines a wide range of philosophical theories of punishment, paying close attention to what these theories presume about human agency and responsibility. Questions to be discussed include: What right do we have punish wrongdoers? Should our justification of punishment focus on the benefits it provides for society, or on giving criminals their "just-deserts"? To what extent should we take the background and/or the genetic predispositions of criminals into account? Is it morally wrong to punish likely criminals before they commit their crimes (à la Minority Report)? Throughout the course we will hold the empirical assumptions in leading theories of punishment under scrutiny to see how they cohere with contemporary models of human action in the sciences.

No information is available at this time.

No information is available at this time.

No information is available at this time.

An examination of the evidence for Darwinian evolutionary theory and the significance of that theory for philosophy, religion, and society. There will be a midterm and a final, and students shall be required to submit a 10-12 page (20-25 page for graduate students) term paper on a topic chosen in consultation with the instructor.

Texts (Required)

1. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (New York: Penguin, 1982). ISBN: 978-0140432053.
2. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (New York: Penguin, 2004). ISBN: 978-0140436310.
3. Charles Darwin, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (Filiquarian, 2007). ISBN: 978-1599869155.
4. Philip Kitcher, Living with Darwin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). ISBN: 978-0195314441.
5. Tim Lewens, Darwin (New York: Routledge, 2007). ISBN: 978-0415346382.

Texts (Recommended)

1. Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Darwin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003). ISBN: 978-0521777308.
2. Michael Ruse and Robert J. Richards, eds., The Cambridge Companion to the "Origin of Species" (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009). ISBN: 978-0521691291.

In this course we will read much of the most important ethical work of three central figures in the modern history of ethics: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), and Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900). Kant and Mill would very often be taken to be the two most important moral philosophers of the modern era: the most important representatives of, respectively, the deontological and the utilitarian traditions. It is less standard (though far from unprecedented) to give such prominence to Sidgwick; one of the aims of the course is to explore the idea that Sidgwick merits a place as prominent as the other two.

We will focus on our three philosophers’ approaches to two central issues in moral theory: (i) the nature of morality: just what are moral rules, where do they come from, and why should we follow them?; (ii) the content of morality: just what does morality tell us to do? We will also attend to their views on the status of egoism.

There will be a take home midterm and a take home final, both consisting of two questions each requiring about 4-5 pages of writing, and a 7-8 page paper. The midterm and final will each be worth 35%, the paper 30%

This is an introduction to the Philosophy of Law. Roughly the first half of the course introduces classic works on the nature of law and legal systems, the idea of the rule of law, and principles of judicial decision-making. (Typical readings from Aquinas, Austin, Hart, Holmes, Frank, Lyons, etc.) The second half will focus on some illustrative problem, such as the fugitive slave decisions, freedom of religion, or the content, limits, and justification of property rights.

No information is available at this time.

This course examines a wide range of philosophical theories of punishment, paying close attention to what these theories presume about human agency and responsibility. Questions to discussed include: What right do we have punish wrongdoers? Should our justification of punishment focus on the benefits it provides for society, or on giving criminals their “just-deserts”? To what extent should we take the background and/or the genetic predispositions of criminals into account? Is it morally wrong to punish likely criminals before they commit their crimes (à la Minority Report)? Throughout the course we will hold the empirical assumptions in leading theories of punishment under scrutiny to see how they cohere with contemporary models of human action in the sciences.

This course will survey the major developments in philosophical thought about language from roughly 1900 onward. Some of the questions we will explore:

1. Is language a social artifact, a biological capacity, or something else?
2. How does the meaning of a sentence depend on the meanings of its parts?
3. Just what are meanings, anyways?
4. What's the meaning of a name like 'George Bush'? A name like 'Harry Potter'? A definite description like 'the President of the United States' or 'the present king of France'?
5. What can the study of language tell us about non-linguistic bits of the world?

Most readings will be drawn from A. P. Martinich's Philosophy of Language and from Saul Kripke's Naming and Necessity. Course requirements will be set at a future date.

How well do we know our own minds? How in control of our actions are we? Are our choices really rational, or are they a product of less reasoned biases and gut feelings? A range of experimental results in social psychology, economics, and the cognitive neurosciences suggests that we know ourselves much less well than we commonly think and that we often act on cognitive autopilot. In psychologist Timothy Wilson’s words, it seems that we are “strangers to ourselves.?

In this course, we will evaluate these experimental results, in order to determine if such radical claims about who we are and how we reason are warranted. We will consider the methods of the sciences in question, the inherent difficulties in developing and confirming models of human psychology, and the challenges of extending empirical data into the philosopher’s territory of mind, reason, and self. Perhaps the data undermine some of our cherished folk-psychological notions. But even if we find that the grander claims based on these interesting results cannot be supported, our commonsense view of who we are will be clarified by the contrast. And this is a useful outcome in any event.

The course will focus on selected readings from several recent books, both popular and scholarly. Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink is a good introduction to the field. Timothy Wilson’s Strangers to Ourselves and Gerd Gigenzer’s Gut Feelings provide a more detailed overview and analysis of the social psychological experiments in question. And Joseph LeDoux’s The Emotional Brain Michael Gazzaniga’s The Ethical Brain offer a tour of relevant research in the neurosciences. We will also consider the primary source papers from the relevant researchers.

The course requirements for undergraduates include two short papers on assigned topics and a longer research paper for the final. Graduate students are required to make one class presentation on a section of the readings and write a research term paper

This course will focus mainly (about 2/3) on "micro level" issues, and about 1/3 on public policy issues. The first part will concern doctor-patient relations, medical decision-making, issues of life and death, and possibly issues about clinical trials. (We won't cover ALL of these areas.) The second part will look at problems about medical insurance, both private and public, and access to medical care.

There will be two papers, a midterm and a final.

Main Text: Munson, Intervention and Reflection, 8th edn.

No information is available at this time.

An examination of recent work in aesthetics. We begin with a book (Shiner) that analyzes the historical evolution of modern notions of art and aesthetic value. We then consider recent debates (in Kieran) about representation, expression, the role of imagination in art, the basis of interpretation, and interactions between ethics and aesthetics. Our final text (Wartenberg) defends the claim that artworks, and in particular films, can “do? philosophy.

Required Books

1. The Invention of Art: A Cultural History, by Larry Shiner, Chicago: 2001. ISBN: 0-226-75343-3
2. Contemporary Debates in Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, ed. Matthew Kieran. Blackwell: 2006. ISBN: 1-4051-0240-3
3. Thinking on Screen: Film as Philosophy, by Thomas Wartenberg. Routledge; 1 edition (December 14, 2007). ISBN: 0415774314

Recommended Books

• Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy) (Paperback) by Noël Carroll (Author). Routledge; 1 edition (October 20, 1999). ISBN: 0415159644

In this course we will grapple with several philosophical and theological questions central to the Middle Ages such as:

• What is the relationship between religion and philosophy, faith and reason?
• Do humans have free will and can this be reconciled with divine foreknowledge?
• Can the existence of God be proven and if so how?
• What makes our actions virtuous versus sinful?
• Where does knowledge come from and what kinds of things can we know?
• What is the nature and source of political authority?

We will favor the in-depth reading and discussion of key texts in which medieval philosophers seek to answer these questions over an exhaustive overview of the medieval period. However, we will, for the most part, proceed in chronological order, starting with the Church Fathers and ending with William of Ockham, and we will study some of the most influential philosophers of the Middle Ages.

Our focus will be on seminal texts such as St Augustine’s Confessions and On Free Choice of the Will, St Anselm’s Proslogion and his Replies to Guanilo, selections from Peter Abelard’s famous correspondence with Heloise as well as his Ethical Writings, and from St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica. We will also spend part of the course reading equally important non-Christian philosophers of the Middle Ages, such as the Islamic philosopher Averroes (Ibn Rushd), and the Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides. We will conclude with selections from John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham whose theories anticipate the moderns.

The course will introduce the student to some of the most prominent philosophers of the Twentieth Century. It will include such figures as: Russell, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Quine, Putnam and Rorty. Some choices as to which figures to cover will be left to the class. The course will be centered around two themes that appear and reappear in this work. One is the search for the foundations of knowledge, and another the search for values.

Philosophy in the twentieth century is thought be divided into two very different camps: the Analytic and the Continental schools. However one purpose of the class will be to show parallels rather than differences in thinking between the two traditions.

There will be weekly reading assignments drawn from the text, Twentieth-Century Philosophy by F. Baird and W. Kaufmann (Eds.)

There will be a midterm and a final and 3 short papers (about 300 words each).

An examination of the central metaphysical and epistemological issues in 17th-century philosophy. The works of some of the major philosophical figures of the century will be systematically discussed. These figures include Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Malebranche, and Leibniz.

There will be two essay examinations: a midterm and a final. Students will also be required to submit a 12-15 page term paper on a topic determined in consultation with the instructor. Graduate students will be required to submit a 20-25 page term paper.

Texts (Required)

1. Descartes, Rene. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vols. I, II, and III, edited and translated by John Cottingham, et al. New York: Cambridge University Press,1984-85.
2. Spinoza, Benedict de. A Spinoza Reader, edited and translated by Edwin Curley. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
3. Locke, John. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, edited by John Nidditch. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.
4. Leibniz, G. W. Philosophical Essays, edited and translated by Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989.

Texts (Recommended)

1. The Cambridge Companion to Descartes, edited by John Cottingham. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992
2. The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, edited by Don Garrett. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
3. The Cambridge Companion to Locke, edited by Vere Chappell. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
4. The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, edited by Nicholas Jolley. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

The distinguished philosopher David Lewis once wrote, “We know a lot. To doubt that would be absurd,? but he would not have bothered to say so had others not disagreed. In this course we will try to understand both why some philosophers have doubted that we know much at all, and why others consider such doubts absurd.

Doing so will require us to examine a number of important matters: the concepts of knowledge and of rationally justified belief; radical skepticism – think The Matrix; inductive skepticism – even if Matrix scenarios can be ruled out, and the world has been pretty much the way we think it has during our lifetimes, is there any good reason to expect the sun to rise tomorrow? is it reasonable to believe that it rose on June 1, 1755? Wittgenstein-inspired contextualism – if someone hanging out in Lou's bar says Jones knew his daughter was guilty, and someone else, testifying in court, says he didn’t, is there some difference between bars and courts that might allow them both to be right? W. V. Quine’s alleged proposal to “naturalize epistemology? – rather than ask whether there is any rational connection between our evidence and our theories, we should just try to understand how we arrive at our theories from our evidence; the Gettier problem, raised in the best-known three-page epistemological essay of the 20th century – if knowledge is not justified true belief, then what is it? and, possibly, Richard Rorty’s contention that the classical problems of epistemology - including most of those mentioned - are bogus, and that we should stop trying to sucker our students into taking them seriously.

This course investigates the philosophical foundations of science. It begins with a survey of the historical development of science, and then critically evaluates the major philosophical models of the scientific enterprise. We will consider what makes science different from other methods of gaining knowledge, the nature of scientific explanation and scientific law, the ontological status of the posits of scientific theory, and the nature of theory change and scientific revolutions. The course will employ historical and current case studies of scientific practice to illuminate the philosophical issues. The course concludes with reflections on the role of science in modern society.

This course will cover basic works in the liberal political tradition. We start with Hobbes and Locke in the 17th century and some of the Federalist and Anti-federalist writings from the American revolutionary period. We will also discuss such 20th century writers as Rawls and Nozick.

No information is available at this time.

No information is available at this time.

This course will cover modal logic, the logic of necessity, and related notions such as obligation, belief, and time. We will cover the first half of my new book Modal Logic for Philosophers, Cambridge, 2006, where propositional modal logics are discussed. If there is time, we will go on to study quantifiers, and cover some of the philosophical issues surrounding the development and application of modal logics.

Students will complete weekly exercises, take two quizzes and a comprehensive final.

Metaphysics is the study of existence/reality at its most general. What does it mean to say that something exists? Does reality have a beginning and end? What are space and time? Does reality have a creator? Is there a single unified order or is reality partitioned into multiple realms that never interact? What is interaction -- what are cause and effect?

One objective of this course is to introduce you to some awesome issues about existence. Another objective is to equip you with some of the vocabulary and techniques of contemporary anglophone philosophy. Exact readings have yet to be determined; grades will be based on two papers and an exam.

No information is available at this time.

This course is an advanced survey of recent developments in feminist philosophy. Topics include the definitions of gender and sex, ethical theories, feminist epistemologies, disputes about essentialism, and assessments of the position of women in the history of philosophy. We will study and compare the assumptions and aims of various types of feminism (radical, socialist, liberal, psychoanalytic, French, multicultural, "Third Wave," etc.). No philosophy background is assumed, but readings will typically be fairly long and abstract. The class will involve roughly 50% lecture and 50% class discussion (often in small groups). Grading will reflect the requirements of regular reading, writing, and group participation.

Writing assignments include informal one-page reaction papers as well as three longer (5-page) essay papers on assigned topics. Texts: TBA.

No information is available at this time.

In this course we will examine the interaction between philosophy, science, and religion during the 17th century, the century of the Scienfitic Revolution. In particular, we will discuss the debates that arose over the nature of explanation, scientific methodology, the status of natural laws and their relation to miracles, and the status of so-called "occult qualities." All of these issues were joined in the protracted conflict that arose between Continental philosophers and scientists, most prominently Leibniz (1646-1716), and the English Newtonians (Newton: 1643-1727) over the status of gravitational force. This conflict involved a central methodological, debate, pitting the Newtonian "experimental philosophy" against the "mechanical philosophy" favored on the Continent. This conflict, in its many and varied forms, will be discussed in detail, as will the equally vexed debate about the "force of a body's motion" — the so-called vis viva controversy.

We will begin with a look at the controversy over the Copernican system, especially the role of Galileo (1564-1642) in that controversy, as well as his role in the development of the mecahnical philosophy. In connection with the latter, we will also spend some time discussing the influential version of the mechanical philosophy that was developed by Descartes (1596-1659) and his followers, as well as the objections made against it by Leibniz and Newton, among others. We will also discuss the influential work of the English scientist Robert Boyle (1627-1691), who was in Florence when Galileo died in his nearby villa in Arcetri. Boyle quickly became a devotee of Galileo's philosophy and the new approach he advocated for studying the world through mathematics and mechanics. Boyle was a founding member of the Royal Society of London, which became the principal organ of the British scientific community. When Newton became president of the Royal Society in 1703, he used his position to bash his opponents, especially Leibniz, who had been elected a fellow to the Royal Society in 1673.

There will be a midterm and a final exam, as well as a 12-15 page term paper on a topic chosen by the student in consultation with the instructor.

An examination of the central metaphysical and epistemological issues in 17th-century philosophy. The works of some of the major philosophical figures of the century will be systematically discussed. These figures include Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Malebranche, and Leibniz.

There will be two essay examinations: a midterm and a final. Students will also be required to submit a 12-15 page term paper on a topic determined in consultation with the instructor.

Texts (Required)

1. Descartes, Rene. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vols. I, II, and III, edited and translated by John Cottingham, et al. New York: Cambridge University Press,1984-85.
2. Spinoza, Benedict de. A Spinoza Reader, edited and translated by Edwin Curley. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
3. Locke, John. Essay Concerning Human Understanding, edited by John Nidditch. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.
4. Leibniz, G. W. Philosophical Essays, edited and translated by Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989.

Texts (Recommended)

1. The Cambridge Companion to Descartes, edited by John Cottingham. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992
2. The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, edited by Don Garrett. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
3. The Cambridge Companion to Locke, edited by Vere Chappell. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
4. The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, edited by Nicholas Jolley. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

No information is available at this time.

We will start with Darwin, reading *The Origin of Species* and brief selections from other writings. Then we will take up a recent book, Endless Forms Most Beautiful*, by Sean Carroll, which will bring us up to date on recent developments in evolutionary theory, providing answers to questions that no one in Darwin's time knew how to answer.

In the last third of the course we will examine two recent books that try to assess the human significance of the overall picture of the history of life on earth. In *Wonderful Life* Stephen Jay Gould argues, on the bais of an analysis of some remarkable, very ancient fossils found in the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies, that human life is a fluke, an incredibly lucky accident that was very unlikely to happen. Ironically, one of the heroes of his story is the paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, one of the leading figures in the reinterpretation of the Burgess Shale fauna. But Conway Morris disagrees vehemently with Gould. He holds that while conditions conducive to life are rare in the universe, wherever (as in our solar system) life can arise at all, something like human life is very likely to follow.

This is an advanced course, focusing mostly on normative ethical theory. The main texts are Scanlon's What We Owe to Each Other, and Scheffler's The Rejection of Consequentialism. (You will be glad to know we will not read either in its entirety!)

We will begin with a brief discussion of issues about the objectivity and foundations of morality (and a few observations on these issues in Scanlon), then we will turn to substantive ethics. We will look at a small number of articles in which the authors take definite stands on specific issues and then look at how Scanlon's and Scheffler's developed theories would have us reflect more deeply on these issues.

Grades will be based on a midterm, a final and one or two substantial papers.

No information is available at this time.

No information is available at this time.

The distinguished philosopher David Lewis once wrote, “We know a lot. To doubt that would be absurd,? but he would not have bothered to say so had others not disagreed. In this course we will try to understand both why some philosophers have doubted that we know much at all, and why others consider such doubts absurd.

Doing so will require us to examine a number of important matters: the concepts of knowledge and of rationally justified belief; radical skepticism – think The Matrix; inductive skepticism – even if Matrix scenarios can be ruled out, and the world has been pretty much the way we think it has during our lifetimes, is there any good reason to expect the sun to rise tomorrow? is it reasonable to believe that it rose on June 1, 1755? Wittgenstein-inspired contextualism – if someone hanging out in Lou's bar says Jones knew his daughter was guilty, and someone else, testifying in court, says he didn’t, is there some difference between bars and courts that might allow them both to be right? W. V. Quine’s alleged proposal to “naturalize epistemology? – rather than ask whether there is any rational connection between our evidence and our theories, we should just try to understand how we arrive at our theories from our evidence; the Gettier problem, raised in the best-known three-page epistemological essay of the 20th century – if knowledge is not justified true belief, then what is it? and, possibly, Richard Rorty’s contention that the classical problems of epistemology - including most of those mentioned - are bogus, and that we should stop trying to sucker our students into taking them seriously.

This class focusses on three seminal writers in the modern history of ethics: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Joseph Butler (1692-1752), and Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900). We will read substantial portions of their most important ethical works (Hobbes' Leviathan, Butler's Sermons and Sidgwick's The Methods of Ethics). We will be especially concerned with their contrasting views about two central ethical questions: the status of egoism and the character of the true moral theory. On the first question our three writers stack up, very roughly, this way: Hobbes is a rational egoist who tries to build morality on egoist foundations; Butler is a critic of psychological egoism but thinks the principle of self-love has substantial rational authority; and Sidgwick thinks that, despite his best efforts, rational egoism is as defensible as any other method of ethics. On the second question they stack up roughly this way: Hobbes is a social contract theorist; Butler is a deontologist; and Sidgwick is a utilitarian. We will also be alert for connections between the work of our three writers and that of contemporary moral philosophers.

An introduction to the philosophy of law. We begin with historical attempts to define law, to distinguish it from other systems of social rules (like moral rules), and also to explain the relations between the two. We move on to discuss the legitimate powers of judges, possible ideas of how they should decide cases, and whether these ideas are themselves legal or moral ideas. Finally, we look at some particular area of law (probably property law), focusing both on what judges have held in interesting cases and on the moral evaluation of such decisions.

Text: Feinberg and Coleman, PHILOSOPHY OF LAW, 7th edn. (plus cases available online).

This course is an advanced survey of ancient Greek philosophy from the presocratic period through to the Hellenistic period, examining the development of Greek views of the cosmos, the soul, and the virtuous life.

Textbooks (Required)

Text: Feinberg and Coleman, PHILOSOPHY OF LAW, 7th edn. (plus cases available online).

1. Ancient Greek Philosophy, from Thales to Aristotle. Edited by S. Marc Cohen, Patricia Curd, and C.D.C. Reeve (Hackett, 3rd edition, 2005)
2. Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings. Translated by Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson (Hackett, 2nd edition, 1997)

Requirements will include a combination of short reaction paper assignments, short summary papers, two take-home essays (each 2-3 pages long), and regular in-class discussion assignments. Graduate students will be expected to participate in a two-session extra discussion group focusing on one of Plato's dialogues not covered in the class (probably the Philebus) and to write an extra paper on this dialogue.

The on-line version of this course will follow the same structure and time-table but will involve slight variations in the assignments and how they are conducted and evaluated.

Reading-intensive survey of distinctive trends in American thought: Native American philosophy (Gayanashagowa), Puritanism (Jonathan Edwards), Enlightenment ideas (Franklin, Jefferson), transcendentalism (Thoreau, Emerson), pragmatism (Peirce, James, Dewey, Putnam), and race theory (Douglass, DuBois). Source books will be American Philosophies (edited by Leonard Harris) and Pragmatism, Old & New (edited by Susan Haack).

This course picks up where the History of Seventeenth Century Philosophy leaves off. Enlightenment philosophers developed complex philosophical systems to address the tensions that the scientific revolution had produced between: 1) the world as we experience it through the senses 2) the world as described by science, and 3) traditional metaphysical notions of substance, the self and freedom of the will. Much of this course will therefore be devoted to getting clear on the different ways in which these tensions get resolved in George Berkeley’s idealism, David Hume’s radical empiricism, Immanuel Kant’s transcendental idealism, and Thomas Reid’s common sense philosophy. Readingsinclude Berkeley’s Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature and Enquiry Concerning the Human Understanding, Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, and Thomas Reid’s Inquiry and Essays.

How is language related to reality? According to simple referentialism, nouns refer to objects, adjectives refer to properties, verbs refer to actions, and sentences refer to events; moreover, sentences are related to reality by being either true or false. In short, language is about reality and even reflects its structure. What's more, by understanding its nature we can unravel metaphysical mysteries.

In this course we will scrutinize referentialism. We will investigate theories of reference, theories of truth and meaning, and alternatives to such theories. The goal is threefold. (1) You will leave this course with sophisticated insight into the workings of language. (2) You will appreciate its significance to metaphysics and other branches of knowledge. (3) You will acquire vocabulary and conceptual tools necessary for practicing current philosophy.

The distinguished philosopher David Lewis once wrote, “We know a lot. To doubt that would be absurd,? but he would not have bothered to say so had others not disagreed. In this course we will try to understand both why some philosophers have doubted that we know much at all, and why others consider such doubts absurd.

Doing so will require us to examine a number of important matters: the concepts of knowledge and of rationally justified belief; radical skepticism (think The Matrix); inductive skepticism (is it reasonable to expect the sun to rise tomorrow? is it reasonable to believe that it rose on June 1, 1755?). Wittgenstein-inspired contextualism (if someone says Jones knew his daughter was guilty, and someone else says he didn’t, could they both be right?); W. V. Quine’s apparent proposal to “naturalize epistemology? (rather than ask whether the facts support our theories, ask how we arrive at our theories from the facts available to us); the Gettier problem, raised in the most consequential three-page epistemological essay of the 20th century (if knowledge is not justified true belief, then what is it?) and, possibly, Richard Rorty’s contention that the classical problems of epistemology are bogus, and that we should stop trying to sucker our students into taking them seriously.

No information is available at this time.

More than half of the course will be concerned with "micro level" questions--questions about the roles of physicians and patients in medical decision-making, about criteria for good decisions, about physician-patient communication, and so on. Here we will consider such issues as informed consent, honesty, and decisions to forego life saving therapies.

The rest of the course will consider "macro-level" issues of health policy: Who pays for medical care, whether we have rights to medical care, how to control costs and whether people have fair access to health care.

Text: Munson, ed., Intervention and Reflection, 7th edn.

In the first half of the course we will be concerned with the familiar range of topics concerning the bearing of physics, cosmology and evolutionary biology on western theism. We will start with historical studies of Galileo, Newton and Darwin and their contemporaries, and move on to current discussions. We will not focus on creationism or "intelligent design" theory as such, but will assemble the information and analytic tools for a just assessment of them.

In the latter part of the course we will broaden our scope to include a sample of other religious traditions and other sciences. We will discuss Buddhism and quantum physics, creation myths and the worldviews of indigenous peoples, and the current controversies between archaeologists and native Americans over the study of human remains and sacred sites. We will conclude with some general philosophical reflections on the various ways in which religions and sciences seek to understand or explain the world.

The text for the course will be a manuscript by the instructor, Religions and Sciences: The Search for Understanding.

In this course we will examine the interaction between philosophy, science, and religion during the 17th century, the century of the Scienfitic Revolution. In particular, we will discuss the debates that arose over the nature of explanation, scientific methodology, the status of natural laws and their relation to miracles, and the status of so-called "occult qualities." All of these issues were joined in the protracted conflict that arose between Continental philosophers and scientists, most prominently Leibniz (1646-1716), and the English Newtonians (Newton: 1643-1727) over the status of gravitational force. This conflict involved a central methodological, debate, pitting the Newtonian "experimental philosophy" against the "mechanical philosophy" favored on the Continent. This conflict, in its many and varied forms, will be discussed in detail, as will the equally vexed debate about the "force of a body's motion" — the so-called vis viva controversy.

We will begin with a look at the controversy over the Copernican system, especially the role of Galileo (1564-1642) in that controversy, as well as his role in the development of the mecahnical philosophy. In connection with the latter, we will also spend some time discussing the influential version of the mechanical philosophy that was developed by Descartes (1596-1659) and his followers, as well as the objections made against it by Leibniz and Newton, among others. We will also discuss the influential work of the English scientist Robert Boyle (1627-1691), who was in Florence when Galileo died in his nearby villa in Arcetri. Boyle quickly became a devotee of Galileo's philosophy and the new approach he advocated for studying the world through mathematics and mechanics. Boyle was a founding member of the Royal Society of London, which became the principal organ of the British scientific community. When Newton became president of the Royal Society in 1703, he used his position to bash his opponents, especially Leibniz, who had been elected a fellow to the Royal Society in 1673.

There will be a midterm and a final exam, as well as a 12-15 page term paper on a topic chosen by the student in consultation with the instructor.

Required Texts

1. Alexander, H. G., ed. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998.
2. Ariew, Roger and Daniel Garber, eds. G. W. Leibniz Philosophical Essays. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989.
3. Cottingham, John et al., eds. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. I. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
4. Drake, Stillman, ed. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. New York: Anchor, 1957.
5. Janiak, Andrew, ed. Isaac Newton: Philosophical Writings. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
6. Kuhn, Thomas. The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957.
7. Stewart, M. A., ed. Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1991.

Recommended Texts

1. Cohen, I. Bernard and George E. Smith, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Newton. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
2. Cottingham, John, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Descartes. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
3. Jolley, Nicholas, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
4. Machamer, Peter, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

We live in an age of statistics. Statistical information and probabilistic arguments abound. The aim of this course is to enable students to interpret the statistical information and to reason skillfully with probabilities, whether in decision making, in trying to anticipate future developments, or in assessing the strength of arguments in which the premises do not entail the conclusion but do seem to make it likely.

No previous work in logic is required. The mathematical calculations we will be doing involve no techniques more advanced than elementary algebra.

The text for the course is Ian Hacking's Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic (which is noteworthy for its combination of authoritativeness, accessibility, lively style, and interesting examples and problems).

No information is available at this time.

The goal of this course is to understand and critically examine the philosophical origins of modern thought. We will begin by surveying the transition from the Scholastic Aristotelian worldview of the Middle Ages to the mechanistic worldview of the Scientific Revolution. Our focus will be on the development of the first modern scientific methods by philosophers and scientists such as Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei and René Descartes. Readings will include extracts from Bacon’s Novum Organum, Galileo’s Assayer, and Descartes’ Treatise on the World and Discourse on the Method. Next we will examine and evaluate the revolutionary project of Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy to replace the Scholastic Aristotelian metaphysics and epistemology with a new philosophical foundation for the new science. As part of our overall evaluation of the modern approach to philosophy, we will consider various responses to the Cartesian project, including the controversial results of Baruch Spinoza’s application of the geometrical method to all of philosophy in his Ethics, the extension of the modern scientific method to the realm of politics by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan, and John Locke’s empiricist theory of knowledge as found in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding plus his influential Second Treatise on Government.

No information is available at this time.

Metaphysics is the study of existence/reality at its most general. What does it mean to say that something exists? Does reality have a beginning and end? What are space and time? Does reality have a creator? Is there a single unified order or is reality partitioned into multiple realms that never interact? What is interaction -- what are cause and effect?

This course is a survey in contemporary metaphysics. We will read articles by the likes of Quine, Putnam, Nozick, Benacerraf, Plantinga, Churchland, and Sorensen. Course grade will be based on three short papers, final exam, and possibly quizzes.

This class focusses on three seminal writers in the modern history of ethics: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679); Joseph Butler (1692-1752) and Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900). We will read substantial portions of their most important ethical works (Hobbes' Leviathan, Butler's Sermons and Sidgwick's The Methods of Ethics). We will be especially concerned with their contrasting views about two central ethical questions: the status of egoism and the character of the true moral theory. On the first question our three writers stack up, very roughly, this way: Hobbes is a psychological and rational egoist who tries to build morality on egoist foundations; Butler is a critic of psychological egoism but thinks the principle of self-love has substantial rational authority; and Sidgwick thinks that, despite his best efforts, rational egoism is as defensible as any other method of ethics. On the second question they stack up roughly this way: Hobbes is a social contract theorist; Butler is a deontologist; and Sidgwick is a utilitarian. We will also be alert for connections between the work of our three writers and contemporary moral philosophers. There will be three pieces of required written work, a take home midterm and a take home final, each consisting of two questions, each question requiring about 4-5 pages of writing, and a 7-8 page paper. The midterm and final will each be worth 35%, the paper 30%.

This year (2005) marks the 300th anniversary of the completion of Leibniz's New Essays on Human Understanding. As the title was intended to suggest, Leibniz composed this work as a comprehensive critique of John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which had first been published in December 1689. However, Leibniz never published his New Essays, and he apparently lost interest in the project after hearing of Locke's death, which occurred on 28 October 1704. Referring to the unpulbished New Essays in a letter of 14 March 1714 to one of his correspondents, Leibniz explained that "I have taken a dislike to publishing any refutations of deceased authors; [refutations of an author] should be published during his lifetime and communicated to him."

In that hoary system of philosophical classification that most contemporary historians regard as wildly misleading and fatally flawed, Locke has generally been taken to be a paradigmatic member of the so-called empiricist sect, while Leibniz has been taken to be a paradigmatic member of the so-called rationalist sect; and Locke's Essay and Leibniz's New Essays have often been exhibited as textual illustrations of the conflict between these two supposed schools of thought. But careful analysis of the positions of these two philosophers does not sustain such a simple and clear-cut assessment: often it is Leibniz who appears the more empirically inclined philosopher, and Locke the more rationalistically inclined. Moreover, the distinction between rationalists and empiricists is generally epistemological in nature--between those who supposedly hold that all genuine knowledge is a priori and forms a deductive system and those who supposedly hold that most genuine knowledge, and all knowledge about the nature of existing things, is ultimately based upon information gained through the senses. But from Leibniz's point of view in the New Essays, it is clear that he did not see the dispute between himself and Locke primarily in these terms. In a letter he wrote to his erstwhile disciple Caroline, the Princess of Wales, in November 1715--the letter that ignited his famous correspondence with the Newtonian apologist Samuel Clarke--Leibniz offered the following indictment of English philosophy:

"Natural Religion itself seems to decay (in England) very much. Many will have human souls to be material: others make God himself a corporeal being. Mr. Locke, and his followers, are uncertain at least, whether the soul be not material, and naturally perishable."

The dispute that Leibniz saw as central between himself and the English philosophers, and Locke in particular, was not primarily epistemological in nature at all, but rather metaphysical. He was disturbed above all by what he regarded as the materialistic tendencies of English philosophy and its corrosive effects on natural religion, especially on the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Although epistemological issues do make their appearance in the New Essays, they were metaphysical concerns that were the driving force behind Leibniz's critique of Locke.

In this course we will undertake a systematic examination of a number of important topics in Locke's Essay and Leibniz's treatment of them in the New Essays. Among them will be the central issues of materialism and mechanism, but also the nature of the soul, freedom, innate knowledge, natural kinds, essentialism, and personal identity.

Requirements: Midterm, final, 12-15 page term paper.

Required Texts: G.W. Leibniz: New Essays on Human Undersatnding, ed. by Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996; ISBN: 0521576601). John Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. by Peter Nidditch (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979; ISBN: 0198245955).

Recommended Texts: The Cambridge Companion to Leibniz, edited by Nicholas Jolley (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994; ISBN: 0521367697). The Cambridge Companion to Locke, edited by Vere Chappell (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994; ISBN: 0521387728).