In this course, we read the greatest hits of twentieth century analytic philosophy. Our goal is to understand how and why these papers changed the world, philosophically speaking. In particular, we follow each classic text with chasers from contemporary philosophy. For instance, we read Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" and then talk about how notions of analyticity are relevant to modern two-dimensionalist frameworks by Stalnaker and Chalmers. We read Frege's "On Sense and Reference" and then talk about recent work on hyperintensionality by linguists such as Geurts and Heim. And we read Gettier's "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" and then talk about recent work by Williamson on whether knowledge can in fact be analyzed. Requirements include extensive careful reading, problem sets, a midterm paper, and a paper due at the end of the academic term.

Advisory Prerequisites:

One philosophy introduction. Intended primarily for undergraduates with a Philosophy concentration.

This course will explore several topics central to issues about the methods of contemporary science. Science purports to explain phenomena, to answer “Why?” questions. But what is the nature of scientific explanations. Science develops theories to explain phenomena, theories which posit new, often unobservable, entities and properties. What is the structure of these theories and how are they related to the empirical evidence that supports them. Science claims to have strong evidential support in favor of its theories? But how are theories supported by evidence? And are there grounds for skepticism about scientific claims?

Advisory Prerequisites:

One course in Philosophy or Science at the 300 level or higher with a grade of C- or better; or graduate standing.

From the inception of the film medium, philosophy and film theory have attempted to articulate the nature and possibilities of this medium. They have addressed how film is similar and different to other arts, and how it appropriates elements from those arts (painting, opera, photography, theater) in dazzling new ways. A wide variety of writings have tried to fathom film’s immediate popularity and its social forces (actual and potential). They have interrogated the way film frames women, passes on and creates stereotypes, fancifies the world in problematical ways. The faces of Garbo, Chaplin, Cary Grant are utterly familiar, but also exist in a netherworld. The attempt to find the best words to describe the ontological (and phenomenal) character of these faces in films has partly eluded a century of the most sophisticated film theory. Since there is no form of art and communication more central to contemporary life than film (more crucial to the fabric of our beliefs, ideologies, enjoyment, politics, advertisements) these questions have been posed with considerable urgency throughout film history. Such reflections have not been restricted to writing about film. Film has also, from the beginning, been actively involved in its own investigation, just as it has been actively involved in innovation in the film medium. Film’s own involvement in philosophical reflection upon itself raises the question of what it means for a visual medium to “speak philosophically” about itself at all, indeed to what it means for a visual medium to “speak” at all. Another kind of question that will run throughout is where philosophy ends and film theory begins, whether these terms are interchangeable or not, and if not, why not. It is these and other questions, posed by philosophy, criticism, sociology, politics, and also by film itself, which shall occupy the class. The class will be designed to integrate the weekly viewing of films with the reading of a variety of writings on film in order to explore questions in the philosophy of film, and in philosophy generally.

Advisory Prerequisites:

One of the following: a philosophy course at the 300-level or above, one course in History of Art, one course in Screen Arts and Cultures, or permission of instructor.

This course focuses on the Zhuangzi, a text named after its core portion’s purported author Zhuangzi [aka Chuang Tzu] or Master Zhuang (ca. 369-286 B.C.E.), a brilliant thinker and writer in the philosophy of Daoism (aka Taoism). One of the greatest works in Chinese philosophy and literature, the Zhuangzi has had a profound influence on Chinese life, art, literature, philosophy, religion, and aesthetic theory during the last two millennia. After the Dao De Jing (aka Tao Te Ching) of Laozi (aka Lao Tzu), the Zhuangzi has traditionally been regarded as a principal classic in the philosophy of early “Daoism” (aka “Taoism”). We will begin with a close reading of the Dao De Jing, explore the relation between these two texts, and their relation to early Chinese culture. We will then examine the influence of the Zhuangzi on vital aspects of Chinese civilization through the centuries. The course will also offer a survey of some of the important interpretations, both traditional and modern, of this early Chinese classic.

Active attendance and participation in discussion, two PowerPoint presentations, and two 6 to 8-page papers are required. Some knowledge of Chinese culture is recommended but not required, and no knowledge of the Chinese language is required.

Advisory Prerequisites:

ASIAN/PHIL 263 or another introductory philosophy course.

This course provides an examination of the logic of social science research through the writings of philosophers and social scientists. The philosophy of social science is a discipline that attempts to analyze the logic, methodology, modes of explanation, and methods of inquiry of the social sciences. The past dozen years have witnessed an explosion of valuable debate about foundational issues in sociology and other social sciences. The course is based on the assumption that both philosophers and social scientists will benefit from a better understanding of the conceptual and methodological issues that arise in the conduct of social science research. One of the goals of the discipline is to allow us to come to some judgments about the degree of validity and credibility that various social science theories have as assertions about the nature of the social world we experience. The course is premised on the assumption that the philosophy of social science should develop its theories and analyses by working closely with strong examples of good social science research. We should frame the defining questions of the philosophy of social science by reflecting upon the large conceptual and methodological issues that have actually been important to social scientists as they conduct their research and theory construction. The course will make use of recent writings by such social scientists as Abbott, Mahoney, Sewell, Steinmetz, Adams, Lieberson, and Shapiro as we explore recent debates about the foundations of social science explanation. Central topics will include the logic of comparative social science, the role of rational choice theory, the cultural turn, the utility of causal mechanisms, hidden assumptions in quantitative reasoning, and the nature of the social.

Advisory Prerequisites:

Graduate standing.

A faculty-directed independent study.

Enforced Prerequisites:

With permission of instructor.

Advisory Prerequisites:

Graduate standing and permission of instructor.

A faculty-directed candidacy reading course in which a student – having already successfully completed an independent literature survey in the area of his or her projected dissertation – works toward identifying a specific thesis topic and writing a dissertation prospectus, and begins to write material which can be expected to represent some component of the dissertation. If the reading course is to commence in the Fall, students should arrange for faculty direction the preceding April; if it is to commence in the Winter, students should arrange for faculty direction no later than the preceding November. Faculty service in this capacity does not commit the student to asking the faculty member to serve on his or her dissertation committee, nor does it commit the faculty member to agreeing to do so. A student wishing to elect PHIL 599 must submit a proposed plan of study no later than the beginning of the term for which the course is elected. (Students are urged to consult with their advisors and prospective faculty sponsors as early as possible during the planning of their Reading Course). The plan must be accepted by the faculty sponsor of the course within a week of the beginning of the term. A plan will normally not be acceptable if it overlaps significantly with a departmental course.

Enforced Prerequisites:

With permission of instructor.

Advisory Prerequisites:

Graduate standing and permission of instructor.

This course will be a high-level survey of topics in contemporary metaphysics. We will focus on issues about properties, laws, modality, material constitution, and meta-ontology.

Advisory Prerequisites:

Graduate standing.

What is the relation between power and authority? This question drives much work in political philosophy. But it is also just beneath the surface of many philosophical accounts of reasons for action. We will begin by examining worries about the legitimacy of authority that arise in normative theorizing — worries, e.g., about the authority of laws and lawmakers, and about our moral authority to demand certain things of one another. We will next turn to attempts to ground reasons for action in the power of desire and/or the power to choose.

And we will then consider how the nonrational powers of our mind can determine what we have reason to do if no such powers are intrinsically authoritative. We will explore the suggestion that if reason lacks both the power and the authority to set its own practical ends (if it is "a slave of the passions") and if the nonrational powers of our mind are not themselves intrinsically authoritative, then the only way that we as rational beings can exercise authority over our desires and choices is by authorizing their influence on our behavior so that we can understand this behavior as our own.

According to this suggestion, in order to reconcile 1) the assumption that we really do have reasons to do some things and not others and 2) the assumption that our reasons for action are all grounded in nonrational motivating forces, we must reconceive practical reasoning as theoretical reasoning about how to make sense of our own behavior.

We will carefully examine this suggestion and its implications.

Should we endorse it? What are the alternatives? What general conclusions can we draw about the relation between power and authority?

Advisory Prerequisites:

Graduate standing.

Graduate School authorization for admission as a doctoral Candidate. N.B. The defense of the dissertation (the final oral examination) must be held under a full term Candidacy enrollment period.

Enforced Prerequisites:

Graduate School authorization for admission as a doctoral Candidate. With permission of instructor.