| |
Current Course Descriptions (Fall 2013)
Philosophy 001 / Introduction to Philosophy (*applies to all sections of PHIL 001)
In all sections of Philosophy 001, an enrollment
maximum will be strictly enforced. The sections are taught as
independent classes, each with separate reading lists, assignments,
and examination policies; but the following features are common to all:
- The classes are small and designed to introduce students
to philosophical thinking through the reading of a few great texts.
- The classes stress the development of good writing,
reading, and thinking habits by encouraging critical analysis,
philosophical debate and discussion, and clear, rigorous writing.
- Each section requires at least five short papers, which are
carefully criticized and graded, with attention paid both to
philosophical cogency and style.
- Students having credit for English 001 may use Philosophy 001
to satisfy the second half of the College Writing Requirement
as well as the Humanities Requirement.
PHIL 001-01 / Introduction to Philosophy
Jeff McConnell / K+ MW 4:30-5:45
This section is an introduction to philosophy by way of a close reading
of several philosophical classics. The readings will include Plato's Meno,
parts of Descartes's Meditations and of his Discourse on Method,
the entirety of Hume's Enquiry Concerning
Human Understanding, parts of several other works by Hume, and several works
by Kant. Along the way, we will examine some central problems of philosophy,
such as these: What is the relation between the mind and the body? Do we have
free will? Are our actions causally determined? Why is there something rather
than nothing? What is the origin of the order and of the complexity in the
world? What makes us the same persons over time? How can we know if there is a
world outside our minds? Can we know whether or not there is a God? What is the
nature of right and wrong? There will be regular writing assignments and perhaps
a final take-home examination.
PHIL 001-02 / Introduction to Philosophy
Jeff McConnell / M+ MW 6:00-7:15
Metaphysics is the philosophical study of the ultimate character of
reality. This section is an introduction to metaphysics. We will also consider
certain questions in epistemology, the philosophical study of knowledge. We will
often be concerned with how these two areas of philosophy are connected -- what
limitations our various conceptions of knowledge impose on how much of the world
we can know, and what our various metaphysical conceptions have to say about
knowledge. In the process, we will examine some central metaphysical problems:
What is the relation between the mind and the body? What is the nature of
alienation? What is rationality? Do we have free will? Are our actions causally
determined? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the origin of
the order and of the complexity in the world? What makes us the same persons
over time? Several readings may be drawn from classical texts, but most readings
will come from the last hundred years. There will be regular writing
assignments, and occasionally, during times arranged outside the time block,
students may be asked to view films related to the readings.
PHIL 001-03 / Introduction to Philosophy
Susan Russinoff /J+ TR 3:00-4:15
This is an introduction to philosophy through an examination of some of
the classical problems in the history of Western Philosophy. We start by
investigating various kinds of reasoning used by philosophers and then take a
careful look at questions concerning belief, knowledge, and reality. We also
explore how humans ought to make decisions, and investigate questions that arise
when we think about whether an act is right or wrong. This is done, in part, by
considering and evaluating answers given by various philosophers and their
reasons for giving them. The course introduces you to several areas of
philosophy and helps to develop both your analytic skills and your ability to
express your own views and thoughts clearly. Readings will include selections by
Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Goodman, Pascal, Mill, and Kant. Students will write
five short essays and will be given the opportunity to write several drafts of
each.
PHIL 001-05 / Introduction to Philosophy
Valentina Urbanek / D+ TR 10:30-11:45
In this course, we will ask and attempt to answer big metaphysical
questions: What are we -- are we immaterial things, bodily things, some
complicated combination? What happens to us when we die? Does God
exist? Do we have free will?
We will also ask and attempt to answer big epistemological questions:
How could we ever come to know the answers to these important metaphysical
questions? What is knowledge and how do we get it -- via our senses, by
reasoning alone? Is knowledge even attainable?
Throughout our examination of these metaphysical and epistemological
questions, we will discuss questions about values and what we should do.
What attitude should we take toward death? Is suicide immoral? If we
don't have free will, does that mean that everything that we do is pointless?
If we can't prove that some of our most fundamental beliefs are true, would it
matter -- how should we go on with life?
Great philosophers have proposed sophisticated answers to these
questions. We will read their works, consider their theories, analyze
their arguments, and grapple with our own answers, however tentative, to these
big questions.
PHIL 001-06 / Introduction to Philosophy
Valentina Urbanek / F+ TR 12:00-1:15
In this course, we will ask and attempt to answer big metaphysical
questions: What are we -- are we immaterial things, bodily things, some
complicated combination? What happens to us when we die? Does God
exist? Do we have free will?
We will also ask and attempt to answer big epistemological questions:
How could we ever come to know the answers to these important metaphysical
questions? What is knowledge and how do we get it -- via our senses, by
reasoning alone? Is knowledge even attainable?
Throughout our examination of these metaphysical and epistemological
questions, we will discuss questions about values and what we should do.
What attitude should we take toward death? Is suicide immoral? If we
don't have free will, does that mean that everything that we do is pointless?
If we can't prove that some of our most fundamental beliefs are true, would it
matter -- how should we go on with life?
Great philosophers have proposed sophisticated answers to these
questions. We will read their works, consider their theories, analyze
their arguments, and grapple with our own answers, however tentative, to these
big questions.
PHIL 001-07 / Introduction to Philosophy
Charles Oliver / M+ MW / 6:00-7:15
In this course, we examine some of the ethical, religious, and
scientific ideas developed by philosophers in the Western tradition. Our
effort begins with the Greeks. First, we consider traditional views on the
gods and morality and the Pre-Socratic and Sophistic attack on them. Then
we see how philosophy emerged as a way to address these criticisms. We
look, in particular, at Plato and Aristotle's attempts to create more rational
accounts of the divine and of human action. From there, our inquiry moves
to the modern world. We start with Descartes, who rejected the ideas
received from antiquity and attempted to put science and philosophy on a new,
more certain foundation. We then consider Hume's challenge to this new
science, especially his criticism of the idea of cause and effect, and his
qualified skepticism about what we can ultimately know. We emphasize
throughout the connection between these thinkers' ideas and the cultural and
historical circumstances, from which they emerged.
PHIL 001-08 / Introduction to Philosophy
Charles Oliver / I+ MW / 3:00-4:15
In this course, we examine some of the ethical, religious, and
scientific ideas developed by philosophers in the Western tradition. Our
effort begins with the Greeks. First, we consider traditional views on the
gods and morality and the Pre-Socratic and Sophistic attack on them. Then
we see how philosophy emerged as a way to address these criticisms. We
look, in particular, at Plato and Aristotle's attempts to create more rational
accounts of the divine and of human action. From there, our inquiry moves
to the modern world. We start with Descartes, who rejected the ideas
received from antiquity and attempted to put science and philosophy on a new,
more certain foundation. We then consider Hume's challenge to this new
science, especially his criticism of the idea of cause and effect, and his
qualified skepticism about what we can ultimately know. We emphasize
throughout the connection between these thinkers' ideas and the cultural and
historical circumstances, from which they emerged.
PHIL 001-09 / Introduction to Philosophy
Christopher Phillips / J+ TR 3:00-4:15
As an introduction to
philosophy, we will be covering a variety of topics in Epistemology,
Metaphysics, and Ethics, philosophy's three "main" topical
areas of study. Pulling from sources both contemporary
and ancient, we will consider a variety of philosophical issues beginning with
the nature of philosophy itself. From there, we will consider
the differences between belief, opinion, and
knowledge (and whether the latter is
even possible). Following (and paraphrasing) Descartes,
perhaps all we know is that "I exist
as a thinking thing" ... but what does this mean? What is it to so exist?
What is our fundamental nature as this kind of "thinking thing"?
What about God: does God exist?
How would we know this?
Do we know it?
What kind of being is God?
Returning to our own existence as (purportedly) essentially a "thinking
thing", what individuates you (as you)
and me (as me)? How much can we
change over time – and in what ways –
and still be us? Is
this "thinking thing" a will?
Can we act
freely; is it a
free will? And what does
that even mean?!
Finally, how do these various concerns bear on our moral status, our ethical
responsibilities? How do these considerations inform our
understanding of moral obligations, how we understand what we
ought to do (if anything)?
But as an introduction to
philosophy, Even so, you will be learn ing
more than just what philosopher's study and think about, more even than
how to engage with philosophical issues yourself. Here, you
will be doing some philosophy!
And in so doing, you will be writing: as a means to
process hard, abstract thoughts; to clearly and cogently
express what you've processed; and –
in what might be paradigmatically philosophical – to
argue a position and
defend it against possible critics.
Note: it is this focus on clear, cogent,
critical writing that allows
Philosophy 001 to substitute for the otherwise required English 002.
PHIL 001-11 / Introduction to Philosophy
Christopher Phillips / L+ TR 4:30-5:45
As an introduction to
philosophy, we will be covering a variety of topics in Epistemology,
Metaphysics, and Ethics, philosophy's three "main" topical
areas of study. Pulling from sources both contemporary
and ancient, we will consider a variety of philosophical issues beginning with
the nature of philosophy itself. From there, we will consider
the differences between belief, opinion, and
knowledge (and whether the latter is
even possible). Following (and paraphrasing) Descartes,
perhaps all we know is that "I exist
as a thinking thing" … but what does this mean? What is it to so exist?
What is our fundamental nature as this kind of "thinking thing"?
What about God: does God exist?
How would we know this?
Do we know it?
What kind of being is God?
Returning to our own existence as (purportedly) essentially a "thinking
thing", what individuates you (as you)
and me (as me)? How much can we
change over time – and in what ways –
and still be us? Is
this "thinking thing" a will?
Can we act
freely; is it a
free will? And what does
that even mean?!
Finally, how do these various concerns bear on our moral status, our ethical
responsibilities? How do these considerations inform our
understanding of moral obligations, how we understand what we
ought to do (if anything)?
But as an introduction to
philosophy, Even so, you will be learn ing
more than just what philosopher's study and think about, more even than
how to engage with philosophical issues yourself. Here, you
will be doing some philosophy!
And in so doing, you will be writing: as a means to
process hard, abstract thoughts; to clearly and cogently
express what you've processed; and –
in what might be paradigmatically philosophical – to
argue a position and
defend it against possible critics.
Note: it is this focus on clear, cogent,
critical writing that allows
Philosophy 001 to substitute for the otherwise required English 002.
PHIL 001-12 / Introduction to Philosophy
Monica Link / E+ MW 10:30-11:45
In this course we will take up three broad philosophical topics.
The first topic is the nature and structure of morality.
How should we treat other human beings? What
principles ought we to use in deciding when an action is right or wrong?
Next we will turn to questions about knowledge and reality.
Can we be certain that we exist? That the external
world exists? That God exists? Are the
mind and the brain identical? If they are two separate
entities, how are they related?
Lastly, we will discuss free will. What is it, and
do we have it? Is it compatible with the idea that everything
in the universe is determined? Is free will a necessary
condition for holding people morally responsible for their actions?
Readings will be drawn from both classic and contemporary philosophers.
PHIL 001-13 / Introduction to Philosophy
Monica Link / D+ TR 10:30-11:45
In this course we will take up three broad philosophical topics.
The first topic is the nature and structure of morality.
How should we treat other human beings? What
principles ought we to use in deciding when an action is right or wrong?
Next we will turn to questions about knowledge and reality.
Can we be certain that we exist? That the external
world exists? That God exists? Are the
mind and the brain identical? If they are two separate
entities, how are they related?
Lastly, we will discuss free will. What is it, and
do we have it? Is it compatible with the idea that everything
in the universe is determined? Is free will a necessary
condition for holding people morally responsible for their actions?
Readings will be drawn from both classic and contemporary philosophers.
PHIL 015 / Introduction to Linguistics
Ariel Goldberg / H+ TR 1:30-2:45
The contemporary science of linguistics is concerned with how humans
encode their language in their brains, so that they can produce and understand
an unlimited variety of utterances in context. This course will begin with a
discussion of general properties of language: its cultural and political context
and how it contrasts with other forms of communication. It then will turn to the
problem of how children learn language and the possibility of a biological basis
for the ability to learn language, often termed Universal Grammar. From this
background, the course will work out some aspects of the structure of language:
morphology (word structure), syntax (sentence structure), phonology (sound
structure), and semantics (meaning), making use of problem sets involving
English and other languages of the world.
PHIL 024 / Introduction to Ethics
David Denby / I+ MW 3:00-4:15
Ethical philosophy attempts to answer some of the most important
questions about how we should live. Many of us want to know: How can I
lead a good and worthwhile life? What sort of person should I be, and what
is the right way to act? To what extent am I allowed to pursue my own
happiness, and to what extent should I promote the happiness and well-being of
others? And, importantly, are there timeless, objectively true answers to these
questions, or does each of us have to decide for ourselves what is right and
good? In this course, we will begin by examining the answers given by some
of history's greatest philosophers – figures like Plato, Aristotle, Immanuel
Kant, and John Stuart Mill. Then we will see how contemporary philosophers
have criticized, defended, and added fresh perspectives to these traditional
answers.
PHIL 033 / Logic
Susan Russinoff / F TRF 12:00-12:50
*Satisfies Tufts Mathematical
Sciences Distribution Requirement
How can one tell whether a deductive argument succeeds in establishing
its conclusion? What distinguishes good deductive arguments from bad
ones? Questions such as these will be addressed in this course. We will discuss
what a formal language is, how arguments in English are to be expressed in
various formal languages, and what is gained from so
expressing them. In the jargon of the field, we will cover sentential
logic, first-order predicate logic, identity theory, definite
descriptions, and topics in metatheory. The course requires no specific
background and no special ability in mathematics
PHIL 038 / Rational Choice
Patrick Forber / D+ TR 10:30-11:45
Decision making and strategic interaction are activities we engage in
everyday. But do we make the right decisions? Do we adopt the most
advantageous strategies? This course will approach these questions by using a
set of formal methods for analyzing decisions and strategies: decision theory
and game theory. We will cover the basics of probability and game theory and
their application to problems in decision making and strategic thinking,
tackling a number of troublesome paradoxes that emerge. We will also look at
promising applications of game theory to understanding evolution in both
biological and cultural domains.
PHIL 041 / Western Political Thought I
Vickie Sullivan / D+ TR 10:30-11:45
Central concepts of ancient, medieval, and early modern political
thought. Ideas of Thucydides, Aristophanes, Plato, and Aristotle during
the rise and fall of Athens. Subsequent transformations of political
philosophy, related to the decline of the Roman empire and the origins and
development of Christian political doctrine, and the new political outlook of
those who challenge the hegemony of Christianity. Analysis of how
pre-modern political thought helped structure future political debate.
PHIL 052 / Aesthetics
Stephen White / G+ MW 1:30-2:45
In the tradition of Anglo-American philosophy, aesthetics has played a
largely marginal role. (Possible explanation:
German romanticism was the product of philosophers; their closest British
counterparts were poets.) There is good evidence that
this situation is currently undergoing a profound change.
Fundamental problems in aesthetics, long believed to be of relevance only to
specialists in the philosophy of art, are rapidly emerging as central to a range
of issues at the heart of contemporary philosophy of language, philosophy of
mind, and cognitive science. The problems of aesthetics
include the nature of the expression of feeling in art and correlative issues in
our understanding of the emotions, the notions of projection and identification
in the context of the psychology of film spectatorship, and the nature of
narrative. Central issues in philosophy include the
problem of other minds, the problem of the definition of normative terms in
meta-ethics and the problem of the characterization of human action, and the
problem of grounding linguistic meaning in the concept of use.
The issues in cognitive science are those surrounding the debate between
proponents of the so-called "theory theory" of mental ascription and proponents
of the competing simulation theory. I have special interests
in the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich, Georgio De Chirico, and Edward
Hopper, in the photography of Bill Brandt and Lee Friedlander, in the films of
Werner Herzog, Terence Malick, and Andre Tarkovski, in the cinematography of
Vitorio Storaro and Christopher Doyle, in film noir, and in the films of such
recent Korean "new wave" directors as Kim Ki-Duk (Spring, Summer,
Fall, Winter… and Spring; Three Iron).
PHIL 0091-02 / War & Terrorism
Lionel McPherson / D+ TR 10:30-11:45
This course will take up the following topics. What might justify the
use of violence? Are there moral constraints on the conduct of war? Do
combatants bear moral responsibility for fighting? Is terrorism always wrong?
How are we to understand pacifism as an alternative to violence? Certain deeply
held assumptions about war and terrorism will be called into question.
PHIL 0091-03 / Civic Engagement in Current Theory & Practice
Peter Levine / J+ TR 3:00-4:15
This course will explore several contrasting conceptions of active
citizenship that have roots both in philosophy and in practical experimentation.
These conceptions will include, among others, the citizen as deliberator
(Jürgen Habermas), as joiner (Robert Putnam), as radical (Saul Alinsky), as
manager of common resources (Elinor Ostrom), as worker (Harry Boyte), and as
co-producer of knowledge (John Dewey).
PHIL 0091-04 / Climate Change Ethics
George Smith / L+ TR 4:30-5:45
In addition to enormous improvements in quality of life, the Industrial
Revolution has from the outset introduced risks of occasional harms to
individuals who had little or no say in living under these risks and little
means for obviating them. Society has devised various means
at least to compensate those suffering such inadvertent harm – for example,
Workmen's Compensation and, on Oliver Wendell Holmes's view, some aspects of
modern tort law. In the case of nuclear power the scale of
the risks have become large enough to spark controversy over whether the risks
are even morally permissible. Granting fully the
uncertainties about the harms that human emissions of greenhouse gases may
produce, those emissions are without question creating risks of harm to people
in the future who have no say whatever about whether the risks are worth the
potential gains. What is so unusual about climate change as a
challenge in risk management is the worldwide scale of the potential harms and
the 50 or more years of lag time before the full extent of the harms will emerge
if they occur at all. This course will review the growing
literature on climate change ethics, focusing on two questions: (1) Who ought to
bear the responsibility for any harms that do occur in the future?; and (2) What
obligations do we presently have either to obviate those risks or to provide
means for compensating those who, beyond their capacity to prevent it, suffer
harm? Not too far in the background throughout the course
will be the more sweeping question whether it is morally permissible at all to
impose a risk on others of such a scale.
PHIL 0091-05 / Ethics Bowl Boot Camp
Monica Link / I+ MW 3:00-4:15
This novel applied ethics course uses a case-study approach to thinking
critically about contemporary ethical dilemmas and is open to all students. We
will examine cases that are relevant to students interested in philosophy, the
natural sciences, the arts, engineering, psychology, politics, and the law.
Together, we will consider a range of topics pertinent to choices an individual
might face (e.g., physician assisted suicide, loyalty to family, and
vegetarianism), as well as to decisions that affect larger communities, (e.g.,
business decisions, immigration, censorship and religious tolerance.)
In the first part of the course, we will focus on fundamentals of
various ethical theories including consequentialism, duty-based ethics, virtue
ethics and social contract theory. With this background, we will turn to
cases that raise difficult ethical issues and will discuss how these theories
can help us resolve dilemmas and make the best choices. Some class periods
will be conducted in a debate style, in which students will present and respond
to arguments about the right thing to do in a particular case. This will
serve as preparation for the inaugural of the Tufts chapter of Ethics Bowl,
which students will participate in. Those who do well in the Tufts Ethics
Bowl may have the chance to compete at the regional or even national level!
Prior experience in philosophy is not necessary; this course is intended for any
student interested in acquiring and sharpening their oral and written skills in
order to construct, analyze, object to, and revise arguments.
PHIL 093 / Senior Honors Thesis
ARR
PHIL 103 / Logic
George Smith / J M 4:30-5:20, TR 3:00-3:50
How can one tell whether a deductive argument succeeds in establishing
its conclusion? What distinguishes good deductive arguments
from bad ones? Questions like these will be addressed in this
course. The principal text will be Richard Jeffrey's
Formal Logic, though it will be
supplemented by other texts and by notes from the instructor.
The accent will be as much on coming to understand what the word '
formal' means
in the title of Jeffrey's book as on what '
logic' means. We
will discuss what a formal language is, how arguments in English are to be
expressed in various formal languages, and what is gained from so expressing
them. In the jargon of the field, we will cover sentential
logic, first order predicate logic, identity theory, and definite descriptions.
We will also look briefly at the history of logic.
The course requires no specific background and no special ability in
mathematics. Understanding why formal methods work will be as
important as manipulating them. The course will require six
written homework assignments and an open-book final exam. The
homework assignments, which students are expected to work on in groups, form the
core of the course. Students should anticipate spending an
average of eight hours per week outside of class in this course.
PHIL 110 / Biological Foundations of Language
Ray Jackendoff / G+ MW 1:30-2:45
A prominent claim in modern linguistics is that the human ability to
learn and use language is a specialized cognitive capacity, rather just a
consequence of having a large brain. This course will address
the evidence for this claim, based on the character of language, language
learning, and language disability. It will also address the
degree to which the language faculty draws on other cognitive capacities, the
relation of language to forms of animal communication, and hypotheses about the
evolution of the language faculty.
Prerequisite: PHIL 15/PSY 64 or consent.
PHIL 112 / Syntactic Theory
Ray Jackendoff / E+ MW 10:30-11:45
Syntactic theory, the study of grammatical structure, is the core
subcomponent of contemporary linguistics. Topics of the
course include: Syntactic categories, phrase structure, long-distance
dependencies, the balance between grammar and lexicon and
between syntax and semantics, syntactic universals, and the innate
predispositions required for children to learn the syntactic structure of their
native languages. Multiple theoretical approaches will be
compared.
Prerequisite: Introduction to Linguistics or consent.
PHIL 117 / Philosophy of Mind
Yoon Choi /F+ TR 12:00-1:15
What is it to have or be a mind? What is the nature of the mental and its
relation to the physical? How is it that we can come to have thoughts about the
world, and how is that my thoughts could have an effect in the physical world?
And what about consciousness? What is it; where is it; who has it; and what is
it good for? In this class, we'll talk about what it's like to be a bat
and what it's not like to be a zombie. We'll think about whether
thoughts, meaning, and qualia are inside or outside the head, and what happens
when the head is not where the brain is. And we'll consider whether computers
think, whether minds compute, and whether animals are minds and/or machines.
Prerequisite: one prior course in philosophy.
PHIL 118 / Philosophy of Biology
Patrick Forber / H+ TR 1:30-2:45
We will examine the conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology,
with special attention to outstanding philosophical problems. The course
begins with Darwin, and his original presentation of natural selection in the
Origin of Species. We will then look at two very different "big
picture" views on evolutionary biology and the importance of natural selection,
the first defended by Richard Dawkins and the second, by Richard Lewontin.
The course continues by discussing specific
philosophical and theoretical controversies, including those on
fitness, function, the units of selection, the nature of evolutionary causation,
and what natural selection explains. Students require some exposure to
philosophy or biological science, preferably both.
PHIL 0121 / Ethical Theory
Avner Baz – D+TR 10:30-11:45
This course focuses on some of the most important works in moral theory
in modern Western philosophy. In the first part of the course, we will read and
discuss David Hume's Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, Immanuel
Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, and John Stewart Mill's
Utilitarianism. In the second part of the course, we will read several
contemporary articles that discuss the question of whether all of us, who could
be doing more for other people than we are doing, are acting morally badly, and
other contemporary articles that are critical of modern moral theories and seek
to promote some version of Aristotelian '
virtue ethics' (we will not read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics itself, for reasons
that will be explained in class).
Our first aim will be to understand the above texts and to engage with
them critically. In part, we shall do so by considering how these texts may be
understood as critically responding to each other, both directly and indirectly.
We will think not only about what each of the above philosophers says about
morality, but also about what he or she does—about the conception of
philosophical work that guides his or her work, whether implicitly or
explicitly. (It should then be difficult for us to ignore the question of what
we are doing in this course. What, if anything, can (should) the learning, and teaching, of philosophy be?)
Through these questions, the question of what exactly ethical or moral
theory is a theory of will no doubt come to occupy us in various ways. More
specific questions will be: What makes a judgment, or a conversation, or a
moment in life, moral (or ethical)? Is there a useful distinction to be drawn
between what may be called '
morality' and what may be called '
ethics'? What's
the right way to conceive of the relation between the character of an agent and
her actions? Is moral assessment first and foremost an assessment of individual
actions or of character (or perhaps of something else altogether)? What, if
anything, might moral knowledge or truth be? What might be the data, or
evidence, for philosophical theories of morality? Is it anything like the data
or evidence for theories in the natural sciences, for example? More generally,
what exactly is, and what ought to be, the relation between philosophical
theories and their purported subject matter? Should our moral theories, for
example, only attempt to describe and explain, or give the foundations of, our
present judgments and practices, or should they strive to also improve them
(whatever improving them might mean)? Can they do both at once? Should moral
theories themselves, and their production, be assessed morally?
PHIL 122 / Indian Philosophies
Joseph Walser – 1 T 9:00-11:30
Seminar on the doctrines and arguments of the major Indian schools of
philosophy (Samkhya, Buddhist, Vedanta, Nyaya-Vaisesika, and Navya-Nyaya). How
these schools attempt to ground their religious systems in logical argumentation
about the human soul, God, and the path to nirvana. This course counts toward
the Humanities distribution requirement, World Civilization requirement and the
South and Southeast Asian Culture option.
PHIL 0131 / Epistemology
Jody Azzouni - E+/M-W, 10:30-11:45.
Sometimes we know something, and sometimes we have just made a good
guess. Can we tell the difference? Is there a method for recognizing that we
know something? We usually can supply evidence for what we know. Must we always
be able to do so for us to rightly claim that we know something? Evidence for a
belief is usually something we know. Do we need evidence for our evidence? If
so, how do we ever manage to know anything? Some philosophers, called skeptics,
don't think we do know anything. In this course, we'll try to answer these
questions, or at least explore them further. Readings will be from articles,
both contemporary and classic.
Requirements: Two 5-7 page papers, and weekly write-ups on the
readings.
Prerequisite: Prior completion one course in
philosophy or permission of the instructor.
PHIL 134 / Philosophy of Social Science
Brian Epstein / I+ MW 3:00-4:15
Why are the social sciences so difficult? If engineers can build
airplanes that stay aloft, why can't economists figure out how to avoid
recessions? If biologists can design mice that glow in the dark, and make
bacteria crank out drugs to fight cancer, why can't we design political systems
that avoid corruption and gridlock? Why are there so many versions of history,
and why do theories in psychology go in and out of fashion every few years?
Are the social sciences inherently harder than the natural sciences?
Are they just younger and less mature? Is the social world more complex than the
natural world? Or are the goals of the social sciences, or the subjects they
address, somehow different from those of the natural sciences?
This course is an introduction to the philosophy of social science.
We will consider the nature of explanation in the social sciences, contrasting a
variety of approaches taken by historical and contemporary thinkers. We
will read theorists who have put forward different approaches for making the
social sciences scientific, and critics who argue that social science is
essentially a matter for interpretation. Then we will turn to the nature of
social facts, and finally to the pros and cons of "methodological
individualism," i.e., the idea that society can be modeled in terms of
individual people interacting with one another. Readings from Durkheim,
Hempel, Davidson, Geertz, Chomsky, Elster, Sen, Lukes, and others.
PHIL 151 / Ancient Philosophy
Amelie Rorty / F+ TR 12:00-1:15
In what does a thriving, fulfilled human life consist? What is the
connection between being happy, being 'moral' and living in a just and
well-ordered society? What does being capable of acting
voluntarily and responsibly require? What do emotions,
habits, friendships and practical reasoning contribute to a
thriving and virtuous life? Are some people more capable of being moral and just
than others? In this course, we will concentrate on ancient Greek moral and
political philosophy, reading Plato's *Republic* and Aristotle's *Nicomachean
Ethics* in their entirety, as well as some selections from early Stoic and
Epicurean authors. With an emphasis on active class participation, we will:
1) engage with ancient Greek moral
theorists, analyzing their views on justice, virtue and the good life
2) trace the connections among these philosophers'
psychological, political, epistemological and metaphysical
theories
3) evaluate the impact of their views
on our own values and activities
4) reflect on the methods and
practices of philosophic inquiry into normative ideals.
PHIL 0186 / Phenomenology and Existentialism
Avner Baz / 10+ M 6:00-9:00
Phenomenology seeks to uncover, or recover, human
experience in the face of our own natural tendency to overlook it, and in the
face of its distortion-through-over-intellectualization in traditional
philosophy and in modern science. Against the tendency to suppose that we
already know what our experience must be (like), since (presumably) we
know, objectively, what we are and what the world is like, phenomenology calls
upon us to 'bracket' that objective knowledge and to reflect upon our experience
without traditional or scientific presuppositions. It claims that, ultimately,
even the work of science presupposes this level of 'pre-reflective' experience,
or the world as perceived before it is thought. This immediately raises the
question of how we can recover for ourselves a level of relation to ourselves
and to our world that, on the phenomenologist's own account, we normally and
naturally pass over—interested as we are in objective facts and practical
results. How can we know that, in criticizing existing theories for distorting
human experience, we ourselves are free of challengeable presuppositions that
distort our own account? The phenomenologist's answer is that we cannot know
that: existing phenomenological descriptions of our experience are always open
to challenges in the name of a truer description. And yet it is undeniable that
neither traditional philosophy nor modern science has much to say that is
enlightening about the special way in which we perceive and relate to our own
body, for example; or about what it means to relate to another human being as
an other; or about the way in which the back of an object, or what's behind
our back, is present in our experience; or about how to understand those moments
when we look at something differently and 'everything changes even though
nothing has changed'; or about the way in which our past is present in our
present (and how this makes freedom both possible and limited); or on how we
know, and yet do not truly know, that we are going to die; or on how sexuality,
for example, or class consciousness, or a childhood trauma, affects the whole of
our being. And it is also undeniable that phenomenology has much to say that is
enlightening about these issues.
Existentialism reminds the traditional philosopher
or 'the thinker' that, before all else—before any reasoning or theorizing—she or
he exists. And this is not a conclusion—a proposition—that we necessarily arrive
at if we follow Descartes' reasoning in his first and second Meditations. It is
a fact we live before we think it. Descartes doubts; and then 'realizes'
that in doubting, he must exist. But before any reasoning or logical derivation
he lives his doubt (if it's a genuine doubt)—he enacts it.
Doubting is how he spends this moment of his life; and his present act of
doubting will become part of what he'll carry with him to the next moment. As
the conclusion of a piece of reasoning, who knows what it means for me to
exist? As something I undergo, however, my existence is undeniable. It is
truly what I must begin with: not in the sense of being an Archimedean
starting point or axiom for a logical derivation, which is how Descartes thought
of it, but in the sense that, before all else, I exist. We each have been
'thrown into the world', and we come to every moment—even a moment of the
highest and most abstract reflection—with an inheritance (personal, cultural,
biological) that we are free to transcend in various ways, but not to choose.
And we have no essence—no character—that precedes our interaction with the world
and determines it in advance—we can only discover ourselves in our
engagement with the world, not by pure, disengaged reflection or introspection.
The philosophers we will study in this course are phenomenologists.
They are also existentialists (Merleau-Ponty much more so than Husserl). For
Merleau-Ponty, the fact of our existence is the fact of our embodiment—not in
the trivial sense that we each have a body, but in the much deeper and
more difficult sense that we are our bodies—not our bodies as science
conceives of them, however, but our bodies as we (and others) perceive them. It
will be interesting for us to think how, for all of the differences between
them, Husserl's work made Merleau-Ponty's work possible: how within the span of
two great Texts—Husserl's Cartesian Meditations (based on his Paris
Lectures) and Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception—we
can go from Descartes' Meditations to the most radical overthrowing to date of
Cartesian metaphysics.
PHIL 0191-01 / Truth
Jody Azzouni / 11+ T 6:00-9:00
Truth is rich philosophical topic. This is because, after Tarski, it
seemed to be amenable to a technical study using the tools of logic: the
hope was that in doing so, the philosophical issues would just fade away.
(Tarski expresses such hopes at the end of one of his articles). Seventy or so
years after Tarski's work, this seems not to have happened. Truth generates as
large a cottage industry in philosophy now as it did before Tarski—perhaps more
so.
We will be looking at some of the literature in this area: we will look
at various substantialist views of truth: these are views that take true
sentences to have a truth-property in common, for example, correspondence to the
world, coherence, etc. We will also be looking at the major opponent to
substantivalist views: "deflationist" approaches to truth. Deflationists
think there is nothing more to truth than its presence in sentences of the form:
"Snow is white" is true if snow is white. Readings will be from
Tarski, Quine, Wright, Lynch, Simmons, Azzouni, and others.
Requirement: one 15-20 page paper and weekly writes.
Prerequisite: Prior completion of two courses in philosophy.
PHIL 0191-02 / Foundations of Cognitive Science
Daniel Dennett / 12+ W 6:00-9:00
Cognitive models of perception, memory, control and many more specific
mental phenomena typically postulate systems of representation, but there is so
far no uncontroversial theory of mental (or cerebral) representation, or of
information-processing in the brain. This course will look at the philosophical
background of work on minds and mental processes, including the topics of
intentionality, functionalism, computationalism, and reductionism, and the issue
of how explanation in cognitive science compares with explanations in the other
sciences. This course is designed for graduate students in
the disciplines comprising cognitive science, and for advanced undergraduate
majors in brain and cognitive science or philosophy.
PHIL 0191-03 / Kant's Philosophy of Mind
Stephen White & Yoon Choi / K+ MW 4:30-5:45
There has recently been a great deal of interest in Kant's (and more
loosely Kantian) philosophy of mind. But what, if anything, is distinctive of
Kant's philosophy of mind? Is it just of historical interest, or does Kant's
transcendental framework provide a promising alternative within which to explore
fundamental questions regarding, for instance, the nature of consciousness and
the possibility of meaningful experience? In this course, we will grapple with
central doctrines from the Critique of Pure Reason, setting them against
canonical "-isms" in the philosophy of mind (behaviorism, functionalism,
materialism) and mining them for insights into such central issues as Kripke's
rule-following paradox, sense-datum theories of visual perception, nonconceptual
content, etc.
PHIL 191-05/Agency & Responsibility
Erin Kelly / 11+ T 6:00-9:00
In this seminar we will study some recent work in moral psychology and
the philosophy of action. Our focus will be the notion of agency associated with
moral blame and the notion of moral desert. What is it to blame someone? Is
blame a judgment, an attitude, or a matter of behavior? What do we presume about
the rational capacities and self-control of persons we blame? How should or must
we understand our freedom to act? Some philosophers argue that persons are
blameworthy for their actions only when they could have acted otherwise. We will
try to determine whether this is so and to evaluate the notion of moral
competence. Others argue we need only suppose an agent is rational. We will
explore various proposals for understanding the nature of rational agency,
immoral and weak willed action, and excusing conditions. Readings will be drawn
from legal theorists as well as philosophers.
PHIL 0193 / Undergraduate Independent Study
ARR
PHIL 0195-01 / The Philosophy of David Lewis
David Denby / E+ MW 10:30-11:45
David Lewis was one of the most brilliant and influential philosophers
of the late twentieth century and his work is required reading in several areas
of contemporary philosophy. In this course, we will
read and critically evaluate many of his most important contributions.
We will devote about two-thirds of the semester to discussing his
metaphysical work, especially his work on ontology, causation, laws, time, and
modality. In the other third we will discuss some of his work
on the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of
language and discuss some methodological issues. We
will not look at his more technical work, e.g. in semantics, or decision theory,
though we might touch on some of its philosophical
implications. Our approach will be problem-centered: we will
consider various philosophical problems in turn, and evaluate Lewis's engagement
with them rather than just do Lewis-exegesis. Although there
is an underlying unity to Lewis's work, which will emerge through the semester,
we will usually treat his contributions to the various debates as independent of
one another.
I will make all the readings available on line. If
you are interested in a preview, a good place to look would be his
Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology
or his On the Plurality of Worlds.
I hope that by the end of the course we will understand and be in a
position to evaluate many of Lewis's philosophical contributions.
I also hope that we will better understand key aspects of contemporary
analytic philosophy, especially metaphysics. And I hope we
will solidify our grasp of basic philosophical techniques and methodology;
Lewis's work is a model of good philosophy.
Finally, I hope we'll have fun. Lewis writes
beautifully, and many of the readings display his
characteristically limpid and disciplined prose.
And many of his ideas are rich and strange. I also
hope the class will prove a genial forum for philosophical debate.
PHIL 0197 / Ethics, Law & Society
Lionel McPherson / H+ TR 1:30-2:45
This course forms the core of a certificate program in Ethics, Law and
Society, administered through the philosophy department. The goal of the program
is to use philosophy to prepare students to be active citizens in leadership
positions in government, NGOs and the private sector. Students will learn about
how moral and political philosophy relate to questions of public importance.
The seminar will study a range of practical ethical questions
concerning such themes as: (1) morality across boundaries; (2) criminal justice,
moral responsibility, and the aims of punishment; (3) terrorism and just war;
(4) multiculturalism and religious toleration; (5) marriage and the family; (6)
ethics and animals.
We will approach these questions by considering case studies and by
evaluating moral principles for resolving ethical dilemmas. We will be
especially concerned with the challenges to ethical thought posed by ethnic,
religious, and political diversity.
Requirements for the course include several short papers and a longer
term paper.
PHIL 0293 / Graduate Independent Study
ARR
PHIL 0297 / Graduate Writing Seminar
Denby & Epstein / G+ MW 1:30-2:45
The Graduate Writing Seminar (GWS), offered every term, is required of all
students entering the MA program in Philosophy in Fall 2009 or later and open
to graduate students who started the program before Fall 2009. In addition to
fulfilling all other requirements for the MA in Philosophy, students who enter
the program in Fall 2009 or later must earn a grade of SATISFACTORY in the GWS.
Letter grades will not be given. Students are eligible to take the course after
completion of one successful term in the MA program. Students who wish to audit
the seminar must commit to being full participants in the class, which means
attending all sessions and completing all assignments. Auditing may be appropriate
for students who have already taken the course for credit or for first-semester
students who are not used to writing in English.
Prospective members of the GWS, including auditors, must come to the first session
of the seminar with the following materials: a draft of a potential writing sample;
a term paper that might be expanded or polished; or a detailed outline of a writing
project that has already been well thought-out. The paper/outline should be
accompanied by a brief abstract and any comments the student wishes to make, such
as that he or she intends to turn the paper into a writing sample for PhD program
applications.
To receive a grade of SAT in the GWS, a student must have a strong attendance
record; participate faithfully; and, by the end of the term, produce a solid writing
sample or the equivalent thereof. A student who does not meet these requirements will
ordinarily be granted a grade of INC; making up the work will involve not only producing
the final paper but also sitting through the course again.
Topics of instruction will include: how to determine the necessary extent of a
literature review; how to narrow down a topic; how to make sure that your paper
is philosophical, and not just expository; how to write an introduction to a
philosophy paper; how to handle transitions between sections of a paper; how to
anticipate and address objections to your view; how to write a conclusion; when
to ask a faculty member for criticism. The course will involve intensive peer
review of papers. We will use contemporary papers in the philosophical literature
as examples of how (and perhaps how not) to write a philosophy paper.
Students will be given frequent but brief out-of-class writing assignments,
sometimes general exercises and sometimes term paper work.
Prerequisites: At least one successfully completed semester in the Tufts MA
program in Philosophy. Exceptions to these restrictions may be made in unusual cases.
|
