Doing philosophy requires using reason in the attempt to resolve philosophical questions. Philosophical questions are fundamental or open questions - questions that CANNOT be answered by appealing to "facts" alone. There are countless questions of this sort. We shall focus on the following:

• Can God's existence be proven through reason alone?
• Is knowledge possible? If so, how? Are we born with it (nativism)? Do we acquire it via reason alone (rationalism) or experience alone (empiricism)? How do we know that the world is as it appears?
• What is the nature of the mind? Are minds souls, thinking substance, matter, or something else (e.g., a kind of computer software)?
• Wherein lies personal identity? (That is, what makes you you and me me?) Sameness of body? Consciousness? Memories? Behavior?
• What sort of "things" have minds? How can we tell whether something has a mind? Is it possible for something nonhuman to have a mind?
• What is the philosophical significance (ethical, metaphysical, etc.) of machine or nonhuman intelligence?
• What properties must something possess to be a "person"? Could a machine or an animal or an alien be a person?
• What makes and action moral ("right") or immoral ("wrong")? Does it lie in what God commands? Does it lie in virtue (Aristotle)? Does it lie in the use of reason to determine our duties (Kant) or the greatest happiness for the most people (Mill)?

To explore these questions, we might not limit ourselves to discussions of philosophical texts alone, for philosophy can be explored through movies (and TV episodes) too. Hence, we may watch some movie or TV episode in class. (Examples of movies that could be shown include The Meaning of Life, The Name of the Rose, Total Recall, Memento, Fight Club, The Truman Show, The Matrix, AI: Artificial Intelligence, The Thirteenth Floor, Star Trek: First Contact, Nemesis, and Saving Private Ryan.) The movie will make the "abstract" concepts raised in the text more "real" or "concrete". Following the movie we shall critically evaluate what we have read and seen. In the end, the aim of this course is not to “solve” the philosophical questions that will be raised. Rather, the aim is survey some of the major ideas, figures, and problems that have shaped Western philosophy.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that deals with normative theory. As rational beings we are continuously faced with questions regarding our behavior: Are there goals towards which we should seek? Are there rules we ought to follow? How ought we to live? In this introductory course we will explore the development of moral thought through a sampling of several of the most significant and influential works in the Western Philosophical tradition. We will focus upon the development of some key concepts in moral thought: "the good", virtue, teleology, deontology, emotivism, and more.

This course examines the new beginning of philosophy in the 17th and 18th centuries, which still has a grip on us today. Faced with the success of the new sciences, early modern philosophers aimed to make philosophical knowledge as secure as scientific knowledge. Rationalists (e.g. Descartes) tried to model philosophy on mathematics, while empiricists (e.g. Locke, Hume) favored the methods of natural sciences. Kant tried to combine the strengths of both methods and reflected extensively on the powers of philosophical reason. We will read very carefully central texts from Descartes, Locke, Hume and Kant, and reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their approaches. Special emphasis is given to their theories of knowledge (epistemology), and their views on the relationship between mind and body (metaphysics). The books will be available from the Tulane Bookstore.

In this course we will explore the following questions, among others: Are ancient political societies superior or inferior to modern liberal polities, and for what reasons? Is a hierarchical, inegalitarian and collectivist society justifiable if it brings about a better state of affairs than would a society focused on freedom, equality and individualism? Is rule by the wise the most effective rule? Is it the fairest rule? Are we capable of fairly evaluating ancient polities in terms of our modern ethical and political concepts? Or should we appreciate ancient polities from their own historical and cultural standpoint? Should the state play a major role in using laws and institutions to foster the virtue of its citizens? Or are conceptions of the good life too controversial to factor in justifications of political authority, as many modern liberals claim? Is Plato's Republic a straightforward appeal to authoritarian rule or instead a subtle criticism of authoritarianism? How does Aristotle differ from Plato on the importance of having the freedom to own one's own property?

This course will be a fairly intense study of key figures and interesting intermediary figures in the history of political philosophy from the mid-seventeenth century through the nineteenth century. The key figures here (with apologies to fans of Kant) are: Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx and Mill. But equal time will not be devoted to each of these. Probably the course will feature Hobbes, Locke, and Marx (and, along with Marx, various anarchist theorists). Topically, the course will focus on theories of the state of nature and of natural rights, theories of social contract, the nature and justification of property, competing conceptions of social and economic order, and of the legitimate role (if any) of the state. The classes will be divided into lectures (most of the time) and discussion periods (some of the time). There will be some short papers and the usual exams.

This course is a survey of American philosophy from 1865 to the present day. The primary focus is on metaphysics and epistemology, with a view to the consequences of the main ideas of the intellectual movement known as Pragmatism. The first half of the course covers the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, the three figures most closely identified with the philosophy of Pragmatism. The second half of the course covers the work of W.V. Quine, Wilfrid Sellars, and Richard Rorty, the post-Pragmatist heirs of the American intellectual tradition.

What is consciousness? Can consciousness be explained? Can consciousness be explained scientifically? Do these questions make sense? Some philosophers argue that we can understand and explain consciousness and that a scientific theory of consciousness is possible. Other philosophers disagree with this view, defending a variety of claims ranging from the view that consciousness is mysterious and ultimately inexplicable by science to the view that consciousness is a natural phenomenon and could be explainable, but that the explanation could not proceed in the terms of natural science as we currently understand it. In an effort to bring some clarity to this debate we will consider two of the classic challenges to a naturalistic, scientific theory of consciousness and various responses to those challenges. First we consider the challenge posed by Frank Jackson's "knowledge argument" and the ensuing debate about qualia. The second challenge is the "zombie problem" and the way in which it allegedly gives rise to the "hard problem" of consciousness as defined by David Chalmers. We will also consider responses to each of these challenges from Daniel Dennett and others who defend the "third person" approach to consciousness, including critics of Chalmers and Jackson, including Jackson himself, since he now repudiates his former position.

The course this semester will be devoted to a study of Aristotle's Metaphysics.