141 - 150 of 317 results for: PHIL

We talk about explanations all the time whether in everyday conversations or in physics, chemistry, medicine, engineering, or economics. But what is an explanation? What is needed in order to have an explanation of something? Are there fundamentally different kinds of explanation? Are there distinctive forms of explanation in mathematics or metaphysics? Does all explanation have to do with causation? Do all explanations need to be backed by laws? Do explanatory relations determine the fundamental structure of reality? Instructor Permission Required.

We will focus on an in-progress book manuscript by Jennifer Morton and Sarah Paul on the phenomenon of striving - both on one's own and together with others - and its relations to our beliefs about ourselves.  This will include reflection on foundational issues in epistemology about the nature and justification of belief and related phenomena of acceptance in a context.  Pre-requisite:   Phil 80 and one further course in Philosophy numbered above 99.

We often think of reality as coming in "layers": the fundamental particles at the "bottom", atoms and molecules at the next level up, then cells, multicellular organisms, natural objects like rocks and artificial objects like tables, all the way up to complex systems of objects like ecosystems or societies. But what is the relationship between those layers? Reductionists suggest, metaphorically speaking, that there really is only one layer: it's really all just, say, fundamental particles and fields in space and time. Such views can be hard to defend; for one, it can be hard to translate our talk of tables or humans into descriptions purely in terms of fundamental particles. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that what happens in a cell, or how a cell interacts with its environment, isn't completely determined by goings on at the molecular level which in turn can be traced "down", eventually, to what is happening, at the level of fundamental particles. Such claims about how some lower levels explain what happens at higher levels are often described as grounding claims. What precisely is grounding though? What is its relation to forms of reduction? And to efficient causation? Prerequisites: PHIL 60, PHIL 80, PHIL 150, and one course in contemporary theoretical philosophy ( PHIL 180 to PHIL 189); or equivalent courses. Instructor Permission Required.

What makes you the individual you are? Should you plan your life, or make it up as you go along? Is it always good to remember your past? Is it always good to know the truth? When does a machine become a person? What do we owe to other people? Is there always a right way to act? How can we live in a highly imperfect world? And what can film do that other media can't? We'll think about all of these great questions with the help of films that are philosophically stimulating, stylistically intriguing, and, for the most part, gripping to watch: Do The Right Thing (Lee), The Dark Knight (Nolan), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Kaufman), Arrival (Villeneuve), My Dinner with Andre (Malle), Blade Runner (Scott), La Jet'e (Marker), Fight Club (Fincher), No Country for Old Men (Coen), The Seventh Seal (Bergman), and Memento (Nolan). Attendance at weekly screenings is mandatory; and fun. We will not be using the waitlist on Axess - if you would like to enroll and the course is full/closed please email us to get on the waitlist!

Capstone seminar for undergrad majors.

Capstone Seminar for majors.

We will pursue questions of metaphysics and epistemology through a focus on the nature of virtual realities and their relationships to non-virtual realities. Readings will be chosen from historical and contemporary sources, including David Chalmers'n book "Reality+."

Capstone seminar for undergrad majors. Much of the art we love was created by people who did awful things. We are left to contend with whether we can separate our moral judgement of the artist from our aesthetic appreciation of their work. Can artists' moral transgressions render their creations inconsumable? Does the terribleness of someone's beliefs or actions diminish the greatness of their work? Or, to the contrary, can genius attenuate monstrousness? Is creating great art worth harming people for? We will also consider our moral and political responsibility as consumers of art. Is it wrong to like art by bad people? When, if ever, ought we to boycott someone's art, and does it matter whether withholding our money or our attention makes a difference? What does consistency require? More generally, is there anything wrong with judging people from the past by standards of the present? And, broadening our vision, what should we think about some of those giants who defined our field, who expressed views we find abhorrent - and on whose shoulders we stand?

The nature and importance of beauty and our susceptibility to beauty, our capacity to discern it and enjoy it and prize it, as discussed by philosophers, artists, and critics from various traditions and historical periods. Relations between beauty and ethical values (such as moral goodness) and cognitive values (such as truth). Capstone seminar for undergrad majors.