Introduction to Philosophy

Steve Smith
Office: AC 109F, 601-974-1334
– Office hours posted –
Home: 1611 Edgewood St, 601-354‑2290

PHIL 1000-01
Spring 2018 MWF 10:30

Revised 1/22/18, 3/26/18

The first people to call themselves “philosophers” were sixth-century BCE Greeks. They made several important commitments that we are making also if we enter into their tradition:

(1) As the word “philo-sophia” or “love of wisdom” implies, to be devoted to wisdom. About this formula, note:

(a) “Wisdom” is not simply knowledge in the sense of knowing facts. (So what is it? Is it perhaps knowledge in the sense of an understanding of how things are that forms an intrinsically desirable basis for living in the best way? What forms would such knowledge take?)

(b) Devotion to something doesn’t necessarily mean possessing it. (Although some philosophers have cultivated a reputation for knowing what’s what, Socrates and Plato both contended that true philosophers do not possess wisdom but long for it and pursue it. So how do philosophers make progress?)

(2) To find out which claims can be justified by using human reasoning powers; or at least to see what happens when reasoning (rather than subjective preference, authoritative command, or continuation of custom) is the test of a claim’s meaning; and to live on the basis of rational concept-formation and argumentation, to the extent one can.

(3) In using reason, to enter into the fullest possible conversation among reasoners, seeking out claims made by other reasoners and exposing one’s own thoughts to questions and objections posed by other reasoners. (The ancient Greek philosophers wove their disagreements with each other into the fabric of philosophy.) This seems to imply that reasoning will go on and on endlessly!

In this course, we will develop our understanding of the possibilities of philosophy by examining some of the most interesting arguments that philosophers have made—famous ones that still get cited all the time—and by developing arguments of our own on important subjects philosophers will surely keep discussing in the future. Our reading, writing, thinking, and oral discussion skills should be improved as we meet the special demands of the philosophical plunge into unrestricted, independent-yet-collegial reasoning.

Readings will be drawn from handouts and one required book:

Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau, eds., Reason and Responsibility, 14th ed., Wadsworth

Grading will be based on class participation (10%); seven 1,000-word philosophical essays (70%); and a take-home final exam (20%).

Subject to revision by announcements made in class and/or by email
All page assignments are in Reason & Responsibility (14th ed.)
If you miss a class, come see me or e-mail with me to find out what happened

WEEK OF JANUARY 8 Introduction and discussion of God arguments: Anselm &
Gaunilo 20-24, Aquinas 35-36


Jan. 19, 22 Discussion of God arguments

Jan. 24 Allowable belief: James 122-130

Jan. 26 The problem of evil: Mackie 92-99

Jan. 29 Paper #1 due [GOD]

Jan. 31 The nature of mind: Descartes 187-191

Feb. 2 Critique of mind-brain dualism: Carruthers 319-327

Feb. 5 Intelligence (can it be artificial?): Searle 344-350

DUNBAR LECTURE: Kieran Setiya on climate change and moral obligation
7:00 p.m. AC 215

Feb. 7 Subjectivity: T. Nagel (handout)

Feb. 9  Review

Feb. 12 Paper #2 [MIND & BODY]

Feb. 14 Personal identity: Perry 395-402

Feb. 16 Perry cont. 402-409

Feb. 19 Perry cont. 409-414

Feb. 21 Divisible personhood? Parfit 381-386

Feb. 23 Brain by itself? Dennett 386-394

Feb. 26 Paper #3 [PERSONAL IDENTITY]

Feb. 28 Determinism: d’Holbach 451-456

Mar. 2 van Inwagen on compatibilism and incompatibilism 421-430

Mar. 5 Libertarianism: Kane 438-450

Mar. 7 Frankfurt on moral responsibility 481-487



Mar. 19 Aristotle’s account of the good and virtue 561-573

Mar. 21 Aristotle cont. The question of abortion in Aristotelian perspective

Mar. 23 Kant’s categorical imperative 590-597

Mar. 26  Kant cont. Abortion in Kantian perspective

Mar. 28  Mill’s utilitarianism 597-610

Mar. 30  Mill cont.  Abortion in utilitarian perspective

Apr. 2  Paper #5 [MORAL PRINCIPLE]

Apr. 4 Feinberg on psychological egoism 514-525

Apr. 6 Plato on the immoralist 525-531

Apr. 9 Nietzsche’s critique of morality 532-539

Apr. 11 Nussbaum on ethical relativism 552-561

Apr. 13 T. Nagel on the absurd 681-687


Apr. 18 – 23 Topic TBA

Apr. 24 Paper #7





Every day we’ll try to reserve a few minutes before class ends for writing down The State of the Question for you at that phase of our discussion. Use this opportunity to wonder about points that aren’t yet clear (e.g. meanings of key terms, steps in an argument), reflect on strengths or weaknesses of claims that have been made, or propose new considerations that might be relevant. I’ll read these notes and return them to you at the beginning of the next class. You might want to use 3-hole paper and a loose-leaf binder for this class.


Philosophical texts have been written to explore questions of tremendous depth—the greatest depth the human mind can plumb—so a reader can’t get what a philosophical text offers in one quick read. The reading assignments in this class will be relatively short, but dense. Expect always to read a philosophical text multiple times. You’ll have to get a feel for abstract conceptions and for the varying architectures of arguments. Philosophy texts can be really good reads, I assure you (that’s why I keep reading them), but they’re good in their own very challenging way.


You’ll write 7 short philosophical essays (1,000 words) on topics the class is discussing. Each essay will be either (1) a critical review of another philosopher’s argument, or (2) a constructive argument. The two kinds of essay aren’t all that different. In a critical review you focus on laying out another philosopher’s argument, but you must include your own reasoned evaluation of that argument or some part of it. In a constructive argument you focus on laying out your own reasoning in support of your own thesis, but you must relate your reasoning to at least one other important position in the philosophical literature. Either way, the goal is to achieve insight by making ideas, assumptions, and links of reasoning as clear as possible and by recognizing and responding to significant objections to the position under examination.

At the beginning of the semester everyone will be writing critical reviews. By the end of the semester everyone will be writing constructive arguments.

If you get an “Ahah! Now I know what I want to do!” realization about a paper after getting it back, you can resubmit one of your papers, significantly revised, to try for a better grade. But the emphasis in this class will be less on revision and more on carrying your realizations forward to your next paper—so that you learn how to make needed revisions before you turn it in the first time.

To write a decent paper, give yourself a decent amount of time for doing the necessary reading, reflecting, consulting with your fellow philosophers, outlining, drafting, consulting with your fellow philosophers (always a good idea), and revising your draft.

We’ll talk in class about how to tighten the focus of your topic, how to organize your argument, and how to work toward an appropriate payoff in a short essay.

Here’s a standing invitation from The Millsaps Writing Center, which I endorse:

All students are strongly encouraged to visit the Writing Center, which is staffed by student Writing Consultants who are trained to help you grow as writers. Writing Consultants work with all writers, in all disciplines, at all skill levels, and in all stages of the writing process. These consultations are most useful to students 48 hours or more in advance of a due date, and many students benefit from multiple visits during the writing process. Students may elect to send a session report summarizing their writing center visit to professors. If you would like to notify your professor of your visit, please inform the consultant when you arrive at the Writing Center. Students may also request session reporting to professors after their visit by emailing Visit for more information about hours, locations, and upcoming events.


An argument is an ordered combination of claims. In a good argument the claims are each worth considering and they go together in a logical way that leads to a definite conclusion. Thanks to Aristotle we have a very clear and simple model for argumentation called the “syllogism” (which means, roughly, “combination of reasons”), and here is the classic example:

MAJOR PREMISE: All men are mortal.
MINOR PREMISE: Socrates is a man.
CONCLUSION: Therefore Socrates is mortal.

You should always relate your argument to the form of the syllogism, because any significant argument will invoke some sort of major premise—that is, some apparently reasonable general principle that applies to the matter at hand—and some sort of minor premise—that is, some apparently accurate claim about a particular matter that relates it to the general principle. (See how the Socrates syllogism fulfills this.) If your argument deals with a significant issue, then of course your major premise and minor premise will both be debatable, and the challenge for your presentation is to do as much as you can to justify them with further arguments. Consider what back-up syllogisms would be needed to defend each of these premises, for example, in today’s debates on reproductive ethics:

MAJOR: It is morally impermissible to kill an innocent human being.
MINOR: A human embryo is an innocent human being.

A good philosophical argument is not just a debating brief; it is thoughtful and deepens our understanding of what’s really at stake in a debate. A philosophy paper doesn’t always try to prove a great big thesis. More often, a philosophical conclusion is modest, and it could just as well be negative (showing what seems not to make sense) as positive.


1. Class attendance. Being in class, being engaged with the work of the class, and behaving courteously are all expected. One discourtesy to avoid is coming into class late. Better late than never, definitely; but lateness counts as half an absence—that is, your work with the class that day will be counted as only half done. One percent of the course grade will be lost for each absence from class for any reason, beginning with the fourth absence. (For example, someone who missed class 8 times would lose 5% of the course grade, or half a letter grade.) The reason for this: our in-class work is a crucial and irreplaceable part of the substance of the course.

2. Electronic communication devices (cell phones, laptops, etc.). In the current state of our social evolution, electronic devices are harmful Interrupters and Distracters. Their use is banned in our class—except, yes, you can whip it out to look something up that bears directly on class discussion, but then you must put it away again. If you have special needs, discuss with me.

3. Late papers. Written assignments turned in late will lose a letter grade or equivalent. Homework may not be turned in more than one week after its due date. No work of any kind will be accepted after the last day of final examinations. Exceptions to this policy will only be granted to the victims of unforeseeable and uncontrollable circumstances.

4. As a general rule, no e-mail submissions. Unless the instructor allows it under specified circumstances, e-mail submissions of assigned writing are not accepted.

5. Plagiarism. Using the words or ideas of others without acknowledgment—that is, passing them off as your own—is a fraudulent practice called plagiarism. It also misses one of the main points of being in college, which is to develop your powers of thought and expression. Plagiarism is an offense under the Academic Honor Code.

6. Incompletes. An “Incomplete” grade for the course will only be given to students who, due to unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances, find themselves unable to complete course requirements during the term and can reasonably be expected to complete them within a few weeks after the term’s end. The “Incomplete” must be requested and appropriately justified before the end of final examinations.

7. Disabilities. Students with documented disabilities should discuss their needs with the instructor at the beginning of the semester.