1/4
Module Syllabus
Metametaphysics
Semester
Number of Credits
Time and Location
Instructor
Contact
Office
Office hours
Fall, 2015-16
2
Tuesdays, 11:00-12.40am, location tbc.
Philip Goff
goffp@ceu.edu
Zrinyi u. 14, R. 307
TBC
Description
Metaphysics is philosophical enquiry into the nature of reality. But what does that involve and how is
it done? How on earth can a philosopher, sat in an armchair without doing experiments, possibly hope
to find out what the world is like? There was a period of sustained and strong opposition to
metaphysics from the 1930s to the 1970s. Since then serious systematic metaphysics has been going
on in most analytic philosophy departments. And yet it is not clear that metaphysics has made any
progress, and the general public is mostly unaware of its existence.
In more recent times analytic philosophers have been rediscovering traditional metaphysical
concepts, such as essence, grounding, fundamentality and even the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We
will explore this ‘neo-Aristotelian’ turn in metaphysics.
In general we will explore a couple of forms of scepticism to the very possibility of metaphysics, a few
theories as to how metaphysics is to be done, and see whether the latter can provide good responses
to the former. Both skeptics and true believers welcome! Some of the material covered will be fairly
technical.
Course Goals
The aims of this module are twofold: first, to provide an understanding of the various views
adopted in contemporary metametaphysics, and second, to develop the knowledge and
philosophical skills required to critically assess the arguments for/against each position.
Learning outcomes
By the end of the course, students will gain:
 an understanding of various positions adopted in contemporary metametaphysics.
 the ability to deploy the philosophical techniques and argumentative strategies that
can be used to discuss those problems
 the ability to explain the strengths and weaknesses of different positions in this area
of metaphysics
 the transferable skill of formulating and evaluating arguments for and against various
philosophical positions, both orally and in writing
2/4
Weekly schedule and compulsory readings
Topic
Reading
Week 1 – Introduction
In the first class I will give an online of the
various positions we will be covering in the
course. No reading is required.
Part 1:The vocabulary of metaphysics
Week 2 – Scepticism about the significance Hirsch, E. 2005. ‘Physical-object ontology,
of metaphysical disputes
verbal disputes, and common sense,’
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
70, 67-97.
Week 3 – Naturalness
Lewis, D. 1983. ‘New work for a theory of
universals,’ Australasian Journal of
Philosophy 61: 343-377.
Week 4 – Essence
Fine, K. 1994. ‘Essence and modality’,
Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1-16.
Week 5 – Fundamentality
Sider, T. 2009. ‘ Ontological realism,’ in D.
Chalmers, D. Manley & R. Wasserman (Eds.)
Metametaphysics, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Week 6 – Grounding
Rosen, G. 2010. ‘Metaphysical Dependence:
Grounding and Reduction,’ in B. Hale & A
Hoffman (Eds.) Modality: Metaphysics,
Logic, and Epistemology, ed. Bob Hale and
Aviv Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 109–
36.
Part 2:The possibility of metaphysics
Week 7 – Scepticism about the possibility of Bennett, K. 2009. ‘Composition, colocation,
metaphysics
and metaontology, in Chalmers, Manley and
Wasserman, 2009, 38-76.
Week 8 – Metaphysics as the science of Lowe, E. J. 2011. ‘The rationality of
essence
metaphysics’ Synthese 178: 99–109.
Week 9 – Metaphysics in application to the
mind-body problem
Week 10 – Intuitions as the data of
metaphysics
Goff, P. Unpublished. ‘Grounding, essence
and the mind-body problem.’
Bealer, G. 1996. ‘A priori knowledge and the
scope of philosophy,’ Philosophical Studies
81: 2-3, 121-142.
Week 11 – Phenomenological reflection as Goff, P. MS. Chapter 10 of Consciousness
the data of metaphysics
and Fundamental Reality.
Week 12 – Final Debate
In the final session each student will decide
which of the positions we have discussed
they think is right and defend it. The position
with the most support at the end at the end
of the session will be declared TRUE.
3/4
Requirements
Regular attendance, carefully completing the assigned readings before class, and active participation
in discussions will be expected from all students, whether registered for audit or taking the class for
credit.
Each session will begin with a presentation by one student. This will be strictly timed at 15-20 minutes.
If the students takes longer than 20 minutes they will be simply cut off. The aim of the presentation is
not to tell the class what was said in the reading, as the other students will have already read this.
Rather the presenter will tell the class what they thought of the reading, and/or of the topic of the
week more generally. The presenter must prepare either a handout or a powerpoint presentation (or
both). After the presentation, the presenter will field questions on her/his opinion for 5-10 minutes.
Following this, Philip Goff will speak for 10-15 minutes, which will lead into a general discussion for
the remaining hour.
Each student must submit a half page (if it’s more than one page resubmission will be requested) essay
plan by the end of week 9, explaining what they will argue for in their essay assignment.
Assessment
For students taking the class for credit there will be an essay assignment of 2,000 words due at the
end of the semester. Students are to formulate their own essay questions based on anything relevant
to the topics covered in the module.
Though the class grade is based on the final paper, all course requirements must be completed in a
satisfactory manner in order to earn a grade for the class. Should the final essay receive a borderline
mark, the student’s overall mark will be adjusted in light of the student’s in-class performance and
participation.
Grading criteria for final papers
Quantity:
Avoid going 10% over or under the required length. Writing clearly and succinctly within a word limit
is an important philosophical skill. Grades will thus be partly determined in light of the student’s ability
to stick closely to the word limit. The word count should include all references and footnotes (if any),
but exclude the bibliography.
Quality:
To earn a B+, the paper must clearly and concisely address the question and must be written in good
academic English. Insofar as these are relevant, the paper must demonstrate a solid understanding of
the arguments from readings in the course as well as in-class presentations and discussions. Important
principles and concepts should be clearly explained. The views of others should, where necessary, be
accurately, charitably, clearly and succinctly reconstructed, and properly cited with a bibliography. The
paper must show that you have analyzed and independently organized the material yourself in
response to the question, rather than simply following the organization of in-class presentations or
parts of the literature.
To earn an A-, the assignment must demonstrate all the above plus evidence of genuine progress as a
result of your own independent thinking, such as your own substantive evaluation and critique of the
validity and soundness of the arguments of others, or your own original positive argument. If there
are any problems with the exposition or arguments in the paper, these will be minor. Any obvious
objections to your argument will have been anticipated and answered.
4/4
Papers that earn an A will demonstrate all the above virtues to the extent that they are nearly flawless
in writing style, organization, exposition and soundness of arguments. While remaining entirely
relevant to the question, such a paper will be relatively ambitious in scope and will demonstrate an
exceptional degree of understanding and of the topic.