PLEASE NOTE this is a sample reading list for the 2015-16 academic year – precise seminar content
may change from year to year.
Term 1 course materials 2015/16
Ancient Philosophy (weeks 1 - 3)
Lecturer: Dr Simon Scott
Main Text: Plato’s Gorgias
Students should note that the allocation of different topics to different lectures is approximate and
one topic may run over into the following lecture.
Lecture 1: Introduction to Socrates (lecture slides)
Question:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the dialogue form for philosophy?
Secondary reading:
Irwin, Terence, 1995, 'The Argument of The Gorgias' in Plato's Ethics (Oxford University: Oxford).
Irwin, Terence, 1995, 'Plato, Socrates, and the Dialogues' in Plato's Ethics (Oxford University:
Oxford).
Lecture 2: The Socratic method (lecture slides)
Main reading: Gorgias, 447a-461a
Secondary reading: Irwin, Terence, 1995, 'Socrates' Method' in Plato's Ethics (Oxford University:
Oxford).
Reading questions:

How does Gorgias explain oratory?

Does Gorgias’ position change during the discussion?

Does Socrates successfully refute Gorgias’ argument?

Is Socrates as unknowing as he claims to be?
Essay questions:

Critically assess the Socratic method of questioning.

Socrates claims to be ignorant. Is this a philosophical position?
Lecture 3: Eudaimonia and Socrates’ ethics (lecture slides)
Main reading: Gorgias, 461a-481b
Secondary reading: White, F.C., 1990, ‘The Good in Plato’s Gorgias’, Phronesis (35:2), pp.117127.
Reading questions:

What are the different conceptions of eudaimonia held by Gorgias, Polus and Socrates?

Why does Socrates think the elenchus is ethical (this is implied, not stated)

How does Polus’ position differ from Gorgias’ position?
Essay questions:

Do you agree with the claim that it is worse to commit wrong than to suffer wrong?

Critically assess the importance of eudaimonia for Socrates.
Lecture 4: Socrates' political philosophy (lecture slides)
Main reading: Gorgias, 481b-486d
Secondary reading: Archie, Joseph Patrick, 1984, 'Callicles' Redoubtable Critique of the Polus
Argument in Plato's 'Gorgias', Hermes (112:2), pp.167-176.
Reading questions:

Does Socrates successfully refute Polus’ position?

What is the purpose of Callicles’ distinction between nature and convention/culture?

Who are Callicles’ strong individuals?

Are there inconsistencies in Callicles’ criticism of democracy?
Essay question:

What is Callicles' concept of the strong individuals? Is his argument persuasive?
Lecture 5: Criticisms of Democracy (lecture slides)
Main reading: Gorgias, 486d-499b
Secondary reading: Stauffner, Devin, 2002, 'Socrates and Callicles: A Reading of Plato's
"Gorgias"', The Review of Politics (64:4), pp.627-657.
Essay question:

Critically assess Callicles' and Socrates' criticisms of democracy in the Gorgias.
Further secondary literature:
Guthrie, W.K.C., 1969, A History of Greek Philosophy vol.3 , Cambridge University Press. Part of
this is reprinted as The Sophists, Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Guthrie W. K. C., 1975, A History of Greek Philosophy vol.4 part 4. Cambridge University Press
Irwin, T. H., 1995, Plato’s Ethics. Oxford university Press
Kraut, R., 1992 (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge University Press
Morrison, Donald R., 2011 (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Socrates. Cambridge University Press
Santas, G., 1979, Socrates: Philosophy in Plato’s Early Dialogues. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul
For those interested in taking a look at Leo Strauss:
Drury, Shadia B. The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss.
Smith, Steven B. The Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss.
Klosko, George. 'The 'Straussian Interpretation of Plato's Republic'.
The Leo Strauss Center (includes transcripts of Strauss's classes on the Gorgias)
Political Philosophy (Weeks 4 & 5)
Lecturer: Professor Fabienne Peter
Main text: Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, ed. by R. Tuck, Cambridge University Press.
Lecture 1: Why do we need political institutions? (lecture slides)
Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 17
Further Reading:

Hampton, Jean. 1996. Political Philosophy. Boulder: Westview Press, chs. 1 & 3.

Tuck, Richard. 2007. “The Utopianism of Leviathan.” In T. Sorell and L. Foisneau
(eds.) Leviathan after 350 Years. Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 125ff.

Wolff, Robert Paul. 1970. In Defense of Anarchism. New York, Harper & Row, chapter 1.
Lecture 2: What would the world be like without political institutions? (lecture slides)
Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 13
Further Reading:

Hampton, Jean. 1986. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge UP. Chapters 2 &
3.

Rawls, John. 2007. Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, lecture 2.
Lecture 3: The idea of a social contract (lecture slides)
Hobbes, Leviathan, chs. 14 & 18
Further Reading:

Hampton, Jean. 1986. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge UP. Chapters 6 &
7.

Rawls, John. 2007. Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, lecture 1.
Lecture 4: What are the limits of our political obligations? (lecture slides)
Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 21
Further Reading:

Rawls, John. 2007. Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, lecture 4.

Wolff, Jonathan. “Political Obligation, Fairness and Independence.” Ratio 8: 87-99.
Suggested essay titles for Hobbes:

Why does Hobbes think that our natural equality leads to a war of all against all?

Does Hobbes have a good answer to the question of how can it be rational to consent to the
creation of political authority?

Explain and assess Hobbes’ claim that there are two ways in which legitimate political
authority can be created: by “institution” and by “acquisition”.

Does the right to self-defense make absolute sovereignty impossible?
Moral Philosophy (Weeks 7 & 8)
Lecturer: Dr Karen Simecek
Main text: Mill, John Stuart. 1998. Utilitarianism. Edited by Roger Crisp. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lecture 1: What is the highest good? (lecture slides and handout)
Mill, Utilitarianism, ch. 2.
Further Reading:

Donner, Wendy. 2005. “Mill’s Theory of Value.”In West Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism,
pp. 117 – 138.

Griffin, James. 1986. Well-Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press, chs. 1 – 4.

Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 42 – 45.
Lecture 2: Should we be Utilitarians? (Lecture slides and handout)
Mill, Utilitarianism, ch. 4
Further Reading:

Skorupski, John. 1989. John Stuart Mill. New York: Routledge, chapter 9.

West, Henry. 2005. “Mill’s ‘Proof’ of the Principle of Utility.” In West (ed.) Blackwell Guide to
Mill’s Utilitarianism. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 174 – 183.
Suggested Essay Questions for week 7:

Assess Mill's claim that there are higher and lower pleasures.

What does Mill’s “proof” of utilitarianism aim to show. Does it succeed?
Lecture 3: Utilitarianism and Justice (lecture slides and handout)
Mill, Utilitarianism, ch. 5
Further Reading:

Berger, Fred. 1984. Happiness, Justice, and Freedom. Berkely: University of California Press,
ch. 4.

Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, §5.

Sumner, L. W. 2006. “Mill’s Theory of Rights.” In West (ed.) Blackwell Guide to Mill’s
Utilitarianism. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 184 – 198.
Lecture 4: Does Utilitarianism Undermine Moral Integrity? (lecture slides and handout)
Mill, Utilitarianism, ch. 3
Further Reading:

Railton, Peter. 1988. “How Thinking about Character and Utilitarianism Might Lead to
Rethinking the Character of Utilitarianism.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 13: 398 – 416.

Smart, J.J.C. and Bernard Williams. 1977. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 82 – 118.
Suggested Essay Questions for week 8:

Mill recognizes that how it deals with justice is one of the main objections against
utilitarianism. Does Mill offer a satisfactory solution to this problem?

Assess Bernard Williams' objection that utilitarianism undermines moral integrity.
Continental Philosophy (Weeks 9 & 10)
Lecturer: Professor Peter Poellner
Main Text: Friedrich Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil (BGE), trans. Hollingdale, Penguin.
Lecture 1: critique of morality
For the lecture handout click here.
Sections referred to in the lecture: BGE, sect. 33, 62, 108, 186, 188, 191, 194, 199, 200, 201,
202, 203, 220, 260.
Also relevant: Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, Essay 1, esp. sections 10-14 (these
expand the mini-genealogy of BGE 260).
Suggested essay question: What are the grounds of Nietzsche’s critique of morality? Is that
critique plausible?
Secondary literature:
Brian Leiter, Nietzsche on Morality (Routledge Guidebook, 2002), chapters 4 and 6.
David Owen, Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morality (McGill UP, Montreal, 2007), chs. 2 & 5.
The current debate on ressentiment:
Wallace, Jay 'Ressentiment, Value, and Self-Vindication' in B. Leiter and N. Sinhababu (eds.)
Nietzsche and Morality (Oxford UP, 2007), pp. 110-137.
Poellner, Peter 'Ressentiment and Morality’, in S. May (ed.) A Critical Guide to Nietzsche’s 'On the
Genealogy of Morality' (Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 120-141.
(Both of these are available in the Short Loans section of the Library.)
Lecture 2: philosophy, truth, and the philosophical will to truth
For the lecture handout click here
Sections referred to in the lecture: BGE, sect. 1, 3, 4, , 5, 10, 16, 34, 230, 296.
Also relevant: Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, Essay 3, sections 11, 12, 23-27.
Suggested essay question: What is it that Nietzsche objects to in philosophy’s concern with
truth? Or: Is Nietzsche proposing a novel understanding of truth, or of the value of truth? Discuss
the merits of his position.
Secondary literature:
Ken Gemes ‘Nietzsche’s Critique of Truth’ in B. Leiter and J. Richardson (eds) Nietzsche (OUP,
2001).
Peter Poellner ‘Perspectival Truth’ in Leiter & Richardson, Nietzsche (OUP, 2001).
Lecture 3: subjectivity and the will
For the lecture handout click here
Sections referred to in the lecture: BGE sect. 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 36, 225.
Also relevant: Nietzsche, The Gay Science, sect. 354, 357
Nietzsche, The Will to Power, sect. 229, 377, 479, 663, 676, 656, 689, 696, 707.
Suggested essay question: Discuss Nietzsche’s psychology of the will.
Secondary Literature:
Bernard Reginster, The Affirmation of Life (Harvard University Press, 2006), chapt. 3 (‘The Will to
Power’), pp. 103-147, or
J. Richardson, ‘Nietzsche’s Power Ontology’, in Leiter& Richardson (eds) Nietzsche (OUP, 2001).
Lecture 4: Nietzsche’s ethics: The ideal of the Free Spirit
BGE Part 2, ‘The Free Spirit’; plus sections 21, 29, 32, 34, 187, 188, 212, 213, 224, 225, 227,
296.
Also relevant: Nietzsche, The Gay Science, sect. 290, 301, 335, 347.
Nietzsche, Thus spoke Zarathustra, ‘Of Self-Overcoming’.
Suggested essay question: Discuss Nietzsche’s ideal of the free spirit.
Secondary Literature:
The following commentaries stress different aspects of Nietzsche's ideal of the free spirit:
R. Lanier Anderson, 'What is a Nietzschean Self?', in C. Janaway and S. Robertson (eds) Nietzsche,
Naturalism and Normativity (OUP, 2012). [On self-creation].
Ken Gemes, ‘Nietzsche on Free Will, Autonomy, and the Sovereign Individual’ in K. Gemes and S.
May (eds) Nietzsche on Freedom and Autonomy (OUP, 2009). [On unity of style].
Bernard Reginster, 'The Will to Power and the Ethics of Creativity', in B. Leiter and N. Sinhababu
(eds) Nietzsche and Morality (OUP, 2007). [On affirming the will to power].
Peter Poellner, ‘Nietzschean Freedom’, in Gemes & May (eds), Nietzsche on Freedom and
Autonomy. (OUP, 2009). [On 'creating a law for oneself' and metaphysical indifference].
Peter Poellner, 'Aestheticist Ethics', in C. Janaway and S. Robertson (eds) Nietzsche, Naturalism
and Normativity (OUP, 2012). [Esp. sections 6 & 7: on self-overcoming and going beyond what is
understood and known].
Term 2 course materials 2015/16
Week 1: Descartes, R. Meditations: 1st Meditation
Study questions:
1. What will Descartes’ project be? How will he proceed? Does this project make sense?
2. What is his first reason to doubt his senses? Why isn’t this enough for him?
3. On page 13, Descartes writes ‘I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of
which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep’. Is this true? Suppose he is right – are
there any beliefs that are left unaffected by this problem?
4. On page 15, Descartes gives his best reason to doubt all his beliefs. What is the argument?
Does it give you a reason to doubt all your beliefs?
5. In the very end of page 14, Descartes writes ‘I have no answer to these arguments, but am
finally compelled to admit that there is not one of my former beliefs about which a doubt may not
properly be raised.’ What is the argument on that page that leads him to come to this conclusion?
Week 2: Descartes, R. Meditations: 2nd Meditation paragraphs 1–5, the Objections and
Responses on ‘Cogito Ergo Sum’ (pages 68–69 in the Cottingham edition).
And 3rd Meditation.
Study questions:
Mediation 2:
1. What method will Descartes use when he begins to investigate what this ‘I’ is that is established
by the Cogito?
2. What was the traditional view of the self? Why can’t he think that he is anything like that?
3. What does he discover about his nature and essence? How plausible is the conclusion?
Mediation 3:
1. What is the situation of the meditator now? Why is Descartes trying to establish the existence of
God?
2. What kind of ideas are there? What examples does Descartes give of them?
3. What is the idea of God like? How does it differ from other ideas?
4. What principle does Descartes then introduce? Is it plausible in the light of Descartes’
examples?
5. What is the argument for the existence of God (31-32)?
Week 3: Gettier, E. (1963) “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” available here: Gettier's paper
Study questions:
1. Explain in your own words what it is for a mental state to be a belief.
2. Why is knowledge not simply true belief?
3. What is wrong with the thought that knowledge is justified true belief, according to Gettier?
4. Explain each of Gettier’s cases in your own words.
5. Construct your own example where a person has a justified true belief which isn’t knowledge.
6. Can the justified true belief account of knowledge be fixed to solve Gettier’s problem?
Week 4: Descartes, R. Meditations: Meditation 2, from paragraph 5 to end of the Meditation.
Study questions:
1. What method will Descartes use when he begins to investigate what this ‘I’ is that is established
by the Cogito?
2. What was the traditional view of the self? Why can’t he think that he is anything like that?
3. What does he discover about his nature and essence? How plausible is the conclusion?
4. On what grounds does Descartes come to this conclusion?
5. What worry is the ‘wax example’ supposed to address? N.B. this is a tough and contentious
question, but give it a go.
Week 5: Smart, JJC. (1959) “Sensations and Brain Processes” available here: Smart's paper
Study questions:
1. What is Smart attempting to show in this paper?
2. What is Occam’s razor, and how does Smart apply it here?
3. Describe what Smart calls “the ‘expressive’ account of sensations statements”.
4. What is wrong with this account, according to Smart?
5. Explain objection 1 and how Smart responds.
6. Overall, how convincing is Smart’s argument?
Week 7: Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Book II, Chapter 27 “Of Identity
and Diversity”.
Study questions:
1. What is a person, according to Locke?
2. In what does personal identity consist, for Locke?
3. What if I wholly lose all my memories? What does Locke say about this sort of case? Is his view
plausible?
4. Is it just to punish someone for something they cannot remember?
5. Explain how and why Locke distinguishes between the identity of humans (‘man’ in his terms)
and persons.
6. Is it possible for a person to move from one body to another according to Locke? Is this right?
Week 8: Olson, E. (2003) “An Argument for Animalism” available here: Olson's paper
1. What does an animalist claim? How does this differ from constitutionalism and materialism?
2. Explain in your own words the alternative views of what a human person is, offered in section 2.
3. Why have philosophers thought that we are not animals?
4. Explain Olson’s argument for animalism.
5. How should an anti-animalist respond?
Further Reading: please consult the talis list here: (scroll down for term 2)
Suggested Essay Questions
If you are looking for a title to look at for your tutorial essays, here are some suggested questions
(your tutorial leader will be able to provide you with further advice on how to do your essay):
Week 1:
What is Descartes purpose in raising his sceptical worries?
What is the strongest reason Descartes gives for doubting your beliefs?
Week 2:
Explore one objection to the cogito argument.
Explain and assess the trademark argument for the existence of God.
Week 3:
Why would someone think that knowledge is justified true belief?
Is Moore’s response to sceptical worries more effective than Descartes?
Week 4:
How does the causal closure of the physical world threaten substance dualism?
Explain the problem of interaction and how the dualist might avoid the worry.
Week 5:
How do the dualist and behaviourist differ on the nature of introspection?
Explain the best reason to be an identity theorist.
Week 7:
Evaluate one argument against functionalism.
Why does Locke offer a psychological theory of personal identity?
Week 8:
Discuss one argument against the Lockean account of personal identity.
Are there any good reasons to be an animalist about human persons?
AESTHETICS (Weeks 9-10)
The focus of the Week 9 lectures will be the philosophical significance of art, with particular
attention to imitation, tragedy and ethical understanding, and the focus of the Week 10 lectures
will be judgement of beauty and the possibility of avoiding relativism in aesthetic matters.
Week 9 core reading:
Plato, The Republic (books 2,3 and 10) and Aristotle, Poetics (Oxford World's Classics) trans.
Anthony Kenny
Reading questions:
1. According to Plato, what is wrong with mimetic art?
2. Why does Plato banish the poets from his Republic?
3. Aristotle observes that "even when things are painful to look upon ... we take pleasure in
viewing highly realistic images of them". How does Aristotle explain such a pleasure?
4. How does Aristotle first define tragedy? What are the tragic emotions by means of which
purification [catharsis] is achieved, and what effect does tragedy have upon those emotions?
5. Tragedy, according to Aristotle, is essentially a representation of action. What characteristics
should this action have?
6. What are the main components of a tragedy and why are they important on Aristotle's view?
7. What enables tragedy to achieve its effects?
8. What does Aristotle claim is the main difference between poetry and history?
9. How does Aristotle's view of mimetic art differ from Plato's?
Suggested essay questions for Week 9:

What are Plato's reasons for disapproving of mimetic art? Do you find them convincing?

What, according to Aristotle, is the primary purpose of tragedy? What problems might there be
with this point of view?
Lecture Slides
Week 9 Lecture 1: Plato and handout
Week 9 Lecture 2: Aristotle and handout
Week 9 further reading
Plato
G. R. F. Ferrari, 'Plato and Poetry,' The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, ed. G. A. Kennedy,
CUP, 1989.
Charles Griswold, 'Plato on Rhetoric and Poetry,' The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Christopher Janaway, 'Plato', The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, eds Berys Gaut & Dominic
Lopes, 2001.
Sir Philip Sidney, 'An Apology for Poetry', in Aristotle, Poetics (Oxford World's Classics) trans.
Anthony Kenny
Aristotle
Nikolas Pappas, 'Aristotle,' The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, eds Berys Gaut & Dominic
Lopes, 2001.
Leon Golden, 'The Purgation Theory of Catharsis,' Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 31 (1973)
473–9.
Stephen Halliwell, 'Aristotelian Mimesis Reevaluated,' Journal of the History of Philosophy 28
(1990) 487–510.
Mark Packer, 'The Conditions of Aesthetic Feeling in Aristotle’s Poetics,' British Journal of
Aesthetics 24 (1984) 138–48.
Amélie Oksenberg Rorty, ed., Essays on Aristotle's Poetics. Princeton University Press, 1992.
Week 10 Core Reading:
David Hume, 'Of the Standard of Taste'
This essay is widely available. Here are links to two online full-text versions: the Fordham site is
better for printing from, and the davidhume.org site is better for reading online (search for the
essay in the Four Dissertations table of contents).
Reading questions:
Why does an appeal to sentiment seem to preclude having a standard of taste?
How does ‘common sense’ lead us into apparently irreconcilable views of taste?
Do rules of beauty have authority, on Hume’s view?
Can ‘the test of time’ provide a standard of taste?
How do the models of taste in food and drink, and of bodily health, help to coordinate matters of
fact and of sentiment?
What is Hume’s ‘true standard of taste and beauty’?
What are the five characteristics of the ‘true judge’?
Which sources of variation in taste does Hume count as ‘blameless’?
How does Hume contrast our handling of ‘speculative opinions’ and ‘moral principles’ in art?
Lecture slides
Week 10 lecture 1 and handout
Week 10 lecture 2 and handout
Suggested essay questions for Week 10

Has Hume shown that ‘the taste of all individuals is not upon an equal footing’? Is that
sufficient to establish a standard of taste?

Is Hume’s account of the standard of taste circular?

Do you have reason to defer to, or to try to emulate, the judgements of Hume’s ideal critics?
Week 10 further reading
Noël Carroll, ‘Hume’s Standard of Taste’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 43 (1984), 181-94
Ted Cohen, ‘The Philosophy of Taste: Thoughts on the Idea’, Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, ed. P.
Kivy, 2004
Eva Dadlez, ‘The Vicious Habits of Entirely Fictive People: Hume on the Moral Evaluation of
Art’, Philosophy and Literature 26 (2002), 143-56
Ted Gracyk, ‘Re-thinking Hume’s Standard of Taste’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 52
(1994), 168-82
Peter Kivy, ‘Hume’s Standard of Taste: Breaking the Circle’, British Journal of Aesthetics 7 (1967),
57-66
Jerrold Levinson, ‘Hume's Standard of Taste: The Real Problem’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism 60 (2002), 227-238.
James Shelley, ‘Hume and the Nature of Taste’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56(1998),
29-38
Term 3 course materials 2015/16
Logic: Dr Hemdat Lerman
Textbook
Barwise & Etchemendy Language, Proof and Logic (CSLI publications, Stanford).