The Problem
I recently audited a Vector Calculus mathematics class (aka Calculus 4) and the professor noted that the average score on the assigned homework was over 90 %, but the average on the midterm was 40 %. He correctly pointed out that students were using AI tools to complete the homework–which results in a good score, but they didn’t learn the concepts behind the topics, explaining the low score on the non-AI assisted exam.
I’ve heard anecdotally from some friends who are prior, or current high school or college instructors and they say that they are no longer grading homework, although they do recommend certain homework assignments from the course material.
My own experiments have shown me that AI tools can complete most or all homework assignments from STEM textbooks, and can also write convincing papers for those subjects that require one.
So what should students (including self directed students) do? The answer is to use AI to support, but not replace learning.
We’ve Been Here Before
In the mid 1970’s students were not allowed to use electronic calculators in scientific courses, such as physics or chemistry. The reasoning was that (1) calculators were new, and expensive and (2) They were a relatively new tool, and not everyone trusted them. So, students in those classes continued to use slide rules.
The advantage of a slide rule is that the student is required to determine the correct magnitude of a solution (eg. how many zeroes) but sacrifices the pin point accuracy of a solution to multiple decimal places.
A year or so later, calculators began to be accepted as tools, but many students continued to use slide rules to check their answers.
Calculators are now widespread, and many people have lost the ability to “calculate numbers in their head” and even many grocery store cashiers cannot make change without the register doing the calculations for them.
My Suggestion: Use AI as a tool to support or structure learning, NOT to replace the hard work of learning
TLDR
- Your job: Determine the study area, including specifics on learning goals and a timeline
- AI can then do the following
- Prepare a specific curriculum
- Provide tutoring for difficult concepts
- Provide a recommended review schedule
- Prepare and evaluate practice problems, assignments, or exams
- Provide feedback on submitted assignments.
I recently watched a Youtube lecture covering the topic “Learning to Learn” offered by Cambridge University as part of their Life Competencies framework. In this lecture they covered their thoughts on how to use AI tools to support learning. They segmented the use of AI into three categories:
- Surface Learning: Using AI to create answers and complete tasks
- Middle Learning: Using AI to provide feedback
- Deep Learning: Using AI to help understand
They then break down the different stages of learning and point out that AI can assist each of these steps (this is an iterative process that continues cycling through all four stages, into a kind of an infinite loop)
- Develop/refine learning objectives
- Monitor progress
- Provide actionable feedback
- Identify next steps
Case Study: Using AI to develop a 4 year curriculum in analytic philosophy
Here is my starting prompt: “Construct a 4 year program to help me master analytic philosophy at an undergraduate level”
Here’s feedback from ChatGPT. It’s fairly detailed. You’ll note that ChatGPT provides a suggested reading list. It’s still up to me to read and study these texts, There are also suggested writings. I could use AI to review and grade my work.
ChatGPT Output
Absolutely. I’d structure this as a four-year undergraduate-equivalent curriculum in analytic philosophy, rather than simply a reading list. The goal is that by the end you can read difficult primary texts, reconstruct arguments, identify hidden premises, evaluate validity and soundness, write rigorous philosophical papers, and engage with contemporary analytic debates.
The Four-Year Analytic Philosophy Program
Workload: ~10–15 hours/week
Core pattern:
- 4–6 hrs/week reading
- 2–3 hrs/week writing
- 1–2 hrs/week logic/problem solving
- 1–2 hrs/week review and discussion
- One substantial paper each semester
The progression
| Year | Main objective | Major areas |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Learn the philosophical toolkit | Logic, argumentation, epistemology, ethics, metaphysics |
| 2 | Master the foundations | Philosophy of language, mind, science, epistemology, metaphysics |
| 3 | Enter advanced analytic philosophy | Wittgenstein, Quine, Kripke, Lewis, Davidson, Gettier, contemporary debates |
| 4 | Develop specialization & research ability | Advanced seminars, primary literature, independent research, thesis |
YEAR 1 — Learning to Think Philosophically
The first year should not be dominated by famous difficult books. You need to develop the tools that make those books intelligible.
Semester 1: Arguments, Logic & Philosophical Method
1. Introduction to philosophy
Start with:
- Simon Blackburn — Think
- Bertrand Russell — The Problems of Philosophy
- Thomas Nagel — What Does It All Mean?
Don’t merely read these as introductions. Use them to learn how philosophers formulate problems.
For every argument you encounter, ask:
- What is the conclusion?
- What are the premises?
- What is the inference?
- Are there implicit premises?
- Is the argument valid?
- Are the premises true?
- What would constitute a successful objection?
2. Logic
This is the most important technical subject of your first year.
Study:
- propositional logic
- truth tables
- validity
- soundness
- predicate logic
- quantifiers
- identity
- natural deduction
A good textbook:
Graham Priest — Logic: A Very Short Introduction
followed by a proper introductory logic textbook such as:
Patrick Hurley — A Concise Introduction to Logic
Your objective isn’t merely understanding the concepts. Do exercises until translating arguments into formal logic becomes routine.
3. Critical reasoning
Study:
- deductive vs. inductive arguments
- necessary vs. sufficient conditions
- counterexamples
- ambiguity
- equivocation
- circular reasoning
- causal reasoning
- inference to the best explanation
Writing assignment
Write a 1,500-word paper:
Is knowledge possible?
Then rewrite it after receiving your own criticism.
That second version is important. Philosophical writing improves enormously through rewriting.
Semester 2: The Core Problems
Now begin systematic study of the major branches.
Epistemology
Read selections from:
- Plato — Meno
- Plato — Theaetetus
- René Descartes — Meditations
- David Hume — An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
- Edmund Gettier — “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”
- G. E. Moore — “Proof of an External World”
Learn:
- skepticism
- foundationalism
- coherentism
- justification
- knowledge
- internalism/externalism
- Gettier problems
Metaphysics
Study:
- universals and particulars
- identity
- persistence
- causation
- modality
- free will
- mind/body
Primary readings:
- Aristotle — selections from Metaphysics
- Descartes — Meditations
- Hume — Treatise selections
- J. L. Mackie — The Cement of the Universe
Ethics
Read:
- Plato — Euthyphro
- Aristotle — Nicomachean Ethics Books I–II
- Kant — Groundwork
- Mill — Utilitarianism
- Bernard Williams — “Moral Luck”
Year 1 final project
Write a 3,000-word argumentative paper on one question, for example:
Does Gettier’s argument show that knowledge cannot be analyzed as justified true belief?
You should explicitly reconstruct the opposing position before arguing against it.
YEAR 2 — Entering Analytic Philosophy Proper
This is where the curriculum becomes recognizably analytic.
Semester 3: Philosophy of Language
This should be one of the central courses of the entire four years.
Read:
Gottlob Frege
- “On Sense and Reference”
- “The Thought”
Bertrand Russell
- “On Denoting”
P. F. Strawson
- “On Referring”
W. V. O. Quine
- “On What There Is”
Saul Kripke
- Naming and Necessity
Learn:
- reference
- sense
- descriptions
- proper names
- definite descriptions
- meaning
- analyticity
- necessity
- possible worlds
- rigid designation
Special exercise
Take ordinary sentences such as:
The present king of France is bald.
and analyze what different theories say about their meaning, reference and truth conditions.
This is where analytic philosophy starts becoming a distinctive method rather than merely a collection of topics.
Semester 4: Philosophy of Mind & Metaphysics
Philosophy of mind
Read:
- René Descartes — Meditations selections
- J. J. C. Smart — “Sensations and Brain Processes”
- Thomas Nagel — “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”
- Frank Jackson — “Epiphenomenal Qualia”
- David Chalmers — “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness”
- Daniel Dennett — “Quining Qualia”
Study:
- dualism
- identity theory
- functionalism
- behaviorism
- physicalism
- qualia
- intentionality
- consciousness
- philosophical zombies
Metaphysics
Read:
- D. M. Armstrong — selections
- David Lewis — selections from On the Plurality of Worlds
- Derek Parfit — selections from Reasons and Persons
- Peter van Inwagen — selections from An Essay on Free Will
Study:
- personal identity
- possible worlds
- properties
- universals
- modality
- causation
- determinism
- free will
Year 2 project
Write 4,000–5,000 words:
What is a person?
Your paper should compare at least three theories and defend one.
YEAR 3 — The Analytic Tradition
Now you stop primarily learning about analytic philosophy and start reading the people who created it.
Semester 5: Frege → Russell → Wittgenstein → Logical Positivism
This is your historical/theoretical backbone.
Frege
Read:
- “On Sense and Reference”
- “The Thought”
- selections from Foundations of Arithmetic
Russell
Read:
- “On Denoting”
- “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism”
Wittgenstein
Read:
- Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
- selections from Philosophical Investigations
Do not rush Wittgenstein.
The contrast between the Tractatus and Investigations is one of the most important transformations in 20th-century philosophy.
Logical positivism
Read:
- A. J. Ayer — selections from Language, Truth and Logic
- Rudolf Carnap — “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language”
Then study the criticisms.
Semester 6: Quine, Kripke & the Transformation of Analytic Philosophy
This semester is particularly important.
W. V. O. Quine
Read:
“Two Dogmas of Empiricism”
Understand:
- analytic/synthetic distinction
- reductionism
- holism
- confirmation
Then:
“On What There Is”
Focus on the famous question:
What is there?
and Quine’s criterion of ontological commitment.
Saul Kripke
Read:
Naming and Necessity
Master:
- rigid designation
- necessary a posteriori truths
- contingent a priori knowledge
- essential properties
- descriptivism
This is one of the books where you should slow down dramatically.
Spend several weeks reconstructing Kripke’s arguments rather than trying to finish quickly.
YEAR 3 ALSO: Philosophy of Science
Study:
- induction
- falsification
- confirmation
- scientific explanation
- realism vs. anti-realism
- theory choice
- scientific revolutions
Read:
- Hume — induction
- Karl Popper — selections from The Logic of Scientific Discovery
- Carl Hempel — “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”
- Thomas Kuhn — The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
- Bas van Fraassen — The Scientific Image
YEAR 4 — Advanced Analytic Philosophy
Year 4 changes character.
You should now be capable of choosing a problem and doing philosophy rather than merely studying philosophy.
Semester 7: Advanced Epistemology & Metaphysics
Epistemology
Study:
- internalism/externalism
- reliabilism
- virtue epistemology
- epistemic justification
- testimony
- disagreement
- skepticism
- epistemic norms
Read authors such as:
- Alvin Goldman
- Ernest Sosa
- Laurence BonJour
- Timothy Williamson
- Duncan Pritchard
Particularly important:
Timothy Williamson — Knowledge and Its Limits
Metaphysics
Study:
- modality
- necessity
- essence
- grounding
- universals
- laws of nature
- causation
- persistence
- composition
Read:
- David Lewis
- Kit Fine
- E. J. Lowe
- Peter van Inwagen
- Theodore Sider
Semester 8: Independent Research & Thesis
This semester should resemble an undergraduate philosophy honors thesis/seminar.
Choose one major problem.
Examples:
Philosophy of language
What determines the reference of a proper name?
Epistemology
Is knowledge the fundamental epistemic state?
Metaphysics
Are possible worlds genuine entities?
Philosophy of mind
Can consciousness be explained physically?
Ethics
Are moral facts objective?
Logic
What is the philosophical significance of incompleteness?
Then produce a 10,000–15,000-word thesis.
Your thesis should contain:
- Introduction
- Precise formulation of the problem
- Historical background
- Reconstruction of the major positions
- Argument for your position
- Objections
- Replies
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
The crucial difference from your Year 1 papers is that you’re now expected to engage with professional philosophical literature, not just textbooks.
Your Four-Year Reading Spine
If you want a single sequence of major works running through the program, I’d use this:
Foundations
- Russell — The Problems of Philosophy
- Plato — Meno
- Plato — Theaetetus
- Descartes — Meditations
- Hume — Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Early analytic philosophy
- Frege — Foundations of Arithmetic
- Frege — “On Sense and Reference”
- Russell — “On Denoting”
- Russell — “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism”
- Wittgenstein — Tractatus
Mid-century analytic philosophy
- Carnap — Meaning and Necessity
- Ayer — Language, Truth and Logic
- Wittgenstein — Philosophical Investigations
- Quine — “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”
- Quine — “On What There Is”
Contemporary analytic philosophy
- Gettier — “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”
- Kripke — Naming and Necessity
- Lewis — On the Plurality of Worlds
- Putnam — “The Meaning of ‘Meaning'”
- Davidson — “Truth and Meaning”
- Nagel — “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”
- Jackson — “Epiphenomenal Qualia”
- Chalmers — The Conscious Mind
- Williamson — Knowledge and Its Limits
- Parfit — Reasons and Persons
You don’t need to read every work cover-to-cover immediately. Some are better approached as collections of carefully selected papers.
The Skill Curriculum
This is just as important as the reading curriculum.
By graduation you should be able to do all of the following.
Logic
You should be comfortable with:
- propositional logic
- predicate logic
- modal logic
- formal validity
- natural deduction
- quantification
- basic metalogic
Eventually learn:
- soundness
- completeness
- compactness
- Löwenheim–Skolem
- Gödel’s incompleteness theorems
You don’t need to become a professional logician, but you should understand the philosophical significance of these results.
Philosophical Writing Training
I would make writing a continuous four-year exercise.
Year 1
1,000–2,000-word papers.
Focus on:
Explain an argument accurately.
Year 2
2,000–4,000 words.
Focus on:
Compare two positions and evaluate them.
Year 3
4,000–6,000 words.
Focus on:
Reconstruct an argument and make an original objection.
Year 4
10,000–15,000 words.
Focus on:
Defend an original philosophical thesis against serious objections.
The Most Important Habit
For every philosophical paper you read, create a four-part analysis:
1. Thesis
What is the author claiming?
2. Argument
Why does the author think it is true?
3. Objections
What are the strongest objections?
4. Assessment
Is the argument successful?
For example:
Kripke: Some identities are necessary but discovered empirically.
Then reconstruct why he thinks this.
Then ask:
What premise would someone who rejects Kripke attack?
This habit will teach you analytic philosophy much faster than simply reading more books.
A Weekly Schedule
I’d recommend something like:
Monday — Logic
60–90 minutes of formal exercises
Tuesday — Primary text
60–90 minutes
Wednesday — Secondary literature
60–90 minutes
Thursday — Primary text
60–90 minutes
Friday — Argument reconstruction
45–60 minutes
Weekend — Writing
2–3 hours
Total: roughly 8–12 hours/week.
If you can devote 15 hours, add a philosophy lecture/course and additional reading.
Your “Philosopher’s Notebook”
Keep one dedicated notebook or digital file.
For every significant argument, record:
Author:
Work:
Question:
Thesis:
Argument:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
Premise 3:
Conclusion:
Hidden assumptions:
Strongest objection:
Author’s response:
My assessment:
Questions remaining:
This will eventually become an extraordinarily valuable research database.
What “Mastery” Should Mean at the End
At the end of four years, I wouldn’t define mastery as “having read 100 books.”
I’d define it as being able to take an unfamiliar paper in Mind, Noûs, The Philosophical Review, Analysis, or Journal of Philosophy and ask:
What exactly is the argument, what assumptions does it depend upon, and is it successful?
You should be able to:
- read Frege and Russell without constantly relying on secondary sources;
- understand the Frege–Russell–Wittgenstein development;
- understand why Quine’s critique of analyticity mattered;
- understand why Kripke changed the philosophy of language;
- work comfortably with formal arguments;
- distinguish semantic, epistemological, metaphysical and logical questions;
- reconstruct arguments charitably before criticizing them;
- find weaknesses in sophisticated arguments;
- formulate counterexamples;
- write clear analytic prose;
- engage with contemporary papers;
- and eventually produce an argument of your own.
One important modification for you
Since you previously asked for an undergraduate-style analytic philosophy curriculum, I’d actually make this more structured than a typical self-study reading list: each semester should have a syllabus, weekly readings, logic exercises, essay assignments, exams/oral exams, and a final research paper.
If you want, I can build the full 8-semester syllabus week-by-week, including every reading (primary and secondary), logic exercises, writing assignments, exams, and a 10,000–15,000-word senior thesis sequence—essentially a four-year BA in analytic philosophy that you can follow independently.
Note That ChatGPT is giving me the option to build a complete 8 semester syllabus. Let’s see what it comes up with
Here’s my prompt: “Yes. Do that. an 8 semester syllabus week by week”
Here Is the Detailed Syllabus
Absolutely. Below is a full 8-semester, 4-year undergraduate-equivalent curriculum in analytic philosophy, designed for independent study.
I’ve made it more demanding than a typical introductory philosophy degree in three ways: formal logic is continuous, primary texts are emphasized, and every semester culminates in substantial philosophical writing.
How to use the program
Standard workload: 12–15 hours/week
Each week:
- 4–6 hrs: primary philosophical reading
- 2 hrs: secondary/commentary reading
- 2 hrs: logic/formal work
- 3–4 hrs: writing, argument reconstruction, or review
The four-year progression
| Year | Theme | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Foundations | Learn to analyze arguments and write philosophy |
| 2 | Core analytic disciplines | Become fluent in language, mind, epistemology and metaphysics |
| 3 | Analytic tradition | Understand the major transformations of 20th-century analytic philosophy |
| 4 | Advanced work | Read contemporary literature and conduct independent research |
YEAR 1 — FOUNDATIONS
Semester 1 — Introduction, Argument & Logic
Central question: What makes philosophical reasoning good?
Week 1 — What is philosophy?
Read
- Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Chs. 1–2
- Nagel, What Does It All Mean?, Ch. 1
Work
- Distinguish philosophical questions from empirical questions.
- Begin your philosophical notebook.
Writing: 500 words: What makes a philosophical question philosophical?
Week 2 — Arguments
Read
- Russell, Problems, Ch. 2
- Blackburn, Think, introduction
Study
- Premises
- Conclusions
- Inference
- Argument vs. explanation
Exercise: Reconstruct five arguments from ordinary newspaper/editorial prose.
Week 3 — Validity and soundness
Study:
- deductive validity
- soundness
- invalidity
- counterexamples
Logic: Begin propositional logic.
Learn:
- ¬
- ∧
- ∨
- →
- ↔
Week 4 — Truth tables
Master:
- constructing truth tables
- tautologies
- contradictions
- contingencies
- logical equivalence
Exercise: 25 truth-table problems.
Week 5 — Necessary and sufficient conditions
Study:
- necessary conditions
- sufficient conditions
- necessary and sufficient conditions
Writing: Analyze an argument involving a necessary condition and identify whether the inference succeeds.
Week 6 — Informal fallacies
Study:
- equivocation
- begging the question
- straw man
- false dilemma
- ad hominem
- appeal to authority
Important: Don’t treat fallacies as magic labels. Explain why the inference fails.
Week 7 — Predicate logic I
Begin:
- predicates
- variables
- quantifiers
- ∀
- ∃
Translate ordinary English into predicate logic.
Week 8 — Predicate logic II
Study:
- quantifier scope
- nested quantifiers
- identity
Translate:
Every philosopher admires some philosopher.
vs.
There is a philosopher whom every philosopher admires.
Week 9 — Arguments about knowledge
Read
- Plato, Meno selections
- Plato, Theaetetus selections
Question:
What is knowledge?
Week 10 — Skepticism
Read
- Descartes, Meditations I–II
Study:
- dreaming argument
- evil demon
- certainty
- cogito
Week 11 — Empiricism
Read
- Hume, Enquiry, Sections II–IV
Study:
- impressions
- ideas
- causation
- induction
Week 12 — Rationalism vs. empiricism
Compare:
- Descartes
- Hume
Essay: 2,000 words.
Can experience provide certainty?
Week 13 — Argument reconstruction
Take your essay and represent its central argument formally.
Identify:
- premises
- hidden premises
- conclusion
- strongest objection
Week 14 — Review
Reconstruct the major arguments of the semester without consulting your notes.
Week 15 — Final examination
Part I: Logic
Part II: Argument analysis
Part III: Short philosophical essays
Semester 2 — Epistemology, Metaphysics & Ethics
Central question: What can we know, what exists, and how should we live?
Week 1 — What is knowledge?
Read
- Plato, Theaetetus
Focus on the proposed definitions of knowledge.
Week 2 — Justified true belief
Study the traditional analysis:
Knowledge = justified + true + belief
Write a precise definition of each component.
Week 3 — Gettier
Read
- Edmund Gettier, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”
This is your first serious analytic paper.
Reconstruct Gettier’s argument premise-by-premise.
Week 4 — Responses to Gettier
Study:
- fourth-condition approaches
- defeasibility
- causal approaches
Writing: 1,500 words.
Does Gettier refute JTB?
Week 5 — Skepticism
Read
- Moore, “Proof of an External World”
- selected contemporary skeptical arguments
Study:
How do we know there is an external world?
Week 6 — Foundationalism
Study:
- basic beliefs
- inferential beliefs
- regress problem
Week 7 — Coherentism
Study:
- coherence
- circularity
- epistemic holism
Compare with foundationalism.
Week 8 — Metaphysics
Read
- Aristotle, Metaphysics selections
Study:
- substance
- property
- essence
- existence
Week 9 — Identity
Study:
- numerical identity
- qualitative identity
- Leibniz’s Law
Logic exercise:
Formalize identity arguments.
Week 10 — Free will
Read
- selections from Hume
- Peter van Inwagen, selections
Study:
- determinism
- libertarianism
- compatibilism
Week 11 — Ethics: utilitarianism
Read
- Mill, Utilitarianism
Week 12 — Kantian ethics
Read
- Kant, Groundwork, Sections I–II
Study:
- categorical imperative
- universalization
- autonomy
Week 13 — Virtue ethics
Read
- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books I–II
Week 14 — Ethical theories compared
Construct a matrix:
| Theory | Basic principle | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utilitarianism | Consequences | — | — |
| Kantianism | Duty | — | — |
| Virtue ethics | Character | — | — |
Week 15 — Final
5,000-word paper:
What is the strongest theory of knowledge, metaphysics, or ethics studied this year?
YEAR 2 — THE CORE OF ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
Semester 3 — Philosophy of Language
This is a foundational semester.
Central question:
How does language represent the world?
Week 1 — Frege
Read
- Frege, “On Sense and Reference”
Master:
- sense
- reference
- identity
- cognitive significance
Week 2 — Frege and propositions
Read:
- “The Thought”
Study:
- thoughts
- truth
- objectivity
Week 3 — Russell
Read
- “On Denoting”
Study:
- definite descriptions
- logical form
Week 4 — Russell’s theory of descriptions
Analyze:
The present King of France is bald.
Compare:
- surface grammar
- logical form
Week 5 — Strawson
Read
- “On Referring”
Compare Strawson with Russell.
Week 6 — Quine
Read
- “On What There Is”
Study:
“To be is to be the value of a bound variable.”
Week 7 — Ontological commitment
Formalize statements involving:
- existence
- quantification
- empty names
Week 8 — Analyticity
Read
- Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”
Week 9 — Analytic/synthetic distinction
Understand Quine’s argument carefully.
Essay: 2,500 words.
Week 10 — Meaning
Study:
- meaning
- truth conditions
- use
Week 11 — Wittgenstein I
Read
- Tractatus, §§1–2.063
Week 12 — Wittgenstein II
Read:
- Tractatus, §§2.1–4.5
Study:
- picture theory
- proposition
- logical form
Week 13 — Wittgenstein III
Read:
- §§4.6–7
Study:
- saying/showing
- limits of language
Week 14 — Review
Compare:
Frege → Russell → Wittgenstein → Quine
Week 15 — Final paper
4,000 words:
What is the relationship between language and reality?
Semester 4 — Philosophy of Mind & Contemporary Metaphysics
Central question:
What are minds and persons?
Week 1 — Cartesian dualism
Read
- Descartes, Meditations VI
Week 2 — The mind-body problem
Map:
- dualism
- materialism
- idealism
Week 3 — Behaviorism
Read:
- Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind, selections
Week 4 — Identity theory
Read:
- J. J. C. Smart, “Sensations and Brain Processes”
Week 5 — Functionalism
Read:
- Hilary Putnam, “The Nature of Mental States”
Week 6 — Multiple realizability
Understand why functionalism was proposed as an alternative to identity theory.
Week 7 — Consciousness
Read:
- Thomas Nagel, “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”
Week 8 — Qualia
Read:
- Frank Jackson, “Epiphenomenal Qualia”
Week 9 — The knowledge argument
Reconstruct:
Mary’s Room
Then formulate the strongest physicalist response.
Week 10 — Chalmers
Read:
- “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness”
Study:
- easy problems
- hard problem
- zombies
Week 11 — Dennett
Read:
- “Quining Qualia”
Compare Dennett and Chalmers.
Week 12 — Personal identity
Read:
- Derek Parfit, selections from Reasons and Persons
Week 13 — Psychological continuity
Study:
- memory
- psychological continuity
- bodily continuity
Week 14 — Metaphysical identity
Study:
- possible worlds
- necessity
- contingency
Week 15 — Final paper
5,000 words:
Can consciousness be explained in physical terms?
YEAR 3 — THE GREAT ANALYTIC DEBATES
Semester 5 — Wittgenstein, Logical Positivism & Ordinary Language
This semester gives you the historical transition from early analytic philosophy to modern analytic philosophy.
Week 1
Review:
- Frege
- Russell
- early Wittgenstein
Week 2
Read
- Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations §§1–43
Week 3
Read:
- §§44–88
Study:
- meaning
- use
- language games
Week 4
Read:
- §§89–133
Study:
- philosophical confusion
- grammatical investigation
Week 5
Read:
- §§134–155
Study:
- rule following
Week 6
Read:
- §§185–242
Study:
- following a rule
- private interpretation
Week 7
Read:
- §§243–315
Study:
- private language argument
Week 8 — Logical positivism
Read:
- Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic, selections
Week 9 — Verificationism
Study:
- verification principle
- metaphysics
- meaningfulness
Week 10 — Carnap
Read:
- “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language”
Week 11 — Criticisms
Study:
- self-refutation objection
- verification problem
- Quinean criticism
Week 12 — Ordinary language philosophy
Read:
- J. L. Austin, “A Plea for Excuses”
Week 13 — Meaning and use
Compare:
- Wittgenstein
- Austin
- logical positivism
Week 14 — Synthesis
Write a historical essay:
Why did analytic philosophy move away from logical positivism?
Week 15
Final: 5,000-word paper.
Semester 6 — Quine, Kripke, Davidson & Lewis
This is one of the most important semesters in the entire program.
Week 1 — Quine
Re-read:
“Two Dogmas of Empiricism”
Week 2 — Quine and ontology
Read:
“On What There Is”
Week 3 — Indeterminacy
Read:
- “Word and Object” selections
Study:
- indeterminacy of translation
Week 4 — Naturalized epistemology
Read:
- “Epistemology Naturalized”
Week 5 — Kripke
Begin:
Naming and Necessity, Lecture I.
Week 6
Lecture II.
Study:
- rigid designators
- proper names
- descriptivism
Week 7
Lecture III.
Study:
- necessary a posteriori
- essential properties
Week 8 — Putnam
Read:
- “The Meaning of ‘Meaning'”
Study:
- externalism
- Twin Earth
Week 9 — Davidson
Read:
- “Truth and Meaning”
Study:
- Tarski
- truth theories
- compositionality
Week 10 — Lewis
Read selections from:
On the Plurality of Worlds
Study:
- modal realism
- possible worlds
Week 11 — Counterfactuals
Read:
- Lewis, “Counterfactuals”
Week 12 — Supervenience
Study:
- physical supervenience
- metaphysical dependence
Week 13 — Compare the major thinkers
Create detailed comparison sheets for:
Quine / Kripke / Putnam / Davidson / Lewis
Week 14 — Research paper workshop
Begin a 6,000-word paper.
Week 15
Final paper:
Did Kripke successfully defeat descriptivism?
YEAR 4 — ADVANCED ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
Semester 7 — Advanced Epistemology, Metaphysics & Philosophy of Science
At this point, stop thinking primarily in terms of “courses.”
You’re now learning how contemporary analytic philosophy actually operates.
Weeks 1–2 — Contemporary epistemology
Read selections from:
- Alvin Goldman
- Ernest Sosa
- Laurence BonJour
Study:
- reliabilism
- virtue epistemology
- internalism
- externalism
Week 3 — Gettier revisited
Return to Gettier.
Ask:
Why has the Gettier problem proved so difficult?
Week 4 — Williamson
Read selections from:
Knowledge and Its Limits
Study:
Knowledge first.
Week 5 — Skepticism
Analyze contemporary skeptical arguments.
Write:
1,500-word objection/reply exchange.
Week 6 — Modality
Study:
- possible worlds
- necessity
- essence
Read:
- Kripke
- Lewis
- Kit Fine
Week 7 — Essence
Study Fine’s criticisms of reducing essence to necessity.
Week 8 — Grounding
Study:
- metaphysical dependence
- grounding
- fundamentality
Week 9 — Laws of nature
Compare:
- Humean regularity
- necessitarian approaches
Read:
- Lewis
- Armstrong
Week 10 — Causation
Study:
- regularity theories
- counterfactual theories
- interventionist ideas
Week 11 — Philosophy of science
Read:
- Hempel
- Popper
Study:
- confirmation
- falsification
- explanation
Week 12 — Kuhn
Read:
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Week 13 — Scientific realism
Read:
- Bas van Fraassen, The Scientific Image, selections
Compare:
- realism
- instrumentalism
- constructive empiricism
Week 14 — Research seminar
Present a 15-minute argument orally.
Week 15 — Final
7,000-word research paper.
Semester 8 — Senior Seminar & Thesis
This is your capstone.
There are no ordinary weekly textbook assignments.
Instead, you conduct a genuine philosophical research project.
Week 1 — Choose your problem
Pick one:
Philosophy of language
What determines reference?
Epistemology
Is knowledge epistemically fundamental?
Metaphysics
What makes something the same thing over time?
Philosophy of mind
Can physicalism explain consciousness?
Ethics
Are moral facts objective?
Logic
What does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem tell us philosophically?
Week 2 — Research question
Convert the broad problem into a precise question.
Bad:
What is consciousness?
Better:
Does the conceivability of philosophical zombies provide evidence against physicalism?
Week 3 — Literature search
Find:
- 5 primary sources
- 5 major secondary sources
- 5 contemporary papers
Create an annotated bibliography.
Week 4 — Literature map
Construct:
Position A → objection → response
Position B → objection → response
Position C → objection → response
Week 5 — Argument reconstruction
Write a 2,000-word reconstruction of the strongest opposing argument.
Do not criticize it yet.
Week 6 — Your objection
Develop your own objection.
Week 7 — Strongest response
Write the best possible response to your objection.
Week 8 — Revised argument
Modify your position in light of that response.
Week 9 — Draft thesis
Write approximately 5,000 words.
Week 10 — Advisor-style criticism
Interrogate your own argument:
- What premise is weakest?
- What assumption is controversial?
- Is there a counterexample?
- Am I equivocating?
- Am I begging the question?
- Have I adequately represented the opposing view?
Week 11 — Major revision
Rewrite the argument.
Not merely proofread.
Reconstruct it.
Week 12 — Full draft
10,000–12,000 words.
Week 13 — Defense preparation
Prepare answers to:
- What is your thesis?
- Why should anyone believe it?
- What is your strongest premise?
- What is your weakest premise?
- What is the strongest objection?
- Why doesn’t that objection succeed?
- What would change your mind?
Week 14 — Oral defense
Give a 20–30 minute presentation followed by questioning.
Week 15 — Final thesis
Produce:
10,000–15,000 words
with:
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Problem
- Literature review
- Position A
- Position B
- Your argument
- Objections
- Replies
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
THE LOGIC CURRICULUM
I would actually make logic run all four years, rather than treating it as a single course.
Year 1
Propositional logic
- truth tables
- validity
- logical equivalence
- natural deduction
Predicate logic
- quantification
- identity
- relations
Year 2
Formalize arguments from:
- epistemology
- metaphysics
- philosophy of language
Year 3
Study:
- modal logic
- necessity
- possibility
- Kripke semantics
Year 4
Study at least the philosophical significance of:
- soundness
- completeness
- compactness
- incompleteness
- Löwenheim–Skolem
You don’t need to become a mathematical logician, but you should understand what these theorems say and why philosophers care about them.
THE WRITING PROGRAM
I would impose the following minimum requirements.
| Semester | Major writing |
|---|---|
| 1 | 2 × 1,500 words |
| 2 | 2 × 2,000 + 1 × 4,000 |
| 3 | 3 × 2,500–4,000 |
| 4 | 3 × 3,000–5,000 |
| 5 | 3 × 4,000 |
| 6 | 1 × 6,000 |
| 7 | 1 × 7,000 |
| 8 | 10,000–15,000 thesis |
But there’s an important rule:
Never simply write a paper and move on.
For your best paper each semester:
- Write it.
- Put it away for a week.
- Reconstruct the argument.
- Identify the weakest premise.
- Write the strongest objection.
- Rewrite the paper.
That is much closer to how you actually develop philosophical ability.
YOUR CORE 25-WORK CANON
If you eventually want to be able to say, “I have a serious undergraduate education in analytic philosophy,” I would make these your central works:
Foundations
- Plato — Meno
- Plato — Theaetetus
- Descartes — Meditations
- Hume — Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
- Aristotle — Nicomachean Ethics
Early analytic
- Frege — Foundations of Arithmetic
- Frege — “On Sense and Reference”
- Russell — “On Denoting”
- Russell — “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism”
- Wittgenstein — Tractatus
Mid-century
- Wittgenstein — Philosophical Investigations
- Carnap — “Elimination of Metaphysics”
- Ayer — Language, Truth and Logic
- Quine — “Two Dogmas”
- Quine — “On What There Is”
Contemporary
- Gettier — “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”
- Kripke — Naming and Necessity
- Putnam — “The Meaning of ‘Meaning'”
- Davidson — “Truth and Meaning”
- Lewis — On the Plurality of Worlds
- Nagel — “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”
- Jackson — “Epiphenomenal Qualia”
- Chalmers — The Conscious Mind
- Parfit — Reasons and Persons
- Williamson — Knowledge and Its Limits
The standard you should aim for
At the end of Year 1, you should be able to understand and analyze an argument.
At the end of Year 2, you should be able to explain the major analytic theories.
At the end of Year 3, you should be able to read difficult primary analytic texts independently.
At the end of Year 4, you should be able to enter an unfamiliar philosophical debate, reconstruct the literature, identify the strongest arguments on each side, and defend a position of your own.
That last ability is the real target.
And I would make one further change to the program: don’t treat the 25 works above as the entire reading list. They are the spine. Around them, you should progressively add journal articles, commentaries, and contemporary papers. This is what will take the program from “very well-read amateur” to something genuinely approaching an undergraduate philosophy education.