Welcome to Introduction to Philosophy

A primary objective of this course is to teach students how to construct good arguments and how to assess the arguments of others. In order to accomplish this goal, during the first part of the semester we will read about and discuss what makes a particular argument good or bad and practice constructing good arguments. In addition, we will discuss knowledge and scientific inquiry as this will help us to understand the importance of methodological thought and speech.

A second objective is to provide an introduction to philosophy. We will read and discuss a variety of philosophical theories (I understand you may not yet know what I mean by the term philosophical theory) and apply these theories to one strange issue: whether or not we are simulations. We will be looking at this issue through several important philosophical questions, if we are a simulation, what is real?, if we are a simulation, how would we know?, if we are a simulation, would our values be different? We will not only look at contemporary issues about ai and sim theory, but will also look at how philosophers of the past posed and attempted to answer this question. Significantly, when we discuss ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. In doing, we will apply what we learned about argumentation during the first part of the semester.

In this course, we will use David Chalmer’s book Reality+ to look at questions humans have been asking for thousands of years. While the primary focus of the book is look at one question in particular “Are we in a simulation?”, we use this question to frame others such as those above.

💻 Class Meeting Times

• 📆 Mondays and Wednesdays
• ⌚ 10:30am - 11:45am

Course Convenor

Dr. Monty Reynolds 📧 mreynolds1@stetson.edu

Office Hours:

• When:
  • Tuesday: 1:00–3:00 PM
  • Thursday: 1:00–3:00 PM
• Where: Elizabeth Hall 104
• How to book: Drop in, email, or book via Microsoft Bookings

Course Information

Introduction to Philosophy: Value, Meaning, and Humanity’s Place in the Modern World

Times: 10:30-11:45 Days: Mons and Weds or Tues Thurs Where: Davis Hall 209

Required Texts:

Chalmers, David J.. Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy. United Kingdom: Penguin Books Limited, 2022.

Here is an amazon link to the book: https://www.amazon.com/Reality-Virtual-Worlds-Problems-Philosophy/dp/0393635805

This will also be supplemented with handouts.

Expectations:

• Come prepared to engage with assigned readings in class, referencing specific passages as prompted by the instructor.

• Bring physical or digital copies of readings to class for annotation and short reflections.

• Submit all assignments via Canvas by the due date.

• Active participation and regular attendance are essential for success.

• Success: Active participation, timely submissions, and attendance are key.

Evaluated Activities

Weekly Reflections (32 points): These will be done each week in class. Each reflection is worth a possible total of 8 points. There are 12 possible reflections. I will only grade 8 or your best reflections for a possible total of 32 points.

Each week on Wednesday (except Aug. 19th, August 26th, Oct 14th, Nov 25th, Dec 2nd, Dec 9th) a short weekly will be due, (just the front and back of a 3x5 note card). Weeklies will be based on the assigned readings and/or the discussion from the previous class. Each weekly is worth 7 points (maximum), and I will assign a total of 11 weeklies. I will drop the three lowest scored weeklies. Since I include in your total paper grade 11 weeklies at 10 points per weekly, the total points possible on weeklies is 110. If you should earn more than one hundred points on weeklies, all additional points count as extra credit. Finally, since the weekly is due at the beginning of class, arriving to class on time is essential. I will not accept the weekly after 5 minutes from the start of class. If you arrive late or are absent, you receive a zero for the weekly. I do give partial credit for weeklies, and just putting your name on the top is worth one point. (It would be best if you purchase a set of 3x5 note cards to right your weekly on.) The purpose of these weeklies is to help me assess how e↵ectively I am going over the material. As such, what I am looking for is a short/ concise exposition of either the reading or of the discussion from the week before. I will let you know which when I assign the weekly on the Monday prior.

Quizzes 1 & 2 (80 points): Each Quiz is worth a possible total of 10 points per category, times 4 categories equals 40 points times 2 Quizzes.

Each of the scheduled examinations will cover lectures, discussions and assigned readings from the classes that precede it. You are responsible for assigned readings without regard to whether they were covered in class. The final examination will focus primarily on the lectures, discussions and readings subsequent to the first examination, but it may cover material from the whole semester. I generally do not give makeup examinations. I believe that doing so penalizes those who diligently prepare for class.

Critical Reflection 1 & 2 (160 points): Each reflective analysis is worth a possible total of 20 points per category, times 4 categories equals 80 points times 2 reflection pieces.

You will be required to write one paper, which must be type-written, double-spaced, and six to eight pages in length. This is NOT a research paper. Below are several topics, each student must choose ONE to which s/he will respond. If you wish to write a paper on a topic other than one of those suggested by me contact me after class and we can make an appointment during my office hours to discuss other topics. (I will be more than happy to approve relevant topics.) The papers you write are not opinion papers. It is standard practice among philosophers to view mere opinion to be worth less than the energy used to express it. What is worthwhile is a reasoned defense of one’s opinion. Your paper should be written so as to present rational argument for the position which you hold.

Your paper should consist of two distinct parts. The first part, which should account for approximately half the length of the paper, should be a short explication of the essay you have chosen. This part should contain a statement of the author’s position, a statement of your own position (tell me whether you agree or disagree with the author) and an explanation of the author’s supporting arguments. The second half of the paper should consist of your own evaluation or critique of the essay. In this part of the paper you should tell me WHY you agree or disagree with the author. If you agree with the author you should tell me what argument(s) are convincing. Then tell me what argument(s) might be pro↵ered by one who disagrees with the author and how the author might respond. If you disagree with the author, you should provide criticism of the author’s essay and attempt to explain how the author might respond to the criticism. Hence, whether you agree or disagree with the author, you should provide arguments against the author and responses thereto. Finally, you should explain why you believe your position is the best position. You must NOT use outside sources for this essay. I will provide a more detailed account in class.

D&D Campaigns (96 points total)

Syllabus

Overview & Purpose

Your grade in this area is based on preparation and active participation during D&D-style class meetings. The format uses a simplified, philosophy-focused adaptation of Dungeons & Dragons to encourage students to talk through, debate, and critically engage with the philosophical issues in the assigned readings — not just summarize or repeat them.

The core idea: Turn abstract philosophical texts into immersive, narrative “quests” or “dungeons” where the reading provides the backdrop (e.g., a moral dilemma in a kingdom, a metaphysical riddle from an adversarial entity, or an epistemological challenge). This creates lively discussion, risk, uncertainty, and stakes via dice rolls — mirroring real philosophical debate.

Key Differences from Traditional D&D

This is not full tabletop RPG gameplay (no complex combat, character stats, or long campaigns). It is a structured, turn-based discussion tool designed to make philosophy feel urgent, personal, and collaborative. Overall Assignment Setup

Each of the above assignments will be graded using the following Rubric:

Thesis

Excellent: A clear statement of the main conclusion of the paper.

Good: The thesis is obvious, but there is no single clear statement of it.

Needs Improvement: The thesis is present, but must be uncovered or reconstructed from the text of the paper.

Unacceptable: There is no thesis.

Premises

Excellent:

• Each reason for believing the thesis is made clear, and as much as possible, presented in single statements.
• It is also clear which premises are to be taken as given, and which will be supported by sub-arguments.
• The paper provides sub-arguments for controversial premises.
• If there are sub-arguments, the premises for these are clear, and made in single statements.
• The premises which are taken as given are at least plausibly true.

Good:

• The premises are all clear, although each may not be presented in a single statement.
• It is also pretty clear which premises are to be taken as given, and which will be supported by sub-arguments.
• The paper provides sub-arguments for controversial premises.
• If there are sub-arguments, the premises for these are clear.
• The premises which are taken as given are at least plausibly true.

Needs Improvement:

• The premises must be reconstructed from the text of the paper.
• It is not made clear which premises are to be taken as given, and which will be supported by sub-arguments.
• There are no sub-arguments, or, if there are sub-arguments, the premises for these are not made clear.
• The paper does not provide sub-arguments for controversial premises.
• The plausibility of the premises which are taken as given is questionable.

Unacceptable:

• There are no premises—the paper merely restates the thesis.
• Or, if there are premises, they are much more likely to be false than true.

Support

Excellent:

• The premises clearly support the thesis, and the author is aware of exactly the kind of support they provide.
• The argument is either valid as it stands, or, if invalid, the thesis, based on the premises, is likely to be or plausibly true.

Good:

• The premises support the thesis, and the author is aware of the general kind of support they provide.
• The argument is either valid as it stands, or, if invalid, the thesis, based on the premises, is likely to be or plausibly true.

Needs Improvement:

• The premises somewhat support the thesis, but the author is not aware of the kind of support they provide.
• The argument is invalid, and the thesis, based on the premises, is not likely to be or plausibly true.

Unacceptable:

• The premises do not support the thesis.

Counter-Arguments

Excellent:

• The paper considers both obvious and unobvious counter-examples, counter-arguments, and/or opposing positions
• The paper provides original and/or thoughtful responses.

Good:

• The paper considers obvious counter-examples, counter-arguments, and/or opposing positions,
• The paper provides responses.

Needs Improvement:

• The paper may consider some obvious counter-examples, counter-arguments, and/or opposing positions.
• But some obvious ones are missed.
• Responses are non-existent or mere claims of refutation.

Unacceptable:

• No counter-examples, counter-arguments, or opposing positions are considered.

Students will be evaluated based on a total of 640 points, with the final grade determined by the percentage of points earned. The components are as follows:

Attendance (5% of final grade, 32 points):

• Based on unexcused absences throughout the semester.

Grading Scale (equal increments of 8 points):

0–1	unexcused absences:	32 points
2	unexcused absences:	24 points
3–4	unexcused absences:	16 points
5–6	unexcused absences:	8 points
6	unexcused absences:	0 points

Reading Schedule

Adjust all dates by one for Tuesday Thursday Course

Weeklies Due Every Monday Starting Jan 19

Wed Jan 14, handouts

Mon Jan 19 MLK Day, no classes

Wed Jan 21, Chapter 2, Simulation Hypothesis

Mon Jan 26, Chapter 3, Knowledge

Wed Jan 28, The external world, ch. 4

Mon Feb 2, ch. 5, Possible realities, bostrom and Moravec

Wed Feb 4, ch. 6, What is Reality?

Mon Fed 9, ch. 7, Is God a hacker in the universe up?

Wed Fed 11, ch. 8 Information, 2nd DND Adventure, Student Led

Mon Feb 16, ch. 9, On Bits

Wed Feb 18, ch. 10, Reality and Virtual Reality

Mon Feb 23, ch. 11, Illusion Machines

Wed Feb 25, Quiz 1

Mon Mar 02, Spring Break

Wed Mar 4, Spring Break

Mon Mar 9, ch. 13 ch. 12, 3rd DND Adventure, Student Led

Wed Mar 11, ch. 14, Mind and body Realism inside a virtual universe

Mon Mar 16, ch. 15, 4th DND Adventure, Student Led

Wed Mar 18, ch. 16, The extended mind hypothsis

Mon Mar 23, ch. 17 Critical Reflection Due

Wed Mar 25, ch. 18, Virtual ethics and intentiality

Mon Mar 30, ch. 19, Social Ontology inside virtual worlds

Wed Apr 1, ch. 20, 5th DND Adventure on Sense and Reference, Student Led

Mon Apr 6, ch. 21, Cause and effect inside virtual systems

Wed Apr 8, ch. 22, Mathematical, physical and cultural structualism

Mon Apr 13, ch. 23, Virtual Eden?

Wed Apr 15, ch. 24, Brains in a Vat

Mon Apr 20, TBD

Wed Apr 22, TBD

Mon Apr 27, TBD

Wed Apr 29, last day of classes, Final Quiz

Paper Due on Day of Final Quiz (Submit on Canvas)