Today we start our unit on language with a discussion of meaning and how we assign and understand meaning. We’ll cover sense and reference, beetles in boxes, and language games.

We’re also getting into the meaning-making game ourselves: bananas are now chom-choms. Pass it on.

Today Hank gains insight from that most philosophical of figures...Leonardo DiCaprio. In this episode, we’re talking about the process of philosophical discovery and questioning the relationship between appearance and reality by taking a look at Plato’s famous Myth of the Cave. All with a little help from our good pal Leo.

This week we answer skeptics like Descartes with empiricism. Hank explains John Locke’s primary and secondary qualities and why George Berkeley doesn’t think that distinction works -- leaving us with literally nothing but our minds, ideas, and perceptions.

On today’s episode...CATS. Also: Hank talks about some philosophy stuff, like a few of the key concepts philosophers use when discussing belief and knowledge, such as what defines an assertion and a proposition, and that belief is a kind of propositional attitude. Hank also discusses forms of justification and the traditional definition of knowledge, which Edmund Gettier just totally messed with, using his Gettier cases.

Many thanks to Index the cat for his patience in the filming of this episode.
--

We begin our unit on ethics with a look at metaethics. Hank explains three forms of moral realism – moral absolutism, and cultural relativism, including the difference between descriptive and normative cultural relativism – and moral subjectivism, which is a form of moral antirealism. Finally, we’ll introduce the concept of an ethical theory.

Can two people who make the same bad decision bear different levels of moral responsibility? Today, we try to address this question with the concept of moral luck. Hank explains the difference between moral and causal responsibility and the reasons we assign praise and blame.

Our exploration of ethical theories continues with another theistic answer to the grounding problem: natural law theory. Thomas Aquinas’s version of this theory says that we all seek out what’s known as the basic goods and argued that instinct and reason come together to point us to the natural law. There are, of course, objections to this theory – in particular, the is-ought problem advanced by David Hume.

Last week we talked about language and meaning. Today, Hank explores some of the things that complicate meaning and how we get around that. We’ll explain conversational implicature, the cooperative principle, and the four main maxims of successful communication, as laid out by Paul Grice, as well as performative utterances.

Today we are taking all the things we have learned this year about doing philosophy and applying that to moral considerations regarding non-human animals. We’ll explore what philosophers like Peter Singer and Carl Cohen have to say about their use, including the concept of equal consideration of interests.

Today we transition between units on language and aesthetics with a discussion of nonexistent and imaginary objects. Is it possible to make true assertions about things that aren’t real? We’ll explore Meinong’s Jungle and the concept of a universe of discourse.

Today Hank is building on last week’s exploration of identity to focus on personal identity. Does it in reside in your body? Is it in the collective memories of your consciousness? There are, of course, strengths and weaknesses to both of these ideas, and that’s what we’re talking about today.

Now that we’ve started talking about identity, today Hank tackles the question of personhood. Philosophers have tried to assess what constitutes personhood with a variety of different criteria, including genetic, cognitive, social, sentience, and the gradient theory. As with many of philosophy’s great questions, this has much broader implications than simple conjecture. The way we answer this question informs all sorts of things about the way we move about the world, including our views on some of our greatest social debates.

We’re picking up where we left off last time, exploring the “ethics of care” and how it applies to extreme poverty. Are we responding to global poverty in a moral way? Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that we have an obligation to prevent harm caused by poverty, whereas Garrett Hardin offers a “lifeboat analogy” to explain our obligations to focus on caring for our own.
--

Today we are moving on from the existence of God to look at the philosophical debate surrounding the traditional divine attributes - omnipotence, omniscience, omnitemporality, and omnibenevolence. We are exploring the puzzles that these attributes create as well as some possible solutions to those puzzles, from Aquinas’ ideas of analogical predication, to the work of Eleanor Stump.

In today’s episode, Hank asks you to consider all the ways people talk about justice and what we really mean when we use that word. We’ll explain various theories of justice, just distribution, and different approaches to punishment.

In our final episode of Crash Course Philosophy, we consider what it means to live a good life. We’ll look at the myth of Sisyphus, Robert Nozick’s experience machine, Aristotle’s eudaimonistic picture of a good human life, and the existentialists’ view that we each determine the value of our own lives. And we’ll think about how you, too, can live the life of a philosopher.
--

Today Hank begins to teach you about Philosophy by discussing the historical origins of philosophy in ancient Greece, and its three main divisions: metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory. He will also introduce logic, and how you’re going to use it to understand and critically evaluate a whole host of different worldviews throughout this course. And also, hopefully, the rest of your life.

Today we continue our unit on identity by asking where the mind resides. Hank explains the mind-body problem and several approaches to the question of where our minds reside, including reductive physicalism, substance dualism, and mysterianism.