Foundations of Philosophy

Critique a short argument from Plato or Aristotle by diagnosing a hidden premise, equivocation, or informal fallacy (неформальная логическая ошибка), then formulate the strongest charitable counterargument.

Evaluate justified true belief (обоснованное истинное убеждение) as an account of knowledge in epistemology (эпистемология, теория познания) by comparing Plato’s analysis in the Theaetetus, Descartes’s methodological scepticism (методологический скептицизм), and a Gettier case.

Calibrate and defend confidence in a contested claim using Hume’s problem of induction (проблема индукции), a simple Bayesian update (байесовское обновление), competing explanations, and epistemic humility (эпистемическая скромность).

Evaluate Humean induction, Popperian falsifiability (фальсифицируемость), and Kuhnian paradigm change (смена парадигм) as rival accounts of scientific reasoning by applying them to one historical episode and distinguishing empirical evidence from scientific explanation (научное объяснение).

Analyze a time-travel or causal-chain thought experiment within metaphysics (метафизика) by separating questions about existence or ontology (онтология), possibility or modality (модальность), causation (причинность), and explanation, and relate the analysis to Hume’s challenge and Kant’s response.

Compare Millian consequentialism (консеквенциализм), Kantian deontology (деонтология), Aristotelian virtue ethics (этика добродетели), and Confucian role- and virtue-centered ethics by their accounts of right action, character, and human flourishing.

Apply the three broad approaches of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue-centered ethics to one moral dilemma, defend a comparative judgement, and answer its strongest objection.

Evaluate the legitimacy (легитимность) of a specific coercive public policy by contrasting Hobbesian authority and security, Lockean liberty (свобода), and Rawlsian justice (справедливость).

Evaluate whether functionalism (функционализм) improves on Cartesian substance dualism (субстанциальный дуализм) and physicalism (физикализм) as a response to the mind–body problem (психофизическая проблема), using Searle’s Chinese Room as a challenge concerning intelligence and understanding.

Analyze whether a person survives teletransportation or mind uploading by comparing Lockean psychological continuity, Parfit’s reductionism, and the Buddhist doctrine of no-self (анатман, не-Я) as accounts of personal identity (тождество личности).

Evaluate whether determinism (детерминизм) is compatible with free will (свобода воли) and moral responsibility (моральная ответственность) by comparing hard determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism through a Frankfurt-style case.

Compare Nietzschean self-overcoming, Sartrean existentialism (экзистенциализм) and responsibility, and early Buddhist accounts of dukkha, impermanence, and non-attachment as distinct responses to suffering, mortality, and the search for meaning.

Complete and explain a scaffolded bilingual English–Russian chronological-conceptual map and cumulative glossary linking the course’s major branches, thinkers, debates, objections, and thought experiments; use it to diagnose strengths and knowledge gaps and justify two priorities for further reading.