Philosophy

What this covers

• Reconstructing an argument in premise-conclusion form and testing it for validity, soundness, and hidden premises
• Epistemology: the justified-true-belief analysis of knowledge, Gettier cases, Cartesian skepticism, and the rationalism/empiricism divide
• Ethical theory applied to cases: utilitarian calculation, Kant's categorical imperative and its formulations, and virtue ethics on character rather than acts
• Free will debates — hard determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilist responses to the consequence argument
• Naming and diagnosing informal fallacies in real prose: equivocation, false dilemma, question-begging, appeal to nature
• Writing philosophical prose: stating a thesis, giving the strongest version of the opposing view, raising an objection, and replying to it

Where learners get stuck

Treating a valid argument as a true one, or rejecting a valid argument because the conclusion sounds wrong

Students arrive from history and English where 'good argument' means 'persuasive and correct.' Validity is purely about whether the conclusion follows if the premises hold, so a valid argument can have a false conclusion and a true conclusion can rest on garbage reasoning. Separating the two takes deliberate practice on artificial examples before it transfers.

Dismissing normative ethics with 'it's all just opinion' and then arguing forcefully for a moral position anyway

Relativism feels like the tolerant default, but it's a substantive metaethical claim with its own objections. Students rarely notice that their own moral arguments — about climate policy, say — presuppose that some answers are better than others. Naming the inconsistency usually resolves it faster than lecturing on metaethics.

Rejecting a thought experiment because it's unrealistic — 'nobody would actually be on that trolley'

Empirical training says implausible cases are bad evidence. In philosophy the case is doing conceptual work: isolating one variable to test whether a principle holds. Once students see that Gettier cases and the experience machine only need to be possible, not likely, counterexamples stop feeling like a cheat.

What a session looks like

You bring a text, prompt, or question. The tutor asks what the author is actually claiming, and you reconstruct it as numbered premises out loud — most of the session time goes on the gaps that appear when you try. Expect to be asked for a counterexample to your own position, and to defend or abandon it. For essay work, you talk through the thesis and the objection you'll answer before writing, since that structure is where most marks are lost. Sessions run 25-50 minutes; you can pause on a single paragraph of Descartes if that's where the difficulty is.

Helpful to know first

• Comfort reading dense non-fiction prose at roughly a Grade 11 level and paraphrasing a paragraph in your own words
• Basic essay structure: thesis, supporting reasons, conclusion
• No prior philosophy or formal logic needed — symbolic notation is introduced only if your course requires it

Questions

My school doesn't offer philosophy — is this worth doing before university?

Yes, if the aim is argument analysis. The skills — reconstructing a claim, spotting an unstated premise, writing an objection-and-reply — transfer to essay-based university work in law, politics, and literature. It is not a substitute for a graded course if you need the credit.

Can it help with IB Philosophy Paper 1 or an internal assessment?

It can work through the core theme and optional theme material, practise the stimulus-analysis format, and give feedback on argument structure in drafts. It has no affiliation with the IB and cannot predict what appears on a paper or mark to official criteria.

Does it just summarise the philosophers, or does it argue back?

It argues back. If you defend act utilitarianism, expect the transplant surgeon objection; if you defend Kant, expect the murderer at the door. Summaries are available but the session is built around defending a view under pressure.

How is this different from the Psychology or Government topics?

Psychology asks what people in fact believe and how minds work empirically; Government covers institutions and political systems. Philosophy here is about justification — whether a belief is warranted, whether an act is right, and how you'd argue for either. Political philosophy is touched on through Mill and Rawls rather than through how legislatures function.