Most of these were written starting around midnight before the weekly morning deadline, but apparently they turned out great. Most include some quite embarrassing slip-ups, though. I really liked my tutor, Daniel Kodsi (we’d exchanged something like 2000 words via email before term started), and I think I learned a lot.

The best epistemology essay (arguing that evidence = knowledge) was from Week 4, and the best metaphysics essay (arguing that there are a lot of objects) was from Week 6. Here’s how I’d rank the rest of them:

Week 4 > Week 6 > Week 8 > Week 5 > Week 3 > Week 2 > Week 7 > Week 1 (original)

Week 1: Knowledge

The version that I’ve included here is reworked from the original, which just tried to do way too much.

Week 2: Contextualism

Linguistic judgments differ a lot, but I was surprised to find that mine were so contextualist. Daniel said that he was quite annoyed that he couldn’t come up with an example context where ā€˜they ate the snacks. Well, they didn’t eat them, but they ate them’ worked (but finally did come up with the snacks being soup).

Week 3: Williamson I

Unfortunately, as Jeremy Goodman notes, ā€œWilliamson is his own best expositorā€. The compositeness of true belief is a weird result, which suggests that primeness might be too high a bar.

Week 4: Williamson II

Canonically two Substack posts.

Week 5: Causation

This neglects the austere sufficiency view on which ā€˜A causes B’ just means that A counterfactually implies B, which is actually pretty interesting.

Week 6: Coincidence

Really should have found Bounds of Possibility (which I think I should read during Spring vacation).

Week 7: Modality

This one is bad; Daniel concluded that he should change this week’s reading list. I wish I’d found some discussion of Atomicity as a logical principle. Also not sure whether ā€˜the way X is’ is unique. Daniel’s unthinking example: ā€˜One of the ways that she annoys me is that she always second-guesses me’.

Week 8: Social Kinds

I don’t say it explicitly, but the structure is effectively: ā€˜Our notion of sex is the one most useful for evolutionary biology. Our notion of gender is the one most useful for feminism. Surprisingly, they coincide.’ (Although Daniel remarks that there tends to be a unity between the true and the good, so perhaps this isn’t so surprising.)