Theoretical Philosophy a.y. 2025-2026 – Corso di laurea magistrale in Scienze pedagogiche

Teacher: Prof. Matteo Bianchin

CFU: 6
Course code: 8048541
SSD: PHIL-01/A
Master’s Degree: Digital Humanities: comunicazione, lingue, patrimonio culturale

Language: Italian
Period: I semestre
Course delivery modalities: in-presence
Attendance: Optional
Assessment method: Oral examination

Pre-requisites:
None

Program:
The course discusses the connection between mind, language, and society. Classes will take 2 hours for 3 days every week. The first part introduces to individual and collective agency (6 hours), analyzes the emergence of social facts from aggregation, coordination, and cooperation (6 hours), discusses the nature, functions, and dynamics of social practices, norms, and institutions (6 hours). The second analyzes the connection between rationality, communication, and democracy (6 hours), discussing some effects of their distortion (6 hours). The course involves about 90 hours of self-learning. Contents: 1. Rational agents: action, cognition and culture; 2. Aggregation, coordination, and cooperation; 3. Practices, rules, and institutions; 4. Communication and democracy; 5. Power, alienation, ideology

Program:

The course discusses the connection between mind, language, and society. Classes will take 2 hours for 3 days every week. The first part introduces to individual and collective agency (6 hours), analyzes the emergence of social facts from aggregation, coordination, and cooperation (6 hours), discusses the nature, functions, and dynamics of social practices, norms, and institutions (6 hours). The second analyzes the connection between rationality, communication, and democracy (6 hours), discussing some effects of their distortion (6 hours). The course involves about 90 hours of self-learning.

Contents: 1. Rational agents: action, cognition and culture; 2. Aggregation, coordination, and cooperation; 3. Practices, rules, and institutions; 4. Communication and democracy; 5. Power, alienation, ideology

Text books:
Two texts among the following: Guala, F. Understanding Institutions, Princeton, Princeton UP 2016, ch. 1,2 Jaeggi, R., Critique of Forms of Life, New York, Cambrige (MA), Harvard UP 2018 Tomasello, M. The Evolution of Agency, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press 2022 Axelrod, R., The Evolution of Cooperation, New York, Basic Books 1985 Alternatively, one of the listed texts and three articles among the following Smart, A. Kasirzadeh, A. (2025), Beyond model interpretability: socio‐structural explanations in machine learning. AI & Society 40: 2045-2053 Strohmaier, D. (2021). Ontology, neural networks, and the social sciences. Synthese 199: 4775–4794. Haslenger, S. (2023). Systemic and Structural Injustice: Is There a Difference? Philosophy 98(1): 1-27 Ross, L. (2024) What is social structural explanation? A causal account. Nous 58(1): 163-179 Momennejad I. (2021). Collective minds: social network topology shapes collective cognition. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society B 377: 20200315. Hawe P, Webster C, Shiell A. (2004). A glossary of terms for navigating the field of social network analysis. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health 58(12):971-5. R. Axelrod, The evolution of cooperation, , Basic Books, New York 1986. T. Crane, Elements of Mind, OUP, Oxford 2001 C. Gilligan, In a different voice, , Harvard U:P., Cambridge (MA) 2016. A. Damasio, The feeling of what happens, Marine Books, Wilmington 2000. M. Hauser, Moral minds, Harper Collins, New York 2006 2005. T. Magri, Contratto e convenzione, Feltrinelli, Milano 1994. W. Kimlicka, Multicultural citizenship, OUP, Oxford 1996. – M. Pinotti, Empatia. Storia di un’idea da Platone al post-umano, Laterza, Roma-Bari 2011. J. Rawls, Justice as fairness, Harvard U.P., Cambridge (MA) 2002 A. Smith, A theory of moral sentiments, Penguin, New York 2010. M. Tomasello, The cultural origins of human cognition, Harvard U.P., Cambridge (MA) 2001 M. Tomasello, A natural history of human thought, Harvard U.P., Cambridge (MA) 2014

Text books:

Two texts among the following:
Guala, F. Understanding Institutions, Princeton, Princeton UP 2016, ch. 1,2
Jaeggi, R., Critique of Forms of Life, New York, Cambrige (MA), Harvard UP 2018
Tomasello, M. The Evolution of Agency, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press 2022
Axelrod, R., The Evolution of Cooperation, New York, Basic Books 1985
Alternatively, one of the listed texts and three articles among the following
Smart, A. Kasirzadeh, A. (2025), Beyond model interpretability: socio‐structural explanations in machine learning. AI & Society 40: 2045-2053
Strohmaier, D. (2021). Ontology, neural networks, and the social sciences. Synthese 199: 4775–4794.
Haslenger, S. (2023). Systemic and Structural Injustice: Is There a Difference? Philosophy 98(1): 1-27
Ross, L. (2024) What is social structural explanation? A causal account. Nous 58(1): 163-179
Momennejad I. (2021). Collective minds: social network topology shapes collective cognition. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society B 377: 20200315.
Hawe P, Webster C, Shiell A. (2004). A glossary of terms for navigating the field of social network analysis. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health 58(12):971-5.
R. Axelrod, The evolution of cooperation, , Basic Books, New York 1986.
T. Crane, Elements of Mind, OUP, Oxford 2001
C. Gilligan, In a different voice, , Harvard U:P., Cambridge (MA) 2016.
A. Damasio, The feeling of what happens, Marine Books, Wilmington 2000.
M. Hauser, Moral minds, Harper Collins, New York 2006 2005.
T. Magri, Contratto e convenzione, Feltrinelli, Milano 1994.
W. Kimlicka, Multicultural citizenship, OUP, Oxford 1996.
– M. Pinotti, Empatia. Storia di un’idea da Platone al post-umano, Laterza, Roma-Bari 2011.
J. Rawls, Justice as fairness, Harvard U.P., Cambridge (MA) 2002
A. Smith, A theory of moral sentiments, Penguin, New York 2010.
M. Tomasello, The cultural origins of human cognition, Harvard U.P., Cambridge (MA) 2001
M. Tomasello, A natural history of human thought, Harvard U.P., Cambridge (MA) 2014

Bibliography:
Axelrod, R., The Evolution of Cooperation, New York, Basic Books 1985 Bicchieri, C. Norms in the Wild: Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms, OUp, Oxford 2017 Bratman, M. Shared Agency, Oxford, OUP 2014. Guala, F., Understanding Institutions, Princeton, Princeton UP 2016 Habermas, J., Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press 1998 Heath, J., Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press 2001. Searle, J. The Construction of Social Reality, New York, Penguin 1995. Jaeggi, R., Critique of Forms of Life, New York, Cambriged (MA), Harvard UP 2018 Tomasello, M., Why We Cooperate? Cambridge (MA), MIT Press 2008. Tomasello, M. The Evolution of Agency, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press 2022

Bibliography:

Axelrod, R., The Evolution of Cooperation, New York, Basic Books 1985
Bicchieri, C. Norms in the Wild: Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms, OUp, Oxford 2017
Bratman, M. Shared Agency, Oxford, OUP 2014.
Guala, F., Understanding Institutions, Princeton, Princeton UP 2016
Habermas, J., Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press 1998
Heath, J., Communicative Action and Rational Choice, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press 2001.
Searle, J. The Construction of Social Reality, New York, Penguin 1995.
Jaeggi, R., Critique of Forms of Life, New York, Cambriged (MA), Harvard UP 2018
Tomasello, M., Why We Cooperate? Cambridge (MA), MIT Press 2008.
Tomasello, M. The Evolution of Agency, Cambridge (MA), MIT Press 2022

Educational goals and expected learning outcomes:
LEARNING OUTCOMES: KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING: acquiring the concepts, models and methods presented in the course. APPLYING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING: interpreting and applying acquired concepts, models and methods to specific issues in the knowledge and information society. MAKING JUDGEMENTS: discussing and assessing differentiated concept, models, and methods, assess their empirical applications, detecting and acquiring innovative research results. COMMUNICATION SKILLS: comunicating and transferring knowledge and understanding. LEARNING SKILLS: understanding current research, interpreting and applying relevant results.

Educational goals and expected learning outcomes:

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING: acquiring the concepts, models and methods presented in the course.
APPLYING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING: interpreting and applying acquired concepts, models and methods to specific issues in the knowledge and information society.
MAKING JUDGEMENTS: discussing and assessing differentiated concept, models, and methods, assess their empirical applications, detecting and acquiring innovative research results.
COMMUNICATION SKILLS: comunicating and transferring knowledge and understanding.
LEARNING SKILLS: understanding current research, interpreting and applying relevant results.

Methods and criteria for verifying the learning:
The exam consists in an oral exam that takes about 20 minutes and assesses the student’s overall preparation, the ability to combine knowledge about each part of the syllabus, the coherence of argumentation, the analytical ability, and the autonomy of judgment. In addition, the student’s command of language and clarity of presentation are also assessed, in adherence with the Dublin descriptors (1. knowledge and understanding; 2. applying knowledge and experience; 3. making judgments; 4. learning skills; 5: communication skills). The final grade will be based 70% on the student’s depth of knowledge and 30% on the student’s ability for expression (written and oral) and independent critical thinking. The exam will be evaluated according to the following criteria: – Failed: significant deficiencies and inaccuracies in the knowledge and the understanding of the subject matter; poor analytical and synthesizing skills, recurrent generalizations, limited critical and judgmental skills; the arguments are exposed inconsistently and with inappropriate language. – 18-20: Knowledge and understanding of topics barely adequate, with occasional generalizations and imperfections possible; sufficient capacity for analysis synthesis and autonomy of judgment, the arguments are frequently exposed in an incoherent manner and with inappropriate/non technical language. – 21-23: Fair knowledge and understanding of the subject; proper analysis and synthesis skills with coherent, logical argumentation, but with language that is often inappropriate/non technical. – 24-26: Moderate knowledge and understanding of the subjects; good analytical and synthesis skills with arguments expressed rigorously but with language that is not always appropriate/technical. – 27-29: Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subjects; remarkable analytical and synthesis skills. Good autonomy of judgment. Topics expounded rigorously and with appropriate/technical language. – 30-30L: Excellent level of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the subjects. Excellent skills in analysis, synthesis, and independent judgment. Arguments are expressed in an original way and with appropriate technical language.

Methods and criteria for verifying the learning:

The exam consists in an oral exam that takes about 20 minutes and assesses the student’s overall preparation, the ability to combine knowledge about each part of the syllabus, the coherence of argumentation, the analytical ability, and the autonomy of judgment. In addition, the student’s command of language and clarity of presentation are also assessed, in adherence with the Dublin descriptors (1. knowledge and understanding; 2. applying knowledge and experience; 3. making judgments; 4. learning skills; 5: communication skills).
The final grade will be based 70% on the student’s depth of knowledge and 30% on the student’s ability for expression (written and oral) and independent critical thinking.
The exam will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
– Failed: significant deficiencies and inaccuracies in the knowledge and the understanding of the subject matter; poor analytical and synthesizing skills, recurrent generalizations, limited critical and judgmental skills; the arguments are exposed inconsistently and with inappropriate language.
– 18-20: Knowledge and understanding of topics barely adequate, with occasional generalizations and imperfections possible; sufficient capacity for analysis synthesis and autonomy of judgment, the arguments are frequently exposed in an incoherent manner and with inappropriate/non technical language.
– 21-23: Fair knowledge and understanding of the subject; proper analysis and synthesis skills with coherent, logical argumentation, but with language that is often inappropriate/non technical.
– 24-26: Moderate knowledge and understanding of the subjects; good analytical and synthesis skills with arguments expressed rigorously but with language that is not always appropriate/technical.
– 27-29: Comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the subjects; remarkable analytical and synthesis skills. Good autonomy of judgment. Topics expounded rigorously and with appropriate/technical language.
– 30-30L: Excellent level of in-depth knowledge and understanding of the subjects. Excellent skills in analysis, synthesis, and independent judgment. Arguments are expressed in an original way and with appropriate technical language.

Attendance modalities:
Lecture, group discussion of topics and texts. Attending and participating to topic discussions.