Search Results

We are pleased to introduce the Reason & Rationality 2026 Convivium summer program at Princeton Theological Seminary (June 7-19) and (June 21 - July 2). Reason & Rationality 2025 Student Essay Opportunity [Scroll down for published student essays] We are pleased to announce the Reason & Rationality 2025 Essay Opportunity. Students who want to keep thinking and exploring are invited to submit their short, original work (no AI assistance) for possible publication on the Reason & Rationality website. Here are the rules: Students who attended Reason & Rationality 2025 are invited to submit one philosophical essay of no more than 2,000 words (but note that shorter is better here), based on any one of the following prompts: What, if anything, do we owe to future generations? What is the difference between bullshit and lying? If you were forced to choose, would you save the life of one 13 year-old human or 10^10 mice? Is it morally permissible for a blogger to befriend a corporate executive with the intention of learning and publicly exposing the corporation's financial malfeasance (e.g., illegal tax evasion)? Topic of your choice -- Note: requires advance approval of the topic by Reason & Rationality prior to August 18, 2025. Instead of, or in addition to, a philosophical essay, students may submit a philosophical creative writing piece of no more than 3,500 words (this is an upper limit, submissions can be much shorter), that explores an ethical dilemma. Additional criteria for publication. Works must be philosophical in nature, original works by the author, and consistent with Reason & Rationality's values of intellectual virtue. Deadlines: Submit intention to participate by August 22, 2025, by emailing info@reasonandrationality.com . Final submission deadline is September 12. Submit final draft to info@reasonandrationality.com Decisions on publication will be made by October 18. A portion of the essays will be selected for publication on the Reason & Rationality website. No assistance or feedback will be provided with the writing process by Reason & Rationality Instructors. Published Student Essays What We Owe Future Generations , by Grace Glukhov The Cube Factory Paradox , by Michael Reiff Human and Animal Value , by Harry Moss Wisdom of the Seraph , by Harry Moss (a short story) Questions About the Reason & Rationality Vision for Conversation-Based Education? Check out the frequently asked questions on our website or reach out to Reason & Rationality at info@reasonandrationality.com .

Our instructors hail from world-renowned institutions like Princeton, Oxford, and MIT, bringing unmatched expertise and passion to every session. Reason & Rationality Faculty At the heart of Reason & Rationality are two-hour seminars where scholars from leading programs draw students into the habits, challenges, and satisfactions of real philosophical inquiry. Peter Bach-y-Rita DEAN OF ACADEMICS Peter Bach-y-Rita: Ph.D., MIT (Philosophy), J.D. Stanford Law School, A.B. Princeton University (highest honors). Dr. Bach-y-Rita's dissertation at MIT was at the intersection of ethics, biology and technology. He has published work on intellectual property, bankruptcy law, and the nature of legal causation. He co-founded Reason & Rationality in 2023. Joe earned a BA in Philosophy with highest distinction from Purdue University and is currently a Philosophy PhD student at Princeton University. He has published 16 articles on topics in metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and ethics in leading peer-reviewed philosophy journals. He also authored the books Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs (with Dr. Daniel Linford) and The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy. On the popular level, he creates lecture videos and hosts discussions with philosophers on his YouTube channel Majesty of Reason. His videos have attracted nearly 1.5 million views in total. Joseph Schmid SENIOR TEACHING FELLOW HEAD OF INSTRUCTION Noah McKay TEACHING FELLOW Noah is a PhD student in philosophy at Princeton University. He earned his BA in philosophy from Covenant College (summa cum laude) and his MSc in philosophy from the University of Edinburgh (First Class Honours). He has published several peer-reviewed academic articles about epistemology, metaethics, and philosophy of religion and presented original research at about a dozen conferences. He has also coached high school debate for seven years. Florence is a Philosophy PhD student at Harvard University. She received a BS in mathematics and physics from the University of Michigan in 2018, and an MA in philosophy from Tufts University in 2020. Her current work concerns the nature of rational agency and free will and what that has to do with the foundations of ethics, in particular influenced by the moral theory of Immanuel Kant. Florence Bacus TEACHING FELLOW Sophia Wyatt TEACHING FELLOW Sophia received her undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago in 2021 and entered the Ph.D. program there in Fall 2025. Her primary interests lie in ethics and epistemology, particularly at their intersection. Questions About the Reason & Rationality's Vision for Conversation-Based Education? Check out the frequently asked questions on our website or reach out to Reason & Rationality at info@reasonandrationality.com . Ready to jump into critical thinking and conversation? Apply Now

What is a Pre-College Program for high school students? A pre-college program is an intensive, short-term academic experience designed for high school students to explore university-level subjects, develop critical thinking skills, and prepare for college rigor. Programs like Reason & Rationality focus on philosophy, politics, and economics (PPE), combining classroom learning with discussion-based workshops led by faculty from top universities. Why it Matters: Pre-college programs help students experience college-level academics before enrolling. Students learn frameworks for analyzing complex societal questions. Exposure to a cohort of like-minded peers builds collaboration and debate skills. Reason & Rationality Learn More Foundation & Advanced Programs at Princeton Session 1: June 7 - June 19, 2026 Session 2: June 21 - July 2, 2026 How Can Pre-College Programs Enhance My College Application? Pre-college programs demonstrate intellectual initiative, curiosity, and engagement—qualities that top colleges seek. Completing a program like Reason & Rationality signals that a student is serious about independent learning, capable of deep thought, and prepared for rigorous academics. Why it Matters: Shows colleges that students pursue challenging educational experiences outside of school. Builds concrete skills in research, discussion, and critical analysis. Provides letters of recommendation from Ivy League faculty and alumni instructors. Are pre-college programs worth the investment? Yes. Pre-college programs like Reason & Rationality offer measurable academic growth, networking opportunities, and preparation for higher education. The investment yields long-term returns in skills, confidence, and college readiness. Students gain advanced understanding of philosophical, ethical, and economic frameworks. Encourages thoughtful debate and problem-solving in a structured, supportive environment. Creates connections with faculty and peers that extend beyond the program. Meet Our Esteemed Faculty Peter Bach-y-Rita DEAN OF ACADEMICS Peter Bach-y-Rita: Ph.D., MIT (Philosophy), J.D. Stanford Law School, A.B. Princeton University (highest honors). Dr. Bach-y-Rita's dissertation at MIT was at the intersection of ethics, biology and technology. He has published work on intellectual property, bankruptcy law, and the nature of legal causation. He co-founded Reason & Rationality in 2023. Joe earned a BA in Philosophy with highest distinction from Purdue University and is currently a Philosophy PhD student at Princeton University. He has published 16 articles on topics in metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and ethics in leading peer-reviewed philosophy journals. He also authored the books Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs (with Dr. Daniel Linford) and The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy. On the popular level, he creates lecture videos and hosts discussions with philosophers on his YouTube channel Majesty of Reason. His videos have attracted nearly 1.5 million views in total. Joseph Schmid SENIOR TEACHING FELLOW HEAD OF INSTRUCTION James' research on the famous Trolley Problem Immediate Impact James B Estes attended the original Reason & Rationality discussion series in 2023 as a participant and TA, later joining the team to co-found the Reason & Rationality Summer Program. Inspired by the class session on the Trolley Problem, James conducted empirical research into survey respondents’ intuitions about an important Trolley Problem variant. He then authored and published a peer reviewed article entitled Empirical Evidence Reveals the Motivation of Subjects Who Switch Tracks in the Trolley Loop Case. Apply Now!

< Back Seminar and Ethics Bowl Competition The Pingry School, NJ Previous Next

Reach out to us for program details, enrollment inquiries, or any other information you need. Fill out the form below or contact us directly. Let's Get in Touch Contact Us info@reasonandrationality.com Phone: (415) 948-9625 Think you might have a popular question? Have questions? Check out our FAQ section for quick answers to common inquiries about our programs, enrollment, and more! Send Us a Message Reach out to us for program details, enrollment inquiries, or any other information you need. Fill out the form below or contact us directly. A member of our team will respond within 2-3 business days First name Last name Email Phone Your Message Send Message About Reason & Rationality Application Process Accommodations & Dining Other Who is Reason & Rationality for? High school students who love critical thinking and conversation, as well as high school students seeking to expand their capabilities - authentic curiosity, critical thinking and verbal dexterity - to get into an ideally suited college and to thrive there and beyond. Why Do High School Students Need Reason & Rationality? Crafting strong arguments and holding intellectual conversations that are interesting, persuasive and stay on track requires a combination of critical thinking, conversation techniques and a basic knowledge of the 20 Big Ideas in philosophy, economics and politics that serve as a foundation for many issues. What Problem Does Reason & Rationality Solve? With the many distractions and demands on high school students and families, high school students rarely get the opportunity to practice fluid, to-the-point conversations in a social but formal setting. Students need those skills in order to grasp opportunities that appear in life. What Makes Reason & Rationality Different from Competitor Offerings? We are designed from the ground up for joyful, authentic inquiry. Our classes are concentrated dives into the most important ideas -- from justice and democracy to game theory and the nature of consciousness -- led by Ph.D. students and graduates from top philosophy programs. Our faculty don’t vanish after class; you’ll find them in the lounge at midnight still debating with students. The result is a rare atmosphere where sharp reasoning, open-minded dialogue, and genuine friendships thrive. To make it all work, Reason & Rationality instructors are picked from the most dynamic and energetic young scholars who love connecting with their younger peers and audiences. What is the meaning of Convivial? Convivial (adjective): Marked by good company and cheerful conversation. What will life be like for students after they attend Reason & Rationality? Students will have the skills, knowledge and confidence to speak up more in class with well crafted arguments gaining the attention of teachers and improving their GPA. Students will be well prepared to engage in stimulating intellectual discussions with college interviewers and adeptly handle tricky questions. How should students prepare for the Summer Program? The Summer Program is about fun and conversation, so students are not required to do substantial work in advance. We will email links to some short videos and readings a few weeks before the program, which will help students get in the mindset to maximize their learning from the very beginning of the Program. After each days' activities, students will be assigned short readings to prepare for the next day. FAQ

Oops, looks like this is the wrong path. Check the URL, or go back to the homepage and try again. Back to Homepage

Human and Animal Value By Harry Moss This essay intends to answer the following question: if given the choice, should one opt to save the life of one human child or the life of 10^10–ten billion–mice? However, I will interpret this question as follows: should we act as if a human life has value that infinitely exceeds the value of another animal’s life? I believe that this is what the moral dilemma truly seeks to address. For utilitarians–put very simply, those who believe that morality demands we maximize the good consequences of our actions and minimize the bad consequences–the answer to this question tends to be easy. Assuming that there are no extenuating circumstances, we should save the mice. This is because the goal of utilitarians is to maximize total utility. For some, this is the sum total of pleasure in the universe minus the sum total of pain. For many others, utility is something more complex. Using pleasure and pain makes it easy to explain why we should save the mice, though. Ten billion mice almost certainly allow for more pleasure to exist in the universe than a single human child does. Many more complex notions of utility would lead us to the same conclusion. Because the utilitarian answer is easy, and because I am not especially sympathetic to utilitarianism, I will attempt to give a Kantian answer to this question. Kantian ethics focuses on the duties a person has towards themselves and others rather than the quantifiable consequences of actions. Like utilitarianism, it is a monist system–it maintains that there is essentially only one guiding principle. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, but he formulates it in three different ways. For the purposes of this argument, I will use two of these formulae. The first is the Formula of Universal Law. To understand this, one must understand the concept of a maxim, which is a combination of action and purpose. For example: “I will eat this slice of toast in order to satisfy my hunger.” In very simplified terms, for a maxim to be morally permissible, it must be such that one could live in a world where everyone acted according to the maxim. In the case of toast-eating to satisfy hunger, there is no problem. But consider: “I will steal my neighbor’s money in order to increase my wealth.” If everyone acts according to this maxim, no one’s wealth will increase because everyone will suffer constant theft. Such a maxim cannot be universalized, and so is immoral. One can think of the Formula of Universal Law as analogous to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” though it is not precisely the same. The second is the Formula of Humanity. This requires us to conceive of other people as ends-in-themselves. The other side of this, which is easy to intuitively understand and is sufficient for my argument, is that we must never treat others as mere means to an end. We cannot use others for our own gain while simultaneously giving no regard to their interests. Because both of these formulae have a certain level of intuitive appeal, I will not explain in any significant detail why Kantians accept them. Going forward, I will make the ironic assumption that the Formula of Humanity applies to non-human animals as well, but the Formula of Universal Law does not (1). I will assume that duty does require us not to treat animals as mere means. However, I will also assume that, when we imagine everyone acting according to our maxims to test their morality, we need not and should not include non-rational animals. Circling back to our dilemma, it is clear that we cannot act in a way which is entirely commensurate with our duty. In order to act in accordance with a conception of humans and animals as ends-in-themselves, we ought to try to save their lives. However, since we cannot save all the lives involved, we are not required by duty to do so. This is in line with a common philosophical idea that if one ought to do something, one must be capable of doing that thing. Using only the Formula of Humanity, the answer may seem clear. Since both the human child and the mice are ends-in-themselves, it may seem we should save the mice. There are more of them, after all, and we understand simple math. All things being equal, this seems a fair conclusion to draw. It is the conclusion I would like to draw, because I myself am committed to the idea that animal lives are of great moral worth. However, all things may not be equal. Consider that Kantian ethics does not define moral conduct by its consequences. This does not in the least mean that we should not choose what we believe to be the better of two outcomes when the option is prevented. However, duty may prevent us from doing so. In that case, we are obligated to choose the “worse” outcome, which is not actually worse in a moral sense because it is the moral choice. In fact, something that is not duty may even prevent us from choosing the better outcome. Consider special obligations. Parents prioritize the interests of their children over the interests of other children, and this is perfectly consistent with the Formula of Universal Law so long as they permit other parents to do the same. However, acting in accordance with this kind of special obligation is not the kind of duty the Formula of Humanity gives us. Parents could decide to weigh the interests of all children equally, and this is also consistent with the Formula of Universal Law. I believe that the Formula of Universal Law often creates this kind of situation, in which several conflicting maxims are morally permissible so long as one adopts them on a consistent basis. A perfect duty like our obligation to never treat others as mere means can break the tie, but we do not always have this sort of duty to fall back on. Now, consider the following maxim: “I shall save human lives rather than animal lives in order to protect the interests of my species.” Adopting this maxim does not permit us to kill animals to save human lives, because that would violate the Formula of Humanity. If, however, one accepts the distinction between killing and letting die, then it may permit us to save the human child rather than ten billion mice. Here is a brief argument for why we should accept this distinction: Let us assume, as I have assumed earlier, that ought implies can. Let us assume also, as a Kantian would be inclined to maintain, that we ought not kill people. Consider, now, a simple fact. All over the world, many people die on a daily basis. Each one of us could devote our time to saving the lives of as many of these people as possible. However, we cannot save all of them. Even removing death by old age, it cannot be the case that each of us ought to never let a person die because it is not possible that each of us never lets a person die. However, I maintain that it is possible and desirable that each of us never ought to kill. Some cases may be exceptions, such as those in which we must kill a prospective murderer to prevent him from completing his act. Such exceptions, however, would not explain why we are permitted to let people die if letting die is, in fact, identical to killing. This is one reason why I believe that we should accept the distinction between killing and letting die. It may otherwise be impossible for us to have a duty which prohibits us from killing. Notice that this argument, if it succeeds, also establishes that we cannot have a duty which simply prevents us from letting people die under any circumstances. I think it is likely that such an argument has been made previously, and so there may be objections to it of which I am not yet aware. If, however, it succeeds, then I believe the maxim: “I shall save human lives rather than animal lives in order to protect the interests of my species” allows us to save the human child rather than ten billion mice. As in the case of special obligation, a contradictory maxim can also be universalized: “Whenever the lives of conscious creatures are at stake, I shall save as many as possible in order to respect these creatures as ends-in-themselves to the greatest possible extent.” Thus, I believe that the Kantian may be permitted to make either choice in the dilemma. This, for me, is an undesirable outcome. Given the brevity of this essay, I very much hope that I have overlooked something which commits the Kantian to saving the mice. (1) It is important to note that Kantians broadly derive morality from practical reason. Practical reason is a faculty possessed only by rational creatures, so it seems difficult to explain why any formula of the moral law should protect non-human animals. Indeed, Kant himself maintained that we have no duties towards animals. Thosewanting for a good answer to this question should seek out Christine Korsgaard’s Fellow Creatures, which makesarguments that initially led me to the conclusion which I assume here.

We are pleased to introduce the Reason & Rationality 2025 Convivium summer program at Princeton Theological Seminary (June 8-14) and Swarthmore College (July 27 - Aug 2). Reason & Rationality 2025 Summer Program Apply Now For 2026 2025 Faculty Classrooms and Dorms Sample Weekly Schedule Students in grades 8 - 12 are invited to apply. Students who attend both sessions get the full experience, priority in enrollment and tuition discount. We are pleased to introduce the Reason & Rationality 2025 Summer Program at Princeton Theological Seminary (June 8-14) and Swarthmore College (July 27 - Aug 2). Each week-long session will bring together students for deep conversations about the biggest ideas in Philosophy, Policy and Economics in a series of informal and convivial salons with an approximately 5:1 student-instructor ratio . Students will live in the college dorms with their instructors. The animating philosophy of Reason & Rationality is that relationship and conversation are the font of the intellectual life. Session 1 (Princeton Theological Seminary June 8 - 14, 2025) The Value of a Human Life (cost benefit analysis, present value discounting, the significance of future generations) Utilitarianism and The Veil of Ignorance Basic Logic, Intellectual Virtues, Properties of Arguments Moral Realism and Moral Relativism The Trolley Problem Supply and Demand COVID Lockdowns and Ice Cream Cones (total and marginal utility, opportunity cost) Private Property and Prices Complex Systems, Emergent Properties, and the Mystery of Consciousness Norms Unlike our Own (primogeniture, bride price, dowries, indissoluble marriage, cousin marriage) Session 2 (Swarthmore College July 27 - August 2, 2025) 11. Base Rates and the Base Rate Fallacy 12. Selection Bias, Social Desirability Bias 13. Preference Falsification and Self-Deception 14. Harry Frankfurt on Bullshit 15. Bayes’s Rule 16. Do You Live in a Simulation? 17. Rationality, Rationalism and Pascal’s Wager 18. The Conceptual Analysis of “Liberal” and “Conservative” 19. Science Fiction and Philosophy: Life Extension and Universal Basic Income 20. The Ethics of Selling Human Organs and Babies Questions About the Reason & Rationality Vision for Conversation-Based Education? Check out the frequently asked questions on our website or reach out to Reason & Rationality at info@reasonandrationality.com .

Explore our gallery to see students engaging in lively discussions, collaborating on thought-provoking challenges, and connecting with world-class instructors. Two-Week Summer Program Photo Gallery

Reason & Rationality Teacher Recommendation Form Reason & Rationality equips high school students with the tools to think rigorously about complex questions, separate fact from ideology, and engage in lively intellectual discussion. Our classes are filled with humor, and rooted in relatable discussions. Students sharpen their critical thinking and communication skills and leave with a grasp of the intellectual frameworks that empower them to become confident independent thinkers. At Reason & Rationality, we welcome honest, intellectually rigorous conversations on topics that are often avoided in traditional high school settings, including politics, religion, ethics, personal values, and more. These discussions can be deeply rewarding but also require maturity, self-awareness, and respect. Everyone involved, students and instructors, shares responsibility for creating an open, thoughtful, and inclusive environment. We are committed to fostering dialogue, not debate. The goal is to understand and explore different perspectives, not to win arguments or persuade others of a particular ideology. Our aim is to create not only a “safe space,” but a brave space. where intellectual courage and emotional maturity go hand in hand. The 2-week Foundation Program focuses on 20 Big Ideas in Philosophy, Economics and Ethics. Classes are rigorous, fast-paced and full of humor. Reason & Rationality classes and small group convivial conversations are led by PhD candidates and young professors from top universities including Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, MIT and others. Teacher Recommendations are helpful in determining whether the applicant is well suited to engage in deep intellectual conversation in a convivial manner. Please complete this Teacher Recommendation form below. Hitting "send" automatically emails your recommendation to Reason & Rationality Dean of Academics, Peter Bach-y-Rita. You may also copy the content of this form into an email and send it to Dr. Bach-y-Rita at info@reasonandrationality.com . Either way, your recommendation will remain confidential and will not be shared with the student. Teacher Recommendation Student Name Student Last Name Student's School Name Student Grade Level Classes Taken With The Recommender: Teacher First Name Teacher Last Name Email Subjects Taught In what ways has the student shown a genuine interest in exploring big complex questions and ideas? In what ways has the student demonstrated the ability to engage in dialogue in a civil, open, and inclusive manner? Send Thanks for submitting!

Our instructors hail from world-renowned institutions like Princeton, Oxford, and MIT, bringing unmatched expertise and passion to every session. Summer 2025 Faculty Each 2-hour Reason & Rationality class session is led by one Instructor and one supporting Group Leader for a highly interactive 5:1 Student to Instructor ratio. Our Instructors are Ph.D. students or graduates from top philosophy programs. Group Leaders are undergraduate students focused on philosophy, who actively participate and facilitate discussions and help to support activities and continuing conversations outside class. Peter Bach-y-Rita DEAN OF ACADEMICS Peter Bach-y-Rita: Ph.D., MIT (Philosophy), J.D. Stanford Law School, A.B. Princeton University (highest honors). Dr. Bach-y-Rita's dissertation at MIT was at the intersection of ethics, biology and technology. He has published work on intellectual property, bankruptcy law, and the nature of legal causation. He co-founded Reason & Rationality in 2023. Joe earned a BA in Philosophy with highest distinction from Purdue University and is currently a Philosophy PhD student at Princeton University. He has published 16 articles on topics in metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and ethics in leading peer-reviewed philosophy journals. He also authored the books Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs (with Dr. Daniel Linford) and The Majesty of Reason: A Short Guide to Critical Thinking in Philosophy. On the popular level, he creates lecture videos and hosts discussions with philosophers on his YouTube channel Majesty of Reason. His videos have attracted nearly 1.5 million views in total. Joseph Schmid HEAD OF INSTRUCTION Expert Guest Lecturers Benjamin Morison DEPARTMENT CHAIR OF PHILOSOPHY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY Peter Baumann DEPARTMENT CHAIR OF PHILOSOPHY, SWARTHMORE COLLEGE Christy Wampole PROFESSOR OF FRENCH, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY Instructors Noah McKay Noah is a PhD student in philosophy at Princeton University. He earned his BA in philosophy from Covenant College (summa cum laude) and his MSc in philosophy from the University of Edinburgh (First Class Honours). He has published several peer-reviewed academic articles about epistemology, metaethics, and philosophy of religion and presented original research at about a dozen conferences. He has also coached high school debate for seven years. Florence Bacus Florence is a Philosophy PhD student at Harvard University. She received a BS in mathematics and physics from the University of Michigan in 2018, and an MA in philosophy from Tufts University in 2020. Her current work concerns the nature of rational agency and free will and what that has to do with the foundations of ethics, in particular influenced by the moral theory of Immanuel Kant. Summer Convivium Group Leaders Amos Wollen Amos Wollen is an undergraduate reading Philosophy and Theology at Oriel College, Oxford. He is an Emergent Ventures winner. Cadence James Cadence James studies philosophy, politics and economics at Wadham College, Oxford, where she also rows. Oak Hu Oak Hu does math & philosophy at Magdalen College, Oxford — so, she thinks 'philosophy' means playing with symbols like '◊' and 'λ'. Sophia Wyatt Sophia received her undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago in 2021 and will be entering the Ph.D. program there in Fall 2025. Her primary interests lie in ethics and epistemology, particularly at their intersection. Eugene Shcherbinin Eugene studies philosophy, mathematics and economics at London School of Economics. He is an Em ergent Ventures winner and Ex-President of LSE Effective Altruism. Eugenia Brotons- Batista Eugenia studies philosophy, politics, and economics at the London School of Economics. She used to ski competitively and now she teaches in her spare time. Questions About the Reason & Rationality's Vision for Conversation-Based Education? Check out the frequently asked questions on our website or reach out to Reason & Rationality at info@reasonandrationality.com . Ready to jump into critical thinking and conversation? Apply Now

Our instructors hail from world-renowned institutions like Princeton, Oxford, and MIT, bringing unmatched expertise and passion to every session. Reason & Rationality Videos Instructors Debate Whether We Have Souls In this live debate, universe-renowned eminent philosophers debate whether we have souls. Who wins: dualism or physicalism? (1:09:54) Most Epic Instructor Debate of All Time Watch our instructors debate: Does God exist? (1:17:11) How To Publish Academic YouTube Videos Head of Instruction Joe Schmid, Princeton University PhD student, talks about how he publishes academic YouTube videos for his 32,000 subscribers. (36:03) What Reason & Rationality is All About Noah McKay explains what Reason & Rationality is all about. (0:54) Sophia Wyatt on Forgiveness Hear what Reason & Rationality Teaching Fellow Sophia Wyatt has to say on the concept of forgiveness. (1:02) Civil Discourse Dean of Academics, Peter Bach-y-Rita, explains why philosophical rigor is the key to civil discourse. (1:27) Reason & Rationality Podcast Ep. 1 Student and RNR staff member Claire Ziebart leads a discussion about what we value the most: Would you give up your life for a perfect but fake one? (23:45) Reason & Rationality Podcast Ep. 2 Claire Ziebart leads a discussion about whether some kinds of happiness can only be experienced if you have suffered. (22:54) Questions About Reason & Rationality's Vision for Conversation-Based Education? Check out the frequently asked questions on our website or reach out to Reason & Rationality at info@reasonandrationality.com . Ready to jump into critical thinking and conversation? Apply Now