Louis Doulas

I’m currently a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Extending New Narratives in the History of Philosophy project at McGill University.

I work primarily in the history of philosophy and epistemology. My historical research concerns the origins and development of early analytic philosophy (with special attention to the works of G.E. Moore and Susan Stebbing). I also have interests in American pragmatism. In epistemology, my work has drawn inspiration from themes in Wittgenstein’s On Certainty to shed new light on the problem of peer disagreement, philosophical skepticism, and the issue of progress in philosophy and science.

I’m also an Editorial Assistant at the Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy and the Project Manager for the New Voices in the History of Philosophy podcast.

I received my PhD in Philosophy from the University of California, Irvine, in June 2024. Before that, I completed an MA in Philosophy at Brandeis University and a BFA in Studio Art at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Between those degrees, before finding my way to philosophy, I worked as an editor and writer in New York, mostly writing about art influenced by the internet. I still maintain active interests in art and hope to write more about it in the near future.

Email Teaching PhilPeople

Publications

Edited Volume

Susan Stebbing: Analysis, Common Sense, and Public Philosophy

Oxford University Press (forthcoming) (co-edited with Annalisa Coliva)

This is the first edited volume to be dedicated exclusively to the philosophy of Susan Stebbing (1885–1943)—a pivotal female figure in the male-dominated tradition of early analytic philosophy, and Britain’s first female professor of philosophy who has, until recently, been unjustly neglected. This volume collects eleven new essays that explore various elements of Stebbing’s prolific output. The volume and its contributors aim to reinstate Stebbing’s place in the analytic tradition by examining her ideas in context and elucidating their significance.

Articles and Book Chapters

Making Sense of Stebbing and Moore on Common Sense
In A. Coliva and L. Doulas (eds.), Susan Stebbing: Analysis, Common Sense, and Public Philosophy, Oxford University Press (forthcoming)
This paper reexamines Stebbing’s and Moore’s relationship to common sense, challenging both received and revisionist readings. I argue that both readings assume an overly simplified account of Moorean common sense, which ultimately leads commentators astray in different respects. I draw on overlooked textual evidence to argue that Moore’s common sense views are far less monolithic than has been traditionally assumed. I use this to show that Stebbing and Moore were largely aligned with respect to the extent to which the truths of common sense may be philosophically analyzed. I then develop an alternative reading of Stebbing’s common sense program, which I argue is decidedly distinct from Moore’s. For Stebbing, unlike Moore, science and common sense form a unity. I trace how this idea is developed across several of Stebbing’s works, culminating in her view that common sense knowledge constitutes a form of probable knowledge.
⤹ Download PDF
Susan Stebbing: Analysis, Common Sense, and Public Philosophy
In A. Coliva and L. Doulas (eds.), Susan Stebbing: Analysis, Common Sense, and Public Philosophy, Oxford University Press (forthcoming) (with Annalisa Coliva)
This introduction provides a compact biography of Stebbing's life and work, contextualizes her disappearance from the analytic tradition, and provides an overview of the key themes explored in the volume Susan Stebbing: Analysis, Common Sense, and Public Philosophy.
⤹ Download PDF
Philosophical (and Scientific) Progress: A Hinge Account
In S. Goldberg and M. Walker (eds.), Attitude in Philosophy, Oxford University Press (forthcoming) (with Annalisa Coliva)
Just as skepticism about our knowledge of the external world is thought to engender a kind of despair, skepticism about our philosophical knowledge, if true, engenders a despair of a similar kind. We remain optimistic. Despair, we urge, needn’t get the best of us. Philosophical knowledge is attainable. Progress is possible. But we aren’t overly optimistic either. Philosophical skepticism has its place. In this chapter, we show how philosophical knowledge and philosophical progress is possible in light of widespread disagreement in philosophy.
⤹ Download PDF
Philosophical Progress, Skepticism, and Disagreement
In M. Baghramian, J. A. Carter, and R. Rowland (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Disagreement, Routledge (2025) (with Annalisa Coliva)
This chapter serves as an opinionated introduction to the problem of convergence (that there is no clear convergence to the truth in philosophy) and the problem of peer disagreement (that disagreement with a peer rationally demands suspending one’s beliefs) and some of the issues they give rise to, namely, philosophical skepticism and progress in philosophy. After introducing both topics and surveying the various positions in the literature we explore the prospects of an alternative, hinge-theoretic account.
⤹ Download PDF
What Philosophical Disagreement and Philosophical Skepticism Hinge On
Synthese (2022) 200: 1–14 (with Annalisa Coliva)
Philosophers disagree. A lot. Pervasive disagreement is part of the territory; consensus is hard to find. Some think this should lead us to embrace philosophical skepticism: skepticism about the extent to which we can know, or justifiably believe, the philosophical views we defend and advance. Most philosophers in the literature fall into one camp or the other: philosophical skepticism or philosophical anti-skepticism. Drawing on the insights of hinge epistemology, this paper proposes another way forward, an intermediate position that appeals both to skeptical and anti-skeptical intuitions concerning the possibility and scope of philosophical knowledge. The main advantage of our account is that it’s able to recover some philosophical knowledge while also being compatible with philosophical skepticism.
⤹ Download PDF
Against Philosophical Proofs Against Common Sense
Analysis (2021) 81: 207–215 (with Evan Welchance)
Many philosophers think that common sense knowledge survives sophisticated philosophical proofs against it. Recently, however, Bryan Frances (2021) has advanced a philosophical proof that he thinks common sense cannot survive. Exploiting philosophical paradoxes like the Sorites, Frances attempts to show how common sense leads to paradox and therefore that common sense methodology is unstable. In this paper, we show how Frances’s proof fails and then present Frances with a dilemma.
⤹ Download PDF See @nogre0 discuss it on YouTube
A Puzzle About Moorean Metaphysics

Philosophical Studies (2021) 178: 493–513
Some metaphysicians believe that existence debates are easily resolved by trivial inferences from Moorean premises. This paper considers how the introduction of negative Moorean facts—negative existentials that command Moorean certainty—complicates this picture. In particular, it shows how such facts, when combined with certain plausible metaontological principles, generate a puzzle that commits the proponents of this method to a contradiction.
⤹ Download PDF

In Progress

I have various papers in preparation or under review on Moore (×3), Stebbing (×2), the role of intutions in philosophy, and Locke and regulative epistemology. Contact me for drafts/more information.