Philosophy 304

Kant and the 19^th Century

Spring 2005

Prof. Patrick Frierson

Office Hours: T 4-5, W 8-9, Th 9-11

Olin Hall 151

527-5243

frierspr@whitman.edu

Books:

Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant)

Kant, Practical Philosophy (Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant)

Hegel, Selections (edited by M.J. Inwood)

Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation (Dover edition).

Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (Kaufman translation)

Assignments:

(1) Quizzes and Cold Calls (10%).

This course requires reading a lot of very difficult material. You will be expected to come to class having read the material carefully. In addition, for each class I have provided a key question to guide your reading. You should come to class prepared to answer that question. Occasionally, I may give a short quiz in which I will ask you to answer the question printed on the syllabus. I may also, in class, call on particular students to give their answers to the question of the day. I will call on each of you at least once during the semester. If you cannot answer the question, you should be able to state specifically what your difficulty answering it is, with reference to the text. (Warning: Don’t skip class just because you don’t know the answer to a question. If I planned to call on you in a particular class and you do not show up, you’ll get an F for that ‘cold call.’)

(2) Short Papers (2 x 10% = 20%).

During the first part of the semester, you will write two short papers on questions printed in your syllabus. (There are three questions, of which you must choose to answer two.) These papers should be at least 1000 words and no more than 1600 words. You should indicate the number of words at the bottom of the last page of your paper. The primary purpose of these papers is an accurate explanation of the central ideas of the philosopher you are discussing. The questions are designed to guide you towards those central ideas. The best papers will be clear, concise, and accurate, and also original and insightful. However, clarity and accuracy are much more important on these papers than originality or insightfulness. The purpose of this focus is to ensure that you understand these positions before you seek to criticize or extend them in your own work (for instance, in your final paper).

(3) Long Papers (2 x 20% = 40%)

1600 – 2500 words. These papers should be more substantive than the short papers. You will need to draw on multiple philosophers (i.e. at least 2 from this class) and use clear and accurate understandings of those philosophers to develop your own answers to philosophical questions. As with the short papers, I expect your explanation of the positions of these philosophers to be clear, concise, and accurate. You should also situate your specific claims about each philosopher in the contexts of their philosophies more generally, at least enough to show that you understand how isolated points relate to overall views. But you should not simply reiterate the views of each philosopher. You need to use accurate accounts of the philosophers to develop your own views.

The topics for these papers are somewhat open. You can choose one of the topics below or submit a proposal (1-2 paragraphs, due a week before the paper is due) to write on something else.

Possible paper topics:

What is philosophy? Or, what should philosophy be?

What are the limits, if any, to human knowledge?

What is the highest good for a human beingd?

What is true freedom?

What is beauty? How is ‘beauty’ related to ‘art’? Which should aesthetics be about?

What can philosophy contribute to our understanding of the natural sciences (or vice versa)?

What importance, if any, does religion or religious belief hold for human beings?

The due dates for these papers are FINAL due dates (i.e. NO EXTENSIONS). You are welcome to turn these papers in earlier than the scheduled due date, however, and I STRONGLY encourage you to get started early, as I will expect these papers to have gone through several drafts before you turn them in. For advice on writing a philosophy paper, see Joe Cruz’s Philosophy Writing Tutor: (http://www.williams.edu/philosophy/fourth_layer/faculty_pages/jcruz/moraltutor/)

(4) Final paper or Exam (30%).

For your final assignment, you have a choice. If the average score on your short papers is a 7 or above, you have the option of writing a final paper on a topic of your choice, or taking a final exam. The final exam will consist of four of the daily questions, of which you must answer two, and two more general synthesizing questions, of which you must answer one.

The final paper is an opportunity to go beyond a mere understanding of the texts we have read to an original and insightful discussion of them. These papers should be at least 1800 words and no more than 3500 words. Include a word count at the end of the paper.

If the average score on your short papers is below a 7, you must take the final exam, as described above. You have the option of also writing a final paper on a topic of your choice. In that case, the grade on your paper will be averaged with your final exam grade.

Timeline

Jan.	18	Introduction.
		Kant
	20	Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason pp. 106-152. How does Kant’s “Copernican” turn (Bxvi) help show “how a priori synthetic propositions are possible” (B19)? (To answer this, you will need to explain in what way Kant thinks his own philosophy is like Copernicus’ and what an ‘a priori synthetic judgement’ is.)
	25	Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Aesthetic, pp. 172-92 (focus on 172-8). Kant says, “Our exposition therefore establishes the reality, that is, the objective validity, of space in respect of whatever can be presented to us outwardly as object, but also at the same time the ideality of space in respect of things when they are considered in themselves through reason, that is, without regard to the constitution of our sensibility” (A28/B44). What does Kant mean by these two claims and how does he establish them?
	27	Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Second Analogy, pp. 295-8, 304-16. (Also read selections from Hume and/or refamiliarize yourself with Hume’s skepticism about causation.) How does Kant’s Copernican turn allow him to respond to Hume’s skepticism about causation?
Feb.	1	Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Refutation of Idealism, pp. 326-33. (Also refamiliarize yourselves with Descartes’ skepticism re: the external world and Berkeley’s idealism.) What kind of “idealism” does Kant claim to “refute” here? Outline his “refutation” and raise at least one key objection to it.
	3	Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Antinomies, pp. 467-9, 484-9, 511-14, 532-46. (You should also glance at all of pp. 467-95.) What causes the Third Antinomy and how does Kant resolve it?
	8	Kant’s Practical Philosophy, pp. 41-93. (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Parts I and II.) What is Kant’s argument for the categorical imperative? Does the categorical imperative adequately capture common-sense moral beliefs? (Also come to class with specific questions about Kant’s moral theory, as laid out in the Groundwork.) Short paper #1 DUE: Explain how Kant’s Copernican Revolution threatens the possibility of human freedom. How does his transcendental idealism allow him to deal with this threat? (Optional: What new problems does Kant’s philosophy raise?) [Tip: In the context of answering this question, you will need to explain what Kant’s Copernican Revolution is and how it makes knowledge of the empirical world possible. You will also need to apply this specifically to the notion of causation before looking at the implications of Kant’s account of causation for the nature of human freedom.]
	10	Kant’s Practical Philosophy, pp. 139-86. (Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason, 5:3 – 5:57. (Focus on 5:28-31, 42-3, 46-50.) To what extent is there a “deduction of the principles of pure practical reason” (5:42)? Does Kant prove that human beings are bound by the categorical imperative? If so, how? What can be deduced from the fact that humans are bound by the categorical imperative? If anything, how can this be deduced?
	15	Kant’s Practical Philosophy, pp. 226-58. (Critique of Practical Reason. Focus on 5:110-15, 124-5.) Reread the Critique of Pure Reason, B xxv-xxxi. (Optional reading: Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, A583/B611 – A642/B670.) How does Kant’s second Critique clarify the way in which Kant’s first Critique “denies knowledge in order to make room for faith?”
	17	Kant’s Aesthetics (handout). Why do judgments of taste pose a special problem for Kant? What special opportunities do these judgments provide vis a vis the first two Critiques (of Pure Reason and of Practical Reason)?
		Hegel
	22	Hegel, pp. 152-60 (Introduction to The Phenomenology of Spirit) How is Hegel’s method of doing philosophy different from Kant’s? Short paper #2 DUE: In the first Critique (of Pure Reason), Kant distinguishes between appearances and things in themselves, and he claims that one can only have knowledge of appearances (cf. Bxx). How does Kant defend/explain this claim in his first Critique, and to what extent do Kant’s later works modify and/or clarify the meaning of this claim? In the end, is Kant’s philosophy as a whole coherent? Do the latter works make it better or worse?
	24	Hegel, pp. 161-7 (Sensuous Certitude, from The Phenomenology of Spirit) For Hegel, what is “sensuous certitude”? For Hegel, what is wrong with sensuous certitude as a way of understanding the world?
Mar.	1	Hegel, pp. 168-80 (Self-Consciousness: Certainty of Oneself, Master & Servant, from The Phenomenology of Spirit). Is it better to be a master or a servant? Why?
	3	Hegel, pp. 288-96, 300-305, 310-13 (selections from Encyclopedia: Objective Mind). Also read the handout from the Philosophy of Right (§135). What is Hegel’s most convincing objection against a previous ethical theory? What is the most attractive (or unattractive) aspect of Hegel’s own ethical theory? How does Hegel defend that (attractive or unattractive) aspect of his own theory?
	8	Hegel, pp. 319-25, 330-6, 347-53, 437-42 (Hegel’s Philosophy of History). What is the philosophy of history, how is it possible, and why is it important?
	10	Hegel, pp. 371-4, 376-84, 395-6(b), 402-3(d), 420-5 (through § 564), 428, 435-6. (Hegel’s Aesthetics, Religion, and Philosophy.) For Hegel, what is the importance of art and/or religion? In what way(s) is his account particularly insightful? In what way(s) is it limited or just plain wrong? (You should have at least one example of something insightful, and at least one example of something limited and/or wrong. Be prepared to defend your answers.)
		Spring Break
	29	Johannes Climacus (Soren Kierkegaard), “Subjective Truth, Inwardness, Truth is Subjectivity” handout (from Concluding Unscientific Postscript). What does Kierkegaard mean by the claim that truth is subjectivity? How might Hegel react to Kierkegaard’s defense of that claim?
	31	Rough draft of first long paper due. Bring drafts to class.
April	5	Undergraduate Conference
	7	Schopenhauer, World as Will and Representation, pp. xii-xvii, 3-18, 95-109. In what way does Schopenhauer “start in great measure from what was achieved by the great Kant” (p. xv)? In what way(s) does he differ from Kant? FIRST LONG PAPER DUE.
	12	Schopenhauer, World as Will and Representation, pp. 127-52, 162-65. Focus on Schopenhauer’s monism (pp. 127-8), his notion of the Ideas (pp. 129f.), and his view that the will is striving (pp. 147, 164) How does Schopenhauer’s notion of the will differ from Kant’s?
	14	Schopenhauer, World as Will and Representation, pp. 169-216, 255-62, 267.
	19	Schopenhauer, World as Will and Representation, pp. 271-5, 307-23, 331-42, 378-82. (Focus on pp. 307-10, 319-21, 334, 378-82.) What is Schopenhauer’s attitude towards asceticism and the denial of the will? How does he defend this?
	21	Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, pp.1-56. How does Nietzsche seek to revalue traditional values of philosophy?
	26	Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, pp. 59-118 (focus on pp. 97-118). Offer a Nietzschean critique of Kant’s, Hegel’s, or Schopenhauer’s moral theory. How might Kant, Hegel, or Schopenhauer respond?
	28	Aphorism day. Comparison of aphorisms from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Schlegel, and “aphorisms” from Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Kant.
May	3	Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, pp. 121-170. What is the relationship between “we scholars” and the philosophers of the future?
	5	Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, pp. 173-245 (focus on pp. 201-237). What is noble? For Nietzsche, what is beyond good and evil?
	10	Last class day. Second long paper due.