Philosophy 202 (Fall 2019)
Readings in the Western Philosophical
Tradition: Modern Philosophy
Prof. Patrick Frierson
Class Meets: Olin 192, MW 1-2:20
Office Hours (Olin 194): Monday 10-11 am; Wednesday 10-noon;
and by appointment. During these hours, you don’t need an appointment to talk to me – just
stop by my office. You can come ask me for assistance with course
content/assignments, or you can merely chat with me about the course, college
more generally, careers, current events or whatever. Do not feel like you need
a so-called “good” question – you can even just say “hello”! If you can’t make
these times, I am happy to meet other times – just make an appointment.
Accommodations: If you are a student with a disability who will need accommodations in this course, please meet with Antonia Keithahn, Assistant Director of Academic Resources: Disability Support (Memorial 326, 509.527.5767, keithaam@whitman.edu) for assistance in developing a plan to address your academic needs. All information about disabilities is considered private; if I receive notification from Ms. Keithahn that you are eligible to receive an accommodation due to a verified disability, I will provide it in as discreet a manner as possible.
Required Texts:
Roger Ariew, Eric Watkins, eds., Modern Philosophy: An
Anthology of Primary Sources
(Indianapolis:
Hackett, 2009). Page
numbers in the timeline refer to the SECOND edition (2009) of this book,
which is the
edition we will use in this class.
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of
Morals, Ed. E. Steinberg, Indianapolis:
Hackett, ISBN: 978-0915145454
Sor Juana Iñez de la Cruz, Poems, Protest, and a Dream: Selected Works, trans. M. Peden, Penguin Classics,
ISBN: 978-0140447033.
Goals: With respect to content, this course
focuses on central epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical arguments of
three philosophers of the modern period (1600-1800). The philosophers on whom we will focus are
Rene Descartes (1596-1650), David Hume (1711-1776), and Sor Juana de la Cruz
(1648-1695). We will do additional
readings from and have presentations on other major European philosophers of
the period, including Elizabeth of Bohemia, Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Anne
Conway, and Immanuel Kant.
Throughout our study
of these philosophers, we will focus on five key philosophical problems:
(1) To what extent is
it possible to have knowledge of anything?
(2) How should we
philosophically address the (epistemological) problem of human diversity, that
is, that people see the world in different (and incompatible) ways?
(3) What is the
ultimate nature of all reality? (For example:
Is there a God, and if so, what is God’s nature? And/or: What is the nature of causation?
How does one thing cause changes in another?)
(4) What is the human
being? (In particular: Are human beings free? and What is the connection
between the mind and the body?)
(5) What is the good life for human beings? Relatedly, what is what is the nature and
status of morality and moral claims?
With respect to
skills,
this course will help you develop as a philosopher in four key respects.
First and most
importantly, you will learn to philosophize better. A philosopher pursues wisdom through careful
reflection. In this course, we use
modern philosophers to help our own philosophical reflection, philosophizing with
them and offering philosophical critique of them. By the end of this
course, you will learn how to follow through on philosophical insights in
historical and systematic ways.
Second, we will read
difficult texts and read them carefully. Reading (and the related skill of
listening) to complex arguments expressed in unfamiliar terms will prepare you
for engaging with those who hold viewpoints or forms of expression different
form your own and thus for thriving in an increasingly diverse world. Because learning to read difficult texts for
yourself is one of the goals of this course, you should not consult any internet resources in order to clarify the
meaning of the primary texts we read in this class.
Third, you will learn
both to explain the ideas of others and to articulate your own ideas orally and
in writing. Everyone is expected to
participate in class discussion in a respectful way, and one of the goals of
this course is to help all students develop confident, articulate, respectful
modes of oral communication. In
addition, everyone will write three papers over the course of the
semester. You will also have the
opportunity to submit drafts of written work for feedback.
Finally, woven
throughout the other goals, you will develop some basic knowledge of the
history of philosophy and you will learn to consider and reconsider questions
and problems as they are raised and transformed by a succession of thinkers.
This course is an opportunity to learn and improve, not
primarily an opportunity to show how good you already are.
Assignments
|
Due Date |
Length |
Portion of Grade |
Memos and Exercises |
Each class period by 10 am |
Maximum of 300 words |
20% |
Presentation #1 |
Variable, but not later than October 30. |
12-18 minutes (maximum) Paper should be 2000 words minimum. |
10% |
Descartes Paper |
October 20th, 5 PM. (Optional draft due
October 17th by noon.) |
500-1000 words |
5% |
Presentation #2 |
Variable |
12-18 minutes (maximum) |
15% |
Hume Paper |
November 21st (Optional draft due November 17th.) |
600-1200 words |
10% |
Final Paper |
DRAFT due Monday, December 8th FINAL due Friday, December 13th. |
1200 word minimum (no maximum) |
15-25% (I’ll adjust the percentages of final paper and final exam
to give you the best overall grade possible.) |
Final Exam |
December 19th, 9AM. |
Not applicable |
15-25% |
Memos and Exercises: For almost every
class period, there is a short assignment of some kind, listed in the timeline
below. These should be emailed to me no
later than 10am on the day of class.
These exercises should never be more than 300 words long, and often they
can be just a sentence or two. I will
reply to these exercises with either “excellent,” “good,” or “needs work.” If you have specific questions about the
readings, you can include those in the email in which you submit your
exercises, and I will try to respond to those questions when I return your
exercise.
Papers. All written assignments, including your
papers and the written portion of your presentations, should be submitted to me
by email (frierspr@whitman.edu) in .doc or .docx format.
Please do not send pdfs or googledoc
links. You must include your first and
last name as the first terms in the filename, and the rest of the filename
should make clear what assignment you are turning in. (So, for instance, when
Jane Doe turns in her Descartes paper, she should save the paper under the
filename “jane doe descartes paper.doc”.) Over the course of the semester, you have
three papers (not including the two that you’ll write as part of your
presentations; see below).
1. Descartes Paper (exegetical).
For this paper, you should start with a philosophical question of
interest to you. The question can be
something like “Are human beings free?” or “How should a just society respond
to racism?” or “What is the nature of forgiveness?” or “Does God exist?” You should then look for areas in Descartes’s
philosophy where he offers philosophical resources to help address that
question. In some cases, these will be
obvious (e.g., “Does God exist?”); in other cases, they will not be obvious
(e.g., “How should a just society respond to racism?”). Read those parts of Descartes carefully to
figure out what his view is or might be on your topic, and why he holds that
view. Then look for difficulties,
apparent contradictions, or ambiguities in his presentation of his view. Move from your philosophical question to an
exegetical or interpretive question about Descartes’s text. For instance, from “Are human beings free?”
you might move on to “How can Descartes say both that ‘the will…in me’ is ‘so
great…that I cannot grasp the idea of a greater faculty’ and that ‘the faculty
of willing is incomparably greater in God than it is in me’ (56a)?” or “What
would be the implications of ‘seeing oneself as part of a whole’ (Letter to
Elizabeth, 15.9.1645) for the nature of forgiveness?” Then answer that exegetical question. If the answer turns out to be too obvious
(as, I think, one of the above questions is), then look for a harder exegetical
question. In the end, you should have a
thesis that develops an interpretation of Descartes in a way that provides
insight into his texts and also philosophical
insight into the problem that initiated your inquiry. For an example of an exegetical paper of this
kind, see “Learning to Love: From Egoism to
Generosity in Descartes” (and forgive the shameless self-promotion).
2. Hume Paper. The goal of this
paper is to use the history of philosophy to challenge hidden assumptions. As with the first paper, you should start
with a philosophical question that you find interesting and important. (It can even be the same question you started
with in the first paper.) You will be
required to submit that question, and your provisional answer, on October
21. What you send me on October 21st
must be concise (less than 300 words), but the more detail you provide for
yourself about how you understand and defend your answer, the better your Hume
paper will be. As you read Hume, you
should let your underlying assumptions be challenged by Hume’s philosophy. For your Hume paper, you should lay out your
initial, provisional answer to your philosophical question and show how Hume’s
philosophy helps you to discover and question some of your underlying
assumptions. If you find that you and
Hume share all of the same underlying assumptions, you should show this in your
paper, and then revisit Descartes and show how Descartes challenges the
underlying assumptions of both Hume and you.
You should then revise your initial answer to the question in the light
of what you have learned about your underlying assumptions. This need not
involve changing that answer (or those assumptions), but it might, and it
should at least involve showing more carefully how or why those assumptions are
(or are not) justified. Throughout, you
should proficiently make use of quotations and references to support your interpretation
of any philosophers of whom you make use.
3. Final Paper. The goal of this
paper is to use the history of philosophy to answer an important and
interesting philosophical question. The
thesis for this paper should be the answer to a philosophical question, not a
claim about a particular philosopher or philosophers. (For example, the thesis might be “Free will
is an illusion” or “Structural injustice can only be remedied through political
rituals of forgiveness and reconciliation.”)
To defend that thesis, you must draw on at least three philosophers from
this course. At least one of these must
be Sor Juana. At least one must be a
philosopher other than Sor Juana,
Descartes, Princess Elizabeth, Hume, or one of the philosophers on whom you
presented. You should use the skills you
developed in your first paper to give insightful interpretations of the
philosophers you use, but you should also apply
those interpretations to solving the philosophical problem you’ve
chosen. (For some ideas about how to use
history to do philosophy, see the appendix to the Descartes Reading Guide.)
Presentations. The period from 1600-1800 in Europe
was the most vibrant period in the history
of philosophy, and the major philosophers we focus on in this course represent
only a small fraction of the philosophers who developed exciting and
well-developed philosophies worth taking seriously today. Thus a portion of
most classes will be devoted to a presentation on another major modern
philosopher. This will give each of you
a relatively easy way to get a sense for the breadth of philosophy during this
period, and it will give those presenting a chance to dive in depth into at
least two other philosophers over the course of the semester. In addition, each of you will have the
opportunity to prepare and offer a philosophical presentation to your
peers. The maximum length of these
presentations is the length of a TED talk, and you should look online at advice
for preparing TED talks to get some advice about preparing these talks. Among the most important advice is to prepare
your content well and to Practice!
Practice! Practice! so that the presentation is delivered smoothly and
within the time limit. You will be cut
off after 18 minutes, even if you are not finished with your presentation.
For each class day, there is at
least one philosopher listed as a presentation option. Those in bold are philosophers that I
particularly hope people will present on.
If you would like to present on a a
philosopher not listed on syllabus who falls within the period we are studying
(roughly 1500-1850), let me know and we can arrange a good date for presenting
on that philosopher. If more than one
student wishes to present on a given philosopher, the first two who inform me
of their preference can present on the philosopher as a pair. (Each student much give at least one
individual presentation, however.)
At
least 48 hours before your presentation, you should submit a 2000-word
(minimum) paper with the form of a philosophical encyclopedia entry on your
philosopher. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an excellent model of what
these entries should look like. As with
those articles, you should include a bibliography of at least six
non-internet-based* secondary sources on your philosopher, and you should read
and refer in your entry to at least two of these. (By “non-internet-based,” I mean scholarly
sources that have a reference other than a web address. You are free to use books and articles that
are available online through Penrose library.)
These
presentations are the main exception to my “no secondary sources” rule for the
course. For your presentation, you can
and should make ample use of scholarly resources to better understand the
philosopher you are presenting on. I
also very strongly recommend that you visit my office hours the week preceding
your presentation to talk with me about any confusions or lingering questions
you have about your presentation, or just to run ideas by me.
Final Exam: The final exam will be closed book and will be modelled on
the senior comprehensive exams in philosophy.
During the week after Thanksgiving Break, you – as a class – will spend a
portion of each class, and significant time outside of class, generating six
questions that could serve as final exam questions. For the actual final, you will be presented
with three questions, at least two of which will come from your list of
six. You will have to answer two of
those three questions, taking about an hour for each. Each answer must draw from at least two of
the main philosophers from the course (Descartes, Hume, Sor Juana), and the two
answers as a whole must draw on all three philosophers and also at least one
other philosopher from the course (one we read as a class or one on whom you
heard a presentation).
Class Time and Rules for Discussion:
This class meets less than three hours a week, and most of the learning
for the class occurs outside of our formal class meetings, through your own
careful reading and thinking about the material, writing papers, and meetings
with me during office hours.
Lectures. My goal is to use our class periods to accomplish goals that
could not easily be accomplished outside of class. This will include some general lecturing, but
I generally do not lecture extensively, for two reasons. First, extensive empirical (psychological)
evidence and my own personal experience confirm that learning happens best
through active engagement rather than passive listening. Thus much of what
would normally go into lectures has been built into my “reading guides,” which
help guide you through the readings without telling you precisely how to think
about them. Second, one of the main
goals of this class is teaching you to read and learn from philosophers on your own. Hearing my insights about this or that
philosopher will not help you develop the skills you need to engage with
philosophy independently. Finally, even insofar
as you need or want expert opinions, lectures
from me are not the best way to get expert commentary on the texts we are
reading. Every figure that we read has
at least one major entry in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and most also have Cambridge Companions available in the library. These reference sources provide high quality
commentary on the texts we are reading, and the Stanford Encyclopedia in particular is designed to be used by
undergraduates at your level. As a
reminder, you should NOT consult
these additional sources for the primary texts we read in class, but you can
(and should) consult them when you are giving your presentation (see below).
Discussions. The main use of our
class time will be discussions amongst the entire class. These discussions provide ways to engage with
the material in sustained ways, but they also – even more importantly – provide
a context to practice the virtues of excellent participation in intellectual
group discussion. These virtues include
the following:
Preparation. You should come to class having read and thought about the
material, so that you have an informed perspective on it.
Attentive listening. You should pay
close attention to what I, and your
peers, are saying. Whitman has
excellent faculty, but we are the excellent college that we are because of the
quality of our students. Your classmates
have insightful things to contribute to our discussion; classmates
comments are often more insightful than my own and are usually more directly relevant
to your own readings of the texts.
Boldness and patience.
Boldness and patience are both virtues in conversation. You should participate, even when you are not
entirely sure that what you have to say is profound and well-formulated, but
you should also be patient, letting your own ideas mature and providing
opportunities for others to contribute to the conversation. Some of you will need to focus on boldness,
forcing yourselves to speak even before you are fully comfortable. (If you are one of these students, one good
practice is to prepare some comments and questions before class and to raise
these at the first opportunity. Another
good practice is to speak or raise your hand whenever there is more than 3
seconds of “dead time,” even if you don’t think what you have to say is
particularly profound.) Some will need
to focus on patience, holding back to practice attentive listening and to give
others the opportunity to contribute.
(If you are one of these, one good practice is to count to five before
speaking or raising your hand. Another
is to take the time to find textual support for your views before you
articulate them.)
Respectful engagement with others’ views.
I expect you to engage with one another’s comments in class. Discussions should not be public dialogues
with me. This engagement will often involve answering or refining another
student’s question, taking another student’s point further, providing
additional textual support for a point that a classmate makes, and so on. Engagement also can and often should involve
criticism of the views of others, but such criticism should always remain
respectful. Everyone in this room
(including myself) is in the process of learning to philosophize well. When we criticize one another, it should be
in the spirit of helping each other to develop as philosophers, not in an
attempt to show that one person is better than another.
Growth mindset. Just as you engage
respectfully with others, respect those who engage with your own views. My assumption in this course is that every
comment that everyone makes (including myself) is provisional. In class, we are trying to benefit from our conversation, not to
score points in it. And that means that
when others offer objections or criticisms of your comments in class, these are
not evidence of your inadequacy as a philosopher; they are opportunities for
you (and your interlocutor) to grow. You
should defend your view as effectively as you can, but you should also change
your view when you come to see that it is not defensible. (This point is also relevant to comments you
receive from me on your work. Your primary goal in all the work you do for this
class should be growth and development, and I will give comments with that goal
in mind.)
“Class participation.” I will not give a
specific grade on your discussion participation, but I may significantly alter
your final overall grade based on participation. Silent or obnoxious students could have their
grades lowered by as much as a full grade point (from A to B), and students who
significantly improve the overall quality of class discussion could have their
grade raised by as much as step or more (from B+ to A-). When evaluating participation, I am not
interested merely in the quantity of comments.
A student who dominates class discussion but fails to show the virtues
listed above may have their overall grade lowered due to poor
participation. A student who speaks
occasionally but in well-informed, respectful, growing ways may have their
grade raised. (A student who never
speaks in class, however, cannot effectively demonstrate the above
virtues.) If you are concerned about
your participation, either because you fear participating too much or too
little, please ask me about it at any time.
Small Group Work. Occasionally, we
will divide the class into small groups for more focused work. This provides those who might be timid in a
large group setting an opportunity to participate more actively, and it
provides a different – and often healthy – dynamic for discussion. All of the virtues listed above apply to
work in small groups. In addition, it is
particularly important in these groups that students remain “on task.”
Timeline of Readings and Assignments
|
Reading (Except where noted,
page numbers refer to the 2009 edition of Ariew and
Watkins, Modern Philosophy) |
Presentation
Option(s) |
Assignments Due by 10 am on the date listed unless otherwise noted. Emailed completed assignment to frierspr@whitman.edu. |
Sept. 4 |
Descartes, Meditation 1 (pp. 40-43) |
Michel de Montaigne
|
Email me a philosophical question you would like to answer
over the course of this semester.
(This assignment is due by midnight on September 4th.) |
Sept. 9 |
Descartes,
Meditations 1-2, intro/preface (40-6) (Also read: Discourse on the Method, Parts 1-2,
and the Letter/Preface to the Meditations,
pp. 25-33, 35-40) |
Francis Bacon Marie de Gournay |
Work through the Descartes Reading
Guide
for Meditations 1 and 2. Choose your answer to one question from that reading
guide and email me that answer. |
Sept. 11 |
Meditations 2-3
(43-54) Critiques of Med 2
(76-79a) |
Galileo Pascal (Faye) |
Write two questions about Meditations 2 and/or 3. One of these should be a basic
comprehension question, something like “What does Descartes mean by ___?” The
other should be an “insightful question,” by which I mean a question that
engages with and draws on the text and that is difficult, interesting, and
genuinely worth answering. |
Sept. 16 |
Meditation 3
(47-54) (with Objections
and Replies, pp. 70-75a, 79-92) |
Malebranche Arnauld Gassendi Hobbes (YJ Wang) |
Write a short
defense of Descartes’s argument for the existence of God against the best
objection offered in the readings to that argument. Give specific textual support for both the
objection and the response. |
Sept. 18 |
Meditations 3-4
(47-58) |
Galileo |
Substantively revise the assignment you turned in for
September 16th and write a short (1 paragraph) explanation of how
your revision improved on your earlier writing. |
Sept. 23 |
Meditation 4
(54-58) I also strongly
recommend that you get started on the reading for Sept. 25th |
Leibniz Voltaire |
Meditation IV
addresses the problem of reconciling a non-deceiving God with the fact that
he errs. Descartes considers several
responses that are not wholly satisfactory (to him) before he settles on his
own solution. Choose one insufficient
response and briefly explain how Descartes incorporates that response into
his solution and also how his solution improves on it. |
Sept. 25 |
· Meditation 5: God
(58-61) · Anselm, Proslogium,
chapter two, available here. · Spinoza Ethics, Propositions 1-14 &
Appendix (pp. 144-49, 160-64) |
Spinoza
(Ben and Gabe) Anne Conway (Maisie & Mika) Kant’s Philosophy of Religion |
No writing assignment
for today, because I expect you to spend a lot of time on the reading. In class, we will discuss the proofs of the
existence of God in Descartes, Anselm, and Spinoza (Prop 11, first proof). We will also consider whether Spinoza’s
Proposition XIV (p. 149) follows from his (and Descartes’s) proof of the
existence of God. Pay close attention
to what Proposition XIV actually says. |
Sept. 30 |
· Meditation 5: Math
58-61) · Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding,
Book I, chapters 1-1; Book II, chapter 1 (A&W pp. 316-23) · Leibniz, New Essays, selection (pp. 422-425a) |
John
Locke (Siri) Wilhelm
G. Leibniz (Owen S.
& Jack P.) |
Prepare for debate
over innate ideas. Each of you should
email me the best argument for or against the existence of innate ideas, and
offer a response to that argument. You
should then meet in your small groups to prepare your arguments before class. |
Oct. 2 |
· Meditation 6: Proof
of external world (61-8) · Berkeley, Principles
(p. 447) |
George
Berkeley (Liv L.) Samuel Clarke (Andreas
G.) |
Identify the
paragraph in Meditation VI where Descartes proves the existence of the
external world. (The email can just
say something like, “The paragraph is on p. 101 and starts with the words
‘Hermione and Ron’.”) You may (but do
not have to) explain why you chose that paragraph. |
Oct. 7 |
Meditation 6: Mind
and Body (61-8) · Correspondence
between Descartes and Elizabeth, Letters from May 6th through July
1st, 1643; available on pp. 1-8 here. · Also read the Synopsis of Meds II and VI (pp. 39,
40) and the related proof from the Discourse
on the Method, available here (go to Part 4, the paragraph starting “In
the next place, I attentively examined what I was”) |
Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia (Danny) Margaret Cavendish French
Cartesiennes (Anne del la Vigne,
Marie Dupre, and Catherine Descartes) |
In her first letter, Elizabeth asks Descartes a question
about the relationship between mind and body.
Rephrase this question as an objection, and lay out the objection in a
way that makes it as clear, specific, and forceful as possible. you
should also start on the reading for wednesday, since there is a lot of
it. come to class with an informed
opinion about which philosopher you’d like to represent on wednesday. |
Oct. 9 |
Mind and Body Day: · Correspondence
between Descartes and Elizabeth, Letters from May 6th through July
1st, 1643; available on pp. 1-8 here. · Hobbes, Leviathan Introduction and Chapters 1, 2, 5, and 6
(Not all this material is included in Ariew and
Watkins, so use this
link; you can print pages 6-15, 26-40 of
the online version) · Malebranche (pp.
220-223) · Spinoza, Ethics, Part One, Prop. 28; Part Two,
Definitions, Axioms, and Props 1-3, 7, 11-13 [A&W pp. 156, 164-5, 166-7,
168-172] · Conway, Principles
of Philosophy, available here, Chapters VI.1-6,
11; VII summary, 4; VIII.1 and last 2¶s of 2; IX) · Cavendish, Philosophical Letters 1.35, 2.21, 4.30 · Locke, Essay II.xxiii.1-5, 22-32; IV.iii.6.
[A&W, pp. 359-360, 364-6, 393-4.] |
Hobbes Malebranche Spinoza Anne Conway Cavendish Locke |
Each of you will have a philosopher to which you are
assigned. Briefly explain how your
philosopher would answer or address Elizabeth’s question to Descartes, and
offer at least one argument for the superiority of your philosopher’s views
over that of one of the other philosophers we’ll discuss. |
Oct. 14 |
Descartes’s ethics:
Discourse morale par provision and Principles (preface) Read Discourse, available here, all of Part Three. Read the Preface
and Dedicatory Letter to The Principles
of Philosophy, available here. |
Guillaume du Vair Pierre Nicole Hugo Grotius Montaigne (Charlie F.) Machiavelli (Nick N.) |
Choose one maxim
from Descartes’s moral code and apply it to a real-world problem, something
from your life or from current events.
|
Oct. 16 |
Descartes’s ethics
correspondence with Elizabeth and Passions of the Soul, selections. |
Damaris Cudworth, aka Lady Masham (Madison B.) |
Send me a proposed
thesis and at least two quotations you plan to use in your Descartes paper. |
Oct. 21 |
Hume Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding §§1-2,
[pp. 533-41] Also read Locke’s Essay, Book II, Chapter 1 §§1-8,
24-25; Chapter 2 (entire); Chapter XI [A&W, pp. 322-4, 327-8, 339-40] |
Francis Bacon (Blake L.) |
Start on your Hume
paper. Choose a philosophical question
you find interesting and important.
Send me that question and your best 150-300-word answer to the
question. |
Oct. 23 |
Hume, Understanding, §§1-7 [pp. 533-64] |
Malebranche and/or Mary Shepherd
and/or Robert Boyle |
How does Hume
defend the claim that “even after we have experience of the operations of
cause and effect, our conclusions from that experience are not founded on
reasoning or any process of the understanding”? |
Oct. 28 |
Hume, Understanding, §6-8 [pp. 555-575] [Optional but incredibly interesting: Locke’s Essay, II.xxi,
pp. 348-56.] |
Henry More or Ralph Cudworth |
What is “the long disputed question concerning liberty and necessity”
[p. 565a]. Lay out one objection to
Hume’s treatment of this question. |
Oct. 30 |
Hume, Understanding, §9-12 (focus on §10) |
Samuel Pufendorf and/or Emilie du Chatelet Mary
Astell (Siri D.) |
Ask Hume a
“probing” question. This should be a
question about his philosophical views that you think might expose flaws or
limitations with those views. In order
to ask this question well, you need to understand his views well. |
Nov. 4 |
· Hume, Understanding, §12 · Hume, Treatise, Part One, Chapter 4, §7,
available at https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hume/david/treatise-of-human-nature/complete.html#B1.4.7. |
Robert Boyle Isaac Newton or Thomas Reid |
Send an email with
the following: (1) a way that Hume’s philosophy is superior to Descartes’s;
(2) a way that Descartes’s philosophy is superior to Hume’s; and (3) a
lingering question about Hume’s philosophy.
(The last can be even the most basic of questions, if it’s still not
clear to you.) |
Nov. 6 |
Kant, Critique of
Pure Reason, selections from B-Preface, Introduction, Second Analogy [pp.
· 721-22 (from “I
would think…” to the end of p. 722) · 724-725 (from “IV.
On the Distinction” to end of p. 725) · 772-774 (from “Second
Analogy” to “solely and exclusively under this presupposition”) |
Kant’s Theoretical Philosophy (Owen) Thomas Reid |
This reading should
be hard. Come to class having read it
more than once. |
Nov. 11 |
Hume, Enquiry
Concerning the Principles of Morals, Appendix II and Chapters I-II. |
Thomas Hobbes Thomas Reid’s Moral Theory |
Compare Hume’s
philosophical method in the Enquiry
Concerning Morals to his method in the Enquiry Concerning the Understanding. Give at least one similarity and one
difference between the two methods. |
Nov 13 |
Hume,
Morals, Chapters II - V. |
Joseph
Butler and/or
Shaftesbury and/or Hutcheson Immanuel Kant’s
Moral Theory (Faye L.
and Ben K.) |
Submit your proposed thesis for your Hume paper. |
Nov 18 |
Hume,
Morals, Chapters VI – IX |
Thomas
Reid Hutcheson Butler Adam Smith (Nick N.) Voltaire
(Charlie) |
Does Hume provide necessary and sufficient conditions for
moral approval? Rough drafts of your Hume paper are due by noon on Nov. 17th. |
Nov. 20 |
Hume,
Morals, Chapter IX Mill,
Utilitarianism, http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm.
For Mill, read chapters 1, 2, and 4. (Chapters 3 and 5 are interesting and
important, but you should consider these “optional”.) |
J. S. Mill |
Briefly sketch a
particular ethical decision where Hume and Mill would come to different
conclusions about what should be done (and say what those different decisions
would be). Final
drafts of your Hume paper are due (emailed to me) by midnight on Thursday, November 21st. |
|
THANKSGIVING |
THANKSGIVING |
THANKSGIVING |
Dec. 2 |
Sor Juana,theore First Dream
(entire) |
Rousseau (Maisie) Princess Caroline (Andreas G.) Teresa of Avila |
Submit a basic comprehension
question about Sor Juana, something that you think you know the answer to,
but that you think your peers might need to look more closely to answer. |
Dec.
4 |
Sor Juana, First
Dream (entire) |
Mary Astell Mary Wollstonecraft (Liv L.) Hegel (Gabe K.) |
Assume
the persona of one of the other philosophers we have discussed this semester
and submit an “insightful” question for Sor Juana (see assignment for Sept.
11). |
Dec.
9 |
Sor Juana, First
Dream (entire) |
Nietzsche (Ilse and
Danny) Kierkegaard (YJ W.
& Madison B.) |
Rough Draft of Final Paper Due. The sooner you get this rough draft to me,
the sooner you will get comments. |
Dec.
11 |
Review Session and
Paper Workshop |
Final Presentations |
Final Papers are
Due on Friday, December 13th. |
Dec.
19 (9am) |
FINAL EXAM |
FINAL EXAM |
FINAL EXAM |
|
|
|
|