Early Modern Mid-Term: Topics for Study

Final Exam Study Guide

The final will be much like the mid-term, with a quotation identification section (for which you need merely identify the author of various quotations taken from material we have read for the course), a short answer section (in which you will answer two of three short answer questions), and an essay section (in which you will answer one of two essay questions, taken from the list at the end of this study guide).

General Topics:

To what extent is it possible to have knowledge of anything?
What is the ultimate nature of all reality?
What is the human being?

Are human beings free?
What is the connection between the mind and the body?

What is the nature of causation? How does one thing cause changes in another (and especially, how do the mind and body interact?)
Does God exist? If so, what is the nature of God and (how) can one have knowledge of God?

Descartes

Meditation 1 arguments for skepticism (know what each argument is, what it shows and what it doesn’t, and how Descartes eventually responds to that argument later in the Meditations)
Proof of D’s own existence
The nature of the self and how D proves that this is his nature (know Meds 2, 4 and 6 re: the nature of self)
D’s proofs of God’s existence(from Meds 3 and 5); you need to know at least one of these well
The problem of error in Descartes (Med 4) and how D solves this problem
D’s account of human and divine freedom
D’s proof of the reality and nature of the external world
D’s view of the relationship between mind and body (distinct substances but substantially united)
Elizabeth’s objections to D’s account; and D’s response to Elizabeth

Spinoza

Explain the meaning and significance of any of Spinoza’s definitions, axioms, or propositions (that we read)
Give, at least in outline, the arguments for Book I, P11, P14, and P28.
Explain Spinoza’s account of the definition of God, God’s monism, and at least some properties of God
Explain Spinoza’s account of particular things and how these relate to God
Explain the (double) necessity of particular things (dependence upon both God and prior things)
Explain the three sorts of knowledge
Offer a Spinozist account of the relationship between mind and body
Offer some explanation of the final proposition of the Ethics, that is, how Spinoza thinks that blessedness and virtue are possible and what that has to do with the Ethics as a whole.

Leibniz

The difference and relationships between perception, apperception, and appetite
The nature and types of monads (substances, souls, minds)
“Interactions” among monads (including mind-body interaction)
Leibniz’s account of personal identity (monads, entelechy, haeceitty)
Pre-established harmony
The identity of indiscernibles
Leibniz’s account of the distinction between necessity and contingency
Human freedom and human motivation. Here you should be able to clearly explain the role of God in causing particular human actions.

Locke

Locke’s arguments vs innate ideas (and responses to innatist responses)
The nature and origin of ideas (simple vs. complex, sensation vs. reflection)
The different sources of complex ideas (see especially Book II, chapter XII)
Ideas vs. qualities; and Primary and secondary qualities
The idea of power (why problematic, why important, how Locke accounts for it, active vs. passive powers)
Human freedom (whether humans have a “free will”) and human motivation (what actually moves us to act)
The idea of substance in general and of particular substances
The relationship between mind and body, knowledge of mind and of body
The nature and extent of knowledge; Knowledge of existence (of self, God’s, and sensible things)
Probability (what it is, why important)

Berkeley

Arguments against abstract ideas and the implications of these arguments
“esse is percepi” – understand what the claim is and Berkeley’s proofs of it
Arguments vs. corporeal substance
Arguments vs. the primary/secondary quality distinction
Arguments vs. ideas of substratum and powers
Berkeley’s argument for the existence of minds/spirits
Berkeley’s argument for the existence of God
Berkeley’s account of natural laws

Hume

The relationship between of impressions and ideas and the methodological importance of this relationship for Hume’s analyses of ideas
Hume’s “mitigated” skepticism (contrast with Descartes, see especially Hume chapter XII)
Matters of fact vs. Relations of ideas
Argument vs. justified knowledge of causation (& implications of this for knowledge of matters of fact)
The nature of causal inference and of our idea of cause/necessary connection (i.e., if we don’t have rationally justified knowledge of causation, what sort of knowledge do we have and how do we have this?)
Free will and Necessity re: human actions
Miracles

Kant

Taxonomy of judgments: analytic-synthetic and a priori-empirical
Importance and difficulty of the question “How are a priori synthetic judgments possible?”
Kant’s “Copernican” turn (that objects conform to cognitions); how this helps answer the question “How are a priori synthetic judgments possible?”
Proof that space is an a priori intuition and the significance of this proof.
Distinction between perceptions, appearances/objects, and things in themselves
Transcendental idealism (knowledge of objects but not of things in themselves): how does Kant defend this (note role of antinomies) and what are its implications; Kant’s idealism vs. Berkeley’s/Descartes’.
Response to Hume on causation (i.e., Kant’s proof that causation is an a priori category for experience)
Human freedom (understand what Kant’s antinomy proves and why, what his discussion in the Critique of Practical Reason adds and why, and how Kant reconciles universal causation with human freedom)

You should be prepared for quotation identifications from all of the above figures, as well as Elizabeth, Hobbes, Malebranche, and Reid.

Possible Essay Questions

Is Hume basically just an atheist Berkeley? Is Kant?
Kant is often seen as providing a sort of synthesis of rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) and empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, and Hume). After explaining the features of Kant’s philosophy that would make this interpretation seem reasonable, explain at least one important reason that Kant cannot be seen as offering any such synthesis.
Of the philosophical views that we’ve studied this semester, which provides the best response to the most important skeptical arguments of Descartes’s first Meditation? (This response could involve endorsing or even expanding one or more of those skeptical arguments, and/or could involve showing how/why the skeptical arguments don’t work.)
In 1580, Montaigne wrote an essay entitled “On Cannibals,” in which he claims, “we have no other level of truth and reason, than the example and idea of the opinions and customs of the place wherein we live.” In writing these words, Montaigne captures one possible response to the diversity that Europeans were beginning to discover in their world during the 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th centuries. Of the philosophers we’ve read, whose philosophy provides the best way of dealing with the diversity in human opinions that one finds not only across cultures but even within our own. In defending that philosopher, be sure to show specifically how their philosophy is a better response to this diversity that the opinion articulated here by Montaigne. You should also show how the philosophy you defend is better than at least one other philosophy we study this semester. (If you do not defend Kant as the best, you must give at least some explanation of why his approach is not the best.)
Lay out, as plausibly as you can, Hume’s argument that we can have no knowledge of causes and effects. Then explain whose philosophy (of those we covered in class) provides the best response to Hume. (If Kant is not the best, explain why not.) Finally, briefly assess whether an even better response could be given.
Lay out Locke’s views on the relationship between mind and body and assess whether it sufficiently addresses Elizabeth’s criticisms of Descartes’ view. (In the process, you’ll need to briefly lay out Descartes’ view and Elizabeth’s objections.) Then assess Locke’s claims about the mind-body relationship in the light of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Does Locke stay within the limits that Kant imposes on human knowledge? Are Locke’s limitations on human knowledge too narrow? To what extent do answers to those questions bear on the sufficiency of Locke’s response to Elizabeth?
In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant “den[ies] knowledge in order to make room for faith.” With respect to human freedom in particular, this means that we can have “faith” that human beings are free but cannot “know” that they are free. Explain how Kant denies knowledge of human freedom in order to make room for faith in human freedom. Then use Kant’s argument to criticize the philosopher who best argued that we can have knowledge of human freedom. Finally, use the arguments of at least one (other) philosopher to object to Kant’s claim that we are allowed to have faith in human freedom.
If you had to identify Kant as a disciple of one other philosopher we’ve read this semester, who would it be? Why not Leibniz (if Leibniz is not the one you think he fits best)? Why not Berkeley (if Berkeley is not the one you think he fits best)? Why not Hume (if Hume is not the one you think he fits best)? (You should answer all of these questions in your answer.)
How is Kant’s idealism different than Berkeley’s and Descartes’?
Use Kant to argue against the best argument for the existence of God that we studied this semester. (To do this well, you’ll need to lay out and defend what you take to be the best argument for God’s existence.) If appropriate, present a response to Kant’s objections. (You needn’t give Kant’s actual objections to these arguments, but the best Kantian objections, based on what we’ve read of Kant.)
Of the philosophers we read this semester, whose philosophy is the most ethically dangerous? Why?