Philosophy 202 (Fall 2011)
Readings in the Western Philosophical Tradition: Modern Philosophy
Prof.
Patrick Frierson
Office
Hours: Tuesday 9:30-10:30, Wednesday 1-3, and by appointment
Goals:
With
respect to content, this course focuses on central epistemological and
metaphysical arguments of key philosophers of the modern period (1600-1800).
The philosophers on whom we will focus are Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke,
Berkeley, Hume, and 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) What is the ultimate nature of
all reality?
(3) What is the human being? (In
particular: Are human beings free? and What is the connection between the mind
and the body?)
(4) What is the nature of causation?
How does one thing cause changes in another? (Particularly, how do the mind and
body interact?)
(5) Does God exist? If so, what is
the nature of God and (how) can one have knowledge of God?
With respect to skills, this course will help you
develop as a philosopher in four key respects. First, we will use modern
philosophers to help our own philosophical reflection, philosophizing with them
and through 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 viewpoint or forms of
expression different form your own, and thus for thriving in an increasingly
diverse world. Third, you will learn both to explain the ideas of others and to
articulate your own ideas in writing (both formal and informal) and
orally. Finally, though group
assignments and class discussions, you will learn to work effectively in a
group settings and will cultivate practices of philosophical interaction with
your peers.
These skills will be cultivated through several different kinds of
assignments. You have some flexibility
about which assignments you complete over the course of the semester. Some assignments are required of every student,
and each student must select other assignments to add up to a “full” load of
assignments for the course. With the
exception of the final paper, which counts for all students, if a student
completes more than the required number of assignments, only the best 100% will
be counted towards her final grade.[1] All of these assignments are described in
detail at the end of the syllabus, but here is a brief snapshot of course
requirements:
|
Required of all students: Reading (0%) Participation (0%) Descartes Paper (10%, due 5PM,
Wed., Sept 21st) Final Paper (30%, due Sunday,
Dec. 11th)
|
Choose enough to add up to 60%
or more of your final grade: Group Projects (Spinoza, Leibniz,
Locke, Berkeley, and Hume; 20% each, due dates on timeline below) Presentations (Presentation
options on timeline below, 10-20% each) Mid-term exam (20%) Final (written) exam (30%) Final (oral) exam (20%) |
Timeline of Readings and Assignments
|
|
Reading (Except
where noted, page numbers refer to the 2009 edition of Ariew and Watkins, Modern Philosophy) |
Topics
for Discussion |
Assignments
(boldface refers to something you
need to turn in to me) |
|
August
30 |
Various
selections from Descartes, Bacon, Galileo, and Montaigne (AW vii-x, 1-3,
18-19, 21-33, 35-40, and Montaigne’s “Of
Cannibals,” available here.) |
–Nature/origins
of modern philosophy –Intro
Descartes’s philosophy –Expectations
for course |
Decide
which philosophical problem you will address in your paper and come up with a
more specific question related to that problem. You should decide this based more on your
interests than the reading. |
|
Sept.
1 |
Descartes’s
Meditations (1) (AW 35-47, 69-72, 76) |
–Purpose of Meditations –D’s
skeptical arguments |
Check
out an online resource, the Philosophy
Writing Tutor, for general advice on writing philosophy papers. |
|
Sept.
6 |
Descartes’s Meditations (1-3) 43-54, 76-82 |
–Overcoming
skepticism: “I am” –Nature of
the self –Nature of
knowledge (wax) |
Think
about where Descartes has or will address your topic most directly, and also
about indirect ways in which his discussion is relevant to your topic. This may require reading/skimming ahead.
Complete the “getting started” part of the Writing Tutor. |
|
Sept.
8 |
Descartes’s Meditations (2-4) 47-58, 72-75, 86b (especially
“my only remaining concern…”), 92b
(especially “finally, as to the fact”) |
–Proof(s)
of God’s existence –Overcoming
skepticism: God –Problem
of Error –Human
Freedom –A
Cartesian Circle? |
Complete a first rough draft of
your papers. You should email these to
me no later than midnight tonight. (I will not read or comment on these
papers, but you need to email them to me so that I know you are on
track. If you have specific questions
about your paper, please ask those in the body of your email. I will reply to as many of these as I can.) |
|
Sept.
13 |
Descartes’s Meditations (5-6) 58-68 |
--Another
Proof of God’s existence –Proof of
external world –Proof of
Mind-body distinctness –Mind-body
relationship –Problem of
sensory error/nature of sensory knowledge |
Finish
a polished draft of your whole paper and show this draft to at least one
other person, asking for issues or concerns that you need to address or need
to deal with better.[2] |
|
Sept.
15 |
Descartes’s Meditations AW 61-68 Correspondence between Elizabeth
and Descartes (read the first 8 pages of the file available here.) Malebranche, The Search
after Truth, (AW 212-215) Hobbes, Leviathan,
chapters ii and vi, available online here. Possible
readings from MARGARET CAVENDISH (FOR STUDENT PRESENTATION) |
–Mind-body
relationship –Elizabeth’s
criticisms of Descartes and his replies –Alternative
solutions to the mind-body problem –Wrap up
Descartes POSSIBLE
PRESENTATIONS: ·
MALEBRANCHE ·
HOBBES ·
MARGARET
CAVENDISH |
Revise your paper, including making sure that the paper includes
the strongest possible objections to the thesis you are defending you’re your
responses to those objections.[3] |
|
SUNDAY,
Sept. 18 |
DESCARTES PAPERS DUE |
DESCARTES PAPERS DUE |
PAPERS
DUE BY 5 PM, SUN, SEPTEMBER 18th, EMAILED TO ME AT frierspr@whitman.edu WITH YOUR NAME AT
THE START OF THE FILENAME.[4] |
|
Sept.
20 |
Spinoza, Ethics, Part V, Prop. 42 and Part 1, through Prop. 14 (AW 195, 144-149) |
–Blessedness –Spinoza’s
philosophical method –Definitions
and Axioms –Proof of
God’s existence (P11) |
–Complete
the Spinoza worksheet for Proposition 11. –Come to
class with specific questions for or challenges of at least two definitions,
axioms, or proofs. |
|
Sept.
22 |
Spinoza, Ethics, Pt. 1
(entire) |
–Monism
(P14) –Argument
against free will (P32) –Universal
determinism of finite things (P28) –Against
religious prejudices (Appendix) |
–Revise/correct
worksheet for P11 –Complete
worksheet for P14 and P28. –Come ready
to discuss P11, P14, P28, and the appendix. |
|
Sept.
27 |
Spinoza, Ethics, Pt.
2. Def’ns, Axioms, P1–7, P11-14, P40-44 (You should also skim, but not read the proofs for, the rest of
part 2.) Spinoza, Ethics, Pt.
5, Preface and P21-28, 42 (AW 164-72,
179-83, 188-95) |
–Nature
of the human mind –Types
of knowledge –Highest
end of human beings (P 25) –Comparison
of Spinoza and Descartes |
–Revise/correct
worksheets for P14 and P28 –Complete
worksheet for P II,7 and V, 25. SPINOZA GROUP ASSIGNMENTS AND FINAL PAPER DRAFTS MUST BE EMAILED
TO ME BY 5 PM ON SUNDAY, OCT. 2. |
|
Sept.
29 |
Leibniz,
Monadology, entire 275-83 |
–nature
and types of monads –perception
and apperception –God’s
existence –interactions
amongst monads (e.g. mind-body) |
POSSIBLE PRESENTATION: ·
ANNE CONWAY –Prepare
a draft translation of at least the first two lines of the nursery rhyme. –come
to class with specific questions on key Leibnizian terms |
|
Oct.
4 |
Leibniz,
Monadology, entire Discourse on Metaphysics,
§§30-32, New Essays Preface 275-83, 242-44, 425-427 |
–perception and
apperception –preestablished
harmony –theodicy/best of
all worlds –human freedom –principles of
contradiction and sufficient reason |
–Revise
draft of first two lines, add translation of rest of rhyme. –Run
through list of key concepts to see what is (so far) left out of your
translation |
|
Oct.
6 |
Leibniz,
Synopsis
of Theodicy
(online) POSSIBLE STUDENT PRESENTATIONS ON VOLTAIRE AND/OR CLARKE |
–Theodicy –Leibniz Review –Possible
presentations on Voltaire and/or Clarke –
Following class, until as late as 1:45, I will hold a review session for the
mid-term. |
POSSIBLE PRESENTATIONS: ·
VOLTAIRE ·
SAMUEL CLARKE ·
JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU |
|
Oct.
11 |
Mid-semester Break |
Mid-semester Break |
Work on final papers, prepare for mid-term, finish draft of
nursery rhymes. |
|
Oct.
13 |
No reading/catch up |
Review session for
final exam and/or paper workshop |
|
|
Oct.
18 |
MID-TERM
EXAM |
For a list of topics you should study for the mid-term, click here. For
a sample of the mid-term format, click here. |
|
|
Oct.
20 |
Locke’s
Essay and Leibniz’s New Essays AW 316-322, 422-425a |
–Locke’s
critique of innate ideas –Leibniz’s
response –
Review role of innate ideas in Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz –Debate the
validity of innate ideas |
–Prepare
for debate between Locke and Leibniz about the legitimacy of innate
ideas. (You should be ready to defend
either position; I’ll assign you at the start of class.) LEIBNIZ GROUP ASSIGNMENTS AND FINAL PAPER DRAFTS MUST BE EMAILED
TO ME NO LATER THAN 5 PM ON WEDNESDAY, OCT 24. |
|
Oct.
25 |
Locke’s
Essay Bk I, ch 1, Bk II, chs 1-2,
5-12 (especially ch. 8 ¶¶9-23) AW 316-18, 322-42 |
–Locke’s
epistemological turn –origin of ideas –sensation vs.
reflection –primary
vs. secondary qualities |
|
|
Oct.
27 |
Locke’s
Essay Bk II, chs 21, 23 AW 348-367 |
–idea
of power –human
free will –ideas of
substances |
|
|
Nov.
1 |
Locke’s
Essay IV.1-3, 10-15, especially
IV.1-3, IV.11¶¶8-10, IV.15¶¶1-4 AW 386-95, 413-14, 415-16 (skim AW 405-417) |
–nature and extent
of knowledge (compare with Descartes) –mind–body
relationship –knowledge of God –knowledge of
existence –probability |
|
|
3 |
Berkeley,
Principles 435-448 |
–skepticism –abstract ideas –esse is percepi –primary
and secondary qualities |
LOCKE GROUP ASSIGNMENTS AND FINAL PAPER DRAFTS MUST BE EMAILED
TO ME NO LATER THAN 5PM ON SUNDAY, NOV 6. |
|
8 |
Berkeley,
Principles 446-453 |
–vs. ideas
of substances, powers, etc –minds –God –natural laws |
|
|
10 |
Hume’s
Enquiry §§ 1-5 533-555 |
–ideas and
impressions –matters of fact
vs. relations of ideas –Hume
on the importance and legitimacy of causal inferences |
FINAL PAPER DRAFTS AND BERKELEY GROUP ASSIGNMENTS (IN .MP3 OR
.WMA FORMAT) SHOULD BE EMAILED TO ME NO LATER THAN 5 PM ON SUNDAY, NOV. 13. |
|
15 |
Hume’s
Enquiry §§ 6-8, 10 555-575, 577-586 |
–Causation –Human freedom –Miracles |
|
|
Nov.
17 |
Hume’s
Enquiry §12 Hume’s
Treatise I.v-vi Possible
selections from Reid or Rousseau 593-600, 517-32 |
–mitigated
skepticism –self-knowledge –personal
identity –Reid
presentation? |
POSSIBLE PRESENTATIONS: ·
THOMAS REID ·
JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU |
|
Thanksgiving Break |
Thanksgiving Break |
Complete a polished draft of final paper |
|
|
Nov.
29 |
Kant,
Critique of Pure Reason 717-729 + this short
online handout |
–Kant’s
“Copernican turn” –analytic
vs. synthetic/a priori vs. a posteriori –problem of
a priori synthetic knowledge |
HUME GROUP ASSIGNMENTS AND FINAL PAPER DRAFTS MUST BE EMAILED TO
ME NO LATER THAN 5 PM ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23. |
|
Dec.
1 |
Kant,
Critique of Pure Reason 729-737 |
–proof that
space (and time) are a priori intuitions –transcendental
idealism |
|
|
Dec.
6 |
Kant,
Critique of Pure Reason 722, 724a, 768-779, 798-800, 811-19, handout (from Critique of Practical Reason) |
–a
priori concepts –argument
for substance –argument
for causation (vs. Hume) –possibility
of human freedom? |
|
|
Dec.
8 |
Kant,
Critique of Pure Reason 781-783 |
–Kant’s refutation
of “idealism” –Kant’s
responses to Descartes and Berkeley –Review
and Conclusion of course |
FOR STUDENTS NOT TAKING THE FINAL EXAM, FINAL PAPERS ARE DUE NO
LATER THAN MIDNIGHT ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 11. |
|
Monday,
December 12 |
FINAL EXAM AT 9 AM |
For a list of
topics you should study for the mid-term (including possible essay
questions), click here. |
FINAL EXAM AT 9 AM, MONDAY DECEMBER 12. FOR STUDENTS TAKING THE FINAL EXAM, FINAL
PAPERS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN MIDNIGHT ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14. |
Course Assignments
Reading
and Participation:
All students are expected to come to every class having read the assigned material at
least twice and to have thought carefully about it. I do not necessarily
expect you to have a complete understanding of the material, but you should
read carefully and repeatedly until you have a good understanding of much of
what is assigned, and for the material that you do not understand, you should
come to class with specific questions
about what you do not understand. If I call on you to explain a particular
passage, you should not respond “I didn’t get that passage.” Instead, you
should say, “Well, I thought that Spinoza meant such-and-such, but then I
couldn’t figure out how to reconcile that understanding with what he said
later, when he said this-and-that, since this-and-that seems to conflict with
such-and-such in this particular way.”
If your understanding is still at the “I don’t get it” level, then you
have more work to do. If it’s at the “I
thought that . . . but . . .,” then I have work to do. Participation
in class discussion is an essential part of the class, and I may alter final
grades either up or down, depending upon your participation over the course of
the semester, but participation is not worth any particular percentage of your
grade. The book for this class is
available in the Whitman
Bookstore: 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.
Deadlines: All assignments for this course should be
turned in at the date and time for which they are due. I will give a one hour grade period after
assignments are due, but after that grace period, assignments that are turned
in late will immediately be penalized by one full grade point, and the grade
will drop by an addition one point every 24 hours. (Thus an assignment that is A quality work
but 61 minutes late will get a B. The same assignment, 75 hours late, will get
an F.) I highly recommend turning in
your assignments – especially group assignments – early, and all members of a
team will be held responsible for the failure of any one member to get work
done on time.
Written
assignments: All written assignments,
including your papers and your group assignments, should be submitted to me by
email. To submit the work by email, you
should email your work in .doc format to frierspr@whitman.edu. You must include your first and last name as
the first terms in the filename. (So, for instance, when Jane Doe turns in her
Descartes paper, she should save the paper under the filename “jane doe
descartes paper.doc”. Papers saved with
the wrong filename will not be read by me.
For group projects, you should save the paper with the last name of
every group participant in the filename (e.g. “doe lopez mccarty lee spinoza
project.doc”). More specific information
on each assignment is below.
Exams:
All exams will be closed book and will involve quotation identification, short
(1-3 paragraph) response questions, and at least one longer essay
question. For the midterm, you will have
a full class period (80 minutes). For
the final, you will have 2 hours. I will
make a review sheet available before each exam.
Group
Assignments: This course is organized around a series of philosophers, for
each of which (with the exceptions of Descartes and Kant) there are specific
projects. I have found these projects to be conducive to learning the material,
so I encourage every student to work on every assignment throughout the
semester, but you will also have the opportunity to work on some of these assignments
for credit. To get credit for an
assignment, you must work on it in a group (of 4-5 students), and you will be
graded on the project as a whole. Each
of these projects can be worth up to 20% of your final grade in the
course. Of that, approximately 15% will
be a group grade, based on the overall quality of the finished product produced
by your group.[5] The remaining 5% will be an individual grade,
based on self- and peer-assessments. For
each group assignment, the group as a whole should send me the finished
product, and each member of the group should send me an email with a short
assessment of the performance of her/himself and of each of the other members
of the group. You should provide a “score” for yourself and your peers, from 1
to 7, along with a short explanation of why you gave that score. In scoring
your teammates, you should focus not merely on specific content that group
members may have contributed, but also to the effect that the group member had
on the dynamics of the group. (A brilliant interpreter of Leibniz who is
hostile and uncooperative may get a 1. A student who struggles to understand
very basic arguments in Descartes but is able to ask questions well and get his
teammates to cooperate in completing the assignment well might get a 6 or
7.) I very strongly encourage you to be
fair with your assessments, both of yourself and of your teammates, and you
should give at most one score above five (and even that, only if truly
warranted). Here is the meaning I intend
for you to give to the scores you assign:
1
= Unacceptable performance. This group member did not
contribute to the success of the group, and/or may even have slowed us down.
2
= Very poor. This group member contributed something, but either the quantity
or the quality of his/her contributions were very weak. Virtually none of
his/her contributions showed up in the final result, or if they did, group
members regret not having the time to change these contributions.
3
= Below Average. This group member made real and positive contributions that
improved the final product, but not in ways as significant or pervasive as I
expect of a typical Whitman student.
4
= Average/Good. This group member did her/his duty, contributing a reasonable
amount of reasonably high quality insight, thought, hard work, and cooperative
engagement with the group. Her/his ideas made a significant and positive
contribution to the final product. (This should be the standard default score.)
5
= Very good. This group member went above and beyond what one would expect of
a typical member of a group. S/he had insights far beyond other members of the
group, and/or raised important questions that focused on key issues, and/or
explained difficult material to other group members in particularly clear and
helpful ways, and/or helped organize or motivate the rest of the group in
particularly important ways. (You should give at most one score above 5.)
6
= Excellent. This group member transformed the group in a way that made the
final product and the overall experience manifestly better than they would
otherwise have been. S/he was a de facto team leader, motivating and organizing
us, and s/he contributed in essential and irreplaceable ways to our performance
as a team. (You should give at most one
score above 5.)
7
= Extraordinary. I could not have imagined a team member as valuable as this one.
S/he should be hired as a Whitman professor, or at least as TA for this class
next year. (You should give at most one score of 7 during the course of the
semester.)
Specific information on each group assignment is below.
Presentations: Over
the course of the semester, there will be several opportunities for students to
give presentations on important early modern philosophers that we will not read
for this course. Any student is free to sign up for these class presentations.
If no students sign up for a given philosopher, we will not discuss that
philosopher in this course. If more than 3 students sign up for a particular
philosopher, only the first three who sign up will be allowed to present (as a
group) on that philosopher. You must sign up at least 10 days before the
scheduled presentation. Students who sign up for presentations will need to
read primary sources by this person and secondary sources about them, and then
pick a short selection (no more than 10 pages, preferably less than 5 pages)
for your classmates to read that will give the main points and at least one
major argument of the philosopher. (These selections must be made available to
your classmates the class period prior to your presentation. You may either
email the class with a link, document, or PDF; or bring 40 copies of the
reading to hand out in class.) On the day of the presentation, students will be
expected to give a short presentation (no more than 10 minutes) providing an
overview of the philosopher on whom they are presenting. This overview should
go substantially beyond the assigned readings; the idea is to give fellow
students a sense for the philosopher as a whole. On these days, our class discussion
will incorporate the readings from these philosophers. For full credit (20%),
students must prepare a short paper outlining the key aspects of the
philosopher on whom they presented and assessing the treatment that their
philosopher received during class discussion. For presentations by groups of
more than one, each person should also submit a very brief self/peer assessment
(as for group assignments).
You can find information about almost all of the figures you are
expected to present on in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy and on many of them in the in the Cambridge
History of Seventeenth Century Philosophy (on reserve). Cambridge Companions are also good places to start in investigating
these philosophers (The Cambridge
Companion to Hobbes, for instance.) You are expected to make use of both
primary and secondary sources in preparing your presentation, and I strongly
encourage you to come to me for help in tracking these down. You must make
use of at least some non-electronic resources in preparing your presentation. (Incidentally,
while helpful in some respects, Wikipedia
does
not constitute a legitimate source of information for your presentations.)
Course Papers
One of the main skills that you will learn in this class is the
integration of historical-philosophical sources into papers in which you defend
your own answer to an important philosophical problem. For both of the required papers for the class,
I will be looking for a clear, complex, interesting, and controversial thesis
that is defended with compelling philosophical arguments in precise, elegant,
and grammatically correct prose. Both
papers will also involve interaction with historical philosophical arguments,
and I am looking for a use of such arguments that goes beyond a mere “compare
and contrast” essay and instead engages with well-articulated and
textually-defended interpretations of historical philosophers in ways that
advance your own philosophical argument.
Descartes
Paper (10%): This assignment is required for
all students. At the end of the
first unit of the course (on Descartes), you will write a paper related to one
of the five philosophical problems listed above (knowledge, reality, human
being, causation, or God). In this
paper, you should articulate a specific question related to your problem, one
narrower than the question above. (For
example, instead of “to what extent is it possible to have knowledge of
anything?” you might ask, “How can one respond to the skeptical arguments
against the senses that Descartes lays out in Meditation One?” or “What kind of
knowledge is possible of the physical world?”)
You should defend a specific thesis that answers this question, and you
should use Descartes in the course of defending that thesis. (We will discuss in class ways for using
Descartes to defend your own thesis.)
This paper will be a first try at what you will end up doing for your
course paper at the end of the semester, so while you will not be bound to use
the same topic for the final paper, you are encouraged to choose a topic you
will want to think about for the rest of the semester. This paper should be no less than 800 and no
more than 1500 words.
Course
Paper (30%, due May 13): This assignment is required for
all students. Over the course of
the semester, you will write a single, complex paper, answering a question
related to one of the five philosophical problems listed above (knowledge, reality, human being,
causation, or God). By the end of the semester, you will write a paper of no
less than 1500 and no more than 2500 words that engages with at least three of
the philosophers we study over the course of the semester and defends a clear,
complex, interesting, and controversial thesis that answers a question related
to (but more specific than) the question listed above.[6] While
your final paper is not due until December
11, you will work on it throughout the semester. Paper drafts are due after
each new philosopher, on the same day that group assignments are due: October 2, October 24, November 6, November
13, and November 23. (If you are doing a group assignment, you do not need
to submit a draft for that week, but you should incorporate that philosopher in
your next draft.) You may use your
Descartes paper as your “first draft,” but whether you stick with the same
topic or not, each later draft must include at
least 500 words of new content dealing with the philosopher we have just
studied. (Thus the draft on October 24 should include at least 500 words of
content dealing with Leibniz.) You must email drafts to me so that I know you
are keeping up to speed on your writing process, but I will not generally comment on
paper drafts. If you have particular questions about the progress of
your paper and/or your understanding of a particular philosophy, you should
highlight those questions in the email in which you send me your draft or
schedule a meeting with me. Throughout the course of the semester, in addition
to adding perspectives of new philosophers, you should refine the question you
aim to answer and gradually form your own ideas about how best to answer that
question, drawing from your interactions with the philosophers we are studying.
Before submitting the final draft, you will also need to decide which figures
are the most important to include in the final draft, and you will have to cut
material that is less relevant in order to ensure that you do justice to your
topic, defend your thesis adequately, and include sufficient treatments of the
three philosophers on whom you focus. The final draft of the paper will be due
on May 13.
Group
Assignment #1: Spinoza Worksheet – Due October 2, 5 PM
For each proposition below, work through Spinoza’s whole proof. I
recommend reading through the assigned reading in the order Spinoza presents
it, and then working backwards through each key proposition’s proof, tracing
back to the axioms and definitions on which it ultimately depends. When
you finally turn in the worksheet, you should have clearly written answers to
each question. (Answers to part (a) can take the form of a simple “yes”
or “no.” All other questions should be answered with at least one clear
and concise paragraph.)
1. Prop 11: God . . . necessarily exists.
a) Does Spinoza successfully prove proposition
11?
b) If not, what specific
inferences are invalid, what specific axioms are false, and/or what specific
definitions are illegitimate? (In answering this question, be prepared to
explain in precisely what sense the inferences are invalid, the axioms are
false, or the definitions are illegitimate; and also be sure that you have
identified the precise role that such inferences, axioms, or definitions play
in Spinoza’s argument.)
c) What significance would P 11 have for Spinoza’s
contemporaries (e.g. Descartes)?
d) What significance would believing it have for
us?
2. Prop. 14: There can be . . . no other substance but God.
a) Given Prop 11, does Spinoza successfully
prove proposition 14?
b) If not, what specific inferences are invalid,
what specific axioms are false, and/or what specific definitions are
illegitimate? (In answering this question, be prepared to explain in
precisely what sense the inferences are invalid, the axioms are false, or the
definitions are illegitimate.) In particular, are there any invalid
inferences between P11 and P14 (or any new axioms
or definitions of which Spinoza makes use that are problematic)? That is,
is Spinoza correct that if God necessarily exists, then
there can be no substance but God?
c) What significance would believing P 14 have for
Spinoza’s contemporaries (e.g. Descartes)?
d) What significance would believing it have for
us?
3. Prop. 28: Every individual thing . . ..
a) Given Props 11 and 14, does Spinoza successfully
prove proposition 28?
b) If not, what specific inferences are invalid,
what specific axioms are false, and/or what specific definitions are
illegitimate? (In answering this question, be prepared to explain in
precisely what sense the inferences are invalid, the axioms are false, or the
definitions are illegitimate.)
c) What significance would believing P 28 have for
Spinoza’s contemporaries (e.g. Descartes)?
d) What significance would believing it have for
us?
4. Book II, Prop. 7: The order and connection of ideas is the same as
the order and connection of things.
a) Does Spinoza successfully prove proposition 7?
b) If not, what specific inferences are invalid,
what specific axioms are false, and/or what specific definitions are
illegitimate? (In answering this question, be prepared to explain in
precisely what sense the inferences are invalid, the axioms are false, or the
definitions are illegitimate.)
c) What is the significance of P 7 within
Spinoza’s Ethics?
d) What significance would believing P 7 have for
Spinoza’s contemporaries (e.g. Descartes)?
e) What significance would believing it have for
us?
5. Book V, Prop 25: The highest . . . virtue is to understand things by
the third kind of knowledge. For analyzing this Proposition, you should
use the hypertext edition of Spinoza’s Ethics, available at http://www.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica-front.html.
a) What do you think would be the most problematic
aspects of Spinoza’s proof of proposition 25?
b) What significance would believing it have for
us? (Here take into account, too, Book V, P42.)
Group Assignment #2: Leibniz in
Preschool
Due at 5 PM on October 24th
Jack and Jill went up the hill,
To fetch a pail of water;
Jack
fell down, and broke his crown,
And
Jill came tumbling after.
In
your translation, be sure to make use of the following concepts (alas, page
numbers are not up-to-date):
To
get you started, you might say “The monad that is Jack had a series of changing
perceptions (such as . . .”
Group Assignment #3: Lockean
Poetics
Due 5PM, November 6
Analyze a
poem in terms of Locke's Essay. While
you may present your results in the form of a paper, I encourage you
to do a poster or any other format for which you get prior approval from me (a
short play?).[7] YOU MAY ANALYZE ANY POEM THAT YOU CHOOSE. (For a complete and searchable e-text of
Locke’s Essay, click HERE.
And HERE is a great site for finding poems.)
The analysis should explain what sorts of ideas are referred to by
some representative words in the poem. (Aim to find at least one example each
of simple ideas of sensation, simple ideas of reflection, complex ideas of
sensation and complex ideas of reflection. If possible, you also should give
examples of primary and secondary qualities in the poem.) You should analyze
the literal meaning of the poem, discussing whether it provides
"knowledge" in Lockean terms, or probable opinion, or both or
neither. But you should also discuss what you take the main point of the poem
to be, what the poem teaches, what it does to the reader, and so on. As a whole, does the
poem provide "knowledge" in Lockean terms? If so, specifically how?
If not, is this a problem for the poem (or for Locke's theory of
knowledge)?
Group
Assignment #4: "Conversations
with Berkeley"
(This
assignment will be done in pairs.)
Due
at 5 PM November 13
For this assignment, you
will need to help other people explain the most important aspects of Berkeley's
thought and then give their opinions about his philosophy. First, you'll need
to find two friends or acquaintances who have never taken a philosophy class.
Then, you'll need some sort of recording device (a tape recorder, a
microphone-computer set up, or something similar). Finally, you'll need a
comfortable place for a chat, and the requisite refreshments so that you and
your guest are comfortable. (Please avoid intoxicants until after you have
completed the assignment.) Once you are set up, the two of you simply need to
explain to your guests the basics of Berkeley's philosophy, answer questions,
clarify Berkeley’s views, find out what your guests find most interesting about
it . . . in other words, you need to have a conversation. During this, you
should take the stance of people defending Berkeley's view. (Aim to be
Berkeley-channelers.) You should record the whole conversation, but what you
will actually turn in is three recordings of no more than 5 minutes each (and
no more than 10 minutes total). The first recording should include what you
think is the most interesting and important 5 minutes of your conversation. The
second recording should be the one in which your guest most clearly explains
Berkeley's thought and gives his or her opinion about it. In the final
recording (which you can make at a later time), you should explain what was
hardest to explain about Berkeley, and/or any challenges that you encountered
in the course of your conversation. (At the start of the conversation, and at
the start of the recording that you turn in, you should have each participant
in the conversation state their full name, year, and major.)
For
help setting up and/or editing these tapes, you should contact Instructional
Multimedia Services (see http://www.whitman.edu/content/wcts/ims/).
The recordings should all be converted into .mp3 or .wma or some other easily readable
digital form.
Group Assignment #5:
Hume across the disciplines
Due by 5 PM November
23.
For
this assignment, you are to report on the implications of Hume's philosophy for
knowledge in disciplines other than philosophy. You may choose up to three
knowledge-claims made in another discipline or disciplines. These should come from a textbook or
equivalent (e.g. a scientific article or a book of history). You should provide quote the relevant claim
or claims at the start of your report and should provide me a .pdf or photocopy
of the sections in the book(s) that most directly argue for the claim(s). You should then provide a Humean analysis of
these knowledge-claims. Do they really
count as knowledge? Why or why not? Why might they seem to be knowledge? Do they carry probability? What is the nature
and origin of belief in them? This
report can be presented as an essay, outline, poster, or in any format that
best presents Hume’s criticisms of the relevant knowledge-claims. The ideal length of a written commentary
would be 1500-2500 words.
[1] There is one
other exception to this policy. Students
who choose to do group assignments and get very low peer reviews on those group
assignments will have those assignments count towards their final grade, even
if they do better on other assignments.
[2] At this
stage, you should make sure that you have a clear, complex, controversial, and
interesting thesis statement. Your paper
should have at least six paragraphs, each of which clearly establishes one important
point in support of your overall thesis using philosophical and text-based
argument. You should have several
references to and/or quotations of Descartes to support your arguments. You should either cut your introduction
entirely and leave just the thesis statement, or you should actually use your
introduction to advance your argument.
NO FLUFF. And you should make
sure that the paper is grammatically perfect.
[3] Ideally, by
the time you finish with this draft, your paper will be too long. You should
then shorten it by cutting material that is not essential and by tightening up
your writing.
[4] YOUR PAPER MUST BE IN .DOC FORMAT AND THE
FILENAME MUST BEGIN WITH YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME. (E.g, if your name is Jane Doe, you would
send me a paper with a filename like ‘jane doe Descartes paper.doc’)
[5] In special
circumstances, I reserve the right to weigh the individual portion of the grade
more heavily. This will be particularly
relevant in cases where a particular student makes an extraordinarily good or
extraordinarily bad contribution to their group.
[6] For example,
you may start with “What is the human being?” and end up with a paper that
answers the question “Is freedom necessary for moral responsibility?” by using
Spinoza, Hume, and Kant to argue something like, “While Kant thinks that he can
preserve human freedom as a necessary condition of the possibility of morality,
his metaphysics in fact offers decisive reasons to reject freedom. Fortunately,
as Spinoza and Hume show in very different ways, a robust conception of moral
responsibility is consistent with this rejection of freedom.”
[7] If you do a poster, play, or other non-electronic form of presentation, you should either turn the item in to my office or arrange with me for a means of performing it/turning it in.