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)
(AW 144-164)

–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

Translate the following nursery rhyme into Leibnizian terminology:

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.