Philosophy 202 (Fall 2014)

Readings in the Western Philosophical Tradition: Modern Philosophy

Prof. Patrick Frierson

Class Meets: Olin East 129, Tuesday and Thursday 2:30-4:00

Office Hours (Olin E124): Tuesday 4-5, Wednesday 1-3, and by appointment

 

Goals:  With respect to content, this course focuses on central epistemological and metaphysical arguments of key European philosophers of the modern period (1600-1800).  The philosophers on whom we will focus are Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Anne Conway, John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant.  The early modern period was particularly rich in excellent philosophy, however, so there will be additional opportunities to study the thought of other figures in 17th and 18th century European philosophy throughout the course. 

 

Throughout our study of these philosophers, we will focus on six 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?

(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 nature of causation? How does one thing cause changes in another? (Particularly, how do the mind and body interact?)

(6) 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.

 

1)      First and most importantly, you will learn to be a better philosopher.  A philosopher is someone who pursues wisdom through careful reflection.  In this course, our focus will be on reflection that focuses on epistemological and metaphysical questions, but throughout, you should keep in mind the ethical, political, and social significance of these questions.  We will thus 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.

2)      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.

3)      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 at least two papers over the course of the semester (see details below on “writing papers in the history of philosophy”), and you will have the opportunity to regularly submit drafts of written work for feedback.

4)      Fourth, though group assignments and class discussions, you will learn to work effectively in a group settings and will cultivate practices of respectful, productive, mutually-enriching, philosophical interaction with your peers.

 

These skills will be cultivated through several different kinds of assignments, some of which will also provide the opportunity to learn (or apply) various technical skills, such as designing and printing posters, producing and editing audio recordings, and so on, that are relevant to the communication of your ideas.  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.  While not required, I particularly encourage students to complete assignments that will push them to develop skills at which they might not think of themselves as particularly excellent.  This course is an opportunity to learn and improve, and not primarily an opportunity to show how good you already are. 

 

With the exception of the final paper and the quizzes, which count 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%)

Quizzes and Reading Guides (10%)

Descartes Paper (10%, due September 14)

Final Paper (30%, due December 14)

 

Choose enough to add up to 50% or more of your final grade:

Group Projects (Spinoza, Conway, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume; 20% each, due dates on timeline below)

Presentations (Presentation options on timeline below, 10-20% each, depending upon whether you do a paper along with your presentation)

Philosophical exegesis paper (10%)

Analytical critique paper (10%)

Mid-term exam (20%)

Final exam (written: 30%, or oral: 20%)

 

 

Optional Reading Group: I would love to form an optional reading group related to material from this class, one that would not count in any way towards your grade in the course (and to which you’d be more than welcome to invite friends not in this class).  To make this truly optional, though, I’d like to pick material that will not be directly relevant to what we do in class.  To that end, I’ve got two main ideas…two of the most impressive people during the period we cover in this class were Gottfried Leibniz and Margaret Cavendish.  Both of them were involved in lots of not-strictly-philosophical endeavors while also being very impressive philosophers, and both get only scant coverage in this class.  I’d be interested in a reading group on either of them…for Leibniz, I’m interested in reading a book called Leibniz and China, about Leibniz’s intense interest in Chinese (and Indian) philosophy.  For Cavendish, I’d love to finally read her Blazing World, a philosophically rich work of science fiction.  If anyone is interested in either reading group, let me know (sooner is better).

 

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, working in groups (both formally and informally), 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, 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 the highest quality commentary on the texts we are reading, and the Stanford Encyclopedia in particular is designed to be used by undergraduates at your level.

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.

“Class participation.”  Participation is not any particular portion of your grade, but your participation can have a significant impact on your final grade.  When evaluating participation, however, 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)

Topics for Discussion

Assignments (boldface refers to something you need to turn in to me)

Sept. 2

Descartes’s selections from Discourse and Meditation 1

(AW 25-42)

Consult the Descartes Reading Guide (html or pdf) as you read.

In class, we will read selections from Bacon (in AW 16-20); Montaigne (“Of Cannibals”); deGournay (handout); and Galileo (in AW 21-24).

–Nature/origins of modern philosophy

–Intro Descartes’s philosophy

–Purpose of Meditations

–D’s skeptical arguments

–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. 4

Descartes’s Meditations 1-3 & selected objections and replies

43-54, 69-72, 76-82

–Overcoming skepticism: “I am”

–Nature of the self

–Nature of knowledge (wax)

–Proof(s) of God’s existence

–Overcoming skepticism: God

 

Check out an online resource, the Philosophy Writing Tutor, for general advice on writing philosophy papers.  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. 9

Descartes’s Meditations 2-6

& selected objections and replies

47-68, 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 (Sept. 9).  (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.) [2]

Sept 11

Descartes’s Meditations 5-6

58-68

Selections from the correspondence between Descartes and Princess Elizabeth (read the first 8 pages – not including the intro material – of the file available here).

–Proof of external world

–Proof of Mind-body distinctness

–Mind-body relationship

–Problem of sensory error/nature of sensory knowledge

– PAPER WORKSHOP: For a portion of class, we will divide into pairs to help each other refine the arguments of our papers.

Revise your paper, including making sure that the paper includes the following:

– A very clear articulation of your thesis

– Clear guideposts that tell the reader how each paragraph contributes to your overall argument

– Strong textual support for your interpretive claims

– At least one (ideally two) of the strongest possible objections to the thesis you are defending, along with your responses to those objections.[3]

Finish your Descartes papers.  FINAL DRAFTS OF YOUR DESCARTES PAPERS ARE DUE BY NOON ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 14. EMAILED TO ME AT frierspr@whitman.edu WITH YOUR NAME AT THE START OF THE FILENAME.[4]

POSSIBLE PRESENTATION:

·         DESCARTES’S ETHICS

·         ELIZABETH

·         ARNAULD

·         HOBBES

Sept. 16

Spinoza, Ethics, Part V, Prop. 42 and Part 1, through Prop. 14

(AW 195, 144-149)

You should consult this Spinoza Reading Guide as you read.

I would also encourage all students to make use of the Spinoza worksheet , even if you aren’t turning it in as part of a group.

–Blessedness

–Spinoza’s philosophical method

–Definitions and Axioms

–Proof of God’s existence (P11)

–Monism (P14)

–Complete the Spinoza worksheet for Proposition 11, 14.

·         –Come to class with specific questions for or challenges of at least two definitions, axioms, or proofs.

Sept. 18

Spinoza, Ethics, Pt. 1 (entire); Pt. 2., Def’ns, Axioms, and Propositions 1, 2, 7, 11-14

(You should also read the propositions, but not the proofs, for the rest of part 2.)
(AW 144-172)

–Monism (P14)

–Universal determinism of finite things (P28)

–Against religious prejudices (Appendix)

–Nature of the human mind (based on Pt. 2)

–Revise/correct worksheet for P11, P14

–Complete worksheet for P28, Pt. 2, P7.

–Come ready to discuss Part One: P11, P14, P28; and come with some sense of Spinoza’s philosophy of mind.

Sept. 23

Spinoza, Ethics, Pt. 2, PP. 40-44 (focus on the kinds of knowledge), Pt. 5, Preface and P21-28, 42

(AW 179-83, 188-95)

–Types of knowledge

–Highest end of human beings (P 25)

–Comparison of Spinoza and Descartes

–Come ready to discuss Part One: P11, P14, P28; Part Two: P40, and Part Five: P42.

SPINOZA GROUP PROJECTS MUST BE EMAILED TO ME BY 5 PM ON SUNDAY, SEPT 28.

Sept. 25

Conway, Principles, etext available here.  Chapters I; II; III.1-5, 8, 10; IV.1; V.6 (V.1, 3, and 7 are recommended but optional),

(pp. 9-17, 18, 20-21, and 26-7 in the 1996 Cambridge Edition)

 

Consult the Conway Reading Guide as you read.

-- Conway’s conception of God

-- argument for the “mediator”

-- nature of time

-- freedom (divine and created)

-- infinity of creatures (nature of and argument for)

Sept. 30

Conway, Principles, Chapters VI.1-6, 11; VII summary, 4; VIII.1 and last 2¶s of 2; IX),

pp. 28-35, 41, 51-3, 54-5, 56-7, 58, 63-70.

--monism of created substance (nature of, argument for)

-- unity of spirit and body

-- nature of body-spirit interactions

-- vitalism

-- nature of motion

-- nature of causation

--Conway’s epistemology (p. 54 but also throughout book)

--Conway vs. Descartes and Spinoza

Oct. 2

Conway (review all readings);

Leibniz, Monadology, entire

275-83

(Recommended: Discourse on Metaphysics 30-32, pp. 242-244)

Consult the Leibniz Reading Guide (html or pdf) as you read.

–nature and types of monads

–God’s existence

–interactions amongst monads (e.g. mind-body)

–preestablished harmony

–theodicy/best of all worlds

–human freedom

–principles of contradiction and sufficient reason

–comparison of Leibniz with Conway

POSSIBLE PRESENTATIONS:

·         LEIBNIZ

·         VOLTAIRE

·         MADAME DU CHATELET

·         SAMUEL CLARKE

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oct. 7

Spinoza, Conway, Leibniz review

(Reread all, especially  Leibniz)

 

 

Oct. 7 or 8 (precise time TBD)

Optional: Review Session for Mid-Term

 

For a list of topics you should study for the mid-term, click here.  For a sample of the mid-term format, click here.

Mid-terms will be handed out on Oct. 4 and due on Oct. 9th.

Oct. 9

Mind and Body Day

1. Descartes’s Meditations

AW 61-68

2. Correspondence between Elizabeth and Descartes (read the first 8 pages – not including the intro material – of the file available here).

3. Malebranche, The Search after Truth, (AW 212-215).

4. Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters I, ii, and vi (focus on the first few paragraphs), available online here.  See too Objection IV on p. 78b in AW.

5. Spinoza Bk 2, PP11-14 and skim through at least P23 (AW 168-72, and skim 172-75).

6. Conway, Principles, ch. VII-VIII (pp. 41-62)

7. Leibniz, Monadology, §§17, 25, 50-52, 62-64, 78-83

8. Possible readings from MARGARET CAVENDISH

OVERVIEW OF EARLY MODERN CONCEPTIONS OF THE MIND-BODY RELATIONSHIP AND VARIOUS ANSWERS TO ELIZABETH’S QUESTION ABOUT MIND-BODY INTERACTION.

 

MID-TERM HANDED OUT.

MID-TERM HANDED OUT.

 

On this day, we will break into small groups.  You’ll be assigned to a group at the end of class on Oct. 7.  For Oct. 9, you need to come with a clear explanation and defense of the views on the relationship between mind and body of your philosopher.  You also need to be familiar enough with the views of others to defend your views to them.

POSSIBLE PRESENTATIONS:

·         MALEBRANCHE

·         HOBBES

·         MARGARET CAVENDISH

Oct. 14

October Break

October Break

October Break

October Break

Oct. 16

Locke’s Essay Bk I, ch 1, Bk II, chs 1-2, 5-12 (especially ch. 8 ¶¶9-23)

Leibniz’s New Essays, selection

AW 316-18, 322-42, 422-425a

Consult the Locke Reading Guide as you read.

–Locke’s critique of innate ideas

–Leibniz’s response (particularly focus on the marble analogy)

–Locke’s epistemological turn

–origin of ideas

–sensation vs. reflection

–primary vs. secondary qualities

CONWAY GROUP ASSIGNMENTS MUST BE EMAILED (OR DELIVERED) TO ME NO LATER THAN 9 AM ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17TH.

–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.)

 

Oct. 21

Locke’s Essay Bk II, chs 21, 23

AW 348-367

MID-TERM DUE

–idea of power

–human free will

–ideas of substances 

MID-TERM DUE

Oct. 23

Locke’s Essay IV.1-3, 10-15, especially IV.1-3, IV.10; IV.11¶¶8-14; IV.15¶¶1-5

AW 386-97, 399, 405-411, 413-14, 415-17

–nature and extent of knowledge (compare with Descartes)

–mind–body relationship

–knowledge of God

–knowledge of existence

–probability

LOCKE GROUP PROJECTS MUST BE EMAILED TO ME NO LATER THAN 5PM ON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 26.

Oct. 28

Cockburn, Defense of Mr. Locke’s Essay, selections

 

Damaris Cudworth (Lady Masham), Discourse on the Love of God, selections

 

Masham, selections from correspondence

 

 

 

Oct. 30

Berkeley, Principles

435-448

Consult the Berkeley Reading Guide as you read.

–skepticism

–abstract ideas

–esse is percepi

–primary and secondary qualities

Nov. 4

Berkeley, Principles

446-453

–vs. ideas of substances, powers, etc

–minds

–God

–natural laws

BERKELEY GROUP ASSIGNMENTS (IN .MP3 FORMAT) SHOULD BE EMAILED TO ME NO LATER THAN 5 PM ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 9TH.  THIS MEANS THAT YOU NEED TO CONDUCT YOUR DISCUSSIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER CLASS ON OCTOBER 25TH SO THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DO THE NECESSARY EDITING.

Nov. 6

Hume’s Enquiry §§ 1-7

533-564

Consult the Hume Reading Guide as you read.

–ideas and impressions

–matters of fact vs. relations of ideas

–Hume on the importance and legitimacy of causal inferences

–Causation

Nov. 11

Hume’s Enquiry §§ 6-8, 10

555-575, 577-586

 

Possible selections from Reid or Rousseau

 

Optional readings:

Hume’s Enquiry §12

Hume’s Treatise I.v-vi

593-600, 517-32

–Causation

–Human freedom

–Miracles

Optional readings cover:

–mitigated skepticism

–self-knowledge

–personal identity

POSSIBLE PRESENTATIONS:

·         HUME’S MORAL THEORY

·         ADAM SMITH

·         THOMAS REID

·         JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU

Nov 13

Freedom and Necessity

 

On this day, we will break into 6 (or more) groups.  You’ll be assigned to a group at the end of class on Nov. 11.  For Nov. 13, you need to come with a clear explanation and defense of the views on human freedom (and its relationship with necessity) of your philosopher.  You also need to be familiar enough with the views of others to defend your views to them.

 

HUME GROUP ASSIGNMENTS MUST BE EMAILED TO ME NO LATER THAN 5 PM ON SUNDAY, NOV 16.

Nov 18

FINAL PAPER WORKSHOP

Drafts of your final paper must be emailed to me no later than 9 AM on November 17.  You should also bring a hard copy of your paper to class.

Nov. 20

Skepticism and Its Discontents

OR

Dealing with Globalization and Diversity (Specific Readings TBD)

 

 

THANKSGIVING

VACATION

If you want comments on a draft of your final paper, you must email that draft to me by midnight on Wednesday, Nov. 26.

Dec. 2

Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

717-737 + this short online handout

Consult the Kant Reading Guide.

–Kant’s “Copernican turn”

–analytic vs. synthetic/a priori vs. a posteriori

–problem of a priori synthetic knowledge

–proof that space (and time) are a priori intuitions

–transcendental idealism

Dec. 4

Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

722, 729-37, 768-779

–a priori concepts

–argument for substance

–argument for causation (vs. Hume)

 

Dec. 9

Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

724a, 768-779, 798-800, 811-19, handout (from Critique of Practical Reason)

–possibility of human freedom

 

Dec. 11

Catch up and Review

Catch up and Review

Dec. 15

FINAL EXAM at 2 PM.

For a list of topics you should study for the mid-term (including possible essay questions), click here.

FINAL PAPERS DUE SUNDAY, DEC 14ST, AT 5 PM, emailed to me at frierspr@whitman.edu.  (Students taking the final exam may have an extension, if requested in advance, until Tuesday, December 16, at midnight.)  Students who would like comments on previous drafts of their final papers should email them to me no later than Wednesday, NOV. 26TH. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

In addition, I have provided Reading Guides for most of the readings we will do in the course.  You should make use of these readings guides as you read and reread.  You need not provide written answers to every question, but you should think about every question, and writing out answers is strongly recommended.  I may check these guides occasionally, I will feel free to call on any student to give their answer to any question in the reading guide, and they will inform my decisions about what to include in quizzes.

 

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.  Note that your participation grade is based on the quality of participation, not the quantity.  You should contribute thoughtful comments to class discussion in a respectful way.  For some of you, this will mean preparing oral comments before class and making a conscious effort to speak.  For others, it will mean holding yourself back when you find yourself to be dominating discussion.  If you desire an assessment of your participation at any point in the semester, please feel free to ask me about it. 

 

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.  Some material will be provided in supplements available on our Cleo site or from links provided directly on the syllabus. 

 

Quizzes:  Most class periods will begin with a short quiz on the reading for the day.  If you have followed the advice above, you should do just fine on the quizzes.  Occasionally, I may orally “cold-call” on students to talk about their responses to various parts of the reading guide.  Responses that show a failure to have read the material attentively will count against a students’ quiz grade. 

 

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 grace 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.   (The one exception to this policy is the final paper.  Students who have a good reason for needing a later deadline on the final paper, and who ask for that later deadline at least one week before the paper is due, will be granted a later deadline.)

 

Written assignments:  All written assignments, including your papers and your group assignments, should be submitted to me by email.  To submit work by email, you should email your work in .doc or .docx format to frierspr@whitman.edu.  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”.  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.  The midterm will be a take-home exam, for which you will be allowed two hours, though it should not take this long.  The final will be in class at our regularly scheduled final exam time (thus you will have 2 hours).  Review sheets are available on the timeline above (where the exam appears).

 

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 3-5 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 Locke 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 25 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 paper (1500-3000 words) outlining the key aspects of the philosopher on whom they presented and briefly (up to 500 words) assessing the treatment that their philosopher received during class discussion.  While you may include a brief biography of the thinker, these papers should emphasize the philosophical ideas and arguments of the philosopher.  You should give at least some overview of the philosophical views as a whole, but you may focus your discussion on one or two ideas that you find most interesting and important.  It is also appropriate to make connections with other philosophers in the course, though this should be done in ways that help elucidate the core ideas of the philosopher you presented on. 

 

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).   You can also find information on many modern philosophers not mentioned in the syllabus.  If you would like to present on a figure who is not included, you will probably be able to do so if you let me know early in the semester so that I can schedule an appropriate class time for your presentation.  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 very 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%, due NOON ON SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 14):  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 December 14): 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 14, you should work on it throughout the semester. Over the course of the semester, you should update your final paper, refining your topic, question, and thesis; and incorporating arguments from philosophers as we read them.  I strongly encourage you to submit new paper drafts after each major philosopher, incorporating material from that philosopher into your final paper.  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 December 14.

 

Philosophical exegesis paper (10%)  Your final paper and paper on Descartes must offer your own answer to a philosophical problem, drawing from major historical figures.  But historians of philosophy often write papers that purport to elucidate the ideas of a philosopher without necessarily defending those ideas as their own.  Papers in philosophical exegesis generally start with a puzzle of interpretation.  For example, Anne Conway says that there is only one created “substance,” but also that there are infinitely many created things; so what precisely does she mean by “substance”?  Or, for another example, Berkeley does not explicitly talk about the nature of human freedom; given what he does say, what is his likely view on this matter?  The paper then proceeds to answer these questions, considering various possible interpretations and defending one’s own on the basis of specific textual support, plausibility in the light of other claims the philosopher has made, and general philosophical plausibility.  Any student can write a philosophical exegesis paper on any of the philosophers we read in this course.  Such papers are due at the same time as the group project for that philosopher, and they should be 1500-2500 words in length.

 

Analytical critique paper (10%).  Where the philosophical exegesis paper is more historical than the final paper, the analytical critique paper is less historical.  For this paper, you should take an idea or argument from one of the philosophers we have read and engage with that argument in your own terms.  “Critique” here need not mean criticism of the argument or position; though it often will involve criticism, one might also extend a point made by a philosopher or show that an argument made in one context applies equally well in another.  The distinguishing feature of this paper is that the majority of the paper will be philosophical argument rather than interpretation.  As with all papers, but particularly for these, it is important that the thesis be clearly articulated and that you be able to see how the thesis is controversial and even prima facie implausible.  Thus, arguing that Descartes was wrong to think that an the existence of an evil demon would make our beliefs unreliable could be a worthwhile thesis. Arguing that he was wrong to think that the pineal gland is the physical seat of the soul would not be.  These papers are due at the same time as the group project for that philosopher, and they should be 1500-2500 words in length.

 

Group Assignment #1: Spinoza Worksheet – Due 5 PM ON SUNDAY, SEPT 28RD

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) Without considering Spinoza’s subsequent argument about the nature of God, what significance would P 11 have for Spinoza’s contemporaries (e.g. Descartes)? 

d) Without considering Spinoza’s subsequent argument about the nature of God, what significance would believing it have for us?

 2. Prop. 14: There can be . . . no other substance but God.

a) Explain P 14 without using any of Spinoza’s technical vocabulary, in a way that would make sense and be interesting to a friend who had never read any philosophy.

b) Given Prop 11, does Spinoza successfully prove proposition 14? 

c) 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? 

d) What significance would believing P 14 have for Spinoza’s contemporaries (e.g. Descartes)? 

e) What significance would believing it have for us?

 3. Prop. 28: Every individual thing . . ..

a)                Explain P 14 without using any of Spinoza’s technical vocabulary, in a way that would make sense and be interesting to a friend who had never read any philosophy.

b)                Given Props 11 and 14, does Spinoza successfully prove proposition 28?

c)                 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.)

d)                What significance would believing P 28 have for Spinoza’s contemporaries (e.g. Descartes)?

e)                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) What is the significance of P 7 within Spinoza’s Ethics?  (For example, what significance does it play in understanding the definitions to part I)

b) What significance would believing P 7 have for Spinoza’s contemporaries (e.g. Descartes)?

c) What significance would believing it have for us?

5. Book V, Prop 25.  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: You may choose ONE of these projects

Due MIDNIGHT ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 17

 

Group Assignment #2a: Conway Comparison Poster

 

For this project, you should put together a poster comparing Conway’s philosophy with one or two other philosophers we’ve discussed this semester.  You should lay out the poster to present the information most effectively.  You should include whatever material you think interesting and important, but you should discuss at least six of the following topics and compare philosophers with respect to them.

·         Nature of substance

·         Number of substance(s)

·         Relationship between mind and body (including, if applicable, how one causes changes in the other or seems to cause such changes)

·         Nature of Causation in general (e.g. how one body changes or seems to change another)

·         Knowledge (how do we gain knowledge? What is knowledge?)

·         The nature of human freedom

·         The nature of God (including divine freedom)

·         How philosophers should deal with diversity/pluralism

·         The ultimate goal of human life

 

 

Group Assignment #2b: Conway (or Leibniz) in Preschool

Translate the following nursery rhyme into Leibnizian and/or Conwayian 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, use as many technical terms as possible, and use them as effectively as possible.  (If necessary, include footnotes explaining your interpretative decisions).  You should also illustrate the main features of Conway’s (or Leibniz’s) philosophy in your translation (e.g. re: Conway, being sure to mention the mediator and why this mediator is necessary; or re: Leibniz, being sure to discuss the notion of the best of all possible worlds).

If you want to get very creative, you could even transform the rhyme into a dialogue, something like:

Leibniz: “The monad that was Jack . . .” (translating the first two lines).

Conway: “Ah yes, but don’t forget Jill, the creature God made …” (retranslating the first two lines).

Leibniz: “Yes, the monad that was Jill was also there, but then Jack …” translating the third line.

Conway: “Ah, but then Jill…” (translating the fourth line).

And then a witty punch-line. J

 

Group Assignment #3: Lockean Poetics

Due 5PM ON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 26th

 

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 (e.g. 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 ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 9TH

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.) Your conversation should last at least an hour, and 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 ON SUNDAY, NOV. 16.

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.