PHIL 302: MODERN PHILOSOPHY -- ASSIGNMENTS

• Readings: Kant, second preface to the Critic of Pure Reason, which is not in the Book but here
• Study Questions:
  1. How does Kant characterize the ``secured path of a science"?
  2. Kant asserts that Logic has entered the secured path of a science a long time ago. However, Kant goes on, Logic should be seen as only the ``vestibule" of the sciences. Explain in what sense and why.
  3. What is the proper method of mathematics that makes it a true science?
  4. What is the proper method of physics that makes it a true science?
  5. Why does Kant think that metaphysics has not entered the secured path of a science? What does Kant propose for a remedy? How is his proposal analogous to the revolutions there occurred in mathematics and physics?
  6. Kant admits that, were his method adopted, it would imply ``a consequence which is startling, and which has the appearance of being highly prejudicial to the whole purpose of metaphysics". Explain what the consequence is and why it follows from Kant's method.
  7. Explain why Kant's method has a positive role can be compared to the role of the police. Explain Kant's illustration of such a positive role of his method on the issue of free will.
  8. Explain in what sense and to what extent Kant's critical method is against dogmatism.

• Readings: Hume, Enquiries, section 12, available online here. PRINT IT !
• Study Questions:
  1. What are Hume's arguments against Cartesian doubt? Do you agree with him?
  2. To what extent does Hume doubt the existence of the external world? On what grounds? To what extent does he accept the existence of the external world? On what grounds?
  3. What are Hume's arguments against excessive scepticism?
  4. What is Hume's "mitigated scepticism"?

• Readings: Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, selections from section 6, LMP, pp. 102-106
• Study Questions (From Tim O'Keefe):
  1. Why does Hume think that we are not aware of the self in our experience, and have no idea of the self? What effect (if any) do you think Hume's "no-self" doctrine has upon Descartes' cogito? Do you think Hume is correct?
  2. Why does Hume think that it is a mistake to attribute identity over time to some object (such as a ship), and why do we make this mistake? Do you agree with Hume? (If you wish, discuss what effect you think this has on the notion of substance, as used by Descartes.)
  3. Why does Hume think that, strictly speaking, the ``identity, which we attribute to the mind of man, is only a fictitious one," and that the mind is best compared to a republic or commonwealth? Do you agree with Hume?

• Readings: Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, selections from section 6, LMP, pp. 102-106
• Study Questions (From Tim O'Keefe):
  1. Why does Hume think that we are not aware of the self in our experience, and have no idea of the self? What effect (if any) do you think Hume's "no-self" doctrine has upon Descartes' cogito? Do you think Hume is correct?
  2. Why does Hume think that it is a mistake to attribute identity over time to some object (such as a ship), and why do we make this mistake? Do you agree with Hume? (If you wish, discuss what effect you think this has on the notion of substance, as used by Descartes.)
  3. Why does Hume think that, strictly speaking, the ``identity, which we attribute to the mind of man, is only a fictitious one," and that the mind is best compared to a republic or commonwealth? Do you agree with Hume?

• Readings: Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, selections from sections 7, LMP, pp. 90-96
• Study Questions:
  1. How does Hume argue that we cannot derive our idea of power or necessary connection from our sense-impressions of external objects? Do you agree?
  2. How does Hume argue that we cannot derive our idea of power or necessary connection from the operations of the mind, i.e. the operations of the will? Do you agree?
  3. Where does our idea of power and necessary connection come from according to Hume? Do you find his account satisfactory?
  4. What are the two definitions of cause according to Hume? How do you think these two definitions relate to each other? Is there one correct definition of cause?

• Readings: Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, selections from section 5, LMP, pp. 85-90
• Study Questions:
  1. If not by reasoning, by which process do we come to expect that objects of similar appearance will have similar effects?
  2. Explain why Hume considers that his explanation is satisfactory enough, even if it does not provide the ``ultimate reason" for our propensity to expect that objects of similar appearance will have similar effects (bottom of p.85).
  3. According to Hume, what makes us believe in the truth of matters of facts, in comparison to fictions? What are the necessary condition for believing in something? Remember that the will was an essential part of belief for Descartes: does Hume agree on this point with Descartes? Who do you think is right on this one: do we choose to believe or not that something is true?
  4. The title of the section is: ``Sceptical solution to these doubts". Why do you think Hume calls himself a sceptic? In what sense do you think he is a sceptic? In what sense do you think he is not?

• Readings: Hume, An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, selections from sections 2 to 4, LMP, pp. 75-85
• Study Questions:
  1. What is the distinction between impressions and ideas? Define both terms and explain the difference between them. Give an example.
  2. What are the two arguments that Hume gives for his claim that ``all our ideas [...] are copies of our impressions [...]"?
  3. Explain the thought experiment about a person who has never seen a particular shade of blue. Why does it constitute an objection to Hume's theory of ideas? What do you think of his answer?
  4. What are the three principles of connexion between ideas, according to Hume? Give some example for each one.
  5. Explain the difference between relation of ideas and matters of facts. Give examples of each. What principle does Hume take to be the base of all our reasonings on matters of fact?
  6. Explain Hume's argument that our expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow cannot be grounded on any reasoning, either a priori or a posteriori. If we accept this, what are the consequences for our knowledge of the physical world? of laws of nature?

• Readings: Berkeley, Three Dialogues, selections Late Modern Philosophy (LMP), pp. 52-74
• Study Questions:
  1. What does Berkeley think of the ``most extravagant opinion that ever entered the mind of man, to wit, that there is no such thing as material substance in the world" (LMP p.53)?
  2. What objection does Berkeley raise against the idea that primary qualities are really in external objects, whereas secondary qualities are only in our minds?
  3. How does Berkeley prove the existence of God?
  4. What is Berkeley's argument against the idea that matter is the cause of our ideas?
  5. According to Berkeley, does the moon exist when we do not look at it? Why or why not?

• Readings: Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 14-15, 19-22
• Study Questions:
  1. Why is the idea that individual substances are independent from one another seemingly contradictory with what we observe in the world?
  2. How does Leibniz explain the appearance of a causal order in what we observe of the world?
  3. What is it for an individual substance to act or to be acted upon according to Leibniz?
  4. What is a final cause? Explain the difference with a material cause. Use the example given by Leibniz in section 19.
  5. How does Leibniz defend explanations the physical world in terms of final causes in section 19?
  6. How does Leibniz reject Descartes' reduction of matter to extension, figure and movement?
  7. Explain the two possible demonstrations for Snell's Law in section 22. What is Leibniz' point in comparing the two?

• Readings: Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 13 again, 30-31
• Study Questions:
  1. Recapitulate the characteristics of Leibniz' notion of individual substances.
  2. Explain again how Leibniz argue that the truth ``Brad is non married on the 7th of October 2007" is contingent, even if a sufficiently powerful mind could prove it a priori.
  3. How does Leibniz argue that we are free, even if we are self-contained substances?
  4. How does Leibniz argue that we are responsible for our actions, even if it is God who decided to create us as we are in the first place?
  5. How does Leibniz explain the appearance of evil in the best possible world?

• Readings: Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, 8-13
• Study Questions:
  1. According to Leibniz, is it possible that you be not a student at IIT this semester? More precisely, in what sense, if any, would it be possible?
  2. How do you understand Leibniz's claim that every substance is like ``a mirror [...] of the whole world"?
  3. How does Leibniz defend the notion of substancial form? Whom do you think Leibniz is thinking of when he refers to the ``modern philosophy"?
  4. How does Leibniz criticize Descartes' view that extension is the essence of the body?
  5. How does Leibniz reconcile the idea that everything that happens to someone is included in his individual concept with free will? Do you find it convincing?

• Readings: Leibniz, Monadology, 25-46; Discourse on Metaphysics, 1-7
• Study Questions:
  1. What kind of thinking do we share with animals according to Leibniz?
  2. Explain what is a truth of reasoning and a truth of fact for Leibniz. How do they relate to the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Sufficient Reason?
  3. How does Leibniz argue for the existence of God (he gives two arguments)? How do his arguments relate to Descartes' in the Third and Fifth Meditations?
  4. How does the nature of God imply that we must not only accept but also be entirely satisfied by the Creation?
  5. What view on freedom does Leibniz endorse in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Discourse on Metaphysics? Compare with Descartes.
  6. How do you understand the end of the fourth paragraph, p.232 ? What do you think is the lazy reason or lazy argument? How does Leibniz respond to it? Do you find it convincing?
  7. How does Leibniz include appearances of disorder and evil within God's most perfect creation?

• Readings: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy Sixth Meditation
• Study Questions: Give one claim in Meditation Vi that you find convincing. Explain Descartes' argument. Then find one claim that you thought was not well supported. Explain why.

• Readings: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy Fourth and Fifth Meditations, cont.
• Study Questions: Same as for last time:
  1. What is the cause of error for Descartes?
  2. How can Descartes' theory of error be consistent with the idea of God as a all-powerful all-good God?
  3. How can Descartes' theory of error be consistent with his claim that God could have made us so that we never err?
  4. How does Descartes restore the certainty of mathematical notions?
  5. What is Descartes' argument for the existence of God? What do you think of this argument?

• Readings: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy Fourth and Fifth Meditations
• Study Questions:
  1. What is the cause of error for Descartes?
  2. How can Descartes' theory of error be consistent with the idea of God as a all-powerful all-good God?
  3. How can Descartes' theory of error be consistent with his claim that God could have made us so that we never err?
  4. How does Descartes restore the certainty of mathematical notions?
  5. What is Descartes' argument for the existence of God? What do you think of this argument?

• Readings: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy Third Meditation
• Study Questions:
  1. Do you think Descartes provides a good argument for his "general rule" that he should take as true everything of which he has a clear and distinct perception?
  2. Why does Descartes need to prove the existence of God?
  3. Descartes spends a lot of time discussing the various of ideas we have? What is the point of this discussion? That is to say, how is he going to use the results of this discusion?
  4. What is Descartes' main argument for the existence of God (p.102 -- the premises are to be found before)? (try to reconstruct the structure of it)
  5. Do you think Descartes' argument for the existence of God is valid? Do you think it is sound?

• Readings: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy Second Meditation
• Study Questions:
  1. Explain how, according to Descartes, the proposition "I think I exist" resists the argument of the evil genius.
  2. Explain how Descartes is lead to the conclusion that he is "a thing which thinks"
  3. Descartes spends some time discussing the nature of a piece of wax. Why does he do that? In other words, what is the role of this discussion in the overall argument of the Second Meditation? In order to answer to this question, you may want to find out first what is the conclusion that Descartes draws from the discussion of the piece of wax; and then see how the discussion can be logically related to this conclusion.

1. Read the First Meditation again. As an exercice, try to figure out what Descartes is doing with the painting analogy.

2. If you want to start working on the terms and methods associated with philosophical argument, please pay a visit to Jim Pryor website

• Readings: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy Preamble and Meditation 1 (Neither the Preface nor the Synopsis)
• Study Questions:
  1. Explain how Descartes justifies that he rejects as false ``\emph{all} the opinions which [he] had formerly accepted'' (my emphasis) even if he does not know for sure that they are all false.
  2. To what aim does Descartes decide to reject all his beliefs as false?
  3. What is his argument for not trusting his senses?
  4. Why does Descartes need to appeal to the hypothesis of an evil genius to reject all his opinions as doubtful?
• Reflexion questions:
  1. Do you think it is a proper method to destroy the entire edifice of knowledge to build it anew just because not every thing is certain?
  2. Do you think it is a reasonable method to reject as false every propositions in which you have a slightest doubt? Why? Why not?

• Readings: EMP stands for Early Modern Philosophy

  • Montaigne, The Apology for Raymond Sebond, 'Man has no knowledge', EMP p. 29-31 (until ``he has a conception of Pyrrhonism''), and 'The senses are inadequate', EMP p.34-37
  • Bacon, The New Organon, EMP 38-44 (XXXVI-LXIV)
  • Descartes, Discourse on the Method, EMP part I and II, p.56-58
  • Newton, Mathematical Principles of Philosophy, 'Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy', p.72-74

• Study Questions:

  1. Explain Montaigne's statement that all the profit of human's pursuit of knowledge over the centuries reduces to have learned their ignorance?
  2. What are the mains tenets of Pyrrhonism?
  3. List the various reasons why the senses are inadequate according to Montaigne
  4. List and define the four classes of Idols that Bacon distinguishes
  5. Explain why the beginning of Descartes' Discourse sounds ironic. Do you think the text can still be said to defend the idea of reason's being shared by all human beings?
  6. What is the method of induction?