DOCSLIB.ORG

Modern Philosophy Modern Philosophy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Modern Philosophy Modern Philosophy Modern Philosophy Modern Philosophy This work is based on the work of Walter Ott & Alex Dunn This version of Modern Philosophy is a derivative copy of Modern Philosophy created by Alex Dunn, who based his work on the original Modern Philosophy book create by Walter Ott. This version of Modern Philosophy is released under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. The only modifications made to this version from both the original and the modification done by Alex Dunn the original is the format has been changed. No content has been modified. The original version of Modern Philosophy was created from public domain resources by Walter Ott with contributors from Antonia LoLordo and Lydia Patton. Contributions not in the public domain and created by Walter, Antonia or Lydia for the original were released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Alex Dunn’s derivative version was also released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License Contents 1. Preface 1 2. Minilogic and Glossary 3 3. Background to Modern Philosophy 9 4. René Descartes (1596–1650) 25 5. Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) 62 6. John Locke’s (1632–1704) Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) 78 7. George Berkeley (1685–1753) 101 8. David Hume’s (1711–1776) Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding 137 9. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) 184 iv 1 Preface This book combines readings from primary sources with two pedagogical tools. Paragraphs in italics introduce figures and texts, or draw connections among the readings. Numbered study questions sometimes ask you to reconstruct an argument from the text, using numbered premises. Some of the premises or the conclusion are usually given. You might need more or fewer lines to state the argument; you might also choose to start your reconstruction with different premises than those provided. Only excerpts of the major works are included. Descartes’s Meditations, Hume’s Enquiry and Kant’s Prolegomena are largely unabridged. Minor stylistic changes have been made to the original texts; in particular, many more paragraph breaks have been added. The introductory chapter, (Minilogic and Glossary), is designed to introduce the basic tools of philosophy and sketch some basic principles and positions. Authors and Acknowledgements Modern Philosophy was created by Walter Ott. Other contributors include Antonia LoLordo and Lydia Patton. The creation of Modern Philosophy was made possible by the Virginia Tech Philosophy Department and a Virginia Tech CIDER grant. This modified version of the text was written in Markdown (with pandoc-exclusive extensions) by Alexander Dunn. Using the free utility pandoc, this version can be easily converted to HTML, PDF, EPUB, and many other formats. This version is hosted on GitHub; please copy and edit it, and feel free to submit your changes to the public repository. Sources Unless otherwise noted, all texts are in the public domain. All other material is the author’s and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. 1. Background 1.1 Aristotle c. 1. 1. 1 Categories—Translated by E.M. Edghill d. 1. 1. 2 Physics—Translated by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye e. 1. 1. 3 Posterior Analytics—Translated by E.S. Bouchier 1.2 Aquinas g. 1. 2. 1 On the Eternity of the World—Translated by Robert T. Miller (copyright 1991, 1997) h. 1. 2. 2 Summa Contra Gentiles—Translated by Joseph Rickaby i. 1. 2. 3 Summa Theologicae—Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Part 1, Volume 1 and Volume 2, Part 2, Part 3) 2. Descartes 1 2 • 2.1 The Principles of Philosophy—Translated by John Veitch 2.2 Discourse on Method—Translated by John Veitch 2.3 Meditations on First Philosophy—Translated by John Veitch 2.4 Objections and Replies—Translated by Jonathan Bennett, (copyright 2010–2015) 3. Spinoza 3.1 The Ethics—Translated by R.H.M. Elwes 4. Locke 4.1 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding—Second edition, 1690 (Part 1, Part 2) 5. Berkeley 5.1 A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge 5.2 De Motu (On Motion)—edited by A.C. Fraser, 1871 6. Hume 6.1 An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding 6.2 A Treatise of Human Nature 7. Kant 7.1 Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics—Translated by P. Carus 7.2 The Critique of Pure Reason—Translated by J. Meiklejohn THIS TEXTBOOK IS AVAILABLE FOR FREE AT OPEN.BCCAMPUS.CA 2 Minilogic and Glossary Like any discipline, philosophy has its own vocabulary. Here are some of the most basic terms and the connections among them: Position A position (or a thesis) is a claim or set of claims; for example, that the mind is identical to the brain, or that people act always from self-interest. Argument An argument is a set of claims (called ‘premises’) designed to show another claim (a conclusion) to be true. (This is a special use of the word: usually people use ‘argument’ to mean a verbal altercation). For example:Premise 1: If it’s raining outside, the lawnmower will get wet. Premise 2: It’s raining outside.Conclusion: The lawnmower will get wet. As you can see, arguments aren’t peculiar to philosophy: we use them all the time to get around the world, although we almost never bother to make them explicit. Even in this class, we won’t always go to the trouble of putting arguments in this explicit form. But it can often be helpful to do so, and it’s important that arguments can be make explicit. To see why, consider an argument put forth by the British Medical Association: Premise 1: Boxing is a dangerous activity. Conclusion: Boxing should be banned. Does the premise entail the conclusion? That is, does the premise show the conclusion to be true? In other words, is this a valid argument—one whose premises entail the conclusion? (Another way to put it: a valid argument is such that it’s impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.) Validity says nothing at all about whether the premises or conclusion are in fact true or not. Here’s a valid argument: Premise 1: If I’m over 7’ tall, I’m over 6’ tall. Premise 2: I’m over 7’ tall. Conclusion: I’m over 6’ tall. It’s impossible for Premises 1 and 2 to be true while the conclusion is false. So this is a valid argument. But it’s missing another virtue we look for in arguments: we want them to be valid and to have true premises. That is, we want sound arguments. The argument above is valid but not sound, since Premise 2 is false. 1. If an argument is valid and sound, what can you tell about the conclusion? Let’s go back to the boxing argument. Run our test on it: is it possible for Premise 1—‘boxing is a dangerous activity’—to be true, while the conclusion—‘boxing should be banned’—is false? If it is possible, what does that tell you about the validity or invalidity of the argument? 3 4 • 1. There is something missing from the boxing argument. What is it? What could we add to make the argument valid? Is the argument, repaired in this way, sound? Objection An objection is an argument designed to show that a position is false. If theism (the claim that God exists) is our position, we would have to consider the objection that a benevolent deity would not allow innocent people to suffer. Reply A reply is an answer to an objection. In the above example, we might reply that God does not let innocent people suffer; their suffering is due to human free will. (Of course, this may not be a good reply.) In addition to these concepts, we need to draw some distinctions among different kinds of positions or claims. These distinctions are controversial; Kant, in particular, will challenge some of the connections I draw between them. But we need to start somewhere! The first distinction is between claims that are necessary and those that are possible. Necessary A claim is necessary (that is, necessarily true) if it holds in every possible state of affairs. There is no possible state of affairs in which a necessarily true claim is false; it is impossible for such a claim to be false.For example, many philosophers claim that if it is even possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists. This claim is part of what’s called the ‘modal argument’ for God’s existence. The full argument only needs a few more premises: 1. It is possible that God exists. 2. Since God is a perfect being, God possesses the property of necessary existence; in other words, the property of existing in all possible states of affairs. 3. It is necessary that God exists. The first premise claims that there is at least one possible state of affairs in which God exists. The second premise claims that God has the property of existing in all possible states of affairs. These two premises entail that if God exists in even one possible state of affairs, then God exists in all possible states of affairs. That is, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists. 1. The modal argument just given for God’s existence is a valid argument. Is it a sound argument? Possible A claim is possible (that is, possibly true) if it holds in at least one possible state of affairs. For example, I don’t have green hair.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Existentialism, Phenomenology, and Education James Magrini College of Dupage, [email protected]
    College of DuPage [email protected]. Philosophy Scholarship Philosophy 7-1-2012 Existentialism, Phenomenology, and Education James Magrini College of DuPage, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.cod.edu/philosophypub Part of the Education Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Magrini, James, "Existentialism, Phenomenology, and Education" (2012). Philosophy Scholarship. Paper 30. http://dc.cod.edu/philosophypub/30 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at [email protected].. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Scholarship by an authorized administrator of [email protected].. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Existentialism, Phenomenology, and Education James M. Magrini Existentialism, and specifically phenomenology, in qualitative educational research, tends to be misunderstood. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that scholars/researchers writing in the field often emulate and imitate the dense writing styles of philosophical forerunners in phenomenology such as Hegel, Brentano, Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty. Thus the writing is beyond the comprehension of many education professionals and practitioners. Existentialism and phenomenology need not be highly complex. Here I provide a summary of existentialism and phenomenology in accessible terms so that educators might see the potential this type of philosophy holds for enhancing our educational endeavors. 1. Existentialism is a modern philosophy emerging (existence-philosophy) from the 19th century, inspired by such thinkers as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Unlike traditional philosophy, which focuses on “objective” instances of truth, existentialism is concerned with the subjective, or personal, aspects of existence.
    [Show full text]
  • Descartes' Influence in Shaping the Modern World-View
    R ené Descartes (1596-1650) is generally regarded as the “father of modern philosophy.” He stands as one of the most important figures in Western intellectual history. His work in mathematics and his writings on science proved to be foundational for further development in these fields. Our understanding of “scientific method” can be traced back to the work of Francis Bacon and to Descartes’ Discourse on Method. His groundbreaking approach to philosophy in his Meditations on First Philosophy determine the course of subsequent philosophy. The very problems with which much of modern philosophy has been primarily concerned arise only as a consequence of Descartes’thought. Descartes’ philosophy must be understood in the context of his times. The Medieval world was in the process of disintegration. The authoritarianism that had dominated the Medieval period was called into question by the rise of the Protestant revolt and advances in the development of science. Martin Luther’s emphasis that salvation was a matter of “faith” and not “works” undermined papal authority in asserting that each individual has a channel to God. The Copernican revolution undermined the authority of the Catholic Church in directly contradicting the established church doctrine of a geocentric universe. The rise of the sciences directly challenged the Church and seemed to put science and religion in opposition. A mathematician and scientist as well as a devout Catholic, Descartes was concerned primarily with establishing certain foundations for science and philosophy, and yet also with bridging the gap between the “new science” and religion. Descartes’ Influence in Shaping the Modern World-View 1) Descartes’ disbelief in authoritarianism: Descartes’ belief that all individuals possess the “natural light of reason,” the belief that each individual has the capacity for the discovery of truth, undermined Roman Catholic authoritarianism.
    [Show full text]
  • “Modern” Philosophy: Introduction
    “Modern” Philosophy: Introduction [from Debates in Modern Philosophy by Stewart Duncan and Antonia LoLordo (Routledge, 2013)] This course discusses the views of various European of his contemporaries (e.g. Thomas Hobbes) did see philosophers of the seventeenth century. Along with themselves as engaged in a new project in philosophy the thinkers of the eighteenth century, they are con- and the sciences, which somehow contained a new sidered “modern” philosophers. That might not seem way of explaining how the world worked. So, what terribly modern. René Descartes was writing in the was this new project? And what, if anything, did all 1630s and 1640s, and Immanuel Kant died in 1804. these modern philosophers have in common? By many standards, that was a long time ago. So, why is the work of Descartes, Kant, and their contempor- Two themes emerge when you read what Des- aries called modern philosophy? cartes and Hobbes say about their new philosophies. First, they think that earlier philosophers, particu- In one way this question has a trivial answer. larly so-called Scholastic Aristotelians—medieval “Modern” is being used here to describe a period of European philosophers who were influenced by time, and to contrast it with other periods of time. So, Aristotle—were mistaken about many issues, and modern philosophy is not the philosophy of today as that the new, modern way is better. (They say nicer contrasted with the philosophy of the 2020s or even things about Aristotle himself, and about some other the 1950s. Rather it’s the philosophy of the 1600s previous philosophers.) This view was shared by and onwards, as opposed to ancient and medieval many modern philosophers, but not all of them.
    [Show full text]
  • SPINOZA's ETHICS: FREEDOM and DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero
    SPINOZA’S ETHICS: FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero-Montaño 1. What remains alive of a philosopher's thought are the realities that concern him, the problems that he addresses, as well as the questions that he poses. The breath and depth of a philosopher's thought is what continues to excite and incite today. However, his answers are limited to his time and circumstances, and these are subject to the historical evolution of thought, yet his principal commitments are based on the problems and questions with which he is concerned. And this is what resounds of a philosopher's thought, which we can theoretically and practically adopt and adapt. Spinoza is immersed in a time of reforms, and he is a revolutionary and a reformer himself. The reforming trend in modern philosophy is expressed in an eminent way by Descartes' philosophy. Descartes, the great restorer of science and metaphysics, had left unfinished the task of a new foundation of ethics. Spinoza was thus faced with this enterprise. But he couldn't carry it out without the conviction of the importance of the ethical problems or that ethics is involved in a fundamental aspect of existence: the moral destiny of man. Spinoza's Ethics[1] is based on a theory of man or, more precisely, on an ontology of man. Ethics is, for him, ontology. He does not approach the problems of morality — the nature of good and evil, why and wherefore of human life — if it is not on the basis of a conception of man's being-in-itself, to wit, that the moral existence of man can only be explained by its own condition.
    [Show full text]
  • PHILOSOPHY 27 Early Modern Philosophy in This Course We Will
    PHILOSOPHY 27 Early Modern Philosophy Michael Epperson CSUS Office: Mendocino Hall # 3036 Fall 2010 Telephone: 278-4535 T & TH 10:30 – 11:45, Amador 152 Email: [email protected] Office Hours: By Appointment Description In this course we will examine the ways in which the scientific and political innovations of 16th, 17th, and 18th century Europe both influenced and were influenced by the rationalist and empiricist philosophical traditions that competed and flourished during this period. We will study the works of several philosophers working within these two traditions as they struggled to make sense of the scientific and social revolutions sweeping through their world; and we will see how their work would, in turn, help shape these revolutions, even as they continue to evolve today. One focus of the course, then, will be to examine the ways in which these philosophical traditions have maintained their relevance and influence in our own millennium as 21st century science struggles with its most difficult questions yet. Our survey will entail a careful reading and critique of the metaphysical and epistemological schemes developed by key philosophers of the early modern period, beginning with the work of Bacon, Galileo, and Descartes and concluding with Kant and his revolutionary synthesis of the rationalist and empiricist worldviews. The course website can be found at: www.csus.edu/cpns/epperson. Requirements Our work will primarily be lecture and discussion, so both careful attention to the readings and class participation will be crucial for a lively course. Please bring your text to class. There will be two examinations--one take-home mid-term paper and one in-class final--as well as several homework assignments and unannounced short answer quizzes on the readings.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Philosophy
    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant and Modern Philosophy
    P1: JZP 052182303Xpre CB994B/Guyer 0 521 82303 X October 14, 2005 9:18 The Cambridge Companion to KANT AND MODERN PHILOSOPHY Edited by Paul Guyer University of Pennsylvania Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 iii P1: JZP 052182303Xpre CB994B/Guyer 0 521 82303 X October 14, 2005 9:18 cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao˜ Paulo Cambridge University Press 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011-4211, usa www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521823036 c Cambridge University Press 2006 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2006 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data The Cambridge companion to Kant and modern philosophy / edited by Paul Guyer. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn-13: 978-0-521-82303-6 (hardback) isbn-10: 0-521-82303-x (hardback) isbn-13: 978-0-521-52995-2 (pbk.) isbn-10: 0-521-52995-6 (pbk.) 1. Kant, Immanuel, 1724–1804. 2. Philosophy, Modern. I. Guyer, Paul, 1948– II. Title. b2798.c365 2006 193 –dc22 2005029335 isbn-13 978-0-521-82303-6 hardback isbn-10 0-521-82303-x hardback isbn-13 978-0-521-52995-2 paperback isbn-10 0-521-52995-6 paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    CHAPTER ONE Introduction inquiry, iT is said, aims at the truth. Yet it’s doubtful there is any such thing as the truth. So it might be better to say that inquiry aims at truths, and better still to say that different inquiries from archeology to zoology aim at different truths from archeologi- cal to zoological. Such inquiries have had many successes, but in many cases inquiries are still underway, and success has not yet been achieved. Thus some truths are known, others unknown. But what, if anything, do the different truths, known and un- known, about different topics have in common, to make them all truths? If we knew the answer to this question we’d at least have a better understanding of the nature of inquiry, and perhaps even a better chance of finding what we’re looking for when we inquire. But with so many kinds of truths, the project of coming up with a unified conception of what truths are might seem hopeless. Per- haps that is why other inquiries leave it to philosophy. This little book is about recent philosophical inquiries into what it is for a thing to be true. There are other philosophical questions about truth—Is truth of value in itself or only as a means to other ends? How much sense can be made of the idea of one untruth’s being closer to truth than another?—but there are so many such questions that it would take a book longer than this even just to introduce them all. The question on which we focus—“What is it for a thing to be true?”—has a certain priority simply because some sort of answer to it has to be presupposed by any serious attempt to answer almost any of the others.
    [Show full text]
  • DICTIONARY of PHILOSOPHY This Page Intentionally Left Blank
    A DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY This page intentionally left blank. A Dictionary of Philosophy Third edition A.R.Lacey Department of Philosophy, King’s College, University of London First published in 1976 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd Second edition 1986 Third edition 1996 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” © A.R.Lacey 1976, 1986, 1996 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Lacey, A.R. A dictionary of philosophy.—3rd edn. 1. Philosophy—Dictionaries I. Title 190′.3′21 B41 ISBN 0-203-19819-0 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-19822-0 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-13332-7 (Print Edition) Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available on request Preface to the first edition This book aims to give the layman or intending student a pocket encyclopaedia of philosophy, one with a bias towards explaining terminology. The latter task is not an easy one since philosophy is regularly concerned with concepts which are unclear.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Augustine's Epistemology : an Ignored Aristotelian Theme and Its Intriguing Anticipations
    Document généré le 29 sept. 2021 09:24 Laval théologique et philosophique St. Augustine’s Epistemology: an Ignored Aristotelian Theme and its Intriguing Anticipations Robert C. Trundle La théorie synthétique de l’évolution Volume 50, numéro 1, février 1994 URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/400823ar DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/400823ar Aller au sommaire du numéro Éditeur(s) Faculté de philosophie, Université Laval ISSN 0023-9054 (imprimé) 1703-8804 (numérique) Découvrir la revue Citer cet article Trundle, R. C. (1994). St. Augustine’s Epistemology: an Ignored Aristotelian Theme and its Intriguing Anticipations. Laval théologique et philosophique, 50(1), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.7202/400823ar Tous droits réservés © Laval théologique et philosophique, Université Laval, Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des 1994 services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit. Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l’Université de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. https://www.erudit.org/fr/ Laval théologique et philosophique, 50, 1 (février 1994) ST. AUGUSTINE'S EPISTEMOLOGY : AN IGNORED ARISTOTELIAN THEME AND ITS INTRIGUING ANTICIPATIONS Robert C. TRUNDLE RÉSUMÉ : On pense habituellement que saint Thomas d'Aquin a initié une épistémologie aristo­ télicienne dans laquelle la raison immuable préside à la Création. Saint Augustin avait déjà adopté cette conception, et de plus il l'avait complétée par une autre dans laquelle une raison omnisciente est éclipsée de la raison humaine par une volonté toute-puissante.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy 203: History of Modern Western Philosophy Spring 2014
    Philosophy 203: History of Modern Western Philosophy Hamilton College Spring 2014 Russell Marcus Class #1 - Introduction to the Early Modern Period I. Modern Philosophy: Rationalism and Empiricism The course on which we are embarking is called History of Modern Western Philosophy, but I’ll call it Modern, as it is typically called. The modern era in western philosophy spans the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries, starting (roughly) with Descartes, and ending (roughly) with Kant. It starts a little earlier than what is ordinarily called the Enlightenment, and ends with it. Here’s a timeline I made over break. Descartes is often credited with founding modern philosophy, though he had antecedents like Galileo and Montaigne. Descartes’s work marks the move away from medieval philosophy and science, which had been dominated by Aristotle’s work. Spurred mainly by advances in science, but also by criticisms of Church dogma, Descartes and the philosophers who followed him attempted to accommodate the discoveries of the scientific revolution with a broad view of human abilities, and to construct systematic understandings of the world. This course mainly surveys, chronologically, the work of eight philosophers of the modern era: Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. This course is a standard survey of modern philosophy. The standard survey has a standard narrative. According to the standard narrative, there is a stark division among philosophers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on whether we are born as blank slates. The empiricists (Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume) believe that all knowledge comes from experience. The rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) believe that we are born with knowledge built into our minds.
    [Show full text]
  • Renaissance and Early Modern Philosophy
    Late Modern Philosophy (PHH 4440) W-F, 12:00-1:50 p.m. ED/112 Instructor: Dr. Marina P. Banchetti Office: SO/280 Contact Information: 297-3816 or [email protected] Office Hours: W-F, 10:00-11:00 a.m. 3:30-4:30 p.m. Credit Hours: 4 credits Klaus Kinski as Fitzcarraldo (Dir. Werner Herzog) Textbooks: W. T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, Volume IV: Kant and the Nineteenth Century, second edition, revised (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1997). Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, the Paul Carus translation, extensively revised by James W. Ellington (New York: Hackett Publishing Company, 1977). Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated and with an introduction by Lewis White Beck (Indianapolis: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 1990). G.W.F. Hegel, Reason in History, translated and with an introduction by Robert S. Hartman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967). G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, translated with notes by T. M. Knox (Indianapolis: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 1998). 2 Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosophical Writings, edited by Wolfgang Schirmacher, translated by E. F. Payne (New York: Continuum Press, 1998). Additional required and recommended readings are posted on Blackboard. Course Credit Hours: This 4-credit course fulfills a core history of philosophy requirement for the philosophy major. The prerequisite for this course is PHH 3420 (“Early Modern Philosophy”). Catalog Description: An in-depth study of major 18th and 19th century European philosophers, with an emphasis on Kant and Hegel, though other philosophers may also be covered. The course focuses on contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and social and political philosophy.
    [Show full text]