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.