Rationalism & Empiricism: Philosophy 300*

California State University, Fullerton

Syllabus

Descartes Notes -- Most Recent Update:  3/8/98

"The Great Chain of Being" copyright Peter Suber

Instructor:  Lawrence Udell Fike, Jr.

Office:  Education Classroom 479C

Office Hours:  W 11:00-11:50      F 11:00-11:50      F 12:00-12:50

Course Meeting Times:  MW 13:00-14:15

Course Meeting Location:  Education Classroom 124

Catalog Number:  15524

Cal State Fullerton Philosophy Club Link:  Cal State University Fullerton Philosophy Club

COURSE DESCRIPTION:  This is an upper-division discussion course that focuses on the major epistemological and metaphysical preoccupations of some of the traditionally studied figures in 17th & 18th century Western Philosophy.  More specifically, we will focus on the problems encountered in trying to give an adequate account of the nature of the external world, the structure of our minds, and the nature and limitations of knowledge in the thought of Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley, and Hume.  Some appreciation for the context in which these problems became central philosophical preoccupations will also be discussed.

SHOULD YOU TAKE THIS COURSE?  This is a reading- and discussion-intensive course that requires careful, patient analysis of sophisticated philosophical argumentation.  The reading is intellectually demanding.  I will attempt to moderate discussions sufficiently so that the material is accessible to those with minimal philosophical preparation, but will assume either a genuine interest in the problems and/or thinkers we are studying, or else at least one previous course in philosophy with an earned grade of A or B.  See also the section titled, "Format" below.

REQUIRED BOOKS (online links embedded in list):

1. Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, translated from the Latin by Donald A. Cress, third edition (Hackett, 1993).
2. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human understanding, abridged and edited by Kenneth Winkler (Hackett, 1996).
3. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Philosophical Essays, translated by Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber (Hackett, 1989).
4. George Berkeley, Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, edited, with introduction, by Robert Merrihew Adams (Hackett, 1979).
5. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Hackett).

Handouts will often be distributed, and I will assume that these will always have been read by the next class meeting.  Please anticipate an average of  8 pages of handout reading per week in addition to the pages explicitly mentioned in the Class Meeting Schedule below.

Class Meeting Schedule

Works and pages cited for a given day will be discussed or presupposed that day in class and should be read prior to it. Those in brackets are recommended but not required. Papers are due at class time on the days indicated.

Week 1.  February 2-6 

• Mon: Administrative, Required Orientation
• Wed: Required Orientation & Important Philosophical Terminology

Week 2. February 9-13

• Mon:  Rationalism & Empiricism:  What and Why?
• Wed: Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Dedication, Preface, Synopsis, Meditation One

 Week 3. February 16-20

• Mon: No class
• Wed: Descartes, Meditations, Meditations Two and Three

Week 4. February 23-27

• Mon: Descartes, Meditations, Meditations Four, Five, and Six
• Wed:  Review of Descartes' Meditations

Week 5. March 2-6

• Mon: Locke's Essay, pp. v-xxv; 1-7:  Contents, Editor's Introduction, Chronology, Bibliography, Epistle to the Reader, Introduction
• Wed:  Locke's Essay, pp. 33-56; ungraded Descartes paper due

Week 6. March 9-13

• Mon: Locke's Essay, pp. 56-60, 63-68, 114-121, 122-129
• Wed: Locke's Essay, pp. 137-148

Week 7. March 16-20

• Mon: Locke, Essay, pp. 69-78, 93-117
• Wed: Locke, Essay, pp. 93-117

Week 8. March 23-27

• Mon: Locke, Essay, pp: 224-234
• Wed: Locke, Essay, pp. 235-250; Descartes/Locke paper due

Week 9. March 30-April 3

• Mon: Spring break - no class
• Wed: Spring break - no class

Week 10. April 6-10

• Mon: Locke, Essay, pp. 122-129 (Material & Spiritual Substances); 137-148 (Personal Identity)
• Wed: Locke, Essay, pp. 69-78 (Space); 93-117 (Power)

Week 11. April 13-17

• Mon: Locke, Essay, pp. 224-250 (Knowledge)
• Wed: Locke, Essay, 224-250 (Knowledge); 275-284 (Knowledge of God)

Week 12. April 20-24

• Mon: Leibniz, Monadology, Sections 1-47.
• Wed: Leibniz, Monadology, Sections 48-90

Week 13. April 27-May 1

• Mon: Leibniz, Complete & Review
• Wed: Berkeley, v-xxxii, First Dialogue

Week 14. May 4-8

• Mon: Berkeley, First and Second Dialogues
• Wed: Review Day

Week 15. May 11-15

• Mon: Hume, Enquiry, Section I-IV
• Wed: Hume, Enquiry, Sections V-VII  Locke/Leibniz paper due 5/15 at 4 p.m. in EC475

Week 16. May 18-22

• Mon: Hume, Enquiry, Section XII
• Wed: Review day

Week 17. May 26-30

• Fri: Berkeley/Hume paper due in my box, Education Classroom 475, by 4:00 p.m.

Here are some of the things we can do on review days:

• Review the philosopher we just finished. Ask any questions which you didn't have a chance to ask earlier. Tie up loose ends. Put the details into a larger picture. Get comfortable evaluating, not just interpreting, philosophers and their arguments.
• Discuss how to write a paper on the philosopher we just finished and how to write philosophy papers in general.
• Take stock. How have the philosophers in the course dealt with recurring themes? (What are the recurring themes so far?) Where does the conversation stand on those themes?
• Discuss research in philosophy. How does one find scholarship on a particular philosophical topic, figure, or period?
• Assess the quality of our discussions. How could we improve?

Work Summary

• Three papers: one on Descartes and/or Locke; one on Locke and/or Leibniz; and one on Berkeley and/or Hume.

  • At least one of the three should be comparative.

  • Non-comparative papers should be 5-7 pages long, comparative papers 7-10 pages long.

  • An optional short, ungraded paper on Descartes gives you an opportunity for feedback in Week 5.

• Preparation for, and participation in, every discussion.

Background Reading

I intend to put several volumes on reserve in the library, and I will mention selections from them in class from time to time.  If you have not done so before, I recommend that you do some independent reading on Plato and Aristotle early in the term. Acquaint yourselves with at least these positions: from Plato, "the divided line", the theory of recollection, and the theory of forms (or ideas); and from Aristotle, the four causes, and the unmoved mover. Beyond these topics, nothing is necessary; but if you want to do more, read up on any part of their epistemology and metaphysics. Secondary sources are good enough for this assignment, since they will give you a more complete picture in a shorter time.

Papers

Three papers are required for this course. Note the due dates in the schedule above.

The first paper should be on Descartes and/or Locke. The second paper should be on Locke and/or Leibniz, with this proviso: Leibniz must be a subject of the paper. (Hence include Locke only if the paper is comparative and the other philosopher in the comparison is Leibniz.) The third paper should be on Berkeley and/or Hume. At least one of your papers should be comparative. Within these limitations pick any topic you find interesting and important. A topic is a question.  I will occasionally suggest topics throughout the term and would be happy to help you frame your own ideas.  Please see me during office hours or schedule an appointment.

For your comparative paper(s), start with a single sharp question; then state the answers of both philosophers, state their arguments, describe the important similarities and differences between their answers (and arguments), and give some sense of how they would respond to one another's arguments. Finally, offer some evaluative comments.  These could be on the strengths and weaknesses of the two positions considered separately, or on the relative superiority of one of them. (For some reason, students often assume that comparative papers need no evaluative comments; to omit them is to omit roughly half the paper!)

Non-comparative papers should be 5-7 pages long; comparative papers 7-10 pages long.

The Optional Descartes Exposition, due at the end of our Descartes unit in Week 4, is an opportunity for feedback on your ability to interpret a philosopher's position and argument without the intimidation of a grade. If you choose to write this little paper, ask a question, and then expound Descartes' answer to the question with his supporting argument. It can be as long or short as you have time and inclination to make it. I'll give you comments but no grade.

Format

Normally this is a combined lecture and discussion course. Students in the past have said that the material can be difficult to discuss, at least before one gains philosophical experience and confidence through practice.  Still, I'm inclined to try discussion first. This will mean making an extra effort to prepare the day's reading, to speak voluntarily every day, to take risks with difficult texts and deep questions, and to make our classroom a safe environment in which others can take risks. I can give a mini-lecture at the drop of a hat, to answer a background question or help us over a hump, but for the first part of the semester, at least, let's try to make discussion our primary format.

Final Grade

The final grade will be based on these elements with these weights:

The chief elements of participation are attendance, preparation for class, and performance in discussion. All assigned work must be submitted to pass the course; zeroes will not be averaged.

Learning Objectives and Outcomes

We will try to understand our authors by reading sympathetically yet critically. We will look for presuppositions and will not focus on positions alone but will try always to see them in light of their supporting arguments. We will not focus on isolated positions and arguments, but will try always to see them in relation to other thinkers and events (historically) and in relation to other ideas (systematically). We will compare different positions and arguments and compose our own arguments. We will be creative in thinking through the meaning and merits of positions and arguments and come to a clearer understanding of the nature of philosophical inquiry and practice.

The cultivation of these skills in the context of the preoccupations of 17th & 18th century philosophers is by no means inapplicable to the kinds of expectations made of professionals in every field at the close of the 20th century.  We live today in what is undoubtedly the most communicatively rich environment in the history of our species.  This environment, however, imposes new demands upon us:  our ability to hear (as oppose to merely listening to) others, and to articulate our own thoughts, is an increasingly precious commodity.  The practice of philosophy deepens both of these capacities.

Chronology

For your information, here are the dates of our authors and some of their notable contemporaries (chronological by birth year):

Copyright 1998 by Lawrence Udell Fike, Jr.

_______________________

*  I wish to acknowledge use of the on-line materials of Professor Peter Suber from which I have greatly benefited and sometimes borrowed.