History of Philosophy:
Renaissance through Enlightenment: (PHIL
3230-01: 35524)
Dr. Edgar Boedeker Mo,We,Fr: 12-12:50 Lang 211 Fall 2012
Office hours: 2:00-2:45pm Tuesdays and
Thursdays, and 3-3:30 Wednesdays in my office, Baker Hall 145. I would
also be happy to meet with you at another time, to be arranged in advance. If
you would like to schedule a meeting, please contact me by e-mail at edgar.boedeker@uni.edu or phone
(273-7487).
Required texts (available at University Book & Supply):
-
Roger Ariew and Eric Watkins
(editors), Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Indianapolis:
Hackett, 1998; ISBN: 0-87220-440-5).
-
Michel de Montaigne, An Apology
for Raymond Sebond (translated by M.A. Screech;
-
Michael R. Matthews (editor), The
Scientific Background to Modern Philosophy (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989;
ISBN: 0-87220-074-4).
-
John Locke, Second Treatise of
Government (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1990: ISBN: 0-915144-86-7).
-
Voltaire, Candide, tr. by
Required
course packet (available at Copyworks, on the
corner of College and 23rd Streets).
Course description: In this course, we will trace some of the main elements of
the development of philosophy during the 16th through 18th
Centuries, the period known as Early Modern Philosophy. We will place special
emphasis on the relation between philosophy during this period and concurrent
political and scientific developments. Among the topics we will be covering
will be the nature of matter, scientific method, knowledge, perception, mind,
God, freedom, and legitimate government.
We will be covering the
philosophical “canon” of “Empiricists” and “Rationalists.” Empiricists hold
that all knowledge is based in experience derived from the senses, and
Rationalists hold that there is knowledge that is independent of
sense-experience. We will also examine the alternative, less “canonical”
tradition of Humanism. Humanism began in the Renaissance with the rediscovery
of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy and literature, especially ancient
skepticism – the view that human knowledge is quite restricted, if not
altogether impossible. Humanism continued in the group of 18th-Century
thinkers known as the philosophes. Both Empiricism, Rationalism, and
Humanism make important use of skepticism – but they do so in importantly
different ways. Empiricists and Rationalists employ skepticism in an attempt to
determine the ultimate nature and scope of human knowledge (both
scientific and philosophical, or metaphysical). Humanists, on the other hand, apply
skepticism to the more practical and mundane issues of respect for and
tolerance of differences of opinion, and the proper limits of such traditional
forms of power as Church and State.
Course goals: This course will acquaint you with many of the most
important figures, issues, and positions in Early Modern Philosophy, which are
still very much alive today. In particular, you will gain an understanding of
some of the many kinds and uses of philosophical skepticism. One of the most
important things that this course will offer you is the opportunity to hone
your interpretive, argumentative, and rhetorical skills by writing several
papers on the often difficult texts we will be reading.
Course format: Class meetings will consist of a mixture of lecture,
discussion, and group work. In order to benefit from this, it is essential that
you do all of the reading for each class.
Evaluation: The grade you receive for this course will be computed as
follows:
1. 40% of your final grade will come
from 10 completed worksheets (on the reading for a particular course meeting)
and/or analytic “response papers”. A
worksheet should completely answer all questions on one of the many attachment
s to this syllabus. An analytic response
paper should be 2 pages in length on
a study question or a topic of your choosing. Analytic response papers will be
graded with a check (full credit, i.e., 4 points toward final grade),
check-plus (credit-and-a-half, i.e., 6 points toward final grade), or
check-minus (half credit, i.e., 2 points toward final grade). You are required
to have submitted at least 1 by
September 4 at least 3 by September
13; at least 5 by October 9; at least 7 by November 13; and all 10 by our last class meeting,
December 6.
The purpose of the analytic response
papers is to encourage you to do each reading assignment, and to come to class
prepared to discuss it. They may be turned within a week after we have
discussed the topic in question.
If you choose to write a worksheet,
please answer each question on it. Generally, your answer should be between 2
and 5 sentences. You may answer the worksheet questions in any way that is
complete and legible. The best way to do this, and the way that I
prefer, is to open the worksheet document attachments, save them on your
computer, type in your answer below each question, and then print out the whole
document when you're done. Following this method will save you paper and
printing. It will also be easiest for me to read, and most convenient for you
for purposes of review as you write your papers.
As an alternative to worksheets, you
may also write analytic response papers, which should usually run about 400
words. In an analytic response paper, you will have the opportunity to delve
into more depth or detail on a single topic
related to the readings than you would in completing an entire worksheet.
Generally, most questions on the worksheets – and especially those with an
asterisk – can serve as topics for an analytic response paper. Make sure,
however, that you do not attempt in
an analytic response paper to summarize the entire
reading for a given class meeting – but rather to focus on a single topic, issue, or particularly
difficult or interesting bit of text in the readings.
2. Class participation: I expect
that all students will participate actively and constructively in classroom
discussions. Asking questions and responding to what I or fellow students say
are excellent ways for you to learn. Doing so regularly will boost your final
grade by up to two thirds of a letter grade, for example, from a B to an A-. On
the other hand, if your presence in class contributes to a negative learning
environment (for example, repeatedly coming to class late, treating fellow
students with disrespect, obviously not paying attention, passing notes,
whispering, etc.), this can reduce your final grade correspondingly.
3. Attendance: I reserve the right
to take attendance at the beginning of each class period. You are permitted
three unexplained absences during the semester. For each unexplained absence
beyond these three, your final grade will be reduced by one third of a letter
grade. For example, someone with a B+ average with 5 unexplained absences
(i.e., 2 more than the 3 allowed) will receive a B- in the course. The only
explanations I will accept are a doctor’s note or a funeral announcement.
I realize that this is a fairly
strict attendance policy. I have instituted it mainly because much of the
learning that you will do in this course will take place in class. Asking
questions, raising objections, and listening to others are important skills
that you will get to practice in class discussions. In addition, coming to
class is necessary to doing well in this course.
4. Papers: Either three separate papers (for which topics will be given in
advance) or one cumulative paper with
a single general topic: the variety of kinds and uses of skeptical arguments in
the Renaissance and Enlightenment. This paper will be written in 3 stages
throughout the semester:
I strongly encourage you to discuss
the stages of your papers with me before you turn it in, and I’m happy to read
drafts and offer comments.
Criteria for writing and evaluating a paper:
I. Thesis (20 points).
A. Does
your essay have a clear, informative, and compelling thesis that appears at the
end of an interesting introduction that explains why your thesis matters, why
it is important?
B. Is your
thesis new, an original, creative and compelling insight into the text and
issue under consideration? Do you set the historical and cultural context for
this thesis, explaining why this thesis is important and therefore giving the
reader a reason to take interest in your essay?
II. Support of thesis (60 points).
A.
Thesis defense. Does your essay have a consecutive
argument that defends your thesis, carefully moving the reader from one point
to the next (or does it simply run in place)? Your aim is not to prove
to the reader that your thesis is iron-clad, but to show that it is
reasonable, that what you see in the text is there to be seen. So do you
cite and quote evidence from the text (a good rule of thumb is to use three
examples), and do you explain how that evidence supports your thesis? Do
you lead the reader through your argument, one step at a time, explicitly
telling me how that step supports you thesis?
Remember
that the reasons you give for or against an argument should be more than
simply your beliefs or opinions. Rather, they should be potentially convincing
to someone else, even if this person may not initially share your beliefs or
opinions. After all, are you convinced that something is true just
because someone else happens to believe it? Thus in trying to bring your reader
over to your side, make sure to meet him or her in the middle by appealing to reasons
that they might accept.
B. Evidence
and reasoning. Does your essay have adequate citation and quotations from
relevant texts that support the argument of the paper, and do you explain how
those citations and quotations in fact support the argument?
C. Consistency.
Does your essay demonstrate internal consistency or ways of handling
contradiction and paradox as they emerge in the argument?
D. Addressing
an objection. Does your essay show an awareness of a possible objection to
your thesis? Does your essay address this objection?
III. Style and presentation (20 points).
A. Does
your essay:
1. avoid
grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors? (This is very important,
since the reader can’t help but take these factors as indicating the author’s
care in writing the paper.)
2. have
clear and well-structured sentences, paragraphs, and arguments?
3. have
properly defined key terms?
4. have
properly documented quotes? Page numbers in parentheses placed after the quote
are sufficient if you are dealing with just one text.
B. Succinctness. Is
every paragraph, sentence, and even every word absolutely necessary to your
argument (or do you have irrelevant material and rambling discussion)?
Note on the papers:
One
thing that a philosophy paper should not be is a “book report”, i.e., an
attempt to summarize an entire philosophical text. Instead, a good philosophy
paper should give a close analysis of a single key argument in a
text. An “argument” in this sense isn’t a verbal fight (this isn’t the Jerry
Springer Show, after all!). Rather, an argument is a chain of reasoning from
certain statements (called the “premises”) to another statement (called the
“conclusion”) that the argument claims is supported by the premises.
A
good philosophy paper contains both an analysis of such an argument and
some criticism of it. A good criticism generally consists of either (1)
reasons why one or more of the premises of the argument is false,
or (2) reasons why the premises in fact do not support the conclusion
(in which case the conclusion still might be false even if the premises were
true). You may or may not agree with the argument; and you may or may not agree
with your criticism of it. This doesn’t matter for the purposes of this course.
Remember that the reasons you give for or against an argument should be
more than simply your beliefs or opinions. Rather, they should be potentially
convincing to someone else, even if this person may not initially share your
beliefs or opinions. After all, are you convinced that something is true
just because someone else happens to believe it? So don’t just state
whether or not you agree with the author’s conclusion. Instead, try to give reasons
for or against the author’s argument for this conclusion.
Website: The Department of Philosophy and Religion has relatively
few funds available for photocopying (or for anything else, for that matter!).
The great majority of our course materials will therefore be placed on our
website: http://www.uni.edu/boedeker.
There you will find worksheets for you to fill out on the readings, outlines
for some lectures, materials for use in in-class projects, and suggested paper topics. Please check the
website frequently for updates.
MAILSERV: From time to time, I will also send announcements
pertaining to the class via e-mail. To facilitate our electronic communication,
a MAILSERV distribution list has been created for this class using your UNI
e-mail addresses. The list members include myself and the students who were
registered for the class when the list was created. It is a private list (i.e.,
only the list members may post to it), but has open subscription. To send to
the list, use
If you registered late, or if you
wish to be able to send and receive e-mails at an e-mail address other than
your UNI one, then please add your e-mail address to this list by
sending a message to
mailserv@uni.edu
where the body (not
the subject heading) contains these two lines:
SUB
PHIL-3230-01-FALL
END
In a similar manner, if you drop
this course, you may remove yourself from the list by sending a message to
mailserv@uni.edu
where the body (not
the subject heading) contains these two lines:
UNSUB PHIL-3230-01-FALL
END
It will be your responsibility to
make sure you are subscribed to the MAILSERV right away, check your e-mail
regularly, read the announcements, and print out all attachments. I
strongly recommend that you purchase a 3-ring binder to organize and store the
various handouts for this class.
Cheating and plagiarism (from
UNI’s academic ethics policy): “Students at UNI are required to observe the
commonly accepted standards of academic honesty and integrity. Except in those
instances in which group work is specifically authorized by the instructor of
the class, no work which is not solely the student's is to be submitted to a
professor in the form of an examination paper, a term paper, class project,
research project, or thesis project.
“Cheating of any kind on examinations and/or plagiarism of
papers or projects is strictly prohibited. Also unacceptable are the purchase
of papers from commercial sources, using a single paper to meet the requirement
of more than one class (except in instances authorized and considered
appropriate by the professors of the two classes), and submission of a term
paper or project completed by any individual other than the student submitting
the work. Students are cautioned that plagiarism is defined as the process of
stealing or passing off as one's own the ideas or words of another, or
presenting as one's own an idea or product which is derived from an existing
source.
“It is not acceptable for the work or ideas of another
scholar to be presented as a student's own or to be utilized in a paper or
project without proper citation. To avoid any appearance of plagiarism or
accidental plagiarism, it is important that all students become fully cognizant
of the citation procedures utilized in their own discipline and in the classes
they take. The plea of ignorance regarding citation procedures or of
carelessness in citation is not a compelling defense against allegations of
plagiarism. A college student, by the fact that he or she holds that status, is
expected to understand the distinction between proper scholarly use of others’
work and plagiarism.”
Any student who is found to have cheated or plagiarized will
receive the grade of “F” for the class. The instructor is obliged to report
this “action in writing to the instructor’s department head (and, if the
student is from a different department, to the head of the student’s
department), and to the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic
Affairs. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs will notify the
student in writing that such action has been taken, and will maintain a file
for each student so disciplined.
“In cases of particularly flagrant
violations of academic ethics relating to cheating or plagiarism, the
instructor may feel obligated to recommend suspension from UNI for a period
ranging from the term in which the infraction occurs (with a loss of all credit
earned during that term) to permanent suspension from the University. […]”
Disabilities: I will make every effort to accommodate disabilities. Please
contact me if I can be of assistance in this area. All qualified students with
disabilities are protected under the provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A., Section 12101. The
Tentative course schedule:
IMPORTANT
NOTE: This class meets three times per week, and each class meeting will be
chock-full of lecture, discussion, etc.
You’re required to come to all class meetings. Nevertheless, reading assignments are given only for Mondays and Wednesdays.
I.
The old and the new physics, and Renaissance humanism
Aug 20: Introduction.
Aug. 22: Aristotle (384-322 BCE), Physics, Book II, Chapters
1-3; and Book IV, Chapter 8 (in Matthews, Scientific Background [hereafter
“SB”]);
Book VII, Chapter 1; and Metaphysics,
Book XII, Chapters 6-8 (in course packet). Notes.
Aug. 27: Aristotle, On the Heavens, Book I, Chapters 2-3;
Book II, Chapter 14; Book III, Chapter 2; Book IV, Chapters 3-5 (in course
packet). Notes.
Aug. 29: Aristotle, On the Soul, Book II, Chapters 1-6, 12;
Book III, Chapters 3-8 (in course packet). Notes.
Sept. 3: Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543 CE), Commentariolus
(1512) and On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres (1543) (SB, pp.
33-44); Johannes Kepler (1571-1630 CE): Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), The
Copernican Revolution (1957) (in course packet, pp. 206-219). Have at least 1 worksheet or analytic
response paper submitted.
Sept. 5: Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), An Apology for Raymond
Sebond (1580), pp. xl-51.
Sept. 10: Raymond Sebond, pp. 51-122.
Sept. 12: Raymond Sebond, pp. 122-190. Have at least 3 worksheets or analytic response papers submitted.
Sept.
17: Francis Bacon (1561-1626), The
New Organon (1620) (in Ariew and Watkins, Modern Philosophy [hereafter
“MP”] pp. 4-7);
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), The
Assayer (1623) (MP, pp. 8-11);
Galileo Galilei, Dialogues
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) (SB, pp. 71-81).
II.
The rise of philosophical rationalism
Sept. 19: René Descartes (1596-1650), Discourse on the Method for
Conducting One’s Reason Well and for Seeking the Truth in the Sciences (1637),
Parts I and II; and Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), “Letter of
Dedication” and “Preface to the Reader” (MP, pp. 12-19) and Meditation
One: “Concerning those things that can be called into doubt” (pp. 22-25) Handout.
Sept. 24: Descartes, Meditations Two (“Concerning the nature of the
human mind: that it is better known than the body”) and Three (“Concerning God:
that He exists”). Handout.
Sept. 26: Descartes, Meditations Four (“Concerning the True and the
False” [MP, pp. 41-45]) an Five (“Concerning the essence of material
things; and again concerning God, that He exists”); (MP, pp. 45-48); and
“Reply to [Marin Mersenne’s {1588-1648}] Second Set of Objections” (1641), pp.
57-62. Optional draft of first paper
due. Handout.
Oct. 1: Descartes, Meditation Six: “Concerning the existence of
material things, and the real distinction between mind and body” (MP,
pp. 48-55);
Descartes, letter to Marin Mersenne
from
Descartes, Principles of
Philosophy (1644-1647) Part I ##45-46 (in course packet, pp. 242f), Part II
##3-25 (in course packet, pp. 254-262) and ##36-40 and #64, and Part IV
##198-199 and ##203-204 (SB, pp. 99-108)
Descartes, The Passions of the
Soul (1649), Part I #30-38 (in course packet, pp. 307-310). Handout.
III.
Empiricist Atomism and Rationalist Holism
Oct. 3: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), letter to Descartes: “Against Meditation
II: Concerning the nature of the human mind”, and Descartes’ reply (1641) (in
course packet); Leviathan or the Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth
Ecclesiastical and Civil (1651), selections (in course packet, also in
worksheet).
First
paper due.
Oct. 8: John Locke (1632-1704), Second Treatise of Government:
An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government
(1689), "Preface" and sections 1-61 (pp. 5-35). Have at least 5 worksheets or analytic response papers submitted.
Oct. 10: Locke, Second Treatise of Government, sections
87-99, 119-168, 199-124 (pp. 46-53, 63-88, 101-124).
Oct. 15: Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I, “Of Man”, Chapters 1-5 (MP,
pp. 101-114);
Robert Boyle (1627-1691), Of the
Excellency and Grounds of the Corpuscular or Mechanical Hypothesis (1674) (MP,
pp. 262-269).
Oct. 17: Isaac Newton (1642-1727), The Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy ("Principia") (1687) (MP, pp.
244-248); and John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
(1690), Book I; and Book II, Chapters I-VIII: ideas, empiricism, and primary
and secondary qualities (MP, pp. 270-290).
Oct. 22: Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book
II, Chapters XXI (power and freedom) and XXIII and XXVII (substance and
identity) (pp. 301-329).
Oct.
24: Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book
III, Chapters III and VI: words and abstract ideas (pp. 329-339) and George
Berkeley (1685-1753), A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human
Knowledge (1710), "Preface" and "Introduction": on
abstract ideas (pp. 462-470).
Oct. 29: Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human
Knowledge, Part I: against matter (pp. 470-477).
Oct.
31: Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von
Leibniz (1646-1716), Discourse on Metaphysics (1710), ##1-37 (pp.
184-207).
Nov.
5: Leibniz, The Principles of
Philosophy or the Monadology (1714) (pp. 235-243). Handout. Notes.
Nov. 7: Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), Ethics, Demonstrated in
Geometrical Order (1677), Part I, "Concerning God":
"Definitions", "Axioms", Propositions 1-38 and Appendix
(pp. (MP, pp. 129-149) Handout.
Nov. 12: Spinoza, Ethics, Part II, “Of the Nature and Origin
of the Mind”: "Preface", "Definitions", "Axioms",
Propositions 1-20, Propositions 21-49, Scholium (= “note”) to Proposition 49
(pp. 149-172). Optional draft of second
paper due. Have at least 7
worksheets or analytic response papers submitted. Handout.
Nov. 14: Spinoza, Ethics,
Part V: "Of the power of the understanding, or of human freedom" (pp.
172-180).
IV.
Empiricist and Humanist Skepticism
Nov. 26: David Hume (1711-1776), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
(1748): ideas, skepticism, and the “skeptical solution” (pp. 491-522) Handout;
Second
paper due.
Nov. 28: Hume on varieties of skepticism and personal identity from A
Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1749) (pp. 550-572).
Dec. 3: Voltaire (1694-1778), Candide (1759), pp. 17-72.
Dec. 5: Voltaire, Candide, pp. 72-120. Have all 10 worksheets or analytic response papers submitted.
Dec.
7: Review and/or catch-up day.
Wednesday,
Dec. 12: Final paper due by 4pm in my mailbox in the Department of
Philosophy & Religion office, 135 Baker Hall.