Department of Philosophy PHIL310-16S2: Early Modern Philosophy: Descartes Hume Syllabus and Course Outline - 2016 Contents: I. Course details II. Detailed course outline III. Reading List IV. Assessment V. General information I. Course details Description: This course introduces you to the foundations of modern philosophy. We ll pay particular attention to the questions addressed by Descartes in his Meditations and by Hume in Book 1 of his Treatise. We ll also study Hume s moral theory, Locke s theory of knowledge and Berkeley s metaphysics. Topics covered include rationalism and empiricism, dreaming, scepticism, proofs of the existence of God, mind-body dualism, idealism, the nature of self, personal identity, causation, reason and the passions. Can I be sure that I m not dreaming? Can I be sure of anything? What, in any case, is this I? What is the relationship between mind and body? What is it to remain the same person over time? Does the external world exist? Is it material or composed of ideas? Can ought be derived from is? Is morality based on reason or the passions? Learning outcomes: Understand and evaluate central ideas in early modern philosophy. Engage with the writings of Descartes and Hume in a detailed and systematic way. Develop critical and interpretative skills of value in the academy and the workplace. Communicate cogent summaries and arguments in oral and written form. Course credit: 30 points, 0.2500 EFTS Contact hours: 12 two-hour lectures and 12 two-hour seminars. Lecturer and Course Coordinator: Dr. Michael-John Turp Karl Popper Building, Room 603 Phone (03) 364 2385 ext. 6385 michael-john.turp@canterbury.ac.nz Office hour: Friday 12-1 1
Lectures are designed to introduce central issues in early modern philosophy. They provide an overview and framework for further reading, thought and investigation. Seminars are designed to develop your presentation skills abd provide a forum for deeper exploration of particular topics. Attendance and participation at the ten seminars is worth 5% of the final grade for this course. If you have a good reason for being unable to attend a seminar you should contact the lecturer in advance. Times and locations for lectures and seminars are set by UC timetabling and are available on the Course Information System. Required texts: The core texts for the course are Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy and Hume s A Treatise of Human Nature. Several editions of both of these works are available. The preferred edition of the Meditations is the translation by John Cottingham (published by Cambridge University Press). The preferred editions of the Treatise are those edited by P.H. Nidditch and by David Fate Norton & Mary J. Norton (both editions are published by Oxford University Press). A range of recommended commentaries and further readings is listed for each week. Online resources: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an excellent resource written by experts in the field: http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is also a good, reliable, peer-reviewed resource: http://www.iep.utm.edu/ PhilPapers is a very useful online database of philosophy papers and a good place to extend your research beyond the reading list given in the course outline: http://philpapers.org/ JSTOR is a large archive of academic papers including philosophy, which you have free access to through the UC library website: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.canterbury.ac.nz Other online resources vary enormously in quality and should mostly be avoided. Learn: There is a website for this course on Learn. The course outline, lecture handouts and other materials are posted on the site: http://learn.canterbury.ac.nz Assessment: Item Length/Time Weight Due Date Seminar Presentation 25 minutes 15% TBC in week 1 Essay 1 2000 words (max) 25% End of Term 1, Fri 19/08, 11.55 pm Essay 2 2000 words (max) 25% End of Term 2, Fri 14/10, 11.55 pm Exam 3 hours 30% TBC Seminar Participation 5% Throughout Semester See section IV for further assessment details. 2
II. Detailed Course Outline Reading list and references are in Section III below. Week 1: Rationalism, Empiricism and Descartes Project Grayling (2005) is a very readable, philosophically informed biography of Descartes. Gaukroger (1995) is a more challenging, scholarly biography. Helpful overviews of Descartes philosophical project include Cottingham (1986: Ch. 2), Hatfield (2014), Moore (2012: Ch. 1) and Williams (1978: Ch. 2). Markie (2013) provides a useful overview of the debates between rationalists and empiricists. Carriero (2009) is more advanced, emphasising the Meditations Scholastic context. None this week. Seminar on the history of philosophy. Week 2: Descartes Doubts Descartes, First Meditation, On Meditation One Helpful commentaries include Cottingham (1986: Ch. 2), Curley (1978: Ch. 2), Frankfurt (1970: Part I), Newman (2014: 2-3), Owens (2008), Stroud (2008), Williams (1978: Ch. 2; appendix 3) and Wilson (2003: Chs. 1 2). On the dreaming doubt see especially Curley (1978: Ch. 3), and Wilson (1978: 17 31). Buckle (2007) argues for a close parallel between Descartes method of doubt and Plato s cave. Dennett, D. 1976. Are dreams experiences? The Philosophical Review 85: 151 171. Hanna, R. 1992. Descartes and dream skepticism revisited. Journal of the History of Philosophy 30: 377 98. Malcolm, N. 1956. Dreaming and skepticism. The Philosophical Review 65: 14 37. Sosa, E. 2005. Dreams and philosophy. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 79: 7 18. Week 3: The Cartesian Self and the Cogito Descartes, Second Meditation, On Meditation Two. Helpful commentaries include Cottingham (1986: 35 46), Curley (1978: Ch. 4), Frankfurt (1970: Chs. 10 11), Newman (2014: 4), Williams (1978: Ch. 3) and Wilson (2003: Ch. 3). Sarkar (2003) is an advanced book on the cogito. Curley, E. 2006. The cogito and the foundations of knowledge. In Gaukroger, S. (ed.), (2006), 30 47. 3
Harrison, J. 1984. The incorrigibility of the cogito. Mind 93: 321 35. Hintikka, J. 1962. Cogito ergo sum, inference or performance. Philosophical Review 71: 3 32. Markie, P. 1992. The cogito and its importance. In Cottingham. J. (ed.), (1992a), 140 73. (Reprinted in Cottingham (ed.) (1998)) Week 4: Descartes Validation of Reason Descartes, Third and Fourth Meditations, On Meditations Three to Five. Helpful commentaries include Bennett (2001: Ch. 19 (vol. 1)), Carriero (2008), Cottingham (1986: Ch. 3), Curley (1978: Ch. 5), Hatfield (2006), Newman (2010: 6), Williams (1978: Chs. 5 7) and Wilson (2003: Chs. 4 5). Broughton, J. 1984. Skepticism and the Cartesian circle. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 14: 593 615. Feldman, F. 1975. Epistemic appraisal and the Cartesian circle. Philosophical Studies 27: 37 55. Frankfurt, H. 1965. Descartes validation of reason. American Philosophical Quarterly 2: 149 156. Loeb, L. 1992. The Cartesian circle. In Cottingham. J. (ed.), (1992a), 200 235. Week 5: Cartesian Dualism Descartes, Second and Sixth Meditations, On Meditation Six. Helpful commentaries include Bennett (2001: Ch. 4 (vol. 1)), Cottingham (1986: Ch. 5; 1992b), Hoffman (2008), Rozemond (2008), Williams (1978: Ch. 4; Ch. 10) and Wilson (2003: Ch. 9). Baker and Morris (1996) and Clarke (2003) are more advanced, scholarly books. For a general introduction to dualism see Lowe (2009) or Robinson (2016). Cottingham, J. 1985. Cartesian trialism. Mind 94: 218 30. Richardson, R. C. 1982. The scandal of Cartesian interactionism. Mind 91: 20 37. Rodrigues, J. G. 2014. There are no good objections to substance dualism. Philosophy 89: 199 222. Ryle, G. 1949. Descartes' Myth. In his The Concept of Mind, London: Hutchinson, Ch. 1. Weeks 6/7: Berkeley on Mind and Matter Berkeley, Principles, 1 33. Locke, Essay, Bk. II, Chs. 8 9 4
Good introductions include Bennett (2001: Ch. 28 (vol. 2), Dancy (1987), Downing (2011) and Fogelin (2001). Grayling (1986) and Winkler (1989) are more advanced. Craig, E. J. 1968. Berkeley s attack on abstract ideas. Philosophical Review 77: 425 37. Fleming, N. 1985. The tree in the quad. American Philosophical Quarterly 22: 25 36. Gallois, A. 1974. Berkeley's Master Argument. The Philosophical Review 83: 55-69. Grayling, A. C. 2005. Berkeley s argument for immaterialism. In Winkler (ed.), (2005), 166 89. Weeks 7/8: Hume on Mind, Causation and Induction Hume, Treatise. Bk. I, Pt. 1, I IV, VII; Pt. 3, IV VII, XIV. Useful introductions to Hume s project and theory of mind include Biro (2009), Broughton (2006), Moore (2012: Ch. 4), Morris and Brown (2014). Noonan (1999: Ch. 2), Stroud (1977: Ch. 2) and Wright (2009: Ch. 2). Baier (2008: Ch. 7; Ch. 12) and Owen (1999: Chs. 1 4) are more advanced. Introductions to Hume on causation include Bell (2009), Noonan (1999: Ch. 3), Stroud (1977: Chs. 3 4) and Wright (2009: Ch. 3). Bennett (2001: Chs. 34 6 (vol. 2)) is detailed. More advanced discussions include Baier (2008: Ch. 11) and Sandis (2011). Howson (2000) is an advanced book on the problem of induction, but Ch. 1 is an accessible introduction. Blackburn, S. 1990. Hume and thick connexions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50: 237 50. Marušić, J. S. 2014. Hume on the Projection of Causal Necessity. Philosophy Compass 9: 263-273. Strawson, G. 2000. David Hume: objects and power, In Read, R. and K. Richman (eds), The New Hume Debate, London, Routledge, 31 51. (Reprinted in Millican (ed.) (2002)). Winkler, K. P. 2000. The New Hume. In Read, R. and K. Richman (eds), The New Hume Debate, Abingdon, Routledge, 52-87. Week 9: Humean Scepticism and the External World Hume, Treatise. Bk. I, Pt. 4, I II, VII. Hume, Enquiry, XII. Good overviews include Bennett (2001: Ch. 37 (vol. 2)), Dicker (1998: Ch. 7), Noonan (1999: Ch. 5), Owen (1999: Chs. 8 9) and Stroud (1977: Ch. 5). 5
Fogelin, R. 2009. Hume s Skepticism. In Norton, D. and J. Taylor (eds.), (2009), 209 37. Norton, D. F. 2002. Of the academical or sceptical philosophy. In Milllican (ed.), (2002a), 371 92. Popkin, R. H. 1951. David Hume: his Pyrrhonism and his critique of Pyrrhonism. The Philosophical Quarterly 1: 385 407. Stroud, B. 1991. Hume's Scepticism: Natural Instincts and Philosophical Reflection. Philosophical Topics 19: 271-291. Week 10: Hume on Personal Identity Hume, Treatise, Bk. I, Pt. 4, VI. McIntyre (2009), Noonan (1999: Ch. 5), Stroud (1977: Ch. 6) and Swain (2006) are useful commentaries. Baier (2008: Ch. 8), Garrett (1997: Ch. 8) and Thiel (2011: Chs. 12 13) are more advanced. Perry (1998) is a general collection of readings on personal identity. Baxter (2008) and Strawson (2011) are advanced recent monographs. Broakes, J. 2002. Hume, belief, and personal identity. In Millican (ed.) (2002), 187 210. Noonan, H. 2012. The self and personal identity. In Bailey, A. and D. O Brien (eds.), (2012), 67 80. Penelhum, T. 1955. Hume on personal identity. Philosophical Review 64: 571 89. Lesser, H., 1978. Reid's Criticism of Hume's Theory of Personal Identity. Hume Studies, 4(2): 41-63. Week 11: Hume on Reason, Passion, Is and Ought Hume, Treatise. Bk. 3, Pt. 1. Baillie (2000: Chs. 4 5), Mounce (1999: Ch. 7), Stroud (1977: Ch. 7) and Wright (2009: Chs. 7 8) are useful introductions. Mackie (1980: Ch. 2) is a very useful overview of Hume's predecessors, which provides background and context for Hume's own moral theory. MacIntyre (1981: Ch. 5) also sets Hume's Law in a long historical context. See Pigden (2010) for a recent collection of academic papers on is and ought (including Baier (2010)). Bricke (1999) is a detailed study of Hume s moral psychology. MacIntyre, A. 1959. Hume on is and ought. The Philosophical Review 68: 451 68. Prior, A. N. 1960. The autonomy of ethics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 38: 199 206. Searle, J. 1964. How to derive ought from is. The Philosophical Review 73: 43 56. 6
Wolf, A. 2015. Giving up Hume's Guillotine. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93(1): 109-125. Week 12: Hume on Sentiment and Virtue Primary Text: Hume, Treatise. Bk. 3, Pts. 2-3. Baillie (2000: Ch. 6), Stroud (1977: Ch. 8) and Wright (2009: Ch. 9) are useful introductions. See Driver (2012) and O Brien (2012) for good overviews of Hume s theory of sentiment and virtue respectively. Cohon (2008) is a more advanced study of Hume s moral theory. Mackie (1980: Ch. 6) discusses Hume s artificial virtues in detail. Baier (1991: Ch. 9) provides a helpful taxonomy. Pigden (2009) is a recent collection of essays on Humean motivation and virtue. Baier, A. 1995. Moral Sentiments, and the Difference They Make. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 69: 15-30. Cohon, R. 1997. The Common Point of View in Hume's Ethics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57: 827-850. Sayre-McCord, G. 1996. Hume and the Bauhaus theory of ethics. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 20: 280 98. Swanton, C. 2009. What kind of virtue theorist is Hume? In Pigden (ed.), 2009, 226 48. III. Reading List Primary Sources: Berkeley, George. Principles of Human Knowledge and Three Dialogues. OUP editions edited by J. Dancy recommended. Descartes, René. 1996. Meditations on First Philosophy. Revised Edition, Trans. J. Cottingham. Cambridge: CUP. Required Descartes, René. 1968. Discourse on Method and The Meditations. Trans. F. E. Sutcliffe. London: Penguin. Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Required OUP edition edited by Selby-Bigge and Nidditch recommended. Hume, David. Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. OUP edition edited by Selby-Bigge and Nidditch recommended. Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Descartes Secondary Literature: Baker, G.P. & Morris, K. 1996. Descartes Dualism. London: Routledge. Bennett, J. 2001. Learning From Six Philosophers (2 volumes). Oxford: OUP. Buckle, S. 2007. Descartes, Plato and the cave. Philosophy 82: 301 337. Carriero, J, and J. Broughton (eds.). 2008. A Companion to Descartes. Oxford: Blackwell. 7
Carriero, J. 2008. The cartesian circle and the foundations of knowledge. In Carriero, J, and J. Broughton (eds.). (2008), 302 318. Carriero, J. 2009. Between Two Worlds. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Clarke, D. 2003. Descartes's Theory of Mind. Oxford: OUP Cottingham, J. 1986. Descartes. Oxford: Blackwell. Cottingham, J (ed). 1992a. Cambridge Companion to Descartes. Cambridge: CUP. Cottingham, J. 1992b. Cartesian dualism: theology, metaphysics and science. In his (ed.) (1992a), 236 257. Cottingham, J. (ed.). 1998. Descartes (Oxford Readings). Oxford: OUP. Curley, E. 1978. Descartes Against the Sceptics. Oxford: Blackwell. Doney, W. (ed.). 1967. Descartes: Selection of Critical Essays. London: Macmillan. Frankfurt, H. 1970. Demons, Dreamers, and Madmen. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gaukroger, S. 1995. Descartes: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford: Clarendon. Gaugroker, S. 2006. The Blackwell Guide to Descartes Meditations. Oxford: Blackwell. Grayling, A. C. 2005. Descartes: The Life of Rene Descartes and Its Place in his Times. London: Free Press. Hatfield, G. 2006. The Cartesian circle. In Gaukroger (ed.), (2006), 122 141. Hatfield, G. 2014. René Descartes. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/descartes/>. Hoffman, P. 2008. The union and interaction of mind and body. In Carriero, J, and J. Broughton (eds.). (2008), 390 403. Kenny, A. 1968. Descartes: A Study of His Philosophy. New York: Random House. Lowe, E. J. 2009. Dualism. In B. McLaughlin et al. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind, Oxford: OUP, Ch. 3. Markie, P. 2013. Rationalism vs. Empiricism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/rationalism-empiricism/>. Moore, A. W. 2012. The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics. Cambridge: CUP. Newman, L. 2014. Descartes' Epistemology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/descartes-epistemology/>. Norton, D. F. 1981. The myth of British Empiricism. History of European Ideas 1: 331 44. Owens, D. 2008. Descartes s use of doubt. In Carriero, J. and Broughton (eds.). (2008), 164 78. Robinson, H. 2016. Dualism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/dualism/>. Rodrigues, J. G. 2014. There are no good objections to substance dualism. Philosophy 89: 199 222. Rozemond, M. 2008. Descartes s dualism. In Carriero and Broughton (eds.), (2008), 372 89. Ryle, G. 1949. Descartes Myth. In his The Concept of Mind, London: Hutchinson, Ch. 1. (Reprinted in Doney (ed.) (1967)). Sarkar, H. 2003. Descartes Cogito. Cambridge: CUP. Stroud, B. 2008. Our debt to Descartes. In Carriero, J, and J. Broughton (eds.). (2008), 513 25. Williams, B. 1978. Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry. Hassocks: Harvester Press. Wilson, C. 2003. Descartes's Meditations: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. 8
Wilson, M. 1978. Descartes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Berkeley Secondary Literature: Bennett, J. 2001. Learning From Six Philosophers (2 volumes). Oxford: OUP. Dancy, J. 1987. Berkeley: An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Downing, L. 2011. George Berkeley. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/berkeley/>. Fogelin, R. J. 2001. Berkeley and the Principles of Human Knowledge. London: Routledge. Grayling, A. C. 1986. Berkeley: The Central Arguments. London: Duckworth. Winkler, K.P. 1989. Berkeley: An Interpretation. Oxford: OUP. Winkler, K.P. (ed.). 2005. The Cambridge Companion to Berkeley. Cambridge: CUP. Hume Secondary Literature: Allen, K, and T. Stoneham (eds.). 2011. Causation and Modern Philosophy. London: Routledge. Baier, A. C..1991. A Progress of Sentiments Reflections on Hume s Treatise. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Baier, A. C. 2008. Death and Character: Further Reflections on Hume. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Baier, A. C. 2010. Hume s own ought conclusions. In Pigden (ed.), (2010), 49 64. Bailey, A. and D. O'Brien (eds.). 2012. Continuum Companion to Hume. London: Continuum. Baillie, J. 2000. Hume on Morality. London: Routledge. Baxter, D. 2008. Hume s Difficulty: Time and Identity in the Treatise. London: Routledge Bell, M. 2009. Hume on causation. In Norton, D. and J. Talyor (eds.) (2009), 147 76. Bennett, J. 2001. Learning From Six Philosophers (2 volumes). Oxford: OUP. Biro, J. 2009. Hume s new science of the mind. In Norton, D. and J. Talyor (eds.) (2009), 40 69. Bricke, J. 1996. Mind and Morality: An Examination of Hume s Moral Pscyhology. Oxford: Clarendon. Broughton, J. 2006. Impressions and ideas. In Traiger (ed.) (2006), 43 58. Chappell, V. C. (ed.). 1966. Hume: A Collection of Critical Essays. London: Macmillan. Cohon, R. 2008. Hume s Morality: Feeling and Fabrication. Oxford: OUP. Dicker, G. 1998. Hume s Epistemology and Metaphysics: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Driver, J. 2012. Hume s sentimentalist account of moral judgement. In Bailey, A. and D. O Brien (eds.), (2012), 279 87. Garrett, D. 1997. Cognition and Commitment in Hume s Philosophy. Oxford: OUP. Howson, C. 2000. Hume's Problem. Oxford: OUP. Mackie, J. L. 1980. Hume s Moral Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. MacIntyre, A. 1981. After Virtue. London: Duckworth. McIntyre, J. 2009. Hume and the problem of personal identity. In Norton, D. and J. Talyor (eds.) (2009), 177 208. Millican, P. (ed.). 2002. Reading Hume on Human Understanding: Essays on the First Enquiry. Oxford: OUP. Moore, A. W. 2012. The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics. Cambridge: CUP. Morris, W. E. and C. Brown. 2014. David Hume. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/hume/>. 9
Mounce. H. O. 1999. Hume s Naturalism. London: Routledge. Noonan, H. 1999. Hume on Knowledge. London: Routledge. Norton, D., and J. Taylor (eds.). 2009. The Cambridge Companion to Hume. Cambridge: CUP. O Brien, D. 2012. Hume and the virtues. In Bailey, A. and D. O Brien (eds.), (2012), 288 302. Owen, D. 1999. Hume's Reason. Oxford: OUP. Perry, J. (ed.) 1998. Personal Identity (2 nd edn.). Berkeley: U. of California Press. Pigden, C. (ed.). 2009. Hume on Motivation and Virtue. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Pigden, C (ed.). 2010. Hume on is and Ought. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Read, R., and K. Richman (eds.). 2000. The New Hume Debate. London: Routledge. Sandis, C. 2011. Pouring new wine into old skin. In Allen, K and Stoneham (ed.), 2011, 166 7. Strawson, G. 2011. The Evident Connexion. Oxford: OUP. Stroud, B. 1977. Hume. London: Routledge. Stroud, B. 2011. Philosophers Past and Present, Oxford: OUP. Swain, C. G. 2006. Personal identity and the skeptical system of philosophy. In Traiger (ed.), (2006), 133 50. Traiger, S. (ed.). 2006. The Blackwell Guide to Hume s Treatise. Oxford: Blackwell. Thiel, U. 2011. The Early Modern Subject. Oxford: OUP. Wright, J. 2009. Hume s A Treatise of Human Nature: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. IV. Assessment Item Length/Time Weight Due Date Seminar Presentation 25 minutes 15% TBC in week 1 Essay 1 2000 words (max) 25% End of Term 1, Fri 19/08, 11.55 pm Essay 2 2000 words (max) 25% End of Term 2, Fri 14/10, 11.55 pm Exam 3 hours 30% TBC Seminar Participation 5% Throughout Semester B. Seminar Presentation: You will give a 15-minute presentation on one of the weekly seminar papers (either a journal article or a book chapter) and lead discussion / respond to questions for the remainder of a 25 minute time-slot. After explaning the content of the paper, you should offer your own, brief, critical analysis. You must also provide a handout (this can be a printout of your presentation if you are using PowerPoint). Time-slots will be decided at the start of the semester. C. Essay 1: Essay 1 is due by 11:55 pm on 19 th August 2016. The following are suggested essay titles. If you would like to answer an alternative question, this can be negotiated in advance. 1. Dreams are never linked by memory with all the other actions of life as waking experiences are. (Descartes, Meditation VI). Does Descartes succeed in overcoming his own earlier dreaming doubt? Explain your answer. 2. Under what circumstances, if any, could you be decieved conerning your own existence? 3. How does Descartes argue that he is separable from his body? Is his argument sound? Why (not)? 10
4. Does Descartes proof of the existence of God involve circular reasoningr? If not, how does Descartes avoid the charge of circularity? If so, is the circularity vicious or virtuous? Explain your answer. 5. What is Descartes strongest argument in favour of dualism? Evaluate the argument s strengths and weaknesses. D. Essay 2: Essay 2 is due by 11:55 pm on 14 th October 2016. The following are suggested essay titles. If you would like to answer an alternative question, this can be negotiated in advance. 6. How does Berkeley argue against Lockean indirect realism? Are his arguments succesful? Why (not)? 7. I am not for changing things into ideas, but rather ideas into things (Berkeley, Dialogues 3, p. 244) Explain and discuss. 8. Explain and discuss Hume s account of causation. 9. Is a priori metaphysics or backgammon a better response to scepticism? Explain your answer with reference to Hume. 10. What we call a mind, is nothing but a heap or collection of different perceptions, united together by certain relations, and suppos d, tho falsely, to be endow d with a perfect simplicity and identity. (Hume, Treatise, 207). Explain and discuss. 11. Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my little finger. (Hume, Treatise, 416). On what basis does Hume make this extraordinary claim? Was he right? Why? 12. Explain and discuss Hume s account of the common point of view in ethics. D. Exam The exam is three hours long and requires you to answer three essay questions from a range of alternatives. You will be required to answer questions on different philosophers. E. Seminar Participation: 5% of your final grade will depend on seminar attendance. Attending and participating in all 10 presentation seminars will result in a 5% pass. Attending and participating in 9 out of 10 seminars presentation will result in a 4.5% pass, etc. If you have a good reason for being unable to attend a seminar you should contact the lecturer as soon as possible and in advance. F. Essay Submission: Essays must be submitted electronically via the PHIL310 Learn website. The file name must include your family name, user code, and course name: eg <Socrates-soc46-Phil310.doc>. All the essays will be submitted to Turnitin, an electronic tool that measures the originality of text. Turnitin generates an Originality Report to which you have access. Turnitin advises as follows: Students agree that by taking this course all required papers may be subject to submission for textual similarity review to Turnitin.com for the detection of plagiarism. All submitted papers will be included as source documents in the Turnitin.com reference database solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers. Use of the 11
Turnitin.com service is subject to the Terms and Conditions of Use posted on the Turnitin.com site. See also plagiarism section below. G. Extensions Essays submitted after the due date without an official extension will be penalised. Extensions will be granted only on medical or compassionate grounds. Other than in exceptional circumstances, the extension must be sought before the due date. H. Penalties for Late Essays Essays submitted after the due date and without an extension will attract a penalty of two percentage points per day or part thereof. Other than in exceptional circumstances, no essays submitted more than 14 days after the due date will be marked. I. Marks and Grades The University of Canterbury uses the following scale to relate grades to marks and GPAs: Grade A + A A - B + B B - C + C C- D E Marks 90-100 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 40-49 0-39 GPA 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0-1 Any grade over 50 is a pass. J. Plagiarism and Other Forms of Dishonest Practice Plagiarism occurs when passages of text are copied into an essay without being included in quotation marks and without sufficient acknowledgement of the source for the quotation. Minor variations to the wording of the original are not sufficient to avoid the charge of plagiarism. Plagiarism is regarded very seriously in the university, and may result in disciplinary action. Any essay in which significant plagiarism occurs will not be given a passing grade. If a substantial proportion of the essay is plagiarised, it will receive a zero grade. The Philosophy Department s policy is as follows: Under no circumstances may you copy the words of an article or book without acknowledging it as a quotation. Nor may you copy or borrow extensively from the essays of other students, or have any other person write an essay for you. Be aware that we view these forms of cheating very seriously, and that we regularly take steps to detect plagiarism in work submitted by students. If we find that that you have engaged in dishonest practice, you may be subject to disciplinary action. Penalties range from a failing grade on the specific item of assessment or the course as a whole to expulsion from the university. If you have any doubts about whether you are appropriately referencing sources and material, the onus is on you to check your approach with a lecturer or the Learning Skills Centre. 12
L. Aegrotats If you feel that illness, injury, bereavement or other critical circumstances has prevented you from completing an item of assessment or affected your performance, you should complete an aegrotat application form, available from the Registry or the Student Health and Counselling Service. This should be within seven days of the due date for the required work or the date of the examination. In the case of illness or injury, medical consultation should normally have taken place shortly before or within 24 hours after the due date for the required work, or the date of the test or examination. For further details on aegrotat applications, please refer to the University of Canterbury Enrolment Handbook. Further information is available here: www.canterbury.ac.nz/ucpolicy/getpolicy.aspx?file=aegrotatconsiderationprocedure.pdf V. General information Student Representative Your class will appoint a student representative to the liaison committee at the start of the semester. Please feel free to talk to the student rep about any problems or concerns that you might have about the course. Further information is available here: http://ucsa.org.nz/support/. Students with Disabilities Students with disabilities should speak with someone at the Disability Support Service. Webpage: http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/disability/index.shtml Email: disabilities@canterbury.ac.nz VERSION DATE: 6 h July 2016 13