Early Modern Philosophy

Prof. Patrick Frierson

frierspr@whitman.edu

Office Hours in Olin 151:

2:30–3:30 PM Tuesday, 11–12 AM Wednesday, 9–10 AM Thursday

Goals: With respect to content, the purpose of this course is to become familiar with the central epistemological and metaphysical positions and arguments of key philosophers of the early modern period. The philosophers on whom we will focus are Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. Throughout our study of these philosophers, we will focus on a few key philosophical problems: (1) To what extent is it possible to have knowledge of anything? (2) What is the ultimate nature of all reality? (3) What is the human being? In particular: Are human beings free? and What is the connection between the mind and the body? (4) What is the nature of causation? How does one thing cause changes in another (and especially, how do the mind and body interact?) (5) Does God exist? If so, what is the nature of God and (how) can one have knowledge of God?

With respect to skills, this course should help you develop as a philosopher in three key respects. First, we will be using early modern philosophers to help our own philosophical reflection, both through philosophizing with them and through philosophical critique of them. Second, we will be reading difficult texts, and reading them carefully. Reading (and the related skill of listening) to complex arguments expressed in unfamiliar terms will prepare you for engaging with those who hold viewpoint or forms of expression different form your own, and thus for thriving in an increasingly diverse world. Finally, you will learn both to explain the ideas of others and to articulate your own ideas in writing (both formal and informal) and orally.

Book: (Available in the Whitman Bookstore) Roger Ariew, Eric Watkins, eds., Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998). Page numbers below refer to this book.

Graded Work:

1. Participation is a major part of this course and the quality of your participation can either raise or lower your grade in this course, but it does not count for any particular percentage of your grade.

2. Five Short Assignments (12% each). For each philosopher, you will have an assignment that will guide your reading of that philosopher. These assignments will be due 48 hours after our last class on the philosopher, but you are expected to be working on the assignment throughout our reading of the philosopher, and you should bring what you have been working on with you to class each day. I have specified on the syllabus the progress that you should have made by each class. On any given day, I may either collect these works in progress or ask you to check on the progress of your classmates. If you are not keeping up with the work, your final grade on the assignment will be reduced. I will not accept these assignments late, but you may skip two of them over the course of the semester. (Use these skips carefully, however, because any lateness beyond this, even if excused by the Dean, will be reflected in your grade. The reason for these free passes is precisely to provide for emergencies.) These assignments will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10. For details on the meaning of these scores, see my "Grading Criteria." (Not all of these criteria will apply to all assignments, as the criteria are designed for papers.) For students who complete more than 5 assignments, only the highest 5 scores will count towards your final grade in the course.

Each of these assignments should be emailed to me at frierspr@whitman.edu. Whenever possible, the assignments should be in Word (.doc) form, and they should be saved in a format that is readable on PCs. Each assignment should be saved under a filename of the following format: Firstname Lastname Philosophersname.doc. For my paper on Descartes, for example, I would entitle my document "PatrickFrierson Descartes.doc" or "Patrick Frierson Descartes Assignment.doc"

3. Take Home Mid-Term Exam (handed out Oct. 11, due Oct. 16): 15%. This will be a closed book, closed note exam on the material from the first part of the course. You may take up to 4 hours to complete the exam.

4. Final Paper (due Tuesday, December 11) and/or Final Exam (on our scheduled exam day, 9 AM on Friday, December 14th): 25%. Students who have received an average score of at least 7 on their regular assignments and who received at least 88% on their mid-term exam do not need to take the final exam. (Students who wish to opt out of the final exam must have completed at least 3 of the 4 post-midterm assignments and must make substantive use of any philosophers for which the student skipped the short assignment.) Such students have a choice of either taking the final exam or writing a substantial final paper. (The topic for the final paper is given below.) Students who receive an average score of less than 7 or who get less than 88% on their mid-term must take the final exam. Such students may, if they wish, also write a final paper. Any student who chooses may complete both a final paper and final exam, in which case their grade for this portion of the course will be the average of their final paper and final exam; or, if the grade on their final exam is higher than on their paper, the grade on the final paper will be dropped. (Note: If the grade on the paper is higher than on the exam, the two grades will be averaged. The exam grade will not be dropped.)

Final Paper Topic: Choose an important philosophical issue, either one we have discussed this semester (such as scepticism, free will, mind-body relations, or God) or a philosophical issue in which you are particularly interested (whether or not it was discussed in the course). Present your own original philosophical position on this issue, arguing in detail for your position. In the defense of your view, you should make use of at least one important philosophical argument or distinction from the philosophers we have studied in this course. You should also raise (and respond to) the most relevant objections (at least two) that these philosophers would raise against your view. However, in the body of your paper, you should not explicitly quote or even mention any of the philosophers we have read this semester. The paper should be written in your own voice, or that of your own (imagined) interlocutors. References to the philosophers we have read (including quotes if appropriate) can and should be extensive, but they should occur in footnotes to your paper.

5. Class Presentation (extra credit): During the semester, there are several days (Sept. 13, Oct. 25, Nov. 15) on which I have scheduled student presentations. Any student is free to sign up for these class presentations. If no students sign up for a given philosopher, I will simply choose a reading for discussion for that day. If more than 3 students sign up for a particular philosopher, only the first three who sign up will be allowed to present on that philosopher. You must sign up at least 10 days befored the scheduled presentation. Students who sign up for presentations will need to read primary sources by this person and secondary sources about them, and then pick a short selection (no more than 10 pages, preferably less than 5 pages) for your classmates to read that will give the main points and at least one major argument of the philosopher. (These selections must be made available to your classmates the class period prior to your presentation. You may either email the class with a link, document, or PDF; or bring 30 copies of the reading to hand out in class.) On the day of the presentation, students will be expected to give a short presentation (no more than 10 minutes, including time for questions) providing an overview of the philosopher on whom they are presenting. This overview should go substantially beyond the assigned readings; the idea is to give fellow students a sense for the philosopher as a whole. On these days, our class discussion will incorporate the readings from these philosophers. For full (extra) credit, students must prepare a short (2-3 page) paper outlining the key aspects of the philosopher on whom they presented and assessing the treatment that their philosopher received during class discussion. For presentations by groups of more than one, these short papers should include a sentence or two describing the role of one's presentation partner(s) and suggesting a grade for their part of the presentation. [The amount of extra credit awarded will depend upon the quality of the presentation, but a sufficiently excellent presentation could raise one's final grade by as much as -- but no more than -- a single grade "step" (i.e., from B to B+).]

You can find information about almost all of the figures you are expected to present on in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and on many of them in the in the Cambridge History of Seventeenth Century Philosophy (on reserve). You are expected to make use of both primary and secondary sources in preparing your presentation, and I strongnly encourage you to come to me for help in tracking these down. You must make use of at least some non-electronic resources in preparing your presentation. As you work on your project, we will also post electronic resources on this web site for the use of the rest of the class. (Incidentally, Wikipedia, while helpful in some respects, does not constitute a legitimate source of information for your presentations.)

Schedule:

Descartes

Short Assignment #1: "Meditating on Descartes"

Write a short paper (1500-2500 words) answering the question,

"Does Descartes adequately respond to scepticism?"

In answering this question, be sure to make clear what you think the most serious sceptical challenge facing Descartes is, explain as clearly as possible how he purports to respond to this challenge, and raise at least one substantial objection to his response. Provide detailed textual support (quotes and/or references) for your textual claims and careful philosophical support for your philosophical claims. I encourage you to consult the Philosophy Writing Tutor before beginning the writing process.

The Final Draft of Assignment # 1 must be emailed to me no later than 5 PM on Sunday, September 16th.

		Reading from Watkins & Ariew		Text	Progress on Assignment	Topics to Discuss
Aug.	28	vii-viii, 12-21, 22-30, Optional: 1-3, 6-7 (§§ 38-44), 8-11, "Of Cannibals"	Intro, Bacon, Galileo, Montaigne	Discourse on Method, selections Meditations, Introduction and Medtitation #1 Optional: Bacon's New Organon (selection) Optional: Galileo's The Assayer (selection) Optional: Montaigne, "Of Cannibals" (be careful to only print and read the essay "Of Cannibals," not the whole page)		What is "Early Modern Philosophy"? Background to Early Modern Philosophy Expectations for the Course Origin of Descartes's Philosophy
	30	27-34, 57-59, 63 (re: Med 1)	Descartes	Meditations (Letter of Dedication and Meditations #1-2)	Sketch all of the skeptical arguments that Descartes articulates in the first Meditation (this need not be well written, a general idea is fine) Clearly lay out (in writing) what you think is the most important skeptical challenge to which Descartes needs to respond. This can be one of the skeptical arguments that Descartes himself articulates, or you can articulate a different skeptical argument.	Purpose of Meditations Cartesian Skepticism
Sept.	4	30-41, 63-6	Descartes	Meditations and Replies (Meditation # 2-3 and Third Set of Objections and Replies)	Lay out Descartes's argument that "I am" Discuss (i.e., discuss in writing) whether this argument is sufficient to respond to the form of skepticism that you think is Descartes's most important challenge. If not, why not? If so, does it leave any other skeptical concerns standing? How important are those?	Response to Skepticism 1: Proof that “I am” Nature of the self Response to Skepticism 2: How we have knowledge of what we can "touch and see."
	6	34-48, 59-61, 66-80	Descartes	Meditations and Replies (Meditations #3, 4 and Third Set of Objections and Replies)	Discuss the role of Descartes' proof of God in his response to skepticism Think about what impact Meditation 4 has on D's response to skepticism. How important is this Meditation in the context of the whole book? Put together your paper into a coherent overall argument. Think about what issues remain to be resolved.	(Proof of God's existence) Problem of Error Nature of Human Freedom
	11	41-55, 59-62	Descartes	Meditations (#s 5 and 6)	Think about (and discuss if appropriate) whether Descartes succeeds in alleviating his initial skepticism about the external world Finish a rough draft of your whole paper Show this rough draft to at least one other person, asking for issues or concerns that you need to address or need to deal with better.	(Second proof of God's existence) Proof of the reality of the external world Distinctness of mind and body
	13		Descartes and his Critics	reread Meditation 6 selections from Passions of the Soul ELIZABETH OF BOHEMIA (STUDENT PRESENTATION) MARGARET CAVENDISH (STUDENT PRESENTATION) MALEBRANCHE (See too the discussion of Malebranche's 'occassionalism' available on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, here.) HOBBES Leviathan, chapters ii and vi , available online here.	Revise your paper Add objections to the thesis you are defending and respond to those objections. (Ideally, by the time you finish with this, your paper will be too long. You can then shorten it up over the weekend by cutting material that is not essential and by tightening up your writing.)	Distinctness of mind and body How mind and body relate causally Elizabeth's critique of Descartes Malebranche's occassionalism Hobbes's materialism

The Final Draft of Assignment # 1 must be emailed to me no later than 5 PM on Sunday, September 16th.

Spinoza

Short Assignment #2: Spinoza Worksheet (click link here)

The final draft of this assignment must be emailed to me no later than 4 PM on Saturday, September 29.

Sept.	18	129-134 , 145-149	Spinoza	The Ethics Part One (through Proposition 14, and Appendix to Part One)	Complete Worksheet for Props 11 and 14	Spinoza's philosophical method Definitions and Axioms Proof of the existence of God (P11) Monism (P14)
	20	134-149	Spinoza	The Ethics Part One (Proposition 15 through the end)	Revise/Correct Worksheet for Props 11 and 14 Complete Worksheet for Prop 28	Nature and Properties of God Arg't vs. Free Will (P32) Comparison of Spinoza and Descartes
	25	140-151, 153-57, 164-6, 172-4	Spinoza	The Ethics Part Two (through Prop. 7 and then Props 11-14 and 40-44; you should also read the Proposition titles -- i.e. not the proofs -- for Book II, Propositions 8-40), Part Five (Preface and Props 21-28, 42)	Revise/Correct Worksheet for Props 11, 14, and 28 Complete Worksheet for Props II, 7 and V, 25.	Nature of the human mind Types of knowledge Highest end of human beings (P 25) Comparison of Spinoza and Descartes
	27		Anne Conway	STUDENT PRESENTATION

Leibniz

Short Assignment #3: "Leibniz in Preschool"

Translate the following nursery rhyme into Leibnizian terminology:

Jack and Jill went up the hill,
To fetch a pail of water;
Jack fell down, and broke his crown,
And Jill came tumbling after.

In your translation, be sure to make use of the following concepts:

• Monad (235f.)
• Entelechy (236, #18)/Haecceity (188)
• Also make use of the principle of the “identity of indiscernibles,” that “it is necessary that each monad be different” (#9, also p. 379a)
• Perception (give a range of examples of perceptions at play)
• Apperception
• Appetite (#15)
• Memory, Imagination, and/or Reason/Mind ( #26-29)
• God
• Necessity and contingency (#46, see too #31-33, 48, see too pp. 190bff.)
• Principles of contradiction and sufficient reason (#31-33)
• Active vs. Passive (#50)

• Best of all possible worlds (#55, pp. 184ff.)
• Be sure to distinguish the mind and the body throughout your translation, and explain how they relate (see especially #78-81).

To get you started, you might say “The monad that is Jack had a series of changing perceptions (such as . . .”

The final draft of this assignment must be emailed to me no later than 4 PM on Saturday, October 13.

Oct.	2	235-243, (184-93)	Leibniz	Monadology (entire) (Optional: Discourse on Metaphysics §§ 1-16, especially §§ 1-3, 8-9, 13-16)	Prepare draft translation of at least the first two lines of the nursery rhyme	nature and types of monads perception and apperception proof of the existence of God interactions amongst monads, mind-body interaction principles of contradiction and sufficient reason, truths of reason and of fact the best of all possible worlds (reconciliation of final and efficient causation)
	4	235-243, 202-204, (229-34)	Leibniz	Monadology (entire) Discourse on Metaphysics (sections 30-32) Optional: New System	Refine your draft of the first two lines of the nursery rhyme, start on the next two lines.	perception and apperception preestablished harmony Theodicy/the best of all possible worlds human freedom
	11		Leibniz, Voltaire, and Clark	Leibniz, Synopsis of Theodicy VOLTAIRE (STUDENT PRESENTATION) SAMUEL CLARK (STUDENT PRESENTATION)	Finish a penultimate draft of the whole nursery rhyme

For a list of topics you should know for the Mid-Term, click here.

The Mid-Term Exam will be handed out Oct. 11. It is due Oct. 16th at the beginning of class. The Mid-term is a closed book, closed note exam. You may take up to 2 hours to complete the exam.

Locke

Short Assignment #4: "Lockean Poetics"

Analyze a poem in terms of Locke's Essay.

FOR A COMPLETE E-TEXT OF LOCKE'S ESSAY, CLICK HERE.

YOU MAY ANALYZE ANY POEM THAT YOU CHOOSE.

A COUPLE OF POEMS THAT I SUGGEST:

KEATS' ODE ON A GRECIAN URN

SELECTIONS FROM ANNE BRADSTREET'S CONTEMPLATIONS

(Locke could well have read the Bradstreet poem, and Keats almost certainly read Locke.)

HERE IS A LINK TO A GREAT WEB-SITE FOR FINDING OTHER POEMS.

The analysis should explain what sorts of ideas are referred to by some representative words in the poem. (Aim to find at least one example each of simple ideas of sensation, simple ideas of reflection, complex ideas of sensation and complex ideas of reflection. If possible, you also should give examples of primary and secondary qualities in the poem.) You should discuss the literal meaning of the poem, discussing whether it provides "knowledge" in Lockean terms, or probable opinion, or both or neither. But you should also discuss what you take the main point of the poem to be, what the poem teaches, what it does to the reader, and so on. As a whole, does the poem provide "knowledge" in Lockean terms? If so, specific how? If not, is this a problem for the poem (or for Locke's theory of knowledge)?

The final draft of this assignment must be emailed to me no later than 4 PM on Saturday, October 27.

Oct.	16	270-282, 374-80a, 235-6, (184-93)	Leibniz vs Locke	Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding Book I, Chapters 1-2 New Essays on the Understanding, Preface (Optional: Review Monadology, §§ 1-17) (Optional: Discourse on Metaphysics §§ 1-16, especially §§ 8-9.		Innate Ideas and Ideas of Reflection Leibniz's proof of the possibility (and nature) of a priori knowledge Examples of a priori knowledge: the arguments of the monadology
	18	270-72, 276-82, 284-95	Locke	Essay Concerning Human Understanding Book I, Chapter 1 Book II, Chapters 1-2 and 5-12 (in chapters 5-12, focus on chapter 8, paragraphs 9-23)	For key terms in the poem, identify whether each is simple or complex, an idea of sensation or reflection, primary or secondary Idenfity the origin of each idea Concisely state the main point of the poem.	The Epistemological Turn in Locke Arg't vs. innate ideas (consider re: Descartes and Spinoza) The Origin of Ideas Ideas of Sensation and of Reflection Simple Ideas of Reflection and of Both Reflection and Sensation (Compare with Descartes) Primary vs Secondary Qualities
	23	301-310, 312-20	Locke	Essay Book II, Chapters 21 and 23 (Chapter 22 is optional.)	Identify all of the "power" terms in the poem. Give a Lockean account of each. Identify all of the "substance" terms in the poem. Give a Lockean account of each.	Idea of Power Human Free Will Ideas of Substances
	25	339-47 (thru ¶6), 365 (¶8-10), 367-8 (¶1-4) skim 347-55 and 358-69	Locke	Essay IV, 1-3, 10-15. Read closely IV.1-3, IV.11.¶8-10 and IV.15.¶1-4.	Review your work from the previous two classes: What does your Lockean analysis reveal about the poem? What does the poem reveal about Lockean analysis? Look for elements of the poem that provide what Locke would consider "knowledge." What sort of knowledge does the poem provide? Does the poem teach anything that does not constitute "knowledge." Can Locke explain those elements in the context of his theory?	Nature and Extent of Knowledge Mind-Body relationship ("whether any mere material being thinks") (Knowledge of God) Knowledge of Existence (compare Descartes) Response to Descartes's Dream Argument Probability

Berkeley

Short Assignment # 5: "Conversations with Berkeley"

For this assignment, you will need to help someone else explain the most important aspects of Berkeley's thought and then give her or his opinion about his philosophy. First, you'll need to find a friend or acquaintance who has never taken a philosophy class. Then, you'll need some sort of recording device (a tape recorder, a microphone-computer set up, or something similar). Finally, you'll need a comfortable place for a chat, and the requisite refreshments so that you and your guest are comfortable. Once you are set up, you simply need to explain to your guest the basics of Berkeley's philosophy, answer questions, clarify the view, find out what your guest finds most interesting about it . . . in other words, you need to have a conversation. During this, you should take the stance of someone defending Berkeley's view. (Aim to be a sort of Berkeley-channeler.) You should record the whole conversation, but what you will actually turn in is three recordings of no more than 5 minutes each (and no more than 10 minutes total). The first recording should include what you think is the most interesting and important 5 minutes of your conversation. The second recording should be the one in which your guest most clearly explains Berkeley's thought and gives his or her opinion about it. In the final recording (which you can make at a later time), you should explain what was hardest to explain about Berkeley, and/or any challenges that you encountered in the course of your conversation.

For help editing these tapes, you should contact Instructional Multimedia Services (see http://www.whitman.edu/content/wcts/ims/)

The final draft of this assignment must be emailed to me (or put in my box) no later than 4 PM on Saturday, November 3.

Oct.	30	462-471 (471-76)	Berkeley	Principles of Human Knowledge, Preface and Introduction Principles of Human Knowledge, Part One ¶ 1-6 (Skim Principles of Human Knowledge, Part One, ¶ 7-25)	Contact Instructional Multimedia Services to set up an appointment, if you think you will want their assistance making the 10 minutes of audio Determine who you will be conversing with Get (or arrange to have available) the requisite technology (microphone, tape recorder, refreshments, etc) Figure out where you will be having the conversation and practice using your audiorecorder in that environment. Figure out how you will position the equipment, how you will ensure that background noise is not overwhelming, etc.	Dealing with skepticism (Berkeley vs. Descartes) Abstract Ideas Esse is Percepi corporal substance primary/secondary qualities
Nov.	1	470-477	Berkeley	Principles of Human Knowledge, Part One	Sketch out the main elements of Berkeley's philosophy that you want to communicate to your friend Anticipate possible confusions and work on ways to explain Berkeley's thought clearly	ideas of substratum, powers minds God's existence

Hume

Assignment #6: "Hume across the disciplines"

For this assignment, you are to explore the implications of Hume's philosophy for knowledge in disciplines other than philosophy. Select a short reading (preferably 1-2 pages) from a text that you have read for another class at Whitman and present a Humean commentary on that text. Use that Humean commentary to discuss the discipline as a whole, both problems with the way it is currently practiced and suggestions for practicing it better. (For example, you could use a couple pages from a physics textbook to provide a Humean critique of contemporary physics and to suggest a better way of doing physics, or a couple pages from a work in history to do the same for history, or even a poem from an English course as a way of commenting on literary criticism, etc.)

The form of the commentary can be either a section by section discussion, like Leibniz's commentary on Locke's Essay, or an essay. In either case, you should advance a clear thesis and provide clear support, both textual and argumentative, for that thesis. The ideal length of the commentary will be 1500-2500 words.

The final draft of this assignment must be emailed to me no later than 4 PM on Saturday, November 17.

Nov.	6	491-532	Hume	Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Sections I-V	Decide on which discipline you plan to examine. Choose a short selection from that discipline Identify some central "ideas" in Hume's sense that are employed within that discipline Trace the origin of at least two of these ideas (in a Humean way) Identify what sorts of claims are made within the discipline (matters of fact or relations of ideas)? How (for Hume) must these claims be justified?	Ideas and Impressions Types of claims Hume on causation (necessary connection)
	8	512-32, 534-43, (532-34)	Hume	Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Sections VI-VIII, X Optional: Section IX.	Discuss the implications of Hume's accounts of causation and either free will or miracles for the discipline on which you focus	Hume on causation (necessary connection) Hume on free will miracles
	13	550-57, 566-71	Hume	Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section XII Treatise on Human Nature I.v-vi.	Discuss the implications of Hume's accounts of substance or personal identity (or both) for the discipline on which you focus Discuss how one might practice the discipline in a Humean way, focusing especially on what it would mean to be "skeptical" in Hume's sense	Mitigated Skepticism Self-knowledge Substance Personal Identity
	15		Hume and Reid	THOMAS REID (STUDENT PRESENTATION)

Thanksgiving Break

Kant

Short Assignment #7: "Studying with Kant"

Use Kant to generate a study guide for the final exam. Choose at least two of the central philosophical problems in the course (see above) and lay out briefly the positions of the major philosophers who discuss those problems. Then provide Kantian critiques of each philosopher's approach to answering the question, highlighting both what Kant would find congenial and what he would criticize (and how he would criticize it). Finally, lay out Kant's "solution" to the problem, if he offers one; and briefly comment on the advantages and disadvantages of Kant's approach. This assignment need not be written in essay form (an outline, or even a spreadsheet, would be fine); but the positions, arguments, and objections must be articulated clearly.

If you would like the option of opting out of the final exam, the final draft of this assignment must be emailed to me no later than 4 PM on Saturday, December 9.

For those taking the final exam, the final draft of this assignment must be emailed to me no later than 4 PM on Monday December 11.

	28	634-646 + this short online handout	Kant	Critique of Pure Reason, Prefaces, Introduction.	For each of the philosophers we have studied, identify what sort of knowledge they primarily emphasize (synthetic or analytic, a priori or empirical) and how they might seek to answer Kant's question about how a priori synthetic knowledge is possible	Kant's “Copernican Turn” Analytic vs. Synthetic, A priori vs. A posteriori (empirical) judgments Problem of a priori synthetic judgments
	30	646-53	Kant	Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Aesthetic		Proof that space (and time) are a priori intuitions Significance of this proof Transcendental idealism
Dec.	5	639, 641 683-697 713-5 726-34 handout	Kant	Critique of Pure Reason, Analogies of Experience (focus on the Second Analogy, pp. 688-94), Third Antinomy and Solution of the Third Antinomy; Brief selection from the Critique of Practical Reason	Lay out the views about causation of each of the philosophers we have studied (including Kant) Lay out the views about human freedom of each of the philosophers we have studied (including Kant) (Optional: Lay out the views about substance of each of the philosophers we have studied (including Kant))	Argument for the permanence of substance Argument for causation (compare with Hume) Possibility of Human Freedom
	7	697-698	Kant	Critique of Pure Reason, Refutation of Idealism		Kant's argument against “idealism” Response to Descartes Response to Berkeley (review pp. 647-53) Conclusion of Course

The Final Exam will be a 2 hour closed note, closed book final exam given during Exam Week (9AM on Friday, December 14th).