Introduction to Philosophy (Fall 07)

"Let us suppose that a man, fallen from the clouds, walks the earth continuously in a straight line, I mean, in one of those great circles by which geographers divide it, and that nothing prevents him from traveling. Could he, after several days’ journey, decide that the earth is infinite, because he did not find its end? If he were wise and reserved in judgment, he would believe it to be quite large, but he would not judge it to be infinite. And as a result of walking, finding himself at the same place from which he departed, he would realise that he had actually gone around it. However, when the mind thinks of intelligible extension, when it seeks to measure the idea of space, it sees clearly that it is infinite. It cannot doubt that this idea is inexhaustible."

Nicolas Malebranche, Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion, I.IX (Jolley-Scott translation, p. 15). By ‘intelligible extension’ and ‘the idea of space’ here, Malebranche means the sort of extension and space studied by geometers. You can find out more about Malebranche (1638-1715) at the SEP, which also has an article on his theory of ideas.

Today we will do a brief overview of the early modern period and discuss Hume on testimony (with Shepherd’s response to it) as a class.

Don’t forget that the History Quiz is on Thursday.

ADDED LATER:

Those who found today’s topic interesting may also be interested in the following resources:

Terence Penelhum, The Paranormal, Miracles, and David Hume

Victor Repport, Hume on Miracles, Frequencies, and Prior Probabilities

Miracles at the SEP

Epistemological Problems of Testimony at the SEP

Sample chapter for Fogelin’s A Defense of Hume on Miracles

William Adams, An Essay in Answer to Hume’s Essay on Miracles

George Campbell, A Dissertation on Miracles

"By which it appears that there are some degrees of Knowledge necessary before there can be any  Human Acts, for till we are capable of Chusing our own Actions and directing them by some Principle, tho we Move and Speak and so many such like things, we live not the Life of a Rational Creature but only of an Animal.  If it be farther demanded what these Principles are? Not to dispute the Number of ‘em here, no body I suppose will deny us one, which is, That we ought as much as we can to endeavour the Perfecting of our Beings, and that we be as happy as possibly we may.  For this we see is Natural to every Creature of what sort soever, which endeavours to be in as good Condition as its Nature and Circumstances will permit.  And now we have got a Principle which one would think were sufficient for the Conduct of our Actions thro the whole Course of our Lives; and so indeed it were, Cou’d we as easily discern, wherein our Happiness consists as ’tis natural to wish and desire it."

Mary Astell, A Serious Proposal to the Ladies Part II. Mary Astell (1666-1731) was a self-taught philosopher, and one of a number of important women philosophers in this period. You can read more about Astell at the SEP and find further information, including selections from her works, at Luminarium.

While not all of the following will be on the quiz Thursday in class, all of following are things you should know in order to ace it:

(1) The names of the four major schools and two major movements in the Hellenistic period, and some of their basic characteristics.

(2) The name of at least one Neoplatonist philosopher in the Roman Imperial period.

(3) The difference between the New Academy and the Old Academy.

(4) The four Aristotelian causes.

(5) All of the information on the medieval philosophy handout I gave you in class.

(6) The names of some of the Major Cartesians. *

(7) The names of some of the early modern empiricists. *

(8) The names of some of the Scottish Common Sense philosophers. *

(9) Descartes’s four rules of method.

(10) Hume’s account of testimony. *

(11) You should also be able to summarize, in your own words, the basic arguments of the Gorgias, the Consolation, and the Discourse (each in about six or seven sentences).

Items listed with a star (*) will be discussed in class, at least briefly, tomorrow (Tuesday). You will not be responsible for knowing any dates. The primary purpose of this quiz is to show that you have begun to develop an introductory acquaintance with some of the major people and movements in the history of philosophy. Except for (11), where you should be careful to be as precise as possible, you are primarily responsible for knowing the gist of what we have gone over in the history units of this course, and for not mixing up the major names.

On Tuesday, November 26, from 5:45-6:45 (my usual office hours), there will be a make-up logic quiz for those who have not taken it or wish to take it again. We will meet in the lobby of E building (please be punctual), and then take the quiz in one of the empty classrooms at that time.

Students who need to meet with me on Tuesday should contact me to make other arrangements.

Today we discussed Discourse IV-VI. Some things worth remembering:

(1) The first argument for God’s existence goes by various names, but is on rare occasions called the ideological argument (because it is based on an account of the causation of ideas), while the second is called the ontological argument.

(2) God is important in Descartes’s overall argument because, if Descartes can make his arguments go through, God serves as a bridge between mind and world.

(3) The notion of the beast-machine, and its implications for animals, is one of the key points on which Descartes influenced later generations, and you can still find people here and there arguing (more vaguely) on Cartesian lines.

Those interested in these sections of Descartes may find the following to be interesting:

* James Still’s criticism of Descartes’s ontological argument

* The SEP article on Descartes’s ontological argument

* The SEP article on ontological arguments in general

* David Banach’s paper on Descartes’s ontological argument (somewhat more favorable than Still’s)

* Daniel Dennett’s discussion of Descartes’s ideological argument (PDF), as found in the Third Meditation of the Meditations on First Philosophy

* The SEP article on animal consciousness

* The IEP article on Dualism and Mind

For next Tuesday, read Hume’s essay and Shepherd’s response, so we can discuss the arguments in class.

Have a great Thanksgiving holiday!

***

Related Posts

More Course Texts Online

"The sceptic asks me, Why do you believe the existence of the external object which you perceive? This belief, sir, is none of my manufacture; it came from the mint of Nature; it bears her image and superscription; and, if it is not right, the fault is not mine: I even took it upon trust, and without suspicion. Reason, says the sceptic, is the only judge of truth, and you ought to throw off every opinion and every belief that is not grounded on reason. Why, sir, should I believe the faculty of reason more than that of perception? — they came both out of the same shop, and were made by the same artist; and if he puts one piece of false ware into my hands, what should hinder him from putting another?"

Thomas Reid, An Inquiry into the Human Mind, ch. 6, section 20. Thomas Reid was a leading representative of Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. You can read more about Reid at the SEP (and about his context here).

As you know each of the history sections of the course has a Major Unit and a Minor Unit. The Major Unit for the early modern section is Descartes’s Discourse. For the Minor Unit, which we’ll probably do the Tuesday after Thanksgiving break, we’ll be discussing David Hume’s Essay on Miracles. For this you’ll need to have read Hume’s essay and Lady Mary Shepherd’s response to it.

Hume’s essay is easy to find online: here, here, and here are just a few examples.

Shepherd’s is not so easy to find. I have it in hardcopy form; if you were unable to attend today, I’ll have copies on Tuesday.

***

Related Posts

Course Texts Online (These are for all the Major Units)

Today we only had time to look at a small but important part of Part IV of the Discourse, where Descartes tries to pull Cartesian dualism out of the cogito: the ‘I’ in the ‘I think’ is essentially a thinking thing, and distinct from the body.

If you found this topic interesting, you probably should read Descartes’s more developed exposition of this idea in Meditation Two of the Meditations on First Philosophy. You might also find interesting Louise Derksen’s paper on Anne Conway’s Critique of Cartesian Dualism (Conway is an early modern philosopher who had a number of interesting and unusual ideas). The argument against Cartesian dualism that is most often accepted is usually regarded as the same as one given by Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia in her correspondence with Descartes (she, however, did not propose it as an objection but as a puzzle that she was hoping Descartes could solve). The correspondence is online in French, but, unfortunately, not in English. However, this paper by Deborah Tollefsen is an excellent overview of Elisabeth’s argument (Tollefsen also argues that Elisabeth’s primary argument is different from the one usually attributed to her, which I think is correct.) Bruce Hauptli’s lecture supplement is a simpler, shorter summary of the basic points.

"Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favoured by fortune: but being frequently driven into straits where rules are useless, and being often kept fluctuating pitiably between hope and fear by the uncertainty of fortune’s greedily coveted favours, they are consequently, for the most part, very prone to credulity. The human mind is readily swayed this way or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for the mastery, though usually it is boastful, over - confident, and vain."

Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Preface. You can read more about Spinoza (1632-1677), one of the major Cartesians, at the SEP and at the IEP.