1. Spinoza thinks that we human beings are due for what was described in class as an “ontological demotion.” Explain this ontological demotion, comparing his view of what we are to a more traditional Aristotelian view. (You should concentrate on Spinoza’s views on the human body, but be sure to say something about what he thinks the human mind is.) Why does he think the demotion is needed? Is he right? Explain why the demotion matters to the overall project of the Ethics.
2. Spinoza thinks there is only one substance, namely God. Why does he think this? (Explain both the uniqueness of substance and the identification of substance.) Organize your discussion around the explanation presented in class, which had two main parts, one having to do with 1p7, that substance is a necessary per se being, and the other having to do with the idea that there can be only one necessary per se being (focus here on the argument presented in class).
3. Explain Spinoza’s account of how the universe causally depends on God (focus on 1p16). How does Spinoza’s theory differ from the prevailing views of the time? (Be sure to contrast Spinoza’s picture of intelligibility—i.e., his understanding of the reason things are the way they are—with a more traditional picture of the explanation of why things are the way they are, having to do with God’s plan for the world.) Why does Spinoza think things could not have happened differently from the way they did? Which position do you find more reasonable, Spinoza’s or the more traditional view? Explain fully.
4. Explain Spinoza’s account of the human mind. Begin by sketching Spinoza’s account of God’s cognition and then locate the human mind within that cognition. If there is no trans-attribute causation (i.e., if motions in bodies can’t cause ideas in minds, and ideas in minds can’t cause motion in bodies), what happens (a) when we sense something and (b) when we do something? Critically evaluate his account of (human) agency—if you disagree with it, explain where you think he went wrong and what he should have held instead.
LEIBNIZ
1. Explain Leibniz’s doctrine of pre-established harmony. What is a monad? How are monads related to each other? Why does Leibniz think that there are monads? Do you think he has a good argument here? One thing that Leibniz is trying to do is resist Spinoza’s ontological demotion; how successful is his attempt to do so?
2. Discuss Leibniz’s views on freedom, necessity, and contingency. Explain why he thinks Caesar was determined but not necessitated to cross the Rubicon. Is Leibniz able to make room in his system for freedom, or is something more needed? If something more is needed, what and why? Explain fully.
BERKELEY and HUME
1. Explain Berkeley’s argument for the claim that sensible qualities do not exist independently of the mind (focus on secondary qualities). What precisely is Berkeley arguing for here? How does the argument work? (You should say something about the distinction between things as they are in us and as they are in themselves that Hylas raises at several points: how does Philonous respond? Is his response satisfactory?) How does this particular claim fit into the overall case for immaterialism? In particular, what else does Berkeley need to do in order to make his case for immaterialism? (Do not work through the rest of his argument; just sketch the ground that needs to be covered.) In your view, how successful is the overall case that Philonous makes for immaterialism in the First Dialogue?
2. Outline Hume’s account of causation in I.3 of the Treatise. Points to explain: Why does he think the relation of causation is important? What does he find puzzling about the relation? Why does he think that reason is not responsible for human thinking involving causation? What happens, according to Hume, when we make a causal inference? Explain his account of the idea of the necessity associated with the idea of cause and effect.
Currently 1 writers are viewing this order
