Spring, 2006

This course covers the crucial figures in early modern philosophy from Descartes to Kant. The texts are difficult and to some extent unfamiliar; we will read them in fairly small chunks, which will require careful attention. Our goal will be to acquire a basic understanding of the thought of the British Empiricists, the Continental Rationalists, and Kant, and to see some of the interconnections between their views. We will pay particular attention to their views on the nature, sources, and extent of knowledge; the nature of the mind and its relation to the body; the nature and extent of free will; and the relations between religion and science. The thought of these philosophers is interesting in itself; it is essential to the study of more recent philosophy; and it is useful in gaining a sense of the intellectual life of early modern Europe. The web site for the course is at http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/modern/.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Meditations on First Philosophy : With Selections from the Objections and Replies, ed. John Cottingham (Cambridge University Press, 1996 [Meditations first published in 1641]).

Spinoza (1632-1677), Ethics (handout).

Leibniz (1646-1716), Philosophical Texts, trans. and ed. R. S. Woolhouse and Richard Franks (Oxford, 1998).

John Locke (1632-1704), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, abridged and edited by Kenneth P. Winkler (Hackett, 1996 [1689]).

David Hume (1711-1776), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Tom L. Beauchamp (Oxford, 1999 [1772]).

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Critique of Pure Reason, trans. and ed. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (Cambridge, 1998 [1781, 1787]).

TR 8:30 - 11:00 AM
or by appointment.

I am usually in my office during office hours, but occasionally a meeting or another commitment prevents this.  If you just drop by during office hours, you will probably find me in; if you want to see me at another time, or if you want to be certain I'll be in, we can set up an appointment.

Exams: Midterm examination (20%), tentatively scheduled for Monday, February 20; final examination (25%) on Friday, May 5, at 2:00 PM.

Literature Review: This will count 20% of the final grade. Each member of the class will select a philosopher and a particular topic addressed by that philosopher, and will prepare a review of the literature on the philosopher's views on the topic for distribution to the class. The review will include an annotated bibliography including both book and journal sources. (Internet sources may be listed as well, but will not substitute for listings of the published literature. It remains true that most of the best literature on these topics is not yet available on line.) It will also include a concise (say 4-5 pages) summary of some of the main interpretive debates and positions discussed in the literature. Topics will be chosen from a list available on the web. Further information about this assignment is also available on the web. Each class member must select a different combination of philosopher and topic. The literature review is due Monday, February 27.

Paper: This will count 25% of the final grade. I would recommend writing the paper on a topic related to your literature review. However, its purpose is different: the paper should defend a thesis concerning one or more of the philosophers we have read (a thesis about how the philosopher should be interpreted, or about the plausibility of one of their views, or possibly about the relation between the views of two of the philosophers). A proposal is due Monday, March 6; the final draft of the paper is due Monday, April 17. See the web page on the paper for further information.

Participation: Participation will account for 10% of the final grade. This includes attendance, contributions to class discussion, and contributions to the listserv group for the course, and weekly one-page papers. I will assign a grade based on both the quality and quantity of your participation. However, the highest grade I will assign depends on the number of weeks in which you do not submit a satisfactory one-page paper: if you miss more than one week, the highest grade will be a B; more than 2, C; more than 3, D; more than 4, F. One-page papers must be turned in on Monday every week when we have a class on Monday. Late submissions will not be accepted, and a missed paper cannot be made up by extra submissions later on. Some possible uses of the one-page papers include: you might raise the issue of how a particular bit of a text should be interpreted and explore at least one possible solution; you might pose an objection to a view in the reading, and consider how the author might respond to this objection; you might make and defend a suggestion about the relations between the philosophers we will discuss. Although they are short, the one-page papers should be clear, well-organized, and well-argued. They should respond to specifics of the texts, and page numbers should be provided for any view attributed to the texts. Papers that do not satisfy these criteria will be marked unsatisfactory.

Attendance: Excessive absence is grounds for failure in the course, not just on the 10% of the grade specifically assigned to participation.

Everyone should be familiar with the University’s Honor Code or the academic integrity policy, whichever applies to you. Both are described in the Student Handbook; information about the honor code is also available on the Honor Code web site. Note that violations of academic integrity include cheating, counterfeit work (i.e. turning in work that was done by someone else), unauthorized reuse of your own work ("turning in the same work to more than one class without consent of the instructors involved"), and plagiarism. The Student Handbook description of plagiarism is important enough to quote at length: "presenting as one's work the work of someone else without properly acknowledging the source. . . . Exact copying should be enclosed in quotation marks and be appropriately documented in footnotes or end notes that indicate the source of the quotation. Paraphrasing, when the basic sentence structure, phraseology, and unique language remain the same, is also plagiarism. When in doubt about these matters, it is the student's responsibility to seek guidance from the instructor of the course."  

Like most faculty at Trinity, I take academic integrity very seriously. Remember that any use of material you did not write yourself, either word-for-word or in close paraphrase, is plagiarism. This is true even if the passage is only a sentence or two long, and no matter where the material came from, including web sites, discussion groups, or the papers of other students. I will strictly follow the Honor Code policy by reporting any suspected violation of the policy to the Honor Council. (For students to whom the academic integrity policy applies, I will strictly follow that policy as well, including sending the appropriate letters of notification to university administrators.) I have had some students suggest that their plagiarism is “not a big deal.” You should be aware that I do regard it as a big deal. Other students have told me they were not aware that what they were doing was a violation of academic integrity. If you have any uncertainty about the policy, or about whether the specific use of other sources you are considering is acceptable, come and talk with me. I’ll be happy to clarify what is acceptable and what is not. Finally, I have heard from some students that they resorted to plagiarism because they were overwhelmed by an assignment and saw no way of completing it successfully without resorting to cheating. Ironically, in many cases, if these students had worked as hard at writing a paper as they did at plagiarizing, they could certainly have written an acceptable paper. If you are having trouble getting started on a paper, please come and talk with me.

The schedule of topics and readings is located on a separate web page. Although quite detailed, the schedule is tentative; we may make changes as we go along. Make sure to consult the online version for up-to-date information.