History of Philosophy: Modern                                                                                          PHIL 3010
Mr. Potter
Paper Topics

Please write a 6 to 10-page paper on ONE of the following topics. All papers must be typed. Due date: See Canvas Assignments or the reading and assignments schedule available on the course website for this paper’s due date.

(1) In the first Meditation, Descartes raises several skeptical objections to the possibility of knowledge. Among these is the following worry:

Indeed! As if I did not remember other occasions when I have been tricked by exactly similar thoughts while asleep? As I think about this more carefully, I see plainly that there are never any sure signs by means of which being awake can be distinguished from being asleep. The result is that I begin to feel dazed, and this very feeling only reinforces the notion that I may be asleep.

Not until the last paragraph of the sixth Meditation does Descartes reply directly to this skeptical doubt. Why does Descartes even feel that it is necessary to reply, if he has already (or so he thinks) refuted the evil-demon skeptic, proved God's existence and nondeceitfulness, and shown that the external world exists? Spell out the argument in favor of dream-skepticism as given in the first Meditation, and then describe and critically assess Descartes' reply to it in the sixth Meditation. In your opinion, has Descartes adequately refuted the dream skeptic? If not, then show why not.

(2) Twice in the third Meditation, and again in the fifth Meditation, Descartes offers proofs for God's existence. Select one of the proofs and summarize its main steps in your own words (do not simply repeat one of the handouts). Then focus on what you take to be the weakest premise or inference-step in the argument. State what you take to be wrong with that premise or step; then describe either what Descartes actually says in response to that sort of objection, or what you imagine that he would say. Is the actual or imagined Cartesian response adequate? If so, offer reasons why; if not, offer reasons why not.

(3) In the fourth Meditation Descartes gives a theory of the nature of human error. State why Descartes must provide such a theory, and then describe his theory in some detail. In your opinion, has Descartes adequately reconciled God's non-deceitfulness with the human tendency to make mistakes? If you believe that Descartes' attempted reconciliation fails, then provide an argument showing how and in what way it fails. If on the other hand you believe that his reconciliation succeeds, then state what you take to be the strongest objection against his theory of error and show how Descartes can answer that objection.

(4) In the sixth Meditation Descartes offers an argument for the existence of the external world. Briefly summarize the argument. It appears that although the argument is sufficient to show that other human bodies exist, it is not sufficient to show that other human minds exist. State why it is not sufficient. Could Descartes offer a plausible argument for the existence of other human minds? If you believe he can, then briefly sketch and defend such a Cartesian argument. If in your opinion he cannot, then offer reasons why a Cartesian must risk "solipsism" (for our purposes, solipsism is the claim that no other human minds exist beyond the first-person's ego).
(5) A central aim of Leibniz's Monadology is to circumvent Cartesian mind/body dualism, and to solve the mind/body problem. First, very briefly describe how Descartes establishes his dualism and accounts for the mind/body relation in the sixth Meditation. Then, secondly, state in some detail Leibniz's response to Descartes' account. This will involve briefly sketching the most essential and relevant features of Leibniz's theory of monads in the Monadology. In your opinion, is Leibniz's response to Descartes philosophically adequate? Offer reasons for your opinion.

(6) In the Monadology Leibniz argues that God exists and that necessarily, this is the best of all possible worlds I have also reconstructed this argument in some detail in handout #4. Restate the main points of the argument in your own words. In your opinion, is the argument sound (that is, does it contain nothing but true premises and valid inference steps)? If so, then describe (what you take to be) the most compelling objection to the argument and show how Leibniz can respond to it effectively. If not, then state the objection which, as you see it, decisively refutes the argument and show how Leibniz cannot effectively respond to it.

(7) In book I, chapters I-IV of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke gives a detailed critique of the Rationalist theory of innate ideas. Give a brief account of Descartes' theory of innate ideas, and then spell out in some detail what you take to be Locke's two most important arguments against the innatist theory. Then answer the following questions. Can the Cartesian innatist respond to Locke? If so, how? In your opinion, do innate ideas exist?

(8) In book II, chapter VIII of the Essay, Locke spells out his doctrine of "primary qualities" (PQs) and "secondary qualities" (SQs) (for our purposes you can ignore the doctrine of "tertiary qualities"). Briefly describe the doctrine of PQs and SQs, making sure that you relate it to the difference between ideas of PQs and ideas of SQs. Then briefly spell out the essentials of Locke's theory of corporeal substances (=material bodies) in book II, chapter XXIII. What is the relevance of the PQ/SQ distinction to the theory of corporeal substances? In your opinion, given Locke's account, can we know the nature of a material body?

(9) What is a person, and how does a person remain identical over time? In book II, chapter XXIII of the Essay Locke criticizes the Rationalist conception of finite incorporeal substances (=souls); and then in chapter XXVII he sketches his theory of identity with special reference to personal identity over time. Briefly describe both Locke's critique of souls and his positive theory of personal identity (in these connections you may also want to have a look at Locke's remarks about souls and consciousness in book II, chapter I. Then develop what you take to be the most important criticism of Locke's positive theory. Can Locke respond to this criticism? If so, how; if not why not?

(4) Hume vigorously criticizes the Rationalist theory of causation, and then develops his own "deflationary" or "skeptical" conception of causation in sections IV-VII of the Enquirv Concerning Human Understanding (Part III of A Treatise of Human Nature). Briefly describe both the critique and the deflationary theory. Then formulate what you take to be the two most important criticisms of Hume's positive theory, and describe how Hume might respond to those criticisms. If Hume is correct about causation, then is scientific knowledge of nature possible? 

Three bits of advice:
(1) Don't assume that the descriptive/exegetical part of your paper is less important than the part where you give your own assessment of the issues. In fact, unless the argument or doctrine in question has been reconstructed carefully, your opinion will miss the point.
(2) Wherever you are asked to give your opinion, it is assumed that you will also defend it and offer some philosophical reasons for your claim; mere assertion is not enough.
(3) Discussing the topic and details of your paper in advance with me is a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing. But please try to do this soon, both to give you more time to work on your paper and to avoid last-minute stampedes to your teacher.  I will make myself available for talking on the phone over the weekend, given the lateness of the paper topics.