From 4/29: Analytic Philosophy

To wrap up the semester, we dabbled a bit in analytic philosophy where the focus is not so much on the history of ideas as it is on the logical congency of arguments. For analytics, thinking and language are inseparable. As Wittgenstein asserts, the limits of our language are the limits of our thought, rendering philosophy as a tool to separate that which can be said from that which cannot. In thinking about Wittgenstein, consider the merits and demerits of analytic philosophy, including whether it's emphasis on a third-person perspective effectively overthrows the Cartesian first-person bias.

For 3/29: Ludwig Wittgenstein

As one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century, Wittgenstein was largely responsible for an entirely new breed of philosophy, generally referred to as analytic. For Wittgenstein, philosophy is principally charged with differentiating between sense and non-sense, i.e., between what can be properly said and what cannot. A premium is thereby placed on logic and linguistic analysis - both being hallmarks of the analytic tradition. In reading about Wittgenstein, consider the strengths and weakness of his approach, including the ways in which he echoes Hume and Kant and yet, at the same time, strikes out on his own.

From 4/22: Existence before Essence

In wrapping up existentialism, we dealt with Sartre's contention that each and every individual is self-made, being the sum total of his or her actions. Along the way, this assertion of invidual existence over a universal essence brings to light isssues of despair, abandonment, freedom, and accountability. So what do we make of the existentialists? What of this call to authenticity? Is existentialism pessimistic and quietistic or is there an underlying cheerfulness and call to action here? And where are our values to come from if existentialism is indeed a form of humanism? Perhaps only you - as an individual - can decide!

For 4/22: Jean-Paul Sartre

For many, Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism" offers the clearest and most concise account of existentialism as a philosophical doctrine. Ironically, this clarity may have aided in bringing the existentialist movement to an end as other thinkers began to distance themselves from Sartre's brand of existentialism, to the point where existentialists were no longer to be found. Nevertheless, how does Sartre understand existentialism? Is it as dark as its critics claim or is there, in fact, a latent humanism here? And what might existentialim still say to us today, more than a half century past its prime?

From 4/7: The Nothing

Heidegger's questioning of metaphysics focuses both on the uniqueness of human Dasein as well as the very essence of philosophical thinking. We are the beings who raise the question of Being, making philosophical inquiry an important part of who we are. So what is metaphysics afterall? What is the place of philosophy in an age dominated by modern science and technology? Though answers here don't come easy, we must nevertheless persist in our questioning.

For 4/7: Martin Heidegger

Heidegger's work may be best described as a combination of phenomenology and existentialism. The question of Being, for Heidegger, is the most fundamental of all philosophical questions, yet one which can only be raised from within the individual subject. For Heidegger, human beings are the beings for which Being is an issue. His use of the word "Dasein" is meant to capture the uniqueness of this human experience. In "What is Metaphysics?," the question of Being (or Nothing) is front and center, as Heidegger tries to carve out a place for philosophy particularly within an age dominated by the natural sciences. Whether he succeeds, you decide!

From 4/1: The Existentialists

Though Kierkegaard and Nietzsche certainly differ when it comes to questions about God and Christianity, they both fight against what we might generally call inauthenticity. Both call for us to choose our own lives, to embrace our existence, and to take reponsibility for our own individual choices. We can do no worse than to fall in line with the herd or the mob, the source of untruth for Kierkegaard and nihilism for Nietzsche. So what do we make of this turn towards the individual in Western philosophy? Is existentialism something we are willing to embrace or are there certain aspects of it that we might find troubling?

For 4/1: Friedrich Nietzsche

If 19th Century philosophy takes its cue from Hegel, 20th Century philosophy begins with Nietzsche. Ever the historian, Nietzsche tears into the Platonic/Christian tradition, clearing the way for a new vision of humanity. Nietzsche declares the death of God, calls for a new form of morality, and asserts the individual's will to power. Western philosophy takes an important turn with Nietzsche, a turn which he - no doubt - would say is for the better.

From 3/25: "Waking Life"

Taking its lead from Descartes' musings about the distinction between dreams and waking life, Richard Linklater's film explores many of the ideas, debates, theories, and imaginings that pervade modern philosophy. What was your impression of the film? Was there a particular scene or conversation that stood out for you more than any other? What does the film say about the human experience, both in general and perhaps in particular? Perhaps the dream world has more to offer than our waking lives are willing to admit!

For 3/25: Soren Kierkegaard

Not unlike Marx, much of Kierkegaard's philosophy is born in Hegel and yet is marked by a decisive departure. Whereas Marx believes that Hegel downplays the role of our material circumstances, Kierkegaard believes that the individual human subject gets lost within Hegel's grand idea. This, for many, makes Kierkegaard the father of existentialism as each of us must wrestle with our own existence and all which that existence implies. Questions of mortality, dread, embodied existence, and faith are therefore inseparable from philosophical inquiry. Rather than marginalizing these topics, Kierkegaard meets them head-on.

From 3/18: Marching Through History

Does history matter when it comes to philosophy? In what sense is human consciousness historical? Though Hegel and Marx don't see eye-to-eye on many things, they both view history as a necessary progression toward some ultimate goal. Whereas history, for Hegel, culminates in Absolute Spirit as the full expression of human self-consciousness, Marx asserts that there will be one final revolution whereby the working class proletariat will overthrow the capitalist bourgeoisie. Are either of them correct? Did communism fail or has the final revolution not yet happened? Do you think Marx's critique of capitalism holds any weight? Perhaps AIG gives us pause to think!

For 3/18: Hegel and Marx

Whereas Hegel begins where Kant leaves off, Marx does much the same with Hegel. In essence, Hegel believes that Kantian idealism needs a push, as reason has the ability to transcend and thereby resolve the seeming contradications which it gets itself into. For Hegel, human consciousness is historical, meaning it constitutes itself differently at different times in human history, only to culminate in some absolute understanding. The time and nature of this culmination becomes an issue for Marx, who - by turning Hegel on his head - interprets history materially rather than ideally in arguing for the necessity of one final revolution: the rise of the working classes and the fall of the capitalist state.

From 3/4: Critiquing "Pure" Reason

In finishing up Kant's Prolegomena, we considered the assorted conundrums which reason gets itself into when speculating about things outside of our experience. Whether it be the indentity of the self, the beginning and subsequent expansion of the universe, or the existence of God, pure reason proves quite capable of backing itself up into an idealogical corner. So does Kant prove successful in saving reason from itself here? Where do you see him as agreeing or disagreeing with Hume when it comes to metaphysical speculation? Any further thoughts on the antinomies? Critique away!

For 3/4: Kant's Prolegomena, Third Part

Having established the possibilty of mathematics and natural science, Kant goes on to discuss metaphysics in the third part of the Prolegomena. Here we encounter many traditional metaphysical questions: Does the universe have a beginning in time? Is the universe bound by space? Can free will be reconciled with the natural laws of science? Is there one being in the universe (namely God) who necessarily exists? Here's our chance to puzzle along with Kant on these questions and to consider whether they're worth asking at all.

From 2/25: Transcendental Idealism

Now that we've taken our first - and rather large - step into Kant's metaphysics, it should prove helpful to reflect on Kant's overall project. Is synthetic a priori knowledge really possible? Is his response to Hume adequate? Is he right to think of philosophy as a critique (or reigning in) of reason? And finally, is the world really something of our own, mental making? Much to think about here - perhaps enough to force us out of bed at 4:55 every morning!

For 2/25: Kant's Prolegomena, Preface & Preamble

From Cartesian Rationalism and Humean Empiricism, we now move to the Transcendental Idealism of Immanuel Kant. In reading the beginning of the Prolegomena, what do you make of Kant's project? What seems to be his main objective? Can you make sense of where he disagrees with Hume? And what's the big deal with synthetic a priori propositions? Though Kant is by no means an easy read, if we first see what he wants to do, we should be able to get a pretty good handle on Kant's philosophy as a whole.

From 2/18: Liberty, Miracles, & The Afterlife

In finishing up Hume on Wednesday night, we touched on many topics: Are liberty and necessity mutually exclusive? Are miracles likley -- or even possible? Can we know anything about God or an afterlife based on our own experience? Much to think about how here, including how Hume's scepticism contrasts with Descartes'. Before we move onto Kant, here's another chance to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of Hume.

For 2/18: Hume's Enquiry, Sections VIII-XII

Being ever skeptical of metaphysical doctrines and absolute declarations, Hume deals with a number of traditional philosophical questions in the second half of his Enquiry. Can liberty and necessity be reconciled with each other? Are we really so different from animals? What do we make of miracles (such as the parting of the Red Sea)? Where do we see divine providence? Is our belief in a future state justified? In considering Hume's answer to these assorted questions, be sure to share your own insights as well.

From 2/11: Customary Conjunction

Moving away from the rationalism of Descartes, we have now ventured into the empiricism of Hume. Rather than questioniong the senses, Hume feels that human understanding can begin in no other place. Unlike Descartes, Hume is suspicious of the powers of the mind, arguing that we only imagine necessary connections between causes and effects when in fact there are only customary conjunctions whereby certain events tend to coincide. Is this a more honest treatment of human knowledge? Can the mind really know nothing without the senses? Does a certain relativism creep in here? As Hume might say, look to your own experience!

For 2/11: Hume's Enquiry, Sections I-VII

Switching gears from rationalism to empiricism, we come to the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Whereas Descartes (as we have seen) has a general distrust of his own experience and senses, Hume says that - trust them or not - human understanding would be impossible without them. Knowledge, in other words, is not innate, but builds up over time through our own experiences. Further, since these experiences are necessarily limited, so too is the knowledge we gain from them. So, is this a fair assessment of how the human mind works or might we take issue with Hume as well?

From 2/4: Bringing back the World

By the end of the Meditations, Descartes fully restores the world which he originally brought into doubt. But what sort of world is this? It's one where mathematics is now the language of nature, where our senses are only to be trusted if they provide clear and distinct ideas, and where we are essentially our minds -- minds which are somehow "commingled" with our bodies. So what do we make of this Cartesian world? Has he adequately accounted for it or is there a certain madness to his method? And how close is this to depicting the world as we understand it today?

For 2/4: Descartes' Mediations IV-VI

Now that Descartes has established his own existence as a thinking thing as well as the existence of God as infinite substance, he must now try to bring back the physical world whose very existence he called into question in Meditation I. Is he able to topple his own dream argument here? Can he ever come to trust his senses again? And what of his own body? Does it really belong to him and, if so, what is its relation to his mind? Also, if you ever wondered what a chiliagon (a thousand-sided polygon) looks like, here's a drawing of what Descartes could understand but not imagine.

From 1/28: "I think therefore I am"

Having now worked through Descartes' first three meditations, we know at least one thing for certain: so long as we are thinking, we can be absolutely certain of our existence. So where do we go from here? Descartes goes on to argue that he is essentially a thinking thing before setting upon the task of disproving the existence of the so-called evil genius. So does he pull this all off? Are there any mistakes in his reasoning? Can he ever really get outside of his own mind? And what might it mean if he can't? Whatever you're thinking, at least you can be sure you exist!

For 1/28: Descartes' Meditations I-III

In his first three Meditations, we find Descartes desperately searching for anything he can know for certain. After placing nearly everything into doubt, he finally touches upon the one thing that cannot be denied: his own existence. Given the extreme nature of his doubt, however, he must then go on to prove the existence of God. That said, does Descartes go too far here? Is he right to essentially throw out everything that he has come to know? And what's the point of all this? What do you think Descartes is looking to accomplish? Let us know what you think.

From 1/21/09: The Birth of Modernity

In our first meeting, we considered what defines the modern period and what distinguishes modern philosophy from its ancient and Medieval predecessors. So what do you take to be most important in triggering modernity? The weakening hold of the Catholic Church? The rise of science? Political unrest? And what do you expect the focus of modern philosophers to be? Modernity, here we come!