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!