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.