Instructor: Colin McLear    

Course: PHIL  v   

Time: M :-: pm  [email protected]
Location: Oldfather Hall   phil.colinmclear.net
Office:  Oldfather Hall Updated: January , 
Office Hours: M/W :-: pm

Kant & Early Modern Philosophy

The essence of a thing consists in its form (forma dat esse rei, as it is said by
the Scholastics), insofar as it may be known through reason…Upon these
forms rests the possibility of all synthetic cognition a priori, whose
possession we are indeed unable to deny.
On a Recently Prominent Tone of Superiority in Philosophy, Ak :
Immanuel Kant

Course Overview
This course surveys views of some key figures in early modern (th—th century) European phi-
losophy, up to and including Kant. Our discussion begins with the enormously influential theories
of René Descartes, specifically his theories of mind and nature, and examines subsequent reactions,
criticisms, and (partial) defenses of his views in the writings of other prominent philosophers. The
course culminates with an analysis of central themes in Immanuel Kant’s “critical” philosophical
work. In particular, this course focuses on issues surrounding the transformation of notions of sci-
entific explanation in the early modern period. We will start with scholastic Aristotelian conceptions
of scientific explanation, see how these are critiqued and transformed by Descartes, Locke, and Leib-
niz, savagely criticized by Hume, and ultimately given new form by Kant.

Course Objectives
Upon completion of this course students should have a good grasp of both the broad outline of central
philosophical arguments in the early modern period, as well as the historical context in which these
doctrines were articulated. This includes being able to (i) articulate some of the central metaphysical,
epistemological, and scientific disputes in Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth-century; (ii)
clearly explain the different positions of the figures discussed in the course, as well as their dialectical
context; (iii) articulate Kant’s proposed resolutions of these disputes.

Course Materials
The following books are required for this course:

• Descartes, Philosophical Writings, volume II

• Leibniz, Philosophical Essays
• Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

|
 • Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
• Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics

Other readings will be posted on the course website under “Assignments.”

Course Requirements
• Preparation: You are expected to attend every class meeting fully prepared to discuss each assigned
reading, to submit written work punctually, and to offer thoughtful and constructive responses to
the remarks of your instructor and your classmates. Make sure that you bring the relevant read-
ings with you to every lecture class. I further expect you to treat both the texts at hand and your
classmates’ ideas with openness and respect.

• Attendance: Attendance is required. You are also expected to attend every section meeting. /
a letter grade will be deducted from your final course grade for every absence from section after
your fifth.

• Website: We will use a course website for all materials. The site address is: phil.colinmclear.net.
Upcoming assignments and readings will be posted there. Please let me know if you have any
problems. Technical glitches, computer malfunctions and crashing hard drives are not excuses for
failing to complete work in this class.

• Format for Papers: Please submit work as a .docx or .rtf file. All work must be typed. I will not
accept any handwritten work aside from that we do in class. Your papers should be in -point
Times New Roman font, double-spaced with margins set to one inch on all sides. Your name, my
name, the date and assignment should appear in the top left hand corner of the first page. Your last
name and page number must appear in the top right hand corner on each subsequent page. Please
staple or paperclip hard copies of papers and drafts. You are responsible for the presentation of
your papers.

• Late Work: Late papers and assignments will standardly be marked down by / of a letter grade
for each day the work is late (for example, from A- to B+, from B+ to B, and so on).

Evaluation
Two Essays: 

• Explain and critically assess a philosophical argument. Topics will be suggested. Approximately
- pages (- words). Graduate students taking the course will instead write a research
paper (- words) in two drafts.

Weekly reading responses: 

• ( words; posted on our public course blog by  pm the evening before class meets + -word
responses to a classmate’s post posted by class time): Your reading responses should detail your
observations about a primary text (though one can also relate this to seconary readings). They are
not summaries. Move to delimit - major points or ideas from the reading and discuss them.
What do you find interesting or compelling? What do you find logically problematic?

Colin McLear |

 In addition to posting your reading response, you are also required to respond to one of your
classmate’s posts by the start of class the following day. Your response should engage one or more
of the points raised by your classmate. It is not enough to simply say that you agree or disagree
with the author of the post. You must explain how your views intersect with the ones presented.
Did the post make you think about a reading in a different way? Why? How? What did you find
particularly interesting or compelling about the response?

Weekly reading précis: 

• Write a précis addressing a particular secondary text assigned for the week (this does not in-
clude my notes). A précis is a rhetorical exercise that asks you to summarize a text, including the
claim/argument, supporting evidence, purpose, and audience in  sentences. For a helpful example
of the form, see: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/rhetorical-precis/
sample/peirce_sample_precis_click.html

Participation: 

• The participation grade takes into account your attendance in class and section as well as the quan-
tity and quality of your participation.

Policies
• Academic Integrity: All the work you turn in (including papers, drafts, and discussion board posts)
must be written by you specifically for this course. It must originate with you in form and content
with all contributory sources fully and specifically acknowledged. Make yourself familiar with
UNL’s Student Code of Conduct and Academic Integrity Code, available online. In this course,
the normal penalty for any violation of the code is an “F” for the semester. Violations may have
additional consequences including expulsion from the university. Don’t plagiarize – It just isn’t
worth it.

• University Policies: This instructor respects and upholds University policies and regulations per-
taining to the observation of religious holidays; assistance available to physically handicapped,
visually and/or hearing impaired students; plagiarism; sexual harassment; and racial or ethnic dis-
crimination. All students are advised to become familiar with the respective University regulations
and are encouraged to bring any questions or concerns to the attention of the instructor.

• ADA: In compliance with University policy and equal access laws, I am available to discuss ap-
propriate academic accommodations that may be required for students with disabilities. Students
are encouraged to register with Student Disability Services to verify their eligibility for appropriate
accommodations.

• Miscellaneous: Please turn off cell phones, beeping watches, and other gadgets that make noise
before entering our classroom. Absolutely no texting is permitted during class. I will subtract up
to five points from your participation grade each and every time your phone rings or I see you
texting during class.

Colin McLear |

Further Resources
• Jargon: It’s important to be on top of the technical terms used by philoso- phers. Please ask for
clarification of terms in class. You can also consult Jim Pryor’s online “Philosophical Terms and
Methods.”

• Help with writing: Papers should adhere to some consistent practice of footnoting and citation
(Chicago, MLA, etc.). I don’t really mind which one you use as long as you are consistent. On
writing a philosophy paper, there is no better on-line guide than Jim Pryor’s. Please consult it.
Hacker’s A Writer’s Reference is also extremely helpful. Useful online writing help may be found
at the Purdue Online Writing Lab at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/.
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln Writing Center can provide you with meaningful support as
you write for this class as well as for every course in which you enroll. Trained peer consultants
are available to talk with you as you plan, draft, and revise your writing. Please check the Writing
Center website for locations, hours, and information about scheduling appointments.

• Reference: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://plato.stanford.edu is an ex-

cellent online resource.

Colin McLear |

Kant & Early Modern Philosophy
PHIL 4/871 Reading List
Fall 2016

1 - Scholasticism & Descartes’s Project

Today we look at the medieval scholastic background against which much of the philosoph-
ical work we’ll be examining is written. I’ll also introduce the basic aims of Descartes’s work
the Meditations on First Philosophy, and we’ll discuss in some detail the argument of the
First Meditation. If you are unfamiliar with the historical context of seventeenth and eigh-
teenth century European philosophy, you might get started by familiarizing yourself with
important dates and people.

Readings
• Descartes, First Meditation
• McLear, Notes on the Medieval Background
• McLear, Notes on Descartes’s Method & the First Meditation.
• Pasnau, Epistemology Idealized
• Nadler, Doctrines of Explanation

2 - The Second & Third Meditations

Today we’ll discuss the Second and Third Meditations. We’ll look, in particular, at the cog-
ito argument, the wax argument, the role of God in Descartes’s argument, and Descartes’s
conception of mental representation (ideas).

Readings
• Descartes, Second and Third Meditations
• McLear, Notes on the Second and Third Meditations
• Hatfield, Descartes and the Meditations, chs. 4-5
• Frankfurt, Descartes’s Discussion of his Existence in the Second Meditation
• Morris, The Second Meditation

1
Kant & Early Modern Philosophy

3 – The Fifth and Sixth Meditations

Today we’ll finish our discussion of the previous Meditations and look at the Fifth and Sixth
Meditations. The key issues we’ll focus on are the conception of essence and the ontological
argument in the Fifth Meditation and the real distinction argument, proof of the external
world, and overall view of nature in the Sixth Meditation. Finally, we’ll discuss the issue of
the Cartesian Circle and potential responses to it.

Readings
• Descartes, Fifth and Sixth Meditations
• Descartes’s Correspondence with Elisabeth
• McLear, Notes on the Fifth and Sixth Meditations
• Van Cleve, Foundationalism, Epistemic Principles, and the Cartesian Circle
• Nolan & Whipple, The Dustbin Theory of Mind
• Garber, Descartes, Mechanics, and the Mechanical Philosophy

4 - Locke (and others) on Mechanism

Today we will discuss the conceptions of mechanism and materialism as the appear in var-
ious figures, and in particular in Locke and Boyle. We’ll also try and understand the extent
to which Descartes’s conception of corporeal nature differs from that of Boyle and Locke.

Readings
• Galileo, excerpt from The Assayer
• Descartes, excerpts from parts I-II of the Principles of Philosophy
• Boyle, On the Origins of Forms and Qualities (pp. 50-53)
• Locke, Bk. II, Chs. 1-8 (focus especially on ch. 8)
• McLear, Notes
– The primary/secondary quality distinction
– Locke’s epistemology
• Downing, The status of mechanism in Locke
• Rozemond, Peach trees, gravity, and god
• Kochiras, Locke’s philosophy of science

Colin McLear 2|7

Fall 2016
Kant & Early Modern Philosophy

5 - Locke on Essence
Today we’ll continue our look at Locke on our knowledge of nature. We’ll finish up our
discussion of the primary/secondary quality distinction and move on to examine his dis-
tinction between real and nominal essence. We’ll look at his arguments for this distinction,
for skepticism concerning our ability to know anything about real essences, and what all this
means for his corpuscularian conception of nature.

Readings
• Locke, EHU
– III.iii.11-20 (especially 15-17)
– III.vi.1-20
– IV.iii
– IV.iv.1-12
– IV.vi
• Ayers, Locke vs. Aristotle on Natural Kinds
• Pasnau, Real Essences (especially §27.7)
• Owen, Locke on Real Essence

6 - Locke & Leibniz on Relations

We conclude our discussion of Locke with an examination of his views regarding the rela-
tionship between a substance and its properties. Specifically, we’ll look at how Locke thinks
the powers of a substance are or are not rooted in its essence or nature. We’ll also look at
how this view compares to that of Leibniz.

Readings
• Locke - EHU IV.iii
• Leibniz, Philosophical Essays
– Primary truths
– Discourse on metaphysics, §§1-25
– Principles of nature and grace (optional)
– Monadology, §§1-60
• Jauernig, Disentangling Leibniz’s views on relations and extrinsic denominations
• Langton, Locke’s relations and God’s good pleasure

Colin McLear 3|7

Fall 2016
Kant & Early Modern Philosophy

• Connolly, Lockean superaddition and lockean humility

7 - Hume’s Mind
This week we look at Hume’s theory of mental content and set up his critique of causation
for next week. We’ll also look at Hume’s skeptical view regarding personal identity. We’ll
revisit this when we examine Kant’s views on such matters.

Readings
• Hume
– Sections 1-3, 12 of Hume’s Enquiry
– Appendix on identity
• Garrett, Hume, chs. 2-3
• Schafer, Hume’s Unified Theory of Mental Representation
• Cottrell, Minds, Composition, and Hume’s Skepticism in the Appendix

8 - Hume on Causation
Today we will look at Hume’s famous argument against the legitimacy of our concept of
necessary connection, which is an integral aspect of causation as it was then understood.
We’ll also see how Hume draws a distinction between “relations of ideas” and “matters of
fact”, as well as similar ways of drawing the distinction in Locke and Leibniz.

Readings
• Locke, EHU IV.viii
• Leibniz, Primary Truths (pp. 30-5 in Philosophical Essays)
• Hume, Enquiry, sections 4-7
• Bell, Hume on Causation
• Strawson, David Hume: Objects and Power
• Winkler, The New Hume

Colin McLear 4|7

Fall 2016
Kant & Early Modern Philosophy

9 - Kant on Analyticity & the A priori

Today we’ll look at Kant’s famous distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments, and
his corresponding claim that metaphysics consists of synthetic a priori judgments.

Readings
• Kant, Prolegomena Preface & §§1-13
• Beck, Can Kant’s Synthetic Judgments be Made Analytic?
• Beck, Analytic and Synthetic Judgments before Kant
• Stang, Did Kant Conflate the Necessary and the A Priori?

10 - Kant’s Thinking Subject

Today we’ll look at Kant’s conception of the thinking subject and how his views contrast
with those of Hume. We’ll discuss both his positive conception of the thinking subject as
put forward in the section of the Critique of Pure Reason entitled the “Transcendental De-
duction”, and his negative arguments against prior German metaphysical arguments about
the nature of the subject.

Readings
• Kant
– Transcendental Deduction (1787)
– The Paralogisms (1787)
– Prolegomena, §§40-47 (especially §§46-7)
• Pereboom, Kant’s Metaphysical and Transcendental Deductions
• Wuerth, The Paralogisms of Pure Reason
• McLear, Apperception & the Substantial Subject

11 - Kant on Causation
Last week we looked at some of the very general considerations Kant provides in favor of
the claim that there are a priori concepts which we can know must apply to the contents of
our experience of the world. This week look at a particular concept—causation—and Kant’s
argument against a broadly Humean position. We’ll look at the argument as it appears in
both the first Critique and in the Prolegomena.

Colin McLear 5|7

Fall 2016
Kant & Early Modern Philosophy

Readings
• Prolegomena §§22-3, 26-30 (Discussion of Hume starts at §27)
• The Second Analogy (excerpted from the Critique of Pure Reason, also available as an
appendix to the Cambridge edition of the Prolegomena)
• Watkins, The System of Principles
– This is a helpful overview of the entire section (the titular System of Principles)
in which Kant argues concerning causation (in the Second Analogy)
• Watkins, Causal Powers, Laws, and Kant’s Reply to Hume
• Van Cleve, Causation and the Second Analogy

12 - Kant & Leibniz on the Ideality of Matter

Today we’ll discuss ways in which Leibniz and Kant both argue for the ideality of matter.
Specifically, we’ll look at a line of argument Leibniz employs in his New System against the
reality of extended matter. We’ll then look at the argument of Kant’s Second Antinomy as it
appears in the Critique of Pure Reason and the Prolegomena.

Readings
• Leibniz, A New System of the Nature (especially pp. 138-142) in Leibniz: Basic Works
• Kant
– Prolegomena §§40-45, 50-52C
– The Second Antinomy and related texts (excerpted from the Critique of Pure
Reason)
• Wood, The Antinomies of Pure Reason (this is a helpful overview of the Antinomies
section)
• Van Cleve, Reflections on Kant’s Second Antimony
• Schmiege, What Is Kant’s Second Antinomy About?

13 - Kant Against Ontotheology

Today we’ll discuss Kant’s criticisms of traditional rational theology, including his famous
argument that existence is not a predicate.

Colin McLear 6|7

Fall 2016
Kant & Early Modern Philosophy

Readings
• Kant
– The Ideal of Pure Reason (excerpt from the first Critique)
– Prolegomena, §55
• Ameriks, Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics (optional background overview)
• Wood, Introduction & ch. 1 (excerpts) from Kant’s Rational Theology
• Stang, Kant’s Argument that Existence is not a Determination

14 - Kant on Mechanism & Teleology

Last week we looked at Kant’s response to various putative proofs of God’s existence as
offered by other early modern philosophers. Today we’ll look at Kant’s conception of the
mechanism of nature, and the degree to which he allows for purpose-driven causal explana-
tion. We’ll discuss how his views concerning mechanism and living organisms differ from
those of Descartes and Locke.

Readings
• Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment (excerpts)
• Ginsborg, Kant’s Biological Teleology and its Philosophical Significance
• Breitenbach, Mechanical explanation of nature and its limits in Kant’s Critique of Judg-
ment

Colin McLear 7|7

Fall 2016