Introduction to the Class.

After class, please closely read the syllabus, these policies, and these guidelines for seminar participation. Please do so even if you took HON 171 with me.

Presentation: Revolution and Enlightenment.

I am going to offer a relatively brief presentation on the period between the mid-1500's and 1789. The goal will be to offer guideposts for our readings over the next four weeks and to situate the authors within the general movements known as the "Scientific Revolution" and Enlightenment (links go to external sites with further background).

Reading: Kant, "What is Enlightenment?" [pdf]; Bacon, the Four Idols [pdf].

Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) is certainly one of the most influential philosophers in the West, and it has been argued that the appearance of his Critique of Pure Reason in 1781 marks the beginning of modern philosophy. Rather that read any of the difficult Critique (though Kant does discuss natural theology - see Newton, Paley & Hume in coming weeks), or his well known categorical imperative, we are going to read a brief essay that he wrote in 1784 to answer the question Was is Aufklarung? (What is Enlightenment?). Note that Kant is writing at the tail end of the Enlightenment, so he is not offering a prescriptive definition but is reflecting on what the Enlightenment has meant.

You may also want to reflect on Kant's famous statement from the conclusion to his Critique of Pure Reason:

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."

Reading: Galileo, Siderus nuncius, pp. 29 - 64, skim pp 64 - 82, pp. 82 - 86.

Siderus nuncius ("Starry Messenger") dates from 1610 and is Galileo's first attempt to broadcast the findings of his use of the telescope. There are a couple of things to keep in mind with today's reading. Firstly, Galileo is writing in Latin rather than in the Italian he would use for his later works. Secondly, he is not (explicitly) defending a heliocentric view. If not, what is the view that he is defending? Why? Thirdly, I'd like you to consider what the reaction of the general public and/or the philosophers & theologians would have been to his observations.

Here is an eight-page handout on Galileo's life and work, and the Galileo Project at Rice University has plenty more information.

Reading: Descartes, extracts from Meditations and Discourse [pdf]

Reading: Newton, Principia [pdf]; See below for reading. Note that we will not be reading the whole PDF.

Newton's Principia (1687) is probably one of the most famous works in Western science and also one of the most difficult. Famously, Newton felt that only the initial three sections of Book I (along with Book III) would be understood by even mathematically literate readers. The selections I have chosen aim to provide a taste of Newton's argument.

In the first section (pp. 403 - 408), Newton outlines the definitions of some terms he will use later. In many cases, e.g. "quantity of matter" or "quantity of motion," he does not use terms that we use today. You will need to think about what he is defining.

The second section (pp. 416 - 417) presents his famous "Laws of Motion".

The third section (pp. 795 - 796) begin Book III of Principia ("The System of the World") and offers Newton's "Rules for the Study of Natural Philosophy."

In the fourth section (pp. 797 - 817), Newton offers some "Phenomena" (data to be explained) and proceeds to derive "Propositions" (based on Books I and II) that explain them. Here he derives his Universal Law of Gravitation.

Additional Supplemental Readings: (for the Newtonophile)

• A summary overview of the Principia [pdf]
• The first three sections of Book I of Principia [pdf] - the limit of what Newton felt readers would understand of his methodology. Take a quick look at it so as to get a feel for his analytical style. Newton suggested that readers could then understand Book III.
• Voltaire discussed Newton's ideas in his Letters Concerning the English Nation (1733) and offers a clear overview of how Newton's system differed from Descartes. Letter's XIV and XV are worth reading. [pdf]

Newton, continued

The "General Scholium" to Principa [pdf] is "possibly the most famous of all Newton's writings" (I.B. Cohen 1971) and the one in which he offers some thoughts on the theological significance of his work. Newton begins by attacking Descartes "hypothesis of vortices" - a vortex (whirlpool in the aether, the invisible material in space) caused the moon to circle the Earth, with a similar vortex causing the planets to circle the Sun. Newton then goes on to provide a defense of his particular religious views.

Query 31 of Opticks (1717) [pdf] in which Newton clearly states his belief in "an intelligent Agent" that created and designed the universe.

Newton's letters to Bentley (1692-'93) [pdf] - another clear statement of Newton's views. Read pages 233-236, 238-240, and 244.

Reading: Paley, Natural Theology [pdf]

Natural theology, or natural religion, the inferring of the existence and characteristics of the Christian god from observations of nature, has a long tradition. The argument can actually be traced back to Plato and Aristotle and was christianized by Thomas Aquinas. Natural theology received a boost during the Scientific Revolution with the writings of such individuals as Isaac Newton but reached its most elegant expression in Paley's 1802 work.

William Paley (1743 - 1805) was an English churchman and author of popular apologetic works. One of these - Natural Theology - begins by making his famous watchmaker argument; just as the complexity of a watch implies a watchmaker, so too the complexity of living things implies a designer. The latter portion of the book (and the majority of our reading) attempts to argue for the attributes of God from observations of nature.

To help clarify things, it is probably best to separate the argument to design (that something shows the marks of being designed) from the argument from design (detection of the characteristics of the designer).

A few things are worth pointing out. Firstly, Charles Darwin was greatly influenced by Paley's writings (which were mandatory reading at Cambridge). Secondly, though Hume had dealt with natural theology in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (which we will read next week), Paley's argument remained forceful to the reading public. Thirdly, it is generally held that the death-blow to natural theology was dealt by Darwin in 1859 with the publication of Origin of Species. After this time, natural theology could no longer be seen as a scientific endeavor. In short, Darwin finished what Hume started nearly a century earlier. Lastly, the modern "intelligent design" movement, which reappeared in the 1990's, is taken by historians and philosophers of science to be little more than a modernized version of Paley's argument. The movement could easily be termed Neo-Paleyism. In short, Paley is not going away!

For our purposes, concentrate on the validity of Paley's argument. Are there obvious exceptions to his claims? Do they undermine his argument? Paley (as orthodox Christian) and Newton (as heretic) are arguing for a different kind of Christian god using the same natural world - how can this difference be adjudicated? Is the argument to/from design hopelessly flawed?

Reading: Hume, "On Miracles" (pp. 107 - 125) in Hume.

Beginning in the 1740's, the Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume (1711-1776, "the most important philosopher ever to write in English") undertook an extended skeptical examination of traditional religion. Generally speaking, people have two reasons to hold a religious claim to be true - the first is because of revelation (revealed religion, i.e. Biblical pronouncements), and the second is due to examination of the natural world (natural religion or natural theology). In his 1748 essay "On Miracles" (contained in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding), Hume set out to demonstrate that there were no rational reasons to accept accounts of miracles.

Hume's essay is relatively clear and should not present any major interpretive problems. How good are Hume's arguments? Be wary of saying Hume is wrong because you believe in miracles as told in scripture - Hume is arguing that whatever you believe, you cannot expect the claims to be sufficient to persuade another rational individual. Of course, that leads one to ask what the term "belief" even means? Are religious statements "beliefs"? Do scientific statements have a similar epistemological status?

In the 1750's Hume wrote his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, an extended examination of the sorts of claims made by natural theologians such as Aquinas, Newton and (later) Paley. It was only published in 1779, three years after Hume's death of stomach cancer.

In 1755 Hume published his Natural History of Religion. Noting that there was no rational basis for natural or revealed religion, he argued that the remaining "vulgar religion" developed from people's fear of the unknown, thus fore-shadowing an argument that Sigmund Freud would make over 200 years later.

Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Parts I through VIII, pp. 1-53)

Before beginning the Dialogues, it would be a good idea to refamiliarize yourself with the sorts of arguments marshaled by Newton (in the "General Scholium") and Paley. While reading, try and come to conclusions about the positions represented by the three protagonists - Cleanthes, Demea, and Philo. How do their positions differ? Which position could possible represent Hume's own views? Which is your position? Why?

This first portion of the reading deals mainly with a posteriori arguments, i.e. those that work from direct evidence. One such argument is the design argument.

Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (pp 54 - 89)

Having dealt with a posteriori arguments, Hume now turns - in Book IX - to a priori arguments, those that require no evidence but instead work from metaphysical claims. The work ends with an extended discussion of the problem of evil - why does evil exist if God is both all-powerful and all-good?

Darwin, Descent of Man

Darwin Descent of Man

Nietzsche, "On Truth and Lie" [pdf]; On Darwinism [pdf]; "The Greatest Weight" [pdf]

Robert Wicks notes the following about Nietzsche:

He believed in life, creativity, health, and the realities of the world we live in, rather than those situated in a world beyond. Central to Nietzsche's philosophy is the idea of "life-affirmation," which involves an honest questioning of all doctrines which drain life's energies, however socially prevalent those views might be.

The key to reading Nietzsche is to approach his writings with an open mind - he is deliberately trying to discomfort you and make you re-evaluate what you hold to be true.

Solomon & Higgins in their book What Nietzsche Really Said (Schocken, 2000) suggested that, when faced with any of Nietzsche's works, one should ask a number of questions:

• Is he making a consistent case or is he contradicting himself? If the latter, is the contradiction deliberate?
• Is he juxtaposing several lines of thought? Is there more than one argument in any work and are these "wrapped" around each other?
• What metaphors are prominent? What do they mean? Some of his favorites include lambs, lions, cattle ...
• Is he praising anyone? If so, what is he praising about them? Is he being ironic? Is his praise possibly for shock effect? Favorites include: Socrates, Spinoza, Goethe, Wagner, Kant, Schopenhauer, Dostoyevsky, Emerson, Jesus.
• Is he using hyperbole?
• Who are his targets? Favorites include: Socrates, Plato, St. Paul, Wagner, Kant, Schopenhauer, Descartes, Luther, Hegel, God, Mill, Darwin.

Further background information on Nietzsche is here.

NOTES ON READINGS

Peer Review for Paper #1

Print out the peer review checksheet and bring it and a copy of your paper to class for review.

Papers are due via Blackboard by 5pm on Friday October 10th. Late papers automatically fail the assignment.

Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morality (Part I)

MORE

As with any difficult work, use the endnotes (pp. 119ff) to clarify issues and provide you with background information.

Stephenson, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde

Galton, "Eugenics", 1904 [pdf]; The Nan Family: A study in Cacogenics, 1912 [pdf]; Black, War Against The Weak (Background to Buck v Bell) [pdf]; Ruling in Buck v. Bell, 1927 [pdf]; Castle, Genetics & Eugenics, 1932 [pdf]; Pinker, "Groups & Genes" [pdf];

These readings ware fairly straightforward. A good strategy while reading is to question what the assumptions of the various authors are. What are they assuming about humans and their behaviors?

Dostoevsky, The Grand Inquisitor

McEwan, Enduring Love [pdf]; Camus, "The Guest" [pdf]

Ian McEwan (left, 1948 - ) is a prize-winning British novelist whose 1997 novel, Enduring Love, is regarded by many as a masterpiece. We're going to read the first chapter.

Albert Camus (1913 - 1960) won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957. He is remembered as an existentialist, though he rejected the idea of belonging to any ideological school. Born in Algeria, his writings reflect his experiences growing up as a pied noir (a Frenchman in colonial North Africa). We're going to read his short story, "The Guest".

Sartre, "Existentialism is a Humanism" [pdf]; Camus, "The Myth of Sisyphus" [pdf];

Peer Review for Paper #2

No class - Veteran's Day

Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents

Marie Curie ..

Einstein/Freud correspondence

To be decided

No class- Thanksgiving

Medawar, "Is the scientific paper is a fraud" [pdf]; Brush, "Should the history of science be rated X?" [pdf]; Mooney & Nisbet, "Framing Science" [pdf]; Hull et al "Planck's Principle" [pdf]

Four relatively short readings for today - Medawar (a Nobel Prize winner) argues that the structure of a typical scientific paper does not represent the process of scientific inquiry, Brush (an historian) argues that science majors should perhaps not be taught the history of science, and Mooney & Nisbet (a science journalist & a communication professor) argue that scientists could do a better job at communicating science particularly with politicized issues. Hull et al examine the claim that younger scientists accept new ideas more willingly than older ones do.

These four pieces share a concern with the disjunction between how science is practiced and how scientists and the public think it is practiced.