What is the relation between my mind and my body? Does my mind always think? What is a person? What makes me the same person as I was five years ago? Can I be responsible for actions that I am unable to remember? How does perception work?
Students in my second-year course The Human Mind in Early Modern Philosophy are invited to develop their own answers to questions such as these in collaboration with their peers; they are invited to revive dialogues that took place in the early modern period in the classroom. I am delighted to have the opportunity to share my syllabus here and to comment on how I developed this course.
I have taught early modern philosophy courses on a variety of topics for a few years. When I moved to the School of Philosophy at University College Dublin – the largest teaching and research center for philosophy in Ireland offering undergraduate, MA, and PhD programs – I had the opportunity to redesign my second year undergraduate course on early modern philosophy. Since many philosophers of the early modern period approach philosophy through a careful study of the human mind, I decided to teach an early modern philosophy course that focuses on issues in philosophy of mind. At my institution students have the option to study Descartes’s Meditations in one of our first year courses – that’s why this course is brief on Descartes. Our students also have the option to enroll in a separate course on Hume and Kant. This gave me the opportunity to focus on other authors of the early modern period and to include several women philosophers. Based on student feedback I selected topics that students find engaging such as the question of the relation between mind and body or personal identity.
My course design is guided by the following pedagogical goals, namely to
- create awareness that early modern philosophy was collaborative and involved dialogues and exchanges of ideas among many intellectuals, including women philosophers;
- recreate these collaborative dialogues in the classroom;
- design effective tasks that involve all students and promote an inclusive and collaborative classroom;
- provide opportunities to practice philosophical skills through team activities and continuous assessment tasks;
- provide opportunities to develop social skills by working respectfully with other team members.
In my experience Team-Based Learning (TBL) is an ideal teaching method to achieve my pedagogical goals, because content and pedagogy mutually align: Early modern philosophy was collaborative and similarly students in a TBL course work collaboratively in permanent teams throughout the semester. (More details on how I implement TBL can be found in the syllabus below.)
Let me explain how TBL helps achieve the pedagogical goals:
Re (1): In Ireland semesters are twelve weeks long. I divide my course into four units (but five units work well in 15 weeks long semesters). To create awareness that history of philosophy was collaborative, I design each of the units such that it focuses on the views of two or more philosophers on specific topics. This helps students to see that early modern debates were collaborative, but also controversial and often unsettled.
Re (2): TBL enables me to recreate the collaborative aspects that shaped the history of philosophy within the classroom and to create a collaborative environment in the classroom. I emphasize that the texts that we discuss were controversial at the time of their publication. My course invites students to participate in the philosophical debates. Approaching each topic from more than one perspective gives the students good opportunities to critically assess the different views and to develop their own philosophical responses.Moreover, this approach increases the willingness of my students to take different viewpoints within their teams seriously.
Re (3): Successful teaching in a TBL classroom depends on effective task design. I want all my students to engage with the material and to learn from each other’s different perspectives. To achieve this goal I often use the 4S task design model. 4S tasks have the following features:
- All students think about the same problem.
- The problem has to be significant.
- All students/teams have to make a specific choice.
- All students/teams have to simultaneously report their answers.
The tasks can be multiple-choice questions, questions with yes/no answer options, matching tasks, ranking exercises, one-word or one-sentence answers etc. 4S tasks make it possible to focus the discussion on a set of important answer options, but also create the space for students to reflect critically on alternative answer options or ways of improving the answers.
Re (4): My course is designed such that it creates continuous opportunities for learning from peers and for practicing philosophical skills. For instance, I include the following assessment tasks that prepare students for mid-term and final essays:
- Readiness Assurance Tests at the beginning of each unit
- Ensure that students are familiar with important concepts and views that we will cover in more depth during the rest of the unit
- Letters to relevant thinkers at the end of the first and third unit:
- Provide an opportunity to practice writing strong critical evaluations and to learn from peer assessment.
- The letter format prompts students to engage more charitably with the relevant texts and views.
Re (5): In a TBL classroom students acquire important social skills for life. Through regular peer evaluations they learn to provide constructive feedback and they take responsibility for improving and shaping their learning environment.
My favorite elements of the course include teaching the debate whether the soul always thinks (end of unit 1), personal identity (unit 2), and Mary Shepherd’s response to Berkeley (unit 4). Locke and Leibniz offer different responses to Descartes’s view that (i) all thinking is conscious and (ii) that the soul always thinks (i.e. thinking is the essence of the mind). Locke accepts (i) and questions (ii). Leibniz denies (i) and accepts (ii). This is an excellent topic for teaching dialectic of arguments. The correspondence between Locke and William Molyneux on drunkenness and personal identity, as well as Leibniz’s critical response to Locke (unit 2) is a topic that always grabs students’s attention and sparks good discussions. In my experience Shepherd’s views help students articulate their objections against Berkeley. Additionally, I want to highlight the letter assignments, which offer opportunities to practice how to write good critical evaluations, and I always enjoy reading the student letters.
One of the challenges that most instructors who teach early modern philosophy courses face is to decide which texts to leave out. If I had an additional week I would probably include selected texts by Margaret Cavendish in unit 3 on the question whether matter can think.
I teach all my undergraduate courses as TBL courses. My other courses are structured similarly and the assignment format is the same. I was first introduced to Team-Based Learning at the University at Albany, SUNY. There I participated in a TBL Academy, offered by the Institute for Teaching, Learning and Academic Leadership. I found the training extremely helpful and I can highly recommend it to anyone interested in adopting TBL.
Additionally, I recommend the following two journal articles on TBL:
Kimberly van Orman, “Teaching Philosophy with Team-Based Learning”, AAPT Studies in Pedagogy 1 (2015): 61–81.
Bill Roberson and Billie Franchini, “Effective Task Design for the TBL classroom”, Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 25 (2014): 275–302. Available here.
Here is the syllabus:
The Human Mind in Early Modern Philosophy
Coordinator: Dr Ruth Boeker
Contact: ruth.boeker@ucd.ie
Office: Room D517, Newman Building
Office hours: Monday 2–3 pm, Wednesday 11am–12 noon, and by appointment
Tutor [Teaching Assistant]: tba
Class times
Monday 1pm
Wednesday 1pm
Tutorial times [discussion sections]:
Thursday 1pm
Thursday 4pm
Outline
This module offers an introduction to philosophical debates in early modern philosophy. Questions that were controversially debated during the period include the following: Is my mind an immaterial substance that is distinct from material bodies? What is the relation between mind and body? Can I know that my experiences inhere in an immaterial rather than a material substance? What is a self or person? How do persons continue to exist over time? Can I be responsible for actions that I am unable to remember? What are the limitations of human understanding? How does perception work? Do things exist that are not perceived by a mind?
In this module you will enter into dialogue with early modern philosophers and search for your own answers to their questions. We will trace the historical development of theories concerning the mind-body relation, personal identity, materialism and immaterialism, and theories of perception through the study of selected texts by René Descartes, Elisabeth of Bohemia, John Locke, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Catharine Trotter Cockburn, Mary Astell, George Berkeley, Mary Shepherd, Thomas Reid and their interlocutors.
Learning Outcomes
If you successfully complete this module you will be able to:
- REFLECT critically upon debates in early modern philosophy and the philosophical problems that continue to influence debates in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and debates about personal identity;
- IDENTIFY key philosophical concepts and show awareness of potential problems that led to the revision and refinement of these concepts in the historical debates;
- INTERPRET philosophical texts that were written in the 17th and 18th centuries;
- WRITE well-structured and well argued essays that explain and critically assess philosophical views covered in this module;
- ARTICULATE their own responses to philosophical views, support them by reasons and defend them in light of criticism;
- COLLABORATE effectively and respectfully with other team members, listen to and learn from others and make well considered team decisions.
Approach
Many students report that they learn best when they discuss and exchange ideas with other students in the classroom. Research supports this and for this reason we will use class time for in-class activities that will allow you to acquire a deeper understanding of the readings and the core concepts and will provide opportunities to reflect critically upon the views we discuss. Throughout the semester you will work in teams to complete in-class team activities. The readings and the in-class activities will be supplemented by writing assignments, because writing is an important part of thinking. You will receive feedback on your writing to improve your writing.
Structure
This module is divided into four units; each unit focuses on two or more major thinkers and their interlocutors. You will be divided into teams during the first week and will stay in your teams for the entire semester. Each unit will follow the following pattern:
- You will read a substantial portion of text on your own before the start of the unit. This will prepare you for the Readiness Assurance Test (RAT) at the beginning of each unit. You will take the RAT twice, first individually and then as a team. (Note that both marks count.)
- As the unit progresses, you will continue reading outside of class and we will engage with these readings during lectures and tutorials. You will regularly have time during lectures to reflect in teams on the content of the views discussed to deepen your understanding of the views. In tutorials you will complete activities in your teams that will help you to interpret and critically reflect upon the readings.
- At the end of each unit you will complete written assignments. At the end of the first and third units you will write a letter (max 600 words) to a relevant thinker on a specific topic. In your letter you give reasons why you would defend, reject or revise the view. This will help you to learn how to critically assess the views of philosophers, which will be an important part of your mid-term and final essays. You will read each other’s letters in teams and give your peers feedback so that you and your peers learn how to improve your written work. At the end of the second unit you will complete a mid-term essay and at the end of the final unit you will complete final take-home essays.
Readings
All essential readings and several recommended additional readings will be posted electronically on Brightspace. Please bring the readings to all class sessions. We will be working with the readings during lectures and tutorials.
Brightspace site
All materials related to this module and announcements will be posted on the Brightspace site for this module. You will also submit electronic copies of your assignments there. Please access it on a regular basis and check your university email regularly so that you do not miss important information and announcements.
Assessment
Mid-semester essay, 1500 words 30%
Final take-home essays, 2000 words 35%
Readiness Assurance Tests (RATs) (at the beginning of each unit) 15%
Letters (formative assessment that focuses on essay writing skills) 10%
Learning activities 5%
Team member performance 5%
Important dates
28/1 RAT on mind and body
12/2 Letter on mind and body* [final version for assessment due 20/2]
18/2 RAT on personal identity
5/3 Mid-semester essay, 4pm
25/3 RAT on thinking matter
2/4 Letter on thinking matter* [final version for assessment due 10/4]
8/4 RAT on ideas, minds, perception
2/5 Final take-home essays, 4pm
- Note that one out of the two letters will have to be additionally submitted for formal assessment after you’ve revised it in light of feedback.
Readiness Assurance Tests (RATs)
Before each unit you will read a substantial part of texts and at the beginning of the unit you will take a Readiness Assurance Test to test whether you are properly prepared for the unit. You will take the RAT twice. First you will complete it individually, and then as a team. Both tests will be marked and the average will be your RAT score. Because it is essential that the RATs are completed in teams, I do not offer make-up RATs, except in extreme circumstances. Over the course of the semester you take part in four RATs and your lowest RAT score will be dropped.
Mid-semester Essay
You will write one mid-term essay for this module. In your essay you will explain and critically discuss a particular view. You will get more advice about how to write good essays in philosophy well in advance. Our regular in-class activities will help you practice skills that help you write good essays. You will be very welcome to come to my office hours to discuss your ideas, drafts and feedback.
Final Take-Home Essays
You’ll write final take-home essays. You will receive more detailed information about potential topics and the structure of the final about a month before the due date so that you have sufficient time to revise the material that we have covered. The final will be released at least five days before the due date. Our regular in-class activities are designed to help you to acquire the skills that help you to do well on the final.
Letters
At the end of unit 1 and unit 3 you will be asked to write a letter to a philosopher (max. 600 words) on a specific topic. In your letter you give reasons why you would defend, reject, or revise the view. This will help you to learn how to critically assess the views of philosophers, which will be an important part of your mid-semester and final essays. You will read each other’s letters and offer suggestions for improvement. After you have received feedback from your team you have the option to revise and improve your letter. You are strongly encouraged to submit both letters and you will receive 20 points that count towards you score for learning activities for each draft letter that you submit prior to the in-class feedback session. Additionally, you have to select one of your letters for formal assessment. The revised version of your letter will be marked and will count 10% towards your final grade.
Learning activities
In order to properly understand the material it is important that you can explain it in your own words to your fellow students and that you think critically about the implications of the views. For this reason we will regularly devote time to in-class activities and discussion. These activities will take a variety of forms: some will be individual tasks and others tasks that you complete in your teams. These activities are designed to improve your reading, interpretation, writing and critical reflection skills and will prepare you for the longer essays. Some of the learning activities will be marked.
You will receive points for marked learning activities. Because some of the activities are completed in teams, no make-ups are offered for missed learning activities. However, I understand that sometimes unforeseen circumstances can make it impossible to attend classes. To ensure that you are not disadvantaged in such circumstances, all students will receive 20 bonus points. Your score for learning activities will be calculated as follows:
(Your points + 20 bonus points)/total points possible.
Team Member Performance
Because your work in teams is crucial to your success as well as to the success of your teammates, you will be held accountable for your contribution to your team. Your performance in your team will be evaluated twice during the semester and once at the end of the semester. You will receive points for completing the mid-semester evaluations, which will be added to your points for learning activities. The final evaluation by your peers will count 5% towards your final grade. The two other evaluations will give you feedback that will help you to improve your team performance. If you do not submit your final evaluation of your peers your own score will be 0 (out of 100).
Assessment and Grading
Your final grade will be based upon the different assessment components. You will receive letter grades for the individual assessment components. You will initially receive a point score for RATs and learning activities, which will be translated into a letter grade at the end of the semester as follows according to the table here:
Letter grades Point scale (for RATs and learning activities)
Excellent
A+ 94–100
A 87–93
A- 80–86
Very Good
B+ 74–79
B 67–73
B- 60–66
Good/Satisfactory
C+ 54–59
C 47–53
C- 40–46
Pass/Fair
D+ 34–39
D 27–33
D- 20–26
Fail/Marginal
E+/E/E- 15–19
Unacceptable
F+/F/F- 10–14
Wholly Unacceptable
G+/G/G- 1–9
NG 0
Submission of Essays
Your essays have to be submitted in BOTH hard copy to the essay submission boxes in the School of Philosophy, Newman Building, level 5, AND electronically to Brightspace. If either is late, the essay will count as late. If for any reason Blackboard is not working on the submission date, please email the essay to ruth.boeker@ucd.ieand include the name of the module in your email.
Late Work
If you want to receive full credit for your short writing assignments and your essays make sure that you submit them on time. If you submit work late, the standard university lateness penalties will apply. If you submit your work up to one week late, your grade will be lowered by two grade points, i.e. a B will be lowered to a C+. If you submit your work up to two weeks late, your grade will be lowered by four grade points, i.e. a B will be lowered to a C-. If you submit your work more than two weeks late, it will not be graded.
Extensions
Extensions can be granted in extreme circumstances. All applications for extenuating circumstances have to be submitted online through SISWeb.
Note that extensions will not be granted for technical problems or clashes with other assignments/exams.
If you want to discuss any matters affecting your performance, please contact me at the earliest possible date.
Academic Honesty
University College Dublin takes academic honesty very seriously. Plagiarism, cheating, and other forms of academic misconduct are unacceptable. You are required to acknowledge any idea that is not your own and taken from other sources, including online sources and lecture slides and wherever possible your references have to include precise page numbers. Note that not only literal quotations have to be acknowledged, but also all passages or ideas that you paraphrase in your own words. Full references for all assigned texts are included at the end of this syllabus. Please ask if you are uncertain how to cite properly. Penalties for academic dishonesty can be severe and can lead to a failing grade in a module.
It is your responsibility to familiarize yourself with the university’s standards on academic integrity:
http://www.ucd.ie/students/guide/assessment.html
UCD Plagiarism Policy:
https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Plagiarism_Policy_Academic_Policy_2005.pdf
UCD School of Philosophy Plagiarism Policy:
http://www.ucd.ie/philosophy/study/undergraduateprogrammes/guidesandforms/
Special Needs
If you require special arrangements for attending classes or for completing assignments please speak to me as soon as possible.
Wellbeing
We understand that University can be challenging, whatever stage of life and study you are at. Many students seek assistance. The University has resources to help you stay physically and mentally healthy, manage your study, and get the most out of your university experience. You can find more information here:
https://www.ucdsu.ie/canwehelp/welfare/
SCHEDULE
UNIT 1 MIND AND BODY
Week 1 Mind and body
M 21/1 Introduction
W 23/1 Mind and body dualism and its problems, Practice RAT
Essential Reading for Wednesday:
Descartes, Objections and Replies, Second Set of Replies, AT VII:155-170, CSM II 110–120
Study questions for week 1:
How can we understand the relation between mind and body? Is my mind distinct from my body? If so, in what sense? What, if anything makes it plausible to regard my mind as distinct from my body? What problems arise for the view? How does my mind interact with the world around me?
Week 2 Mind and body dualism
M 28/1 RAT on mind and body
Essential Reading for RAT
Descartes, Meditation 6
Elisabeth of Bohemia and Descartes, Selections from The Correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes, pp. 61–73.
Suggested further reading
Lisa Shapiro, “Elisabeth, Princess of Bohemia,” The Stanford Ecyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/elisabeth-bohemia/
W 30/1 Descartes’s arguments for mind and body dualism
Essential Reading
Descartes, Meditation 6
Descartes, Principles, Part One, sections 51–70, AT VIIIA:24–35, pp. 210–218
Suggested further reading
Descartes, Meditation 2
Descartes, Principles, Part One
Study questions for week 2
According to Descartes, what is a real distinction? How does Descartes argue for the real distinction between mind and body? Do you find his argument convincing? If so, why? If not, why not? If mind and body are really distinct, how can Descartes explain that mind and body are commonly united? What problems does Princess Elisabeth identify for Descartes’s view? Does Descartes offer a satisfying response, or could he give one?
Week 3 The union between mind and body and the problem of interaction
M 4/2 Descartes on the union between mind and body
Essential Reading
Descartes, Meditation 6
Elisabeth of Bohemia and Descartes, Selections from The Correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes, pp. 61–73.
W 6/2 Elisabeth’s and Locke’s critical responses to Descartes
Essential Reading
Elisabeth of Bohemia and Descartes, Selections from The Correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes, pp. 61–73.
Locke, Essay(ed. Nidditch), II.i.9–19, pp. 108–16
Descartes, Letter to Hyperaspistes, August 1641, AT III:422–25, CSMK III 188–91
Suggested further reading
Descartes, Passions of the Soul, Part One.
Lisa Shapiro, “Elisabeth, Princess of Bohemia,” The Stanford Ecyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/elisabeth-bohemia/
Th 7/2 Tutorial
Study questions for week 3
What the most pressing problem that Elisabeth identifies for Descartes’s mind-body dualism? Is Descartes in a position to explain mind-body interaction? Descartes appeals to primitive notions in his response to Elisabeth? What are ‘primitive notions’ for Descartes? Has he given a satisfying response to Elisabeth’s questions? How does Locke challenge the Cartesian view that the soul always thinks? According to Locke, is it more probable that the soul always thinks or that the soul does not always think, and why? How could a Cartesian philosopher explain that we don’t always remember all our thoughts?
Week 4 Alternatives to Descartes’s account of mind and body
M 11/2 Leibniz’s response to Descartes and Locke
Essential Reading
Leibniz, New Essays, Preface, pp. 52–68, and II.i, pp. 109–119
T 12/2 LETTER ON MIND AND BODY DUE ELECTRONICALLY
W 13/2 Letter on mind and body, bring two hard copies of your letter to class to receive feedback
Th 14/2 Tutorial
Study questions for week 4
How does Leibniz’s account of perception and the soul differ from Descartes’s and Locke’s? Do Locke or Leibniz distinguish consciousness from reflection? If so, how? What motivates Leibniz’s view that there are unconscious perceptions? Which view do you find most convincing, Descartes’s, Locke’s, or Leibniz’s, and why?
UNIT 2PERSONAL IDENTITY
Week 5 Identity and personal identity
M 18/2 RAT on personal identity
Essential Reading for RAT
Locke, Essay (ed. Nidditch), II.xxvii, pp. 328–48
Selections from Locke’s Correspondencewith William Molyneux
Leibniz, New Essays, II.xxvii, pp. 229–247
W 20/2 Locke and Leibniz on identity and personal identity
Essential reading
Locke, Essay(ed. Nidditch), II.xxvii, pp. 328–48
Leibniz, New Essays, II.xxvii, pp. 229–247
Th 21/2 Tutorial
Study questions for week 5
How does Locke account for identity over time? How does Locke’s account of identity differ from Leibniz’s? How does Locke distinguish the term ‘person’ from ‘substance’ and ‘human being’ (or ‘man’ in Locke’s terminology)? Why is this distinction important for Locke? Molyneux read Locke’s chapter “Of Identity and Diversity” before it went to the press. Do you think Locke should have followed Molyneux’s advice and revised his discussion of drunkenness?
Week 6 Personal identity and moral responsibility
M 25/2 Locke, Leibniz, Molyneux, and Edmund Law on personal identity
Essential reading
Locke, Essay(ed. Nidditch), II.xxvii, pp. 328–348
Leibniz, New Essays, II.xxvii, pp. 229–247
Selections from Correspondence with William Molyneux
Edmund Law, A Defence of Mr Locke’s Opinion concerning Personal Identity
W 27/2 Catharine Trotter Cockburn’s defence of Locke
Essential Reading
Catharine Trotter Cockburn, Selections from A Defense of Mr. Locke’s Essay of Human Understanding, ed. Patricia Sheridan, pp. 53–69.
Th 28/2 Tutorial
Study questions for week 6
How does Locke define the term ‘person’? How does Locke’s account of personal identity differ from Leibniz’s? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Leibniz’s view that someone can be punished on the basis of testimony of others? Do you agree with Law that ‘person’ is a forensic term for Locke? Do you agree with Law that Lockean persons are modes? How does Catharine Trotter Cockburn defend Locke’s account of personal identity? Which of her arguments do you find most convincing?
Week 7 Early critics and defenders of Locke’s account of personal identity
M 4/3 Cockburn (continued), Butler and Reid
Essential Reading
Catharine Trotter Cockburn, Selections from A Defense of Mr. Locke’s Essay of Human Understanding, ed. Patricia Sheridan, pp. 53–69.
Joseph Butler, “Of Personal Identity”, first appendix to The Analogy of Religion, reprinted in Perry (ed.), Personal Identity, pp. 99–105.
Thomas Reid, “Of Mr Locke’s Account of our personal Identity”, in Essays on the Intellectual Power of Man, III.vi, pp. 275–279.
T 5/3 MID-SEMESTER ESSAY DUE, 4pm
W 6/3 How could Locke respond to his critics Butler and Reid?
Essential Reading
Joseph Butler, “Of Personal Identity”, first appendix to The Analogy of Religion, reprinted in Perry (ed.), Personal Identity, pp. 99–105.
Thomas Reid, “Of Mr Locke’s Account of our personal Identity”, in Essays on the Intellectual Power of Man, III.vi, pp. 275–279.
Th 7/3 Tutorial
Study questions for week 7
Is Locke’s account of personal identity circular? Is Butler’s objection convincing? Why does Reid argue that Locke’s account of personal identity is not transitive? How could Locke respond to Reid’s transitivity objection? In your view, which is the most pressing problem for Locke’s account of personal identity? In your view, what is a genuine strength of Locke’s account of personal identity?
UNIT 3 THINKING MATTER
Week 8 The possibility of thinking matter
M 25/3 RAT on thinking matter
Essential Reading for RAT
Locke, Essay (ed. Winkler), IV.iii, pp. 235–250
Mary Astell, Selections from Christian Religion, pp. 224–231, pp. 179–184, and pp. 386–393, pp. 294–300
Suggested further reading
Jacqueline Broad, “Mary Astell,” Internet Encyclodia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/astell/
W 27/3 Locke on thinking matter and the limitations of human understanding
Essential Reading
Locke, Essay (ed. Winkler), IV.iii, pp. 235–250
Suggested further reading
Locke, Essay (ed. Winkler), IV.i-ii, pp. 224–234
Th 28/3 Tutorial
Study questions for week 8
Can we know whether thinking substances are extended or not? How does Locke argue for the thinking matter hypothesis? Is his view convincing? Do you agree with Locke that the possibility of thinking matter does not undermine morality and religion? Why is Locke’s distinction between knowledge and probable belief important? Do you agree with Locke that human understanding is limited? How does Mary Astell critique Locke’s argument for the possibility of thinking matter? What is her most convincing argument?
Week 9 Responses to Locke’s thinking matter hypothesis
M 1/4 Mary Astell and 18th century debates about materialism and immaterialism
Essential Reading
Mary Astell, Selections from Christian Religion, §§ 224–231, pp. 179–184, and §§ 386–393, pp. 294–300
Suggested further reading
Jacqueline Broad, “Mary Astell,” Internet Encyclodia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/astell/
T 2/4 LETTER ON THINKING MATTER DUE ELECTRONICALLY
W 3/4 Letter on thinking matter, bring two hard copies to class for feedback
Th 4/4 Tutorial
Study questions for week 9
Why does Mary Astell reject the possibility of thinking matter? Does immortality require that thinking substances are immaterial? Why does Astell argue that minds and bodies have distinct natures? How does Astell’s discussion concerning a triangle challenge Locke’s position? Which of Astell’s arguments do you find most convincing? How could Locke respond to Astell’s objections?
UNIT 4 Ideas, minds, and perception
Week 10 Immaterialism: ideas, minds, and perception
M 8/4 RAT on Berkeley and Shepherd
Essential Reading for RAT
Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, Part I, pp. 1–33
Lady Mary Shepherd, Selections from Essays on the Perception of an External Universe
W 10/4 Berkeley’s arguments for immaterialism
Essential Reading
Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, Part I, §§1–33
Berkeley, Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Dialogue 1
Th 11/4 Tutorial
Study questions for week 10
How does Berkeley define matter? How does Berkeley argue for immaterialism? Why, according to Berkeley, is the existence of matter contradictory? How does Berkeley define matter? Are Berkeley’s arguments for immaterialism successful? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Berkeley’s views? How does Mary Shepherd challenge Berkeley’s position? How does perception work, according to Berkeley? How does perception work, according to Shepherd?
Week 11 Perception, mind, and world
M 15/4 Berkeley and Shepherd
Essential Reading
Lady Mary Shepherd, Selections from Essays on the Perception of an External Universe
Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge, Part I, §§1–33
Berkeley, Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, Dialogue 1
Suggested further reading:
Martha Bolton, “Mary Shepherd,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mary-shepherd/
W 17/4 Thomas Reid on the theory of ideas
Essential Reading
Reid, “Reflections on the common Theory of Ideas”, in Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, II.xiv, pp. 171-87.
Study questions for week 11
How does Mary Shepherd challenge Berkeley’s position? How does perception work, according to Berkeley? How does perception work, according to Shepherd? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Berkeley’s and Shepherd’s views respectively? How does Reid challenge Berkeley’s view? Why did philosophers like Descartes, Locke or Berkeley introduce ideas? What, if any, role do ideas play in perception? What are the elements of perception? If there are objects in a world outside our mind, do we perceive them immediately or mediately? If we do not perceive objects immediately, can we escape scepticism?
Week 12 The human mind in early modern philosophy
M 22/4 NO CLASS – Easter Monday
W 24/4 Review session (email me your questions in advance)
Th 2/5 FINAL ESSAY DUE, 4pm
FULL REFERENCES OF ASSIGNED TEXTS AND EDITIONS
Unit 1: Mind and Body
Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. In vol. 2 of The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Edited and translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes. The Correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes. Edited and translated by Lisa Shapiro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
Descartes, René. Objections and Replies. In vol. 2 of The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Edited and translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Descartes, René. Principles of Philosophy. In vol. 1 of The Philosophical Writings of René Descartes. Edited and translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Descartes, René. Passions of the Soul. In vol. 1 of The Philosophical Writings of René Descartes. Edited and translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Descartes, René. Letter to Hyperaspistes, August 1641. In vol. 3 of The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Edited and translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, Dugald Murdoch, and Anthony Kenny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Locke, John. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. New Essays on Human Understanding. Edited by Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Unit 2: Personal Identity
Locke, John. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. New Essays on Human Understanding. Edited by Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Locke, John. The Correspondence of John Locke. Edited by E. S. de Beer, vol 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
Catharine Trotter Cockburn, Philosophical Writings. Edited byPatricia Sheridan. Peterborough, Ontario, CA: Broadview, 2006.
Law, Edmund. A Defence of Mr. Locke’s Opinion concerning Personal Identity.In vol. 2 of The Works of John Locke, 12th ed. London: Rivington, 1824.
Butler, Joseph. “Of Personal Identity.” First appendix to The Analogy of Religion, reprinted in Perry (ed.), Personal Identity, pp. 99–105.
Reid, Thomas.“Of Mr. Locke’s Account of our personal Identity.” In Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Edited by Derek R. Brookes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1785, 2002.
Unit 3: Thinking matter
Locke, John. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. . Abridged and edited, with an introduction and notes, by Kenneth P. Winkler. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1996.
Mary Astell, The Christian Religion, as Professed by a Daughter of the Church of England, The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Toronto Series. Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies and Iter Publishing, 2013.
Unit 4: Ideas, minds, perception
Berkeley, George. A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Edited by Jonathan Dancy.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Berkeley, George. Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. Edited by Jonathan Dancy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Shepherd, Mary. “Selections from Essays on the Perception of an External Universe.” In Women Philosophers of the Early Modern Period, edited, with introduction, by Margaret Atherton, 147-159. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.
Reid, Thomas. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Edited by Derek R. Brookes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1785, 2002.
A note about citation
Historical texts are often cited with reference to the page numbers in a canonical edition. This helps to find the relevant passage irrespective of the edition you are using. The following citation conventions are relevant for this module:
Descartes: Descartes’s works are cited with reference to the edition by Adam and Tannery: AT, followed by volume number and page number, e.g. “AT VII:17” refers to volume VII of the AT edition, page 17.
Locke: An Essay concerning Human Understandingis cited by Book number, chapter number, section number, e.g. “II.xxvii.9” refers to Book II, chapter xxvii, section 9.
Leibniz: New Essays comments section by section on Locke’s Essay and like Locke’s Essay it is cited by Book number, chapter number, section number, e.g. “II.xxvii.9” refers to Book II, chapter xxvii, section 9.
Astell: The Christian Religionis cited by section number, e.g. “p. 228” refers to section 228.
Berkeley: A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge is often abbreviated as “PHK” and the main text is cited by section number, e.g. “PHK 7” refers to section 7 of the main text, whereas “PHK Intro 12” refers to section 12 of the Introduction.
Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philolonousare commonly abbreviated as DHP and cited by dialogue number followed by page number, e.g. “DHP2 208” refers to dialogue 2, page 208. A widely used scholarly edition is the nine volume edition of The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, edited by A. A. Luce and T. E. Jesop. If the edition you use includes references to the page numbers of the Luce and Jesop editions (in the margins), it is preferable to use these page numbers when you cite DHP.
Reid: Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Manis commonly cited by Essay number, chapter number, followed by page number, e.g. “III.6, p. 276” refers to Essay III, chapter 6, page 276.
The Syllabus Showcase of the APA Blog is designed to share insights into the syllabi of philosophy educators. We include syllabi that showcase a wide variety of philosophy classes. We would love for you to be a part of this project. Please email sabrinamisirhiralall@apaonline.org to nominate yourself or a colleague.
Ruth Boeker
Ruth Boeker is Assistant Professor in Philosophy at University College Dublin. Prior to moving to Ireland, she held positions at the University of Melbourne in Australia, SUNY Albany, and Bowling Green State University. Her research focuses on early modern philosophy with particular focus on debates about persons and personal identity. She is the winner of the 2016 Innovation in Inclusive Curricula Prize of the Australasian Association of Philosophy and a member of the APA Committee on the Teaching of Philosophy.
