1. Briefly contrast the epistemological approaches characteristic of
Continental idealism
and
Anglo-American empiricism
by developing a short (2-3 paragraph) summary of
Spinoza or Leibniz
and
Locke or Hume
with regard to what they take to be the most important kinds of knowledge and their sources or grounds.
2. Describe with some care how Hume takes empiricism to its logical extreme,
first of all as he develops what we have discussed as the empiricist criterion of meaning, and
second as his attention to sense experience as the sole source of genuine knowledge issues in both
a) a (characteristically modern) attack on the traditional notion of the "self," both in terms of its unity and identity, and in terms of its ability, especially in the guise of "reason," to function as a moral agent; and
b) an equally devastating attack on central concepts of modern Newtonian science - e.g., substance and causality.
Summarize with some care how Hume's sceptical attack on both
the traditional conception of self and
the modern conception of science (as the achievement of reason and thus as grounds for optimism regarding reason - and thus as grounds for the optimistic rejection of traditional views in the modern revolution or overturning of the past, as these traditional views are to be replaced by modern new beginnings)
thus issues in a paralyzing "crisis of reason" for Enlightenment and modernity.
3. An entry point into Kant's philosophy is his note to the effect that his philosophy depends upon the ideality (or phenomenal character) of experience and the reality of human freedom. Stated slightly differently, Kant's "Copernican Revolution" allows Kant
a) to save the natural sciences from Hume's empiricist critique - and thereby
b) establish a philosophical system which stands as a conjunction of continental idealism and British empiricism.
In doing so, Kant's system further
c) preserves a deterministic account of experience (i.e., the "theoretical" or scientific view of experience qua phenomenal) and
d) "saves" human freedom (in the domain of "things as they are in themselves)
- so as to hold together in a synthesis both
e) the traditional moral conceptions of the West alongside
f) modern reason and science.
Explain with some care how Kant's philosophy accomplishes these resolutions, beginning with
a) a careful discussion of his epistemology and the resulting distinction between appearances and things as they are in themselves: in this discussion, be sure to show how Kant's epistemology changes the meaning of the terms "subjective" and "objective" as they were defined in an empiricist context and the correlative "correspondance theory of truth." That is, in what sense, according to Kant, is our experience both subjective and objective?
b) a brief discussion of how this epistemology allows Kant to resolve the conflict between idealism (traditional dogmatic metaphysics) and realism (modern empiricism and natural science) as discussed in the Antinomies of reason: focus here especially on the third Antinomy as an example of this resolution.
c) a brief discussion of how Kant uses this epistemology in the third Antinomy to make freedom as an absolute spontaneity possible - and then goes on to argue for the reality of freedom in stronger ways in his later works.
If you can, point out as you go along, and/or by way of summary, how the Kant you have outlined thus achieves the resolutions outlined above (a-f).