PHIL 3010 (History of Philosophy: Modern)
Spring 2011
Mr. Potter
Second Paper Topics: Locke, Hume, Berkeley and Kant
Please write a 5–6-page paper on ONE of the following topics. All papers must be typed. And all opinions must be
backed up with textual support or philosophical arguments. Due date: April 28 by 5 pm by email or in class by 11
a.m. in Hellems 229.
(1) In book I, chapters I-II of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding (READINGS: 114-124), Locke gives a
detailed critique of the Rationalist theory of innate ideas. Give a brief account of Descartes' theory of innate ideas,
and then spell out in some detail what you take to be Locke's two most important arguments against the innatist
theory. Then answer the following questions. Can the Cartesian innatist respond to Locke? If so, how? In your
opinion, do innate ideas exist?
(2) In book II, chapter VIII of the Essay (READINGS: 138-142), Locke spells out his doctrine of "primary qualities"
(PQs) and "secondary qualities" (SQs) (for our purposes you can ignore the doctrine of "tertiary qualities"). Briefly
describe the doctrine of PQs and SQs, making sure that you relate it to the difference between ideas of PQs and ideas
of SQs. Then briefly spell out the essentials of Locke's theory of corporeal substances (=material bodies) in book II,
chapter XXIII (READINGS: 155-166). What is the relevance of the PQ/SQ distinction to the theory of corporeal
substances? In your opinion, given Locke's account, can we know the nature of a material body?
(3) What is a person, and how does a person remain identical over time? In book II, chapter XXIII of the Essav
(READINGS: 155-166) Locke criticizes the Rationalist conception of finite incorporeal substances (=souls); and
then in chapter XXVII (READINGS: 166-176) he sketches his theory of identity with special reference to personal
identity over time. Briefly describe both Locke's critique of souls and his positive theory of personal identity (in
these connections you may also want to have a look at Locke's remarks about souls and consciousness in book II,
chapter I [READINGS: 127-134]). Then develop what you take to be the most important criticism of Locke's
positive theory. Can Locke respond to this criticism? If so, how; if not why not?
(4) Hume vigorously criticizes the Rationalist theory of causation, and then develops his own "deflationary" or
"skeptical" conception of causation in sections IV-VII of the Enquirv Concerning Human Understanding
(READINGS: 335-357). Briefly describe both the critique and the deflationary theory. Then formulate what you take
to be the two most important criticisms of Hume's positive theory, and describe how Hume might respond to those
criticisms. If Hume is correct about causation, then is scientific knowledge of nature possible?
(5) Berkeley offers numerous arguments in the First Dialogue between Hylas and Philonous to establish the
impossibility of (a) the idea of real properties of mind-independent objects, and (b) the idea that material substance
exists. Give at least two of these arguments, and then explain what these arguments show (if successful) about the
real nature of the world according to Berkeley. This paper should discuss the role of Berkeley's claim that "esse is
percipi" in establishing his critique of rationalist accounts of material substance.
(6) The Transcendental Aesthetic (READINGS; 416-427). Sketch the general outlines of Kant's argument for the
empirical reality and transcendental ideality of either space or time in the "Transcendental Aesthetic" of the Critique
of Pure Reason. Then use that argument to sketch Kant's explanation of the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments
in either geometry or arithmetic. By contrast, how would Hume explain the possibility of mathematical judgments
(see his Enquiry, section IV, part I, first paragraph)? Whose theory is more plausible, Kant's or Hume's?