Overview
- Please provide on a separate page (which is not included in the exam word limit) a bibliography of “Sources Consulted.” This bibliography should include all references consulted, not just those from which you quoted material. For example, if you consult the Encyclopedia Britannica, include it in the bibliography, and similarly for all websites. Acknowledgment of a source is a defense against a charge of plagiarism. You may use any standard citation format (e.g., APA, Chicago, etc.) as long as your formatting is consistent and you include page numbers and links.
- Please answer each question by writing a continuous essay (divided into paragraphs as you normally would). There's no need, however, to write an introduction and conclusion; you should just dive straight into answering the question. The sub- questions are there to give you an idea of the ground that a thorough and complete answer will cover. The best answers will explain things, in effect teaching the material back to me, as opposed to ticking off boxes.
- Please answer all five of the questions
SPINOZA
1. Explain Spinoza’s account of how the universe causally depends on God (focus on 1p16). How does Spinoza’s theory differ from the prevailing views of the time? (Be sure to contrast Spinoza’s picture of intelligibility—i.e., his understanding of the reason things are the way they are—with a more traditional picture of the explanation of why things are the way they are, having to do with God’s plan for the world.) Why does Spinoza think things could not have happened differently from the way they did? Which position do you find more reasonable, Spinoza’s or the more traditional view? Explain fully. 2. Explain Spinoza’s account of the human mind. Begin by sketching Spinoza’s account of God’s cognition and then locate the human mind within that cognition. If there is no trans-attribute causation (i.e., if motions in bodies can’t cause ideas in minds, and ideas in minds can’t cause motion in bodies), what happens (a) when we sense something and (b) when we do something? Critically evaluate his account of (human) agency—if you disagree with it, explain where you think he went wrong and what he should have held instead.
LEIBNIZ
3. Explain Leibniz’s doctrine of pre-established harmony. In doing so, be sure to explain what a monad is. How are monads related to each other? Why does Leibniz think that there are monads? Do you think he has a good argument here? One thing that Leibniz is trying to do is resist Spinoza’s ontological demotion; how successful is his attempt to do so?
4. Discuss Leibniz’s views on freedom, necessity, and contingency. According to Leibniz, exactly what is required for freedom? What is Caesar’s “complete concept/notion”? Can Leibniz offer a satisfactory explanation of how the relation of Caesar’s properties (e.g., crossing the Rubicon in 49 BCE) to his complete concept/notion differs from the relation of a circle’s properties (e.g., having an area equal to ?r2) to its definition. Ultimately, is Leibniz able to make room in his system for freedom, or is something more needed? If something more is needed, what and why?
HUME
5. Outline Hume’s account of causation in I.3 of the Treatise. Points to explain: Why does he think the relation of causation is important? What does he find puzzling about the relation? Why does he think that reason is not responsible for human thinking involving causation? What happens, according to Hume, when we make a causal inference? (Be sure to explain how Hume’s theory of belief works, and where it fits into his account of causation.) Explain his account of the idea of the necessity associated with the idea of cause and effect.