Modern Philosophy

1. If you stick your one hand in the freezer and the other in a warm over and then plunge them both into the same bowl of water, the water will feel warm to one hand and cold to the other. Explain the philosophical problem this raises. Explain how Locke would attempt to solve the problem (See II.vii.17-20). Contrast this with how Berkeley would solve the problem (See first dialogue). Whose solution is superior? Explain.

2. Locke’s view of the nature of substance is different from Descartes. How does it differ? Why does Descartes view of mental substance seem to imply that dreamless sleep is impossible? Why doesn’t Locke’s view imply this? Finally, explain why given Locke’s “concept empiricism”, it is difficult to see how he can account for the fact that we even have the concept substance (or “substratum”).

3. Locke believes that it is possible to survive your bodily death. So does Descartes, but not for the same reason. Explain how their views differ on this matter. Who’s view do you think is closer to the truth? Explain why.

4. Berkeley argues that the best explanation of why we have the various sensations that we have is that God acts directly on us. Why does he think this is a better explanation than one that appeals to material substances as the cause of our sensations? What do you think is the weakest aspect of Berkeley’s argument and why?

5. Malenbranche believes that it is impossible for one body to cause another body to move. What is his argument for this claim? How does his argument for “Continual Creation” support this? How does it support the claim that (finite/human) minds cannot move bodies? Why is genuine causal necessitation to be found in only in God’s will.

6. Hume argues that we are never justified in believing a person’s claim that a miracle occurred. Reconstruct Hume’s argument for this claim. What is the best argument you can think of in response to Hume’s argument?