Long paper topics PHIL 423 Spring 2003 McCann

Directions: These topics are suggested topics for a 10-15 page paper. These papers should involve both the close reading and interpretation of passages from the primary works, and some discussion of leading secondary sources. The main goal of this exercise is for you to enter into an extended argument with other commentators, and to make a case for an interpretive and/or philosophical thesis which is controversial; you will thus take your own position on a disputed question, and will offer positive arguments for the stand you take as well as score critical points against scholars on the other side of the issue. Be sure to include discussion of secondary sources not listed in the question, and include a brief note in the bibliography for each such item explaining how you found it and why you decided to discuss it. Papers due May 8.

1. Kant's rejection of Leibniz's principle of the identity of indiscernibles in the Amphibloly connects both with his doctrine of space and time and with his attack on Leibnizean rationalism. Discuss the arguments he gives in the Amphiboly, and evaluate their effectiveness. (See Hacking's and Nagel's articles in the Journal of Philosophy 1975 and 1976, and James van Cleve, Problems from Kant).

2. Kant argues against both problematic and dogmatic idealism in the Fourth Paralogism in A. This argument was taken by early critics as merely a variant of Berkeley's argument for immaterialism. (See Kant's response to these critics in the Appendix to the Prolegomena.) What are the similarities, and what are the differences, between Kant's transcendental idealism and Berkeley's immaterialism? (See Turbayne's essay in Beck, ed. Kant Studies Today and Wilson's essay in the Journal of the History of Philosophy 1972.)

3. P. F. Strawson offers what he calls 'the objectivity argument,' which is an explication of the main argument of the Transcendental Deduction, or at least its philosophical core. What are its advantages over Kant's argument, and what are its problems? Is it a faithful explication of Kant's argument? Does it have its own problems, philosophically speaking? (See Strawson, The Bounds of Sense especially pp. 98-104, and Rorty's article in the Review of Metaphysics 1972.)

4. Strawson claims, in The Bounds of Sense, that Kant's argument in the Second Analogy is faulty. Critically discuss this claim.

5. Stroud argues that transcendental arguments involve an illicit commitment to a verificationist principle of meaning. Is he right about that in general? Do Kant's arguments in particular involve a verificationist premiss? (See Stroud's article in the Journal of Philosophy 1968 and Hacker's article in the American Philosophical Quarterly 1972.)