Nathan Bauer

Philosophy 29200 (Winter 2004), Tuesday & Thursday, 4:30 – 5:50, Gates-Blake 212
Nathan Bauer (nathanbauer@uchicago.edu)
Office Hours: Thursday, 10:00 – 12:00, Anscombe Lounge (or by appointment)

Course Description

This class will be a discussion-based tutorial on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. The first Critique is indisputably one of the most significant works in the history of philosophy, and one that remains philosophically relevant today. It is also, however, a complex and difficult work. Part of its difficulty lies in the fact that Kant was responding simultaneously to a number of distinct philosophical issues and traditions. To make our task somewhat easier, we will focus mainly on one particular issue to which Kant was responding: Hume’s treatment of causality. Kant’s attempt to defend the concept of causality is both philosophically interesting and central to his larger goals in the work. Indeed, Kant famously credits Hume for awakening him from his “dogmatic slumber,” and he suggests that resolving Hume’s problem regarding causality is a central aim of the Critique. We will work through a number of key sections of the text, using the topic of causality to steer our way.

Objectives

1. Gain a better understanding of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason: its aims, its overall structure, and the details of certain key arguments and passages.
2. Become familiar with the general method and terminology of Kantian philosophy, as an aid to subsequent readings of this work, other works by Kant, and those of the many philosophers influenced by Kant.
3. Develop general philosophical skills: analyzing philosophical texts and defending positions in discussion and in writing.

Class Format

This class will be run roughly as a seminar. There will be no formal student presentations, but classes will consist primarily of guided group discussion. For this reason, regular attendance at, participation in, and preparation for our class meetings are all crucial. I will regularly announce ahead of time what issues and what parts of the reading to focus on, but, of course, you are also welcome to raise other issues.

Requirements

This class is open to third and fourth-year students who have been admitted to the intensive concentration program. There are no prerequisites for this class. Previous acquaintance with the work of Kant would obviously be helpful, but is neither required nor presumed.

• Required Text: Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (Kemp Smith translation)
• Suggested Text: Sebastian Gardner, Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason (Routledge)

Both texts are available in the Seminary Co-op. There will also be some readings from Hume made available in electronic form, and possibly some secondary sources as well.

Evaluation

• 25 %    First Paper (4-5 pages, due date to be announced)
• 60 %    Second Paper (8-10 pages, due last day of class)
• 15 %    Participation

There will be no final exam. The participation grade will be based on your involvement in class discussion, along with submission of weekly comments. Students will send these comments to me by e-mail every Monday. They should consist of a few paragraphs of your general thoughts on the reading for the coming week: what you find most significant or problematic, along with any questions you might have about what Kant is saying. These comments need not be well-polished pieces of writing, and I will not be grading them (although failure to submit comments will affect your participation grade). I’ll use your comments to keep track of where we are at in our understanding of Kant, and to help me determine what topics we would most benefit from discussing. Do not hesitate to express any confusion or uncertainty you might have; this, after all, is generally a reasonable response to reading Kant.

Class Schedule

The schedule below generally follows the structure of Kant’s text. (See the accompanying handout, where the length of each section is indicated by the font size of each heading.)

Week 1. Hume

• Kant’s Debt to Hume
• Hume’s Problem

Week 2. Introduction to the Critical Philosophy

• Preface
• Introduction

Week 3. The Transcendental Aesthetic

Week 4. The Transcendental Logic

• Introduction to the Analytic

Week 5. The Transcendental Deduction

• The Metaphysical Deduction
• Principles of a Transcendental Deduction

Week 6. The Transcendental Deduction (continued)

• First half of the B-Deduction

Week 7. The Transcendental Deduction (concluded)

• Second half of the B-Deduction

Week 8. The Schematism

Week 9. The Analogies

Week 10. The Antinomies

[Handout] First Assignment – text analysis and evaluation

Choose a short, self-contained passage (one or two paragraphs) from one of the previously assigned readings in this class (the chapter from Hume, Kant’s Prefaces, the Introduction, the Aesthetic, or our next reading: the introduction to the Transcendental Logic). Analyze and evaluate this passage.

A. Analysis

Give a detailed summary of the key philosophical points in the passage. What is the main point Kant (or Hume) is trying to establish in this passage? How does he support this claim? Defend your reading of the passage, appealing to the textual details of the passage, along with its surrounding context. If relevant, consider other potential readings of the passage, and say why they are less plausible.

B. Evaluation

Present your judgment on this passage. Is the main claim warranted? Why or why not? Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s reasoning for the claim. Consider potential objections that could be made, and evaluate how one might respond to these objections.

Notes

1. Obviously, your analysis and evaluation will be more likely to succeed if you choose a passage that is interesting and philosophically significant. Look for a text that involves an argument. It does not need to be a passage that we discussed in class, but it should be from the assigned readings. You should also look for a text that requires some interpretive effort on your part (this shouldn’t be too hard with Kant); analyzing a straightforward, uncontroversial passage is easier, but it won’t earn a high grade. If you have any doubts about a passage you are considering, check with me.
2. Assignments will be graded for both content and form. Make interesting claims and defend them. Do so as clearly and as simply as possible.
3. Your assignment should be approximately 4-5 pages, double-spaced, sensible margins. Please indicate at the top of the first page which passage you are analyzing.
4. The assignment is due on Monday, Feb. 9. Please submit your document as an e-mail attachment.
5. I will not read drafts ahead of time, but I would be happy to discuss any questions you might have regarding the assignment, either by e-mail or in person. I am also willing to look at short outlines.