Lecture 1:

Anti-re(lism/rel(tivism: our
knowledge of things is only
true through our belief. I.E.,
we see things not (s they
(re, but (s we (re.

Skepticism: no such thing (s

true knowledge.

Lecture 2: Schol/sticism
& Sci Revolution
Aristotle - ten c(tegories of
wh(t is
— Gives prim(cy to
c(tegory of b(sic physic(l
objects - “subst(nce”; other
nine c(tegories (re
properties/predic(tes of
prim(ry c(tegory
— We s(y “the dog is
brown,” not “the
brownness h(s ( dog
under it”; we s(y “the
 wom(n is sitting,” not
“sitting h(s ( wom(n
inst(nti(ted in it”
— Linguistic(lly
distinguishes subject
from predic(te

Subst(nce underlies/
supports properties

-For Aristotle, every

independently existing
physic(l object is ( prim(ry
subst(nce; cont(ins its own
qu(lit(tively distinct
principle of intelligibility

-Every prim(ry subst(nce

h(s four c(uses (“doctrine
of four c(uses”): m(teri(l,
efficient, form(l, & fin(l.

Schol(sticism = Aristotle +
Christi(nity
Lecture 3: Desc/rtesʼ
R/tion/lism & Du/lism

Cogito ergo sum - “i think

therefore I exist,” or
elsewhere “i think I exist”

Desc(rtes is not ( solipsist

Proofs of Godʼs existence
grounded in his own mind

Lecture 4: Locke
Inventory of (ll the ide(s of
the mind, in order to know
which ones represent re(l
things in the world

Simple indivisible ide(s

received from sens(tion (nd
reflection

B(sic c(tegories of (ll types

ide(s: extension, solidity,
motivity ((ctive (bility to
(ffect sthg.), mobility
(p(ssive (bility to be
(ffected by sthg.),
perceptivity/thinking,
existence, dur(tion, number

Prim(ry/Second(ry
Qu(lities:
-Prim(ry (re both in the
subject (in my mind) (nd in
the object - size, volume,
m(ss, velocity, number.
These properties c(use us
to perceive them
-Second(ry (re powers of
the objectʼs prim(ry
qu(lities to c(use ide(s in
my mind th(t donʼt resemble
(nything in the object itself -
color, t(ste, sound. Think of
st(rs (ppe(ring to twinkle:
theyʼre not (ctu(lly
twinkling, just (tmospheric
distortion, but perception of
twinkling is re(l experience

For Locke, knowledge =

(w(reness of the (greement
or dis(greement of ide(s w/
one (nother
Knowledge h(s three
forms: intuition,
sens(tion, (nd logic(l
demonstr(tion/
(rgument

Knowledge of re(l objects is

known w/ prob(bility; unlike
Desc(rtes, Locke (llows for
degrees of cert(inty in wh(t
we know

Complex objects might not

be known - uncert(in th(t
the w(y these ide(s (re
org(nized in my mind
ex(ctly m(tches up to the
thing (s it exists in re(l
world

Empiricism - Locke s(ys

there (re cert(in pl(ces
experience, (s epistemic
method, c(nnot go.
An object must be more
th(n simply the list of its
qu(lities; must be
something th(t
underlies them, tying
them together -
“unknown support” (cf.
Aristoteli(n subst(nce)

Power: we perceive c(us(l

rel(tion of things (( billi(rd
b(ll striking (nother)

Prim(ry met(physic(l
difference betw. Locke &
Desc(rtes is how they (rrive
(t their met(physics - Locke
proofs God ( posteriori

Philosophic(l ide(lism:
re(lity is in some sense
ment(l, or the product of the
mind

George B(rkley - (ll re(lity

exists only in my mind

(“You c(nnot sit in (n ide(

of ( ch(ir.”)

Lecture 5: Neo-
Aristoteli/ns
Spinoz( & Leibniz

Spinoz' - extreme form of

imm(nentism c(lled
“p(ntheism”: everything is
god, liter(lly everything, me,
you, the floor, etc.
– God isnʼt solely ment(l or
spiritu(l, but m(teri(l (s well
Neither do hum(ns h(ve
free will, nor does God h(ve
free will; there is no free will.
Wh(t we c(ll “free will” is
simply the recognition of
necessity—i.e., when my
mind recognizes th(t it
c(nnot control wh(t
h(ppens, it c(n only control
its inner (ttitude tow(rd
wh(t h(ppens. (This is why
Spinoz( loved (ncient
Stoicism (nd stoic (p(thos).

*** Spinoz( is formul(ting

(n ethic(l system, the point
of which is th(t the go(l of
hum(n life, (nd highest
st(te to which the mind c(n
(spire, is ( disp(ssion(te
intellectu(l love of god (nd
recognition of necessity,
le(ding to st(te of intern(l
c(lm (cf. Stoicism)

Leibniz in(ugur(ted modern

Germ(n Intellectu(l
tr(dition.

Subst(nces c(nʼt inter(ct w/

e(ch other; re(lity thus
composed of simple,
indivisible subst(nces.

Mon(ds - entelechy
(intern(l principle of ch(nge,
subst(nce is (ctive not
p(ssive), nothing extern(l
c(n ch(nge ( subst(nce. All
its properties (re essenti(l.
Everything true of (
subst(nce must be
deducible from its essence/
n(ture. Rel(tion of one
mon(d to (nother is
reflected inside e(ch
mon(d. (“Doctrine of
intern(l rel(tions”)
Mon(d perceives &
represents inside itself the
~whole universe~, (lbeit
from its own perspective.

Form of ( subst(nce is
(ctive power th(t expl(ins
the ch(nges (nd
development the object
goes through - cont(ins its
whole history.

All mon(ds, every mon(d

composing the universe, (re
in ( sense ment(l—they (ll
h(ve psyche, in the
Aristoteli(n sense.
Leibniz t(kes Aristotleʼs
psyche (nd extends it from
“living beings” to rocks,
pl(nts, liter(lly everything in
the universe.
– 1. The components of
 the universe (re
mon(ds; 2. Mon(ds
must be c(p(ble of (n
intern(l rel(tion of
represent(tion or
perception of everything
else in the universe.
– This inner
represent(tion(l rel(tion
is wh(t t(kes the pl(ce,
for Leibniz, of c(us(lity

Three types of mon(ds!: 1.

B(re mon(ds (w/ minim(l
(ppetition (nd perception);
2. Souls (i.e. (nim(l mon(ds
w/ cle(r distinct sens(tions
(nd desires); 3. Spirits
(mon(ds w/ property of
(pperception - i.e.
consciousness, (bility to
reflect on own perception;
minds c(p(ble of r(tion(l
thought, possessed of (
self).

– Mon(ds (ggreg(te;
m(teri(l (nd soul mon(ds
(re collected (nd governed
by one spirit mon(d (my
mind).

For Leibniz everything

h(ppens inside. Thus sp(ce
(nd time donʼt exist
independently; theyʼre
rel(tions betw mon(ds.
E(ch subst(nce h(s w/in
itself extension (nd dur(tion
(s essenti(l properties of
itself. Sp(ce (nd time do not
exist w/o presence of
mon(ds. (This is the source
of Leibnizʼs beef w/
Newton).

Spinoz(ʼs leg(cy -
met(physic(l
Leibnizʼs leg(cy -
epistemologic(l