Human Nature and Existence Spinoza Leibniz and Hume Essay

– 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.