HPL 112 Science and Metaphysics

HPL 112 Science and Metaphysics
Second paper assignment
a) Three pages, double-spaced. Submit printed copy no later than Tuesday, March 25. Requests for extended deadlines have to be made in advance. You can submit earlier
if you want, email me the paper if it is ready before or during spring break!
b) As a general recommendation: before you start writing, write down your thoughts and arguments by hand. For each argument, find a quote from the text. Make sure to
interpret the quote specifically (and correctly!). Write your text “around” the quotes. Make sure to mention counter-arguments, the more the better. Write the
introduction and conclusion at the end.
c) Pick one of the following topics:
• Kant: freedom of the will (pages 49-57 in excerpt). Kant’s solution to the problem of free will is compatibilist: he assumes that freedom and determinism do
not exclude each other but coexist insofar as one and the same phenomenon can be understood from two different points of view: as empirical phenomenon, following the
laws of causality, and as “thing in itself,” that is, “intelligible subject” which can be thought to act freely and start causal chains on its own. Reason is
“intelligible” insofar as it cannot be represented in the same way than physical things. Explain Kant’s argument and state whether you find it convincing. Do find
other theories more convincing, and if yes, which ones? Kant thinks that morality proves that we can think of ourselves as free, do you agree? If determinism would be
the only possible approach, would morality be impossible then? How would we go about questions of responsibility and punishment if there were no free will? You do not
have to answer all of these questions, I only mention them to give you some ideas. The minimum you have to do is explain the main argument in Kant’s text.
• Kant: proofs for the existence of God (pages 61-85). Kant distinguishes three proofs for the existence of God: the ontological, cosmological, and physico-
theological proof. None of these proofs is ultimately conclusive for him. At the same time, he thinks that it is logically both possible and required to assume a
necessary being that contains the ground for all other beings that exist. This means that although the very idea of a god is meaningful, we have no way to figure out
by reason whether such a being exists. You can choose whether you want to discuss all three proofs or only one, and to what degree you want to engage in a discussion
of the demarcation between faith and reason. As a minimum, you have to provide a careful analysis of Kant’s text. The physico-theological proof has a long tradition:
it assumes that nature can be read as a testimony for the existence of intelligent design. The ontological proof is merely conceptual and may seem absurd at first
glance. However, one could argue that ideas of god were never strictly empirical. The ontological proof raises the question of what exactly makes the idea of god
possible and creates a need for it in our thinking and feeling. Again, I only mention possible topics here.