Philosophy 1301: Introduction to Philosophy
Review for Second Examination
Fall, 2007
Curtis Brown
The second exam is scheduled for Monday, November
5. The examination will have two parts. The first part will have relatively
short questions that you should be able to answer in about a paragraph. The
second part will have longer essay questions that may require several
paragraphs to answer. Answers should show familiarity with the text as well
as class lectures. Answers will be evaluated on the basis of their clarity,
accuracy, completeness, and cogency. The first and second parts will each
count for approximately half of the total grade. Bring a blue book!
(I will trade the one you bring for one that I have marked prior to the
exam. Only the blue books I hand out will be acceptable.) I expect students
to remain in the classroom until they have completed the exam. (If you
finish early, you are welcome to turn it in and leave.) No mp3 players, cell
phones, etc. -- all you should have out is a blue book and something to
write with.
Terms and concepts you should be familiar with:
- dubitability
- dreaming argument
- evil genius argument
- the Cogito
- clarity and distinctness
- the piece of wax
- degrees of reality
- formal reality
- objective reality
- substances vs. modes
- Descartes' main argument for God's existence in Meditation III
- the Cartesian Circle
- you should be able to explain Descartes's response (in Meditation IV) to
the problem of how we can be mistaken about anything if God exists and is
not a deceiver
- how is the problem of error like the problem of evil? How is Descartes'
response to the problem of error in Meditation IV like one of the
traditional responses to the problem of evil?
- imagination vs. intellection (Descartes)
- you should be able to explain Descartes' distinction between his essence
as a thinking thing (as explored in Meditation 2) and the essence of material
objects (as explored in Meditation 5). (Descartes himself returns to this
distinction in Meditation 6.)
- How does Descartes distinguish between questions about the essence of
material substances, and questions about the existence of material
substances?
- What is Descartes's final response to the dreaming argument (in
Meditation 6)?
- incorrigibility of the mental
- transparency of the mental
- reliability theory of knowledge. You should be able to explain what this
theory is and how it differs from the JTB theory and from the idea that
knowledge is true belief that is certain. You should also be able to explain
how the reliability theory deals with the examples that appear to pose
problems for the first two accounts. What does the reliability theory say
about the coins, the stopped clock, and the lottery, and why? What does it say
about evil demon or Matrix-type examples, and why?
- foundationalism
- foundations theory of justification vs. coherence theory of justification
- logical, nomological, and circumstantial necessity. You should be able to
explain what these three types of necessity are and how they are different
from each other. You should be able to give examples of statements that are
necessary in these ways: of logical necessities, of nomological necessities
that are not logically necessary, and of circumstantial necessities that are
not logically or nomologically necessary. Or, if I give an example, you
should be able to say which kinds of necessity it has (if any) and explain
why.
- the KK principle (you should be able to say what this principle is and
why, if the reliability theory of knowledge is true, the KK principle is
false)
- Hume's problem of induction
- skepticism about knowledge vs. skepticism about rational belief
- the principle of the uniformity of nature
- rule of inference
- counterinduction
- Bayes's Theorem (you should be able to state the theorem and explain how
it can be used to understand the relation between a hypothesis and the
observational evidence for it)
- what is the relation between Bayes's Theorem and abduction?
- dualism
- substance dualism vs. property dualism
- dualist interactionism
- epiphenomenalism
- materialism (= physicalism)
- Leibniz's Law (= the indiscernibility of identicals)
Essay questions:
Essay questions will ask you to explain and evaluate an argument we
have discussed in class. To explain an argument, you should say what
the premises are, what the conclusion is, what sort of argument it is,
and how the premises are supposed to support the conclusion. To
evaluate the argument, you need to consider objections to the argument
and explain why you think they are or are not justified. An objection
to an argument may be either a reason to think one or more of the
premises is false, or a reason to think that the premises do not
support the conclusion.
You should be familiar with the main arguments we have discussed in class. Here
are a few sample essay questions:
1. Explain Descartes' argument (in Meditation II) that he can be certain of his own existence
despite the arguments of Meditation I (including the evil genius argument).
Explain which of his characteristics he thinks are essential to his existence
and which characteristics are not, and why. Offer your own assessment of these
arguments.
2. Explain Descartes' first argument for God's existence in Meditation III.
You will need to include an explanation of what he means by formal and objective
reality. Evaluate the argument.
3. A common objection to Descartes' overall argument in the Meditations,
ever since the Objections and Replies that were published along with the
Meditations, has been that it is circular. This is the famous "Cartesian
Circle." Give a careful explanation of what the supposed circle in
Descartes' reasoning is. Then evaluate the claim that the argument is circular,
taking into account Descartes' response to this charge.
4. Compare the JTB account of knowledge with the RTK (Reliability Theory of
Knowledge). Begin by explaining the JTB account, and one of Sober's three
counterexamples to the account. Then explain the RTK account, and explain how
the RTK would deal with the same example. Conclude with an overall assessment of
the two analyses: which (if either) do you think is closer to the truth, and
why?
5. Explain why Hume thinks that it is impossible to provide a rational
justification of induction. Is he correct? If so, does this show that we should
be skeptical about whether we are ever justified in believing anything? How
might an antifoundationalist reply to Hume, and do you regard this reply as
adequate?
6. Give a careful explanation of the main Cartesian argument that the mind and
body must be distinct, as interpreted by Sober. (This is the argument involving
the supposed property of indubitable existence.) Explain the objection to this
argument raised by Sober and also discussed in class. Evaluate the argument in
light of this objection.