There are notes on all the major topics we have discussed so far on the web site, and these may help you to organize your thoughts for the examination. Of course, you should also review the readings! The notes do not contain enough material to enable you to do well on the exam without also consulting the texts!
The first part of the exam will contain 8 questions asking for brief descriptions of some of the key ideas we have discussed. By "brief" I mean a short paragraph -- in the neighborhood of two or three sentences. Answers should be clear and precise as well as concise! (8 questions * 6 points each = 48 points total for this part.)
I will list two of these questions, and ask you to write on one. Answers to the essay questions will be graded on (1) degree of familiarity with, and understanding of, the details of the readings exhibited by your answers; (2) quality of philosophical argument, and degree to which you consider and respond to views opposed to your own; (3) clarity of organization and expression. (52 points.)
1. Take a stand on the problem of individuals by defending nihilism, monism, or pluralism about how many individuals there are. Consider both positive arguments for your view and criticisms of it (which you should respond to). You may also wish to support your favored view by criticizing its rivals. Make use of van Inwagen's discussion in his chapter on "Individuals."
2. Take a stand on the existence of universals by defending a version of either nominalism or realism. Consider both positive arguments for your view and criticisms of it (which you should respond to). You may also wish to support your view by criticizing its rivals. You should include substantial discussion of at least one of the essays we have read on this topic (Price, Williams, Russell, Zimmerman).
3. Explain carefully what the thesis of the Identity of Indiscernibles is. Either defend or criticize the view with particular reference to Max Black's "two spheres" objection. You should consider and respond to arguments opposed to your view, as well as presenting arguments in favor of the view. Explain how the Identity of Indiscernibles is relevant to the "bundle of universals" theory of particulars, making use of Zimmerman's discussion of this issue.
4. Explain the debate between two conceptions of time, which we might call the debate between the common-sense view of time vs. the 4D view. (Related distinctions: tensers vs. detensers; ordinary view vs. "block universe" view.) What are the main differences between the two views? Then take a position on the issue and defend it. Consider both positive arguments for your view and criticisms of it (which you should respond to). Include a substantial discussion of at least one of the essays we have read on this topic.
5. Consider the problem of persistence through time. Is it better to understand persistence as endurance, or as perdurance? Include discussion of Lewis's argument for perdurance, and Zimmerman's response. (Feel free to make use of the arguments of other essays we have read, such as Geach's, as well.)
6. Explain, and either defend or criticize, the ontological argument, with special reference to van Inwagen's discussion of the argument. If you defend it, you should explain and respond to criticisms.
7. Explain, and either defend or criticize, the cosmological argument, with special reference to van Inwagen's discussion of the argument. Be sure to include a discussion of the role of the Principle of Sufficient Reason in the argument, and evaluate van Inwagen's critique of this principle.
8. Explain, and either defend or criticize, the argument from design. If you defend it, you should explain and respond to criticisms. Include a discussion of the "merchant's thumb principle."
|
Last update: October 10, 2007 |