This examination, if you take it, replaces your lowest test grade. See course requirements.

This is a closed-book, in-class examination on the scheduled date.

There will be two parts.

• Part I (for ten (10) points) will ask you to answer ten (10) "short answer" questions worth one (1) point each. By "short answer" I mean that a sentence or two (or three) will suffice. You will have a choice from twelve (12) questions on part I.
• Part II (for five (5) points) will ask you to answer one (1) essay question worth five (5) points. You will have a choice from three (3) questions on this part. By "essay" I mean a discussion that will probably take more than a paragraph or two, but should take no more than a few pages.

Ground Rules

As always, cheating will not be tolerated. No help in answering the questions may be received from anyone (except yourself) during the examination. You may not use books or notes during the examination.

Sample Questions and Points to Study

• What is philosophy?

• Name the main branches of philosophy (according to Lee) and explain what sorts of questions each asks.

• Define "metaphysics," "epistemology," and "axiology."

• What were the charges being brought against Socrates?

• What did the Delphic oracle say? What did it mean? Explain (giving various interpretations).

• In what sense does Socrates think he is wise? Explain.

• How does Socrates defend himself against the charge that he corrupts the youth? Explore Socrates's argument.

• How does Socrates defend himself against the charge that he does not believe in the gods?

• Carefully explain the argument Socrates gives to the conclusion that he believes in the existence of gods.

• What "voice" does Socrates speak of hearing? What role does it play in his decision making? Explain.

• Discuss Socrates' attitude toward death.

• Socrates claims in the Apology that one should not fear death. What argument or arguments does he give for this? Critically discuss.

• How did Socrates die?

• Be able to list, identify, and appropriately use premise indicators and conclusion indicators.

• Be able to define and correctly use the following terms: argument, conclusion, premise, valid argument, invalid argument, sound argument, unsound argument.

• Socrates offered an argument that death is a blessing. Explicate and critically discuss this argument.

• Be able to identify and give examples of arguments which have the following forms: modus ponens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogism, pure hypothetical syllogism.

• State a valid argument for the conclusion that Aristotle lived before Socrates, or explain why this cannot be done.

• How does one argue by reductio ad absurdum? Explain how a reductio ad absurdum argument works by explaining an example.

• Explicate Aquinas's argument for the conclusion that there must be a first cause.

• In Aquinas's "second way" of proving the existence of God he says "But if we remove a cause the effect is removed." Explain the role of this premise in his argument. That is, how is this premise used to prove the conclusion? What problem is there is Aquinas's use of this premise? Explain.

• Explain argument by analogy. Give an example of an argument by analogy other than one involving God, and show how the argument fits into the form of an analogy.

• Explain what natural theology is and what positions the various characters in Hume's Dialogues take on the possibility of success in natural theology.

• What does David Hume mean by "productions of human contrivance?"

• Explain what Hume means by "the curious adapting of means to ends."

• Explain the "Look round the world ..." argument concerning the existence and nature of God offered by Cleanthes in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

• What is anthropomorphism?

• Explain as clearly as you can and in some detail the objections Philo raises to the main argument Cleanthes offered to prove for the existence of God and to establish what God is like.

• How does the evidential problem of evil differ from the logical problem of evil? Critically discuss.

• Carefully explicate the problem of evil as an argument to the conclusion that God does not exist. Explain each premise in the argument and how the flow of the argument (i.e. how the inferences go from the premises to the subconclusions and the final conclusion).

• Explore possible objections to the argument against the existence of God based on the logical problem of evil and explain how a defender of that argument might reply to those objections. Critically discuss.

• What is a theodicy?

• Explain the free will theodicy. What critique has been offered of the free will theodicy? Explain.

• Carefully explain one objection to the argument against the existence of God based on the problem of evil and explore how a defender of that argument might reply to that objection. Critically discuss.

• John Hick claims that "The idea of a person who can be infallibly guaranteed always to act rightly is self-contradictory." Hick considers a challenge to this claim. Explain the challenge and Hick's reply. Who is correct? Why? Critically discuss.

• Explain Hick's "Irenaean" theodicy. (See P 99bf)

• What, according to Wolff, does it mean to have authority (in the normative sense).

• Wolff argues that "All authority is ... illegitimate." Explain his argument for the claim that the state does not have authority over persons.

• Wolff argues that the state does not have authority over persons. Critique his argument.

• Hobbes argues that all men are equal. Critically discuss his arguments for this.

• What, according to Hobbes, are the principal causes of quarrel? Explain what each is and how it leads to "quarrel."

• What does Hobbes mean by the "condition of mere nature?"

• Explain what Hobbes thinks people's lives would be like in a "condition of mere nature."

• Does the notion of justice or injustice have any application in a condition of mere nature? Why or why not?

• What, according to Hobbes, is war? In a condition of mere nature, who is at war? Explain.

• What "articles of peace" does Hobbes say are proposed? Who or what, according to Hobbes, suggests these articles of peace? Why should we accept them?

• What is the first "general rule of reason" that Thomas Hobbes appeals to in his Leviathan and what are its two branches? Does reason require us to obey this "law?" Critically discuss.

• What did Mill mean by "tyranny of the majority?" Give some examples of this.

• Mill wrote "`the tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard." Do you think this so-called "tyranny of the majority" is a bad thing or a good thing? Defend your answer.

• What is the "one very simple principle" that Mill says is "entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control?" Give examples of situations where, according to this principle, society is entitled to compel and control people. Give examples of situations where, according to this principle, society is not entitled to compel or control individuals.

• What is paternalism? Under what conditions, if any, is paternalism justified?

• What grounds have been proposed as legitimate reasons for limiting the freedom or liberty of a person? Which grounds are acceptable and which not? That is, under what conditions is it morally legitimate to limit the freedom or liberty of another person? Critically discuss.

• What "sphere of action" does Mill regard as "the appropriate region of human liberty?" Explain. Do you agree? Why or why not?

• Mill argues that "silencing the expression of an opinion" is wrong. Carefully explain his argument.

• Mill argues that "It is desirable ... that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself." What does this mean? Give examples of such things where Mill would hold that individuality should assert itself. Why does Mill hold that this is desirable (in those case where he does)? Is he right? Why or why not?

• Which character in Berkeley's Dialogue represents Berkeley's views? Who is the other character and what views does he represent?

• What does Berkeley think exists in the world? What doesn't exist, according to Berkeley? What differences are there between the basic kinds of things that exist? Explain.

• Explain the representative theory of ideas.

• What does Hylas mean by "sensible things?" What does Philonous mean by "sensible things?"

• Explain and explore the distinction drawn in Berkeley's Three Dialogues between those things which are immediately perceived by sense and those things which are mediately perceived by sense.

• Explicate and critically discuss the argument Philonous makes to Hylas that intense heat does not exist in external objects (or "without the mind").

• Explicate and critically discuss the argument Philonous makes to Hylas that a moderate degree of cold does not exist in external objects (or "without the mind").

• What is the point of Philonous's "pin prick" example? Lay out the argument he offers based on this example.

• There is a famous question: "If a tree fell in the forest and there was no one around to hear it, would it make a sound?" Before he is converted to Philonous's position, how would Hylas have answered this question? Explain. How does Philonous argue that this is mistaken?

• Explain and critically discuss the distinction Hylas draws between two kinds of sounds.

• Explicate the argument Philonous makes to Hylas that sound does not exist in the air. Critically discuss. Does it follow from this argument that if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it the falling tree makes no sound? Why or why not?

• What is the "Quine-Duhem" thesis?

• Explain the argument Levin offers against objectivity by appealing to the Quine-Duhem thesis.

• Levin finds two "themes" (P 214a) in arguments against objectivity. State these two themes.

• What was Norwood Russell Hansen's thesis concerning observation? Explain.

• Levin claims that arguments against objectivity are "self-refuting." Explain her argument for this conclusion. Critically discuss.

• Offer an example of a belief which is based upon some other belief (and state what that other belief is). Are all our beliefs based upon other beliefs in this way? Why or why not? Critically discuss.

• What did Descartes claim he was trying to achieve (in writing the Meditations)?

  Why, according to Descartes, need one not explore each of one's beliefs in order to cast each of them into doubt?

• What three reasons did Descartes come up with for doubting beliefs based on the senses?

• Explain Descartes' method of trying to achieve certainty in his beliefs. Does Descartes through this method find that there is some claim that he can know for certain? If so, explain how he comes to know this claim for certain, and how he uses his method to arrive at this knowledge. If he does not come to know something for certain through use of his method, does he think that he does? If so, why is he wrong about this? Critically discuss.

• What ground of doubt does Descartes find for beliefs apparently derived from sense experience? Explain how this is ground of doubt for those beliefs. Is this a ground of doubt for other beliefs which are not based in the senses? Why or why not? Is there some other ground of doubt which calls into question more beliefs than this ground of doubt? What is it? Critically discuss.

• Explain the point(s) Descartes is trying to make in talking of an evil genius or a malicious demon. Critically discuss.

• Near the beginning of the second Meditation Descartes wonders whether he might come to know "for certain that there is nothing in the world that is certain." Is this possible? Why or why not?

• What is the "Archimedian point" Descartes is looking for? In what sense is it an "Archimedian point?"

• How does Descartes convince himself that he can be certain that he exists? Explicate and critically discuss his argument. Is our own existence something we can know for certain? Is there anything else that we can know with certainty? Why or why not?

• What does "cogito, ergo sum" mean?

• What, according to Descartes (by the end of Meditation II), is he? Explain what this means, what Descartes doesn't think he is, and how he thinks he knows what he is.

• What sorts of things does Descartes claim to know by the end of the second Meditation? What sorts of things is he, at that point, still uncertain of. Why?

• Descartes claims that the mind is more easily known than the body. Explain and critically discuss the argument he gives for this claim in Meditation II.

• By the end of the second Meditation what beliefs does Descartes claim he can be certain of? What does he think he cannot (yet) be certain of? Explain and critically discuss.

• Into what categories does Hume classify what he calls "perceptions?" Give examples of perceptions that fall into each category.

• What, according to Hume, is the difference between what he calls "impressions" and what he calls "ideas?" What does he think the relation is between impressions and ideas? Is he right about that? Critically discuss.

• What, according to Hume, are the limits of the creative power of the mind? Explain in detail. Give examples. Is Hume right about this? Critically discuss.

• What, according to Hume, do all ideas derive from?

• Explicate and critically discuss the arguments Hume offers for his thesis that all ideas are derived from impressions.

• Into what two groups does Hume categorize objects of inquiry? Explain the differences between these two groups.

• What are the differences between relations of ideas and matters of fact, according to Hume? Give several different examples of each.

• Hume asks "what is the nature of that evidence which assures us of any real existence and matter of fact, beyond the present testimony of our senses, or the records of our memory." What is his answer? Explain, using examples.

• Give an example in which an evidential fact causes a believed fact. Explain. Give an example in which a believed fact causes an evidential fact. Explain. Give an example in which a believed fact and an evidential fact are collateral effects. Explain.

• What point was Edwards' trying to make in talking about Alzheimer's disease?

• What does Searle mean by "Strong AI?"

• What does Searle mean by "formal symbol manipulation?"

• Explain Searle's "Chinese room" thought experiment. What conclusions does Searle draw from this thought experiment? Is he right to draw these conclusions? Why or why not?

• Searle wrote "Syntax is not sufficient for semantics." What did he mean by that? What conclusions does he draw from this about the ability of computers, as computers, to think? How does the argument go? Is he right? Why or why not?

• What is "intentionality," as that term is used by John Searle.

• Could some computer in the future actually think? Why or why not? Critically discuss.

• According to Searle what is needed for something to be able to think?

• Explain the "Brownson" thought experiment.

• Parfit considers the question "What happens to me?" if my brain is split and put into two bodies. What is the answer? Carefully explain Parfit's argument for this. Critically discuss the argument.

• How does Parfit argue that I could not be both people if my brain were split and put into two bodies?

• Explain Epicurus's reasoning that "death is nothing to us." Does that mean that death is not bad? Explain.

• What was Epicurus's attitude towards death? Critically discuss his defense of this attitude.

• Why, according to Epicurus, should we not choose every pleasure? Explain.

• Explain the sort of life Epicurus thinks we should live.

• What principle does Mill accept as the fundamental principle of morals? Give an example of its application.

• How would a utilitarian go about determining whether it would be right for the United States government to bomb Iraq?

• John Stuart Mill distinguishes a utilitarian "theory of life" from a "theory of morality." Explain what each of these is and how they are related.

• What, according to John Stuart Mill, is happiness? Explain in some detail what Mill says about happiness.

• How does Mill respond to the objection that his utilitarian doctrine is "a doctrine worthy only of swine ...?" Critically discuss.

• Mill claims that pleasures differ in quality as well as in quantity. What does Mill mean by this and what support does he offer for the claim? Critically discuss.

• J. S. Mill claims that some pleasures have "higher value" than other pleasures. Explain his argument for this claim. Critically discuss.

• Explain the distinction Mill draws between being happy and being content.

• John Stuart Mill claimed that "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Critically discuss his argument for this claim.

• How does Mill think we are to decide which pleasures are more worth having? Is this method reasonable? Critically discuss.

• According to Epictetus: "Some things are up to us, some are not up to us." What does Epictetus think is up to us? What does he think is not up to us? What conclusions does he draw from this concerning how we can be happy? Critically discuss.

• Summarize and critique Epictetus' prescription for happiness, being sure to mention any central distinctions Epictetus draws in his discussion of how to be happy.

• Epictetus wrote, "It is not things that upset people but rather ideas about things." What does this mean? Is it right? What conclusions does he draw from this concerning who is to blame for unhappiness? Critically discuss.

• Epictetus wrote, "men are disturbed not by the things which happen, but by the opinions about the things ..." What does this mean? Is it right? What conclusions does he draw from this concerning who is to blame for unhappiness? Critically discuss.

• "Remember that in life you ought to behave as at a banquet." Who said this? What does it mean? What are its implications? Critically discuss.

• According to Epictetus what attitude should we have if our spouse or child dies? Why? Critically discuss.