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

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

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

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

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

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

• Be prepared to distinguish arguments from non-arguments (e.g., from explanations, descriptions, conditional statements, and from unsupported statements of opinion or belief).

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

• Be able to give examples of conditional statements and to identify the antecedent and consequent of a conditional statement.

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

• 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 Pojman's argument that ethical relativism "seems to entail that reformers are always (morally) wrong."

• Explain how Pojman argues that "conventionalist relativism seems to reduce to subjectivism."

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

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

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

• What, according to Kant, is the only thing that can be called good without qualification? Why? Critically discuss.

• Explain the distinction Immanuel Kant draws between acting from duty and acting merely in accordance with duty. Give examples of each. What does Kant claim to be the relevance of this distinction? (I.e., what difference does it make whether we act from duty or merely in accordance with duty?) Is Kant right about all this? Critically discuss.

• Specify two significantly different formulations Kant offers of the categorical imperative. Explore an application of each; that is argue that some action is right or is wrong based on a formulation of the categorical imperative. (You may consider the same action for each formulation, or different actions.) Critically discuss.

• Define "determinism." What is the universe like if determinism is true?

• How might a hard determinist argue that no one is responsible for any of her or his actions? Critically discuss.

• Explain the compatibilist view on the relation between free action and determinism. Make this view as plausible as you can and give examples of actions that would be free, and others that would not be free, according to this view. Is compatibilism correct? Explain.

• What does it mean to say that someone does some action freely? That is, how is "acting freely" to be defined? What would an incompatibilist say it means? What would a compatibilist say it means? Who is right? Critically discuss.

• There are three propositions such that the hard determinist, the soft determinist, and the libertarian each accept two of the propositions and deny a third (although they each deny a different one). What are these propositions and which do which views accept and deny? Explain.

• Explain Stace's "internal cause" account of free action. Give examples of actions caused by psychological states. Give examples of actions caused whose immediate cause is not a psychological state. Does Stace's account seem to distinguish free actions from those that are not free? Explain.

• One example of an "unfree act" that Stace gave was "stealing because one's employer threatened to beat one." Is such an act unfree on Stace's own account of free will? Explain and critically discuss.

• Explain what a "second-order desires" is. Give an example of a "second-order desire." Give an example of a "first-order desire."

• 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.

• 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, 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.

• 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.

• What is Descartes' solipsistic predicament? Explain how he tries to get out of it. 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?

• What claim that Hume makes is the overall thesis of his section on the origin of ideas?

• 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.

• Explain: monism, dualism, idealism, materialism, interactionism, epiphenomenalism, and parallelism. Explain the differences and similarities among these theories.

• Shaffer offers an argument against the identity theory from the "condition of coexistence in space." Carefully explain this argument. Critique the argument.

• Churchland discusses four sources of arguments for dualism. Explain what each of these is. Explain Churchland's objections to these arguments.

• Explain and critically discuss one argument that Churchland offers against dualism.

• Explain what the reductive materialist believes about mental states.

• What four reasons does Paul Churchland give for thinking that there can be reduction of our common-sense conceptual framework for mental states, or "folk psychology," to neuro-science?

• State Leibniz' law. Explain it and offer an example (not concerning the nature of the distinction between the mental and the physical) of an inference which appeals to it.

• State one argument Churchland considers against reductive materialism from some premise concerning introspection. How does he respond to this argument? Critically discuss.

• Explain the numerous traditional monist and dualist positions on the mind-body problem. How do the various views account for the apparent interaction between mental and physical events? Which seems most plausible to you? Why? Explain one advantage one of the other views has over the one you find most plausible.