Syllabus

Reading Schedule

Handouts & Assignments

Study Questions

Paper Topics

Final Exam Study Guide

Internet Links

Below you will find 16 questions, separated into four groups of four questions each. The exam will consist of eight of these questions (two from each group), and you will be required to answer one question from each group (that is, you will have some choice about which questions to answer). You will not be able to consult your books or notes during the exam.

Please do make sure that you stick to the question, and that you answer all parts of the question. Forays into the irrelevant will affect your grade negatively. Do make sure that you clearly explain any key terms and distinctions, and that your essay has a clear organizational structure.

The exam will be on Tuesday 19 March at 8:00 in the morning (ugh) in our classroom. Please bring a pen; I will provide doughnuts and exam booklets.

Section I

1. In paragraph 6 of the Second Meditation, Descartes claims that he cannot be certain that he has sense perception since sense perception "surely does not occur without a body".  But two paragraphs later, when Descartes summarizes what he knows and is certain about himself, he says that he is a thing that has sensory perceptions.  Has he contradicted himself?  Has he changed his mind?  Or is there a way to render these two claims compatible? Explain and defend your answer.

2. What does Descartes mean by ‘thinking’?  Is this how you understand the term?  Can you think of a case that Descartes would consider a case of thinking but you would not?  Descartes seems to change his conception of thinking by the time he gets to the Sixth Meditation. Explain why this is so.

3. Descartes demonstrates his own existence in the Second Meditation. What is the basis for his inference? What is the import of his conclusion? Why is the certainty of his conclusion not threatened by the possible existence of an evil demon?

4. What are Descartes’ reasons for thinking that the idea of God is not a fiction which he himself has conjured up?  Is his reasoning sound?

Section II

5. What is Occasionalism? Explain why that view seems to be in direct conflict with certain ordinary ways of speaking: "The baseball broke the window," "The cat killed the mouse", "The ice cream made me happy", "I leapt up because I was in pain."  How does an Occasionalist like Malebranche propose to understand these sorts of statements?

6. What is Corpuscularianism? Give a corpuscularian explanation for why the same bowl of water might feel warm to my right hand and feel cool to my left hand.

7. Locke distinguishes between "body", "human being" and "person" (What Locke calls "man", I am here calling "person".). He does this when he gives different answers to the questions, "When is the same body present on two different occasions?", "When is the same human being present on two different occasions?, "When is the same person present on two different occasions?" Explain the different answers Locke gives to these questions. What are some of the more significant consequences of this distinction?

8. It was said in class that Locke, while still an advocate of the "Substance Theory" of both material objects and minds, is moving away from full endorsement of that position. Explain why Locke can be viewed in this way. That is, provide evidence from Locke’s writings which support the idea that he is moving away from full endorsement of the Substance Theory of material objects and minds.

Section III

9. What does Philonous mean by "sensible things"? What does it mean to deny the reality of sensible things?  Can you give examples of a position which denies the reality of sensible things? "I hear the car", "I hear the car’s engine", "I hear a deep rumbling".  Which of these three things--the car, the car’s engine, the deep rumbling--are "sensible things" according to Philonous?  What's the relevance of the distinction between mediate perception and immediate perception here?

10. At one point in his discussion with Hylas, Philonous talks about looking through a microscope. (This discussion begins at speech 104 of Philonous’.) What is what we might call the "microscope argument" and how does this argument help Philonous’ cause?

11. What is Berkeley’s argument for the existence of God in the Principles of Human Understanding? Do you find this to be a convincing argument? Why or why not?

12. Explain why it might seem that Berkeley is unable to distinguish between really seeing a chair and hallucinating or dreaming about a chair. Berkeley does have an answer to how he can make sense of that distinction. (Indeed, Philonous deals with this topic about a third of the way through the Third Dialogue.) What is Berkeley’s answer? Do you find it a good one? Why or why not?

Section IV

13. What is meant by the claim that nature is uniform? Why is a belief in the uniformity of nature crucial to the sort of reasoning that scientists do? Explain why Hume thinks that, as a result of its dependence on the principle of the uniformity of nature, there is reason to be skeptical about the conclusions of science.

14. What is the role of custom or habit in Hume’s philosophy (at least, that portion of it that we have seen)? What is the relationship between reason and custom? How does custom serve as part of a "skeptical solution" to the problems Hume raises about science?

15. What is the point of the discussion of the about-to-be-executed prisoner in Section VIII of the Inquiry? What is Hume trying to convince us of with that example? Do you think he is right? Defend your answer.

16. In Section IX of his Inquiry, Hume talks about the reason of animals. What is his position regarding the reason of animals? What is his argument for that position? Is it a good one? Why or why not?