Final Exam Study Guide

 The final will be much like the mid-term, with a quotation identification section (for which you need merely identify the author of various quotations taken from material we have read for the course), a short answer section (in which you will answer two of four short answer questions), and an essay section (in which you will answer one of two essay questions, taken from the list at the end of this study guide). For the quotation identification, you will be expected to know the most important passages from the material on the syllabus as well as the assigned readings associated with student presentations.

The exam will be cumulative, with special but not exclusive emphasis on the philosophers covered in the second half of the course (Locke, Hume, and Kant).

General Topics:

· To what extent is it possible to have knowledge of anything?

· How should we philosophically address the (epistemological) problem of human diversity, that is, that people see the world in different (and incompatible) ways?

· What is the ultimate nature of all reality? (Relatedly, is there a God, and if so, what is God’s nature?)

· What is the human being? (In particular: Are human beings free? and What is the connection between the mind and the body?)

· What is the nature of causation? How does one thing cause changes in another? (Particularly, how do the mind and body interact?)

· What is the good life for human beings?

· What is the nature of moral claims/reasoning?

Hobbes

· Sensation and imagination, what are they, metaphysically, and what role do they play, epistemically

· Nature of reasoning and the role of words in reasoning

· “Desire” or volition, what it is. What is “deliberation”?

· Hobbes’s account(s) of good and evil, both in state of nature and in society.

· The conditions in the state of nature that justify establishing the commonwealth.

· The basic structure of the commonwealth

· The right of nature

· The first two laws of nature, what they are and how they are justified.

· Application of Hobbes’s moral theory to a particular case (e.g. lying or murder); that is, you should be able to explain in Hobbist terms whether a particular action or character trait is wrong, and if so, why.

Descartes

• Arguments for skepticism (know what each argument is, what it shows and what it doesn’t, and how Descartes eventually responds to that argument later in the Meditations)
• Proof of D’s own existence
• The nature of the self and how D proves that this is his nature
• D’s proofs of God’s existence(from Meds 3 and 5); you need to know at least one of these well
• The problem of error in Descartes (Med 4) and how D solves this problem
• D’s account of human and divine freedom
• D’s proof of the reality and nature of the external world
• D’s view of the relationship between mind and body (distinct substances but substantially united)
• Elizabeth’s objections to D’s account; and D’s response to Elizabeth
• The three or four maxims of Descartes’s provisional morality
• The “truths useful to know” that Descartes explains as his ethics in his letter to Elizabeth
• The tree analogy for his philosophy as a whole
• Application of Descartes’s moral theory to a particular case (e.g. lying or murder); that is, you should be able to explain in Cartesian terms whether a particular action or character trait is wrong, and if so, why.

Spinoza

• You should be able to explain the meaning and significance of any of Spinoza’s definitions, axioms, or propositions, if the language of the definition, axiom, or proposition is provided to you.
• You should be able to give, at least in outline, the arguments for Book I, P11, P14, and P28.
• You should be able to explain Spinoza’s account of the nature of God, including the definition of God, God’s monism, and at least some properties of God
• You should be able to explain Spinoza’s account of the nature of particular things and how these relate to God
• You should be able to explain the (double) necessity of particular things (dependence upon both God and prior things)
• You should be able to explain the three sorts of knowledge
• You should be able to offer a Spinozist account of the relationship between mind and body
• You should be able to explain why Spinoza thinks that those who follow after virtue will desire for others the same goods they desire for themselves (IV, 37).
• You should be able to explain what blessedness is (V, 42) and how it relates to knowledge of the third kind.
• Application of Spinoza’s moral theory to a particular case (e.g. lying or murder); that is, you should be able to explain in Spinozist terms whether a particular action or character trait is wrong, and if so, why.

Locke

• Locke’s arguments vs innate ideas (and responses to innatist responses)
• The nature and origin of ideas (simple vs. complex, sensation vs. reflection)
• The different sources of complex ideas (see especially Book II, chapter XII)
• Ideas vs. qualities; and Primary and secondary qualities
• The idea of power (why problematic, why important, how Locke accounts for it, active vs. passive powers)
• Human freedom (whether humans have a “free will”) and human motivation (what actually moves us to act)
• The nature and extent of knowledge; Knowledge of existence (of self, God’s, and sensible things)
• Probability (what it is, why important)
• The nature and extent of moral knowledge. What can we know about moral obligations, how can we know it, and what kind of knowledge is it?
• Locke’s account of human nature in the state of nature
• The justification for creating a society/government
• The justification for a right to personal property, along with the limits of that right.
• The justification(s), if any, for dissolving or rebelling against the government. 
• Application of Locke’s moral theory to a particular case (e.g. lying or murder); that is, you should be able to explain in Lockean terms whether a particular action or character trait is wrong, and if so, why.

Hume

• The relationship between of impressions and ideas and the methodological importance of this relationship for Hume’s analyses of ideas
• Matters of fact vs. Relations of ideas
• Argument vs. justified knowledge of causation (& implications of this for knowledge of matters of fact)
• The nature of causal inference and of our idea of cause/necessary connection (i.e., if we don’t have rationally justified knowledge of causation, what sort of knowledge do we have and how do we have this?)
• Free will and Necessity re: human actions
• Miracles
• The origin of moral distinctions (reason, sentiment, or both; and if both, what role each plays).
• The four kinds of virtues (agreeable to self, to others; useful to self, to others)
• The justification for claims about justice
• The role of sympathy in moral evaluation
• (Hume’s explanation for why one should actually be good.)
• Application of Hume’s moral theory to a particular case (e.g. lying or frugality); that is, you should be able to explain in Humean terms whether a particular action or character trait is wrong, and if so, why.

Kant

• Taxonomy of judgments: analytic-synthetic and a priori-empirical
• Importance and difficulty of the question “How are a priori synthetic judgments possible?”
• Kant’s “Copernican” turn (that objects conform to cognitions); how this helps answer the question “How are a priori synthetic judgments possible?”
• Proof that space is an a priori intuition and the significance of this proof.
• Distinction between perceptions, appearances/objects, and things in themselves
• Transcendental idealism (knowledge of objects but not of things in themselves): how does Kant defend this (note role of antinomies) and what are its implications; Kant’s idealism vs. Berkeley’s/Descartes’.
• Response to Hume on causation (i.e., Kant’s proof that causation is an a priori category for experience)
• Human freedom (understand what Kant’s antinomy proves and why, what his discussion in the Critique of Practical Reason adds and why, and how Kant reconciles universal causation with human freedom)
• Argument that the good will is the only thing good without limitation
• Explanation of what a categorical imperative is
• Defense and explanation of each of the three formulations of the “categorical imperative” (the formula of “universal law,” of “humanity” and of “autonomy”)
• Application of Kant’s moral theory to a particular case (e.g. lying or murder); that is, you should be able to explain in Kantian terms whether a particular action or character trait is wrong, and if so, why.

Possible Essay Questions (I will include at least one of these on the actual exam.)

1. Kant is often seen as providing a sort of synthesis of rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza) and empiricism (Locke, Hume). After explaining the features of Kant’s philosophy that would make this interpretation seem reasonable, explain at least one important reason that Kant cannot be seen as offering any such synthesis.
2. Of the philosophical views that we’ve studied this semester, which provides the best response to the most important skeptical arguments of Descartes’s first Meditation? (This response could involve endorsing or even expanding one or more of those skeptical arguments, and/or could involve showing how/why the skeptical arguments don’t work.)
3. In 1580, Montaigne wrote an essay entitled “On Cannibals,” in which he claims, “we have no other level of truth and reason, than the example and idea of the opinions and customs of the place wherein we live.” In writing these words, Montaigne captures one possible response to the diversity that Europeans were beginning to discover in their world during the 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th centuries. Of the philosophers we’ve read, whose philosophy provides the best way of dealing with the diversity in human opinions that one finds not only across cultures but even within our own. In defending that philosopher, be sure to show specifically how their philosophy is a better response to this diversity that the opinion articulated here by Montaigne. You should also show how the philosophy you defend is better than at least one other philosophy we study this semester. (If you do not defend Kant as the best, you must give at least some explanation of why his approach is not the best.)
4. Lay out, as plausibly as you can, Hume’s argument that we can have no knowledge of causes and effects. Then explain whose philosophy (of those we covered in class) provides the best response to Hume. (If Kant is not the best, explain why not.) Finally, briefly assess whether an even better response could be given.
5. Whose philosophy provides the best response to Elizabeth’s criticisms of Descartes’ theory of the relationship between mind and body? (In the process, you’ll need to briefly lay out Descartes’ view and Elizabeth’s objections.) In your answer, discuss whether this response stays within the limits that Kant imposes on human knowledge.
6. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant “den[ies] knowledge in order to make room for faith.” With respect to human freedom in particular, this means that we can have “faith” that human beings are free but cannot “know” that they are free. Explain how Kant denies knowledge of human freedom in order to make room for faith in human freedom. Then use Kant’s argument to criticize the philosopher who best argued that we can have knowledge of human freedom. Finally, use the arguments of at least one (other) philosopher to object to Kant’s claim that we are allowed to have faith in human freedom.
7. Of the philosophers we read this semester, whose philosophy is the most ethically dangerous? Why?
8. Of the philosophers we’ve read this semester, who’s philosophy is the most “feminist”? Whose would, if most widely adopted, be the worst for women? (In your answer, be sure to define briefly what you mean by feminist. Also be sure to discuss at least one aspect of a philosopher’s metaphysics or epistemology, and at least one aspect of a philosopher’s moral theory, in your answer.)
9. Consider Christine Korsgaard’s knave: “Our knave is the lawyer for a rich client who has recently died, leaving his money to medical research. In going through the client’s papers, the lawyer discovers a will of more recent date, made without the lawyer’s help but in due form, leaving the money instead to the clients worthless nephew, who will spend it all on beer and comic books. The lawyer could easily suppress the new will, and she is tempted to do so. So what should she say to herself?” Consider this case from at least two different perspectives that give different responses, and argue in favor of one or the other of them.
10. Recently, there has been an upsurge in women reporting sexual harassment and assault by men in positions of power over them in business, the arts (especially Hollywood), and politics. Draw on at least two of the philosophers we have read this semester to discuss what makes sexual harassment and assault wrong (if anything), what philosophical distinctions need to be made in discussing different cases of harassment (if any), and what responses are appropriate when we hear about such harassment. For the purpose of this essay, you may focus on the general problem or a particular case.