Philosophy 101 Final Exam Fall 2016

Instructions

➢ You will answer A TOTAL OF 4 Questions.

1 of these will be NO-CHOICE (although I’ll allow that you have free will to choose to fail the test
by not answering).
3 will be YOUR CHOICE (out of the ones listed).

➢ Each answer will be worth a total of 25 POINTS.

➢ See the {updated!} RUBRIC for specifics on how your answers will be graded.

➢ Use your own paper for your answers. (In other words, don’t use this paper to write your
answers on.)

➢ Look over each question and separate out the questions-within-the-question.

➢ Re-read the questions before submitting your test.

➢ Re-read your answers before submitting your test. Ask yourself: Have I answered all of the
questions within this larger question?

➢ Use at least one example to more fully develop your answer.

➢ Each answer should be a MINIMUM of 3 paragraphs (for purposes of this test,

1 paragraph = at least 4 sentences).

➢ Use your own words unless you are utilizing a quote to back up your own ideas. If you’re using a
quote, make sure you reference it properly with quotation marks, page number and author (if
it’s not a philosopher, go ahead and say “the editors of our book” or “Perry, et al.”).

➢ This will be a closed-notes but open-book exam.

➢ When taking the test: 1st look through all of the questions on the test and choose the ones you
think you can best answer. Then, before you write your essays, write down bullet points of what
you intend to say in your answer, brainstorm ideas and/or write a basic outline. That way, if you
run out of time or steam, you’ll at least get partial credit for answers. When you’ve finished with
the brainstorm/bullet list/ and/or outline, return to the questions and compose your essays.

➢ Advice: For a decent answer, I recommend spending a MIMINUM of 15 MINUTES per question.
The Questions:

You MUST Answer this question:

• Why does Descartes think he knows for certain that he exists? Is he entitled to this conclusion?
[Why or why not?]

Note: To address this question you need to explain exactly what his conclusion was and what the
premises were which supported such a claim. Only then can you offer your thoughts on whether or not
he is entitled to this conclusion. Note, too, that “being entitled” in this case means: “His premises are
valid or strong.”

Remember Valid means: IF the premises were to be true, then the conclusion MUST be true; Sound=the
premises ARE true. This is used for Deductive arguments.

For Inductive arguments (where the answer isn’t 100% certain), premises are judged to be either strong
or weak. (Hume’s argument for explaining the cause of a noise, for example, involves inductive
reasoning – page 180 in our textbook if you’re interested.)

For Deductive arguments: Descartes uses them to argue that the external world exists. It goes
something like this: P1: God is not a deceiver. P2: God exists. Conclusion: God wouldn’t deceive me into
thinking the external world exists if it didn’t.

While this argument is used to prove the existence of the external world IT IS NOT his proof for his own
existence!!!!! You need to write about that, different, argument!).

Choose 3 from the following to answer:

1. Why must a compatibilist argue that we may have future paths open to us, even if those paths
are not physically connected with the present paths? What does van Inwagen say is wrong with
this view?

Note: You’ll need to explain what is meant by Compatibilism. You’ll also need to explain the differences
between Hard and Soft Determinism as well as what is meant by Indeterminism. Pay very close
attention to the final question within this question. In other words, you’ll need to carefully explain van
Inwagen’s argument (Conclusion + Premises) against the compatibilists.

2. How do you understand Parmenides’ claim that ‘what is cannot have come to be’?

Note: this question refers to Parmenides’ claim that:

“…what is unborn and imperishable, a whole of a single kind, unshakable and not incomplete. It
neither was nor will be, because it is now, all of it together, one cohesive. From what birth will
you seek for it? From what would it have grown? I will not you say or think that it came from
what is not. For ‘is not’ cannot be said or thought.”
3. Why does Turing think the “imitation game” is a satisfactory replacement for the question, “Can
machines think?” Do you agree? Why/Why not?

Note: In your answer you will need to explain what Turing’s “imitation game” consists of.
Further, you’ll need to explain what philosophers who study the Philosophy of the Mind (like
Searle) consider the word “think” to mean. How might their idea differ from Turing’s?

4. What distinction does Weirob make between actually remembering something and merely
seeming to remember it? What work does Weirob want the distinction to do?

Note: This question refers to the Perry article in which an imagined philosophy Professor (Prof.
Weirob) is on her deathbed and her friends are trying to argue that she has a soul which will
exist after she is dead. In your answer you’ll need to address John Locke’s idea (see the note on
him with respect to this question in the Notes directly following the essay (on page 332).

5. At the end of his paper, Frankfurt formulates a version of the PAP that he thinks succeeds. What
do you think Frankfurt means when he talks about someone performing an action because he or
she could not have done otherwise? What could this mean?

Note: Explain the first version of Principle of Alternate Possibilities and what Frankfurt thought
was wrong with it. Next, explain his version of it. Then answer the rest of the questions
associated with this question. As you do, think about the larger philosophical issues within this
discussion on Ethics.

6. [This question refers to Study Question #1 page 520]

Kant said: “Even if…this will is entirely lacking in power to carry out its intentions; if by its utmost
effort it still accomplishes nothing, and only good will is left; even then it would still shine like a
jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself”?

• What did he mean by it and describe how this quote refers to the Categorical Imperative?

Note: In your answer be very clear what Deontological Ethics {aka Kantian Ethics} is all about.
How does it differ from Consequentialism/Utilitarianism? How does it differ from
Aristotelian/Virtue Ethics?

EXTRA CREDIT: Study Question #4 page 21

• What do you think Russell means when he says, “All acquisition of knowledge is an
enlargement of the Self”? Do you think he is right? How might this relate to Socrates’ idea
that the unexamined life is not worth living?

Note: You’ll need to explain Russell’s ideas before you explore your own. You might want to
consider Socrates’ ideas in your answer as well. To go even further, you’ll want to think about
what Russell and you mean by “the Self.”
 RUBRIC

MAX points Excellent (A) Good (B) Average (C) Poor (D-F)
25 points 20 points 17.5 points 15-12 points

Thesis There is a clear The thesis is obvious The thesis is present There is no thesis.
5- points statement of but there is no clear but must be
your primary statement uncovered or
idea. reconstructed.
Premises Each reason for The premises are The premises must There are no
MAX 5 supporting your clear, but not all are be reconstructed premises or none of
points idea is made valid/strong from the text. Most them are
clear. Each of the premises are valid/strong.
premise is not valid/strong.
valid/strong
Examples Examples used Examples are relevant Examples are only Examples are
MAX 5 are relevant, but not well-used somewhat relevant, missing, irrelevant
points insightful and not well-used and/or misused
well-used to
support your
thesis
Successfully Integrates most of the Some parts are The parts to be
presents the relevant parts into a integrated into a integrated are not
issue or mostly coherent somewhat coherent clear and/or
Analysis problem into whole. The whole. The irrelevant. The
MAX 5 relevant parts. connections between connections connections
points The connections the parts are generally between the parts between the parts
between the clear. are somewhat are unclear.
parts are clear unclear.
and insightful.
Counterarguments Counterarguments There are no
Counterargume have been mentioned, may not have been counterarguments.
nts have been but not wholly considered
considered. considered.

Correctly Correctly and Correctly stated the Offered partially Incorrectly stated
answers the coherently main idea and/or correct answers. the main idea of a
stated the premise of a (e.g. correctly philosopher and/or
question(s) main idea philosopher or stated the main branch of
MAX 5 and/or premise branch of idea of a philosophy
points of a philosophy. philosopher or
philosopher or branch of
branch of philosophy but
philosophy incorrectly stated
the premises
supporting the
idea).