Phil 101 Study Guide

I will add to the guide periodically. I will notify you by e-mail when new items have been added.

The examinations in this course will cover the items in this study guide. Our exams are comprehensive: each one covers all material previously presented in the course. The exception is this: after an exam, some items on the study guide will be struck out (so they look like this). Those items will not appear on any future exams.

Contents

My expectations (including some handy sample answers)
How to use this guide
Study items for:

What is Philosophy?
Basic logic
Does God exist?
Can we know if matter exists?
Do we have free will?
How should we live?

My expectations--including some sample answers

For a term, can you give its definition + say why it matters in this course?

For example, for "valid," you should be able to
(a) define it, like "Validity is something deductive arguments can have. An argument is valid when its conclusion would have to be true if its premises were true," and also
(b) explain why the term matters in the course. You could say, "Validity matters in this course because we often evaluate arguments, and seeing whether an argument is valid helps us figure out whether its conclusion is well supported."

To say why a term matters, can you say something specific about that term? Vague answers like, "Term X matters in philosophy because philosophers discuss X" or "because we studied X in the course" do not show much understanding.
Instead, identify where the term played a role in the course, and what that role was.

For example, "strong." It came up in basic logic, where discussed arguments and how to evaluate them. So, for "strong," you could say "It matters in this course because it is relevant to how we evaluate inductive arguments; this is important because arguments are the most basic tool of philosophy."
Or "primary quality." You could say, "Locke uses the term; he distinguishes primary qualities from secondary qualities so he can say how some of our sensations actually resemble things around us while some sensations don't. Locke thinks this helps us tell how accurate our sensations are."

For a name, can you identify the main points that person made in the assigned reading?

For example, for "St. Anselm of Canterbury," can you say more than just that he gave an argument for God? Identify the main points he made in the assigned readings, like this: "Anselm argued that God exists. To do that, he gave a deductive, ontological argument. He also replied to Gaunilo's objections to his argument."
Or for for "Bertrand Russell," can you do more than just describe his argument about the cat? Identify the main points he made in the assigned portion of The Problems of Philosophy, like this: "Russell was writing about our knowledge of the external world, and he argued that although (a) appearances often differ from (what we take to be) reality, and (b) we cannot prove that life isn't just a continuous dream or illusion, nevertheless (c) we can still be confident that things like cats and people do exist outside us."

For an argument, can you...

State the argument? You might state it in standard form (numbered premises and conclusion) and/or write it out in a paragraph. But however you state it, you need to both identify its premises and, for each conclusion, explain how that conclusion is supposed to be supported by the premises. Even if you put it in standard form, you still need to explain.
Critically evaluate the argument, if this was discussed in class? For example, for Descartes's argument for corporeal objects, be able to explain its weaknesses. You may not be able to explain them all -- in fact, trying to do that would be too much -- but even in an exam you should be able to identify at least one substantial criticism of an argument if asked to, if those were discussed in class.

How to use this guide

I will notify you when I add things to the study guide. Emails will come from Moodle's Announcements forum to your DePauw e-mail, so you should check them, or visit this page, regularly.

Re-load this page each time to ensure you see the latest version.

When new items appear:

Review your study materials (readings and e-readings on our Google drive, notes from class, class recordings, etc.)--especially anything cited in the study guide,
Write out responses to each item, making your definitions, explanations, critiques, etc. clear, complete, and thoughtful, and
Study these materials and your responses periodically to prepare for exams and class discussions.

Need help with anything here? Ask me for help.

Items which have been struck out (so they look like this) will not be used on future exams.

I encourage you to study with others. However, on papers and exams you need to do your own work. No collaborating with others.

Study items for: What is Philosophy?

Terms (see "my expectations" above for what you need to know about terms):

Metaphysics (Bailey, xiv)
Epistemology (Bailey, xiv)
Value Theory (aka Ethics) (Bailey, xiv-xv)

You should be able to:

Identify whether a question or problem pertains to metaphysics, epistemology, or value theory--or more than one of them--and explain why (Bailey, xiv-xv).
Explain the similarities and differences between philosophy and science (for example, biology) with regard to what questions they try to answer and their methods for seeking answers (Bailey, xiii-xiv; discussion 2021-08-27).
Explain why philosophy’s methods differ from those used in empirical sciences (for example, biology) (Bailey, xiii-xiv may be helpful, but the most thorough answer comes from our discussion on 2021-08-27).

Study items for: Basic logic

Terms (all the logic terms are defined in the Logic Terms handout on our Google Drive):

Ethos (Aristotle, 7)
Pathos (Aristotle, 7)
Logos (Aristotle, 7)
Argument (Bailey, xvi; Anderson, section 1)
Premises (Bailey, xvi; Anderson, sec. 1)
Conclusion (Bailey, xvi; Anderson, sec. 1)
Inductive argument (Anderson, sec. 2)
Strong
Weak
Deductive argument (Anderson, sec. 4)
Valid (Bailey, xvii; Anderson, sec. 5; also see the validity exercise from class, in the Drive with our class notes)
Invalid (Bailey, xvii)
Sound (Bailey, xvii; Anderson, sec. 5)
Unsound (Bailey, xvii)

Names (see "my expectations" above for what you need to know about names):

Aristotle

You should be able to:

Give examples of ethos (both kinds!), pathos, and logos, and explain why each is an example.
Identify an argument, its premise(s), and its conclusion(s).
Identify, or at least make an educated guess, whether a given argument is inductive or deductive, and explain why.
When discussing premises, conclusions, deductive arguments, and inductive arguments, properly apply the terms "true," "false," "valid," "invalid," "strong," and "weak"--in other words, show you know which terms apply to what things. (This is at the end of the Logic Terms handout.)

Study items for: Does God exist?

Terms:

Ontological argument (Bailey, 2 might be helpful but class notes will be better)
Cosmological argument (Bailey, 2 may be helpful but see class notes)
Design (or teleological) argument (Bailey, 2 may be helpful but see class notes)
Irreducible complexity (Behe, 21)

Names:

St. Anselm of Canterbury
Gaunilo of Marmoutiers (pronounced "gow-nillow of mar-moo-tee-ay")
St. Thomas Aquinas (pronounced "uh-KWAI-nuss")
Dean Kenyon & Michael Dembski
Carl Sagan
Michael Behe
William James

Arguments (see "my expectations" above for what you need to know about arguments; class notes will often be helpful):

Anselm's argument that God exists (Anselm, 7) (It's good if you know the gist of it (explained in class 2021-09-03), but I will expect you to know the fuller version explained in class 2021-09-08; class notes will be helpful.)
Aquinas's "First Way" (Aquinas, 26; the version from class is the third one on the Aquinas class notes)
Kenyon & Dembski's argument (see the video and/or the transcript)
Carl Sagan's argument for a naturalistic account of DNA (see both the Sagan videos)
Michael Behe's argument
Pascal's Wager (in James, 113-14)

You should be able to:

Explain why "Does God exist?" is an important question.
Explain at least two objections to Anselm's ontological argument (for example, Gaunilo's "Lost Island" objection in paragraph 6, p. 10). (Remember that a well-formed objection to an argument is also an argument.)
Explain at least two objections to Aquinas' "First Way." (Class notes notes will be helpful here; they give three objections.)
Explain (a) how Sagan's argument challenges Kenyon & Dembski's design argument, plus (b) at least one other objection to Kenyon & Dembski's argument. (Class notes will be helpful here.)
Explain at least one objection to Sagan's naturalistic argument for DNA. (Class notes will be helpful here.)
Explain (a) at least two objections to Michael Behe's design argument and (b) how Behe could reply to at least one of those objections. (Class notes will be helpful here.)
Identify whether an argument is ontological, cosmological, or teleological, and explain why.
Explain Clifford's view (which is shared by Clough and Huxley) (James, 114-5, 119).
In class we discussed why Pascal's Wager seems wrong. Explain that.
In class we looked at how James defends Pascal's Wager. Why does James think it is hopeless to wait for proof (118)? Why does James think we should not suspend belief indefinitely (121)?

Study items for: Can we know if matter exists?

Terms:

Method of doubt (state the two rules) (class notes; Descartes, 143)
Dream doubt (just what the doubt is, not the argument for it; the argument is below) (class notes; Descartes, 144)
Defective nature doubt (again, just what the doubt is, not the argument for it) (class notes; Descartes, 145)
Mind/body problem (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart)
Interactionist dualism (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart)
Monism (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart)

Names:

René Descartes (pronounced "reh-nay day-cart"
John Locke
George Berkeley (pronounced "bark-lee")
Bertrand Russell

Arguments:

Descartes's Dream argument (class notes; Descartes, 144)
Descartes's Defective Nature Doubt argument (class notes; Descartes, 145)
Descartes's argument that God exists (152-4, 157; also see "Descartes's Arguments," esp. lines 31-91)
Descartes's argument that God would not deceive (157; also see "Descartes's Arguments," esp. lines 234-64)
Descartes's argument that mind and body are "completely distinct" (i.e., separable; 166-7)
Descartes's argument that corporeal things (that is, material things) exist (167; see class notes)
Locke's arguments that material things exist (185-6, §§3-8; see class notes)
Berkeley's bad argument that we cannot know about matter (§§ 1-4; see class notes)
Berkeley's argument that mind (spirit, soul) exists (§26) (see class notes)
Berkeley's better argument that we cannot know about matter -- that is, his arguments that:
(a) sensations alone don't show that material things exist (§18)
(b) there is no sound deductive argument for material things (§18)
(c) there is no strong inductive argument for material things (§19) (see class notes)
Berkeley's argument that God exists (§§28-32; also see §§146-7, §§148-9, and class notes)
Russell's argument that material things exist (10-11, and class notes).

You should be able to:

Identify the five features of our beliefs we identified and discussed in class. What were the "foundations" we identified?
Explain Descartes's overall project: his goal, the main obstacle he faces, and how he proposes to overcome his doubts (143-4).
Explain how Descartes's standard for what counts as "knowledge" differs from ours (cf. Descartes, 143). What historical reasons help explain why it is this way (cf. Bailey, 135-6)?
Explain why Defective Nature Doubt is more comprehensive than Dream Doubt--that is, why DND casts doubt on everything DD does, plus more of Descartes' old beliefs (class notes on M2; Descartes, 144-5).
Explain why Descartes is certain he exists (146).
Explain why Descartes believes he is (i.e., why in M2 he is only sure of being) a "thinking thing" (146-7). What does Descartes say a thinking thing is (148)?
Explain why proving God exists and is no deceiver would be an appropriate strategy for dispelling defective nature doubt. In other words, why would it work (if it could be done)? Why would it be better than the other strategy we discussed in class?
Explain at least one objection to Descartes's argument that God exists ("Descartes's Arguments" discusses several objections; "Weaponizing the Method of Doubt" may help, too).
What if matter were all that exists? In class, we identified some concerns about this; what were they? Explain Descartes's reasons for wanting to show that mind and body are "completely distinct" (i.e., separable).
Identify what Descartes thinks are the main properties of mind (also called soul, spirit, or mental substance) and the main properties of matter (also called body, corporeal substance, or material substance) (167, 170).
Explain at least two objections to Descartes' argument that material things exist. (Class notes will help.)
Explain how Descartes' standard for what counts as knowledge differs from Locke's (cf. Descartes, 143 and Locke, 184-5; also see class notes on Locke).
Explain Locke's view (which Descartes shares, by the way) on the proper role of the senses. In other words, explain what Locke thinks the senses are good for, and what they are not good for (Locke, 186 §8; cf. Descartes, 169).
Identify at least two objections to Locke's arguments that material things exist.
In class we noted two problems with Berkeley's bad argument that we cannot know about matter. Explain both of them.
Russell believes sensations often do not tell us how things really are. Explain why Russell thinks this is so regarding color and texture (2-3).

Study items for: Do we have free will?

Terms:

[These will be added as we go.]

Names:

[These will be added as we go.]

Arguments:

[These will be added as we go.]

You should be able to:

[These will be added as we go.]

Study items for: How should we live?

Terms:

[These will be added as we go.]

Names:

[These will be added as we go.]

You should be able to:

[These will be added as we go.]

TOP

		I will add to the guide periodically. I will notify you by e-mail when new items have been added. The examinations in this course will cover the items in this study guide. Our exams are comprehensive: each one covers all material previously presented in the course. The exception is this: after an exam, some items on the study guide will be struck out (so they look like this). Those items will not appear on any future exams. Contents My expectations (including some handy sample answers) How to use this guide Study items for: What is Philosophy? Basic logic Does God exist? Can we know if matter exists? Do we have free will? How should we live? My expectations--including some sample answers For a term, can you give its definition + say why it matters in this course? For example, for "valid," you should be able to (a) define it, like "Validity is something deductive arguments can have. An argument is valid when its conclusion would have to be true if its premises were true," and also (b) explain why the term matters in the course. You could say, "Validity matters in this course because we often evaluate arguments, and seeing whether an argument is valid helps us figure out whether its conclusion is well supported." To say why a term matters, can you say something specific about that term? Vague answers like, "Term X matters in philosophy because philosophers discuss X" or "because we studied X in the course" do not show much understanding. Instead, identify where the term played a role in the course, and what that role was. For example, "strong." It came up in basic logic, where discussed arguments and how to evaluate them. So, for "strong," you could say "It matters in this course because it is relevant to how we evaluate inductive arguments; this is important because arguments are the most basic tool of philosophy." Or "primary quality." You could say, "Locke uses the term; he distinguishes primary qualities from secondary qualities so he can say how some of our sensations actually resemble things around us while some sensations don't. Locke thinks this helps us tell how accurate our sensations are." For a name, can you identify the main points that person made in the assigned reading? For example, for "St. Anselm of Canterbury," can you say more than just that he gave an argument for God? Identify the main points he made in the assigned readings, like this: "Anselm argued that God exists. To do that, he gave a deductive, ontological argument. He also replied to Gaunilo's objections to his argument." Or for for "Bertrand Russell," can you do more than just describe his argument about the cat? Identify the main points he made in the assigned portion of The Problems of Philosophy, like this: "Russell was writing about our knowledge of the external world, and he argued that although (a) appearances often differ from (what we take to be) reality, and (b) we cannot prove that life isn't just a continuous dream or illusion, nevertheless (c) we can still be confident that things like cats and people do exist outside us." For an argument, can you... State the argument? You might state it in standard form (numbered premises and conclusion) and/or write it out in a paragraph. But however you state it, you need to both identify its premises and, for each conclusion, explain how that conclusion is supposed to be supported by the premises. Even if you put it in standard form, you still need to explain. Critically evaluate the argument, if this was discussed in class? For example, for Descartes's argument for corporeal objects, be able to explain its weaknesses. You may not be able to explain them all -- in fact, trying to do that would be too much -- but even in an exam you should be able to identify at least one substantial criticism of an argument if asked to, if those were discussed in class. How to use this guide I will notify you when I add things to the study guide. Emails will come from Moodle's Announcements forum to your DePauw e-mail, so you should check them, or visit this page, regularly. Re-load this page each time to ensure you see the latest version. When new items appear: Review your study materials (readings and e-readings on our Google drive, notes from class, class recordings, etc.)--especially anything cited in the study guide, Write out responses to each item, making your definitions, explanations, critiques, etc. clear, complete, and thoughtful, and Study these materials and your responses periodically to prepare for exams and class discussions. Need help with anything here? Ask me for help. Items which have been struck out (so they look like this) will not be used on future exams. I encourage you to study with others. However, on papers and exams you need to do your own work. No collaborating with others. Study items for: What is Philosophy? Terms (see "my expectations" above for what you need to know about terms): Metaphysics (Bailey, xiv) Epistemology (Bailey, xiv) Value Theory (aka Ethics) (Bailey, xiv-xv) You should be able to: Identify whether a question or problem pertains to metaphysics, epistemology, or value theory--or more than one of them--and explain why (Bailey, xiv-xv). Explain the similarities and differences between philosophy and science (for example, biology) with regard to what questions they try to answer and their methods for seeking answers (Bailey, xiii-xiv; discussion 2021-08-27). Explain why philosophy’s methods differ from those used in empirical sciences (for example, biology) (Bailey, xiii-xiv may be helpful, but the most thorough answer comes from our discussion on 2021-08-27). Study items for: Basic logic Terms (all the logic terms are defined in the Logic Terms handout on our Google Drive): Ethos (Aristotle, 7) Pathos (Aristotle, 7) Logos (Aristotle, 7) Argument (Bailey, xvi; Anderson, section 1) Premises (Bailey, xvi; Anderson, sec. 1) Conclusion (Bailey, xvi; Anderson, sec. 1) Inductive argument (Anderson, sec. 2) Strong Weak Deductive argument (Anderson, sec. 4) Valid (Bailey, xvii; Anderson, sec. 5; also see the validity exercise from class, in the Drive with our class notes) Invalid (Bailey, xvii) Sound (Bailey, xvii; Anderson, sec. 5) Unsound (Bailey, xvii) Names (see "my expectations" above for what you need to know about names): Aristotle You should be able to: Give examples of ethos (both kinds!), pathos, and logos, and explain why each is an example. Identify an argument, its premise(s), and its conclusion(s). Identify, or at least make an educated guess, whether a given argument is inductive or deductive, and explain why. When discussing premises, conclusions, deductive arguments, and inductive arguments, properly apply the terms "true," "false," "valid," "invalid," "strong," and "weak"--in other words, show you know which terms apply to what things. (This is at the end of the Logic Terms handout.) Study items for: Does God exist? Terms: Ontological argument (Bailey, 2 might be helpful but class notes will be better) Cosmological argument (Bailey, 2 may be helpful but see class notes) Design (or teleological) argument (Bailey, 2 may be helpful but see class notes) Irreducible complexity (Behe, 21) Names: St. Anselm of Canterbury Gaunilo of Marmoutiers (pronounced "gow-nillow of mar-moo-tee-ay") St. Thomas Aquinas (pronounced "uh-KWAI-nuss") Dean Kenyon & Michael Dembski Carl Sagan Michael Behe William James Arguments (see "my expectations" above for what you need to know about arguments; class notes will often be helpful): Anselm's argument that God exists (Anselm, 7) (It's good if you know the gist of it (explained in class 2021-09-03), but I will expect you to know the fuller version explained in class 2021-09-08; class notes will be helpful.) Aquinas's "First Way" (Aquinas, 26; the version from class is the third one on the Aquinas class notes) Kenyon & Dembski's argument (see the video and/or the transcript) Carl Sagan's argument for a naturalistic account of DNA (see both the Sagan videos) Michael Behe's argument Pascal's Wager (in James, 113-14) You should be able to: Explain why "Does God exist?" is an important question. Explain at least two objections to Anselm's ontological argument (for example, Gaunilo's "Lost Island" objection in paragraph 6, p. 10). (Remember that a well-formed objection to an argument is also an argument.) Explain at least two objections to Aquinas' "First Way." (Class notes notes will be helpful here; they give three objections.) Explain (a) how Sagan's argument challenges Kenyon & Dembski's design argument, plus (b) at least one other objection to Kenyon & Dembski's argument. (Class notes will be helpful here.) Explain at least one objection to Sagan's naturalistic argument for DNA. (Class notes will be helpful here.) Explain (a) at least two objections to Michael Behe's design argument and (b) how Behe could reply to at least one of those objections. (Class notes will be helpful here.) Identify whether an argument is ontological, cosmological, or teleological, and explain why. Explain Clifford's view (which is shared by Clough and Huxley) (James, 114-5, 119). In class we discussed why Pascal's Wager seems wrong. Explain that. In class we looked at how James defends Pascal's Wager. Why does James think it is hopeless to wait for proof (118)? Why does James think we should not suspend belief indefinitely (121)? Study items for: Can we know if matter exists? Terms: Method of doubt (state the two rules) (class notes; Descartes, 143) Dream doubt (just what the doubt is, not the argument for it; the argument is below) (class notes; Descartes, 144) Defective nature doubt (again, just what the doubt is, not the argument for it) (class notes; Descartes, 145) Mind/body problem (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart) Interactionist dualism (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart) Monism (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart) Names: René Descartes (pronounced "reh-nay day-cart" John Locke George Berkeley (pronounced "bark-lee") Bertrand Russell Arguments: Descartes's Dream argument (class notes; Descartes, 144) Descartes's Defective Nature Doubt argument (class notes; Descartes, 145) Descartes's argument that God exists (152-4, 157; also see "Descartes's Arguments," esp. lines 31-91) Descartes's argument that God would not deceive (157; also see "Descartes's Arguments," esp. lines 234-64) Descartes's argument that mind and body are "completely distinct" (i.e., separable; 166-7) Descartes's argument that corporeal things (that is, material things) exist (167; see class notes) Locke's arguments that material things exist (185-6, §§3-8; see class notes) Berkeley's bad argument that we cannot know about matter (§§ 1-4; see class notes) Berkeley's argument that mind (spirit, soul) exists (§26) (see class notes) Berkeley's better argument that we cannot know about matter -- that is, his arguments that: (a) sensations alone don't show that material things exist (§18) (b) there is no sound deductive argument for material things (§18) (c) there is no strong inductive argument for material things (§19) (see class notes) Berkeley's argument that God exists (§§28-32; also see §§146-7, §§148-9, and class notes) Russell's argument that material things exist (10-11, and class notes). You should be able to: Identify the five features of our beliefs we identified and discussed in class. What were the "foundations" we identified? Explain Descartes's overall project: his goal, the main obstacle he faces, and how he proposes to overcome his doubts (143-4). Explain how Descartes's standard for what counts as "knowledge" differs from ours (cf. Descartes, 143). What historical reasons help explain why it is this way (cf. Bailey, 135-6)? Explain why Defective Nature Doubt is more comprehensive than Dream Doubt--that is, why DND casts doubt on everything DD does, plus more of Descartes' old beliefs (class notes on M2; Descartes, 144-5). Explain why Descartes is certain he exists (146). Explain why Descartes believes he is (i.e., why in M2 he is only sure of being) a "thinking thing" (146-7). What does Descartes say a thinking thing is (148)? Explain why proving God exists and is no deceiver would be an appropriate strategy for dispelling defective nature doubt. In other words, why would it work (if it could be done)? Why would it be better than the other strategy we discussed in class? Explain at least one objection to Descartes's argument that God exists ("Descartes's Arguments" discusses several objections; "Weaponizing the Method of Doubt" may help, too). What if matter were all that exists? In class, we identified some concerns about this; what were they? Explain Descartes's reasons for wanting to show that mind and body are "completely distinct" (i.e., separable). Identify what Descartes thinks are the main properties of mind (also called soul, spirit, or mental substance) and the main properties of matter (also called body, corporeal substance, or material substance) (167, 170). Explain at least two objections to Descartes' argument that material things exist. (Class notes will help.) Explain how Descartes' standard for what counts as knowledge differs from Locke's (cf. Descartes, 143 and Locke, 184-5; also see class notes on Locke). Explain Locke's view (which Descartes shares, by the way) on the proper role of the senses. In other words, explain what Locke thinks the senses are good for, and what they are not good for (Locke, 186 §8; cf. Descartes, 169). Identify at least two objections to Locke's arguments that material things exist. In class we noted two problems with Berkeley's bad argument that we cannot know about matter. Explain both of them. Russell believes sensations often do not tell us how things really are. Explain why Russell thinks this is so regarding color and texture (2-3). Study items for: Do we have free will? Terms: [These will be added as we go.] Names: [These will be added as we go.] Arguments: [These will be added as we go.] You should be able to: [These will be added as we go.] Study items for: How should we live? Terms: [These will be added as we go.] Names: [These will be added as we go.] You should be able to: [These will be added as we go.]
		TOP