Spring2021
Study Guide
Phil 101: Introduction to Philosophy
Prof. Jeremy Anderson
. .

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:


 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) give a definition, such as "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, to find something specific to say, 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.

  • Items that have been struck out (so they look like this) have appeared on a previous exam and will not appear on any future exam. Any items that have not been struck out may still appear on a future exam, even if they were on a previous exam.


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:
  1. 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,
  2. Write out responses to each item, making your definitions, explanations, critiques, etc. clear, complete, and thoughtful, and
  3. 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):
    1. Metaphysics (Bailey, xiv)
    2. Epistemology (Bailey, xiv)
    3. Value Theory (aka Ethics) (Bailey, xiv-xv)
You should be able to:
  1. 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).
  2. 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 2021-02-05).
  3. 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 2021-01-05).

Study items for: Basic Logic

Terms (all the logic terms are defined in the Logic Terms handout on our Google Drive):
  1. Ethos (Aristotle, 7)
  2. Pathos (Aristotle, 7)
  3. Logos (Aristotle, 7)
  4. Argument (Bailey, xvi; Anderson, section 1)
  5. Premises (Bailey, xvi; Anderson, sec. 1)
  6. Conclusion (Bailey, xvi; Anderson, sec. 1)
  7. Inductive argument (Anderson, sec. 2)
  8. Strong
  9. Weak
  10. Deductive argument (Anderson, sec. 4)
  11. Valid (Bailey, xvii; Anderson, sec. 5; also see the validity exercise from class, in the Drive with our class notes)
  12. Invalid (Bailey, xvii)
  13. Sound (Bailey, xvii; Anderson, sec. 5)
  14. Unsound (Bailey, xvii)
Names (see "my expectations" above for what you need to know about names):
  1. Aristotle
You should be able to:
  1. Give examples of ethos (both kinds!), pathos, and logos, and explain why each is an example.
  2. Identify an argument,  its premise(s), and its conclusion(s).
  3. Identify, or at least make an educated guess, whether a given argument is inductive or deductive, and explain why.
  4. 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: Metaphysics/Does God Exist?

Terms:
  1. Ontological argument (Bailey, 2 is helpful but class notes will be better)
  2. Cosmological argument (Bailey, 2 is helpful but see class notes)
  3. Design (or teleological) argument (Bailey, 2 is helpful but see class notes)
  4. Irreducible complexity (Behe, 21)
Names:
  1. St. Anselm of Canterbury
  2. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers (pronounced "gow-nillow of mar-moo-tee-ay")
  3. St. Thomas Aquinas (pronounced "uh-KWAI-nuss")
  4. Dean Kenyon & Michael Dembski
  5. Carl Sagan
  6. Michael Behe
  7. William James
Arguments (see "my expectations" above for what you need to know about arguments):
  1. Anselm's argument that God exists (Anselm, 7)
  2. Aquinas's "First Way" (Aquinas, 26; the version from class is the third one on the Aquinas class notes)
  3. Kenyon & Dembski's argument (see the video and/or the transcript)
  4. Carl Sagan's argument for a naturalistic account of DNA (see both the Sagan videos)
  5. Michael Behe's argument
  6. Pascal's Wager (in James, 113-14)
You should be able to:
  1. Explain why "Does God exist?" is an important question.
  2. Explain at least two objections to Anselm's ontological argument (for example, Gaunilo's "Lost Island" objection in paragraph 6, pp. 25-6). (Remember that a well-formed objection to an argument is also an argument.)
  3. Explain at least two objections to Aquinas' "First Way." (Class notes will be helpful here.)
  4. 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.)
  5. Explain at least one objection to Sagan's naturalistic argument for DNA. (Class notes will be helpful here.)
  6. 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.)
  7. Identify whether an argument is ontological, cosmological, or teleological, and explain why.
  8. Explain Clifford's view (which is shared by Clough and Huxley) (James, 114-5, 119).
  9. In class we looked at some reasons why Pascal's Wager seems wrong. Explain at least one of them.
  10. 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: Epistemology & Metaphysics/Can we Know if Matter Exists?

Terms:
  1. Method of doubt (state the two rules) (class notes; Descartes, 143)
  2. Dream doubt (just what the doubt is, not the argument for it; the argument is below) (class notes; Descartes, 144)
  3. Defective nature doubt (again, just what the doubt is, not the argument for it) (class notes; Descartes, 145)
  4. Mind/body problem (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart)
  5. Interactionist dualism (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart)
  6. Non-interactionist dualism (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart)
  7. Monism (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart)
  8. Immaterialist monism (see the Mind/Body Problem Handout or Chart)
  9. Intuitive knowledge (defined in class; see class notes)
  10. Demonstrative knowledge (defined in class; see class notes)
  11. Sensitive knowledge (defined in class; see class notes)
Names:
  1. René Descartes (pronounced "reh-nay day-cart"
  2. John Locke
  3. George Berkeley (pronounced "bark-lee") 
  4. Bertrand Russell
Arguments:
  1. Descartes's Dream argument (class notes; Descartes, 144)
  2. Descartes's Defective Nature Doubt argument (class notes; Descartes, 145)
  3. Descartes's argument that God exists (157; also see "Descartes's Arguments," esp. lines 31-91)
  4. Descartes's argument that God would not deceive (158; also see "Descartes's Arguments," esp. lines 234-64)
  5. Descartes's argument that mind and body are "really distinct" (i.e., separable; 166-7; class notes)
  6. Descartes's argument that material things exist (167; see class notes)
  7. Locke's arguments that material things exist (185-6, §§3-8; see class notes)
  8. Berkeley's bad argument that we cannot know about matter (§§ 1-4) (see class notes)
  9. Berkeley's argument that mind (spirit, soul) exists (§26) (see class notes)
  10. 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)
  11. Berkeley's argument that God exists (§§28-32; also see §§146-7, §§148-9, and see class notes)
  12. Russell's argument that material things exist (10-11, and see class notes).
You should be able to:
  1. Identify the five features of our beliefs we identified and discussed in class. What were the "foundations" we identified?
  2. Explain Descartes' overall project: his goal, the main obstacle he faces, and how he proposes to overcome his doubts (143-4).
  3. Explain how Descartes' 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)?
  4. 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).
  5. Explain why Descartes is certain he exists (146).
  6. 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)?
  7. 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 (class notes on M3)? 
  8. 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).
  9. 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 "really distinct" (i.e., separable).
  10. 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; class notes).
  11. Explain at least two objections to Descartes' argument that material things exist. (Class notes will help.)
  12. 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).
  13. 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; and see Locke class notes).
  14. Identify at least two objections to Locke's arguments that material things exist.
  15. In class we noted two problems with Berkeley's bad argument that we cannot know about matter. Explain both of them.
  16. Russell believes sensations often do not tell us how things really are. Explain why Russell thinks this is so regarding color, texture, and shape (2-3).
  17. Explain at least one objection to Russell's argument that material things exist (Russell, 10-11). (For example, lecture explained how Berkeley's view could explain our sense-data as well as Russell's view.)

Study items for: More Metaphysics/Do We Have Free Will?

Terms:
  1. Free will (class notes)
  2. Determinism (class notes)
  3. The problem of free will (the version in class is quite different from the one in Bailey, so use class notes)
  4. Hard determinism (class notes; note that Bailey treats "determinism" as a synonym for "hard determinism," but in class we do not)
  5. Libertarianism (class notes)
  6. Compatibilism (class notes)
Names:
  1. Paul Rée (pronounced "ray")
  2. David Eagleman
  3. C.A. Campbell
Arguments:
  1. Rée's "sufficient cause" argument that our choices are all determined (Rée, 417; class notes).
You should be able to:
  1. Explain how Rée argues that our choices are determined by his comparison of the stone, the donkey, and us (531-4).
  2. Explain how Rée and Eagleman account for our belief that we have free will (536-8; Eagleman). (It will be helpful to discuss Eagleman's "stowaway" and "newspaper" comparisons.)
  3. How does Rée argue that we are not responsible for what we do (Rée 425; class notes)
  4. According to Campbell, when are we morally responsible (in other words, what are the three criteria for being responsible) (Campbell, 546-7)?
  5. What choices does Campbell say are free (and for which we may be responsible) (550, end of §5)? Give an example of a free choice, and explain why it's an example.
  6. How does Campbell argue that introspection is good evidence of free will (Campbell, 550)? Why is this really not very strong evidence (Campbell, 550; class notes)?
  7. Explain how a determinist could argue that our predictability shows that we do not have free will (cf. Campbell, 552). Then, explain how Campbell argues against this (552-3).

Study items for: Ethics/How Should We Live?

Terms:
  1. Tao (class notes)
Names:
  1. Chuang-tzu
  2. Richard Taylor
  3. Leo Tolstoy
  4. Glaucon (in the Plato reading)
You should be able to:
  1. Explain how "The Tale of the Butcher" uses the butcher and the bull to teach a lesson about how to live. Explain what that lesson is.
  2. Explain the lesson in "The Tale of the Dying Men."
  3. Explain the lesson in "The Tale of the Horses."
  4. Explain at least one problem with Chuang-Tzu's view.
  5. Explain what Taylor thinks is a meaningless life, clearly identifying what he thinks makes it meaningless (1-3, 4). (It would be good to illustrate it, as he does, with the myth of Sisyphus or something similar.)
  6. Explain why Taylor thinks the glow worms' lives are meaningless (4-5), and why he thinks ours are meaningless, too, despite our differences from the worms (5-6, 7).
  7. Taylor considers two possibilities for what might count as a meaningful life. Identify each one, and explain why he rejects one and accepts the other (7-9).
  8. Explain at least one problem with Taylor's view.
  9. Explain what Tolstoy thinks fails to give life meaning (Tolstoy, 1-7). It may be helpful to discuss the "Eastern story about the traveler" (3): what does it imply about Tolstoy's attitude towards death, his work, his family? 
  10. Explain what Tolstoy thinks does make life meaningful (7-8). Why does he think it does this?
  11. Compare Tolstoy's proposal for a good/meaningful life with (a) Chuang-tzu's and (b) Taylor's. How are they similar? How do they differ?
  12. Identify Glaucon's four claims about human nature (Plato, 611-2; also on the slides, which are with our class notes). Explain what conclusions he draws from them--i.e., how he says they justify government, and what sort of good "the many" say government and justice are.
  13. Explain how Glaucon's views on government and human nature differ from Chuang-tzu's.
  14. Explain how Glaucon's views on morality differ from Tolstoy's.
  15. Describe the results of our survey of what people would do with the Ring of Gyges. How do they help to confirm Glaucon's view?
This completes the study guide for this course.

Porky Pig says, "That's all, folks!"

Any items which have been struck out (so they look like this) will not appear on the final exam. Any other items may appear on the final exam.

The exam will be posted on Moodle by 6pm Wednesday May 12, and will be due by 6pm EDT (UTC-4:00) Tuesday May 18.
.
TOP

Content copyright © 2009 Jeremy Anderson
.