PHILOSOPHY EXAM REVIEW
This is a list of possible exam questions. All components of the exam will be drawn
from this review sheet.
PART A. Explain the difference between the pair of ideas that are listed below. These
need to be specific and be answered in sentence form Give a definition and example of
each term. You will be expected to answer 5 pairs out of 7 on the exam
Part A: Short Answer Preparation
Below are definitions and examples for each pair of ideas.
A priori knowledge vs empirical knowledge
A priori knowledge: Knowledge independent of experience, derived through reason (e.g., "All bachelors are unmarried").
Empirical knowledge: Knowledge gained through sensory experience (e.g., learning it’s raining by seeing it or feeling the raindrops).
Analysis vs synthesis
Analysis: Breaking a concept into parts to understand it better (e.g., analyzing the structure of an argument).
Synthesis: Combining ideas or parts to form a whole (e.g., synthesizing various arguments into a new philosophical position).
Anthropomorphic vs polytheistic
Anthropomorphic: Attributing human traits to non-human entities (e.g., imagining gods having emotions like jealousy).
Polytheistic: Belief in multiple gods, often with distinct roles (e.g., Greek mythology with Zeus, Athena, and Poseidon).
Buzzword vs concept
Buzzword: Trendy or overused term lacking depth (e.g., “synergy” in corporate language).
Concept: An idea or principle with depth and clarity (e.g., "freedom" as a philosophical idea).
Philosophy vs a philosophy
Philosophy: The study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, and values.
A philosophy: A particular system of thought or approach to life (e.g., Stoicism as a philosophy).
Deism vs theism
Deism: Belief in a non-intervening creator god (e.g., God as a clockmaker).
Theism: Belief in a personal god involved in human affairs (e.g., the Christian God answering prayers).
Materialism vs immaterialism
Materialism: Belief that reality is solely physical (e.g., everything can be reduced to matter).
Immaterialism: Belief that reality is primarily non-physical or mental (e.g., Berkeley’s idea that only minds and perceptions exist).
Social freedom vs rational freedom
Social freedom: Freedom is the absence of external constraints (e.g., freedom of speech).
Rational freedom: Freedom as acting according to reason or moral law (e.g., Kant’s idea of autonomy).
Epistemology vs aesthetics
Epistemology: Study of knowledge, its nature, and scope (e.g., what can we know?).
Aesthetics: Study of beauty and art (e.g., what makes something beautiful?).
Paradox vs tautology
Paradox: A statement that contradicts itself but may reveal a truth (e.g., "This statement is false").
Tautology: A statement true by definition or redundancy (e.g., "It will either rain or not rain").
Duty-defined vs consequentialist morality
Duty-defined: Morality based on duties or rules (e.g., Kant’s categorical imperative).
Consequentialist: Morality based on outcomes (e.g., utilitarianism’s "greatest good for the greatest number").
Negative vs positive freedom
Negative freedom: Freedom from interference (e.g., absence of censorship).
Positive freedom: Freedom to achieve one's potential (e.g., access to education).
World of being vs world of becoming
World of being: Eternal, unchanging reality (e.g., Plato’s forms).
World of becoming: The changing, imperfect physical world.
Rationalism vs empiricism
Rationalism: Knowledge through reason (e.g., Descartes’ "I think, therefore I am").
Empiricism: Knowledge through sensory experience (e.g., Locke’s tabula rasa).
Interactionism vs epiphenomenalism
Interactionism: Mind and body influence each other (e.g., Descartes’ dualism).
Epiphenomenalism: Mental states are effects of physical processes, not causes.
Altruism vs egoism
Altruism: Acting for others’ benefit (e.g., volunteering for charity).
Egoism: Acting in one’s self-interest (e.g., pursuing personal success).
Atheism vs agnosticism
Atheism: Belief that no gods exist.
Agnosticism: Belief that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.
Morality vs ethics
Morality: Personal principles of right and wrong (e.g., helping someone in need).
Ethics: Systematic study of morality (e.g., professional ethics in medicine).
Moral evils vs nonmoral evils
Moral evils: Harm caused by human action (e.g., murder).
Nonmoral evils: Harm caused by natural events (e.g., earthquakes).
Idealism vs materialism
Idealism: Reality is primarily mental (e.g., Plato’s forms).
Materialism: Reality is physical or material.
Psychological egoism vs ethical egoism
Psychological egoism: Descriptive claim that people always act in self-interest.
Ethical egoism: Normative claim that people ought to act in self-interest.
Cultural relativism vs ethical relativism
Cultural relativism: Morality depends on cultural norms.
Ethical relativism: Morality depends on individual or societal beliefs.
Part B: Essay Preparation
Below is a list of possible essay topics. The questions on the exam, while
not worded the same, will come from the list below. You will have to answer one
of two possible questions on the exam.
Plato's "Allegory of the Cave"
Explanation of the Allegory:
Plato’s "Allegory of the Cave" illustrates his theory of knowledge and perception.
Prisoners are chained in a dark cave, facing a wall, and can only see shadows of objects cast by a fire behind them. These shadows represent their reality.
One prisoner escapes, ascending out of the cave into the sunlight. The outside world represents the realm of true knowledge (the world of forms).
Upon returning to the cave to enlighten others, the escaped prisoner is rejected and ridiculed because the others cannot comprehend a reality beyond the shadows.
Key Ideas:
Theory of Forms: True reality exists beyond the material world; forms are perfect, unchanging ideals (e.g., the concept of "beauty" or "justice").
Epistemology: The process of gaining knowledge involves moving from ignorance (the cave) to enlightenment (the sun).
Resistance to Change: People often cling to familiar ideas and resist truths that challenge their worldview.
Education: Real education transforms the soul, guiding it toward enlightenment (the sun).
Relevance Today:
The allegory highlights how people are influenced by limited perspectives, such as those perpetuated by social media and cultural norms.
It encourages critical thinking, questioning of perceived truths, and the pursuit of intellectual and moral growth.
The Meaning of Life
Importance of the Question:
The question of life’s meaning drives reflection on purpose, happiness, and morality. It influences individual and societal values and inspires diverse philosophical, religious, and cultural interpretations.
Philosophers argue that asking about life’s meaning is as valuable as the potential answers, as it helps individuals explore their values and priorities.
Possible Answers:
Religious: Life’s purpose is determined by God or divine will (e.g., serving others, achieving salvation).
Existentialist: Life has no inherent meaning, and individuals must create their purpose (e.g., Camus’ idea of rebellion against absurdity or Sartre’s focus on freedom and authenticity).
Nihilism: Life has no inherent meaning, and any attempt to impose meaning is futile.
Hedonistic: Life’s meaning lies in maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain (Epicureanism).
Why It Raises More Questions:
Subjectivity: Different people and cultures define meaning differently.
Infinite Regress: If X gives life meaning, what gives X meaning? For example, if happiness is the goal, what makes happiness meaningful?
Human Limitation: Our understanding of meaning is constrained by our experiences, leading to new inquiries as we learn more.
Belief in God: Reason, Experience, and Faith
Ontological Argument:
Proposed by St. Anselm, the argument defines God as the greatest conceivable being. Since existence is a perfection, God must exist.
Strength: Deductive and logical; it relies on definitions and reason alone.
Weakness: Critics like Kant argue that existence is not a property or predicate. Imagining something does not make it real.
Modern Design Argument:
Suggests that the complexity and fine-tuning of the universe imply a designer.
Strength: Incorporates scientific understanding, offering a probabilistic rather than absolute argument for God’s existence.
Weakness: Critics argue that complexity could arise through natural processes (e.g., evolution). It assumes the universe must support intelligent life without questioning this premise.
Faith-Based Belief:
Faith involves trust in God’s existence without reliance on empirical evidence or reason.
Strength: Provides emotional and moral support to believers.
Weakness: Critics claim faith lacks objective grounding, making it subjective and unverifiable.
The Problem of Evil
Why the Problem of Evil Matters:
Philosophers grapple with how to reconcile the existence of evil with an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God.
It challenges religious doctrines and raises broader questions about morality, justice, and human suffering.
Explanations for Evil:
Free Will Defense: Evil exists because humans have free will to choose good or bad actions.
Problem: Why didn’t God create beings who always freely choose good?
Soul-Making Theodicy: Evil and suffering help people develop virtues like courage, empathy, and resilience.
Problem: The scale of suffering seems excessive and unnecessary for growth.
Punishment for Sin: Evil is a consequence of human disobedience to God’s laws.
Problem: Innocent suffering (e.g., natural disasters) contradicts this explanation.
Evil as a Test: Suffering tests faith or loyalty to God.
Problem: A loving God shouldn’t need to test anyone’s faith in such painful ways.
Kantian vs Utilitarian Moral Theory
Kantian Moral Theory:
Morality is based on duty and adherence to universal principles.
Key Concept: Categorical imperative—act only according to rules you’d want universally applied.
Strengths: Respect human dignity, consistent, and principle-based.
Weaknesses: Rigid, ignores consequences, and struggles with moral dilemmas (e.g., lying to save a life).
Utilitarian Moral Theory:
Morality is determined by the consequences of actions, focusing on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering.
Strengths: Flexible, outcome-focused, and pragmatic.
Weaknesses: Can justify morally questionable actions (e.g., sacrificing one for the greater good).
Camus’ "Myth of Sisyphus"
The Story:
Sisyphus is condemned to roll a boulder uphill forever, only for it to roll back down. This symbolizes the human struggle to find meaning in an absurd world.
Camus’ Interpretation:
Life is inherently meaningless (absurd). The key is to embrace the absurd and find meaning through personal rebellion and perseverance.
Comparison to Sartre:
Both agree on individual freedom, but Sartre emphasizes societal roles and responsibility, while Camus focuses on rebellion against absurdity.
Strengths:
It empowers individuals to define their purpose and find happiness despite life’s challenges.
Weaknesses:
This may lead to nihilism for those unable to create meaning.
The Free Will Dilemma
The Dilemma:
How can free will exist in a world governed by causal laws?
Key Positions:
Determinism: Every event is caused by prior events, leaving no room for free will.
Libertarianism: Humans have free will, and actions are not determined.
Compatibilism: Free will can exist within a deterministic framework if actions align with internal desires and motivations.
Reconciling the Dilemma:
Philosophers like Sartre argue that absolute freedom can cause anxiety but is essential for authenticity.
Others suggest balancing freedom and societal restrictions, such as laws that maintain order while allowing personal choice.
The Concept of Self and the Egocentric Predicament
Philosophical Views:
Locke: The self is tied to memory and continuity of consciousness.
Kierkegaard: The self is defined by passions and will.
Hegel: The true self is universal, emphasizing collective identity.
Egocentric Predicament:
The claim that all experiences are filtered through one’s perspective, makes it difficult to truly understand others.
Implication: Limits human empathy and the ability to grasp objective reality.
Meaning of Life and the Good Life
Connection:
One’s beliefs about life’s purpose influence their goals, values, and pursuit of happiness.
Examples:
Religious: Serving God through prayer, charity, and devotion shapes the good life as a spiritual journey.
Hedonistic: Pursuing pleasure leads to a focus on enjoyment, relationships, and avoiding pain.
Existentialist: Creating personal meaning emphasizes authenticity and self-fulfillment.