Phil 2010 exam 2 studey question

Phil 2010 exam 2 studey question - Phil 2010 Rand Fall 2010...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Phil 2010 Rand Fall 2010 Exam #2 The exam will consist of one essay question, chosen from the following two. There may also be some short-answer questions. Remember to answer all portions of the question, and to say not just what the authors thought, but how they argued for their position. 1. In his discussion of personal identity, Locke writes that a person is "a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places." He then goes on to say that a person can do this "only by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking, and... essential to it" (R&R, 374). Later, Locke makes some claims about memory that are supposed to fit together with these earlier claims. What does Locke mean when he says that "consciousness... is inseparable from thinking"? Is he right about this? What role does the claim that consciousness is inseparable from thinking play in Locke's definition of personal identity (later on the same page)? Why does Locke end up talking about memory later in the same writing? Do you think that Locke's position is a good one? If you think it is not a good one, give an objection that you think Locke not only does not, but cannot answer. If you do think it is a good one, pick one of Reid's objections to Locke (from "Of Mr. Locke's Account of Our Personal Identity") and defend Locke against that objection. If you think that there is a relevant point that these authors missed, talk about it at the end of your essay. 2. In "Why We Have No Free Will and Can Live Without It," Derk Pereboom argues for something he calls "hard incompatibilism." This position includes the rejection of the kind of "agent causation" Roderick Chisholm argues for in "Human Freedom and the Self." What is agent causation? How does it differ from whatever other kind(s) of causation there are? What is Chisholm's argument in favor of agent causation? (If you think he has more than one, just talk about his best one.) What is Pereboom's argument against this type of causation? Who is right, Chisholm or Pereboom? Whoever you think is right, show that they are right by picking some argument against their position (either from the other, or from van Inwagen's article), and then defend them from that argument. If you think that there is a relevant point that these authors missed, talk about it at the end of your essay. ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online