This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: FACULTY OF ARTS
FINAL EXAMINATION PHILOSOPHY 107-200A
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY I Examiner: Prof. Storts McCall
Associate Examiner: Darren Bifford Date: Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Time: 93111 — 12pm Instructions: Answer ONE question from EACH section. No notes or texts are permitted in the examination.
You may keep the exam.
This exam comprises 2 pages, including the cover page. Philosophy 200A: Final Exam. Section A.
1. Could the theory of Forms be used to resolve disagreements about what is right and what is wrong?
2. Does Plato’s theory of recollection prove the immortality of the soul? Why or why not?
3. Pericles was considered a virtuous man. His sons were not. According to Socrates, docs Pericles have
knowledge of virtue? Or does he merely have right opinion concerning it? Explain your answer.
1. Does Descartes” ontological argument. for the existence of God have the same degree of selfievidenee
as his Cogito Ergo Sum?
2. Explain Descartes’ method of doubt and its importance to the pursuit of knowledge.
3. How does Descartes think that we can prevent ourselves from falling into error?
1. In what sense is Russell a Platonist?
2. Explain what Russell means by “knowledge by acquaintance” and “knowledge by description”. \Vhich
kind of knowledge do we have about the past?
3. “Here’s one white swan; here’s another Therefore all swans are white!” According to Russell, how
ood is this inference? EX lain your answer.
g P .
l. \W hat is soft determinism? Is it defendable?
2. Why is it difﬁcult to ﬁnd a place for ‘selves’ within a scientiﬁc conception of the world?
3. “In its quest for certainty, philosophy uncovers more and more uncertainty”. ls this the ease, and if so
what beneﬁts are to be gained from studying philosophy?
4. Suppose that, walking through the forest one day, you came across a large, smooth, transparent ball. \Would this be an occasion for you to appeal to the principle of sufﬁcient reason? Could that principle
be used to argue for the existence of God? How? ...
View Full Document