This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: FACULTY OF ARTS
FINAL EXAMINATION PHIL 200A
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY I Examiner: Prof. Storrs McCall
Associate Examiner: Prof. Michael Hallett Date: Friday, December 8, 2006. Time: 2pm — 5pm Instructions: Answer ONE question from EACH section.
Answer in EXAM BOOK. No notes or texts are permitted in the examination.
Only translation dictionaries are allowed. You may keep the exam. - ‘ This exam comprises 2 pages, including the cover page.
This exam is printed double-sided. Philosophy 200A: Final Exam. Section A. 1. It makes sense to speak of destroying an individual purple thing, or even all
purple things, but not of destroying the form of purple-ness. Comment. 2. Socrates maintains that the life of a philosopher is essentially one long preparation
for death. Why does he believe this to be the case?
3. “No one who truly knows the good will voluntarily do evil.” Is this true? How
does Socrates argue for it?
4. Why does Descartes present two different arguments for God’s existence in
Meditations 3 and 5? How do the two arguments differ?
5. Russell criticizes Descartes for concluding more than is warranted in saying “I
think, therefore I am.” Compare Descartes’ and Russell’s Views on this question.
6. Cartesian dualism asserts that there exist two distinct types of substance.
Describe the differences between the two. Would God’s substance constitute a
third distinct type? If so, why?
7. Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell co-authored Princz‘pia
Mathematica. Could it be said that Russell was acquainted with Whitehead?
8. What kind of universal does Russell use in attempting to prove that at least one of
Plato’s Ideas exists? Is he successful?
9. A memory image exists in the present, but what we remember is past. How does
Russell claim to solve the problem of memory?
Section D 10. State the strengths and weaknesses of mind-body materialism. 11. “Time, like an ever—rolling stream Bears all its sons away.”
Is time like a stream? 12. If stones on a hillside had a purely naturalistic origin (e.g. glacial action), they could not tell us we were now entering Wales. If our eyes had a purely
naturalistic origin (e.g. random mutations plus natural selection) they could not
tell us an invigilator was walking down the next row. Can we conclude that the
Darwinian explanation of our eyes’ origin is mistaken? ...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/02/2012 for the course PHIL 200 taught by Professor Mccall during the Spring '08 term at McGill.
- Spring '08