美國印第安納大學麥肯尼法學院哲學方面的課程essay題目-Final Exam Topics

 

1.  According to Descartes, the objects that we are aware of in sensory experience  (things like tables and trees) are mind-independent physical things.  Berkeley claims that an object is “nothing but a congeries of sensible impressions, or ideas perceived by various senses”, and Kant says that the objects we are aware of in experience are just “appearances,” not “things in themselves”.  Explain these views.  How are they similar and how are they different?  Which of these three philosophers offers the most convincing defense of his view?  Justify your assessment with particular reference to the strengths and weaknesses of each.根據笛卡爾，我們感官的體驗感知的對象（如表和樹）是獨立于心靈的物質的東西。伯克利聲稱是一個對象”只不過是一堆感覺印象，或思想的各種感官知覺，康德說，我們的經驗是認識的對象是“表現，”而不是“自己”的東西。解釋這些意見。他們是如何相似，他們有什么不同？這三位哲學家的觀點提供了最有說服力的辯護？證明你有各自的長處和弱點評估特別參考。

 

2.  How might Plato attempt to establish that the mind (soul) can exist independently of the body?  Could he provide a convincing argument for this claim?  Explain why or why not, with attention to specific details of his arguments.  How does Descartes attempt to establish the same claim?  Is his argument more successful?  Why or why not?

 

3.  In the “First Meditation,” Descartes tries to raise a problem about our ability to know anything about what is going on outside of our own minds.  Here are three possible responses you might have.  (1)  He raised a serious problem, and no one has satisfactorily answered it.  (2) He raised a serious problem – he gave us real reasons for doubt – but then this problem was subsequently satisfactorily addressed (maybe by Descartes himself or maybe by some other philosopher).  (3)  He didn’t even raise a real problem; his appeal to dreams and to evil demons doesn’t give us any reason at all to doubt that there is a world outside of our minds about which we know a great deal.  Which of these options do you think is correct?  Explain and defend your view, making use (as relevant) of the views of any of the philosophers we have discussed.在“第一次冥想，“笛卡爾嘗試提出一個關于我們知道是怎么回事，我們自己的心智能力以外的任何問題。這里有三個可能的反應，你可能會有。（1）他提出了一個嚴重的問題，并沒有一個令人滿意的回答。（2）他提出了一個嚴重的問題–他給了我們的真正原因，但懷疑–然后這個問題被滿意的解決（也許笛卡爾自己或者其他一些哲學家）。（3）他甚至沒有提高的一個現實問題；他到夢和邪惡的惡魔并沒有給我們任何理由去懷疑有我們的思想，我們知道了很多外面的世界。這些選項做你認為是正確的嗎？解釋和捍衛你的觀點，利用（相關的）的任何我們所討論的哲學家的觀點。#p#分頁標題#e#

 

4.  Explain Kant's views about the possibility and limits of synthetic a priori knowledge.  In your essay, take account of the following questions.  What is synthetic a priori knowledge?  Why is Kant so concerned about how it is possible for us to have knowledge of this kind?  What sorts of things, according to Kant, can we have synthetic  a priori knowledge about?  How can we have this knowledge?  What are the limits of our synthetic a priori knowledge?  How does Kant establish those limits?  What are the consequences of his view for the projects of philosophers like Descartes and Plato?

 

5.  Does Schlick’sverificationism provide a successful response to debates about the existence of a world of objects outside of our minds?  Explain why or why not.  (In your essay, be sure to explain Schlick'sverificationist theory of meaning and how he uses it to respond to debates about the external world.)

 

6.  Write a dialogue between Schlick and Plato about Plato's attempt to prove the immortality of the soul.  How might Schlick respond to Plato's project?  What reasons might he offer in defense of his response?  What could Plato say in reply to Schlick, and on what grounds could he defend his reply?  (In thinking about this issue, you might consider whether Plato’s Theory of Forms or his Theory of Recollection could be of any help to him in responding to Schlick.)  Be sure that your dialogue ends in a way that clarifies the ultimate point or points of disagreement between Schlick and Plato.

 

7.  Berkeley denies a realist view of perception:  he denies that we are ever directly aware of mind-independent objects through the senses, and then he even denies that our sensory ideas so much as represent mind-independent objects.  Does Berkeley succeed in defeating these realist views?  Explain why or why not, with particular attention to the details of his arguments.

 

8.  One day you receive the following letter:

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am in the process of putting together a must-read list of great philosophers.  Some of the works that have been recommended to me are Plato’s Phaedo, Descartes’ Meditations, Berkeley’s Three Dialogues, Kant’s Prolegomena, and Schlick’s “Positivism and Realism.” I understand that you have recently studied these works in depth, and I would value your opinion.  Please choose one of these works and tell me whether you think its philosophical content justifies putting it on my list.  Explain five reasons why it should or shouldn’t, discussing particular details of the text.  Here are some questions you might consider.  Was it an important philosophical work? Was the view it put forward particularly interesting or distinctive, and in what ways?  Were its arguments compelling? What is its relation to other philosophical works you have read?  What personal impact did it have on you?  Would you recommend it to other people interested in exploring philosophy?  Why or why not?  I would especially appreciate if you could explain what particular aspects of the work are the basis for your assessment.  (Please focus on philosophical content and ignore difficulties you had with the philosopher’s writing style or language.  I already know that philosophical works aren’t easy to read!)  All information you can give me would be much appreciated!#p#分頁標題#e#

Thank you for your time and help.

Sincerely yours,

Phil O. Sopher

Write a letter to Phil in which you fully answer his questions.