PST 1101 Introduction to Philosophical Analysis
Fall 2005
MID-TERM EXAM
I. Short Answer. For each of the four passages quoted below, write one paragraph in which you
1) point out assumptions that the author is making, and 2) state some further questions raised by
the passage. (10 points each)
In grading this section, I gave wide latitude to different kinds of answers. What I was
looking for, in general, were three things: 1) insight into the basic ideas of the passage,
including connections with class readings and discussions; 2) ability to identify unstated
assumptions that the author of the passage is making; and 3) ability to generate
thoughtful and even creative questions in response to the passage.
For each of the passages below, I provide here a brief statement on the background of
the passage, as well as ideas for the kinds of assumptions and questions I was looking
for.
1. Philosophers should rule cities, “for, when accustomed, you will see ten thousand times better
than the residents, and you will recognize what each image is, and what is its original, because
you have seen the truth of which beautiful and just and good things are copies. And in this way,
for you and for us, the city is ruled in a waking state and not in a dream like so many of our
present cities, which are mostly composed of men who fight among themselves for shadows, and
are at feud for the administration of affairs.” Plato, Republic, Book VI.
This comes from The Republic, in which Plato attempts to create an ideal city and thus
discover the nature of justice. At this point, he has just set out the Allegory of the Cave
(discussed in class), in which a philosophical education is characterized as an ascent
from the visible world (images on the wall of the cave) to the intelligible world (the real
things of which the images are mere copies). When a philosopher returns to the cave,
she or he will not be “accustomed” to the darkness for a while . . . (though I didn’t expect
you to pick up on that precise connection.)
Plato assumes: There are true, intelligible forms of which real things are mere copies.
Philosophers are those who have grasped those forms, including the Form of the Good.
Philosophers can use that knowledge to foster justice in society. Everyone should listen
to philosophers and trust that they know the truth about what is good, just, beautiful, etc.
Questions: How will those who are not philosophers know who is a philosopher and who
is not? Why should we trust philosophers to run things? Can we count on their grasp of
the idea of justice to guarantee that their actions are just?
2. “Up to now we say the aim of the Sceptic is tranquility in matters of opinion and moderation
of feeling in matters forced upon us. For Sceptics began to do philosophy in order to decide
among appearances and to apprehend which are true and which false, so as to become tranquil;
but they came upon equipollent dispute, and being unable to decide this they suspended
judgment. And when they suspended judgment, tranquility in matters of opinion followed
PST 1101 Introduction to Philosophical Analysis
Fall 2005
fortuitously. . . . We do not, however, take Skeptics to be undisturbed in every way – we say that
they are disturbed by things which are forced upon them; for we agree that at times they shiver
and are thirsty and have other feelings of this kind. But in these cases ordinary people are
afflicted by two sets of circumstances: by the feelings themselves, and no less by believing that
these circumstances are bad by nature. Sceptics, who shed the additional opinion that each of
these things is bad by nature, come off more moderately even in these cases.” Sextus Empiricus,
Outlines of Scepticism, I.xii.
The background of this should be familiar enough; it’s another part of the same work
from which we read excerpts for class – only the title has been rendered differently in
the translation from which I took this.
Sextus assumes: Tranquility is good. Dogma is bad. Skeptics can distinguish between
things that are “forced” upon us (e.g., hunger, thirst) and general claims made about
them by dogmatists. All disputes end in equipollence; in other words, there is no way to
decide for sure on any matter of knowledge, now or in the future. There is a difference
between “bad for me” and “bad by nature.”
Questions: Does skepticism really lead to tranquility? Can humans really stand that
much “suspense”? Are there things forced upon us other than sensations and
immediate bodily needs? Could some kinds of abstract knowledge also be forced upon
us? How can we tell? Is this skepticism “urbane” enough to avoid the trap pointed out
by Hume, in which we lapse into passivity until we die?
3. “I had shown what must be the fabric of the nerves and muscles of the human body to give the
animal spirits [something like what we would call electric impulses] contained in it the power to
move the members . . . apart from the guidance of the will. Nor will this appear at all strange to
those who are acquainted with the variety of movements performed by the different automata, or
moving machines fabricated by human industry, and that with help of but a few pieces compared
with the great multitude of bones, muscles, nerves, arteries, veins, and other parts that are found
in the body of each animal. such persons will look upon this body as a machine made by the
hands of God, which is incomparably better arranged, and adequate to movements more
admirable than is any machine of human invention.” Descartes, Discourse on Method, part five.
This is a slightly tricky one. Again, the background should be familiar. It comes from a
work Descartes wrote in French (the Meditations were in Latin) for a broader audience.
Descartes assumes: Dualism; mind and matter are different kinds of substance. Matter
takes up space and does not think. Mind thinks and takes up no space. Nature is
basically material. Matter relates to matter only by divisibility, contact, pushing, etc. –
mechanical relations. So, nature is a machine. (This drives him to the conclusion that
the human body is a machine, as is the body of any animal.) A human being is a mind
associated (somehow!) with a mechanical body. Will is a faculty of the mind. Animal
bodies can move without will. God exists. God is perfect. God made everything.
PST 1101 Introduction to Philosophical Analysis
Fall 2005
Questions: Could we ever build a machine that thinks like a human? Would this
undermine Descartes’ claim that only minds can think? Would it undermine his claim
that only God could have made humans? How does the will act on the animal spirits
(nerve impulses) to move the body? How tightly coupled is will to the body? How likely
is it that my body can break loose, move on its own? Is this unfair to animals,
underestimating their cognitive abilities? If chimpanzees, dolphins, and parrots can
think and will, does this mean that they have souls, or does it mean that we don’t?
4. “All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I
shall call IMPRESSIONS and IDEAS. The difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of
force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought
or consciousness. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name
impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions and emotions, as
they make their first appearance in the soul. By ideas I mean the faint images of these in
thinking and reasoning.” David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I (1739)
This is really tricky, since we didn’t read Hume for class. I cut a lot of slack in grading
this one.
We did talk about some of the background for this in class. Hume is an empiricist. He
follows Locke in solving the problem of correspondence (i.e., the connection between
ideas and things) through the senses. Like Locke, Hume subscribes to the Cartesian
model of consciousness: the mind (a.k.a. “the soul”) is like a screen on which ideas are
thrown. Like Locke, Hume holds that the screen starts out blank. The only way for new
material to be projected on the mind is through impressions from the senses (external
impressions) and from emotion or “passions” (internal impressions). Ideas are all
derived from those impressions like faint copies that may be combined in various ways,
abstracted, etc. The only way to ensure the truth of ideas is to prevent reason from
corrupting the path from impressions to ideas; any meddling done by the intellect, aside
from certain pre-certified procedures, will only distort. The only way to distinguish
impressions from ideas (since we only have access to our own consciousness – a
Cartesian assumption) is by their force or “liveliness”. It’s sort of like Descartes’
standard of clarity and distinctness, just turned on its head.
So, Hume assumes: The mind is like a screen on which ideas are projected. I only
have access to my own screen. The screen starts out blank. The only source of
material to be projected on the screen is through impressions made by the senses and
by the emotions. And so on (a lot of these are included in the above paragraph.)
Questions: Does the mind really start out blank? Might there be internal, rational
“impressions” – that is, innate ideas that are forceful and “lively”, as Descartes thought?
Can our experience of the world really be reduced to bits of sensation impacting on the
mind? What is the connection between impressions and ideas? How can really big
ideas – like justice, beauty – find their origins in mere impressions? [This last question,
by the way, is one that Hume took very seriously; it led him to become a moderate
skeptic, as we discussed in class.]
PST 1101 Introduction to Philosophical Analysis
Fall 2005
II. Essay. Write a focused and well-organized argumentative essay on one (1) of the following
topics. Be sure to start with a clear and well-defined thesis, and provide reasons for a general
reader to agree with the thesis; also be sure to state and respond to a reasonable objection to your
thesis. Before you start writing, take a few minutes to think about further questions raised by the
topic you have chosen, and decide on an angle from which you will approach it. (60 points)
1. Can virtue be taught?
2. Is it possible to be certain of anything?
3. What is the appropriate role, if any, for philosophy in public life?
I looked for three things when grading the essay:
1. THESIS. I was looking for a clear and prominent statement of a focused thesis; a
single claim or proposal that served as the heart of the essay. Common thesis
problems can include: Not actually stating the thesis explicitly; stating one thesis at the
beginning but drifting toward another thesis by the end of the essay; stating a thesis that
was too broad or one that missed the point of the question.
2. ARGUMENT. I was looking for a well-organized and fairly well-developed argument.
The claims that make up the argument should be less controversial than the thesis, and
they should fit together logically to support the thesis. Assumptions should be made
explicit and supported by further, even less controversial claims. Common argument
problems include: simply restating the thesis, or offering supporting claims that are more
controversial than the thesis; making assumptions that may be controversial to a
general readership; not making connections among the supporting claims;
underdeveloped claims; lack of good organization (including clear paragraph structure).
3. FAIRNESS. I was looking for 1) a good understanding of the basic ideas involved in
the essay, especially if the essay concerns in some way the interpretation of one or
more of the readings from the course (accuracy); 2) careful consideration of at least one
objection to the thesis, including reasons why the objection is a good one and a
reasoned reply. Common fairness problems include: misunderstanding or
misrepresenting the ideas of another person; parodying opposing views rather than
considering them in their strongest form; using emotion-laden language or outright
abuse; appealing to rhetorical questions (assuming agreement on the part of the reader)
rather than reasons.
The grade for the essay will appear as follows:
T - ## [a number from 0-10]
A - ##
F - ##
## x 2 = ## (a number from 0-60)