PHIL 101
INSTRUCTOR: WILBURN
MODEL ANSWERS TO PUBLISHERS’ ESSAY TEST FOR CH. 6
1. What is Descartes's dream argument?
The dream argument is that, since we cannot discern any marks or features of experience which
infallibly indicate that we are awake rather than merely dreaming, we cannot know for sure that
we are not dreaming. As a result, we cannot trust the claims we make about ambient reality on
the basis of sensory experience.
2. What did Descartes's dream argument and evil genius arguments purport to show?
Both arguments purport to show that our knowledge of the “external world” is much more
limited than we ordinarily take it to be. Both envision ways in which this world might be very
different from how it seems to us to be on the basis of our experience even though the features of
said experience remain constant. The “evil genius” argument, however, is intended to motivate
more thorough doubts than the “dream” argument, however. This is because dreams, as we
conceive them, are ordinary occurrences that take place within a natural worldly setting. The
“evil genius” argument, on the other hand, has us envision a situation in which the world is very
different, even in general character, from how we ordinarily take it to be.
3. What is Descartes's argument for the principle of clarity and distinctness?
Descartes argues that God, being benevolent, could not be responsible for Descartes' own false
conclusions concerning the world around him. The fault must be his own, he therefore
concludes. He then explains these faulsts by saying that they arise when his will overpowers his
understanding, thereby leading him to form conclusions concerning things of which he lacks
clear and distinct ideas. Thus, he concludes that judgements about those things he conceives
clearly and distinctly must be true, since God is not a deceiver.
4. What is the problem of the Cartesian circle?
The problem of the Cartesian circle is that Descartes needs to identify criteria through which he
can judge that his worldly beliefs are true. However, he ends up being unable to justify the
trustworthiness of these principles without assuming the very truths about wordly reality that he
hopes to ground. In particular, Descartes assumes that ideas which he perceives clearly and
distinctly are true. However, he only judges that this to be the case because he assumes that God
is no deceiver. And he only claims to know this about God as a result of examining his clear and
distinct notion of God. Thus, Descartes' program to escape skepticism requires that he
presuppose precisely those things he hopes to prove.
5. Does knowledge require certainty? Why or why not?
This is a controversial question. But one might argue that knowledge requires, not that we be
able to rule out all possible doubt, but that we merely be able to rule out all reasonable doubt. If
this is the case, then Cartesian demands for certainty may be misplaced.
6. What is the difference between primary and secondary qualities?
Secondary qualities (e.g., color, taste, smell) exist only in perceivers' minds. Primary qualities
exist as intrinsic characteristics of external physical bodies (e.g., solidity, mass, or “color” when
understood as the reflectance features of external objects that cause perceivers to have such and
such visual experiences).
7. How does Locke solve the problem of the external world?
On Locke's account, some sensory experiences (i.e., those corresponding to primary qualities, for
instance, shape) resemble the primary qualities of perceived objects. Thus, according to Locke,
our sensory experiences can and do give us some knowledge of the external world.
8. How would Berkeley respond to the question, If a tree falls in the forest and no one is
around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Strictly speaking, it doesn't. Certainly, sound waves are ommitted, but no auditory experiences
exist, since no auditory sense organs exist as causal conduits through which they might be
created.
9. How does phenomenalism close the gap between appearance and reality?
According to phenomenalism, all talk about physical objects is ultimately translatable into talk
about experiences. Thus, in talking about the former. One is really talking about the latter.
10. Explain the confusion involved in Berkeley's assertion that it's impossible for something
to exist unconceived.
This assertion is true only if it taken to mean that one cannot conceive of an object without
conceiving it. It is false, however, if it is taken to mean that one cannot contemplate the
proposition that a certain object does not, in fact, exist.
11-15. Here there is a weird typo. Questions 1-5 are just repeated. See answers above.