This examination counts as fifteen percent (15%) of your course grade.

This is a closed-book, in-class examination on the scheduled date.

There will be two parts.

• Part I (for ten (10) points) will ask you to answer ten (10) "short answer" questions worth one (1) point each. By "short answer" I mean that a sentence or two (or three) will suffice.
• Part II (for five (5) points) will ask you to answer one (1) essay question worth five (5) points. You will have a choice from two (2) questions on this part. By "essay" I mean a discussion that will probably take more than a paragraph or two, but should take no more than a few pages.

Ground Rules

As always, cheating will not be tolerated. No help in answering the questions may be received from anyone (except yourself) during the examination. You may not use books or notes during the examination.

Sample Questions and Points to Study

• State something that is true of a mind that is not true of any physical thing--or explain why this cannot be done. Critically discuss how a materialist and a dualist would respond to this request.
• Suppose that it is argued that a mind can think but a body cannot think, so a mind is not a body. How might a materialist reply to this argument? Critically discuss.
• Explain what the reductive materialist believes about mental states.
• Define "intertheoretic reduction."
• What four reasons does Paul Churchland give for thinking that there can be reduction of our common-sense conceptual framework for mental states, or "folk psychology," to neuro-science?
• State Leibniz' law. Explain it and offer an example (not concerning the nature of the distinction between the mental and the physical) of an inference which appeals to it.
• State one argument Churchland considers against reductive materialism from some premise concerning introspection. How does he respond to this argument? Critically discuss.
• What are semantic properties? What argument appealing to semantic properties can be constructed against reductive materialism? How does Paul Churchland respond to this argument?
• What does Searle mean by "Strong AI?"
• What does Searle mean by "formal symbol manipulation?"
• Explain Searle's "Chinese room" thought experiment. What conclusions does Searle draw from this thought experiment? Is he right to draw these conclusions? Why or why not?
• Searle wrote "Syntax is not sufficient for semantics." What did he mean by that? What conclusions does he draw from this about the ability of computers, as computers, to think? How does the argument go? Is he right? Why or why not?
• What is "intentionality," as that term is used by John Searle.
• Could some computer in the future actually think? Why or wny not? Critically discuss.
• Searle imagines some replies to his Chinese room argument. Explain one of these replies and what Searle's response to it is. Who is right on this issue? Explain.
• Searle talks of "crazy realizations?" What's that all about?
• According to Searle what is needed for something to be able to think?
• Explain Epicurus's views about our knowledge of God. Critically discuss.
• Explain Epicurus's reasoning that "death is nothing to us." Does that mean that death is not bad? Explain.
• What was Epicurus's attitude towards death? Critically discuss his defense of this attitude.
• What desires would Epicurus regard as unnecessary or vain?
• Epicurus thinks that pleasure is "the first good." Explain Epicurus's view on whether we should seek pleasures, and his views on what pleasures, if any, we should avoid, and why. Critically discuss.
• Why, according to Epicurus, should we not choose every pleasure? Explain.
• Explain the sort of life Epicurus thinks we should live.
• Explicate and critique Epicurus's view of justice. What is justice, on his view, and why should we be just?
• What principle does Mill accept as the fundamental principle of morals? Give an example of its application.
• How would a utilitarian go about determining whether it would be right for the United States government to bomb Iraq?
• John Stuart Mill distinguishes a utilitarian "theory of life" from a "theory of morality." Explain what each of these is and how they are related.
• What, according to John Stuart Mill, is happiness? Explain in some detail what Mill says about happiness.
• How does Mill respond to the objection that his utilitarian doctrine is "a doctrine worthy only of swine ...?" Critically discuss.
• Mill claims that pleasures differ in quality as well as in quantity. What does Mill mean by this and what support does he offer for the claim? Critically discuss.
• J. S. Mill claims that some pleasures have "higher value" than other pleasures. Explain his argument for this claim. Critically discuss.
• Explain the distinction Mill draws between being happy and being content.
• John Stuart Mill claimed that "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Critically discuss his argument for this claim.
• Some people who have experienced the "higher" or mental pleasures still at times choose sensual pleasures instead. How does Mill account for this? Critically discuss.
• How does Mill think we are to decide which pleasures are more worth having? Is this method reasonable? Critically discuss.
• Explicate and critically discuss the argument John Stuart Mill offers that "the sole evidence it is possible to produce that any thing is desirable, is that people do actually desire it."
• John Stuart Mill has been amply criticized for this passage: "The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible is that people hear it; and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to provide that anything is desirable is that people do actually desire it." What evidence is it possible to provide that something is desirable? (To answer this you will have to discuss what it means for something to be desirable.)
• John Stuart Mill writes: "each person's happiness is a good to that person; and the general happiness, therefore, is a good to the aggregate of all persons." Explicate and critically discuss this argument.
• According to Epictetus: "Some things are up to us, some are not up to us." What does Epictetus think is up to us? What does he think is not up to us? What conclusions does he draw from this concerning how we can be happy? Critically discuss.
• Summarize and critique Epictetus' prescription for happiness, being sure to mention any central distinctions Epictetus draws in his discussion of how to be happy.
• Epictetus wrote, "It is not things that upset people but rather ideas about things." What does this mean? Is it right? What conclusions does he draw from this concerning who is to blame for unhappiness? Critically discuss.
• Epictetus wrote, "men are disturbed not by the things which happen, but by the opinions about the things ..." What does this mean? Is it right? What conclusions does he draw from this concerning who is to blame for unhappiness? Critically discuss.
• "Remember that in life you ought to behave as at a banquet." Who said this? What does it mean? What are its implications? Critically discuss.
• According to Epictetus what attitude should we have if our spouse or child dies? Why? Critically discuss.