I am looking for thoughtful answers, rather than lengthy answers. Write as much as necessary to express your thoughts clearly and accurately.

In addition to the material in the Russell book, you should be familiar with the issues raised in class through lecture and discussion.

<><><>

You are REQUIRED to do essays 1 and 5, and one more (2, 3, or 4.) Total of three essays.

<><><>

Russell Essay Question 1
(Problems of Philosophy, Chapters I & II)

"That the position of these people is impossible can be demonstrated if only they say something. And if they say nothing, it is absurd to give an account of our views to one who can give no account of anything. In this regard, he may as well be a plant."

~

(Aristotle, METAPHYSICS, Book Gamma)

<><><><><><>

"The Cartesean doubt, therefore, were it ever to be attained by any human creature (as it plainly is not) would be entirely incurable."

~

(David Hume, ENQUIRIES CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING)

<><><><><><>

Sit at a table. You may substitute some other piece of furniture, if no table is convenient.

How do you "know" (and in what sense do you know) that there is a table? Take into account what Russell says, including his account of DesCartes.

Define methodological skepticism and limited skepticism. Evaluate your knowing vs. doubting the existence of the table in terms of the goals of methodological skepticism and limited skepticism.

Define radical skepticism. What special problems attend radical skepticism? Be sure to explain Aristotle's reductio ad absurdum critique of radical skepticism. Be sure to comment on solipsism, and the significance of Wittgenstein's question, "Does the solipsist know what he is saying?"

<><><>

Russell Essay Question 2
(Problems of Philosophy, Chapter V)

<><> From David Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding. <><>

<>

It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future, since all such arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. (Section IV)

<>

Though we should conclude... in all reasoning from experience, there is a step taken by mind not supported by argument... there is no danger that these reasonings, upon which almost all knowledge depends,will ever be effected by such a discovery. (Section V)
<>

The Cartesean doubt, therefore, were it ever to be attained by any human creature (as plainly it is not) would be entirely incurable. (Section XII)

<>

A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. He weighs the opposite cases... and when he at last fixes his judgment, the evidence exceeds not what we properly call probability. (Section X)

<><><><><><>

What reasons does Russell give (referencing Hume) for being skeptical about induction? Why would our inability to justify induction be a problem for epistemology (theory of knowledge,) whether we are dealing with commonsense or science?

Why are we unable to provide a deductive justification for the principle of the uniformity of nature? Why are we unable to give an inductive justification? Why would an ad hominem argument be useless?

Why is Hume skeptical about the attempts, by Rene DesCartes, to found our knowledge of the world on undoubtable axioms? How does Hume's insistence that skepticism is not a priviledged position change the debate about justifying induction?

Explain the "balance scale" analogy Hume uses to explain reasonable vs unreasonable beiliefs/doubts. Why does Hume believe that putting the burden back on the skeptic frees us to accept the principle of the uniformity of nature?

If we use "reasonable belief" rather than "certainty" as our standard in philosophy, how may that open the possibilities for constructive dialogue in such areas as ethics or religion?

<><><>

Russell Essay Question 3
(Problems of Philosophy, Chapters VII)

<><> Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book Gamma <><>

<>

For it is a lack of education not to know of what things one should seek a demonstartion, and of what he should not. For as a whole, demonstration of everything is impossible; for the process would go on to infinity, so that even in this manner there would be no demonstration.
<>

The most certain principle of all is that about which it is impossible to think falsely... It is: The same thing cannot at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object in the same respect. For it is impossible to think the same thing both to be and not to be... This is by nature a principle of all other axioms.

<><><><><><>

Why do we need to justify the foundations of deduction? Why is it impossible to justify all of our knowledge claims by inference? What is an "infinite regress?"

What does it mean to call a principle "a priori" or "necessary?" Why is it impossible to abandon the principle of identity, and why would that make Aristotle's "four laws of thought" necessary truths?

Why does the work of Godel and of Wittgenstein challenge the traditional view of "the four laws of thought," and especially the principle of non-contradiction? 

Discuss the significance of the idea, "The map is not the world."

<><><>

Russell Essay Question 4
(Problems of Philosophy, Chapters V, VII, VIII)

<><> Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book Gamma <><>

<>

“The investigation of the truth is in one way hard, in another easy.

An indication of this is found in the fact that no one is able to attain the truth adequately, while, on the other hand, no one fails entirely, but everyone says something true about the nature of all things, and while individually they contribute little or nothing to the truth, by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed."

<><><><><><>

Acoording to the correspondance theory of truth, what makes a propostion meaningful, what makes a proposition true, and what makes a proposition false? What are the virtues and problems of this approach?

Acoording to the coherance theory of truth, what makes a propostion meaningful, what makes a proposition true, and what makes a proposition false? What are the virtues and problems of this approach?

Acoording to the pragmatic theory of truth, what makes a propostion meaningful, what makes a proposition true, and what makes a proposition false? What are the virtues and problems of this approach?

Explain the concepts of knowledge by aquaintance and knowledge by description. What kinds of things are known by acquaintance and what kinds of things are known by description? What is the significance of this distinction for our understanding of truth and falsehood? Why does Russell hold that language and knowledge must ultimately drill down to acquaintance with the world?

Explain at least one the following:

• The Japanese parable of the finger pointing to the moon.

• The Gettier problem about justified true belief.

<><><>

Russell Essay Question 5

(Problems of Philosophy, Chapters XIV, XV)

<><> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations <><>

<>

“What is your aim in Philosophy?”

“To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle.”

<><> Plato, Theatetus <><>

<>

"I see, my dear Theaetetus, that Theodorus had a true insight into your nature when he said that you were a philosopher, for wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder."

<><><><><><>

Bertrand Russell ends "The Problems of Philosophy" with this paragraph ~ 

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy

is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its

questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be

true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because

these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our

intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which

closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through

the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind

also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the

universe which constitutes its highest good.

Think about what you have learned this semester. What have you learned that may potentially:

• Increase your sense of wonder,especially about things you may have taken for granted, for example,what you know vs. what you believe.
  
  

• Helped you to realize that you may have wandered into a fly-bottle, and find your way out? (Note: a "fly-bottle" is a trap for flies, that lures them in, but confuses them when they try to get back out. Think of it as a metaphor for beliefs, values, habits, relationships, etc.)
  
  
  

• Dimish dogmatism, whether dogmas of belief or dogmas of doubt, and elarge your conception of the possible?

I once had a student who said that since she had taken this course, family and co-workers found it easier to talk with her, because she had learned to listen calmly to people who disagreed with her, and to change her mind when shown good reason. Think about what you may do differently (if anything) in light of what you have learned. Concrete examples are especially useful.