Final exam review
Exit this survey
 

1. Final exam review

 

1. We read Walter Sinnott-Armstrong to get started. He visited us here not long ago to give a talk. He currently teaches at Duke. As you re-read his short essay on "what is philosophy?" do you have any questions?

Does he cover everything you now have reason to expect?

2. Epictetus is one of my all time favorite philosophers. It is so hard to understand him out of context. As you look over some of his passages, do they make sense?

What is still unclear about Epictetus and Stoicism?

3. We read writing by Admiral Stockdale, who counts himself a Stoic, and we read a report about Pat Tillman, who we argued was a Stoic. Admiral Stockdale does such a good job of explaining the basic elements of Stoicism that make it so useful. Are you clear on how he used Stoicism?

That acronym he invented, do you remember it? Do you remember why we thought that type of guide was so very Stoic? It did not expect too much or too little of the men.

Do you recall how we thought the Stoics would give us advice in our everyday lives?

Ask any questions you have about Stockdale or Tillman here.

4. I am very proud that we read Sarah Broadie. Her article is just a wonderful example of how rich philosophy can be. It is also a great guide to the Timaeus.

Do you recall her focus? The sidelights of the Timeaus (not the highlights?) She is pointing out what the Timaeus does *not* have in common with our current & common stories of creation. There are some advantages to Plato's story! Do you remember what they are?

Also: keep in mind, Plato never thought we were made from mud! That is the view he was opposed to. Some of you got this wrong on the first midterm.

Ask any questions you have about Broadie here. You were never required to read the full Timaeus, but ask any questions about it here, too.

5. Keep in mind: Aristotle never talked about addiction per se! He gives us a wonderfully rich framework with which we can think about addiction. His framework really helps, because without it we might just talk about addiction in terms of free will or disease- neither of these approaches gets us too far.

Aristotle will talk of choice, voluntariness, regret, and pleasure. Do you have any questions about what he discusses? Can you apply him to addiction?

Anything thing unclear about the Aristotle we read (or how we used him in class), ask about here.

6. Epicurus! The Epicureans are fun to think about. They would recommend surfing over joining the army. In fact, they would accuse anyone of joining the army of not thinking clearly about life. What do they recommend? Why? How are they trying to help us?

From what I noticed, you guys have a great take on this view.

Please ask any questions you have about it here, however.

7. I still insist that if you want to think about Schopenhauer, you can just picture House, MD. The only difference I notice between the two is that Schopenhauer was more supportive of pets. Everything about House, MD seems philosophical: his commitment to his job, his willingness to lie, his disrespect for rules, his focus on ending suffering for others, his take on dating and power... can you go on?

Any questions you have about Schopenhauer here!

8. Anything unclear about Camus, enter here.

9. Dan Haybron has a wonderfully sophisticated take on the research done on happiness. He points out the difference between welfare and satisfaction, the role of norms and perspectives, and it becomes hard to disagree with him.

Unfortunately, a lot of researchers into happiness are not convinced!

Do you have any questions about his article? Any at all?

10. We only ended up reading two authors on the Matrix- Hanley who focused on heaven and Chalmers who focused on skepticism.

Hanley thinks the first matrix's problems show why the common idea of heaven in incoherent. I couldn't believe how many of you understood that entire argument in midterm 2. Great work.

Chalmers argues for a specific Matrix hypothesis that is not at all skeptical. He gives a particular definition of skeptical (it isn't that any few beliefs are false, a hypothesis is skeptical if *many* beliefs are false). He also explains that the Matrix hypothesis is actually about metaphysics. And we have very few firm beliefs about metaphysics. So if they are false- this does not amount to skepticism.

What is still confusing about these two?

11. Please read the Gettier! It is just a matter of two examples! Don't skip it.

Ask any questions here.

12. Alvin Goldman takes a long time, being very patient and careful, to suggest something rather undramatic. What is his conclusion? Who is he arguing against? Be sure to know these.

List what is unclear about his ideas here.

13. Danto tells us what art is, and explains how philosophers were properly brought into that discussion. In the past, they had tried to give their views on art, but they were no good.
Why are philosophers posed properly now to think about art?
What changed?

Anything unclear about Danto- list here!

14. Scarry has some interesting and bold ideas about beauty. I for one am not sure I buy half of it, but what is it she says? Do you support her view? Why or why not?

What is unclear about her view that bothers you (plenty of it is unclear in a way we just have to accept, I think!)? Are there any passages in her work that were really hard to follow?

15. What is John Rawls doing in our reading? What is unclear about what is he is doing?

16. Peter Singer is a great philosopher to know. Does his view make sense? What do you not get about it?

17. What can I do to help you get ready for this final exam?

18. What can I do to encourage you to work on your paper? Any ideas?

19. You can enter your name if you want.