The final examination for Philosophy 1200A is scheduled for Dec. 14/15. It will be available starting at 12 noon EST on Dec. 14. It is a three-hour exam, but students will have a 24 hour period within which to write it. (Once you begin the exam, you have only 3 hours to complete and submit it.) On the exam you will be asked to answer several questions (about 5 or 6) all of which will be selected from the list of questions given below. (There will be some choice but not much, perhaps 6 out 7.) Each of your answers should be approximately 1 page (about 300-400 words) in length, though some of your answers may be a little longer, others a little shorter, depending on the question you are answering. The final exam counts for 40% of your overall grade for the course. Please note that you must write all of your own answers. If two or more students present the same answer, word for word, for any question, both will receive zero for that question. Also, in your answers you must not simply copy material from the Ppt slides; your answers must be written in your own words. List of Questions Describe as clearly as you can A.J. Ayer’s deconstructionist approach to the problem or issue of the meaning of life? Explain clearly how Ayer’s position differs from nihilism? (If you think it does not differ from nihilism, then defend your view by argument.) How plausible is Ayer’s deconstructionism? Defend your view by argument.  Explain in detail Bernard Williams’ argument (discussed in the slides “Death and Meaning Part 1) that immortality would undermine the very possibility of our living meaningful lives. Do you agree with Bernard Williams that immortality would undermine the very possibility of having a meaningful life? (Ignore whether immortality would be good or bad for society as a whole. Also, for the purpose of this question, you must assume that there is no afterlife in the religious sense of our soul surviving the death of our bodies in this life.) Support your view by argument.  One of the arguments Thomas Nagel discusses in Reading 23, “Deathâ€, to show that death is not an evil, or a bad thing, is that after you die you don’t exist and so cannot be harmed in any way. In response to this, Nagel invokes what has come to be called the “deprivation†account of the badness of death. What is the deprivation account? How does Nagel try to defend it? Is his defence convincing? Support your view by argument.  Describe clearly three arguments or considerations that can be offered in support of the hedonist view that pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good or valuable? How convincing are they?  Describe briefly, but clearly, Nozick’s argument (in Reading 30), involving the experience machine thought experiment against hedonism. Discuss in detail how convincing Nozick’s argument is.  Explain what stoics mean by the following passage (quoted from Reading 33 by Sedley): “Everybody wants to be rich, free, powerful, beautiful, loveable, and so on, but, paradoxically, only the wise achieve these goals. Everyone else is, whatever they may think, actually poor, enslaved, powerless, ugly and unlovable.† Explain as clearly as you can the stoic view of emotions, or the “passions†as stoics refer to them. Explain in detail how this account of emotions is relevant to the plausibility of the stoic philosophy of life? Is the stoic account of the emotions plausible? Why or why not? What, in your view, are the most important objections against, or weaknesses of, the stoic approach to the meaning and purpose of life? (Discuss a minimum of three.) Are these objections convincing?  Explain clearly why it has sometimes been argued that Buddhism is actually a disguised, or closet, form of nihilism. How convincing is this objection? Support your view by argument. Would it apply also to stoicism? Why or why not? Describe as clearly as you can the “doing-good†account of the meaning of life defended by Aaron Smuts in Reading 43 (and to some extent by Peter Singer as described in the lectures). Would you say that Smuts’ view conflicts sharply with existentialism? Explain clearly. To what extent do you think that doing good works, or living a morally good life, like George Bailey in the movie “It’s a Wonderful Lifeâ€, can plausibly be seen as a convincing answer to the problem of the meaning of life? Justify your answer by argument. What does Susan Wolf mean in Reading 45 by ‘meaning in life’ (as opposed to ‘meaning of life’). Describe in detail what it is for there to be meaning in life, according to Wolf. Do you think Wolf has simply changed the subject and that she is no longer addressing the question ‘What is the meaning of life’? One objection against Susan Wolf’s account of the meaning of life is that it is problematic how it would apply to people in traditional societies. Explain this objection clearly and then discuss in detail whether it is convincing.  How plausible is Susan Wolf’s contention that the possibility of living a meaningful life, or of having meaning in your life, as she puts it, depends upon the pursuit of projects of worth and value? Defend your view by argument. Explain what the philosopher Samuel Scheffler means by the “Afterlifeâ€? (Here you will need to look at Reading 50: Scheffler ‘The Afterlife’ (in our text, chapter 23.)) What do you think is the most plausible explanation of why people seem to care so much about the Afterlife? Defend your view by argument.  All things considered, what, in your view, is the best, most convincing, response to the question ‘What is the meaning of life?’ (One possible answer, of course, would be that there just isn’t any meaning of life.) Defend your view as best you can. Â