Phil1101: Introduction to Philosophy

Does Locke succeed in showing that all knowledge comes from experience?  Summarise two of Locke’s arguments for this view, and evaluate them.  (You may refer to other philosophers’ criticisms of Locke, such as those of Leibniz.)

2. Thomas Reid criticised representative realism on the following grounds (Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay #2, Chapter 14):

[Representative realism] is directly contrary to the universal sense of men who have not been instructed in philosophy. When we see the sun or moon, we have no doubt that the very objects which we immediately see are very far distant from us, and from one another. ... But how are we astonished when the philosopher informs us that we are mistaken in all this; that the sun and moon which we see are not, as we imagine, many miles distant from us, and from each other, but they are in our own mind.

Define what is meant by ‘representative realism’, and briefly summarise some of the arguments for it.  How should a representative realist respond to Reid here?  (You can address such questions as: Does Reid describe representative realism accurately, or does he attack a straw man?  Is it true that representative realism is contrary to common sense?  If it is, then is this a good reason to reject it?)  Argue for your thesis.

3.   Define ‘radical scepticism’ and explain how such scepticism seems to be supported by representative realism (especially when combined with an internalist view of knowledge).  Descartes and Locke both respond to the threat of radical scepticism, but in very different ways.  Compare their responses, and evaluate them.  Is either response successful?  (You can develop your own alternative here.)

4.   Summarise Leibniz’s argument for innate knowledge, based on his assumption that scientific knowledge is based on reasoning (as well as empirical data).  What is Hume’s alternative view of how we come to believe scientific theories?  Evaluate both approaches to induction, and either support one of the views or develop a view of your own.

5. Given that materialism is a simpler view than dualism, is there any good reason to be a dualist?  Begin your answer by summarising the best argument (or the two best arguments) for dualism, and then evaluate the arguments.

6.   In Matter and Consciousness, Chapter 2, Paul Churchland raises several objections to dualism.  Summarise one or two of these objections, and evaluate them.

7. Many people believe that some form of substance dualism is the only possible alternative to a materialist view of the mind.  (After all, we know that material bodies exist, so the only question is whether there are also non-material things such as souls.)  On the other hand, some philosophers (e.g. Thomas Nagel, Michael Tooley, David Chalmers) apparently reject both materialism and substance dualism.  Describe such a non-physicalist view of the mind, and give some arguments in support of it.

8. Define functionalism as a theory of the mind, and give one or two arguments in support of functionalism.  If you think functionalism is correct, then defend functionalism from contrary arguments (or defend these supporting arguments from criticism).  If you reject functionalism, then criticise these supporting arguments and/or give arguments against functionalism.