phil

PHIL 109: Final Exam (Summer Semester — 2022)

Read this Andrew Nikiforuk essay, “Meet the Face of Global Fascism”, TheTyee.ca (25 Feb 2022):

<https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/02/25/Meet-The-Face-Global-Fascism/>. Then upload a file answering all

20 questions below as your own personal response to completing the individual final exam course requirement.

Part I: The First Action of the Mind (Conceptualization)

1. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a definition is given. Is your chosen example a real or

nominal definition? If it is real, then is it logical, causal, or descriptive? If it is logical, then distinguish both the

genus and the essential difference. If it is causal, then distinguish whether there are formal, final, material, or

efficient causes involved. If it is descriptive, then state whether it uses a property or an accident. [Review: see

Lessons 10–12]

Part II: The Second Action of the Mind (Judgment)

2. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a universal affirmative Type A proposition is given.

Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the

predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. [Review: see Lessons 14–17]

3. For the Type A proposition in #2 above, state its contrary, its contradictory, and its subalternate (each in

standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to

define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). [Review: see Lesson 18]

4. If we assume the Type A proposition in #2 above is FALSE, then state whether its contrary is TRUE,

FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and

state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. [Review: see Lesson 18]

5. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a universal negative Type E proposition is given.

Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the

predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. [Review: see Lessons 14–17]

6. For the Type E proposition in #5 above, state: its contrary; its contradictory; and its subalternate (each in

standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to

define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). [Review: see Lesson 18]

7. If we assume the Type E proposition in #5 above is FALSE, then state: whether its contrary is TRUE,

FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and

state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. [Review: see Lesson 18]

8. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a particular affirmative Type I proposition is given.

Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the

predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. [Review: see Lessons 14–17]

9. For the Type I proposition in #8 above, state: its subcontrary; its contradictory; and its subimplicate (each in

standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to

define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). [Review: see Lesson 18]

10. If we assume the Type I proposition in #8 above is TRUE, then state: whether its subcontrary is TRUE,

FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and

state whether its subimplicate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. [Review: see Lesson 18]

11. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a particular negative Type O proposition is given.

Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the

predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. [Review: see Lessons 14–17]

PHIL 109: Final Exam (Summer Semester — 2022)

12. For the Type O proposition in #11 above, state: its subcontrary; its contradictory; and its subimplicate

(each in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase

letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). [Review: see Lesson 18]

13. If we assume the Type O proposition in #11 above is TRUE, then state: whether its subcontrary is TRUE,

FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and

state whether its subimplicate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. [Review: see Lesson 18]

14. Write the inverse of the proposition in #2 above. Show all the steps involved in the inference. Write all

propositions in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single

uppercase letters to define your terms. [Review: see Lessons 19–20]

15. Write the inverse of the proposition in #5 above. Show all the steps involved in the inference. Write all

propositions in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single

uppercase letters to define your terms. [Review: see Lessons 19–20]

Part III: The Third Action of the Mind (Argument)

16. Quote a passage from the assigned essay in which you find a syllogism, an enthymeme, or an epicheirema.

Choose only one argument type. Rewrite each proposition in your chosen example in standard form,

distinguishing the conclusion’s subject term from the conclusion’s predicate term, as well as the middle

term(s), by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I,

or O. Use square brackets to enclose any unspoken premises assumed in enthymematic reasoning, if

applicable. [Review: see Lessons 24–28]

17. Analyze the argument in #16 above by checking it for validity and then stating whether it is VALID or

INVALID. Prove your answer by drawing a Venn diagram for the argument, labeling it according to your

analysis in #16 above. If the argument is INVALID, state each one of the four rules which the argument

violates. If the argument is VALID, state whether or not it is SOUND, and why. [Review: see Lessons 25–27]

18. Quote another passage from the assigned essay (different from your example in #16) in which you find a

syllogism, an enthymeme, or an epicheirema. Choose only one. Rewrite each proposition in your chosen

example in standard form, distinguishing the conclusion’s subject term from the conclusion’s predicate term,

as well as the middle term(s), by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each

proposition Type as A, E, I, or O. Use square brackets to enclose any unspoken premises assumed in

enthymematic reasoning, if applicable. If you wish, instead of citing another passage, you can paraphrase

what you discern the main argument of the entire essay to be, by stating your interpretation as a syllogism,

enthymeme, or epicheirema, and then formalizing that argument according to the preceding symbolization

instructions for #18. [Review: see Lessons 24–28]

19. Analyze the argument in #18 above by checking it for validity and then stating whether it is VALID or

INVALID. Prove your answer by drawing a Venn diagram for the argument, labeling it according to your

analysis in #18 above. If the argument is INVALID, state each one of the four rules which the argument

violates. If the argument is VALID, state whether or not it is SOUND, and why. [Review: see Lessons 25–27]

20. Quote a passage from the assigned essay in which you find a modus ponens argument, a modus tollens

argument, a denying the antecedent fallacy, an affirming the consequent fallacy, a sorites, a hypothetical

syllogism, a conjunctive syllogism, a disjunctive syllogism, a constructive dilemma, a destructive dilemma, or

a reductio ad absurdum argument. Choose only one argument type. Symbolize your chosen argument by using

the techniques you learned in this course. State whether your chosen argument is VALID or INVALID. Is it

also SOUND? [Review: see Lessons 21–22, 30–31, and 33]

PHIL 109: Final Exam (Summer Semester — 2022)

Read this Andrew Nikiforuk essay, “Meet the Face of Global Fascism”, TheTyee.ca (25 Feb 2022):

The unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin will change our economic and political lives more than

the pandemic.

When one of the world’s most powerful petro-states declares war in order to “denazify” a legitimate

democracy with a Jewish president, don’t expect life to continue as normal.

Thanks to Putin’s aggression, democracies will face higher energy prices, severe inflation, rampant political

volatility, and unexpected consequences throughout the global economy. War has a way of begetting more

war.

By invading Ukraine, Putin is also openly signalling to neighbouring democracies that he considers them weak

and manageable. Sanctions cannot hurt or dissuade this dictator who has imperial ambitions wrapped in a

quasi-religious crusade.

Putin has also calculated that the world will not risk nuclear war just to save a struggling democracy of 44

million in Ukraine.

But long before Putin put his troops on the ground, he actively worked to undermine the factual world of

western democracies with disinformation campaigns that rattled both Europe and the United States.

The U.S. historian Timothy Snyder, an expert on the blood-soaked lands of Eastern Europe, starkly warned us

about Putin in 2018 with the publication of The Road to Unfreedom. The book remains an indispensable guide

to the horror show now unfolding before us.

Snyder laid out the new fascism. To make Russia, a fragile petro-state, look strong, Putin has sown division in

western democracies. Long before “fake news” dominated North American airwaves, Russia attacked factual

reality in Ukraine.

It then supported populist and fascist movements throughout Europe. It openly supported a Syrian tyrant, in

part to destabilize Europe with a wave of migrants. At the same time, it funded white supremacists as

civilization’s saviours.

Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, the actions of Putin’s government — from the support of populist

parties in Europe to his dangerous alliance with Donald Trump — have already totally changed our political

realities. And this is what fascism does: it replaces fact with fiction and transforms citizens into zombie s.

Here are 10 things you need to know about the new global face of fascism.

1. Vladimir Putin rose to power in the shadow of Boris Yeltsin after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In 1998, the ailing Yeltsin appointed the head of Federal Security Service (formerly the Soviet Union’s

dreaded KGB) as president. Then-unknown Putin soon generated a crisis — a series of bombings across the

country — to raise his political profile. Putin identified the culprit as a republic in southwest, Chechnya. And

so the second Chechen war brought a new strongman to power.

2. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 greatly shaped Putin’s view of the world. The young

intelligence officer watched as a global price collapse unhinged the hegemony of the Soviet Union. That

autocracy had been based on cheap oil and generous energy subsidies to client states. But when production and

revenues dropped by 50 per cent, the authoritarian regime collapsed. Putin viewed the event an unmitigated

tragedy and vowed to reverse it.

3. As a student of oil and its corrosive powers, President Putin acted quickly to consolidate all energy

production back into the hands of state. He removed the country’s most powerful oligarchs from Russia’s

oil and gas companies and nationalized the industry. He then let in a few western players, such as Exxon

Mobil, to help revitalize Russia’s oil patch.

As oil prices rose between 2000 and 2014, Putin used the flow of petro money to form a new social compact

with Russians. He provided “growing living standards in exchange for popular acquiescence to his continued

rule.” He also used oil revenue to rebuild Russia’s military machine.

4. Whenever asked about his historical or philosophical influences, Putin cites an obscure Russian fascist

by the name of Ivan Ilyin. Born into a noble family in 1883, Ilyin embraced white fascism as a response to

Red fascism, also known as Bolshevism. Ilyin openly admired both Mussolini and Hitler and dreamed of a

fascist Europe. Not surprisingly he remained a forgotten Russian émigré who died in Switzerland in 1954.

PHIL 109: Final Exam (Summer Semester — 2022)

5. In his writings, Ilyin consistently advocated for a unique brand of Russian fascism. First and foremost

he imagined Russia as an innocent Christian “Spirit” that the West had repeatedly tried to corrupt. Russia, in

other words, was always a political innocent requiring an imperial defence.

Second, he refuted the rule of law and regarded lawlessness as patriotic act: “The fact of the matter is that

fascism is a redemptive excess of patriotic arbitrariness,” he wrote.

Third, he believed that only a dictator could save Russia in its constant historical struggle against evil: a

redeemer with a mystical connection to his people and history. In Ilyin’s religious worldview, all politics

becomes “the art of identifying and neutralizing the enemy.” Only a healthy Russian empire could deliver

salvation against the godless agents of globalism.

6. Since 2005, Putin, a master of propaganda, has quietly and persistently rehabilitated Ilyin’s Russian

brand of fascism. That year he even organized the forgotten man’s reburial in Moscow. Putin and his fellow

oligarchs began to embrace Ilyin’s ideas freely, because they provided a cover for the dysfunction of Russia, a

petro-state ruled by robber barons where the rule of law meant nothing.

Snyder exposed these dangers in 2018, writing, “Ilyin’s ideas sanctified radical inequality at home, changed

the subject of politics from reform to innocence, while defining the West as a permanent source of spiritual

threat.”

7. Putin did not openly begin to oppose European democracies and NATO until the presidential election

of 2012. That rigged performance required outright digital manipulation that stretched all credulity: 99.8 per

cent of the ballots in Chechnya and mental hospitals all went to Putin’s United Russia party. To defend such

outrageous fraud and to redirect Russia’s bruised emotions, Putin openly identified the decadent West as a

permanent enemy that sought to contaminate the purity of Russian civilization with gay rights. (Demands for

democracy therefore equaled sodomy.)

In opposition to Europe, Putin now celebrated something called “Eurasia,” or an empire for Russia. An

independent Ukraine represented a threat to his vision because it offered Russians an alternative to Putin’s

lawless oligarchy.

8. Meanwhile, Putin’s Russia solidified its position as the world’s third largest extractor of oil and gas.

Hydrocarbon exports accounted for 43 per cent of the government’s total annual revenue between 2011 and

2020. Oil money enriched the oligarchs, rebuilt the military and funded disinformation campaigns abroad.

Russia exports five million barrels of oil a day, almost all of which goes to Europe, Germany, the Netherlands

and Poland. The remainder is piped to Asia, with China accounting for 31 per cent.

Russia contains the world’s largest natural gas reserves and supplies, about 40 per cent of the EU’s natural gas.

Germany, Italy, France and Belarus are the most dependent. Putin is banking that this pronounced energy

dependency will weaken any European response to the invasion of Ukraine.

9. In 2014, Putin ended all pretense of a “post-world war order” by invading Ukraine with Russian

troops, and by launching a cyber offensive and disinformation campaign. He replicated those tactics to

even greater effect on social media in the 2016 U.S. election by exploiting that nation’s growing divisions.

Certainly, Putin was pleased with the result. As the journalist Masha Gessen noted after Trump’s election, the

businessman was “probably the first candidate in history to win the presidency despite having been shown

repeatedly by the national media to be a chronic liar, sexual predator, serial tax-avoider, and race-baiter who

has attracted the likes of the Ku Klux Klan. Most important, Trump is the first candidate in memory who ran

not for president but for autocrat — and won.”

10. Historian Snyder notes that Putin controls a weak state that can’t provide water and heat for one-

third of its hospitals. To project strength, the autocrat must make democracies look more disorderly than

Russia’s oligarchy. Because Russia can’t address its problems, it must therefore export them — everything

from disinformation to lawlessness to inequality abroad. The more democracies celebrate wealthy billionaires

and nationalist movements, the more they look like Russia. The more they celebrate emotion and falsehood,

the more Putin wins — for the moment.