PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 1
Study Guide (by Module)
Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider
PHI 101
Session B, Fall 2023
Instructor: Matthew Altman-Suchocki
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MODULE 1:
Chapters 1 and 2
Learning Objectives
Questions/Suggestions to Consider
Module 1 Learning Objectives (Chapters 1 and 2):
1. Understand the nature of a philosophical question.
2. Define a normative question.
3. Develop an understanding of philosophical arguments, including identifying
premises and conclusions.
4. Define a deductive argument.
5. Explain the difference between a “valid” deductive argument and an
“invalid” deductive argument.
6. Compare and contrast a “sound” argument with a “valid” argument.
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 2
7. Describe the difference between a deductive argument and an inductive
argument.
8. Evaluate a philosophical argument.
9. Explain the difference between induction and abduction.
10. Articulate what relationship, if any, exists between philosophy and
science.
Module 1 (Chapters 1 and 2): QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
Look at the arguments given in chapter 2, and identify which statements in these
arguments are premises and which are conclusions.
Define deductive validity.
Define deductive soundness.
Can an invalid argument have a true conclusion? Explain.
Can a valid argument have a false conclusion? Explain.
Can a sound argument have a false conclusion? Explain.
Can an unsound argument have a true conclusion? Explain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 3
MODULE 2:
Chapters 3 and 4
Learning Objectives
Questions/Suggestions to Consider
Module 2 Learning Objectives (Chapters 3 and 4):
11. Compare and contrast evidential reasons with pragmatic reasons.
12. Describe some of the most well known arguments in the history of
philosophy for God’s existence.
13. Identify objections to these arguments and evaluate some of the
responses to these objections.
14. Understand and explain the problem of evil.
15. Evaluate the three responses to the problem of evil as presented by
the authors of our textbook.
16. Describe the three theodicies connected to the problem of evil.
17. Identify at least one objection to each of these theodicies.
18. Understand the position known as skeptical theism.
Module 2 (Chapters 3 and 4): QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
(Chapter 3)
Explain the difference between evidential and pragmatic reasons for a belief.
Identify the five statements about God that our textbook identifies as central to
many forms of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
What is the first cause argument for God’s existence?
Define the idea of a causal chain.
Define the idea of a potentially infinite process.
What is the cosmological argument for God’s existence?
What is the principle of sufficient reason?
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 4
Define the idea of a contingent being.
Define the idea of a necessary being.
What is the design argument for the existence of God?
What kind of argument (deductive, enumerative inductive, abductive, etc., see
chapter 2) is the argument for design a good example of?
Why, according to Hume, can the design argument not establish the existence of
the Judeo-Christian God?
How does Darwin’s theory of the origin species undermine the design argument
for God’s existence?
Explain how natural selection is different from artificial selection.
Explain why the phenomenon of imperfect design in the biological world suggests
that Darwin’s natural selection theory of good design in the natural world—
organs being well suited to perform their function--is better than the theist
intelligent design explanation of good design.
If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is correct, does this show that theism is
false, or that God does not exist? Explain.
What is ontology?
What is the ontological argument for God’s existence?
What is a reductio ad absurdum argument?
How does Anselm define the concept of God?
What does Anselm mean by “greater”?
What is the difference between existence in the mind and existence in reality?
What is the key premise of Anselm’s ontological argument?
How did Gaunilo of Marmoutiers try to show that Anselm’s ontological argument
is invalid?
(Chapter 4)
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 5
How does the example of the super-heavy stone seem to show that God does not
exist?
Why does the assumption that because God is omnipotent He can make a super-
heavy stone lead to a contradiction?
What is Aquinas’s solution to the puzzle of God’s omnipotence and the super-
heavy stone?
Why did Leibniz think that this must be the best of all possible worlds?
What is the problem of evil and why does it seem to show that God does not
exist?
How might someone solve the problem of evil by recharacterizing the nature of
God while maintaining the assumption that God is perfectly good?
How might the premise that God cannot do what is impossible help to explain
why he cannot intervene in the natural world to prevent horrible events?
Can you sketch a natural history of the world that makes sense of the idea that
this is the best of all possible worlds?
How do “dualists” respond to the problem of evil?
What are “theodicies”?
How does the “free will” theodicy address the problem of evil?
What is Mackie’s objection to the free will solution?
What “straightforward objection” to the free will theodicy do our textbook
authors make?
How might a theodicy based on the idea that it is extremely good that there are
conscious, rational beings in the material world address the problem of evil?
What is “skeptical theism” and how does it address the problem of evil?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 6
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 7
MODULE 3:
Chapters 5 and 6
Learning Objectives
Questions/Suggestions to Consider
Module 3 Learning Objectives (Chapters 5 and 6):
19. Understand Descartes’ “evil demon” thought experiment and its
connection to the question of “certainty.”
20. Describe Descartes’ view on achieving certainty and how his notion
of “vivid and clear perception” relates to doing so.
21. Evaluate Descartes’ solution to the “evil demon problem.”
22. Compare and contrast rationalism with empiricism.
23. Identify the key difference(s) between a priori and a posteriori
reasoning.
24. Distinguish between “primary” and “secondary” qualities.
25. Compare and contrast direct realism, indirect realism, and naive
realism.
26. Understand Berkeley’s idealism and how idealism differs from
realism.
Module 3 (Chapters 5 and 6): QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
(Chapter 5)
How did Descartes argue that one should not place absolute confidence in one’s
senses?
How did Descartes argue that one can never be completely certain that our
perceptions are accurate?
How did Descartes show that complete certainty is nonetheless possible?
What two (possibly three) things about himself did Descartes think he could be
completely certain of?
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 8
What did Descartes mean by a “vivid and clear perception” of something?
What did Descartes believe we are warranted in inferring from the vivid and clear
perception of something?
Why did Descartes believe that once the existence of God has been proved we
are justified in believing that we are not being deceived by an evil demon?
Why did Descartes believe that once the existence of God has been proved we
are justified in believing that there is a physical world?
How, according to Descartes, does the existence of God warrant acceptance of
the clear and vivid perception principle?
What is the “Cartesian circle”?
(Chapter 6)
What is a priori reasoning?
What is a posteriori reasoning?
What trait characterizes rationalist philosophers?
What trait characterizes empiricist philosophers?
What is the argument from perspectival variation?
What is the argument from perspectival variation supposed to show?
What is indirect realism?
What are material objects, in Locke’s terminology?
What is naïve representationalism?
What objection do the authors make to naïve representationalism?
What, according to Locke, is a quality?
Give some examples of primary qualities.
Give some examples of secondary qualities.
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 9
How does Locke use the idea of resemblance to distinguish primary and
secondary qualities?
What, in Locke’s terminology, is the difference between ideas and materials
objects?
What, according to Berkeley, is the difference between idealism and materialism?
According to Berkeley, what are trees, stones and moons, if not material objects?
What is direct realism?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 10
MODULE 4:
Chapters 7 and 8
Learning Objectives
Questions/Suggestions to Consider
Module 4 Learning Objectives (Chapters 7 and 8):
27. Define “induction” and “necessary truths.”
28. Describe “the principle of the uniformity of nature” and how it
relates to Hume’s discussion of induction and making predictions.
29. Define/describe an “epistemically basic belief.”
30. Identify three components required to know some proposition.
31. Evaluate whether these three components are necessary and/or
sufficient for knowledge.
32. Compare and contrast foundationalism and coherentism.
33. Compare and contrast internalism and externalism.
34. Compare and contrast fallibilism and skepticism.
35. Evaluate whether Gettier cases challenge the “justified true belief”
account of knowledge.
Module 4 (Chapters 7 and 8): QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
(Chapter 7)
Can we be confident of predictions that are necessary truths? If so, why?
What is the principle of uniformity of nature?
Is the principle of the uniformity of nature a necessary or contingent truth?
Why can’t we justify the principle of uniformity of nature by induction?
What did Hume conclude from the fact that the principle of uniformity of nature
cannot be justified by induction?
How did Popper characterize the scientific method?
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 11
Does the scientific method rely on inductive reasoning, according to Popper? Why
or why not?
Why have some criticized Popper as lacking an account of applied science?
What was Strawson’s reply to Hume’s problem of induction?
Why does Strawson’s reply seem to miss the point of Hume’s problem?
How did Strawson use a question about constitutions to respond to this
objection?
What is an epistemically basic belief?
Identify a way of justifying predictions other than by appealing to logical necessity
or inductive reasoning.
(Chapter 8)
What is epistemology?
What kind of knowledge is epistemology primarily concerned with?
What does it mean to say that a proposition is a “necessary condition” for
another?
What does it mean to say that one proposition is a “sufficient condition” for
another?
Is belief a necessary or sufficient condition for knowledge? (Is “S believes that p” a
necessary condition for “S knows that p”?
Is truth a necessary or sufficient condition for knowledge? (Is “p is true” a
necessary condition for “S knows that p”?)
Is justified true belief a necessary or sufficient condition for knowledge? (Is “S has
a justified true belief that p” a necessary or sufficient condition for “S knows that
p”?)
What is foundationalism?
What important question must a defender of foundationalism answer before
foundationalism can be an adequate theory of epistemic justification?
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 12
What is coherentism?
Why does the story of the brain in a vat pose a challenge to coherentism?
What are internalist theories of justification?
What are externalist theories of justification?
What is reliabilism?
What is skepticism?
What is fallibilism?
What is infallibilism?
What analysis of knowledge do Gettier cases challenge?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 13
MODULE 5:
Chapters 9 and 10
Learning Objectives
Questions/Suggestions to Consider
Module 5 Learning Objectives (Chapters 9 and 10):
36. Describe determinism.
37. Identify the crucial difference(s) between hard determinism and soft
determinism.
38. Understand the two conditions for “free will” that the authors derive
from Hume’s account.
39. Understand the objection to Hume’s account, as presented by the
authors, and evaluate whether the third condition for “free will” that the
authors derive from Frankfurt succeeds in responding to this objection.
40. Define introspection.
41. Understand and explain the “problem of other minds.”
42. Describe the “mind-body problem.”
43. Understand Cartesian dualism and evaluate at least one problem for
Cartesian dualism presented by Elizabeth of Bohemia.
44. Describe philosophical behaviorism.
45. Understand the mind-brain identity theory.
46. Describe functionalism.
Module 5 (Chapters 9 and 10): QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
(Chapter 9)
What is determinism?
What three elements are usually involved in being “free to choose”?
What do hard determinists believe?
What is soft determinism?
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 14
According to Hume, a person is free to the extent that she meets two conditions.
What are they?
Modifying the views of Hume and Frankfurt, our authors identify three conditions
necessary for being free. What are they?
What is free will libertarianism (as distinguished from political libertarianism)?
What is scientific libertarianism?
What is radical libertarianism?
Does it make sense to think that people are morally responsible even if
determinism is true? Why or why not?
(Chapter 10)
What three questions are central to the area of philosophy of mind known as “the
problem of other minds”?
What is the central question of the mind-body problem?
What is introspection?
What is metaphysics as a branch of philosophy?
What is Cartesian dualism?
What is Descartes’ conceivability argument for the real distinctness of mind and
body?
What is substance dualism?
What two objections to substance dualism do our authors present?
What is philosophical behaviorism?
What is verificationism as a theory of meaning?
By what course of reasoning does verificationism lead to philosophical
behaviorism?
What are mental states, according to the philosophical behaviorist?
What is the mind-brain identity theory?
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 15
Why do some philosophers think that the mind-brain identity theory is
unacceptably “chauvinistic”?
What is functionalism?
What is analytic functionalism?
What is psycho-functionalism?
What is eliminativism?
What is Ned Block’s objection to functionalism?
What is panpsychism?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 16
MODULE 6:
Chapters 11 and 12
Learning Objectives
Questions/Suggestions to Consider
Module 6 Learning Objectives (Chapters 11 and 12):
47. Define “qualitatively identical” and understand how it differs from
being “numerically identical.”
48. Compare and contrast the term “nonmaterial” from the term
“nonphysical.”
49. Describe the Soul Theory.
50. Understand the key ideas in different theories of memory, as
presented by the authors of our textbook.
51. Evaluate how the brain relates to personal identity.
52. Define “objective.”
53. Understand the Divine Command Theory.
54. Describe cultural relativism.
55. Compare and contrast subjectivism and expressivism.
56. Define an “ideal condition.”
Module 6 (Chapters 11 and 12): QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
(Chapter 11)
What is the difference between qualitative identity and numerical identity?
Which notion of identity is relevant to the problem of personal identity?
What is the equivalence relation?
What is the soul theory?
What scientific objection do some scientists make to the soul theory?
What epistemological objection to the soul theory do our authors make?
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 17
What is a “person stage”?
What is “Memory theory—Version 1”?
What’s the difference between a real and an apparent memory?
What is “Memory theory—Version 2”? What objection to “Version 1” does it
address”
What is “Memory theory—Version 3”? What objection to “Version 2” does it
address?
What is the “no-branching constraint”?
What is animalism?
(Chapter 12)
What is moral skepticism?
Under what conditions, according to our authors, is a claim or statement
“objective”?
What is the divine command theory?
What is descriptive cultural relativism?
What is metaethical cultural relativism?
What is agent relativism?
What is speaker relativism?
What is simple subjectivism?
What is expressivism?
What is the qualified attitude theory?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 18
MODULE 7:
Chapters 13, 14, and 15
Learning Objectives
Questions/Suggestions to Consider
Module 7 Learning Objectives (Chapters 13, 14, 15):
57. Describe hedonism as a theory of value.
58. Understand the difference(s) between direct and indirect value.
59. Evaluate Sartre’s claim that “existence precedes essence.”
60. Evaluate Susan Wolf’s account of meaningfulness, including its
notion of “active engagement.”
61. Describe what Wolf calls a “project of worth.”
62. Compare and contrast consequentialism and utilitarianism.
63. Define “aggregate utility.”
64. Evaluate one or more objections to Act Utilitarianism.
65. Compare and contrast Act Consequentialism, Act Utilitarianism, Rule
Consequentialism, and Rule Utilitarianism.
66. Understand Kant’s “Universalization Test.”
67. Understand Kant’s “Humanity Formula.”
68. Compare and contrast Kantianism and consequentialism.
Module 7 (Chapters 13, 14, and 15): QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
(Chapter 13)
What is the difference between direct and indirect value?
What is the only direct good, according to hedonism?
What does Richard Layard say should be the goal of policymakers?
What three objections do the authors raise against hedonism?
How do the authors suggest we understand Sartre’s use of the term “essence”?
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 19
What does it mean for “existence” to precede “essence”?
How do the authors understand Sartre’s use of “anguish”?
What is “bad faith” and how does it relate to “anguish”?
According to Sartre, by what process does a thing acquire value?
What is the role of “freedom” in Sartre’s account of value?
What objection to hedonism does the notion of “meaning” raise?
What is a “project of worth” and how does it relate to “active engagement?”
What role, if any, does culture play in determining which activities are
worthwhile?
(Chapter 14)
What is meant by the term “aggregate good” and how does it relate to
consequentialism?
What is the name of the “mathematical” kind of “analysis” by which an aggregate
good might be determined?
What is act consequentialism?
What is act utilitarianism and how does it differ from act consequentialism?
What theory of value does act utilitarianism rely on?
Explain what is meant by “utilities.”
Explain what is meant by “aggregate utility.”
What is the difference between “aggregate good” and “aggregate utility?”
What two objections do the authors raise to act utilitarianism?
What is a “special obligation,” and what problem do they pose, if any, for act
utilitarianism?
Explain how the interests of individuals compare to the interests of the many
under act utilitarianism.
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 20
What is the “privacy rule” and how does it apply, if at all, to the authors’
objections to act utilitarianism?
What is rule consequentialism and how does it differ from act consequentialism?
What is rule utilitarianism and how does it differ, if at all, from rule
consequentialism?
Explain the difference between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism.
What refinement do the authors make to their original version of the privacy rule,
and why do they make that refinement?
What is a “morally worthy action?”
Explain Kant’s universalization test.
Explain Kant's “humanity formula.”
Why might a Kantian and a consequentialist both believe something is wrong, but
disagree about why it is wrong?
(Chapter 15)
What distinction, if any, do the authors draw between ethics (ethical)and morality
(moral)?
Explain how something’s being illegal does not make it immoral, and vice versa.
(What are some examples of something that is illegal but not immoral? What are
some examples of something that is immoral but not illegal?)
What is Peter Singer’s view about luxury and/or disposable income and people
who are starving?
How does Kwame Anthony Appiah’s view regarding helping the poor differ from
Peter Singer’s?
What is the fair share principle?
What is the relationship between the fair share principle, an individual, and
collectives?
PHI 101 Study Guide: Learning Objectives & Questions/Suggestions to Consider (by Module)
Page 21
Explain the objection a meat-eater might raise to a vegetarian regarding nutrition,
and how the authors respond to that objection.
What is a “conscientious omnivore?”
What is a “naturalistic property?”
List some examples of a naturalistic property.
What is one example of a naturalistic property that is “morally relevant?”
What different morally relevant feature(s) do pro-life and pro-choice arguments
tend to focus on?
