A GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY SENIOR COMPREHENSIVE
EXAMINATION
The exam is a three-hour essay. It consists of five parts,
each dealing with a general area of philosophy. The parts
correspond to the distribution of your upper-level courses.
(In fact, the exam is geared toward the last several years
of course offerings, so studying your course notes is a
very sound way to prepare for it.)
You are required to answer five questions from at least
three of those parts. For example, you might answer two
questions from part I, one question from part III, and
two questions from part IV, for a total of five questions
from at least three parts. The actual spread is, of course,
up to you.
To do well on the exam, you should know the chief problems
of philosophy, and be able to discuss a sampling of them
at a level of understanding appropriate for someone who
has just spent four years studying them. That means that
you should be able to say what a given problem in philosophy
is, and know why it is a problem.
You should know the leading proposals for resolving a
given problem--for each proposal, what the view is, who
its main advocate is, and its main supporting arguments.
Finally, you should know the major difficulties facing
each proposal--whether counter-examples, missed considerations,
internal problems, or more attractive rivals.
Be sure to avoid the assumption that the question being
asked comes out of left field, and is simply asking you
to test out your wits. Remember, philosophy is not just
anything, it is something, and a very particular thing
at that. So, always operate on the presumption that the
question is asking you to think about a particular strategy
of argument for solving a problem. The exam doesn't reward
novelty as much as competence and preparedness.
Some studying strategies follow; their order is intended
to be suggestive.
(1) Start studying early! Assemble your thoughts and materials
as early in the semester as possible.
(2) Survey old exam questions to look for recurring figures
and problems (Plato, Descartes, Wittgenstein; innate ideas,
realism, the social contract, etc.) Play the odds a little.
Maybe pick three areas-since that's the minimum-and try
to have two or three questions ready for each area.
(3) Dig out your notebooks from courses where those figures
and problems are discussed, as well as any papers you may
have written on them. (Several issues appear in a number
of courses. You probably discussed Descartes on the mind/body
problem in your intro course, again in the philosophy of
mind, again in metaphysics, and maybe in rationalism/empiricism
(or at least in modern philosophy). Look at all of your
stuff.
(4) Supplement any incomplete notes by re-reading the
relevant philosopher's writing on those topics. Be sure
to start studying with enough lead time to do at least
a cursory review of this work. (Don't wait until a week
before the exam to dust off Kant's Critique.)
(5) Focus your understanding by checking the Encyclopedia
of Philosophy in the reserve section of the library. This
is an extremely valuable resource for understanding the
standard treatments of philosophical problems. Begin at
the index, then walk through the relevant articles. Another
valuable way to focus your understanding is to form a study
group with others preparing for the exam. Maybe the workload
can be shared.
(6) Finally, practice actually writing out your responses.
There's a big difference between reading and following
something, and actually being able to discuss it with sophistication
and some subtlety. Besides, unless your last name is Wittgenstein,
you don't want to wait until the actual exam to see whether
you can weave together a cogent evaluation of a centuries-old
philosophical puzzle.
SAMPLE QUESTIONS
The following questions have appeared on recent exams,
or else are likely to appear on future exams. In any case,
they are very much like the sort of questions that are
regularly asked. They form a reliable guide to what the
exam covers. However, it would be a mistake to memorize
specific questions. The point, instead, is to understand
problems they ask about, so that you could answer a variety
of questions which ask about a single set of problems.
For example, if you understand Plato's view of knowledge
in the Republic, then you can answer the first question
in part I, but you can also answer a question such as:
What does Plato think is the difference between reality
and illusion? since both answers are similar. And so on.
PART I: HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY
1. What claims about knowledge does Plato illustrate with
his "cave" analogy in the Republic? State one
reason you think we should accept his claims, and one reason
we should reject them.
2. What does Descartes take his method of doubt to show
about ideas? Does it?
3. What is the most compelling argument (in your view)
purporting to prove God's existence? What is its most suspect
premise? Do you think the argument ultimately succeeds?
4. Spinoza, Descartes, and Leibniz are distinguished as
rationalists. What was rationalism in the seventeenth century?
Give a full critical account of the position of one of
these philosophers.
5. What is Aristotle's view of the soul? How does it differ
from Plato's?
6. How does James understand what truth is? Does his approach
offer anything better than what rationalists offered?
7. Compare John Locke and Descartes on innate ideas. Who
is right, in your view?
8. What is Aristotle's theory of causes? What advantage
does it offer, and what disadvantage does it face?
9. Compare Alain Locke and Dewey on the notion of experience.
What implications do each of their views have for science?
PART II: CULTURAL AND COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY
1. In what ways may Alain Locke be regarded as modern?
How does his modernity contrast with nineteenth-century
thinkers?
2. What does DuBois mean by double-consciousness? What
does it help explain, and what does it leave unanswered?
3. Why does Alain Locke think cultural relativism is true?
What is the biggest difficulty with his argument?
4. What is the best argument in favor of reparations for
descendants of slaves, and what is the best argument against
them?
5. What is ethnophilosophy? Is it sound? Why or why not?
6. How has hermeneutics been important in recent African
or African American philosophy? Discuss the work of one
thinkers in particular.
7. Discuss the concept of personhood in the work of an
African philosopher of your choosing. What problems do
you think face that concept?
8. "It is theoretically porous to ground African
philosophy on thematics issuing out of continental Africa." Defend
or challenge this assertion.
PART III: BEING
1. What is a thing-in-itself, according to Kant? What
does it imply about our concepts?
2. Why does Quine think we should be ontological relativists?
Do you think he's right?
3. The determinist thinks we do not have free will. Give
an argument supporting this claim, and pose a counter-argument
to it.
4. What is the best reason for supposing realism to be
true? Do you think this argument is decisive? Why or why
not?
5. Is personal identity a metaphysical illusion? Give
an argument for an affirmative answer, and an argument
for a negative answer.
6. What is the mind/body problem? Do you think functionalism
solves it?
7. What is the problem of evil in the philosophy of religion?
Are any of the philosophical responses to it satisfactory?
Why or why not?
PART IV: KNOWLEDGE AND LANGUAGE
1. What does John Locke think meanings are? What is the
biggest problem for his view?
2. Why does Frege think that sense determines reference?
What problems face the view?
3. What is the Chinese room argument, and what does Searle
think it shows about how we think?
4. Is there a difference between lawlike statements and
laws? If so, characterize a way of differentiating the
two. If no, why would one think that there is a difference?
5. "If a man does not know something, how can his
inquiry succeed? For he will not recognize whether what
he arrives at is what he was looking for. Alternatively,
if he had known what he was looking for, he would not have
needed to look for it." Discuss.
6. What is the analytic/synthetic distinction? What is
the most most compelling reason for calling the distinction
into question? Do you find that reason ultimately persuasive?
7. What's the best reason to accept behaviorism? What's
the best reason to reject it?
8. What does Wittgenstein mean by a "language game"?
What philosophical issue do you think it solves?
9. Why should we take "justified true belief" to
constitute knowledge? What problems threaten that account?
10. Russell claims that the world as we know it could
have come into existence only five minutes ago. In what
sense, if any, could his hypothesis be true? Defend your
view.
PART V: VALUES
1. What makes the categorical imperative categorical,
according to Kant? What recommends the account (in your
view) and what tends to make it suspect?
2. Can a utilitarian have a sound theory of justice? What
difficulties face that task?
3. What are virtues? What place do they have in moral
life? Can they be taught?
4. Is it possible to adequately account for right and
wrong actions by appealing to sentiments? Discuss Hume's
attempt, and say whether you think it succeeds.
5. The hermeneutic problem of "indeterminacy" threatens
the integrity of juridical decisions. Explain.
6. What did Nkrumah think ought to guide the politics
of decolonization in Africa? What is the most pressing
philosophical difficulty for that task, in your view?
7. What does Rawls mean by a "veil of ignorance"?
What advantage does it offer a theory of justice? What
drawback plagues it?
8. What does the notion of a social contract attempt of
justify? Does it? What difficulties press on it?
9. "Morality is the fruit of religion." Explain
this statement thoroughly. Then discuss the position of
any two African philosophers on the issue. State and defend
your own position on the matter.
10. What is the difference between morality and justice?
Defend your view.
|
