USD Phil 110 F11: Exam 1 Study Guide

Part I: You should know the definitions of the following words for fill in the blank questions:

Tabula rasa
a posteriori
Innate ideas
a priori
Common Sense Skepticism
Methodical Skepticism
Absolute Skepticism
Cartesian Dualism
Relations of Ideas
Matters of Fact

Part II: You should also be able to provide the following information:
  • Explain the structure of an ancient Athenian Trial.
  • Articulate the charges brought up against Socrates.
  • Explain Socrates epistemological position with particular reference to the Oracle at Delphi.
  • Explain Socrates conception of the best sort of human existence.
  • Explain Socrates conception of the role and responsibilities of the philosopher in society.
  • Explain Al-Ghazali's criteria for knowledge.
  • Explain the two sources of knowledge Al-Ghazali initially considers and his reason for rejecting them.
  • Explain the three steps of Mysticism Al-Ghazali articulates.
  • Articulate the hierarchy of belief Al-Ghazali articulates as well as the way he uses this hierarchy to counter the claim that mystics are ridiculous or mistaken.
  • Explain the three forms of doubt Descartes considers as well as which beliefs each form of doubt calls into question and what beliefs remain.
  • Explain Descartes' Cogito argument.
  • Explain Cartesian Dualism and explain how this supports Descartes' rationalism.
  • Explain what it means for Descartes to be a thinking thing and what an extended substance is.
  • Explain Hume's distinction between an idea and an impression and how we tell them apart.
  • Describe the four faculties of the mind that Hume argues give rise to all ideas.
  • Articulate the two arguments Hume gives in support of the claim that all ideas are derived from impressions.
  • Explain Hume's account of where our knowledge about matter of fact and causality come from.
  • Explain Hume's account of the Problem of Induction
  • Explain Clifford's story of the ship-owner and the conclusions he draws from it.
Part III: Write an essay in which you articulate the epistemological position of 12 Angry Men and compare it to the other authors we have studied.