The questions that follow are designed to indicate the possible topics of the examination. The questions on the examination may or may not be identical to these, but they will not be on any topics not identified here.

1. Bertrand Russell, "The Value of Philosophy." On what grounds does Russell argue that philosophy has value even though it does not arrive at well-established and widely accepted findings in the way that many sciences do?
   
2. Plato, Euthyphro. Look at the first three definitions of the pious and the impious offered by Euthyphro (5d–e, 7a, and 9e; if I ask you a question about these definitions on the examination, I will quote them for you). What is Socrates' criticism of each of these definitions?
3. John Arthur, "Religion, Morality, and Conscience." What is the divine-command theory of morality? What is Arthur's criticism of it?
4. Aristophanes, The Clouds and Plato, Apology. Compare Socrates as he appears in The Clouds with Socrates as he appears in the Apology. In what ways does Socrates' reply to what he calls calls the "first accusations" against him (Apology, 18a–24b) address the way in which he is depicted in The Clouds?
5. William F. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief." Consider Clifford’s story of the shipowner. What philosophical point does Clifford make on the basis of the story? How does the story establish his point? What exactly does Clifford hold that the shipowner is to blame for? How, if at all, is the guilt of the shipowner affected if the ship does not sink after all, according to Clifford?
6. William James, "The Will to Believe." Explain how, according to James, believing something can have an effect on the belief's being true, and how this constitutes an objection to Clifford's ethics of belief.
7. Plato, Meno. Explain how Socrates uses the results of his dialogue with the slave boy about a geometry problem to argue that learning is recollection.
8. "Logic Notes," part I and part II. The examination will include some questions on logic, presenting you with sample arguments in numbered steps and then asking you which steps are premises, which ones are conclusions (intermediate or final), and whether the argument is formally valid. For assessing formal validity, you will be expected to be able to recognize the argument forms modus ponens (affirming the antecedent) and modus tollens (denying the consequent).
   

For our class on Monday, I will not be giving you answers to these questions. Rather, you should be prepared to discuss them in groups. For this purpose, you should have all the reading material cited above (apart from The Clouds) with you in class. Before we get to that, though, I will try to explain the readings by Ayer and Gettier previously assigned.