Study guide for final examination

The final exam will be held Monday, May 11, 2015, from 11:30-2:30 PM in 102 Moffitt. We will try to start at 11:30 if possible, to give you the full three hours, so plan to arrive a bit early.

You should bring your own bluebook and a pen or pencil. The exam is closed book, closed note, so everything besides your bluebook and writing implement will need to be put away before we start. (That includes phones.) We will exchange bluebooks before beginning, so don’t bring one to which you are particularly attached.

The exam will have two parts. The first part consists of quotation identifications. You’ll be given a short passage from one of the assigned readings and asked to identify the author. You may also be asked to answer additional short questions about the passage. Here is a sample:

I cannot say, “Those spots meant measles, but he hasn’t got measles,” and I cannot say, “The recent budget means that we shall have a hard year, but we shan’t have.” That is to say, in cases like the above, x meant that p and x means that p entail p.

  1. Who is the author?
  2. What distinction is the author trying to illustrate here?

In the second part of the exam, you’ll be asked to answer three essay questions. All three will be drawn from the following list:

  1. In what sense are Quine’s, Davidson’s, and Dennett’s approaches to intentionality “behaviorist”? What do you think is the best objection to this kind of behaviorism, and how might these philosophers respond to it?

  2. Compare and contrast Dretske’s, Millikan’s, and Fodor’s views on representation.

  3. Burge, Davidson, Dretske and Fodor are all externalists about mental content. Pick three of them and compare and contrast their reasons for being externalists, pointing out differences in the kinds of externalism these reasons support. Begin by giving a general characterization of externalism.

  4. Searle, Burge, Davidson, and Dretske all have something to say about the relation of language to thought. Pick three of them and compare and contrast their views on the relation of language to thought.