FINAL EXAMINATION

Instructions:  Write a 25-30 minute essay on each of three  (3) topics from Group A and on one topic from Group B in the following list.  You should incorporate into your essays all the matters shown in brackets.  The bracketed material is meant to help you structure your essays; it is not -- nor is it intended to be -- exhaustive, and you should not limit your essays to matters raised in it.  Be sure to give examples wherever possible.  To assist your memory, you may bring along to the examination one 3x5 card which may have writing on both sides.  This card must be turned in with your essays.

GROUP AA1.  The Necessary Harmony of Faith and Reason
[Maimonides's position and his justification of it; Aquinas's position and his justification of it; verbal versus substantive agreement or disagreement of these two positions; nature, cogency, and role of demonstration in each position; nature and role of religious teaching in each position; evaluation of the two positions.]

A2.  Infinity
[Potential versus actual infinity; horizontal and vertical series; ancient and medieval rejection of actual infinite multitudes; paradoxes or antinomies of the infinite; the part-whole principle; Georg Cantor's concept of infinity; Cantor's Theorem; Cantor's paradox or antinomy]

A3.  Aquinas's Five Ways of proving God's existence
[Demonstrations quia versus propter quid; Aquinas's two objections in the Five Ways; the common structure of these five proofs; their empirical starting points; the role of no-infinite-regress principles in these proofs; the weak spots in the various proofs]

A4.  Aquinas on ontological proofs of God's existence
[Aquinas's psychological account of apparent self-evidence; Aquinas's two conceptions of self-evidence, i.e., propositions per se nota; absolute (in se) versus relative (quoad nos) self-evidence; self-evidence versus demonstrability of God's existence; Anselm's first ontological proof; Aquinas's objections to it; Man's natural desire for happiness and our supposed natural knowledge of God]

A5.  Aquinas, Maimonides, Analogy, and Theological Language
 {You may not select this topic if you have selected A1.}
[Univocal, equivocal, and analogical predication; different kinds of analogy; predicates applicable only to creatures, to creatures and to God, and to God alone; the Way of Remotion; analogical predication and negative theology; Aquinas and Maimonides on what can be said or predicated of God]

A6.  Aquinas and the Eternal-World Problem
 [Aquinas's meta-demonstration concerning the Eternal-World problem: Aquinas's meta-demonstration of the nonexistence of demonstrations for the existence of God; comparison and evaluation of these meta-demonstrations; asymmetrical conclusions Aquinas drew from them; justification or explanation of his asymmetrical treatment]

A7.  Aquinas on Algazel's Argument for Temporal Creation
[Algazel's reductio argument for temporal creation; Aquinas's customary treatment of this argument; Christian-Aristotelian assessment of Algazel's premisses; treatment of Algazel's argument in Aquinas's tract De Aeternitate Mundi (On the Eternity of the World); error and impiety; justification and/or explanation of Aquinas's treatment]

A8.  Plurality and Unity in Divine Predication
 {You may not select this topic if you have selected A1 or A5.}
[13th century account of the sun's power to cause its various effects (e.g., heat, dryness) on sublunary beings; Aquinas's explanation why the application of many predicates (names) to God does not compromise His absolute unity; two ways in which God may be said to be wise; whether God may be said to be a stone; Aquinas's and Maimonides's positions on these matters; Aquinas's appeal to the intellectual and operative powers of Man to explain why the application of a variety of predicates to God does not compromise His absolute unity; Aquinas's reasons for thinking that it is necessary for us to predicate many things of God; positive and/or negative predications about God]

A9.  Aquinas's Proof of God's Existence from the Esse/Essentia Distinction
 [The esse/essentia distinction, i.e., the distinction between existence and essence; the proof of God's existence based on the esse/essentia distinction, which is found in the Summa contra Gentiles, Book One, Chapter 18, [5], Chapter 21, [2], and Chapter 22, [6]-[8]; comparison of this proof with any of the first three of Aquinas's Five Ways; evaluation of this novel proof.]

A10.  The Madness of David of Dinant
 [The Madness of David of Dinant; Aquinas's explanation of this madness; diversity, difference, and Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles; David of Dinant and Leibniz's principle; Aquinas and Leibniz's principle; Aquinas's consistency or inconsistency in Summa contra Gentiles, Chapter 42, when he argues in [11] that two beings that exist necessarily through themselves would be indiscernible and so identical, whereas in [14] he says that insofar as a thing is in act, it is distinct from all other things, and that this is what being a designated thing (an individual) comes to]

     GROUP B:
B1.  Philosophical Methodology
 [Forms in which philosophical theses routinely make their first appearance; how to adjudicate philosophical theses responsibly; relevance of intentions to substantiate or discredit theses; what should be done, and how to do it; good versus bad philosophy; the Silver Blaze strategy; brief application of this strategy to some historical episode; evaluation of this strategy]

B2.  Similarity, Aquinas, Malinowski, and the Trobriand Islanders
 [Univocal versus equivocal causes; similarity/dissimilarity of an effect to an equivocal cause of it; God as equivocal cause of everything; similarity of creatures to God, non-similarity of God to creatures; Trobriand Islanders' asymmetrical use of similarity and resemblance; Malinowski's characterization of the Trobriand Islanders as pre-logical; Aquinas as a pre-logical thinker]

B3.  Filioque: Individuation, Structure, and the Blessed Trinity
 {You may not select this topic if you have selected A10.}
[Identity, diversity, and difference; relevance of these concepts to Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles; theological bone of contention concerning the Blessed Trinity behind the Great Schism between East and West in Christianity; the clause "Filioque" clause (meaning "and from the Son") in the Nicene Creed; relevance of the Eastern position on the individuation of the divine Persons to David of Dinant and to Thomas Aquinas; relevance of the Western position to these thinkers]

B4.  Aquinas's Anticipation of Descartes's Third Meditation Proof of God's Existence
 [Descartes's allegedly novel Third Meditation proof of God's existence; elements of Descartes's proof found in the Summa contra Gentiles, Book One, Chapter 20, [5], and Chapter 43, [10]-[11]; Descartes's additions or amendments to these elements; evaluation of the proof and its elements]
 
 

QUIZ #2 (Wednesday, April 21, 1999)


 







Instructions: Write 25-30 minute essays on two topics from Group A and on one topic from Group B. You should incorporate into your essays all the matters shown in brackets. The bracketed material is meant to help you structure your essays; it is not -- nor is it intended to be -- exhaustive, and you should not limit your essays to matters raised in it. Be sure to give examples wherever possible. To assist your memory, you may bring along to the quiz one 3x5 card which has writing on one side only.
 
 
 

GROUP A:
 

A1. Aquinas, Maimonides, Analogy, Theological Language

[Explain univocal, equivocal, and analogical predication. What are the different kinds of analogy? According to Aquinas, which predicates can be said only of creatures? Which can be said of creatures and of God? Which of God alone? What is the Way of Remotion? Does analogical predication belong to negative theology? How do Aquinas and Maimonides differ concerning what can be said or predicated of God?]
 

A2. Aquinas and the Eternal-World Problem

[Formulate the meta-demonstration relating to the Eternal-World Problem that brought fame to the young Aquinas. Formulate Aquinas's meta-demonstration about the nonexistence of demonstrations for the existence of God. Evaluate these meta-demonstrations. Why did Aquinas draw a more limited conclusion from the one meta-demonstration than from the other? Was he justified in so doing?]
 

A3. Aquinas's Treatment of Algazel's Argument for Temporal Creation

{You may not select this topic if you have selected A2.}

[Reconstruct Algazel's reductio argument for temporal creation. How does Aquinas customarily deal with it? For each premiss in Algazel's argument, explain how a Christian Aristotelian thinker like Aquinas would likely assess it. Evaluate the objections that Aquinas lodges against these premisses. How does Aquinas deal with Algazel's argument in his tract De Aeternitate Mundi (On the Eternity of the World)? How satisfactory is his treatment there?]
 

A4. Aquinas's Anticipation of Descartes's Third Meditation Proof of God's Existence

[Formulate Descartes's proof. With reference to Summa contra Gentiles, Book One, Chapter 20, [5], and Chapter 43, [10]-[11], explain which elements of Descartes's proof can be found in Aquinas. What, if anything, did Descartes add? How good is the proof?]
 

A5. Plurality and Unity in Divine Predication

{You may not select this topic if you have selected A1.}

[According to 13th century Aristotelian physics, what power or powers of the sun brings about or causes its various effects (e.g., heat, dryness) on sublunary beings? How does Aquinas use this alleged fact to explain why the application of many predicates (names) to God does not compromise His absolute unity? In which two ways is God said to be wise? Can God correctly be said to be a stone? How does Aquinas's position on these matters differ from that of Maimonides? How does Aquinas appeal to the intellectual and operative powers of Man to explain why the application of a variety of predicates to God does not compromise His absolute unity? Why does Aquinas think that it is necessary for us to predicate many things of God? Are these predications all positive? All negative?]
 

A6. Aquinas's Proof of God's Existence from the Esse/Essentia Distinction

[Explain the esse/essentia distinction, i.e., the distinction between existence and essence. With reference to Summa contra Gentiles, Book One, Chapter 18, [5], Chapter 21, [2], and Chapter 22, [6]-[8], formulate the proof of God's existence based on the esse/essentia distinction, which is found in the aforementioned texts. Compare it to one of Aquinas's Five Ways. Evaluate this novel proof.]
 

A7. The Madness of David of Dinant

[What did Aquinas mean when he spoke of the Madness of David of Dinant? How did Aquinas account for this madness? Relate the notions of diversity and difference to Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. Would David of Dinant have accepted Leibniz's principle? Would Aquinas have accepted it? Is Aquinas consistent when in Summa contra Gentiles, Chapter 42, he argues in paragraph [11] that two beings that exist necessarily through themselves would be indiscernible and so identical, whereas in paragraph [14] he says that insofar as a thing is in act, it is distinct from all other things, and that this is what being a designated thing (an individual) comes to?]
 

GROUP B:
 

B1. Philosophical Methodology

[Do philosophical theses routinely make their first appearance in adjudicable form? What must you do in order to adjudicate them responsibly? Does it matter whether you are trying to substantiate the thesis or to discredit it? What should you do, and why should you do it? What happens if you proceed differently? Explain the Silver Blaze strategy. Apply it to some historical episode. What makes it an effective strategy?]
 

B2. Similarity, Aquinas, Malinowski, and the Trobriand Islanders

[What is an equivocal cause? Why must an effect be somehow similar to, and somehow dissimilar from, an equivocal cause of it? Is God an equivocal cause of everything other than Himself? Why is it fitting to say that creatures are like God, but unfitting to say that God is like creatures? Relate the foregoing to the Trobriand Islanders' wholehearted affirmation that a particular man's sons both resembled the father (all had similar, distinctive noses), and to their shocked rejection of the anthropologist Malinowski's spoken observation that the younger son resembled the older son. Was Malinowski justified when he labeled the Trobriand Islanders pre-logical because they failed to use their term for similarity or resemblance in a symmetrical way? Should Malinowski have characterized Aquinas as pre-logical for the same reason?]
 

B3. Filioque: Individuation, Structure, and the Blessed Trinity

{You may not select this topic if you have selected A7.}

[Explain the interrelations among the concepts of identity, diversity, and difference. Explain their relevance to Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. On what matter concerning the Blessed Trinity is the Great Schism between East and West in Christianity sometimes said to have turned? Why is the crux of the matter sometimes said to be encapsulated in the clause "Filioque" (meaning "and from the Son") in the Nicene Creed? (Filioque was used in the West to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, unlike the Son who was said to proceed only from the Father who proceeds from no one.). Was the Eastern position on the individuation of the divine Persons akin to the position of David of Dinant or to that of Thomas Aquinas? What about the Western position?]