PHIL 150 INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
FALL SEMESTER, 2016
MOCK MIDTERM TEST
TOTAL NUMBER OF POINTS: 85
Part I. Please, circle only one answer. In one maximum two sentences explain the meaning of the chosen
answer in the context of the philosopher’s argument.
Questions on B. Russell’s text The Value of Philosophy, 17.
1. Bertrand Russell taught that philosophy should be studied for the sake of the
2. Bertrand Russell also said that the value of philosophy is in its
Questions on Plato’s text Apology: Defence of Socrates, p. 21.
3. Socrates believed that the charges of his accusers were
2. The essence of the first charge against Socrates was that
b. he inquires into what is beneath the earth and in the sky and, turns the weaker argument
into stronger and teaches others to do the same.
3. The essence of the second charge against Socrates was that
he taught the conceptions of Buddhist philosophy in Athenian schools
Part II. Finish the sentence and explain its meaning in the context of the author’s argument.
Questions on Thomas Aquinas’ text The Existence of God, p. 40
Aquinas’ first argument for the existence of God is called the argument from Motion
He argues that each thing in motion is moved by something else which he believes to be God
In his first argument for the existence of God Aquinas says that ’everything that changes is made to
change by something else.’ He further reasons that ’It is therefore impossible for a thing that undergoes a change to
change by itself . Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone
understands to be God.
Aquinas’ third argument for the existence of God is called the argument
from Possibility and Necessity, which he argues that we find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be,
that come into being and go out of being.
In his third argument for the existence of God Aquinas claims that ‘the series of necessary beings whose
necessity is caused by another cannot possibly go back to infinity.’ And he concludes, ‘we must therefore accept the
fact that there must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings. This necessary being is
Questions on Blaise Pascal’s text The Wager, p. 50.
10. The name of Blaise Pascal’s piece ’The Wager’ means an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing,
or for at least taking steps to believe, in God.
11. Pascal says ‘Let us then examine this point, and say, ‘God is, or He is not.’ He then in the next sentence
continues ‘But to which if God did not exist it would make no difference. For this reason, it would be
better to believe in God.
12. In part 233 of ‘The Wager’, subsection ‘The end of this discourse’ Pascal concludes that if you choose God you
will be rewarded (with happiness forever); if the person did not believe, he would be punished (with
what is called eternal damnation)
Questions on Gottfried Liebniz’s piece God, Evil and the Best of All Possible Worlds, p. 89.
13. Having stated but I deny the major, that is, the first of the two premises of the prosyllogism,
and I might contend myself with simply demanding its proof, but to make the matter clearer, I
have wished to justify this denial Liebniz continues, by showing that the best plan is not
always that which seeks to avoid evil since it happens that the evil is accompanied by a greater
good. This is to mean that God has permitted evil in order to bring about good.
14. Complete this sentence taken from the same text. We have proved this more fully in the large
work by making it clear, by instances taken from mathematics and elsewhere, that an
imperfection in the part may be required for a greater perfection in the whole. That is the
reason Jesus Christ the son of God came and died on the cross of the sinners.
15. To what conclusion does Liebniz arrive at the end of Part I. of his essay? What has he proved?
He points out that the existence of evil is compatible with God’s existence because this world
is the best of all possible worlds. Since he God made a world that is full of evil, which he
thinks evil could have been omitted.
16. In Part II Liebniz considers the objection of his opponent to his premise that God created the
best of all possible worlds. His opponent objects and concludes that there is more evil than
good in the whole work of God. The opponents objection is based on the major premise
(If there is more evil than good in intelligent creatures, then there is more evil than good
in the whole work of God") and the minor premise ("There is more evil than good in
intelligent creatures") of the syllogism. Does Liebniz accept the major or the minor of his
opponents objection? He denies the minor by proving to his opponents through prosyllogism
by claiming that whoever makes things in which there is evil, which could have been made
without any evil, or the making of which could have been omitted does not choose the best.
17. As to the minor premise of his opponents objection Liebniz says There is no need even of
granting that there is more evil than good in the human race, because it is possible, and in
fact very probable, that the glory God has made, and that it was possible to make a world
without evil, or even not create a world at all, for its creation has depended on free will of God.
Purchase answer to see full