1. ‘We cannot attach a clear meaning to the notion of organizing a single
object (the world, nature etc.) unless that object is understood to contain
or consist in other objects’ (DAVIDSON). Does this observation undercut
the very idea of a conceptual scheme?
2. EITHER (a) Does realism presuppose scepticism, or vice versa, or
neither?
OR (b) ‘Sceptics presuppose an external world when stating their
scepticism.’ Discuss.
3. What is the point of transcendental arguments? Do they succeed?
4. Can there be particulars without universals? Can there be universals
without particulars?
5. ‘The distinction between abstract and concrete objects is a matter of
degree rather than of kind.’ Discuss.
6. EITHER (a) ‘The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster
among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the
monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm’
(RUSSELL). Discuss.
OR (b) What is the ‘problem of unmanipulable causes’? How can it be
solved?
7. What would it take for time to have a direction?
8. What does McTaggart’s argument for the unreality of time get right?
9. Is each of us identical to a human animal?
10. Are the persistence conditions for statues different from those for
persons?