PHIL 398.03 Dr.

Wilson Fall 2007 Final Exam Review Short Answer about 2-3 sentences each 1. What is Kants critique of Stoicism, and with it all philosophy that has been influenced by Plato and Platonism? What does Kant want to substitute for the Platonic/Stoic iew? !1"1#1"$% He critiques Stoicism and all p ilosop ! in"luenced #! Plato and Platonism "or its $ud%ment t at t e e&il principle is contained 'it in t e #od! and t e passions. He does t is #ecause e 'ants to su#stitute "or t is t e &ie' t at t e e&il principle is rat er placed in "ree c oice accordin% to our "reel! c osen ma(ims. ) e inclinations are to #e c ec*ed 'it reason and inte%rated 'it it. Hence+ t e res inte%ra. $. &ow does the ethico#ci il state differ from the 'uridico#ci il state? ()n order to answer this question, you must describe both states.* !1+"#1+1% ) e $uridico,ci&il state operates under coerci&e+ pu#licl! monitored la'. ) is is t e political state. ) e et ico,ci&il state operates #! "ree c oice+ t at is+ #! t e moral la' alone+ t e #asis o" ' ic is autonom!. ) e main di""erence is t us coercion -$uridico. &ersus "reedom -et ico.. ) e et ical state/s telos+ "urt ermore+ is t e 0in%dom o" 1od on eart . +. )n what sense can Kant ha e it both ways, sayin- that the moral law comes from within the human person and that we must re-ard moral duties as di ine commands? !1++# 1+.% 2oralit! must come "rom 'it in t e uman person t rou% reason. 3ulti&atin% t e moral disposition results in an et ical communit!+ t e telos o" ' ic is t e i% est %ood. ) e et ical communit!/s la' cannot #e le%islated #! t e people+ "or t at 'ould #e coercion+ t us 1od is postulated as t e superior entit! "rom ' ence t e moral la' comes. In t is sense+ moral duties come "rom 'it in and are also issued "rom t e idea o" 1od di&ine commands. .. What does Kant mean by the term /church0, and how should it be or-ani1ed? !1+2% 0ant #elie&es t at t e c urc s ould #e a representati&e o" a state ruled #! 14D. It cannot #e ierarc ical. ) at 'ould limit t e "reedom o" people+ impedin% on t e moral pro%ress indi&iduall! and collecti&el!. It s ould #e li*ened to a "amil! 'it %od actin% as t e in&isi#le "at er5 o'e&er+ all mem#ers 'ould #e united t rou% our autonom! and uni&ersal 'ill to lo&e im. 3. 4istin-uish authentic and counterfeit ser ice of 5od, and say briefly why Kant finds this distinction so important. !Wilson paper%

6fterdienst+ lip,ser&ice+ is t e delusion o" t e ser&ice o" 1od 'it out metanoia+ t e turn to t e moral disposition. 4ienst+ on t e ot er and+ is ser&ice o" 1od ' ic "ollo's "rom metanoia and is made &isi#le t rou% moral action. For 0ant+ t e onl! li"e to #e considered 'ell,pleasin% to 1od is one o" moral action resultin% "rom a turn to t e moral la' 'it in. 6ote t at t is eliminates a lot o" acti&ities in c urc es+ nota#l! 3at olic ones. 7. 4efine ent usiasm, and elaborate. !17+% ) e persuasion t at 'e can distin%uis #et'een %race and &irtue+ or *no' an!t in% a#out t e supersensi#le+ is ent usiasm. Furt ermore+ ent usiasm is t e persuasion t at 'e can *no' an!t in% a#out t e supersensi#le. It comes "rom t e 1ree* entheos+ meanin% literall! 8in 1od.9 0ant uses t e term ent usiasm pe$orati&el!. 7. 4efine "etis ism, and elaborate. !172% Fetis ism is t e persuasion t at one can ac ie&e a supernatural e""ect t rou% entirel! natural means. ) is entails #elie" t at one can *no' ' at t e supernatural e""ect mi% t #e. It is t e #elie" t at one can manipulate 1od+ and includes superstitious natural o#$ects li*e relics. 8. 9sin- Kantian cate-ories, comment on story of 6braham !almost% sacrificin- )saac. !$". and class discussion : point is not correct answer but awareness of the issues% I" :#ra am 'ould a&e used t e moral la' 'it in im as probierstein e 'ould not a&e attempted to sacri"ice Isaac. It 'as a delusor! "ait in miracles t at led im into t is situation. ) ere is al'a!s t e possi#ilit! o" t e miracle #ein% misinterpreted. In t is case t e miracle 'as 1od directl! commandin% :#ra am. We cannot #e o#li%ated #e!ond ' at is possi#le. 7. 5i e three ;inds of delusory faith and describe each. !$"7% ) e "irst delusor! "ait is "ait in miracles+ or t e #elie" t at 'e can a&e co%nition o" somet in% t rou% e(perience ' ic is itsel" outside o" t e o#$ecti&e la's o" e(perience. ) e second+ "ait in m!steries+ is "ormin% concepts o" t in%s #e!ond t e limits o" reason "or moral use and #elie&in% t em to #e true representations. ) e t ird+ "ait in means o" %race+ is t e delusion t at natural means can #rin% a#out supernatural ends+ namel! in"luence o" 1od upon our moralit!. ;(amples o" t is t ird include certain t!pes o" pra!er+ c urc ,%oin%+ and #aptism. 1". What is Kants attitude toward prayer? !$1" and -eneral discussions% 0ant t in*s it can #e a "orm o" "etis ism and a superstitious delusion. Pra!er does not ser&e 1od unless it is t e pra!er t at 8) ! 'ill+ not mine+ #e done.9 4nl! a li"e in ad erence to 1od/s 'ill -t e moral la'. 'ill #e one 'ell,pleasin% to 1od+ so unless pra!er stimulates t is+ it is "etis ism. 11. What is the alue of church-oin-? What are the dan-ers? !$1$#$1.%

) e &alue o" c urc %oin% is t at it is a means &alua#le to o#li%atin% #ot t e indi&idual and collecti&e mem#ers to t e moral la'. Ho'e&er+ t is communit! settin% could result in t e collecti&e perception o" suc rituals as #aptism+ communion+ and pra!er as a means to %race+ t us "allin% into reli%ious delusion and #ecomin% su#$ect to priestcra"t. 1$. 4istin-uish the dualist and unitist iews on eternity. What is the moral ad anta-e of the dualist iew? !$$$#$$+% ) e unitist &ie' a'ards eternal #lessedness to all #ein%s a"ter somet in% li*e a merit,#ased pur%ator!+ ' ile t e dualist &ie' is also merit,#ased #ut a'ards eternal #lessedness to some and eternal damnation to ot ers. 0ant does not attempt to determine t e t eoretical superiorit! o" t e dualist &ie'+ #ut cites its clear practical superiorit! in t at it is morall! e""icacious+ ' ereas t e unitist &ie' is not. 1+. Why does the human person need not 'ust to respect the moral law but to lo e 5od, accordin- to Kant? 6nd how does <hristianity ser e that need to lo e 5od? !$$7#$+"% <ecause t e uman race as not !et #ecome res inte-ras+ t e moral la' ' ic stems "rom reason and postulates 1od is not enou% "or us to "ollo' t e moral la'. ) e inclinations need some incenti&e "or us to commit to t e moral la' t rou% action. ) e protot!pe "or 3 ristianit!+ =esus+ ser&es t at need #! pro&idin% "or umanit! an o#$ect ' ic t e! can lo&e 'it #ot reason and inclination. 1.. =ap the hi-her s. the lower uni ersity faculties, and say how the conflict of the uni ersity faculties is an interior conflict within the human person writ lar-er. !lecture and esp. $3"% ) e i% er "aculties > t eolo%!+ la'+ and medicine+ all concerned 'it uman appiness > ou% t not to c ec* t e lo'er+ #ut t e lo'er > p ilosop !+ concerned 'it trut > ou% t to c ec* t e i% er. ) e lo'er is t e probierstein+ or touc stone+ o" t e i% er. In t e uman person+ reason is analo%ous to t e lo'er "acult! and natural inclination to t e i% er5 t ere"ore reason must remain t e probierstein #! analo%!. 13. 6re the Scriptures an essential part of reli-ious belief for Kant? Why or why not? !$2+% 6o. ) ere t'o aspects to t e Scriptures. ) e "irst+ a moral core+ is put t ere #! us since moralit! comes "rom 'it in us. ) e scriptures t emsel&es are not necessar! ere. ) e second+ a istorical #elie"+ ma! #e use"ul as a sensi#le &e icle "or moralit! #ut is not essential in itsel".