Philosophy 4280/5280, 20th Century Analytic Philosophy: Final

Answer Five of the following seven questions.

Your answers should be typed and about 2 pages each. You are strongly advised to support your answers with quotations from the texts. You may discuss the exam with your classmates, but (obviously) you may not copy their answers.

The exams are due in my mailbox by 5pm on May 4th.

Good luck.

1. When all is said and done, what role does Rorty see left for the philosopher? Do you find this role to be an adequate one? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. Just what is it about Putnam's earlier work that lead Rorty to characterize him in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature as an example of 'impure' philosophy of language. Do you think that the changes in Putnam's arguments in Reason Truth and History should be understood as 'pure' philosophy of language? Give your reasons.

3. Just how does Putnam think that we can prove that we have not always been brains in a vat, and why does Putnam take such a result to be significant? Do you find Putnam's argument successful? If so, why? If not, why not?

4. What advantages does Putnam think come with understanding truth in terms of 'idealized rational acceptability' instead of in terms of correspondence to a mind-independent reality. What disadvantages might come with such a position. Do you think that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? If so, why? If not, why not?

5. Putnam claims that the fact/value distinction has become a "cultural institution". Explain what the distinction, and what reason's Putnam gives for thinking that we should give it up. Evaluate those reasons.

6. Just what are Putnam's criticisms of Rorty in his "Realism with a Human Face" and how does Rorty respond to these criticisms in his "Hillary Putnam and the Relativistic Menace." To what extent do you find Rorty's defense successful and why?

7. Just what does Goodman mean by saying that we can live in 'many worlds'. Do you find his sort of 'relativism' defensible? Explain why.