Plan for an essay to be 3-6 pages long. The exam questions are designed so as to cover primary literature from both old masters of the field, as well as from contemporary epistemologists. As a consequence, you are required not to select two questions from the same cluster. Clearly indicate which topics you have selected. As before, your essays will be judged on three criteria: (i) the relevance of what you write to the question; (ii) the argument you set up in support of your position, including its being presented as close to standard form as possible; and (iii) to what extent your paper is clearly written and well-organized.
In Chapter 6 of his book, Martin distinguishes between the metaphysical and the epistemological notion of necessary truths (102-107). Present the two notions, some background theory against which they are introduced by Quine and respectively, Kripke, and defend one of the two, through the best argument you can give. Do you agree with Martin on the terminology he uses to distinguish between the two approaches to necessary truths? More importantly, what implications do you think the view you selected (and defended) has for a reply to skepticism, e.g., about our knowledge of the external world, or about knowledge of other minds)? Hint: focus on only one version of the skeptical argument (Brook and Stainton 2, or Martin 8). For primary literature by Kripke or Quine, or the excerpt from Mumford’s book look on Connect under Primary literature: Contemporary Readings.
