서양철학 석사과정 입학시험 기출문제
1990년도 석사과정 서양철학 전공
1. 소위 ‘근세철학’이 그 이전의 철학과 다르다면 어떤 점에서, 어떻게 다른가? ⑴ 제기된 문제 ⑵주장된 학설 ⑶사용된 방법의 각차원에서 상술하라.
2. “폭력혁명”과 관련하여 <목적이 수단을 정당화한다>는 입론에 대한 찬성 혹은 반대 논변을 전개하라.
3. 철학사상에 나타난 언어와 존재에 관한 철학적 입장 하나를 택하여 비판적으로 검토하라.
위의 세 문제 모두를 대답하시오.
1991년도 석사과정 서양철학 전공
1. 플라톤의 이데아론이 이후 철학사에서 어떤 방식으로 계승 논의되는지 논술하라.
2. 아래 인용문을 읽고 물음에 답하라.
나는 내가 하나의 실체요, 그 본질 내지 본성은 오직 생각하는 것이요, 또 존재하기 위하여 아무 장소도 필요로 하지 않고 어떠한 물질적인 것에도 의존하지 않는 것임을 알았다. 따라서 이 <나>, 즉 나를 나되게 하는 정신은 신체와 전혀 다른 것이요, 또 신체보다 인식하기가 더 쉽다. - 데카르트 -“방법서설” 제4부-
① 정신이 신체보다 인식되기 쉬운 이유
② 사유로부터 완전히 독립된 물질적 신체를 사유는 어떻게 인식하는가?
3. 권력과 권위의 차이를 논하시오.
4. 마음의 본성에 관한 행동주의, 환원주의, 기능주의를 비판적으로 비교 고찰하시오.
1992년도 석사과정 서양철학 전공
1. 노동개념에 근거한 재산권 정당화를 비판적으로 논의해 보시오.
2. 언어는 세계를 반영하는가?
3. 칸트에 있어서 인과적 자연법칙과 의지의 자유의 양립 가능성을 논하시오.
4. 아래 글에는 어떤 철학적 문제에 대한 두 대립되는 입장이 소개되고 있다. 이 두 입장의 간략한 설명과 함께 각 입장에 따르는 이론적 난점들을 상세히 논술하고, 그 난점들을 모두 피할 수 있는 제3의 대안이 있다면 소개하시오.
It seems evident that without any reasoning, or even almost before the use of reason, we always suppose an external universe which depends not on our perception but would exist though we and every sensible creature were absent or annihilated.
It seems also evident that when men follow this blind and powerful instinct of nature, they always suppose the very images presented by the senses to be the external objects, and nothing but representations of the other. This very table which we see white, and which we feel hard, is believed to exist independent of our perception and to be something external to our mind which perceived it.
But this universal and primary opinion of all men is soon destroyed by the slightest philosophy which teaches us that nothing can ever be present to the mind but an image or perception.
The table which we see seems to diminish as we remove further from it.; but the real table, which exists independent of us, suffers no alternation. It was, therefore, nothing but its image which was present to the mind. These are the obvious dictates of reason; and no man who reflects ever doubted that the existences which we consider when we say this house and that tree are nothing but perceptions in the mind.
1993년도 석사과정 서양철학 전공
Ⅰ에서는 4문항 중 3문항에 답하고, Ⅱ에서는 2문항 중 1문항에 답하시오.
Ⅰ
1. 하단에 주어진 인용문에는 자연 현상에 접근하는 두 입장이 제시되어 있다. 두 입장을 정리하고 그 특징을 적어 보시오.
2. 철학사적으로 귀류법(Reductio Ad Absurdum)은 논증(argument)을 입증하는 간접적인 방식으로 받아들여 쓰여져 왔다. 간접 증명 방식으로서 귀류법이 정당화될 수 있는 근거를 비판적으로 검토하시오.
3. 사회 및 역사 인식에서의 설명과 이해의 관계를 논하시오.
4. 사실의 문제(matters of fact)에 관하여 우리는 필연성을 갖춘 확실한 지식을 가질 수 있는가? 있다면 어떻게 그것이 가능한지, 그리고 없다면 왜 그러한지 논하시오.
Ⅱ
1. -
�척� 家���� ���철학적 차이점을 ‘숯�개념을 중심으로 설명하시오.
2. �와 MS의 gT이 지닌 공통점과 차이점을 간략히 논하시오.
However, I once heard someone reading from a book, as he said, by Anaxagoras, and asserting that it is mind that produces order and is the cause of everything. This explanation pleased me. Somehow it seemed right that mind should be the cause of everything, and I reflected that if this is so, mind in producing order sets everythings in order and arranges each individual thing in the way that is best for it. Therefore if anyone wished to discover the reason why any given thing same or ceased or continued to be, he must find out how it was best for that thing to be, or to act or be acted upon in any other way. On this view there was only one thing for a man to consider, with regard both to himself and to anything else, namely the best and highest good, since both were covered by the same knowledge.
These reflections made me suppose, to my delight, that in Anaxagoras I had found an authority on causation who was after my own heart. I assumed that he would begin by informing us whether the earth is flat or round, and would then proceed to explain in detail the reason and logical necessity for this by stating how and why it was better that it should be so. I thought that if he asserted that the earth was in the center, he would explain in detail that it was better for it to be there; and if he made this clear, I was prepared to give up hankering after any other kind of cause. I was prepared also in the other heavenly bodies, about their relative velocities and their orbits and all the other phenomena connected with them- in what way it is better for each one of them to act or be acted upon as it is. It never entered my head that a man who asserted that the ordering of things is due to mind would offer any other explanation for them than that it is best for them to be as they are. I thought that by assigning a cause each phenomenon separately and to the universe as a whole he would make perfectly clear what is best for each and what is the universal good. I would not have parted with my hopes for a great sum of money. I lost no time in procuring the books, and began to read them as quickly as I possibly could, so that I might know as soon as possible about the best and the less good.
It was a wonderful hope, my friend, but it was quickly dashed. As I read on I discovered that the fellow made no use of mind and assigned to it no causality for the order of the world., but adduced causes like air and sether and water and many other absurdities. It seemed to me that he was just about as Inconsistent as if someone were to say. The cause of everything that Socrates does is mind- and then, in trying to account for my several actions, said first that the reason why I am lying here now is that my body is composed of bones and sinews, and that the bones are rigid and separated at the joints, but the sinews are capable of contraction and reflection, and form an envelope for the bones with the help of the flesh and skin, the latter holding all together, and since the bones move freely in their joints the sinews by relaxing and contracting enable me somehow to bend my limbs, and that is the cause of my sitting here in a bent position. Or again, if he tried to account in the same way for my conversing with you, adducing caused such as sound and air and hearing and a thousand others, and never troubled to mention the real reasons, which are that since Athens has thought it better to sit here, and more right to stay and submit to whatever penalty she orders. Because by dog, I fancy that these sinews and bones would have been in the neighborhood of Megara or Boeotia long ago-impelled by a conviction of what is best- if I did not think that it was more right and honorable to submit to whatever penalty my country orders rather than take to my heels and run away. But to call things like that causes is too absurd. If it were said that without such bones and sinews and all the rest of them I should not be able to do what I think is right, it would be true. But to say that it is because of them that I do what I am doing, and not through choice of what is best-although my actions are controlled by mind-would be a very lax and inaccurated form of expression. Fancy being unable to distinguish between the cause of a thing and the condition without whichit could notbe a cause. It is this latter, as it seems to me, that most people, grouping in the dark, call a cause-attaching to it a name to which it has no right. That is why one person surrounds the earth with a vortex, and so keeps it in place by means of the heavens, and another props it up on a pedestal of air, as though it were a wide platter. As for a power which keeps things disposed at any given moment in the best possible way, they neither look for is nor believe that it has any supernatural force. They imagine that they will someday find a mere mighty and immortal and all-sustaining Atlas and they do not think that anything is really bound and held together by goodness or moral obligation. For my part, I should be delighted to learn about the workings of such a cause from anyone but since I have been denied knowledge of it, and have been unable either to discover it myself or to learn about it from another. I have worked out my own makeshift approach to the problem of causation. Would you like me to give you a demonstration of it. Cebes? I should like it very much indeed.
1994년도 석사과정 서양철학 전공
1. 아래 지문을 읽고 물음에 답하시오.
From this equality of ability, arische equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies: and in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation, and somethings their delectation only, endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass, that where an invader hath no more to fear, than another man's single power; if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united, to dispossess, and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life, or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.
And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself, so reasonable, as anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can, so lang, till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also because there be some, that taking pleausure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires; if others, that otherwises would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, able, long time, by standing only on their defense, to subsist. And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man's conservation, it ought to be allowed him.
Again, men have no pleasure, but on the contrary a great deal of grief, in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him, at the same rate he sets upon himself: and upon all signs of contempt, or undervaluting, naturally endeavours, as far as he dares, (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet, is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contemmers, by damage; and from others, by the example.
So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.
위글에 함축된 인간관, 인간의 곤경에 대한 추론과정, 암시된 해결책 등을 논의하시오.
2. 다음중 한 문제를 선택하여 답하시오.
1) 실체(Substance)개념을 통하여 세계를 기술하는 데 어떤 이론적 장점 내지는 유용성이 있는지(또는 없는지)를 실체를 긍정하는 입장과 부정하는 입장을 대비시키면서 논하시오.
2) “변증법(Dialetics)은 논리가(Logic)가 아니다.” 이 주장의 타당성을 검토하시오.
3. 다음중 한 문제를 선택하여 답하시오.
1) -
�M� 家���� ���근본적인 차이점을 쉼납��중심으로 간략히 논하시오.
2) �와 L�＠��ZX �#＠�간략히 설명하고 그것이 지닌 철학적, 사회적 의미를 논하시오.
1995학년도 대학원 입학고사 전공과목 문제지
*문제 1은 필수, 문제 2, 3, 4, 5에서 2문 선택, 문제 6, 7에서 1문 선택
1. 아래 글을 읽고 우리 말로 답하시오. (필수)
If the receptivity of our mind, its power of receiving representations in so far as it is in any wise affected, is to be entitled sensibility, then the mind's power of producing representations from itself, the spontaneity of knowledge, should be called the understanding. Our nature is so constituted that our intuition can never be other than sensible; that is, it contains only the mode in which we are affected by objects. The faculty, on the other hand, which enables us to think the object of sensible intuition is the understanding. To neither of these powers may a preference be given over the other. Without sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. It is, therefore, just as necessary to make our concepts sensible, that is, to add the object to them in intuition, as to make our intuitions intelligible, that is, to bring them under concepts. These two powers or capacities cannot exchange their functions. The understandign can intuit nothing, the senses can think nothing. Only through their union can knowledge arese. But that is no reason for confounding the contribution of either with that of the other; rather is it a strong reason for carefully separationg and distinguishing the one from the other. We therefore distinguish the science of the rules of sensibility in general, that is, aesthetic, from the science of the rules of the understanding in general, that is, logic.
'Sensibility'와 'Understanding'의 기능은 무엇이며 양자는 어떤 관계에 있는가?
2. 심신문제를 중심으로 하여 데카르트, 스피노자, 라으피니쯔의 실체개념을 논의하시오.
3. 물리적 대상에 관한 실재론과 관념론의 차이점을 비찬적으로 논의하시오.
4. 형이상학은 무엇을 어떻게 문제삼는가.
5. 쾌락주의(Hedonism)의 입장을 정리하고 그에 대해 가능한 반대논변들을 전개하라.
6. .��j이
�슐��주장을 뒷받침하는 세 가지 학설을 제시하고 설명하시오.
7. �의 �=U을 반대한 ?S의 논지를 약술하고 그 타당성에 대해 논해 보시오.
1996년도 석사과정 서양철학 전공
Ⅰ. 다음 글을 읽고 물음에 답하시오.
It may perhaps be objected that if extension and figure exist only in the mind, it follows that the mind is extended and figured; since extention is a mode or attribute which (to speak with the schools) is predicated of the subject in which it exists. I answer, those qualities are in the mind only as they are perceived by it - that is, not by way of mode or attribute, but only by way of idea; and it no more follows the soul or mind is extended because extension exist in it alone than it does that it is red or blue, because those colours are on all hands acknowledged to exist in it, and nowhere else. As to what philosophers say of "subject" and "mode", that seems very groundless and unintelligible. For instance, in this proposition - “a dis is hard, extended and square,"they will have it that the word die denotes a subject or substance, distinct from the hardness, extension, and figure which are predicated of it, and in which they exists. This I cannot comprehend: to me a die seems to be nothing distinct from those things which are termed its modes or accident. And, to say ”a die is hard, extended, and square" is not to attribute those qualities to a subject distinct from and supporting them, but only an explication of the meaning of the word die.
위의 글에서 글쓴이는 ‘predication'의 문제에 대한 자신의 입장을 밝히고 있다. 그 입장이 어떤 내용의 것인지를 그것과 반대되는 입장과 비교하면서 설명하시오.
Ⅱ. 다음 세 문제 중 하나를 선택하여 답하시오.
1. 아리스토텔레스가 ‘우시아’(ousia) 개념으로 지시 혹은 설명하려한 사태가 어떤 것인지 논의 하시오.
2. 논리학은 어떤 근거 위에 서 있는가? 이를 설명할 수 있는 가능한 입장들을 비판적으로 검토하시오.
3. 거짓말이 정당화되는 경우가 있는가? 있다면 그 정당 근거를 도덕적 관점에서 제시하시오.
Ⅲ. 다음 두 문제 중 하나를 선택하여 답하시오.
1. 유가에서 ‘ u’와 ‘ ’의 관계를 논하시오.
2. ‘���찼��관하여 논하시오.
1997년도 석사과정 서양철학 전공 제2차모집
1. 다음 글에는 철학에 대한 저자의 견해가 들어 있다. 이 견해를 체계적으로 정리한 후, 그에 대한 수험자 자신의 입장을 밝히되, 반드시 이 입장을 뒷받침하는 논거들을 제시하시오.
I should have first of all desired to explain in it what philosophy is, beginning with the most ordinary matters, such as that this word philosophy signifies the study of wisdom, and that by wisdom we not only understand prudence in affairs, but also a perect knowldedge of all things that man can know, both ofr the conduct of his life and for the conservation of his health and the invention of all the arts; and that in order that this knoweldge should subserve these ends, it is essential that is should be derived from first causes, so that in order to study to acquire it (which is properly termed philosophising), we must begin with the investigation of these first causes, i.e. of the Principles. It is also necessary that these Principles should have two conditions attached to them; first of all they should be so clear and evident that the mind of man cannot doubt their truth when it attentively applies itself to consider them: in the second place it is on them that the knowledge of other things depends, so that the Principles can be known without these last, but the other things cannot reciprocally be known without the Principles. We must accordingly try to so deduce from these Principles the knowledge of the things that depend on them, that there shall be nothing in the whole series of the deductions made from them wdhic shall not be perfectly manifest. Ii is really only God alone who has Perfect Wisdom, that is to say, who has a complete knowledge of the trutht of all things; but it may be said that men have more wisdom or less according as they have mor or less knowledge of the most imprtant truths: And I think that in this there is nothing regarding which all the learned do not concur.
I should in the next place have cause the utility of this philosophy to be considered, and shown that since it extends over the whole range of human knowledge, we are entitled to hold that it alone is what distinguishes us from savages and barbarians, and that the civilisation and refinement of each nation is proportionate to the superiority of its philosophy. In this way a state can have no geerater good than the possession of true philosophy. And, in addition, it would have been pointed out that as regards the indidvidual, it is not only useful to live with those who apply themselves to this study, but it is incomparably better to set about it oneself; just as it is doubtless much better to avail oneself of one's own eyes for the direction of one's steps, and by the same means to enjoy the beauty of colour and light, than to close these eyes and trust to the guidance of anothter. But this last is better than to hold them closed, and not have any but oneself to act as guide. Speaking accurately, living without philosophyt is just having the eyes closed without trying to open them; and the pleasure of seeing everything that is revealed to our sight,is not comparable to the satisfaction which is given by the knowledge of those things which are opened up to us by philosophy. And finally, this study is more necessary for the regulation of our manners and for our conduct in life, than is the use of our eyes in the guidance of our steps.
...
Following on this, and in order to make very clear the end I have had in view in publishing them, I would like to explain here what seems to me to be the order which should be followed in our self-instruction. To begin with, a man who as yet has merely the common and imperfect knowledge which may be acquired by the four methods before mentioned, should above all try to form for himself a code of morals sufficient to regulate the actions of his life, because this does not brook any delay, and we ought above all other things to endeavour to live well. After that he should likewise study logic-not that of the Schools, because it properly speaking is only a dialectic which teaches how to make the things that we know understood by others, or even to repeat, without forming any judgment on them, many words respecting those that se do not know, thus corrupting rather than increasing good sense-but the logic that teaches us how beat ot direct our reason in order to discover those truths of which we are ignorant. And since this is very dependent on custom, it is good for him to practise the rules for a long time on easy and simple questions such as those of mathematics. Then when he has acquired a certain skill in discovering the truth in these questions he should begin seriously to apply himself to the true philosophy, the first part of which is metaphysics, which contains the principles of knowledge, amongst which is the explanation of the principal attributes of God, of the immateriality of our souls, and of all the clear and simple notions which are in us. The second is physics in which, after having found the true principles of material things, we examine generally how the whole universe is composed, and then in particular what is the nature of this earth and of all the bodies which are most commonly found in connection with it, like air, water and fire, the loadstone and other minerals. It is thereafter necessary to inquire individually into the nature of plants, animals, and above all of man, so that we may afterwars be able to discover the other sciences. These reduce themselves to three principal ones, viz. medicine, mechanics and morals-I mean the highest and perfect moral science which, presupposing a complete knowledge of the other sciences, is the last degree of wisdom.
Ⅱ. 다음 2문제 중 1문제를 선택하여 답하시오.
1. 자기의식은 대상 세계에 대한 인식에 비해 특권적 지위를 누릴 수 있는가?
2. 도덕적 책임과 관련하여 그 면책 조건으로서 무지와 강제를 들 수 있다. 이에 기초를 두고 도덕적 책임추궁을 위한 선결 요소들을 보다 광범위하게 논의해보시오.
Ⅲ. 다음 2문제 중 1문제를 선택하여 답하시오.
1. gj의 ‘ 룪��‘삞�개념을 설명하시오.
2. �7 .슴��7 .슛�나누는 철학적 근거를 제시하시오.
1998 학년도 대학원 신입생 정시모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지
1. 아래의 글에서 중요한 철학적 논점들을 찾아보고 특히 중요하다고 생각되는 적어도 하나의 논점에 대하여 그 타당성을 비판적으로 검토하시오.
1. Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought ot aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are prouducts apart from the activities that prouduce them. Where there are ends apart from the actions, it is the natrure of the products to be better than the activities. Now, as there are many actions, arts, and sciences, their ends also are many; the end of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that of econocics wealth. But where such arts fall under a single capacity ―as bridle-making and the other arts concerned with the equipment of horses fall under the art of fiding, and this and every military action under strategy, in the same way other arts fall under yet others― in all of these the ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the subordinate ends; for it is for the sake of the former that the latter are pursued. It makes no difference whether the activities themselves are the ends of the actions, or something else apart form the activities, as in the case of the sciences just mentioned.
2. If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall se not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what we should? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is, and of which of the sciences or capacities it is the object. It would seem to belong to the most autoritative art and that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citzens should learn and up to what point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain form, the end of this science must include thouse of the others, so that this end must be the good for man. For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete both to attain and ot preserve; for thought it is worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is fier and moere godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states. These, then, are the ends at which our inquiry, being concerned with politics, aims.
2. 다음 문제 중 한 문제를 선택하여 답하시오.
1) 형이상학적 연구의 초월성에 대하여 논하라.
2) ‘이성’ 내지 ‘합리성’이 의미하는 바를 풀이하고 그 기준을 제시해보라.
3) 언어가 철학에서 중요한 문제가 되어온 이유들을 가능한 한 여러 측면에서 논해보라.
3. 다음 문제 중 한 문제를 선택하여 답하시오.
1) 묵자의 < u> 개념과 공자의 < u> 개념의 철학적 의미를 대비하여 논하시오.
2)
�;이 ;
E에서 표방하는
����見gi. �#���D�꽵�어떻게 수용하였는지를 밝히라.
3) 조선후기 실학사상의 철학적 성격을 논해보시오.
2000 학년도 대학원 신입생 정시모집 입학모사 전공과목 문제지
1. 제시문에 나타난 지식에 관한 논의를 정리하고 지식내에서 원리의 위치와 성격을 논하시오.
Now what knowledge is, if we are to speak exactly and not follow mere similarities, is plain from what follows. We all suppose that what we know is not capable of being otherwise; of things capable of being otherwise we do not know, when they have passed outside our observation, whether they exist or not. Therefore the object of knowledge is of necessity. Therefore it is eternal; for things that are of necessity in the unqualified sense are all eternal; and things that are eternal are ungenerated and imperishable. Again, every science is thought to be capable of being taught, and its object of being learned. And all teaching starts from what is already known, as we maintain in the Analytics also; for it proceeds sometimes through induction and sometimes by deduction. Now induction is of first principles and of the universal and deduction proceeds from universal. There are therefore principles from which deduction proceeds, which are not reached by deduction; it is therefore by induction that they are acquired. Knowledge, then, is a state of capacity to demonstrate, and has the other limiting characteristics which we specify in the Analytics; for it is when a man believes in a certain way and the principles are known to him that he has knowledge, since if they are not better known to him than the conclusion, he will have his knowledge only incidentally.
Knowledge is belief about things that are universal and necessary, and there are principles of everything that is demonstrated and of all knowledge (for knowledge involves reasoning). This being so, the first principle of what is known cannot be an object of knowledge of art, or of practical wisdom; for that which can beknown can be demonstrated, and art and practical wisdom deeal with things that can be otherwise. Nor are these first principles the objects of wisdom, for it is a mark of the wise man to have demonstration about some things. If, then, the states by which we have truth and are never deceived about things that cannot―or can―be otherwise are knowledge, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, and comprehension, and it cannot be any of the three (i.e. practical wisdom, scientific knowledge, or philosophic wisdom), the remaining alternative is that it is comprehension that grasps the first principles.
2. 다음 4문제 중에서 2문제를 선택해 답하시오.
1) “존재하는 것은 지각된 것이다. (To be is to be perceived)” 이 명제가 어떻게 구성되며 이 명제에 대한 어떤 비판이 가능한가?
2) 원인(cause)에 관한 아리스토텔레스의 입장과 근세 기계론적 철학의 입장이 어떤 점에서 어떻게 다른지 논하시오.
3) ‘이성’이란 무엇을 뜻하는가? ‘상대적 이성’이라는 것도 말할 수 있는가?
4)자유 개념에 대한 형이상학적-존재론적 입론과 사회철학적-윤리학적 입론들의 대표적인 유형을 제시하고, 각각에 대해 자신의 견해를 밝히시오.
3. 다음 2문제 중에서 1문제를 선택하여 답하시오.
1) 유가와 묵가의 <� 관념의 차이를 말하시오.
2) ��꽵�불교비판에 대해 논하시오.
2003년 후기 서양철학 대학원
Ⅰ. 다음 글에서 ‘관념'(idea)은 어떻게 정의되고 있으며, 관념의 종류에는 어떤 것들이 있는지 등을 밝히면서 관념의 문제와 관련하여 필자가 취하고 있는 입장을 정리하고 그 입장에 대한 비판적 혹은 동조적 관점 중에서 하나를 택하여 그 입장에 대해 논하시오.
First, however, considerations of order appear to dictate that I now classify my thoughts into definite kinds, and ask which of them can properly be said to be the bearers of truth and falsity. Some of my thoughts are as it were the images of things, and it is only in these cases that the term 'idea' is strictly appropriate- for example, when I think of a man, or a chimera, or the sky, or an angel, or God. Other thoughts have various additional forms: thus when I will, or am afraid, of affirm, or deny, there is always a particular thing which I take as the object of my thought, but my thought includes something more than the likeness of that thing. Some thoughts in this category are called volitions or emotions, while others are called judgements.
Now as far as idea are concerned, provided they are considered solely in themselves and I do not refer them to anything else, they can not strictly speaking be false; for whether it is goat or a chimera that I am imagining, it is just as true that I imagine the former as the latter. As for the will and the emotions, here too one need not worry about falsity; for even if the things which I may desire are wicked or even non-existent, that does not make it any less true that I desire them. Thus the only remaining thoughts where I must be on my guard against making a mistake are judgements. And the chief and most common mistake which is to be found here consists in my judging the ideas which are in me resemble, or conform to, things located outside me. Of course, if I considered just the ideas themselves simply as modes of my thoughts, without referring them to anything else, they could scarcely give me any material for error.
Among my ideas, some appear to be innate, some to be adventitious, and others to have been invented by me. My understanding of what a thing is, what truth is, and what thought is, seems to derive simply from my own nature. But my hearing noise, as I do now, or seeing the sun, or feeling the fire, comes from things which are located outside me, or so I have hitherto judges. Lastly, sirens, hippogriffs and the like are my own invention. But perhaps all my ideas may be thought of as adventitious, or they may all be innate, or all made up; for as yet I have not clearly perceived their true origin.
Ⅱ 다음의 네 가지 문제 중에서 한 문제를 선택하여 답하시오.
1. 실재론과 관념론은 무엇에 대한 어떤 주장들인가?
2. 아리스토텔레스의 덕윤리를 설명하고 대비되는 입장에서 비판적으로 검토해 보시오.
3. 이성과 관련하여 ‘역사의 진보’에 대해 논의하시오.
4. “인간은 과학적 탐구활동을 통해 감각적 경험의 한계를 넘어 있는 그대로의 세계에 대하 이론적 지식을 획득하게 되었다”는 견해를 옹호하거나 비판적으로 검토하시오.
Ⅲ. 다음 두 가지 문제 중에서 하나를 선택하여 답하시오.
1. ��ダ�어떤 의미의 켿 K인지 설명하라.
2. ��‘ �C’와 {`의 ‘�C’이념의 철학적 의의를 대비적으로 논하시오.
2004학년도 대학원신입생 전기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지
I. 다음의 지문에서 필자는 두 가지 종류의 직관(intution)이 존재한다고 주장하고 있다. 직관의 대상을 함께 고려하면서 이러한 두 가지 종류의 직관이 무엇이며 서로 어떻게 구별되는지에 대한 필자의 주장을 예를 들어 자세하게 설명하고 이러한 필자의 주장에 대한 자신의 견해를 피력하시오.
The essence(Eidos) is an object of a new type. Just as the datum of individual or empirical intution is an individual object, so the datum of essential intution is a pure essence. Here we have not a mere superficial analogy, but a radical community of nature. Essential intution is still intution, just as the eidetic object is still an object. The generalization of the correlative, mutually attached concepts "intution" and "object" is not a causal whim, but is compellingly demanded by the very nature of things. Empirical intution, more specifically sense-experience, is consciousness of an individual object, and as an intuting agency "brings it to giveness": as perception, to primordial givenness, to the consiousness of grasping the object in a "primordial way", in its "bodily" selfhood. On Quite similar lines essential intution is the consciousness of something, of an "object", a something towards which its glance is directed.
II. 다음의 3문제 중에서 2문제를 선택하여 답하시오.
1. 이성론[합리론]과 경험론의 중심쟁점과 그 전개과정을 서술하시오.
2. 사회구성의 방법으로서 사회계약론의 근대적 모형들을 현대철학의 관점에서 비판적으로 논의하시오.
2004학년도 후기 대학원(서철전공 석사) 입시문제
※ 아래의 지문을 읽고 문제에 대답하시오.
Dostoevski once wrote "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted"; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. He discovers that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one's action by reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words, there is no determinism - man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimate our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. We are left alone without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does. … The existentialist thinks that every man, without any support or help whatever, is condemned at every instant, to invent man.
1. 위의 지문에 의거하여 “Man is condemned to be free”라는 말의 의미를 설명하고 그러한 주장의 타당성에 대해서 논해 보시오.
※ 아래의 세 문제 중에서 두 문제를 골라 대답하시오.
2. ‘계몽’이란 무엇인가? ‘계몽’의 원리가 내포한 해방적 성격과 지배적인 성격의 내용을 철학적으로 논하시오.
3. 마음(정신, 의식)이 세계에서 차지하는 위치에 관한 하나의 이론을 제시하고 그에 대해 논하시오.
4. 정의의 윤리(ethics of justice)와 배려의 윤리(ethics of care)는 상호 어떤 관련을 갖는가?
2005학년도 후기 대학원(서양철학 전공) 입시문제(채점위원)
석사과정
1. 아래의 지문을 읽고 문제에 대답하시오.
So that in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first makes man invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men's persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name. Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man. [...] To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, just and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice [...] It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no domination, no "mine" and "thine" distinct, but only that to be every man's that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it [...] The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them. And reason suggests convenient articles of peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement.
- 위 지문을 단서로 분쟁의 원인을 설명하고 “공통의 힘”의 성립을 정당화해보시오.
※ 아래의 두 문제에 모두 대답하시오.
2. ‘인식론’이란 무엇인가? ‘이성주의’와 ‘경험주의’를 비교하면서 논하시오.
3. 정신은 물질과 어떤 관계에 있는가?
2005학년도 대학원 신입생 전기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지
1. 아래의 지문을 읽고 질문에 답하시오.
The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others, It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. A sacrifice which does not increase or tend to increase the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted. The only self-renunciation which it applauds is devotion to the happiness, or to some of the means of happiness, of others, either of mankind collectively or of individuals within the limits imposed by the collective interests of mankind.
I must again repeat what the assailants of utilitarianism seldom have the justice to acknowledge, that the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent's own happiness but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read complete spirit of the ethics of utility. "To do as you would be done by," and "to love your neighbor as yourself," constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.
- 위 지문의 내용을 요약한 후에 비판적으로 논하시오.
* 아래 두 문제 중에서 한 문제만을 골라 답하시오.
2. 현상과 실재의 구분을 비판적으로 논하시오.
3. 합리적 믿음과 진리의 관계를 논하시오.
* 아래 두 문제 중에서 한 문제만을 골라 답하시오.
4. 윤리적 가치나 도덕규범은 객관적으로 실재하는 것으로서 발견되는 것인가, 아니면 주관적 감정이나 생각에 의해 창안, 구성되는 것인가?
5. 사회 통합과 관련하여 의사소통은 어떤 역할을 하는가? 비판적 사회이론에서 ‘언어작 패러다임’의 도입이 가지는 의의를 논하시오.