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. 先秦시대 儒家思想과 道家思想의 철학적 차이점을 ‘道’ 개념을 중심으로 설명하시오.

2. 退溪와 栗谷의 性理設이 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) 先秦時代 儒家思想과 道家思想의 근본적인 차이점을 道개념을 중심으로 간략히 논하시오.

2) 退溪와 高峰간의 四端七情論辨을 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. 佛敎哲學이 中道라는 주장을 뒷받침하는 세 가지 학설을 제시하고 설명하시오.

7. 退溪의 理發說을 반대한 瑮谷의 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 ‘義’와 ‘利’의 관계를 논하시오.

2. ‘頓悟漸修’에 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. 性理學의 ‘理’와 ‘氣’ 개념을 설명하시오.

2. 小乘 佛敎와 大乘 佛敎를 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 <義> 개념과 공자의 <義> 개념의 철학적 의미를 대비하여 논하시오.

2) 知訥이 禪宗에서 표방하는 直指人心 見性成佛 不立文字 敎外別傳을 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 <天> 관념의 차이를 말하시오.

2) 鄭道傳의 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. 緣起論이 어떤 의미의 因果律인지 설명하라.

2. 筍子의 ‘禮治’와 韓非의 ‘法治’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

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.

2005년 후기 서양철학 석사과정

<서양철학 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 nations of right and wrong, just and injustice, have there no place. Where there is on 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 loing 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.

※ 아래 두 문제에 모두 답하시오.

2. ‘인식론’이란 무엇인가? ‘이성주의’와 ‘경험주의’를 비교하면서 논하시오.

3. 정신은 물질과 어떤 관계에 있는가?

2006학년도 대학원 신입생 전기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

다음 3가지 문제에 대해 모두 답하시오.

Ⅰ. 다음 지문을 읽고 물음에 답하시오.

All reasonings may be divided into two kinds, namely, demonstrative reasoning, or that concerning relations of ideas, and (1)moral reasoning, or that concerning matter of fact and existence. That there is no demonstrative arguments in the case seems evident; since it implies no contradiction that the course of nature may change, and that an object, seemingly like those which we have experienced, may be attended with the different or contrary effects. May I not clearly and distinctly conceive that a body, falling from the clouds, and which , in all other respects, resembles snow, has yet the taste of salt or feeling of fire? Is there any more intelligible proposition than to affirm, that all the trees will flourish in December and decay in June?

If we be, therefore, engaged by arguments to put trust in past experience, and make it the standard of our future judgement, these arguments must be probable only ....according to the division above mentioned....... we have said that all arguments concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect; that our knowledge of that relation is derived entirely from experience; and that all our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the future will be conformable to the past. To endeavour, therefore, the proof of this last supposition by probable arguments, of arguments regarding existence, must be (2) going in a circle, and taking that for granted, which is the very poiont in question.

(1) 여기서 'moral reasoning'이란 어떤 reasoning을 말하는지 그 특성을 demonstrative reasoning과 대비하여 설명해 보시오.

(2) 밑줄 친 부분이 이 맥락에선 무엇을 뜻하는지 그 내용을 설명하시오.

Ⅱ. 윤리적 관점에서 이기주의를 비판적으로 논하시오.

Ⅲ. 세계 안에서 인간의 지위에 대한 철학적 논변 하나를 쓰고 그에 대해 논하시오.

2006학년도 대학원 신입생 후기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

※ 아래의 지문을 읽고 문제에 대답하시오.

(Ⅵ. 4) Within the sphere of what can be otherwise, there are both things that belong within the realm of production and things that belong within that of action; but production is a different thing from action (and on this subject we can rely on our published discussions too), so that rational disposition in the sphere of action will also be different from rational productive disposition. By the same token, nor is either of them a species of the other: it is not the case either that action is production, or that production is action. But since building is one sort of technical expertise, and is what constitutes a particular productive disposition accompanied by rational prescription, nor any such disposition that is not a technical expertise, technical expertise will be the same as productive disposition accompanied by true rational prescription. Every technical expertise is concerned with coming into being, that is, with the practice and theory of how to bring into being some one of the things that are capable either of being or of not being, and the origin of whose coming into being lies in the producer and not in the thing being produced; for technical expertise is not concerned with things that either are or come to be by necessity, nor with things that are or come to be by nature, since these have their origin in themselves. And because production is a different thing from action, necessarily technical expertise has to do with production, not with action. (And in a certain way, chance and technical expertise occupy the same field, just as Agathon says:

Skill does chance embrace, and chance her love returns.)

Technical expertise, then, as has been said, is a productive disposition accompanied by true rational prescription, while conversely inexpert technique is a productive disposition accompanied by false rational prescription; both in relation to what can be otherwise.

1. 밑줄 친 부분에 제시된 제작술의 두 특징을 설명하면서 전체 내용을 요약해 보시오.

※ 아래의 네 문제 중에서 두 문제를 골라 대답하시오.

2. 근세철학에서 실체의 개념이 마음과 신체의 문제에 접근하는 데 어떠한 역학을 했는지를 비판적으로 논하시오.

3. 시간에 대한 철학적 논변 하나를 소개하고 그에 대해서 논하시오.

4. 인식의 객관성은 확보 가능한가? 가능하다면 어떻게 확보될 수 있는가?

5. 최근 우리사회의 연한 문제 중 하나로서 상속의 정당화에 대한 찬반논변 중 합당하다고 생각하는 입장을 선택, 사회정의의 관점에서 논하시오.

2007년 전기모집 자료 없음

2007학년도 대학원 신입생 후기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

<서양철학 석사과정>

※ 아래의 문제 중에서 세 문제를 골라 대답하시오. (단 1번 문제는 필수)

1. 다음 인용문의 내용을 요약하고 비판적으로 논하시오.

If every thought requires an owner and belongs to the contents of his consciousness, then the thought would become a mere idea and would have this owner alone. There would be no science common to many people on which many could work together, but perhaps I would have my science, a totality of thoughts whose owner I am, and another person would have his. Each of us would be concerned with contents of his own consciousness. No contradiction between the two sciences would then be possible, and it would really be idle to dispute about truth.....

If someone takes thoughts to b e ideas, what he then accepts as true would be, on his own view, the content of his consciousness, and would not properly concern other people at all. Accordingly, if he heard from me the opinion that a thought is not an idea, he would not be able to dispute it, for my opinion should not really concern him.

2. 있음(Being)이 무엇인가에 대해 논하시오.

3. 인식론적 회의주의를 옹호하는 한 논증을 제시하고, 이를 비판적으로 논하시오.

4. 권력에 대하여 논하되, (가) 정치적 권력과 (나) 권력의 정당성이라는 두 논점을 포함하여 서술하시오

2008학년도 대학원 신입생 전기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

※ 아래의 네 문제 중에서 세 문제를 골라 대답하시오. (1번 문제는 필수)

1. 아래 글은 신의 존재가 증명될 수 없다는 주장과 그것에 대한 토마스 아퀴나스의 반론을 담은 글이다. 글의 전체적 요지를 간략히 정리하고, 아퀴나스의 반론 중 하나를 택하여 비판적으로 논하라.

Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unsee (Heb.ⅺ.1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Objection 2. Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

Reply Obj. 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Reply Obj. 2. When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstration the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God".

Reply Obj. 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

2. 인식할 수 없는 진리가 성립할 수 있는지에 대해 논하시오

3. 사실 판단과 가치 판단의 관계에 대해 논하시오.

4. "나는 모른다는 것을 안다"는 소크라테스의 말을 분석하고 비판적으로 논하시오.

2008학년도 대학원 신입생 후기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

<석사과정>

※ 아래의 네 문제 중에서 세 문제를 골라 대답하시오. (단 1번 문제는 필수)

1. 다음 제시문의 내용을 요약하고, 저자의 주장을 (비판적으로) 논하시오.

The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse1) of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux2) of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc. of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura3), this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina4) does from their physical life-process.

We do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates5) of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.

1) 교류

2) 유출(流出)

3) an early form of camera consisting of a dark box with a tiny hole or lens in the front and a small screen inside, on which the image appears.

4) 망막

5) 승화물(昇華物)

2. 언어와 세계의 관계에 대한 철학적 논변 중 하나를 쓰고 그에 대해 논하시오.

3. 인식에 대한 철학적 견해 하나를 소개하고 그에 대해 비판적으로 논하시오.

4. 세계에 대한 서로 다른 두 철학적 견해를 제시하고 비교하여 논하시오

2009학년도 대학원 신입생 전기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

<석사과정>

※ 아래의 네 문제 중 세 문제를 선택하여 답하시오. (단 1번 문제는 필수)

1. 제시문에 나타난 good sense 또는 reason에 대한 필자의 견해를 정리한 후, 옹호하는 입장 또는 비판하는 입장에 서서 필자의 견해에 대해 논하시오.

Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that even those most difficult to please in all other matters do not commonly desire more of it than they already possess. It is unlikely that this is an error on their part; it seems rather to be evidence in support of the view that the power of forming a good judgment and of distinguishing the true from the false, which is properly speaking what is called Good Sense or Reason, is by nature equal in all men. Hence, too, it will show that the diversity of our opinions does not proceed from some men being more rational than others, but solely from the fact that our thoughts pass through diverse channels and the same objects are not considered by all. For to be possessed of good mental powers is not sufficient; the principal matter is to apply them well. The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as the greatest virtues, and those who proceed very slowly may, provided they always follow the straight road, really advance much faster than those who, though they run, forsake it.

2. 마음과 신체의 관계에 대한 대표적 이론 한 가지를 선택하여 논하시오.

3. 경험과학과 철학의 관계에 대해 논하시오.

4. 사회적 권익에 대한 분배적 정의의 기준은 무엇이며 그에 대해 어떤 합의의 절차를 생각할 수 있는지 논하시오.

2009학년도 대학원 신입생 후기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

<석사과정>

※ 아래의 네 문제 중 세 문제를 선택하여 답하시오. (단 1번 문제는 필수)

1. 다음 글의 논증을 전제와 결론으로 분석하여 정리한 후, 이에 대한 자신의 견해를 밝히시오.

Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is is still desired. This might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of man. For just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or any artist, and, in general, for all things that have a function or activity, the good and the ‘well’ is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem to be for man, if he has a function. . . .What then can this be? Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal. There remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational principle; of this, one part has such a principle in the sense of being obedient to one, the other in the sense of possessing one and exercising thought. And, as ‘life of the rational element’ also has two meanings, we must state that life in the sense of activity is what we mean; for this seems to be the more proper sense of the term. Now if the function of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle, and if we say ‘so-and-so’ and ‘a good so-and-so’ have a function which is the same in kind, e.g. a lyre and a good lyre-player, and so without qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of goodness being added to the name of the function (for the function of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and that of a good lyre-player is to do so well): if this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.

2.세계에 대한 지식은 모두 감각 경험에 의해 정당화되어야 한다는 철학적 견해 하나를 소개하고 그에 대해 논하시오.

3. 공간의 본질적 성격에 대한 철학적 논변 하나를 쓰고 논하시오.

4. 개인과 사회의 관계에 대한 철학적 견해 하나를 소개하고 그에 대해 논하시오.

2010학년도 대학원 신입생 전기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

<석사과정>

* 다음 문제 중 I은 반드시 답하고, II에서 제시된 3문제 중 2문제를 선택하여 답하시오.

I. 다음 논증을 요약, 재구성한 후 자신의 입장에서 평가하시오. (필수)

Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'" ? But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists. For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.

II. 다음 3문제 중 2문제를 선택하여 답하시오.

1. "인간은 합리적 동물이다"라는 주장에 대해 가장 유력하다고 생각하는 철학적 견해 하나를 소개하고 자신의 입장을 논하시오.

2. 개별과학과 철학 사이의 관계에 대해서 논하시오.

3. 인간의 활동 가운데 ‘필연의 왕국’과 ‘자연의 왕국’에 속하는 것은 어떤 것인지 예를 들어 각각의 본성을 비교하면서 상론하시오.

2010학년도 대학원 신입생 후기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

<석사과정>

※ 아래의 네 문제 중에서 세 문제를 골라 대답하시오. (1번 문제는 필수)

1. 다음 글의 주장을 정리한 후 이에 대해 비판적으로 논하시오.

And it seemed to me it was very much as if one should say that Socrates does with intelligence whatever he does, and then, in trying to give the causes of the particular thing I do, should say first that I am now sitting here because my body is composed of bones and sinews, and the bones are hard and have joints which divide them and the sinews can be contracted and relaxed and, with the flesh and the skin which contains them all, are laid about the bones; and so, as the bones are hung loose in their ligaments, the sinews, by relaxing and contracting, make me able to bend my limbs now, and that is the cause of my sitting here with my legs bent. Or as if in the same way he should give voice and air and hearing and countless other things of the sort as causes for our talking with each other, and should fail to mention the real causes, which are, that the Athenians decided that it was best to condemn me, and therefore I have decided that it was best for me to sit here and that it is right for me to stay and undergo whatever penalty they order. For I fancy these bones and sinews of mine would have been in Megara or Boeotia long ago, carried thither by an opinion of what was best, if I did not think it was better and nobler to endure any penalty the city may inflict rather than to escape and run away. But it is most absurd to call things of that sort causes. If anyone were to say that I could not have done what I thought proper if I had not bones and sinews and other things that I have, he would be right. But to say that those things are the cause of my doing what I do, and that I act with intelligence but not from the choice of what is best, would be an extremely careless way of talking. Whoever talks in that way is unable to make a distinction and to see that in reality a cause is one thing, and the thing without which the cause could never be a cause is quite another thing.

2. 거짓인 문장도 참인 문장과 마찬가지로 의미를 가질 수 있는 이유를 논하시오.

3. 우리는 인식을 통해 세계를 발견하는가 아니면 구성하는가? 이에 대한 자신의 견해를 밝히고 옹호하시오.

4. 우리는 미래세대에 대하여 환경을 보존할 의무를 갖는가? 근거를 들어 논하시오.

2011학년도 대학원 신입생 전기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

<석사과정>

※ 아래의 네 문제 중에서 세 문제를 골라 대답하시오. (1번 문제는 필수)

1. 다음 지문에 나타난 필자의 견해를 정리하고 이에 대해 비판적으로 논하시오.

The creed which accepts as the foundation of moral, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded - namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.

2. 인과 관계의 본성에 대한 철학적 이론 하나를 소개하고 그에 대해 평가하시오.

3. 자신의 마음에 대한 지식이 외부 세계에 대한 지식보다 우월하다고 생각하는 철학적 전통을 설명하고 이에 대해 평가하시오.

4. 언어의 본성에 대한 탐구가 철학에서 어떤 의미를 지닐 수 있는지 자신의 견해를 서술하시오.

2011학년도 대학원 신입생 후기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

<석사과정>

※ 아래의 네 문제 중에서 세 문제를 골라 대답하시오. (1번 문제는 필수)

1. 다음 지문의 내용을 요약하고, 이 글에서 저자가 펼치는 두 논증의 목적과 내용을 명확하게 설명한 후 각각의 논증에 대한 자신의 견해를 논하시오.

[P]artly by the feeling that, if truth consists in a correspondence of thought with something outside thought, thought can never know when truth has been attained [. . .], many philosophers have been led to try to find some definition of truth which shall not consist in relation to something wholly outside belief. The most important attempt at a definition of this sort is the theory that truth consists in coherence. It is said that the mark of falsehood is failure to cohere in the body of our beliefs, and that it is the essence of a truth to form part of the completely rounded system which is The Truth.

There is, however, a great difficulty in this view, or rather two great difficulties. The first is that there is no reason to suppose that only one coherent body of beliefs is possible. It may be that, with sufficient imagination, a novelist might invent a past for the world that would perfectly fit on to what we know, and yet be quite different from the real past. . . . In philosophy, again, it seems not uncommon for two rival hypotheses to be both able to account for all the facts. Thus, for example, it is possible that life is one long dream, and that the outer world has only that degree of reality that the objects of dreams have; but although such a view does not seem inconsistent with known facts, there is no reason to prefer it to the common-sense view, according to which other people and things do really exist. Thus coherence as the definition of truth fails because there is no proof that there can be only one coherent system.

The other objection to this definition of truth is that it assumes the meaning of ‘coherence’ known, whereas, in fact, ‘coherence’ presupposes the truth of the laws of logic. Two propositions are coherent when both may be true, and are incoherent when one at least must be false. Now in order to know whether two propositions can both be true, we must know such truths as the law of contradiction. For example, the two propositions, 'this tree is a beech' and 'this tree is not a beech', are not coherent, because of the law of contradiction. But if the law of contradiction itself were subjected to the test of coherence, we should find that, if we choose to suppose it false, nothing will any longer be incoherent with anything else. Thus the laws of logic supply the skeleton or framework within which the test of coherence applies, and they themselves cannot be established by this test.

For the above two reasons, coherence cannot be accepted as giving the meaning of truth, though it is often a most important test of truth after a certain amount of truth has become known.

2. 칸트는 『순수이성비판』에서 “경험일반을 가능하게 하는 조건들은 동시에 그 경험의 대상들을 가능하게 하는 조건들이다”라고 말하고 있다. 이 명제의 의미를 명확하게 밝히시오.

3. 개인의 자유란 어떤 것인가? 개인과 국가 간의 관계에서 논하시오.

4. 상대주의를 자신이 이해하는 바에 따라 정의한 후 상대주의에 대한 대표적 찬반논변들을 소개하고 비판적으로 논하시오.

2012학년도 대학원 신입생 후기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

<석사과정>

※ 아래의 네 문제 중에서 세 문제를 골라 대답하시오. (1번 문제는 필수)

1. 아래 지문에서 필자가 던지고 있는 핵심 질문의 내용을 정리하여 서술하고, 그 질문에 대한 자신의 입장을 논거를 들어 전개하시오.

Can moral principles be tested and confirmed in the way scientific principles can? Consider the principle that, if you are given a choice between five people alive and one dead or five people dead and one alive, you should always choose to have five people alive and one dead rather than the other way round. We can easily imagine examples that appear to confirm this principle. But what about the following case?

You have five patients in the hospital who are dying, each in need of a separate organ. One needs a kidney, another a lung, a third a heart, and so forth. You can save all five if you take a single healthy person and remove his heart, lungs, kidneys, and so forth, to distribute to these five patients. Just such a healthy person is in room 306. He is in the hospital for routine tests. Having seen his test results, you know that he is perfectly healthy and of the right tissue compatibility. If you do nothing, he will survive without incident; the other patients will die, however. The other five patients can be saved only if the person in Room 306 is cut up and his organs distributed.

The principle in question tells us that you should cut up the patient in Room 306. But in this case, surely you must not sacrifice this innocent bystander, even to save the five other patients. Here a moral principle has been tested and disconfirmed in what may seem to be a surprising way.

This, of course was a "thought experiment." We did not really compare a hypothesis with the world. We compared an explicit principle with our feelings about certain imagined examples. In the same way, a physicist performs thought experiments in order to compare explicit hypotheses with his "sense" of what should happen in certain situations, a "sense" that he has acquired as a result of his long working familiarity with current theory. But scientific hypotheses can also be tested in real experiments, out in the world.

Can moral principles be tested in the same way, out in the world? You can observe someone doing something, but can you ever perceive the rightness or wrongness of what he does? If you round a corner and see a group of young hoodlums pour gasoline on a cat and ignite it, you do not need to conclude that what they are doing is wrong; you do not need to figure anything out; you can see that it is wrong. But is your reaction due to the actual wrongness of what you see or is it simply a reflection of your moral "sense," a "sense" that you have acquired perhaps as a result of your moral upbringing?

2. 다음의 역설을 해결할 방법이 있는지, 그리고 있다면 어떤 것일 수 있는지 논하시오.

‘제우스는 존재하지 않는다’는 참인 문장이다. 왜냐하면 제우스는 그리스 신화 속에 나오는 가상의 신에 지나지 않기 때문이다. 그러나 이 문장이 참이거나 거짓이 될 수 있기 위해서는 이름 ‘제우스’가 가리키는 것이 있어야 한다. 즉 제우스가 존재해야 한다. 그러나 제우스가 존재한다면 ‘제우스는 존재하지 않는다’는 문장은 거짓이다. 결국, 이 문장은 참이면서 동시에 거짓이다. 그러나 어떠한 문장도 참이면서도 동시에 거짓일 수 없다.

3. 우리가 창밖의 단풍나무를 보고 있다고 가정해 보자. 로크, 버클리, 흄, 데카르트, 라이프니츠, 스피노자, 칸트 중 두 철학자를 골라 이 두 철학자가 이러한 감각적 지각을 어떻게 이해하고 있는지 각각 설명하고 비교, 분석하시오.

4. 의식이 유물론 또는 물리주의에 어떤 문제를 제기하는지 철학이론 하나를 들어 설명하고 이에 대한 자신의 입장을 논거를 들어 전개하시오.

2013학년도 대학원 신입생 전기모집 입학고사 전공과목 문제지

<석사과정>

※ 아래의 네 문제 중에서 세 문제를 골라 대답하시오. (1번 문제는 필수)

1. 다음 글에서 저자가 펼치는 논증을 재구성하여 설명하고, 이 논증의 설득력 여부를 평가하시오.

If anyone were anxious to deny altogether that there are such things as universals, we should find that we cannot strictly prove that there are such entities as qualities, whereas we can prove that there must be relations. Let us take in illustration the universal whiteness. If we believe that there is such a universal, we shall say that things are white because they have the quality of whiteness. This view, however, was strenuously denied by Berkeley and Hume, who have been followed in this by later empiricists. The form which their denial took was to deny that there are such things as ‘abstract ideas’. When we want to think of whiteness, they said, we form an image of some particular white thing, and reason concerning this particular, taking care not to deduce anything concerning it which we cannot see to be equally true of any other white thing. As an account of our actual mental processes, this is no doubt largely true. [. . .] But a difficulty emerges as soon as we ask ourselves how we know that a thing is white. If we wish to avoid the universals whiteness, we shall choose some particular patch of white, and say that anything is white if it has the right sort of resemblance to our chosen particular. But then the resemblance required will have to be a universal. Since there are many white things, the resemblance must hold between many pairs of particular white things; and this is the characteristic of a universal. It will be useless to say that there is a different resemblance for each pair, for then we shall have to say that these resemblances resemble each other, and thus at last we shall be forced to admit resemblance as a universal. The relation of resemblance, therefore, must be a true universal. And having been forced to admit this universal, we find that it is no longer worthwhile to invent difficult and unplausible theories to avoid the admission of such universals as whiteness. Berkeley and Hume failed to perceive this refutation of their rejection of ‘abstract ideas’, because, like their adversaries, they only thought of qualities, and altogether ignored relations as universals.

2. 시민이 국가 권력에 저항할 수 있는 권리가 있는지 논거를 들어 상론하시오.

3. 서양철학사에서 등장하는 회의주의 논변의 일례를 자세히 소개하고 이를 옹호 또는 비판하시오.

4. 아리스토텔레스의 윤리학을 덕윤리(virtue ethics) 관점에서 논하시오.