Part I: Briefly (a paragraph should suffice) define five of the following philosophical positions or concepts. Then comment on Sellars’ attitude toward them.

Sense-Datum Theories

Cartesian Conception of the Mind

Psychological Nominalism

Myth of the Given

Epistemic Reliabilism

Conceptual Holism

Scientific Realism vs. the Positivistic Conception of Science

Logical Behaviorism

Ordinary Language Philosophy

Part II: In between 1 and 2 pages apiece, address at least three of the following questions, including #5. If you do more than required, I will simply take your three best responses (including #5).

1. What are the morals that Sellars wants us to draw from his story of John in the tie shop? Does this example succeed in establishing those morals?

2. According to Sellars, what is the proper way of understanding talk about the meanings of terms? In particular, how should we not understand talk about meanings? Why is this important for Sellars’ subsequent development of the myth of Jones?

3. What is the purpose of the "myth of Jones," and how does it begin? Why does Sellars claim to use a myth to kill a myth? How effective is Sellars’ strategy?

4. According to the "myth of Jones," how (and for what purposes) do our Rylean ancestors come to talk about thoughts and sense impressions? How do these two notions differ from one another?

5. How does Sellars account for the "first-person authority" that people seem to have with respect to the contents of their minds? Contrast this account with the traditional, Cartesian account.

Part III: In 3-4 pages, address one of the following topics.

A. What is Sellars’ account of the justification of observation reports? What is the "level of ascent" requirement, and why does Sellars see the need to impose it?

BONUS: Read the relevant sections of the Brandom commentary, and lay out Brandom’s criticism of the level of ascent requirement. In your explicitly reasoned opinion, who gets the upper hand in this discussion?

B. Discuss Sellars’ views about the relationship between thought and talk. What do the various commentators have to say about this relationship? What are some challenges that might be brought against the view?

BONUS: Compare Sellars’ view about the relationship between thought and talk with those of other philosophers (be explicit and cite sources, where appropriate). In your explicitly reasoned opinion, how plausible is the Sellarsian picture?