Galicia PAU History of Philosophy / Historia de la Filosofía CIUG study plan

Define in writing the central problem each of the Milesian, Eleatic and pluralist thinkers addresses (arkhé, being vs. becoming, plurality and motion), with one original example each.

Reconstruct the Platonic theory of Forms from the simile of the line and the allegory of the cave, and state three objections Aristotle raises against it.

Map Aristotle's four causes and hylomorphism onto his account of substance, and explain how potency and act resolve the problem of change.

Compare Epicurean ataraxia and Stoic apatheia as ethical goals, identifying the differing physics each depends on.

Solve two PAU-style definition questions on Presocratic and Hellenistic concepts under timed conditions (10 minutes each).

Write out from memory the structure of Aristotle's Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics arguments studied in week 1, then correct gaps against your notes.

Explain Augustine's synthesis of Neoplatonism and Christian doctrine on illumination, evil as privation, and free will, using his own argumentative order.

Reconstruct Aquinas's five ways and classify each by the type of inference it uses (cosmological, teleological, modal).

Contrast Aquinas's analogia entis with Ockham's nominalism and razor, and state what each implies for proofs of God's existence.

Identify three features of Renaissance humanism (return to sources, rhetoric, dignity of man) and link each to a named author.

Reconstruct Descartes's method of doubt step by step and explain why the cogito is reached as a first indubitable truth rather than a syllogism.

Derive the existence of God and of the external world from the cogito, and name the circularity objection and Descartes's reply.

Compare Cartesian dualism with Spinoza's monism and parallelism, stating what each does with the mind-body problem.

Explain Hume's fork, his analysis of causation and the problem of induction, and Berkeley's idealist response to representative realism.

Write a 15-line commentary on a short supplied passage (your own transcription of a Descartes or Hume paragraph) identifying thesis, argument and an unstated premise.

Reconstruct Kant's Copernican turn and distinguish analytic/synthetic from a priori/a posteriori, giving one example of each of the four combinations.

Explain how the categories and the forms of intuition structure experience, and state what the thing in itself is and is not for Kant.

Formulate the categorical imperative in its universal-law and humanity formulations and apply each to one concrete case.

Summarise Rousseau's general will and the state of nature argument, and contrast it with Hobbes's account.

Annotate two short source passages (Kant, Rousseau) marking thesis, premises, key terms and possible objections, in the format required by the commentary exercise.

Explain Hegel's dialectic and the master-slave relation, and show how Aufhebung differs from simple negation.

Reconstruct Marx's alienation and historical materialism, and state precisely which Hegelian moves he keeps and which he inverts.

Analyse Nietzsche's critique of morality through genealogy, will to power and eternal recurrence, and distinguish it from nihilism as he describes it.

Compare Comte's law of three stages with historicist accounts of reason, identifying what each claims about the status of scientific knowledge.

Answer two short exam questions on Marx and Nietzsche in 15 minutes each, then rewrite the weaker answer.

Outline Husserl's epoché and intentionality, and explain how Heidegger transforms phenomenology into fundamental ontology with being-in-the-world.

Summarise Sartre's existence precedes essence and the concept of bad faith, with one worked example.

Distinguish the early and late Wittgenstein positions on language and meaning, and state the central claim of ordinary-language philosophy.

Explain one Frankfurt School argument on instrumental reason or the culture industry, and one postmodern challenge to metanarratives.

Draft a structured essay plan (thesis, three arguments, one counterargument, conclusion) on a twentieth-century question and time a 20-minute written response from it.

Practise four commentaries from different periods (ancient, medieval, modern, contemporary) at 45 minutes each, always separating exposition from evaluation.

Build a reusable commentary protocol: identify thesis, reconstruct premises, explain two key terms in context, evaluate one objection, conclude.

Write two essays under full exam timing and self-mark both against the Galician PAU criteria (structure, terminology, argumentation, orthography).

Compile a personal error log of recurring mistakes (misread authors, vague definitions, missing evaluation) and correct each entry in writing.

Rehearse oral explanation of three concepts in under two minutes each to test real understanding.

Revise all eight domains using spaced repetition on your glossary and comparison tables, prioritising domains 1, 3, 4 and 5 where weighting is highest.

Sit one full simulated exam under real conditions (both commentary and essay sections, no notes) and mark it strictly.

Repair the three weakest areas identified in the simulation with targeted re-study and a short written re-test.

Memorise and rehearse five author-specific quotation-free anchor arguments you can deploy in any essay.

Finalise a one-page pre-exam sheet of dates, key terms and standard objections, and read it aloud twice.