EXAME FILOSOFIA 2026 - Filosofia da Religião e da Arte

Main ideas / lessons

1) Philosophy of Religion (core exam content)

What the section studies

The instructor frames the topic as investigating:

• (i) Whether God exists
• (ii) The problem of evil: if God is good, why does evil exist
• (iii) The nature/attributes of God, often via a “perfect being” conception

Method emphasis (how to study for the exam)

• Study religion philosophy mainly through structured “arguments” and “objections.”
• For each argument in favor, students must know at least one counterargument/objection.

---

Arguments students are expected to learn (with required oppositions)

Essence of God / existence of God

Cosmological argument (attributed here to Thomas Aquinas)

Key idea:

• Everything contingent has a cause.
• You cannot have an infinite regress of causes.
• Therefore, there must be a first cause.
• The first cause must be “perfect.”
• Conclusion: God exists.

How it’s taught (explicitly):

• Starts from observation: everything has a cause.

Required objection (as taught):

• Even if there is a first cause, it does not have to be the Christian God.
• It could be something else entirely (e.g., Aristotle’s unmoved mover) or even a natural cause / a Big Bang-type explanation.

---

Teleological argument (purpose/finality; also Aquinas)

Key idea:

• Things exhibit purpose (e.g., eyes see, wings fly, seeds grow into trees).
• If things can’t assign purpose to themselves, then only an intelligent being can.
• Therefore, an intelligent source must exist: God.

Required objection (as taught):

• Purpose can be explained by evolution/natural selection rather than intelligent design.
• Biology does not require a designer in the way Aquinas assumes.

---

Ontological argument (attributed here to Anselm of Canterbury)

Core idea:

• God is a being above whom nothing greater can be conceived (a perfect being).

Reasoning taught:

• If existence is part of perfection, then a maximally perfect being must exist.
• An unexisting perfect being would not be maximally perfect.

Required objection(s) emphasized:

• “Lost island” objection (analogy):
  • If the argument implies “anything perfect must exist,” then a perfect island would also have to exist—absurd.
• Another critique mentioned:
  • Existence isn’t a “predicate/quality” but a state (linked in the subtitles to a view attributed to Kant).

---

Problem of evil

Classical structure (as stated by the instructor)

• If God is omnipotent, omniscient, supremely good, then God would remove evil.
• But evil exists.
• So there is a challenge to whether evil is compatible with God’s attributes.

Theodicy approach (attributed to Leibniz, spelling shown as “Libnit/Libit” in the notes)

Goal:

• Show that evil is compatible with a supremely good God.

---

Leibniz’s theodicy (“best of all possible worlds”)—taught structure

God’s attributes (as taught)

• Omnipotence: can create anything logically possible
• Omniscience: perfect knowledge
• Supreme goodness

Therefore: the “best possible world,” not a “perfect world”

• God creates the best of all possible worlds.
• “Best” means: the least imperfect among possibilities.
• Reason given in the subtitles:
  • A completely perfect world would require “God-like” perfection again.
  • Since only God is perfect, created beings/worlds are necessarily imperfect.
• Since created reality is imperfect, it includes evil.

---

Three kinds of evil (explicitly listed)

1) Metaphysical evil

• Evil results from the imperfection of creatures (e.g., mortality, fragility, ignorance).
• Justification taught: it arises from creaturely limits, not from God’s malice.

2) Moral evil

• Evil stems from free human choices (wrongly used free will: lying, harming, killing).
• Justification taught: responsibility remains ours; God doesn’t remove choices in a way that cancels moral accountability.

3) Physical evil

• Suffering caused by nature (earthquakes, pandemics, illness, etc.).
• Justification taught:
  • these evils can lead to greater goods
  • they function as “lesser evils” for higher outcomes
• Examples repeatedly suggested in subtitles:
  • Pandemic → vaccine/science progress + solidarity
  • Wars and catastrophes → learning cooperation/peace (taught as contentious)
  • Stillbirth/cancer are mentioned as “blessings/disguises” (noted as responses, though described as sounding perverse)

---

Objections to Leibniz (taught “exam objection”)

Voltaire-style objection (central)

• It’s unreasonable to claim natural evils—especially the death of innocents/children—are justified by supposed moral/social progress.
• Example named: the Lisbon earthquake
• People praying on All Saints’ Day is used to suggest theodicy feels insulting/unconvincing.

Another mentioned objection

• If God can prevent “excessively great evils” but does not, it challenges God’s goodness.
• Freedom-based reply appears in subtitles:
  • God allowing free will is presented as the reason intervention would undermine the purpose of free will.

---

2) Pascal’s wager and fideism (also exam content)

Transition lesson

• If rational arguments for God’s essence/existence are full of objections, then rational proof may fail.

Pascal’s position: fideism

• Humans can’t fully prove/know God via reason because:
  • humans are imperfect
  • God is perfect
• Therefore belief should be guided by faith, not proof.

Pascal’s wager (taught as a “calculation”)

Belief vs. non-belief under uncertainty:

• If God exists and you believe → gain infinite (heaven/eternal life)
• If God exists and you don’t believe → lose infinite (hell/eternal loss)
• If God doesn’t exist → outcomes are finite either way

Conclusion taught:

• Rationally, it’s “better” to bet on belief.

Objections emphasized

• Faith can’t be justified merely as cost-benefit self-interest, or it would undermine faith.
• Pascal’s wager doesn’t specify which God; it doesn’t uniquely support Christianity.
• It assumes outcomes like paradise/hell without proof; if uncertain, the “bet” loses strength.
• The subtitles also suggest the logic could extend to other deities, making the wager less compelling for a single religion.

---

Philosophy of Art (main exam theories and definitions)

Big question

• What is art?

Taught taxonomy structure

• Essentialist theories
  • An object is art because it has intrinsic inherent features (“artistic essence”).
• Non-essentialist theories
  • Something counts as art because of external/cultural factors (context, institutions, history, etc.).

---

Essentialist theories (3 main ones)

1) Representationalism (connected to earlier “mimetic theory”)

Mimetic theory intro (Plato/Aristotle)

• Art imitates reality to influence people and achieve catharsis.

Representationalist definition (central “next step”)

• An object is art if it represents something (reality, images, ideas, moments, etc.).

Counter-argument / counterexamples taught

Problem:

• “Everything can represent something,” risking that everything becomes art.

Examples:

• A traffic sign can represent a rule, but isn’t art.
• A Pollock-style painting is described as not representing anything, yet treated as art.

---

2) Expressivism (art as expression)

Definition taught

• An object is art if it expresses the artist’s emotions.

Counter-argument / counterexamples taught

Problem:

• If expressing emotions is enough, then a sunset would count too (it provokes emotion), making nearly everything art.

Counterexample:

• A Mondrian painting is treated as not representing and not expressing emotions—just exploring lines/colors.

---

3) Formalism (art as significant form)

Definition taught

• Art if it has significant form.

“Significant form” (as described):

• combinations of aesthetic/formal elements (color, harmony, line, rhythm, depth, etc.)
• tied to the idea that artworks involve an aesthetic emotional response.

Counter-arguments / counterexamples taught

Main critique:

• “Significant form” is too broad/vague, allowing nearly everything to qualify (e.g., traffic signs could have colors/lines).

Examples used:

• Marcel Duchamp’s urinal (“Fountain”)—treated as art despite not being conventional “artistic form.”
• John Cage’s 4‘33” (silence/no notes)—described as lacking form yet treated as art.
• A “Snow White” film example—mostly black frames yet treated as art.

Overall lesson drawn:

• These problems suggest art may not be definable purely by intrinsic features → motivates non-essentialist approaches.

---

Non-essentialist theories (context-based)

A) Institutional theory

Definition taught

• An object is art if it is admitted by the art world.

“Art world” includes:

• artists, critics, galleries, museums, and institutions.

Two emphasized conditions:

• It must be a human-made artifact
• It must be accepted/admitted by the art world

Examples used:

• Duchamp’s urinal accepted in exhibitions as art
• “Banana glued to a wall” in a museum/gallery context as art
• Other contemporary gallery-introduced objects similarly

Counter-argument taught:

• Criticized as elitist and potentially excludes genuine artists (e.g., graffiti initially not accepted by institutions)
• Concern: gatekeeping narrows what counts as art

---

B) Historical theory

Definition taught (core)

• Something is art if someone who owns the object intends it to be understood as art in the same way previous works were understood.

Key idea:

• You “interpret” the work through the lens of prior artworks (a comparison across generations).

Examples taught:

• Banksy
• “Willes/Willes-like figure”
• Bordalo-like example mentioned as artworks

Counter-argument taught

• The earliest artworks (e.g., cave paintings) have no prior works to compare with.
• So the definition seems unable to classify them as art.
• Discussion extends to whether later phenomena like graffiti “fit” historical comparison requirements.

Additional subtitles debate:

• Whether ownership/property affects historical qualification; graffiti is discussed again as a complication.

---

Methodologies / exam preparation guidance (explicit)

For philosophy of religion

Learn:

• Each argument + at least one objection
  • Cosmological (Aquinas) + objections
  • Teleological (Aquinas) + objections
  • Ontological (Anselm) + “lost island” and/or existence-as-not-quality critique
  • Problem of evil + Leibniz response + Voltaire critique
  • Faith/fideism + Pascal wager + major objections

For philosophy of art

Learn:

• Each definition + counterexamples
  • Representationalism + counterexamples
  • Expressivism + sunset-type objection and Mondrian-type counterexample
  • Formalism + “too broad” objection and Duchamp/Cage counterexamples
  • Institutional theory + elitism counterargument and graffiti complication
  • Historical theory + cave painting “no prior works” counterargument and ownership/property discussion

Instructor’s repeated stress:

• “Know at least one objection” per argument/theory (common exam requirement).
• Use textbook/manual content if unsure (suggested strategy during discussion).

---

Speakers / sources featured (as named in subtitles)

Speakers / instructors mentioned

• Rodrigo
• Beatriz
• Maria Inês
• Leonor
• André
• Miguel
• Al
• T (identity unclear)
• Main lecture narrator/instructor (unnamed)

Philosophers/authors and cultural figures referenced

• Thomas Aquinas
• Saint Anselm of Canterbury
• Leibniz
• Blaise Pascal
• Kant
• Voltaire
• Aristotle (unmoved mover)
• Charles Darwin
• Plato
• Marcel Duchamp
• John Cage
• Piet Mondrian
• Jackson Pollock
• Clive Bell
• Arthur Danto
• George Dickie
• Gerald Levinson
• “Marcel de Chão” / “Marcelo do Chão” (name garbled in subtitles)
• Joana Vasconcelos
• Banksy
• Bordalo
• “Willes/Wils” (garbled/unclear)

Events/examples referenced

• Lisbon earthquake (with All Saints’ Day context)
• World War II
• COVID/pandemic
• Second World War / European Union formation (taught as a Leibniz-style “necessary evil” narrative)
• cave paintings
• graffiti (recurring edge case)

Music source

• [music] (non-specific markers; no identifiable composer)