1200-1800paper.Must use source from attached doc.

User Generated

18611111111_

Writing

Description

Grading: This is graded on your understanding of the assigned readings and the lectures as well as on your ability to write in a clear and concise manner. You are neither required not encouraged to use sources other than the assigned readings and lecture slides.

Paper Prompts: Write on ONE of the following topics:

(1) Explain the Ship of Theseus paradox. Explain the transitivity of identity. Why can we not solve the paradox by imposing a threshold of how many parts may be changed (e.g., 5%) before a thing (e.g., a ship) isn’t the same any longer? How would you solve the Ship of Theseus paradox?

(2) Explain McTaggart’s distinction between an A-series and a B-series of time. Is McTaggart right in claiming that it is not merely a terminological distinction? Explain McTaggart’s thesis that the A-series involves a contradiction. What, if anything, is problematic about McTaggart’s argument to the effect that the A-series involves a contradiction?

(3) What is time travel? Explain the grandfather paradox. Explain David Lewis’s solution to the grandfather paradox. Do you find Lewis’s solution convincing and why?

(4) Explain the distinction between fatalism and causal determinism. Explain the argument for fatalism from foreknowledge. Suppose you were Osmo and you found the book describing your past and future life in a local library. Would it be rational for you adopt a fatalistic attitude and why? How, if at all, do you think that your situation differs from Osmo’s? Are those differences relevant to the question of whether you have free will?

(5) Explain the paradox of omnipotence. Which solution to the paradox of omnipotence do you find most convincing? Explain the solution. Explain why the solution of your choice is superior compared to competing solutions. Are they any problems with the solution of your choice and, if there are, how can they be dealt with?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper Philosophical writing is different from the writing you'll be asked to do in other courses. Most of the strategies described below will also serve you well when writing for other courses, but don't automatically assume that they all will. Nor should you assume that every writing guideline you've been given by other teachers is important when you're writing a philosophy paper. Some of those guidelines are routinely violated in good philosophical prose (e.g., see the guidelines on grammar, below). Contents What Does One Do in a Philosophy Paper? Three Stages of Writing Early Stages Write a Draft Rewrite, and Keep Rewriting Minor Points How You'll Be Graded What Does One Do in a Philosophy Paper? 1. A philosophy paper consists of the reasoned defense of some claim Your paper must offer an argument. It can't consist in the mere report of your opinions, nor in a mere report of the opinions of the philosophers we discuss. You have to defend the claims you make. You have to offer reasons to believe them. So you can't just say: My view is that P. You must say something like: My view is that P. I believe this because... or: I find that the following considerations...provide a convincing argument for P. Similarly, don't just say: Descartes says that Q. Instead, say something like: Descartes says that Q; however, the following thought‐experiment will show that Q is not true... or: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 1/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper Descartes says that Q. I find this claim plausible, for the following reasons... There are a variety of things a philosophy paper can aim to accomplish. It usually begins by putting some thesis or argument on the table for consideration. Then it goes on to do one or two of the following: Criticize that argument; or show that certain arguments for the thesis are no good Defend the argument or thesis against someone else's criticism Offer reasons to believe the thesis Offer counter­examples to the thesis Contrast the strengths and weaknesses of two opposing views about the thesis Give examples which help explain the thesis, or which help to make the thesis more plausible Argue that certain philosophers are committed to the thesis by their other views, though they do not come out and explicitly endorse the thesis Discuss what consequences the thesis would have, if it were true Revise the thesis, in the light of some objection No matter which of these aims you set for yourself, you have to explicitly present reasons for the claims you make. Students often feel that since it's clear to them that some claim is true, it does not need much argument. But it's very easy to overestimate the strength of your own position. After all, you already accept it. You should assume that your audience does not already accept your position; and you should treat your paper as an attempt to persuade such an audience. Hence, don't start with assumptions which your opponents are sure to reject. If you're to have any chance of persuading people, you have to start from common assumptions you all agree to. 2. A good philosophy paper is modest and makes a small point; but it makes that point clearly and straightforwardly, and it offers good reasons in support of it People very often attempt to accomplish too much in a philosophy paper. The usual result of this is a paper that's hard to read, and which is full of inadequately defended and poorly explained claims. So don't be over­ambitious. Don't try to establish any earth­shattering conclusions in your 5­6 page paper. Done properly, philosophy moves at a slow pace. 3. Originality The aim of these papers is for you to show that you understand the material and that you're able to think critically about it. To do this, your paper does have to show some independent thinking. That doesn't mean you have to come up with your own theory, or that you have to make a completely original contribution to human thought. There will be plenty of time for that later on. An ideal paper will be clear and straightforward (see below), will be accurate when it attributes views to other philosophers (see below), and will contain thoughtful critical responses to the texts we read. It need not always break completely new ground. But you should try to come up with your own arguments, or your own way of elaborating or criticizing or defending some argument we looked at in class. Merely summarizing what others have said won't be enough. http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 2/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper Three Stages of Writing 1. Early Stages The early stages of writing a philosophy paper include everything you do before you sit down and write your first draft. These early stages will involve writing, but you won't yet be trying to write a complete paper. You should instead be taking notes on the readings, sketching out your ideas, trying to explain the main argument you want to advance, and composing an outline. Discuss the issues with others As I said above, your papers are supposed to demonstrate that you understand and can think critically about the material we discuss in class. One of the best ways to check how well you understand that material is to try to explain it to someone who isn't already familiar with it. I've discovered time and again while teaching philosophy that I couldn't really explain properly some article or argument I thought I understood. This was because it was really more problematic or complicated than I had realized. You will have this same experience. So it's good to discuss the issues we raise in class with each other, and with friends who aren't taking the class. This will help you understand the issues better, and it will make you recognize what things you still don't fully understand. It's even more valuable to talk to each other about what you want to argue in your paper. When you have your ideas worked out well enough that you can explain them to someone else, verbally, then you're ready to sit down and start making an outline. Make an outline Before you begin writing any drafts, you need to think about the questions: In what order should you explain the various terms and positions you'll be discussing? At what point should you present your opponent's position or argument? In what order should you offer your criticisms of your opponent? Do any of the points you're making presuppose that you've already discussed some other point, first? And so on. The overall clarity of your paper will greatly depend on its structure. That is why it is important to think about these questions before you begin to write. I strongly recommend that you make an outline of your paper, and of the arguments you'll be presenting, before you begin to write. This lets you organize the points you want to make in your paper and get a sense for how they are going to fit together. It also helps ensure that you're in a position to say what your main argument or criticism is, before you sit down to write a full draft of your paper. When students get stuck writing, it's often because they haven't yet figured out what they're trying to say. Give your outline your full attention. It should be fairly detailed. (For a 5­page paper, a suitable outline might take up a full page or even more.) I find that making an outline is at least 80% of the work of writing a good philosophy paper. If you have a good outline, the rest of the writing process will go much more smoothly. http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 3/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper Start Work Early Philosophical problems and philosophical writing require careful and extended reflection. Don't wait until two or three nights before the paper is due to begin. That is very stupid. Writing a good philosophy paper takes a great deal of preparation. You need to leave yourself enough time to think about the topic and write a detailed outline. Only then should you sit down to write a complete draft. Once you have a complete draft, you should set it aside for a day or two. Then you should come back to it and rewrite it. Several times. At least 3 or 4. If you can, show it to your friends and get their reactions to it. Do they understand your main point? Are parts of your draft unclear or confusing to them? All of this takes time. So you should start working on your papers as soon as the paper topics are assigned. 2. Write a Draft Once you've thought about your argument, and written an outline for your paper, then you're ready to sit down and compose a complete draft. Use simple prose Don't shoot for literary elegance. Use simple, straightforward prose. Keep your sentences and paragraphs short. Use familiar words. We'll make fun of you if you use big words where simple words will do. These issues are deep and difficult enough without your having to muddy them up with pretentious or verbose language. Don't write using prose you wouldn't use in conversation: if you wouldn't say it, don't write it. You may think that since your TA and I already know a lot about this subject, you can leave out a lot of basic explanation and write in a super­sophisticated manner, like one expert talking to another. I guarantee you that this will make your paper incomprehensible. If your paper sounds as if it were written for a third­grade audience, then you've probably achieved the right sort of clarity. In your philosophy classes, you will sometimes encounter philosophers whose writing is obscure and complicated. Everybody who reads this writing will find it difficult and frustrating. The authors in question are philosophically important despite their poor writing, not because of it. So do not try to emulate their writing styles. Make the structure of your paper obvious You should make the structure of your paper obvious to the reader. Your reader shouldn't have to exert any effort to figure it out. Beat him over the head with it. How can you do this? First of all, use connective words, like: because, since, given this argument http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 4/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently nevertheless, however, but in the first case, on the other hand These will help your reader keep track of where your discussion is going. Be sure you use these words correctly! If you say "P. Thus Q." then you are claiming that P is a good reason to accept Q. You had better be right. If you aren't, we'll complain. Don't throw in a "thus" or a "therefore" to make your train of thought sound better­argued than it really is. Another way you can help make the structure of your paper obvious is by telling the reader what you've done so far and what you're going to do next. You can say things like: I will begin by... Before I say what is wrong with this argument, I want to... These passages suggest that... I will now defend this claim... Further support for this claim comes from... For example... These signposts really make a big difference. Consider the following two paper fragments: ...We've just seen how X says that P. I will now present two arguments that not‐ P. My first argument is... My second argument that not‐P is... X might respond to my arguments in several ways. For instance, he could say that... However this response fails, because... Another way that X might respond to my arguments is by claiming that... This response also fails, because... So we have seen that none of X's replies to my argument that not‐P succeed. Hence, we should reject X's claim that P. I will argue for the view that Q. There are three reasons to believe Q. Firstly... Secondly... Thirdly... The strongest objection to Q says... However, this objection does not succeed, for the following reason... Isn't it easy to see what the structure of these papers is? You want it to be just as easy in your own papers. A final thing: make it explicit when you're reporting your own view and when you're reporting the views of some philosopher you're discussing. The reader should never be in doubt about whose claims you're presenting in a given paragraph. You can't make the structure of your paper obvious if you don't know what the structure of your paper is, or if your paper has no structure. That's why making an outline is so important. Be concise, but explain yourself fully To write a good philosophy paper, you need to be concise but at the same time explain yourself fully. These demands might seem to pull in opposite directions. (It's as if the first said "Don't talk too much," and the second said "Talk a lot.") If you understand these demands properly, though, you'll see how it's http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 5/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper possible to meet them both. We tell you to be concise because we don't want you to ramble on about everything you know about a given topic, trying to show how learned and intelligent you are. Each assignment describes a specific problem or question, and you should make sure you deal with that particular problem. Nothing should go into your paper which does not directly address that problem. Prune out everything else. It is always better to concentrate on one or two points and develop them in depth than to try to cram in too much. One or two well­mapped paths are better than an impenetrable jungle. Formulate the central problem or question you wish to address at the beginning of your paper, and keep it in mind at all times. Make it clear what the problem is, and why it is a problem. Be sure that everything you write is relevant to that central problem. In addition, be sure to say in the paper how it is relevant. Don't make your reader guess. One thing I mean by "explain yourself fully" is that, when you have a good point, you shouldn't just toss it off in one sentence. Explain it; give an example; make it clear how the point helps your argument. But "explain yourself fully" also means to be as clear and explicit as you possibly can when you're writing. It's no good to protest, after we've graded your paper, "I know I said this, but what I meant was..." Say exactly what you mean, in the first place. Part of what you're being graded on is how well you can do that. Pretend that your reader has not read the material you're discussing, and has not given the topic much thought in advance. This will of course not be true. But if you write as if it were true, it will force you to explain any technical terms, to illustrate strange or obscure distinctions, and to be as explicit as possible when you summarize what some other philosopher said. In fact, you can profitably take this one step further and pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean. He's lazy in that he doesn't want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn't want to figure out what your argument is, if it's not already obvious. He's stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite­sized pieces. And he's mean, so he's not going to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he's going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.) If you understand the material you're writing about, and if you aim your paper at such a reader, you'll probably get an A. Use plenty of examples and definitions It is very important to use examples in a philosophy paper. Many of the claims philosophers make are very abstract and hard to understand, and examples are the best way to make those claims clearer. Examples are also useful for explaining the notions that play a central role in your argument. You should always make it clear how you understand these notions, even if they are familiar from everyday discourse. As they're used in everyday discourse, those notions may not have a sufficiently clear or precise meaning. For instance, suppose you're writing a paper about abortion, and you want to assert the claim "A fetus is a person." What do you mean by "a person"? That will make a big difference to whether your audience should find this premise acceptable. It will also make a big difference to how persuasive the rest of your argument is. By itself, the following argument is pretty worthless: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 6/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper A fetus is a person. It's wrong to kill a person. Therefore, it's wrong to kill a fetus. For we don't know what the author means by calling a fetus "a person." On some interpretations of "person," it might be quite obvious that a fetus is a person; but quite controversial whether it's always wrong to kill persons, in that sense of "person." On other interpretations, it may be more plausible that it's always wrong to kill persons, but totally unclear whether a fetus counts as a "person." So everything turns here on what the author means by "person." The author should be explicit about how he is using this notion. In a philosophy paper, it's okay to use words in ways that are somewhat different from the ways they're ordinarily used. You just have to make it clear that you're doing this. For instance, some philosophers use the word "person" to mean any being which is capable of rational thought and self­awareness. Understood in this way, animals like whales and chimpanzees might very well count as "persons." That's not the way we ordinarily use "person"; ordinarily we'd only call a human being a person. But it's okay to use "person" in this way if you explicitly say what you mean by it. And likewise for other words. Don't vary your vocabulary just for the sake of variety If you call something "X" at the start of your paper, call it "X" all the way through. So, for instance, don't start talking about "Plato's view of the self," and then switch to talking about "Plato's view of the soul," and then switch to talking about "Plato's view of the mind." If you mean to be talking about the same thing in all three cases, then call it by the same name. In philosophy, a slight change in vocabulary usually signals that you intend to be speaking about something new. Using words with precise philosophical meanings Philosophers give many ordinary­sounding words precise technical meanings. Consult the handouts on Philosophical Terms and Methods to make sure you're using these words correctly. Don't use words that you don't fully understand. Use technical philosophical terms only where you need them. You don't need to explain general philosophical terms, like "valid argument" and "necessary truth." But you should explain any technical terms you use which bear on the specific topic you're discussing. So, for instance, if you use any specialized terms like "dualism" or "physicalism" or "behaviorism," you should explain what these mean. Likewise if you use technical terms like "supervenience" and the like. Even professional philosophers writing for other professional philosophers need to explain the special technical vocabulary they're using. Different people sometimes use this special vocabulary in different ways, so it's important to make sure that you and your readers are all giving these words the same meaning. Pretend that your readers have never heard them before. Presenting and assessing the views of others If you plan to discuss the views of Philosopher X, begin by figuring out what his arguments or central assumptions are. See my tips on How To Read a Philosophy Paper for some help doing this. Then ask yourself: Are X's arguments good ones? Are his assumptions clearly stated? Are they plausible? Are they reasonable starting­points for X's argument, or ought he have provided some independent argument for them? Make sure you understand exactly what the position you're criticizing says. Students waste a lot of time http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 7/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper arguing against views that sound like, but are really different from, the views they're supposed to be assessing. Remember, philosophy demands a high level of precision. It's not good enough for you merely to get the general idea of somebody else's position or argument. You have to get it exactly right. (In this respect, philosophy is more like a science than the other humanities.) A lot of the work in philosophy is making sure that you've got your opponent's position right. You can assume that your reader is stupid (see above). But don't treat the philosopher or the views you're discussing as stupid. If they were stupid, we wouldn't be looking at them. If you can't see anything the view has going for it, maybe that's because you don't have much experience thinking and arguing about the view, and so you haven't yet fully understood why the view's proponents are attracted to it. Try harder to figure out what's motivating them. Philosophers sometimes do say outrageous things, but if the view you're attributing to a philosopher seems to be obviously crazy, then you should think hard about whether he really does say what you think he says. Use your imagination. Try to figure out what reasonable position the philosopher could have had in mind, and direct your arguments against that. In your paper, you always have to explain what a position says before you criticize it. If you don't explain what you take Philosopher X's view to be, your reader cannot judge whether the criticism you offer of X is a good criticism, or whether it is simply based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of X's views. So tell the reader what it is you think X is saying. Don't try to tell the reader everything you know about X's views, though. You have to go on to offer your own philosophical contribution, too. Only summarize those parts of X's views that are directly relevant to what you're going to go on to do. Sometimes you'll need to argue for your interpretation of X's view, by citing passages which support your interpretation. It is permissible for you to discuss a view you think a philosopher might have held, or should have held, though you can't find any direct evidence of that view in the text. When you do this, though, you should explicitly say so. Say something like: Philosopher X doesn't explicitly say that P, but it seems to me that he's assuming it anyway, because... Quotations When a passage from a text is particularly useful in supporting your interpretation of some philosopher's views, it may be helpful to quote the passage directly. (Be sure to specify where the passage can be found.) However, direct quotations should be used sparingly. It is seldom necessary to quote more than a few sentences. Often it will be more appropriate to paraphrase what X says, rather than to quote him directly. When you are paraphrasing what somebody else said, be sure to say so. (And here too, cite the pages you're referring to.) Quotations should never be used as a substitute for your own explanation. And when you do quote an author, you still have to explain what the quotation says in your own words. If the quoted passage contains an argument, reconstruct the argument in more explicit, straightforward terms. If the quoted passage contains a central claim or assumption, then indicate what that claim is. You may want to give some examples to illustrate the author's point. If necessary, you may want to distinguish the author's claim from other claims with which it might be confused. Paraphrases http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 8/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper Sometimes when students are trying to explain a philosopher's view, they'll do it by giving very close paraphrases of the philosopher's own words. They'll change some words, omit others, but generally stay very close to the original text. For instance, Hume begins his Treatise of Human Nature as follows: All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call impressions and ideas. The difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness, with which they strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought or consciousness. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name impressions; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions, and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul. By ideas I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning. Here's an example of how you don't want to paraphrase: Hume says all perceptions of the mind are resolved into two kinds, impressions and ideas. The difference is in how much force and liveliness they have in our thoughts and consciousness. The perceptions with the most force and violence are impressions. These are sensations, passions, and emotions. Ideas are the faint images of our thinking and reasoning. There are two main problems with paraphrases of this sort. In the first place, it's done rather mechanically, so it doesn't show that the author understands the text. In the second place, since the author hasn't figured out what the text means well enough to express it in his own words, there's a danger that his paraphrase may inadvertently change the meaning of the text. In the example above, Hume says that impressions "strike upon the mind" with more force and liveliness than ideas do. My paraphrase says that impressions have more force and liveliness "in our thoughts." It's not clear whether these are the same thing. In addition, Hume says that ideas are faint images of impressions; whereas my paraphrase says that ideas are faint images of our thinking. These are not the same. So the author of the paraphrase appears not to have understood what Hume was saying in the original passage. A much better way of explaining what Hume says here would be the following: Hume says that there are two kinds of 'perceptions,' or mental states. He calls these impressions and ideas. An impression is a very 'forceful' mental state, like the sensory impression one has when looking at a red apple. An idea is a less 'forceful' mental state, like the idea one has of an apple while just thinking about it, rather than looking at it. It is not so clear what Hume means here by 'forceful.' He might mean... Anticipate objections Try to anticipate objections to your view and respond to them. For instance, if you object to some philosopher's view, don't assume he would immediately admit defeat. Imagine what his comeback might be. How would you handle that comeback? Don't be afraid of mentioning objections to your own thesis. It is better to bring up an objection yourself than to hope your reader won't think of it. Explain how you think these objections can be countered or overcome. Of course, there's often no way to deal with all the objections someone might raise; so concentrate on the ones that seem strongest or most pressing. http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 9/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper What happens if you're stuck? Your paper doesn't always have to provide a definite solution to a problem, or a straight yes or no answer to a question. Many excellent philosophy papers don't offer straight yes or no answers. Sometimes they argue that the question needs to be clarified, or that certain further questions need to be raised. Sometimes they argue that certain assumptions of the question need to be challenged. Sometimes they argue that certain answers to the question are too easy, that is, they won't work. Hence, if these papers are right, the question will be harder to answer than we might previously have thought. These are all important and philosophically valuable results. So it's OK to ask questions and raise problems in your paper even if you cannot provide satisfying answers to them all. You can leave some questions unanswered at the end of the paper. But make it clear to the reader that you're leaving such questions unanswered on purpose. And you should say something about how the question might be answered, and about what makes the question interesting and relevant to the issue at hand. If something in a view you're examining is unclear to you, don't gloss it over. Call attention to the unclarity. Suggest several different ways of understanding the view. Explain why it's not clear which of these interpretations is correct. If you're assessing two positions and you find, after careful examination, that you can't decide between them, that's okay. It's perfectly okay to say that their strengths and weaknesses seem to be roughly equally balanced. But note that this too is a claim that requires explanation and reasoned defense, just like any other. You should try to provide reasons for this claim that might be found convincing by someone who didn't already think that the two views were equally balanced. Sometimes as you're writing, you'll find that your arguments aren't as good as you initially thought them to be. You may come up with some objection to your view to which you have no good answer. Don't panic. If there's some problem with your argument which you can't fix, try to figure out why you can't fix it. It's okay to change your thesis to one you can defend. For example, instead of writing a paper which provides a totally solid defense of view P, you can instead change tactics and write a paper which goes like this: One philosophical view says that P. This is a plausible view, for the following reasons... However, there are some reasons to be doubtful whether P. One of these reasons is X. X poses a problem for the view that P because... It is not clear how the defender of P can overcome this objection. Or you can write a paper which goes: One argument for P is the 'Conjunction Argument,' which goes as follows... At first glance, this is a very appealing argument. However, this argument is faulty, for the following reasons... One might try to repair the argument, by... But these repairs will not work, because... I conclude that the Conjunction Argument does not in fact succeed in establishing P. Writing a paper of these sorts doesn't mean you've "given in" to the opposition. After all, neither of these papers commits you to the view that not­P. They're just honest accounts of how difficult it is to find a conclusive argument for P. P might still be true, for all that. http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 10/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper 3. Rewrite, and Keep Rewriting Now you've written a complete draft of your paper. Set the draft aside for a day or two. Then come back to the draft and re­read it. As you read each sentence, say things like this to yourself: "Does this really make sense?" "That's totally unclear!" "That sounds pretentious." "What does that mean?" "What's the connection between these two sentences?" "Am I just repeating myself here?" and so on. Make sure every sentence in your draft does useful work. Get rid of any which don't. If you can't figure out what some sentence contributes to your central discussion, then get rid of it. Even if it sounds nice. You should never introduce any points in your paper unless they're important to your main argument, and you have the room to really explain them. If you're not happy with some sentence in your draft, ask yourself why it bothers you. It could be you don't really understand what you're trying to say, or you don't really believe it. Make sure your sentences say exactly what you want them to say. For example, suppose you write "Abortion is the same thing as murder." Is that what you really mean? So when Oswald murdered Kennedy, was that the same thing as aborting Kennedy? Or do you mean something different? Perhaps you mean that abortion is a form of murder. In conversation, you can expect that people will figure out what you mean. But you shouldn't write this way. Even if your TA is able to figure out what you mean, it's bad writing. In philosophical prose, you have to be sure to say exactly what you mean. Also pay attention to the structure of your draft. When you're revising a draft, it's much more important to work on the draft's structure and overall clarity, than it is to clean up a word or a phrase here or there. Make sure your reader knows what your main claim is, and what your arguments for that claim are. Make sure that your reader can tell what the point of every paragraph is. It's not enough that you know what their point is. It has to be obvious to your reader, even to a lazy, stupid, and mean reader. If you can, show your draft to your friends or to other students in the class, and get their comments and advice. I encourage you to do this. Do your friends understand your main point? Are parts of your draft unclear or confusing to them? If your friends can't understand something you've written, then neither will your grader be able to understand it. Your paragraphs and your argument may be perfectly clear to you but not make any sense at all to someone else. Another good way to check your draft is to read it out loud. This will help you tell whether it all makes sense. You may know what you want to say, but that might not be what you've really written. Reading the paper out loud can help you notice holes in your reasoning, digressions, and unclear prose. You should count on writing many drafts of your paper. At least 3 or 4!! Check out the following web site, which illustrates how to revise a short philosophy paper through several drafts. Notice how much the paper improves with each revision: Writing tutor for Introductory Philosophy Courses . Minor Points http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 11/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper Beginning your paper Don't begin with a sentence like "Down through the ages, mankind has pondered the problem of..." There's no need to warm up to your topic. You should get right to the point, with the first sentence. Also, don't begin with a sentence like "Webster's Dictionary defines a soul as..." Dictionaries aren't good philosophical authorities. They record the way words are used in everyday discourse. Many of the same words have different, specialized meanings in philosophy. Grammar It's OK to end a sentence with a preposition. It's also OK to split an infinitive, if you need to. (Sometimes the easiest way to say what you mean is by splitting an infinitive. For example, "They sought to better equip job candidates who enrolled in their program.") Efforts to avoid these often end up just confusing your prose. Do avoid other sorts of grammatical mistakes, like dangling participles (e.g., "Hurt by her fall, the tree fell right on Mary's leg before she could get out of the way"), and the like. You may use the word "I" freely, especially to tell the reader what you're up to (e.g., "I've just explained why... Now I'm going to consider an argument that..."). Don't worry about using the verb "is" or "to be" too much. In a philosophy paper, it's OK to use this verb as much as you need to. Secondary readings For most classes, I will put some articles and books on reserve in Bobst Library for additional reading. These are optional, and are for your independent study. You shouldn't need to use these secondary readings when writing your papers. The point of the papers is to teach you how to analyze a philosophical argument, and present your own arguments for or against some conclusion. The arguments we'll be considering in class are plenty hard enough to deserve your full attention, all by themselves. Can you write your paper as a dialogue or story? No. Done well, these forms of philosophical writing can be very effective. That's why we read some dialogues and stories in Philosophy 3. But these forms of philosophical writing are extremely difficult to do well. They tempt the author to be imprecise and to use unclear metaphors. You need to master ordinary philosophical writing before you can do a good job with these more difficult forms. Mechanics Aim to make your papers less than or equal to the assigned word limit. Longer papers are typically too ambitious, or repetitious, or full of digressions. Your grade will suffer if your paper has these defects. So it's important to ask yourself: What are the most important things you have to say? What can be left out? But neither should your papers be too short! Don't cut off an argument abruptly. If a paper topic you've http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 12/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper chosen asks certain questions, be sure you answer or address each of those questions. Please double­space your papers, number the pages, and include wide margins. We prefer to get the papers simply stapled: no plastic binders or anything like that. Include your name on the paper. And don't turn in your only copy! (These things should be obvious, but apparently they're not.) How You'll Be Graded You'll be graded on three basic criteria: 1. How well do you understand the issues you're writing about? 2. How good are the arguments you offer? 3. Is your writing clear and well­organized? We do not judge your paper by whether we agree with its conclusion. In fact, we may not agree amongst ourselves about what the correct conclusion is. But we will have no trouble agreeing about whether you do a good job arguing for your conclusion. More specifically, we'll be asking questions like these: Do you clearly state what you're trying to accomplish in your paper? Is it obvious to the reader what your main thesis is? Do you offer supporting arguments for the claims you make? Is it obvious to the reader what these arguments are? Is the structure of your paper clear? For instance, is it clear what parts of your paper are expository, and what parts are your own positive contribution? Is your prose simple, easy to read, and easy to understand? Do you illustrate your claims with good examples? Do you explain your central notions? Do you say exactly what you mean? Do you present other philosophers' views accurately and charitably? The comments I find myself making on students' philosophy papers most often are these: "Explain this claim" or "What do you mean by this?" or "I don't understand what you're saying here" "This passage is unclear (or awkward, or otherwise hard to read)" "Too complicated" "Too hard to follow" "Simplify" "Why do you think this?" "This needs more support" "Why should we believe this?" "Explain why this is a reason to believe P" "Explain why this follows from what you said before" "Not really relevant" "Give an example?" Try to anticipate these comments and avoid the need for them! http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 13/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper Your paper should do some philosophical work A kind of complaint that is common in undergraduate philosophy papers goes like this: Philosopher X assumes A and argues from there to B. B seems unattractive to me. Philosopher X just assumes A and doesn't give any argument for it. I don't think A is true. So I can just reject A and thereby avoid B. This line of thought may very well be correct. And the student may very well be right that Philosopher X should have given more argument for A. But the student hasn't really philosophically engaged with Philosopher X's view in an interesting way. He hasn't really done much philosophical work. It was clear from the outset that Philosopher X was assuming A, and that if you don't want to make that assumption, you don't need to accept X's conclusion. If this is all you do in your paper, it won't be a strong paper and it will get a mediocre grade, even if it's well­written. Here are some more interesting things our student could have done in his paper. He could have argued that B doesn't really follow from A, after all. Or he could have presented reasons for thinking that A is false. Or he could have argued that assuming A is an illegitimate move to make in a debate about whether B is true. Or something else of that sort. These would be more interesting and satisfying ways of engaging with Philosopher X's view. Responding to comments from me or your TA When you have the opportunity to rewrite a graded paper, keep the following points in mind. Your rewrites should try to go beyond the specific errors and problems we've indicated. If you got below an A­, then your draft was generally difficult to read, it was difficult to see what your argument was and what the structure of your paper was supposed to be, and so on. You can only correct these sorts of failings by rewriting your paper from scratch. (Start with a new, empty window in your word processor.) Use your draft and the comments you received on it to construct a new outline, and write from that. Keep in mind that when I or your TA grade a rewrite, we may sometimes notice weaknesses in unchanged parts of your paper that we missed the first time around. Or perhaps those weaknesses will have affected our overall impression of the paper, and we just didn't offer any specific recommendation about fixing them. So this is another reason you should try to improve the whole paper, not just the passages we comment on. It is possible to improve a paper without improving it enough to raise it to the next grade level. Sometimes that happens. But I hope you'll all do better than that. Most often, you won't have the opportunity to rewrite your papers after they've been graded. So you need to teach yourself to write a draft, scrutinize the draft, and revise and rewrite your paper before turning it in to be graded. Acknowledgements http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 14/15 12/27/2015 Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper I don't want to claim undue credit for this work. A lot of the suggestions here derive from writing handouts that friends and colleagues lent me. (Alison Simmons and Justin Broackes deserve special thanks.) Also, I've browsed some other writing guidelines on the web, and occasionally incorporated advice I thought my students would find useful. Peter Horban's site deserves special mention. Thanks to Professor Horban for allowing me to incorporate some of his suggestions here. Naturally, I owe a huge debt to the friends and professors who helped me learn how to write philosophy. I'm sure they had a hard time of it. If you're a teacher and you think your own students would find this web site useful, you are free to point them here (or to distribute printed copies). It's all in the public good. Full licensing details are here. Created and maintained by jim.pryor@nyu.edu This work licensed under a Creative Commons License URL: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html Updated: 6­Sep­12 11:35 AM http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html 15/15 1/18/2018 • John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart (1866-1925) was a British philosopher who taught at Trinity College, Cambridge University. • At birth, he was named John McTaggart Ellis, after his maternal grand-uncle, John McTaggart. Early in his life, his family took the surname McTaggart as a condition of inheritance from that same uncle. • He was an exponent of the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) and among the most notable of the British idealists. Phil 2: Puzzles and Paradoxes Prof. Sven Bernecker University of California, Irvine A-Theory & B-Theory of Time 2 • • A-Series and B-Series of Time McTaggart's idealism consisted largely in the denial that what we usually take to be central features of reality are, in fact, real. Accordingly, much of his work was devoted to exposing contradictions, or difficulties, inherent in our realist picture of the world. McTaggart distinguishes two kinds of expression for characterizing the temporal aspects of events: His most famous such argument is his argument that our ordinary view that things exist in time is false. This was presented in his 1908 paper, “The Unreality of Time.” We will be looking at his later (1927) exposition of the argument. 3 “Positions in time, as time appears to us prima facie, are distinguished in two ways. Each position is Earlier than some and Later than some other position. ... In the second place, each position is either Past, Present, or Future. The distinctions of the former class are permanent, while those of the latter are not. If M is ever earlier than N, it is always earlier. But an event, which is now present, was future, and will be past” (McTaggart, p. 24). 4 1 1/18/2018 A-Series (Tensed Series or Dynamic Time Series) • • • Besides indexicals, the A-series expressions also include tensed verbs (i.e., is, was, will be) Includes the properties of being past, present and future. A-series expressions include such words as “present,” “past,” “future,” “today,” “tomorrow,” and “five weeks ago”. These expressions are indexicals. Indexical: Indexicals are words whose referent and meaning are determined by such contextual factors as the time, location, and intentions of the speaker. Examples: • According to the A-series, events “move” from the future, through the present, and into the past. Events that were once future become present, and then retreat into the past. Past Present Future                 event a – Pronouns: I, he, she, this, that – Adverbs: here, now, actually, presently, today, yesterday, tomorrow – Adjectives: my, his, her, actual, past, present, future, left/right, up/down 5 • Events fall into the A-series in virtue of occurring in the present, past or future. Events fall into the B-series in virtue of standing in earlier-later and simultaneous relations to one another. B-Series (Dated Series or Static Time Series) • Includes the properties of being earlier than, later than, and simultaneous with another event. • B-series expressions include such words as “simultaneously”, “two years earlier than”, “7/16/15" and “ten minutes later than”. 7/14/15 event a 7/15/15 event b earlier than 6 • While an event must have every position on the A-series, it can only have one position vis-à-vis another event in the B-series. For if two events are, say, simultaneous in the future, then they are also simultaneous in the past. 7/16/15 event c • A sentence containing an A-series expression is true at one time but false at another. A sentence whose only temporal expressions are Bseries expressions is true at all times if it is true at any time. later than 7 8 2 1/18/2018 • Tensed verbs belong to the A-series. To construct a sentence that only contains B-series expressions, one may use only tenseless verbs. – A-series sentence: It is sunny today. – B-series sentence: There are five years between the beginning of the Korea War [1950] and Harry Truman’s first inauguration as U.S. President [1945]. • Both verbs are in the present tense. But the present tense ”are“ in the second sentence is the purely grammatical present tense and does not have the same semantic content as any one of the three tenses – past, present, future. 9 Other examples of the purely grammatical present tense: • • • • • • • • • The earth turns 360º every day I work in Irvine Daylight Savings time begins in spring You walk for two hundred meters, then you turn left. Los Angeles is a large city Time keeps on slipping into the future Two plus two is four Information is power The exam starts at 9am 10 • Are the truth-value links between the two series evidence that the A-series and the B-series are merely terminological variants (like Centigrade/Fahrenheit, inch/cm etc.)? Status of the A/B Distinction • The A-series and the B-series are not independent time series. There are truth-value links between them. For example, the sentence “the Korea War is past” is true if and only if the end of the Korea War is earlier than 7/16/15. • McTaggart say “no.” He claims that the distinction between the A-series and the B-series is a metaphysical one. The two series offer different pictures of reality. On the A-series time flows. On the B-series there is no moving “now”; time does not flow; past/present/future are equally real. 11 12 3 1/18/2018 A/B Distinction about Space Just as there are indexical (A-series) and non-indexical (B-series) descriptions of temporal locations, there are indexical and nonindexical descriptions of spatial locations. • Indexical spatial descriptions: – Flavia stands here – Gina is to the right of Flavia • Non-indexical spatial descriptions: – Flavia is at GPS Position 2°17'39"E, 48°51'30"N – Gina is 1 meter east of Flavia 13 4 1/9/2018 • Achilles: In Greek mythology, Achilles was a hero of the Trojan War and the central character and greatest warrior of Homer's Iliad. Achilles was killed near the end of the Trojan War by Paris, who shot him in the heel with an arrow. • Because of his death from a small wound in the heel, the term Achilles' heel has come to mean a person's point of weakness. The Achilles tendon is a tendon the runs along the back of the ankle. Phil 2: Puzzles and Paradoxes Prof. Sven Bernecker University of California, Irvine Archilles and the Tortoise Paradox 2 • We assume two things about Achilles and the tortoise. Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox • This argument is supposed to show that if space and time are continuous, then motion is impossible. • The idea is that Achilles and a tortoise are having a race. Since Achilles is very fast, and the tortoise is very slow, the tortoise is given a head start. • First, Achilles always takes some amount of time to cover a given distance. • Second, the tortoise, even though slow, is quite persistent; in particular, the tortoise is in constant motion, so that the tortoise covers some distance in every interval of time, no matter how small that interval of time. • Remember that we are assuming that space and time are infinitely divisible; so the amount of distance covered by the tortoise in very small amounts of time can be arbitrarily small. 3 4 1 1/9/2018 • Then Achilles reaches the point that the tortoise reached at the end of t1. But Achilles, while quite fast, is not infinitely fast; so this journey takes him a certain amount of time. Let’s call this interval of time t2. • The race begins. Achilles eventually makes it to the point where the tortoise started the race; but it takes him some finite amount of time to do so. Let’s call the this amount of time t1. • The tortoise, while slow, is persistent — so the tortoise has also moved some distance during the interval of time. The tortoise does not move as far as Achilles, but the tortoise does move. • Has Achilles now caught the tortoise, at the end of t2? Not quite. The tortoise, after all, has moved some distance during t2 as well. Not, of course, as far as Achilles — but the tortoise has covered a little bit of ground. • So, at the end of t1, the tortoise’s lead over Achilles has shrunk — but Achilles still has not caught with the tortoise. • So, at the end of t2, the tortoise is still ahead of Achilles. 5 • Suppose that we considered t3, t4, t5, and so on — would we ever get to an interval of time at the end of which Achilles had caught the tortoise? It seems not. After all, it always takes Achilles some finite amount of time to catch the tortoise, and during that finite amount of time, the tortoise will always have covered some distance. 6 interval t1 interval t2 • But we know that this is absurd. Indeed, it seems that if motion is possible at all, it is possible for one thing to catch another thing from behind. But this seems to be what Zeno has shown to be impossible. interval t3 interval t4 7 8 2 1/9/2018 • Of course, Zeno has only show that this is impossible on the supposition that space and time are continuous. How, in other words, could one respond to Zeno’s argument if space and time were not continuous, but discrete? Video about Achilles Paradox • Achilles and the Tortoise - 60-Second Adventures in Thought (1/6): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skM37PcZmWE • Keeping the role played by this assumption in mind will help us to understand what’s going on in the other paradox targeted at the assumption that space and time are continuous: the Racetrack. 9 10 3 1/5/2018 A priori/A posteriori Knowledge Phil 2: Puzzles and Paradoxes • The terms a priori ("from the earlier") and a posteriori ("from the later") are used to distinguish two types of knowledge: Prof. Sven Bernecker University of California, Irvine • A priori knowledge is independent of experience. Example: All bachelors are unmarried. • A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence. Example: Some bachelors are happy. Conceptual Distinctions 2 Propositions Analytic/Synthetic Propositions • A proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. • Only declarative sentences (but not all of them) express propositions. • Propositions are true or false. • Propositions are different from the action (talking, thinking, drawing etc.) by which they are expressed. • Propositions are different from the words, sounds, symbols, or brain states by which they are expressed. • Propositions are independent of the language used to express them. 3 • This is a distinction of types of propositions (i.e., statements that are affirmative subject–predicate judgments) • Analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meaning. Example: bachelors are unmarried. • Synthetic propositions are true by how their meaning relates to the world. Example: bachelors are unhappy. 4 1 1/5/2018 Necessary/Contingent Truths Possible Worlds • Necessarily true propositions (often simply called necessary truths) are ones which must be true, or whose opposite is impossible. Examples: It is not the case that it is raining and not raining. 2 + 2 = 4. All bachelors are unmarried • Necessary truths are those that are true in all possible worlds. • Contingent truths are those that are true in some possible worlds and false in others. • Contingently true propositions (often simply called contingent truths) are those that are not necessary and whose opposite is therefore possible. Examples: It seldom rains in the Sahara. There are more than four states in the USA. Some bachelors drive Maserati. • Possible worlds are not distant planets but just alternative descriptions of the actual world. 5 6 Type/Token Necessary/Sufficient Conditions • A type is a category or class of an object or event. • A token is a specific instance or occurrence of a type of object or event. • To say that x is a necessary condition for y is to say that it is impossible to have y without x. In other words, the absence of x guarantees the absence of y. Example: Having four sides is necessary for being a square. • To say that x is a sufficient condition for y is to say that the presence of x guarantees the presence of y. In other words, it is impossible to have x without y. Example: Being a square is sufficient for having four sides. 7 • Example: “space, time, space, time, time, time.” How many words are in inside the quotation marks? The answer will either be six, if one is referring to individual words (tokens) or two, if one is referring to types of words. 8 2 1/5/2018 Use/Mention • A word is used when we talk about the world by means of it. Example: There is a tree in the garden. • A word is mentioned when we talk about the word itself. Mentioned words often appear between quotation marks or in italics. Example: “Tree” is spelled with two “e”s. Examples: – Ice is frozen water – Ice has three letters – ”Ice“ has three letters 9 3 1/9/2018 Phil 2: Puzzles and Paradoxes Prof. Sven Bernecker University of California, Irvine Four-Dimensionalism 1) Before the sculptor‘s action, a lump of clay exists and after the sculptor‘s action a statue exists Existence 2) The lump of clay continues to exist after the sculptor‘s actions Survival 3) The statue comes into existence when the sculptor makes it Creation 4) After the sculptor‘s action, the lump of clay and the sculpture have different properties: one existend before the sculptor‘s action, the other did not 1, 2, 3 5) If x and y have different properties at the same time, then x ≠ y Leibniz‘s Law 6) The statue ≠ the lump of clay 4, 5 7) The statue and the lump of clay occupy the same location at the same time 2 8) Two distinct objects never occupy the same location at the same time No Co-Location 9) The statue = the clay 7, 8 C) The statue = the clay & the statue ≠ the lump of clay 6, 9 So far we have looked at objections to EXISTENCE and SURVIVAL. Let’s now consider objections to NO COLOCATION 2 Four-Dimensionalism • One can deny NO CO-LOCATION either by claiming that two distinct objects can be in the same place at the same time (cohabitation) or by embracing four-dimensionalism. • The three-dimensionalist considers time to be a unique dimension that is not analogous to the three spatial dimensions (length, width and height). The four-dimensionalist, however, claims that objects are not only spatially but also temporally extended. This means that an object is not wholly present at any given moment at which it exists. 3 • Four-dimensionalism claims that distinct things can have overlapping parts. • Consider an unconvincing paradox: – Consider the locations “UCI campus” and “Social Science Plaza A.” These are distinct objects, as is shown by the fact that Aldrich Hall is a part of one, but not the other (Leibniz’s Law). And yet both of these things are right here. So UCI's campus and Social Science Plaza A are distinct things which exist in the same place. But how could this be? • Solution: Distinct things can have overlapping parts. 4 1 1/9/2018 • Four-dimensionalism: Just as things which are spread out in space have different spatial parts in different locations, so things which are spread out in time -- i.e., which exist at more than one time -- have distinct temporal parts which occupy different times. Four-Dimensionalism & Theseus’ Ship Continuous Ship • Reconstructed Ship t2 One can think of the lump of clay as a series of temporal parts: t1 Original Ship or “Theseus Ship” • The lump of clay is the collection of all five temporal parts. The statue is just the third temporal part. The statue and the clay can be in the same place at the same time since they are objects which have a temporal part in common. • • • • • 5 There are two ships at all times Two ships share the same stages at t1 Rejection of the No Co-Location principle The name “Theseus Ship” is ambiguous 6 Adopting four-dimensionalism is a way of denying NO CO-LOCATION and hence of solving the paradox of constitution. • There seems to be a tension between four-dimensionalism and McTaggart‘s A-series of time. According to the A-series, no event is past, present, and future (see lecture 4.3, slide #3). But four-dimensionalism claims that an object can have parts in all three temporal dimensions -- past, present and future. 7 2
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Last 1

Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Time Travel
Time travel is an interesting subject for both the scientists and the philosophers. It has been
identified as one of the highly debated topics. With the increase in supportive literature, the aspect
of time travel is set to receive more recognition, research and differential opinions from the readers.
While the Grandfather paradox has strongly argued against the possibility of time travel, Davis
Lewis has defended the aspect of time travel with two main senses of changes, replacement and
counterfactual, which have been rendered unconvincing. This paper provides a definition of time
travel, an explanation of the Grandfather paradox and the David Lewi’s solution.
What is Time Travel?
The theories, paradoxes, and possibilities of time travel have long been received heated
debates from various researchers, philosophers, and scientists. While some doubt the possibilities
of time travel, others agree with the theories and its possibilities with supportive literature. Time
travel involves the movement between times. The forward time travel, for example, entails the
traverse of 100 years in external time within just 10 minutes of personal time. The backward time
travel, on the other hand, involve traverse to earlier moments in time. As such, time travel is often
identified as traveling to the past or to the future.

Last 2

The possibility of time travel through decades of research has received various perceptions
from the ...


Anonymous
Super useful! Studypool never disappoints.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags