Philosophy 4321.01, Spring 2009

Metaphysics

Alexander R. Pruss

E-mail: alexander_pruss@baylor.edu

Course web page: http://AlexanderPruss.com/classes/meta/2009

Class times: Tu Th 12:30-1:45

Location: MH108

Office hours: Tu Th 11:00-12:00 in MH 213 and by appointment

Abstract:

Metaphysics asks two different kinds of questions. One set of problems is more concrete, asking about how certain things really are, on a level that goes beyond what science studies. After a bit of a warm-up exercise in talking about the nature of time, we will examine two such problems: What makes me be me? (Would I survive if my brain were implanted in your skull? Do I have a soul that makes me be me?) What is free will and do we have it?

The second set of problems is more abstract, and we will look at two such problems. The first of these is the problem of properties. We might say that a leaf and a tractor are both green. What does that mean? Is there such a thing as greenness that the leaf and the tractor are both related to? If so, where is this greenness? (In the leaf? in the tractor? in both? in the mind of God? nowhere?) We will also consider alternate solutions to the problem of what makes different things have the same property. The second problem is that of modality. As far as we know, there are no mountains of gold or square circles in the world. But there is a difference between these two. While there in fact are no mountains of gold, there could be. But square circles are simply impossible. What makes the one possible and the other impossible?

Finally, we will discuss causation, which connects up the abstract and the concrete problems.

Texts:

· Readings will be placed in the library on reserve, and titles will be posted a week ahead of time at http://AlexanderPruss.com/classes/meta/2009

Grading and requirements:

· There is a paper due each weak, starting with the week of January 19. This paper is 1.5-2 double-spaced typed pages long. The paper must be handed in at the beginning of class, either on the Tuesday or the Thursday. About half of the time (it’s up to you to figure out how to distribute this), I need you to hand your paper in on Tuesday. Be ready to present your paper to the class if asked, so please bring two copies. Falling behind on papers will penalized, except that I will allow you to miss one week, and catch up by writing two papers the next week (you do not need to ask for permission to do this).

o Papers due during the weeks of January 19, January 26, February 2 and February 9 must do the following: They need to identify a philosophical argument in one of the readings assigned for the class during which the paper is handed in, and carefully explain this argument. This explanation must be entirely in your own words, and must not include any direct quotations. You must carefully state all the assumptions in the argument, including any that are implicit and not stated by the author, in such a way that a reader who did not read the paper could understand the argument. You need to carefully and precisely explain what the conclusion of the argument is. Finally, you need to explain why this argument may be seen as important (so don’t choose an argument where you can’t answer this part)—what larger philosophical issue would we make progress on if the argument were successful. The focus of the paper is on the argument.

o Starting with the week of February 16, the paper topics shift to original philosophical argumentation on your part. These papers must also closely relate to the reading assigned for the class during which the paper is handed in. The paper can be one of three types. Please state at the top of your paper which kind you chose that week.

§ Type I: The paper begins by giving a careful summary of one argument in the reading, and then gives an original argumentative attack on the argument, making clear which assumptions or steps in the argument are being questioned and why. You are not to attack the conclusion of the paper—only the argument itself. In your objection to the argument, you must explicitly state whether you are objecting to the argument’s validity or to its soundness or whether you agree that it is sound, but are concerned about some other argumentative fault (such as begging the question).

§ Type II: The paper begins by giving a careful summary of one argument in the reading, as in a Type A paper, and then briefly shows an important weakness in the argument. The paper then modifies the argument in an original way, improving it in such a way that it avoids the weakness.

§ Type III: The paper describes an important conclusion reached by one of the papers in the reading, and produces an original argument directly for or against that conclusion. If the original argument makes use of claims that some of our reading argued against, you will need to respond to at least some these objections. In general, a better Type III paper takes up at least one objection to some point in its argument.

· If all your papers are handed in on time and you exhibit no failure of academic integrity during the semester, I will (a) drop the two lowest-graded papers when calculating your grade, and (b) count your highest-graded paper at double weight.

· Class participation is required and counts towards the grade. If you are too shy to participate in class, the Blackboard page for the course has a discussion board. I highly encourage use of this discussion board, and will count postings there towards the class participation component of your grade.

Academic integrity:

Credible suspicions of lack of academic integrity will be typically reported to the University for further investigation. 

Plagiarism is one of the most serious of the violations of academic integrity and consists in presenting the work or thought of another as one’s own.  If you are using someone else’s literal words, even if only a short phrase of two or three words, you need to put them in quotation marks (or in the case of a longer quote, in block-quote format which is single-spaced and with every line indented on the left) and give the source.  If you are paraphrasing or merely using someone else’s ideas, you still need to give the source explicitly.  The only exception to the last rule is that you do not need to specifically give the source for ideas that you got in my lecture when writing papers for this course.

Plagiarism is not only immoral but foolish.  My default penalty for a failure in academic integrity is an F in the class. If you just hand in a mediocre but honest paper you will very likely (though I do not make guarantees) get at least a D on the paper, and anyway there are other papers in the course to pull up your average. And remember that I’ll drop the lowest two grades if you never fall behind.

However, if you confess to plagiarism before I give you any sign of my suspicions (before I email you asking you for sources, before I ask you to meet with me, etc.), I will let you rewrite the paper and not proceed any further. (If someone has no sense of shame and uses this as a strategy to get an extension, I may take adverse action.)

Approximate schedule:

January 13: Validity, soundness and question-begging. Warm-up exercise with Zeno’s arrow.

January 15: Time travel

January 20-29: Personal identity

February 3-26: Mind, dualism and free will

March 3-24: Properties

Mar 26-April 2: Modality and possible worlds

April 7-16: Causation

April 21-30: Regresses and the Principle of Sufficient Reason