Paper 1
Answer one question.
1) How does Williamson arrive at the conclusion that he exists necessarily? How does he get to the further conclusion that for any sperm and egg pair, there actually exists an x such that x could have come from them? Is there a plausible way to resist Williamson’s conclusion while accepting apparently common sense claims? E.g., I have no biological brother, but I could have had one, and there is nothing that could have been my biological brother.
2) What ought to matter to me in cases where my survival is in question? That I continue to exist? That there is ongoing psychological continuity? Could these come apart? Explain and evaluate Lewis’s answer to these questions.
3) What is the sorites paradox? (Vagueness, chapter 1.) Outline the supervaluationism solution. (Chapter 5.) Against supervaluationism Williamson says: ‘Once the supposed advantages of supertruth are seen to be illusory, it becomes overwhelmingly plausible to equate ordinary truth with the property that meets Tarski’s disquotational condition, truthT’ (163). What does he mean? Do his arguments against supervaluationism work?
4) Explain Lewis’s theory of what it is for a language £ to be used by a population P. Hawthorne (‘A note...’) objects to Lewis, who replies in ‘Meaning without use’. Hawthorne replies in ‘Meaning and evidence’. Who wins?
This paper should be 8 pages, and is due during session 11.
Final Paper
Answer one question.
1) Explain and evaluate Burge’s central argument from his three-step thought experiment. What is the upshot? To what range of mental contents might it apply? What should we make of an objection like the following?
I can clearly discern from the armchair what it is that I am currently thinking. I cannot tell from the armchair such social facts as how medical experts choose to use words. Hence my mental contents can’t depend on such social facts.
Is there a compelling way of spelling out this objection? How could Burge respond?
2) Explain and evaluate Nozick’s argument that knowledge is not closed under known implication. What is the upshot for skepticism? Supposing his account is right, what kind of success has Nozick achieved in response to skeptical arguments? You might want to consider the following kind of complaint, a version of which came up in class:
It is little help in response to skeptical worries to learn that IF I’m lucky enough to have beliefs that covary with the truth in nearby possible worlds, then I have knowledge. A brain-in-a-vat could “read” Nozick’s book and conclude that! How can this help me tell that that’s not my predicament?
3) Drawing on Johnston’s discussion, what are the problems posed by hallucinations? Does Johnston’s own theory solve them?
4) Does Berker, in “Luminosity regained”, successfully rebut Williamson’s argument that one can be in pain without being in a position to know that one is pain?
5) What does the Trolley Problem have to teach us?
6) Does justice require equality? If so, what sort of equality?
7) Devise your own question concerning the readings discussed in the seminar, and answer it. (Please consult with the instructors first.)
This paper should be approximately 15 pages, and is due during the final session.