week 6 Fatalism Paradox Discussion and Response
Prompt #1: What is the most interesting/troubling paradox (or puzzle) discussed so far? Why do you find it interesting/troubling?
Week3?PROMPT #1: FUTURE TIME TRAVEL. Even if backward time travel were possible, you could not change the past. But how about forward time travel? Could you change the future if you traveled into the future? If future time travel were possible, would you do it? Explain your answers.
PROMPT #2: FATALISM. Suppose you were Osmo and you found the book describing your past and future life in a local library. Would you adopt a fatalistic attitude and why?
Week2?PROMPT #1: ZENO PROMPT. Zeno’s paradox reveals a mismatch between the way we think about the world and the way the world actually is. The challenge then becomes how to identify what precisely is wrong with our thinking. Motion is possible, of course, and a fast human runner can beat a tortoise in a race. The problem seems to have something to do with our conception of infinity. How would you solve Zeno’s problem? In your mind, is space continuous or discrete? Explain your answer.
PROMPT #1: A-Theory vs. B-THEORY. Consider this argument: “The subjective A-theory is inferior to the objective B-theory. For the subjective A-theory does not allow us to give a completely objective account of time descriptions. But the objective B-theory does allow us to give a subjective account of time descriptions.” Critically discuss this argument.
Week1?PROMPT #1: ARGUMENT PROMPT. Consider the following argument:
Validity is of no importance. An argument can have false premises and still be valid. In fact, it can have false premises and a false conclusion, yet still be valid. Therefore, there is no connection between truth and validity. Thus, validity is irrelevant to truth and therefore to philosophical inquiry.
How would you reply to this argument? Which statements of the argument are correct and which incorrect?