Philosophy of Time
Spring, 2013
Alexander R. Pruss
Course website: http://AlexanderPruss.com/classes/time
Class Times: Monday
and Wednesday 10:10-11:35 am
E-mail:
Alexander_Pruss@baylor.edu
Office
hours: Tuesday and Thursday, 10:00-11:00 am,
or on most Mondays and Wednesdays after 1 pm
Texts:
·
Readings in white PRUSS box in mail room
·
Online readings
Expectations
from students: Students will do the assigned reading before every
lecture, attend class, participate in discussion, and write the assigned
papers.
There
are two evaluation options:
1. Write
a short weekly paper for every week during which there is at least one class
meeting, handing it in during that class meeting.
2. Write a short weekly paper for the first eight weeks
during which there is at least one class meeting, handing it in during that class
meeting, plus write a 10-14 page conference-style paper by May 10. If the latter is an extension of one of the
weekly papers, there needs to be a substantive amount of new material.
The
short weekly papers are about 1.5-3 pages long (typically 2). They are to be on the reading assigned for the
class during which they are handed in, and the instructor may ask for them to
be presented, or else on an approved topic.
o
The paper can be
one of three types:
§
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 I 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.
Exceptions:
(a) You are permitted to make up missing one weekly paper by writing an extra paper the successive week. The extra paper is to be tied to the readings of the class during which you are handing it in (so this isn’t a license to spend more time on a paper on earlier material). In serious circumstances, other extensions may be permitted, but these should be cleared ahead of time if reasonably possible.
(b) Your
first paper may be handed in on Friday.
If
you never impermissibly miss a weekly paper, I will drop the grade from your
lowest-graded weekly paper (two lowest-graded weekly papers if you are choosing
Option 1), and I will count the grade from your highest-graded weekly paper
doubly.
The
weekly papers are graded on the following 4.0-10.0 point scale:
·
10.0: Publishable as-is in a good journal that
accepts short papers (e.g., Thought
and Analysis)
·
9.0: Revisable
into a paper publishable in a good journal.
·
8.0: Revisable
into a paper presentable at a good conference.
·
7.0: Normal
graduate-level work
·
6.0: Barely
satisfactory graduate-level work
·
5.0:
Unsatisfactory graduate-level work
·
4.0: Very
unsatisfactory graduate-level work
You
should not worry at all if you get a 6 once.
Nor should a 5 close to the beginning of the semester, especially if you
are a first year student, worry you unduly.
But if your grades are consistently below 7, you should make greater
effort, in particular by speaking with the instructor before handing in papers.
Academic
integrity: We have an omniscient Judge. And there is the Honor Council.
Course
plan: Time permitting, we’ll explore different aspects of the
strangeness of time. The pace at which we go will be determined by how class
discussion goes. Readings will be put into the online syllabus on the course
web page. If this course were taught without temporal limitations, it would
cover the following topics:
·
Zeno's
paradoxes
·
Special
Relativity
·
Time travel
·
Temporal
topologies
·
Time's flow
·
The A and B
theories, with special attention paid to Kaplan's account of indexicals
·
God, free will
and the future
·
Presentism
·
Perdurantism
·
Time's arrow
·
Temporal emotions
·
Death and beyond
Readings (not underlined readings are in box):
Class
2: Zeno's paradoxes,
Aristotle on
Zeno's paradoxes, Thomson, Benacerraf
Class
4: Einstein, Relativity, up to the
end of Chapter XIII
Class 5: Finish Einstein book, but Appendix I is optional
Feb 11: Williams and Quentin Smith
Feb 13: Quentin Smith, Beer
Feb 18: Kaplan; Speaks, Section 2.1
Feb 20: Zimmerman
Feb 25: Merricks
Mar 4: Pruss; Zimmerman; Bigelow
Mar 6: Merricks
Mar 18: Crisp; Rasmussen; Tallant
Mar 20:
Mar 27: Jacobs; McDaniel; Baron
Apr 15: Mellor (in box in the office)
Apr 17: Gale (emailed); Skow
Apr 24: Adams (not available yet); Kvanvig
Apr 29: Lucretius/Epicurus; Nagel; Russell;Camus
May 1: Metaphysics Idea Fair