) Explain two arguments for Libertarianism about free will, and objections to those arguments. Do you think the Libertarian can offer good responses to those objections?
2) Summarize Strawson’s “basic argument”. Do you think this argument is convincing? Why or why not?
3) Explain Stace’s “compatibilism”, and the major objection to his view. What do you think of the response to this objection? Explain ad discuss.
4) What kind of thing does Descartes think that he is? How does he arrive at this conclusion? Do you think that his argument is successful – why or why not?
5) Ryle argues that Descartes commits a kind of mistake in arguing for substance dualism. What is this mistake? Explain and give an example (bonus if you can come up with your own example). In what way does Ryle argue that Descartes has committed this kind of mistake? Do you agree or disagree? Explain why.
A Sample Exercise Question and Response:
below is a sample question from an exercise (from another class), and a sample answer that received top marks.
Sample Question: Explain the three types of possibility that we learned about, and how they are related.
Sample Answer:
The three different types of possibility that we learned about are logical possibility, physical possibility, and technological possibility.
Logical possibility, which is the broadest or least restrictive sense of possibility, is related to Aristotle’s three laws of thought. A statement or claim is logically possible so long as it does not violate any of these basic principles. For example, a statement that violates Aristotle’s “Law of Non-Contradiction” (that tries to say that something is both true and false) is not logically possible. Since logical possibility is the least restrictive sense of possibility, things that are logically possible may nonetheless be physically or technologically impossible. But everything that is logically impossible is also physically and technologically impossible.
Physical possibility is a sense of possibility that it related to the laws of physics, or the basic principles that govern everything our universe. A statement or claim is physically possible as long as it does not violate any basic principles of physics. For example, a basic principle of physics is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. So a statement like “That spaceship traveled faster than the speed of light” must be false, because it is physically impossible. Physical possibility is more restrictive than logical possibility. As stated before, some things that are physically impossible may be logically possible (like traveling faster than the speed of light).
Technological possibility is a sense of possibility that is relative to technology that is either existing, or at least could conceivably exist in the near future. A statement or claim is technologically possible if it is consistent with our level of technology. This means that what is technologically possible is constantly changing. For example, 50 years ago it would have been technologically impossible for anyone to navigate using a supercomputer they carry in their pockets, but today that is of course technologically possible (and very common). Technological possibility is even more restrictive than physical possibility. In other words, some things that are physically possible may be technologically impossible. For example, it is physically possible to travel at 99% of the speed of light (this breaks no laws of physics), but it is technologically impossible because it would require an absolutely insane amount of energy to do so.
