PHILOSOPHY 200: PROSEMINAR
PARADOXES
Professor:
Office:
Office phone:
Office hours:
Email:
Sam Rickless
HSS 8009
822-4910
Fridays 12pm-2pm
srickless@ucsd.edu
Course Description
In this course, we will discuss a variety of famous paradoxes in philosophy. Each meeting will
be devoted to a different paradox and will be hosted by a different member of the UCSD
philosophy faculty. Topics to be discussed include the paradoxes of material constitution, the
paradox(es) of nuclear deterrence, the toxin puzzle, the paradox of moral conflict, Russell’s
paradox, moral luck, Zeno’s paradox(es), the lottery paradox, and the liar paradox. The main
idea behind the seminar is to provide an entertaining entry into central philosophical sub-fields
(metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of logic, and philosophy of
mathematics) and introduce you to half the UCSD philosophy faculty.
Course Materials
All course materials will be made available electronically or as photocopies in the Philosophy
Library.
Course Schedule
September 29: The Paradoxes of Material Constitution
Reading:
Michael C. Rea, “The Problem of Material Constitution”, Philosophical
Review 104 (1995): 525-552 (online here)
October 6: Proposed Solutions to (some of?) the Paradoxes of Material Constitution
Reading:
Lynne Rudder Baker, “On Making Things Up: Constitution and Its
Critics,” Philosophical Topics 30 (2002): 31-51 (online here)
Michael B. Burke, “Preserving the Principle of One Object to a Place: A
Novel Account of the Relations Among Objects, Sorts, Sortals, and
Persistence Conditions,” Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research 54 (1994): 591-624 (online here)
Judith Jarvis Thomson, “The Statue and the Clay,” Noûs 32 (1998): 149173 (online here)
October 13: The Paradoxes of Deterrence and the Toxin Puzzle (host: Dick Arneson)
Reading:
Gregory Kavka, “Some Paradoxes of Deterrence,” Chapter 1 of Moral
Paradoxes of Nuclear Deterrence, 1987 (sent by email).
David Gauthier, “Deterrence, Maximization, and Rationality,” Ethics 94
(1984): 474-495 (online here).
Gregory Kavka, “A Paradox of Deterrence Revisited,” Chapter 2 of Moral
Paradoxes of Nuclear Deterrence, 1987 (sent by email).
October 20: The Paradox of Moral Conflict (host: David Brink)
Reading:
Bernard Williams, “Ethical Consistency,” in Problems of the Self, 1986
(sent by email).
David O. Brink, “Moral Conflict and its Structure,” Philosophical Review
103 (1994): 215-247 (online here).
October 27: Russell’s Paradox (host: Clinton Tolley)
Reading:
Selections from Frege’s Basic Laws of Arithmetic, Vol. 1: 33-45 (sent by
email).
Selections from the Frege-Russell Correspondence: 130-143 (sent by
email).
Selections from Russell’s Principles of Mathematics: 101-105 (sent by
email).
Selections from Russell and Whitehead, Principia Mathematica, Vol. 1:
39-40 and 63-68 (sent by email).
Kurt Gödel, “Russell’s Mathematical Logic”, The Library of Living
Philosophers: Russell, 1944 (sent by email).
November 3: Moral Luck (host: Saba Bazargan)
Reading:
B. A. O. Williams and T. Nagel, “Moral Luck,” Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 50 (1976): 115-151
(sent by email).
David Enoch and Andrei Marmor, “The Case Against Moral Luck,” Law
and Philosophy 26 (2007): 405-436 (sent by email).
November 10: Zeno’s Paradox (host: Monte Johnson)
Reading:
Wesley C. Salmon, Introduction to Zeno’s Paradoxes (sent by email)
Selections from Parmenides, Melissus, Zeno, and other fragments (sent by
email)
November 17: The Lottery Paradox (host: Dana Nelkin)
Reading:
Stewart Cohen, “How to be a Fallibilist,” Philosophical Perspectives 2,
Epistemology (1988): 91-123 (online here).
Richard Foley, “The Epistemology of Belief and the Epistemology of
Degrees of Belief,” American Philosophical Quarterly 29 (1992):
111-124 (online here).
Dana K. Nelkin, “The Lottery Paradox, Knowledge, and Rationality,”
Philosophical Review 109 (2000): 373-409 (online here).
November 24: NO MEETING (DAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING)
December 1: The Liar Paradox (host: Gila Sher)
Reading:
Alfred Tarski, “The Semantic Conception of Truth: and the Foundations
of Semantics,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4
(1944): 341-376 (online here).
Saul Kripke, “Outline of a Theory of Truth,” Journal of Philosophy 72
(1975): 690-716 (online here).
Note: Where the host is not mentioned, I am the host.
Course Requirements and Grading
 One short (<1000 words, double-spaced) paper per week, starting in the second week.
Each paper must be sent as an e-mail attachment to every seminar participant (and the
relevant faculty host) by 5pm on the day before the seminar in which the relevant issues
will be discussed. For example, the first paper (on the paradoxes of material constitution)
is due by 5pm on October 5. Your paper should, if at all possible, do one of the
following: (i) provide a logical reconstruction of a difficult argument to be found in a
relevant text, (ii) criticize the validity or soundness of an argument in a relevant text, (iii)
provide a counter-example to a central claim made in a relevant text, or (iv) articulate and
defend an interpretation or philosophical position that competes with those found in the
relevant texts. If you can’t find a way to do one of (i)-(iv), discuss your plans for the
paper with me beforehand. Late papers will be read and marked, but will receive a grade
of F (unless you have a valid excuse).
 One longer (approx. 3000 words, double-spaced) term paper, hardcopy due in my
mailbox on or before 9am on Thursday, December 9. The longer paper should provide
your solution (or a criticism of at least one proposed solution) to the Surprise
Examination Paradox.
 You need to make an appointment to see me to discuss your term paper during 8th week
(November 15-19). At this meeting, you should have compiled a bibliography for your
paper. You should be prepared to articulate your paper’s main thesis, the paper’s rough
structure, along with some of the arguments you will be planning to use in support of the
main thesis. All of this material should be written down on a short (2-3 page) paper
prospectus and placed in my mailbox before the meeting. I will not give out an
incomplete grade unless you have a valid excuse for not being able to complete your
paper by the deadline. Valid excuses include such things as serious illness or
incapacitation, or death in the family. They do not include the strong desire to make the
paper the best that it can be.
 One 15 minute in-class presentation (possibly two). The purpose of the presentation is to
introduce the main paradox to be discussed in seminar that day, along with one or more
proposed solutions to it, raising some of your own questions/comments/criticisms along
the way or at the end. Your presentation may be related to your short paper, though the
short paper (given its length) should be less introductory and more focused. You should
not simply read your presentation, though you may speak your way through a handout. A
handout is recommended, though not mandatory. Please do not use your
presentation/handout to provide an exhaustive overview of all the relevant readings.
 Attendance is required at every meeting, unless a valid excuse is communicated to me in
a timely manner (if possible, ahead of time).
 Your grade will be based on the quality of your papers (85%), your presentation (10%),
and your participation in seminar (5%). The grade given to your worst short paper
(assuming there is a worst paper) will be discarded in computing the final course grade.
If there is either improvement or no diminution in the quality of the papers during the
quarter and you end up with a final course grade that is in-between grades, you will
receive the higher grade. But if there is diminution and you end up in-between grades,
you will receive the lower grade.