G. C. Goddu

This work analyzes Peter Geach's problem of intentional identity, viz. adequately formalizing the sentence "Hob thinks a witch has blighted Bob's mare and Nob wonders whether she killed Cob's sow" and other sentences like it. First, Geach's problem is presented, and then Geach's original formalization proposals, and his own reasons for rejecting them, are presented and discussed. Next, the solutions proposed by various philosophers and linguists are presented and analyzed in detail. All are shown to be either inadequate or incomplete. As a result, the standard objections to one particular solution, the pronoun of laziness solution, are re-examined and shown to have problematic consequences. Finally, a modified pronoun of laziness solution that avoids the standard objections is presented and defended

Many defenders of the possibility of time travel into the past also hold that such time travel places no restrictions on what said time travelers can do. Some hold that it places at least a few restrictions on what time travelers can do. In attempting to resolve this dispute, I reached a contrary conclusion. Time travelers to the past cannot do other than what they in fact do. Using a very weak notion of can, I shall argue that the correspondingly strong cannot do otherwise applies in the case of backwards time travel. I defend this result from objections.

While there has been in depth discussion of many particular argumentation schemes, some lament that there is little to no theory underpinning the notion of an argumentation scheme. Here I shall argue against the utility of argument schemes, at least as a fundamental part of a complete theory of arguments. I shall also present and defend a minimalist theory of their nature—a scheme is just a set of proposition expressions and propositional functions. While simple, the theory contravenes several typical desiderata of argumentation schemes such as (i) aiding in the identification of enthymemes and (ii) keeping arguments constrained to a manageable taxonomy. So much the worse for the desiderata. Instead, I shall recommend focusing less on schemes and more on the component propositional functions.