Chose one of the Prompts and write about it.
Must present one main argument either against or for the claim in the first paragraph after the introduction. Also present two more arguments the the later paragraphs.

1) Kant provides a proof for the law of causality in The Critique of Pure Reason. It
turns out this proof looks more like a non sequitur (the conclusion does not follow
from the premises). George Dicker suggests that we need some third aspect, an
event C, for Kant’s proof to be valid. Does this addition resolve the problem?
How could you reconstruct Kant’s proof to show that causality is a rule and not an
assumption?

2) Social construction theorists claim that X is socially constructed if we can show
that X is not inevitable. Come up with your own X and argue how it can or cannot
be inevitable. If you think it is inevitable, argue how it can be viewed on an
essentialist account. If you think it is not inevitable, can we have an eliminativist
account of X?