Skip to main content

A Note on the Grandfather Paradox

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Time, Identity and the Self: Essays on Metaphysics

Part of the book series: Synthese Library ((SYLI,volume 442))

  • 210 Accesses

Abstract

In this note, I am critical of some aspects of David Lewis’s resolution of the Grandfather Paradox. I argue that Lewis gives the wrong explanation of Tim’s inability to kill Grandfather, and that the correct explanation makes essential reference to the self-undermining character of Tim’s attempt at grampicide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    I disagree with Lewis that this is the right fact to cite here; see (Garrett, 2019), published in this volume as Chapter 7.

  2. 2.

    Jaster has a more concrete version of this worry, see (Jaster, 2020, 98).

  3. 3.

    Jaster, in her discussion, also fails to vindicate any sense in which Tim can’t kill Grandfather. According to her version of the context-dependent view of ‘can’-judgements, Tim can’t kill Grandfather because “[he] does not shoot [Grandfather] in a sufficient proportion of the possible situations in which he intends to shoot him and the fact that he does not shoot him obtains” (italics in text) (Jaster, 2020, 104). Since this sentence is trivially true it can hardly imply that Tim can’t kill Grandfather. Trivialities only imply trivialities.

  4. 4.

    Later in his article, Lewis rightly criticises a particularly egregious specimen of Fatalist reasoning (Lewis, 1976, 151–152). But there are many varieties of Fatalism, some more subtle than others, and Lewis seems to have succumbed to one of the more subtle variants.

References

  • Garrett, B. (2019). Bulletproof grandfathers, David Lewis, and ‘can’t’-judgements. Acta Analytica, 34(2), 177–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaster, K. (2020). What Tim can and cannot do: A paradox of time travel revisited. Kriterion Journal of Philosophy, 34(4), 93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1976). The paradoxes of time travel. American Philosophical Quarterly, 13(1), 145–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vihvelin, K. (1996). What time travelers cannot do. Philosophical Studies, 81(2/3), 315–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vihvelin, K. (2020). Killing time again. The Monist, 103(3), 312–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Garrett, B., Joven Joaquin, J. (2022). A Note on the Grandfather Paradox. In: Joaquin, J.J. (eds) Time, Identity and the Self: Essays on Metaphysics. Synthese Library, vol 442. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85517-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics