Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- Charles D. Brown (1965). Fallacies in Taylor's "Fatalism". Journal of Philosophy 62 (13):349-353.
Similar books and articles
No categories
It is the aim of this paper to show that [the theological argument from Divine omniscience] is not more than a needlessly (and confusingly) elaborate version of the argument for fatalism discussed by Aristotle in de Interpretatione 9, which, since its sole premise is the Principle of Bivalence, may conveniently be called the logical argument for fatalism. If this is right, if the theological premisses of the theological argument can be shown to be strictly irrelevant to the fatalist conclusion, then it follows that it is pointless to try to avoid fatalism by modification of those theological premisses.
No categories
Discussion of Charles D. Brown, Fallacies in Taylor's "fatalism"
|
|
There are no threads in this forum |
Nothing in this forum yet.

