Philosophical Papers 24 (2):111-125 (1995)
|Abstract||What has sometimes been called the "standard" argument for fatalism never achieved the critical popularity of Richard Taylor's (1962) infamous argument. But it has enjoyed far greater longevity. In De Fato Cicero (1960) tells us it was known in ancient Greece as the "idle argument", for it purports to show the futility of attempting to control one's fate and, hence, those persuaded by it could be led to a life of inaction and idleness. Even with such antiquated credentials, however, the argument continues to exercise fine contemporary minds (e.g. Schlesinger 1993).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James B. Freeman (1991). Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure. Foris Publications.
Georges J. D. Moyal (1985). Another Difficulty in Taylor's Argument for Fatalism. Mind 94 (373):104-107.
Ricardo Salles (2004). Bivalencia, Fatalismo E Inacción En Crisipo (Bivalence, Fatalism and Inaction in Chrysippus). Crítica 36 (106):3 - 27.
Robert C. Solomon (2003). On Fate and Fatalism. Philosophy East and West 53 (4):435-454.
Ferenc Huoranszki (2002). Fate, Freedom and Contingency. Acta Analytica 17 (1):79-102.
Sarah Broadie (2001). From Necessity to Fate: A Fallacy. Journal of Ethics 5 (1):21-37.
Alex Blum (2005). On the Cannot of Infallibility. Sophia 44 (1).
Vladimir Marko (2011). Looking for the Lazy Argument Candidates. Organon F 18 (3 & 4):363-383; 447-474.
Susan Haack (1974). On a Theological Argument for Fatalism. Philosophical Quarterly 24 (95):156-159.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads95 ( #6,907 of 549,551 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,551 )
How can I increase my downloads?