Van Inwagen on free will

Philosophical Quarterly 36 (April):252-260 (1986)
I discuss van inwagen's "first formal argument" for the incompatibility of causal determinism and freedom to do otherwise. I distinguish different interpretations of the important notion, "s can render p false." I argue that on none of these interpretations is the argument clearly sound. I point to gaps in the argument, Although I do not claim that it is unsound
Keywords Determinism  Free Will  Freedom  Metaphysics  Van Inwagen, P
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2307/2219772
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,280
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Yishai Cohen (2015). Molinists Cannot Endorse the Consequence Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 77 (3):231-246.
Benjamin Schnieder (2004). The Ability to Render Something False. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104 (3):295-303.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

54 ( #88,785 of 1,932,522 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #456,270 of 1,932,522 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.