Philosophia 36 (1):67-86 (2008)
|Abstract||New Volitionalism is a name for certain widespread conception of the nature of intentional action. Some of the standard arguments for New Volitionalism, the so-called arguments from total failure, have even acquired the status of basic assumptions for many other kinds of philosophers. It is therefore of singular interest to investigate some of the most important arguments from total failure. This is what I propose to do in this paper. My aim is not be to demonstrate that these arguments are inconsistent or that total failure and naked tryings are metaphysically impossible. Rather, my aim is be to build a case against the possibility of naked, independently existing tryings, by questioning how well we understand the scenarios invoked in their favour. Thus, rather than attempting to present a definitive metaphysical refutation of New Volitionalism, I attempt to diminish or demolish its underlying motivation.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
G. Sereny (2011). How Do We Know That the Godel Sentence of a Consistent Theory Is True? Philosophia Mathematica 19 (1):47-73.
Stéphanie Ruphy (2005). Why Metaphysical Abstinence Should Prevail in the Debate on Reductionism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (2):105 – 121.
Jonathan Tallant (2010). Not a Total Failure. Philosophia 38 (4):795-810.
Theodore Sider (1991). Might Theory X Be a Theory of Diminishing Marginal Value? Analysis 51 (4):265 - 271.
Douglas W. Portmore (1999). Does the Total Principle Have Any Repugnant Implications? Ratio 12 (1):80–98.
Carl Schmitt (1999). Four Articles, 1931-1938. Plutarch Press.
Todd Jones (2003). The Failure of the Best Arguments Against Social Reduction (and What That Failure Doesn't Mean). Southern Journal of Philosophy 41 (4):547-581.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #49,547 of 549,017 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,272 of 549,017 )
How can I increase my downloads?