Van Inwagen's consequence argument

Philosophical Review 109 (4):525-544 (2000)
Abstract
Peter van Inwagen’s argument for incompatibilism uses a sentential operator, “N”, which can be read as “No one has any choice about the fact that . . . .” I show that, given van Inwagen’s understanding of the notion of having a choice, the argument is invalid. However, a different interpretation of “N” can be given, such that the argument is clearly valid, the premises remain highly plausible, and the conclusion implies that free will is incompatible with determinism.
Keywords Consequence  Determinism  Free Will  Incompatibility  Metaphysics  Possible World  Van Inwagen, P
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 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: 11,005
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.

Citations of this work BETA
Peter A. Graham (2010). Against the Mind Argument. Philosophical Studies 148 (2):273 - 294.
Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

92 ( #12,876 of 1,101,125 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #177,118 of 1,101,125 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


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