Graduate studies at Western
Acta Analytica 17 (1):79-102 (2002)
|Abstract||Argument for fatalism attempts to prove that free choice is a logical or conceptual impossibility. The paper argues that the first two premises of the argument are sound: propositions are either true or false and they have their truth-value eternally. But the claim that from the fatalistic premises with the introduction of some innocent further premise dire consequences follow as regards to the possibility of free choice is false. The introduced premise, which establishes the connection between the first two premises (which are about the nature of propositions) and the concept of free choice is not innocent. It creates the impression that the truth of certain propositions can somehow determine the occurrence of certain events. But no proposition can have such an effect since the counterfactuals If proposition P were true, event E would happen does not say anything about determination. The argument for fatalism is, however, not a boring sophism. It does reveal something about the nature of propositional representation. It shows that each proposition represents necessarily the fact what it represents, i.e. it shows that propositions have their truth conditions non-contingently. But from this nothing follows as regards to the contingent nature of the facts represented. On the bases of the first two premises of the argument for fatalism we cannot infer to the impossibility of free choice. The argument for fatalism should not be interpreted as an attempt to prove on purely logical or conceptual grounds that we do not have the ability to influence future events by our choices. But it could be used to show something about the nature of propositional representation.|
|Keywords||Fatalism Free choice Contingency Time Propositional representation|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nicola Ciprotti (2012). Metaphysical Fatalism, in Five Steps. Grazer Philosophische Studien 86:35-54.
Steen Olaf Welding (1984). Die Struktur der Begründung Wissenschaftlicher Prognosen. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 15 (1):72-91.
Michael J. Cholbi (2003). Contingency and Divine Knowledge in Ockham. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (1):81-91.
Joseph Diekemper (2005). Logical Determinateness, Fixity, and the Symmetry of Time. Philosophical Papers 34 (1):1-24.
Susan Haack (1974). On a Theological Argument for Fatalism. Philosophical Quarterly 24 (95):156-159.
Anthony Brueckner (2000). On an Attempt to Demonstrate the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. Faith and Philosophy 17 (1):132-134.
Richard Gaskin (1998). Middle Knowledge, Fatalism and Comparative Similarity of Worlds. Religious Studies 34 (2):189-203.
Ned Markosian (1995). The Open Past. Philosophical Studies 79 (1):95 - 105.
Nikolaj Jang Pedersen (2008). From Metaphysical Pluralism to Alethic Pluralism? Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 39:201-208.
Xunwu Chen (2011). Crisis and Possibility: The Ethical Implication of Contingency. Asian Philosophy 21 (3):257 - 268.
Theodore Sider (2003). Reductive Theories of Modality. In Michael J. Loux & Dean W. Zimmerman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
Jesper Kallestrup (2008). Three Strands in Kripke's Argument Against the Identity Theory. Philosophy Compass 3 (6):1255-1280.
Alexander Pruss (2003). A Response to Almeida and Judisch. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 53 (2):65-72.
Michael Losonsky (1988). An Ontological Argument for Modal Realism. Grazer Philosophische Studien 31:165-177.
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads8 ( #131,868 of 739,474 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,474 )
How can I increase my downloads?