How necessary is the past? Reply to Campbell

Abstract Joe Campbell has identified an apparent flaw in van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument. It apparently derives a metaphysically necessary conclusion from what Campbell argues is a contingent premise: that the past is in some sense necessary. I criticise Campbell’s examples attempting to show that this is not the case (in the requisite sense) and suggest some directions along which an incompatibilist could reconstruct her argument so as to remain immune to Campbell’s worries
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
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: 5,705
External links This entry has no external links. Add one.
Through your library Only published papers are available at libraries

Similar books and articles
M. Coleman (2002). Taking Simmel Seriously in Evolutionary Epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):55-74.
Bruce Kuklick (2007). Comment on Campbell. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43 (2):382-385.
David M. Armstrong (1993). Reply to Campbell. In John Bacon, Keith Campbell & Lloyd Reinhardt (eds.), Ontology, Causality and Mind: Essays in Honour of D M Armstrong. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

18 ( #67,622 of 549,224 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #63,397 of 549,224 )

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.

Other forums