David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 164 (3):829-844 (2013)
In the literature on free will, fatalism, and determinism, a distinction is commonly made between temporally intrinsic (‘hard’) and temporally relational (‘soft’) facts at times; determinism, for instance, is the thesis that the temporally intrinsic state of the world at some given past time, together with the laws, entails a unique future (relative to that time). Further, it is commonly supposed by incompatibilists that only the ‘hard facts’ about the past are fixed and beyond our control, whereas the ‘soft facts’ about the past needn’t be. A substantial literature arose in connection with this distinction, though no consensus emerged as to the proper way to analyze it. It is time, I believe, to revisit these issues. The central claim of this paper is that the attempts to analyze the hard/soft fact distinction got off on fundamentally the wrong track. The crucial feature of soft facts is that they (in some sense) depend on the future. Following recent work on the notion of dependence, however, I argue that the literature on the soft/hard distinction has failed to capture the sense of dependence at stake. This is because such attempts have tried to capture softness in terms of purely modal notions like entailment and necessitation. As I hope to show, however, such notions cannot capture the sort of asymmetrical dependence relevant to soft facthood. Arguing for this claim is the first goal of this paper. My second goal is to gesture towards what an adequate account of soft facthood will really look like.
|Keywords||Free will Determinism Ontological dependence Foreknowledge Ockhamism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Jonathan Schaffer (2009). On What Grounds What. In David Manley, David J. Chalmers & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press 347-383.
Carl Ginet (1990). On Action. Cambridge University Press.
Fabrice Correia (2005). Existential Dependence and Cognate Notions. Philosophia Verlag.
Rae Langton & David Lewis (1998). Defining 'Intrinsic'. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (2):333-345.
Citations of this work BETA
Philip Swenson (forthcoming). Ability, Foreknowledge, and Explanatory Dependence. Australasian Journal of Philosophy:1-14.
John Martin Fischer & Neal A. Tognazzini (2014). Omniscience, Freedom, and Dependence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (2):346-367.
Yishai Cohen (2015). Molinists Cannot Endorse the Consequence Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 77 (3):231-246.
Patrick Todd (2014). Against Limited Foreknowledge. Philosophia 42 (2):523-538.
Raphael van Riel (2014). Prophets Against Ockhamism. Or: Why the Hard Fact/Soft Fact Distinction is Irrelevant to the Problem of Foreknowledge. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 75 (2):119-135.
Similar books and articles
David Widerker (2002). Why God's Beliefs Are Not Hard-Type Soft Facts. Religious Studies 38 (1):77-88.
John R. Shook (2006). God's Justified Knowledge and the Hard-Soft Fact Distinction. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 8:69-73.
Nicola Ciprotti & Tommaso Piazza (2013). Alethic Determinism. Or: How to Make Free Will Inconsistent with Timeless Truth. Logique and Analyse 56 (221):85-99.
William Lane Craig (1986). Temporal Necessity; Hard Facts/Soft Facts. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 20 (2/3):65 - 91.
Gerald K. Harrison (2010). A Challenge for Soft Line Replies to Manipulation Cases. Philosophia 38 (3):555-568.
John Martin Fischer (1986). Hard-Type Soft Facts. Philosophical Review 95 (4):591-601.
Eduardo H. Flichman (1995). Hard and Soft Accidental Uniformities. Philosophy of Science 62 (1):31-43.
Joshua Hoffman & Gary Rosenkrantz (1984). Hard and Soft Facts. Philosophical Review 93 (3):419-434.
Joshua Hoffman & Gary Rosenkrantz (1984). ``Hard and Soft Facts&Quot. Philosophical Review 93:419-434.
Andreas Kemmerling (2003). Belief Ascription: Objective Sentences and Soft Facts. Facta Philosophica 5 (2):203-222.
Eric T. Olson (2006). Imperfect Identity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (2):247–264.
Manuel de Pinedo (2004). Truth Matters: Normativity in Thought and Knowledge. Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 19 (2):137-154.
David Widerker (1989). Two Fallacious Objections to Adams' Soft/Hard Fact Distinction. Philosophical Studies 57 (1):103 - 107.
Gary Watson (1999). Soft Libertarianism and Hard Compatibilism. Journal of Ethics 3 (4):351-365.
Added to index2012-04-02
Total downloads118 ( #30,356 of 1,790,229 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #105,905 of 1,790,229 )
How can I increase my downloads?