David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (2):295-310 (2013)
Metasemantic security arguments aim to show, on metasemantic grounds, that even if we were to discover that determinism is true, that wouldn't give us reason to think that people never act freely. Flew's  Paradigm Case Argument is one such argument; Heller's  Putnamian argument is another. In this paper I introduce a third which uses a metasemantic picture on which meanings are settled as though by an ideal interpreter. Metasemantic security arguments are widely thought discredited by van Inwagen's  Martian Manipulation objection. I argue that van Inwagen's objection, if right, can be parodied to undercut metasemantic arguments which aim to show that deliverances of physics do not tell us that no objects are solid. A diagnosis of where the parody objection breaks down against the pro-solidity argument is then used to resist the objection as applied to the Ideal Interpreter Argument. I go on to defend the argument from the charge that it relies on a ham-fisted version of interpretivism
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Torin Alter & Russell Daw (2001). Free Acts and Robot Cats. Philosophical Studies 102 (3):345-57.
Michael Devitt (1981). Designation. Columbia University Press.
Michael Devitt (1991). Naturalistic Representation. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (3):425-443.
John Martin Fischer & Mark Ravizza (1998). Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
Antony Flew (ed.) (1964). New Essays in Philosophical Theology. New York, Macmillan.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Lynne Rudder Baker (2008). The Irrelevance of the Consequence Argument. Analysis 68 (297):13–22.
Seth Shabo (2011). Why Free Will Remains a Mystery. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):105-125.
Yujin Nagasawa (2010). The Ontological Argument and the Devil. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (238):72-91.
George Djukic (2004). Do Four-Dimensionalists Have to Be Counterpart Theorists? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (2):292 – 311.
Alicia Finch (2013). On Behalf of the Consequence Argument: Time, Modality, and the Nature of Free Action. Philosophical Studies 163 (1):151-170.
Andrew M. Bailey (2012). Incompatibilism and the Past. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (2):351-376.
M. Eddon (2010). Three Arguments From Temporary Intrinsics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (3):605-619.
J. Westphal (2012). Is There a Modal Fallacy in van Inwagen's 'First Formal Argument'? Analysis 72 (1):36-41.
Yujin Nagasawa (2007). Millican on the Ontological Argument. Mind 116 (464):1027-1040.
Jason Turner (2009). The Incompatibility of Free Will and Naturalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (4):565-587.
Lara Buchak (2013). Free Acts and Chance: Why The Rollback Argument Fails. Philosophical Quarterly 63 (250):20-28.
Mitchell O. Stokes (2007). Van Inwagen and the Quine-Putnam Indispensability Argument. Erkenntnis 67 (3):439 - 453.
Yujin Nagasawa (2010). The Knowledge Argument and Epiphenomenalism. Erkenntnis 72 (1):37 - 56.
Thomas Metcalf (2005). Entailment and Ontological Arguments. Philo 8 (2):131-133.
E. J. Coffman (2011). Clarke's Defense of the Contrast Argument. Dialectica 65 (2):267-275.
Added to index2012-06-29
Total downloads37 ( #73,446 of 1,699,575 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #362,609 of 1,699,575 )
How can I increase my downloads?