Skip to main content
Log in

Explanatory priority and independence: On an argument against middle knowledge

  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

A Molinist should not embrace the independence thesis. He also can defend the thesis that counterfactuals of freedom depend on a counterfactual act. Although such a move may seem illicit in the sense thatexplanandum andexplanans presuppose each other, I defend the view that counterfactuals of freedom are very deeply embedded in our metaphysics and we cannot therefore satisfactorily explain them with the help of other devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dekker, E. Explanatory priority and independence: On an argument against middle knowledge. SOPHIA 38, 1–14 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02786329

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02786329

Keywords

Navigation