Whose Argumentative Burden, which Incompatibilist Arguments?—Getting the Dialectic Right.

Kadri Vihvelin has recently argued that between compatibilists and incompatibilists, the incompatibilists have a greater dialectical burden than compatibilists. According to her, both must show that free will is possible, but beyond this the incompatibilists must also show that no deterministic worl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 88; no. 3; pp. 429 - 444
Autor principal: McKenna, Michael
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Taylor & Francis Ltd Sep2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=52237045&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 52237045
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00048402
        BHK
      jtl: Australasian Journal of Philosophy
      issn: 00048402
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Sep2010
      vid: 88
      iid: 3
      pid: 377
      pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd
    artinfo:
      ui:
        52237045
        10.1080/00048400903233811
      ppf: 429
      ppct: 15
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 129KB
      tig:
        atl: Whose Argumentative Burden, which Incompatibilist Arguments?—Getting the Dialectic Right.
      aug:
        au: McKenna, Michael
        affil: Florida State University
      su:
        Dialectic
        Vihvelin, Kadri
        Free will & determinism
        Determinism (Philosophy)
        Discourse ethics
        Logic
      sug:
        subj:
          Dialectic
          Vihvelin, Kadri
          Free will & determinism
          Determinism (Philosophy)
          Discourse ethics
          Logic
      ab: Kadri Vihvelin has recently argued that between compatibilists and incompatibilists, the incompatibilists have a greater dialectical burden than compatibilists. According to her, both must show that free will is possible, but beyond this the incompatibilists must also show that no deterministic worlds are free will worlds. Thus, according to Vihvelin, so long as it is established that free will is possible, all the compatibilist must do is show that the incompatibilists' arguments are ineffective. I resist Vihvelin's assessment of the dialectical burdens of compatibilists and incompatibilists, as well as her assessment of the best arguments for incompatibilism.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Australasian Journal of Philosophy is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Australasian Journal of Philosophy
      holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2010
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N