Interdisciplinary research assumes that teams of highly specialized scientists develop new knowledge by bridging their respective horizons. Nurse educators preparing nursing doctoral students to conduct interdisciplinary research need insight into how members of interdisciplinary research teams experience knowledge horizons in these complex contexts. Based on the work of the philosopher Bernard Lonergan, this pilot study uses Transcendental Method for Research with Human Subjects to explore interdisciplinary researchers' experiences with and attitudes toward interdisciplinary research. Results reveal the overarching conceptual category of (...) “engaged interdisciplinary inquiry” which includes six themes: (i) valuing interdisciplinary engagement; (ii) direct engagement; (iii) interior engagement; (iv) disengagement; (v) facilitated engagement and (vi) engaged researcher development. Results also suggest engagement depends on vigorous “back and forth”, or dialogue, with self and others, and demonstrate the study method is fruitful for cognitive inquiry. This pilot supports expanded study to inform preparation for and conduct of interdisciplinary research involving nurses and raises important questions about how the trend toward interdisciplinary research affects nursing science. (shrink)

As the author repeats, this book is not a history of the concept of analysis but rather an interpretation of the transformation of analysis in the classical sense into analytic in the critical sense. Moreover, the work concentrates not on the concept of analysis itself but rather on the discourse about analysis prevailing in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. With this focus, the author devotes the greater part of this book to his discussion of what a dozen or so thinkers (...) spanning this period have written about analysis, an important concept with widely divergent meanings. The sorting-out of what analysis means in each thinker of this period seems to be a secondary concern of the author. His primary goal is to advance his interpretation that analysis, a wonderfully inventive power in the hands of seventeenth-century thinkers, suffers a "progressive weakening" in the hands of thinkers of the century following. In this sense, the work is more philosophical than historical. (shrink)

Feminist philosophers are right to criticize Hegel’s prejudices against women. In many of his works, Hegel reduces women to their physiology as means of explaining why they occupy a subordinate role in nature and in society. Such treatment seems arbitrary at best, for the gendering of roles disrupts Hegel’s dialectical approach to spirit without any meaningful gain. Despite this defect in Hegel’s work, what is positive in Hegelian social and political philosophy remains intact. In this paper I argue that the (...) sexist claims that Hegel makes about women are irrelevant to his theory of the family in the Philosophy of Right. Therein, Hegel outlines three components that are necessary for the completion of the family: marriage, property and assets, and the raising of children. Hegel also includes a description of the different roles occupied by family members and divides these roles along gender lines. Given the three components that are essential to the family, I argue that there is no necessary basis for familial roles to be divided by gender. (shrink)

This excellent volume consists of thirteen essays on the objections Descartes received in response to his Meditations, bracketed by a prologue by both editors and an epilogue by Marjorie Grene. The goal of this book is to further an understanding of these objections by discussing them in their historical and philosophical context, and in this it largely succeeds.

Nurses have moral obligations incurred by membership in the profession to participate knowingly in health policy advocacy. Many barriers have historically hindered nurses from realizing their potential to advance health policy. The contemporary political context sets additional challenges to policy work due to polarization and conflict. Nursing education can help nurses recognize their role in advancing health through political advocacy in a manner that is consistent with disciplinary knowledge and ethical responsibilities. In this paper, the authors describe an exemplar of (...) Elizabeth Barrett's “Power as Knowing Participation in Change” theory as a disciplinary lens within a doctoral nursing health policy course. Barrett (radically) emphasizes “power as freedom” instead of “power as control.” This approach is congruent with nursing disciplinary values and enhances awareness of personal freedom and building collaborative relationships in the policy process. The theory was used in concert with other traditional policy content and frameworks from nursing and other disciplines. We discuss the role of nursing ethics viewed as professional responsibility for policy action, an overview of Barrett's theory, and the design of the course. Four student reflections on how the course influenced their thinking about policy advocacy are included. While not specific to policymaking, Barrett's theory provides a disciplinary grounding to increase students' awareness of freedom and choices in political advocacy participation. Our experience suggests that Barrett's work can be fruitful for enhancing nurses' awareness of choices to participate in change across settings. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Art Education and the Emergence of Radical Art Movements in Egypt: The Surrealists and the Contemporary Arts Group, 1938–1951Patrick Kane (bio)So it wasn’t the aim of the artist to just toss out a work of art. A tradition of the exhibition of the natural, and its meaning was not that it fled from life, but that it had penetrated and plunged into reality. Its meaning was not a (...) prescription or plain exercise in the taste of the sublime, or harmony of forms and charming scenes; and its meaning was not as a decoration of life; it was in its expression of what life inspires in us to give back.—Henry Moore, as quoted by Ramses Yunan, in “The Aim of the Contemporary Artist”1In these crucial days of difficulty, the artists in this country live in tall aristocratic towers.... For this peasant has an art of his own that sustains him, and it is not that art of the educated class.—Kamil Al-Tilmisani (c. 1941–1942)By 1938, as the agrarian crisis in Egypt deepened, the Depression, food shortages, low wages, expropriations of crops, and forced rents opened a polemic among Egyptian intellectuals over the role of the state and the looming threat of fascism. With the dismissal of the government of Mustafa Al-Nahas at the end of 1937, the political turbulence underscored the weakening of the Wafd Party. Opponents of the old Wafdists and supporters of the monarchy resorted to openly fascist tactics, including the establishment of youth organizations and the Blue Shirts, the fascist front of the young Wafdists who modeled themselves on Mussolini’s Black Shirts. The serial crises of agrarian struggles and parliamentary stalemates between [End Page 95] nationalists and monarchists led to increasingly militant stances by the paramilitary fascist organization Misr Al-Fattah (Young Egypt) as a counter to the Muslim Brothers. When Mahmud Khalil resigned from the Wafd and assumed the presidency of the Senate in 1938, his ascension opened a new phase of struggle in politics through culture and the arts.2 In this context, caricatures and satirical sculptures of Khalil appeared in 1939 that parodied him as the icon of a “dictatorship of art.”3 Leading intellectuals from all political stances addressed these issues directly. The cultural journals were peppered with articles on the problems of everyday life and the material crises with such representative titles as ‘Abbas al-Aqqad’s “Food for the Rich,” in which he raised the problem of food shortages and inequity as an issue for reform.4 Within the year, articles in Al-Risala and Al-Thaqafa drew comparisons with French and Italian nineteenth-century landscapes as a model for the recognition of the countryside as a subject. In journalism and the arts, suffering became a part of the recognition of the everyday, as articles appeared on Millet’s nineteenth-century paintings of French peasants.As the war in Europe encroached into the cover pages of Egypt’s cultural journals, Zaki Muhammad Hasan wrote an essay for Al-Thaqafa entitled “The Angelus,” with a reproduction of the 1859 painting by Jean Francois Millet (1814–1874).5 Hasan wrote about Millet’s interest in the “the daily labors of the peasant” as a depiction of the conditions of French peasants. Hasan’s mention of Millet’s own peasant origins, and his listing of paintings of social conditions, including Les Glaneuses (The Gleaners), reflected a broadening interest in the artistic subject of the peasant and the rise of the peasant as artist. Although in Millet’s painting there is a prayer scene of a man and a woman in the fields that is generally regarded as the evening prayer with the sun setting, an Egyptian reader could link the prayer with the issue of workers taking breaks in the fields at a time when the issue of compensation of peasant farm workers was paramount.6 Hasan introduced “The Angelus” to his readers as a Catholic prayer in southern Europe offered at dawn, noon, and sunset and compared the origins of the prayer’s stanzas from the Gospel of Luke 1:28–31 with passages from the chapter on Maryam in the Quran... (shrink)

Consider the following principle: (LP) If an action is undetermined at a time t, then its happening rather than not happening at t would be a matter of chance or luck, and so it could not be a free and responsible action. This principle (which we may call the luck principle, or simply LP) is false, as I shall explain shortly. Yet it seems true.

The Routley-Meyer relational semantics for relevant logics is extended to give a sound and complete model theory for many propositionally quantified relevant logics (and some non-relevant ones). This involves a restriction on which sets of worlds are admissible as propositions, and an interpretation of propositional quantification that makes ∀ pA true when there is some true admissible proposition that entails all p -instantiations of A . It is also shown that without the admissibility qualification many of the systems considered are (...) semantically incomplete, including all those that are sub-logics of the quantified version of Anderson and Belnap’s system E of entailment, extended by the mingle axiom and the Ackermann constant t . The incompleteness proof involves an algebraic semantics based on atomless complete Boolean algebras. (shrink)

I will argue that the Kane-Widerker objection to Frankfurt examples is much weaker than is generally recognized. The Kane-Widerker objection holds that proponents of Frankfurt examples beg the question against incompatibilist accounts of free and responsible action by constructing examples that tacitly assume a compatibilist account of moral responsibility; that is, they assume that one can have non-derivative responsibility for choices that were not undetermined prior to their occurrence. The notion of an event, E, being ‘undetermined prior to (...) its occurrence’ is ambiguous. It can mean either (1) with respect to each time t prior to E’s occurrence, it is not the case that at t E’s occurrence is determined to take place, or it can mean (2) with respect to the whole collection of times prior to E’s occurrence, E’s occurrence is not determined to take place. Kane’s argument shows that (under certain constraints) if a choice is to be undetermined (in the second sense) prior to its occurrence, then a prior-sign Frankfurt example cannot be successful. But he fails to show that prior-sign Frankfurt examples cannot be constructed in which the choice is undetermined (in the first sense) prior to its occurrence, and he would need to do so in order to sustain his charge that those using Frankfurt examples beg the question against traditional incompatibilist accounts of responsibility. Widerker’s argument avoids the above problem, but at the cost of only applying to a rather restricted set of Frankfurt examples. (shrink)

Muhyiddîn el-Kâfiyecî (öl. 879/1474), on beşinci yüzyıl Saruhanoğulları, Osmanlı ve Memlüklü alimlerindendir. Yüzden çok eser yazmıştır. Makale Kâfiyeci’nin hayatı ve eserlerini araştırır. Yazdığı eserler, onun, Arap dili, Arap grameri, belagat, tarih metodolojisi, hadis ve usulü, tefsir ve usulü, fıkıh ve usulü, kelâm, tasavvuf, dil felsefesi, semantik, metafizik meseleler, geometri, optik ve astronomi gibi konularda uzmanlaştığını göstermektedir. Kâfiyeci en önemli eserlerini Arap dili ve mantık sahalarında yazmıştır. Eserleri içerisinde yaptığı linguistik çözümlemeler, onun yetkin bir dil alimi olduğunu göstermektedir. Kâfiyeci eserlerini yazarken (...) linguistik, mantıki, ilmi ve felsefi bir yöntem kullanmıştır. Araştırmada, Kâfiyeci’nin, hayatı boyunca en az yüz on iki eser yazdığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu eserlerden, doksan altısının adı belirlenmiştir. Kâfiyeci’nin eserleri konularına göre şöylece tasnif edilebilir: Arap Dili ve Dil Felsefesi: Şerḥu’1-i‘râb ‘an Ḳavâ‘idi’l-i‘râb, el-Unmûzec fî baḥsi’l-isti‘âre, Şerḥu’l-isti‘âre, Risâle fî Kâne Zeydun Ḳâimen, Risâle fî Zeydun Ḳâimun, Risâle fi’l-mebâḥisi’l-mute‘alliḳa bi Emmâ, Nuzhetu’l-mu‘rib fi’l-Meşrıḳ ve’l-Maġrib, Nuzhetu’l-aṣhâb fî mes’eleti’l-kuhl, Remzu’l-esrâr, en-Niseb li ehli’l-edeb, el-İşrâḳ fî meratibi’ṭ-ṭıbâk, Ḥâşiye ‘ale’l-Muṭavvel, Risâle fî “men” eş-şartiyye. Mantık: et-Terġîb fî keşfi rumûzi’t-Tehẕîb. Tarih Metodolojisi: el-Muḫtaṣaru’l-mufîd fî ‘ilmi’t-târîḫ, en-Naṣru’l-ḳâhir ve’l-fetḥu’ẓ-ẓâhir. Akâid ve Kelâm: Envâru’ṣ-Ṣa ‘âde, Şerḥu’l-‘Aḳâidi’l-‘Aḍuḍiyye, Hâşiye ‘alâ Şerḥi’l-‘Aḳâidi’l-‘Aḍuḍiyye, Şerḥu’l-Mevâḳıf, Telḫîsu Şerḥi’l-Mevâḳıf, el-Hidâye li beyâni’l-ḫalḳ ve’t-tekvîn, Risâle fî beyâni’l-mu‘cizât, Nehru’l-hayât fî ma‘rifeti’ṣ-ṣıfât, ‘İlmu’l-kumûn ve’l-burûz, Risâle fî Kavlihi Teâlâ “Lâ ye’menu mekr Allâhi ille’l-kavmu’l-hâsirûn” [A‘râf, 7/99]. Kur’ân, Kırâat ve Tefsir Bilimleri: Şerḥu’l-İsti‘âẕe ve’l-Besmele, Ḥâşiye ‘ale’l-Keşşâf, Şerḥ fî muḥâkemât beyne’l-mutekellimîn ‘ale’l-Keşşâf, Ḥâşiye ‘alâ Tefsîri’l-Beyḍâvî, eẓ-Ẓafer ve’l-ḫalâṣ, et-Teysîr fî ḳavâ‘idi ‘ilmi’t-tefsîr, Risâle fî ‘ilmi’t-tefsîr ve vucûhi’l-ḳırâat, Keşfu’n-niḳâb li’l-aṣḥâb ve’l-aḥıbbe fî ‘icâzi’l-Ḳur’ân, et-Temhîd fî şerḥi’t-taḥmîd, Ḳarâru’l-vecd fi şerḥi’l-ḥamd, el-İlmâ‘ bi ifâdeti Lev li’l-imtinâ‘ fî ḳavlihi Te‘âlâ “Lev kâne fîhimâ âlihetun illallâh le fesedetâ” [Enbiyâ, 21/22], Cevâb ‘an suâl fî ḳavlihi Te‘âlâ “Ve’n-Necmi iẕâ hevâ” [Necm, 62/1], Nuzhetu’l-iḫvân fî tefsi¬ri ḳavlihi Te‘âlâ “Yâ Lûṭu İnnâ Rusülü Rabbike” [Hûd, 11/81], Neylu’l-merâm fi tefsîri ḳavlihi Te‘âlâ “Ve Mâ Rabbuke bi Ẓallâm” [Fussilet, 41/46], el-Bişâra fî ḳavlihi Te‘âlâ “Fe’tû bi sûratin min mislih” [Bakara, 2/23], Nuzhetu’l-aṣḥâb, el-Ġurratu’l-vâḍıḥa fî tefsîri’l-Fâtiḥa, Zeḫîratu’l-ḳaṣr fî tefsiri Sûrati’l-‘Aṣr. Hadis Bilimleri: Muḫtaṣar fî ‘ulûmi’l-ḥadîs, Menbe‘u’d-durer fî ‘ilmi’l-eser, Ḫulâṣatu’l-‘aḳvâl fî ḥadîsi “İnneme’l-a‘mâlu bi’n-niyyât”. Fıkıh, Usûl ve Fetva: Risale fî mesʹeleti’l-istisnâʹ, Ḥâşiye ‘ala şerḥi’l-Hidâye, Vecîzu’n-niẓâm fî ıẓhâri mevâridi’l-aḥkâm, el-Feraḥ ve’s-surûr fî beyâni’l-meẕâhîbi’l-erba‘ati fi’l-‘uṣûr, Neşâtu’ṣ-ṣudûr fî şerḥi Kitâbi’l-Feraḥ ve’s-surûr, et-Taḥrîr lima zukira fi’d-Dureri’l-manẓûm, Muhâveratu’l-fıḳhiyye, Risâle fi’stiḳbâli’l-Ḳıble, Telḫîṣu’l-Câmi‘i’l-kebîr ve’l-Mecma‘, Kitâbu’t-Teẕkira/Risâle fi’l-vaḳf, Ravḍatu’ẓ-ẓahira en-nâfi‘a fî’d-Dünya ve’l-Âḫira, Kitâbu’l-muḫtasar fî ‘ilmi’l-istibdâl, er-Remz fî ‘ilmi'l-istibdâl, el-Kâfî fî beyâni’ṣ-ṣaffi’ṭ-ṭavîli’l-mustaḳîm, Risâle fî ṭabaḳâti’l-butûn li beyâni’l-vaḳf ‘alâ evlâdi’l-evlâd, el-İḥkâm fî ma‘rifeti’l-Eymân ve’l-aḥkâm, Ferâid baḥri’l-fevâiḍ. Siyasetname, Adap ve Ahlak: Niẓâmu ḳalâidi’l-‘ıḳyân, Seyfu’l-kuḍât ‘ale’l-buġât, Seyfu’l-mulûk ve’l-ḥukkâm el-murşid lehum ilâ sebîli’1-Haḳḳ ve’1-aḥkâm, Seyfu’l-ḥaḳḳ ve’n-nuṣra ‘alâ riḳâbı ehli’l-baġy ve’l-fitne, ed-Durratu’l-‘âliyetu’l-ġâliye. Metafizik, Tasavvuf ve Felsefe: el-Kâfî eş-şâfî, Kitâbu’r-ravḥ fî ‘ilmi’r-rûḥ, Kitabu’r-raḥme fî beyânı aḥvâli ‘alemi’l-berzâḫ, en-Nuzhe fî ravḍati’r-rûḥ ve’n-nefs, Neşâtu’l-bişâra bi’l-işâra fî kıbleti’l-ervâh, Ḳıbletu’l-ervâḥ fi’t-taṣavvuf, Nuzhetu’l-ervâḥ ve ġıbṭatu’l-eşbâḥ fi’t-taṣavvuf, Menâzilu’l-ervâḥ fi’t-taṣavvuf, ‘Ikdu’l-ferâid min baḥri’l-fevâiḍ fî şerḥi Esmâillâhi’l-husnâ, el-Unsu’1-enîs fî ma‘rifeti şeʹni’n-nefsi’n-nefîs. Siyer, İrşat ve Fazâil: Zeynu’l-feraḥ bi mîlâdi’n-Nebî (s.a.v.), Muḫtasar fî ‘ilmi’l-irşâd, Risâle fi’l-maḥabbe, Ḳalâidu’l-‘ıḳyân fî baḥri faḍâili Raceb ve Şa‘bân: Fen Bilimleri: Ḥallu’l-işkâl fî mebâhisi’l-eşkâl fi’l-hendese, Şerḥu’l-caġmînî fi’l-heyʹe, er-Remz fî ‘ilmi’l-uṣturlâb. Diğer Eserleri: Remzu’l-ḫıṭâb bi raşḥi’l-‘ıyâb, Benâtu’l-efkâr fî şeʹni’l-‘i‘tibâr, Keşfu’l-vucûhi’l-ḥasene’l-mestûra bi’n-niḳâb li faḍlillâhi’l-Cevâdi’l-Vehhâb, el-Keşf ‘an şerafi Ehli’l-Beyti’l-kirâm li efḍali’r-rusuli ve’l-enâm, ‘Iḳdu’l-ferâid min taḥrîri’l-fevâid, Risâle mustaḳılle bi ‘ilmi’n-nefs ve vucûhi’l-ḳırâa, Cevâbu’l-enẓâr, Ḥusnu’l-ḫıtâm li’l-merâmi min haẕa’l-kelâm, Ḫıtâmu’l-misk. (shrink)

I assess Robert Kane's view that global Frankfurt-type cases don't show that freedom to do otherwise is never required for moral responsibility. I first adumbrate Kane's indeterminist account of free will.This will help us grasp Kane's notion of ultimate responsibility, and his claim that in a global Frankfurt-type case, the counterfactual intervener could not control all of the relevant agent's actions in the Frankfurt manner, and some of those actions would be such that the agent could have (...) done otherwise. Appealing to considerations of responsibility and luck, I then show that the global cases survive Kane's objections. (shrink)

The idea that incompatibilism is intuitive is one of the key motivators for incompatibilism. Not surprisingly, then philosophers who defend incompatibilism often claim that incompatibilism is the natural, commonsense view about free will and moral responsibility (e.g., Pereboom 2001, Kane Journal of Philosophy 96:217–240 1999, Strawson 1986). And a number of recent studies find that people give apparently incompatibilist responses in vignette studies. When participants are presented with a description of a causal deterministic universe, they tend to deny that (...) people are morally responsible in that universe. Although this suggests that people are intuitive incompatibilists, Eddy Nahmias and Dylan Murray, in a recent series of important papers, have developed an important challenge to this interpretation. They argue that people confuse determinism with bypassing, the idea that one’s mental states lack causal efficacy. Murray and Nahmias present new experiments that seem to confirm the bypassing hypothesis. In this paper, we use structural equation modeling to re-examine the issue. We find support instead for an incompatibilist explanation of the bypassing results, i.e., incompatibilist judgments seem to cause bypassing judgments. We hypothesize that this phenomenon occurs because people think of decisions as essentially indeterministic; thus, when confronted with a description of determinism they tend to think that decisions do not even occur. We provide evidence for this in three subsequent studies which show that many participants deny that people make decisions in a deterministic universe; by contrast, most participants tend to allow that people add numbers in a deterministic universe. Together, these studies suggest that bypassing results don’t reflect a confusion, but rather the depth of the incompatibilist intuition. (shrink)

Pas një hyrjeje për karakteristikat e rajonit të përkufizuar si zonë kulturore dhe për përballjen e nacionalizmave serb dhe shqiptar, që nuk kanë humbur asnjë rast për t'u acaruar në çdo moment, do të përpiqem të integroj në këtë artikull qasjen antropologjike në lidhje me konsideratat historike dhe gjeopolitike mbi territorin dhe kulturën shqiptare. Për të kuptuar dukuritë aktuale, një çështje më duket thelbësore: të dihet që nëse trashëgimia historike dhe identitetet kulturore, nëse nuk justifikojnë, të paktën shpjegojnë, sadopak në (...) mënyrë të arsyeshme, konfliktet etnike dhe nacionalizmin apo, në të kundërt, shërbejnë thjesht për të përcaktuar dhe, në rastin më të mirë, për të racionalizuar marrëdhëniet ndëretnike midis grupeve sociale. (shrink)

One reason that many of the philosophical debates about free will might seem intractable is that di erent participants in those debates use various terms in ways that not only don't line up, but might even contradict each other. For instance, it is widely accepted to understand libertarianism as\the conjunction of incompatibilism [the thesis that free will is incompatible with the truth of determinism] and the thesis that we have free will" (van Inwagen (1983), 13f; see also Kane (2001), (...) 17; Pereboom (2006), xiv). However, for van Inwagen's later reservations about the use of the term `libertarianism', see van Inwagen (2008), relevant pages). This makes perplexing a number of views that have the name `libertarian compatibilism' (see Vihvelin (2000) and Arvan (2013)) as on the standard use of the terms involved, the name appears to involve a contradiction. Even the meaning and usage of the term `free will' is itself contested. Manuel Vargas writes that \`free will' is a term of both ordinary and technical discourse" (Vargas (2013), 325). However, it is not clear if the ordinary use of the term always tracks the technical use. But in an in uential paper on \How to Think about About the Problem of Free Will," Peter van Inwagen claims that \the phrase `free will' . . . hardly exists except as a philosophical term of art. Its non- philosophical uses are pretty much con ned to the phrase `of his/her own free will' which means `uncoerced"' (van Inwagen (2008), 320 footnote 1). To many of us, a look at the philosophical and literatures of the past millennium suggest a use that need not be a technical notion, even if it is often used in a technical way. No matter how this debate about the `ordinary use' of the phrase turns out, recognizing that `free will' gets used in di erent ways and being careful in such usage is important in order to avoid what Chalmers has called `merely verbal disputes' (Chalmers (2011)). For this reason, we want to be very clear in how we understand and de ne free will. There seem to be at least two di erent fundamental notions of what free will is in the contemporary literature. The rst of these, which seems to have garnered the most attention in the last century, works under the assumption that for a person to rightly be said to have free will, she must have the ability 1 to do otherwise than what she does, in fact, do. Under this view I could be said to have freely chosen to drive to work only if I also could have freely chosen, for example, to bike to work or to skip work altogether. This approach to free will is referred to as a `leeway-based approach' (cite my book) or an `alternative- possiblities approach' (see Sartorio (2016).) In contrast, a smaller percentage of the extant literature focuses primarily on the issues of `source,' `ultimacy,' and `origination'. This second approach doesn't focus immediately on the presence or absence of alternative possibilities. On this approach, I freely choose to drive to work only if I am the source of my choice and there is nothing outside of me from which the choice is ultimately derived. In what follows, we refer to the rst of these conceptions|the conception that free will is primarily a matter of having alternative possibilities|as the `leeway- based' conception. Similarly, we will refer to the second of these conceptions| that free will is primarily a matter of our being the source of our choices in a particular way|as the `sourcehood' conception. (John Fischer and Carolina Sartorio refers to sourcehood views as `actual sequence' views; see Fischer (2006) and Sartorio (2016)). Both of these notions can be seen in the following passage taken from Robert Kane: We believe we have free will when we view ourselves as agents ca- pable of in uencing the world in various ways. Open alternatives, or alternative possibilities, seem to lie before us. We reason and deliberate among them and choose. We feel (1) it is `up to us' what we choose and how we act; and this means we could have chosen or acted otherwise. As Aristotle noted: when acting is `up to us,' so is not acting. This `up-to-us-ness' also suggests (2) the ultimate control of our actions lies in us and not outside us in factors beyond our control (Kane (2005), 6). In the next two sections, I look in greater detail at each of these two approaches to the nature of free will, and how they each seek to approach what it means for an action to be `up to us'. I also show how the di erences between these two conceptions cut across the debate about what Kane refers to as the Com- patibility Question: \Is free will compatible with determinism?" (Kane (1996), 13). Along the way, I also brie y point out a number of ways how which of these conceptions is at work shapes how one engages various arguments and other issues regarding. (shrink)

This article articulates and defends an indeterministic weightings model of libertarian free will. It begins by defining the conception of free will at issue and then goes on to present versions of the luck objection which is often made against theories of LFW. It is argued that the sort of indeterministic weightings model of LFW which has been defended in the recent literature by Storrs McCall and E.J. Lowe and John Lemos has the resources to answer such luck objections while (...) possessing virtues which some other libertarian views lack. According to the indeterministic weightings model of LFW, in making undetermined free-willed choices between two courses of action, A or B, the reasons for choosing each option don’t come with pre-established evaluative weights. During the process of deliberation, the agent assigns weight in an undetermined way to the reasons for each option and this typically leads to the choice of the option that has been assigned a greater value. In the paper, it is not only argued that this theory can resolve worries about luck but also that the view has virtues which certain other libertarian views lack, as such the view is contrasted with the modest libertarian models of LFW from Daniel Dennett and Alfred Mele as well as Robert Kane’s view. (shrink)

Libertarian theories of freedom and responsibility face a worry about luck: if an action is undetermined, the action cannot be legitimately attributed to the agent; instead the action is a matter of luck, and so the agent is not responsible for the action. Robert Kane defends libertarianism by appealing to self-forming actions. These actions are undetermined because the agent is attempting to act on two conflicting motives, but the agent is responsible for the outcome if she is responsible for (...) having those motives. If the agent “endorsed” both motives in earlier SFAs, Kane argues that we can hold the agent responsible for both motives, and hence responsible for the later SFA. We will further develop others’ arguments that Kane’s appeal to earlier SFAs to explain responsibility for a later SFA is unsatisfactory. We then raise a second objection to Kane’s use of SFAs. On one formulation of an SFA, the agent does three things: she exerts two efforts of will to make opposing choices, and she also acts on one of them. On another formulation of an SFA, the agent does just two things: she exerts two efforts of will to make opposing choices. One of those efforts turns out to be successful, but that success doesn’t require any further intervention from the agent. We distinguish two worries involving luck, a problem of resultant luck and a problem of constitutive luck, and show that neither model of SFAs solves both problems. (shrink)

With the success of cognitive science's interdisciplinary approach to studying the mind, many theorists have taken up the strategy of appealing to science to address long standing disputes about metaphysics and the mind. In a recent case in point, philosophers and psychologists, including Robert Kane, Daniel C. Dennett, and Daniel M. Wegner, are exploring how science can be brought to bear on the debate about the problem of free will. I attempt to clarify the current debate by considering how (...) empirical research can be useful. I argue that empirical findings don't apply to one basic dimension of the problem, namely the dispute between compatibilism and incompatibilism. However, I show that empirical research can provide constraints in connection with another fundamental dimension, namely the dispute between libertarianism, which claims that indeterminacy is, in certain contexts, sufficient for freedom, and hard determinism and compatibilism, which deny this. I argue that the source of the most powerful constraint is psychological research into the accuracy of introspection. (shrink)

Books reviewed:Kenneth J. Howell, God's Two Books: Copernican Cosmology and Biblical Interpretation in Early Modern ScienceRichard A. Horsley and Neil Asher Silberman, The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient WorldJ. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John Sarah Coakley, Re‐thinking Gregory of Nyssa Andrew Jotischky, The Carmelites and Antiquity: Mendicants and their Pasts in the Middle AgesTerryl N. Kinder, Cistercian Europe: Architecture of ContemplationM. G. Snape, English Episcopal Acta, 24: Durham 1153–1195Gillian R. (...) Knight, The Correspondence between Peter the Venerable and Bernard of Clairvaux: a Semantic and Structural AnalysisRichard Rex, The LollardsKathleen Kamerick, Popular Piety and Art in the Late Middle Ages: Image Worship and Idolatry in England, 1350–1500Norman Housley, Religious Warfare in Europe, 1400–1536Anthony Levi, Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual GenesisAnne T. Thayer, Penitence, Preaching and the Coming of the ReformationMarjo Kaartinen, Religious Life and English Culture in the ReformationAnne Dillon, The Construction of Martyrdom in the English Catholic CommunityCharles Libois SJ, Monumenta Proximi‐Orientis. V. Égypte Charles Libois SJ, Monumenta Proximi‐Orientis. VI. Égypte Michael Davies, Graceful Reading: Theology and Narrative in the Works of John BunyanDavid Womersley, Gibbon and the ‘Watchmen of the Holy City’. The Historian and his Reputation, 1776–1815Anthony C. Thiselton, A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of ReligionDavid Naugle, Worldview: The History of a ConceptRobert Kane, Free Will Tamar Szabo Gendler and James Hawthorne, Conceivability and PossibilitySimon Critchley, On Humour Gerard J. Pendrick, Antiphon the Sophist: The FragmentsA. A. Long, Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to LifeVictor Nuovo, John Locke: Writings on ReligionTerry Pinkard, German Philosophy 1760–1860: The Legacy of IdealismBrian Shanley, The Thomist TraditionGianni Vattimo, Nietzsche: An IntroductionAmy Laura Hall, Kierkegaard and the Treachery of LovePeter V. Zima, Deconstruction and Critical TheoryL. Gormally, Culture of Life – Culture of DeathMark E. Graham, Joseph Fuchs on Natural Law Norman M. Ford, The Prenatal Person. Ethics from Conception to BirthOnora O'Neill, Autonomy and Trust in BioethicsEllen Frankel Paul, Fred D.Miller Jr. and Jeffrey Paul, Should Differences in Income and Wealth Matter? (shrink)

Mongolian philosophy in the post-communism period.

Treatise on Mimamsa philosophy by Devanātha Ṭhākura, b. 1490.

Collection of articles on philosophy of social sciences; Shīʻah.

کتاب حاضر تقریری از درسهای استاد محمد سند است که به زبان عربی بیان گردیده و با اضافات تکمیلی به زبان فارسی تحریر شده است.

The title of T. J. Mawson's article was incorrectly given as “God's creation of mortality” on the Contents page and cover. The publishers would like to apologise to the author and their readers for this error.

I Agree with R. G. Austin, who in his recent paper, 107 ff.) showed that Virgil did not write this proem to the Aeneid, and suggested that it was produced in the first half of the first century, perhaps prompted by the problem mentioned by Servius on A. I. I: ‘multi varie disserunt cur ab armis Vergilius coeperit.’ I wish here to comment briefly on the content of the lines. graciliqui... carmen refers to the writing of the Eclogues. As Austin (...) points out, Virgil has gracilis only in E. 10. 70 ff., the conclusion of the whole of the Eclogues:Haec sat erit, divae, vestrum cecinisse poetam,dum sedet et gracili fiscellam texit hibisco,Pierides…. (shrink)