Reply to Huemer on the Consequence Argument
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 10692956 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Helen Beebee (0000-0001-7650-3622, autor correspondente) |
| Ano | 2002 |
| Volume | 111 |
| Fascículo | 2 |
| Páginas | 235-241 |
| Data de publicação | 2002-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Não |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | The Philosophical Review (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0031-8108 • E-ISSN: 1558-1470 |
| Editora | Duke University Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1215/00318108-111-2-235 |
| OpenAlex | W2059158475 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 3 |
| Referências citadas | 4 |
In a recent paper, Michael Huemer (2000) provides a new interpretation for 'N', the operator that occurs in Peter van Inwagen's Consequence Argument, 2 and argues that, given that interpretation, the Consequence Argument is sound.I have no quarrel with Huemer's claim that the Consequence Argument is valid.I shall argue instead that his defence of its premises -a defence that allegedly involves refuting David Lewis's (1981) response to van Inwagen -is unsuccessful.Following Huemer, let N S p = No matter what S does, p where (No matter what S does, p) = (p, and for each action, A, that S can perform, if S were to perform A, it would still be the case that p).(538) 'N S p' is Huemer's replacement for van Inwagen's 'Np', for which Huemer considers and rejects various alternative interpretations
Analytic philosophy · Argument (complex analysis) · Contemporary philosophy · Epistemology · General interest · Interpretation (philosophy) · Linguistics · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Free Will and Agency · Medicine · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science
| Obras citantes distintas | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 0,14 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2004 - 2022 (19) |
| Velocidade de citação | historical |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 3 |