• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Freedom and process: Using process accounts from Dewey and Whitehead to shed light on the contemporary free will debate.
【24h】

Freedom and process: Using process accounts from Dewey and Whitehead to shed light on the contemporary free will debate.

机译：自由与程序：利用杜威（Dewey）和怀特海德（Whitehead）的程序帐户来阐明当代的自由意志辩论。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Both Hilary Bok, in "Freedom and Practical Reason," and Robert Kane, in "Responsibility, Luck, and Chance: Reflections on Free Will and Indeterminism," make at least implicit use of process-based accounts of deliberation to establish their positions. But Bok is a compatibilist while Kane is a libertarian---the usefulness of the notion of process to opposing sides of the contemporary free will debate suggests that it might be this notion that is doing the work for Bok and Kane rather than elements specific to their separate doctrines. At the very least it suggests that an exploration of process will offer a better understanding of the interplay between compatibilism and libertarianism in the free will debate.;In this thesis, I discuss the process-based accounts of John Dewey and A. N. Whitehead---primarily from Dewey's Human Nature and Conduct and Whitehead's Process and Reality---in an effort to bring out features of such accounts that are relevant to the issues of free will and human action. Following focused discussions of Dewey and Whitehead I explore how their specific accounts bear upon the positions of Bok and Kane in their aforementioned articles, and conclude that Dewey and Whitehead would reject both the compatibilist and libertarian positions, taking up something of a middle ground between the two views. I then end the thesis by exploring how a more general process account of human action bears upon Bok and Kane, concluding that it is possible to reconcile their views with such a general account with only some reinterpretation and restriction of their positions. In general, I conclude that process-based accounts of human action favour neither compatibilist nor libertarian positions, but rather a mixture or middle ground between the two.
机译：希拉里•博克（Hilary Bok）在“自由与实践理性”中，罗伯特•凯恩（Robert Kane）在“责任，运气和机会：对自由意志和不确定性的思考”中，至少都隐含地使用基于过程的审议来确立自己的立场。但是博克是一个兼容主义者，而凯恩则是一个自由主义者-过程观念对当代自由意志的对立面的有用性表明，这一观念可能是为博克和凯恩所做的工作，而不是特定于他们各自的学说。至少它表明，对过程的探索将在自由意志辩论中更好地理解相容性和自由主义之间的相互作用。在本论文中，我将讨论约翰·杜威和安·怀特黑德的基于过程的论述---主要是从杜威的《人的本质与行为》和怀特海的《过程与现实》中提取出来的，目的是揭示这种与自由意志和人类行为问题有关的特征。在对杜威和怀特海的集中讨论之后，我探索了他们的具体说法如何影响博克和凯恩在上述文章中的立场，并得出结论，杜威和怀特黑德将同时拒绝相容主义者和自由主义者的立场，在两者之间占据了中间立场。两种看法。然后，我将通过探讨人类行为的更一般的过程解释来结束博克和凯恩的结论，最后得出结论，可以通过仅对他们的立场进行一些重新解释和限制来使他们的观点与这种一般解释相一致。总的来说，我得出的结论是，基于过程的人类行为描述既不支持相容主义者也不支持自由主义者的立场，而是两者之间的混合或中间立场。

著录项

  • 作者

    Gelok, Ryan Adrian.;

  • 作者单位

    Queen's University (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 Queen's University (Canada).;
  • 学科 Philosophy.
  • 学位 M.A.
  • 年度 2009
  • 页码 80 p.
  • 总页数 80
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 哲学理论;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:38:26

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号