This is 's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following 's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Are any of you familiar with good work (either historical or contemporary) from a non-western perspective on free will? For example, work in African, Indian, or Chinese philosophy? I get the impression that this topic is primarily one that arrises in the West (thank you Augustine). But in case I'm... Continue reading
Posted Jul 17, 2013 at Flickers of Freedom
I'm running a small writing retreat and workshop on divine freedom; details here. Continue reading
Posted Oct 26, 2011 at Flickers of Freedom
Posted Oct 26, 2011 at Flickers of Freedom
I'm in the process of booking volunteers for the Pacific APA and, as usual, there will be a number of FW/MR papers. There are papers on: Frankfurt cases the new dispositionalism revisionism tracing revisionism If you're interested in chairing or commenting, send me an email (kevin.timpe at gmail.com) indicated your... Continue reading
Posted Oct 7, 2011 at Flickers of Freedom
Call for papers for a special issue of Philosophical Exploration on Basic Desert: http://www.maureensie.info/Website_Maureen/BasicDesert.html Continue reading
Posted Jul 5, 2011 at Flickers of Freedom
The first announcement of funding for Mele's Big Questions in Free Will grant came out today, and our very own Thomas Nadelhoffer and Eddy Nahmias (along with Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler) are among the funded, as is Joshua Knobe (along with Roy Baumeister). Congrats on behalf of the blog.... Continue reading
Posted Jun 24, 2011 at Flickers of Freedom
I'm wondering if there is any evidence for what percentage of the folk believe that we're free (and/or morally responsible) at least some of the time. I think I remember (remembing is factive, right?) that there's been some recent x-phi work on this issue. Even if I am correct in... Continue reading
Posted Jun 9, 2011 at Flickers of Freedom
I should add that despite what I said earlier, I had a very good experience publishing with Continuum, and know a number of other individuals who have as well--so good in fact, that I'm writing for them again. And I think that they have some very good books in their collection. But I do get the sense that the supervision and refereeing they provide is often lacking, which can lead to some serious inconsistencies in quality. I'm going to request that my next manuscript be sent out to readers for comments and have been advising others that I know to make clear up front when working with them exactly what kind of editorial support will be provided.
A few years back, I published my first book with Continuum after being approached by one of their editors. (To give some context, I was less than 5 years out from having earned my PhD.) I was surprised to learn, after I'd sent them the manuscript that the press sent the mansucript to NO READERS. Fortunately, I'd already three colleagues working in my field give me very helpful comments on the complete manuscript that saved me from a number of problems; Igave them credit in the acknowledgements. The type-setting and copy-editing was done by outsourced by Continuum to a company in India which introduced numerous errors into the proofs that I had to correct, and give no help in preparing the index. Now, I'm not defending the philosophical content of the book nor saying that the author doesn't shoulder some of the responsibility for the issues raised in the last paragraph of the review, but the press shoulders some of it as well. And in this case, it might shoulder even more for not having referees to help the author, the press, and to help ensure the quality of the work for the wider scholarly community.
I've been perusing the OUP catalogue, planning which freebees I to get for contributing to an Oxford project. Here are three forthcoming books that I know will be of interest to readers: the 2nd edition of Kane's Handbook on Free Will (which has a number of new chapters) Neil Levy's... Continue reading
Posted Jan 17, 2011 at Flickers of Freedom
12
Please note that my affiliation and contact information has changed to the following. You will need to resend your message to my new address, as this address is no longer being tended. Kevin Timpe, PhD Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northwest Nazarene University 623 Holly Street Nampa, ID 83686 ktimpe@nnu.edu http://people.nnu.edu/ktimpe/ 208.467.8848
There have been a number of discussions recently about how philosophy is perceived by other scholars in the humanities. See, for instance, here and here. One reason for this that has been mentioned in a number of such discussions is because many of our colleagues in other departments don't see... Continue reading
Posted Apr 30, 2010 at Flickers of Freedom
36
The latest issue of Ideas y Valores is dedicated to "Free Will, Determinism and Moral Responsibility." It contains articles written by Frankfurt, Kane, Moya, Vargas, Hoyos, Timpe, Haji, Patarrayo, Pereboom, and Betzler. Furthermore, the journal is open access, and the contents can be accessed here. Full contents displayed below the... Continue reading
Posted Mar 22, 2010 at Flickers of Freedom
Thanks for the comments so far; I’m sorry that it’s taken me a bit to respond, but I was out of town over the weekend and without internet access. (Gotta love the mountains!) A few follow-up comments… James, van Inwagen does gesture at a proof for the existence of moral responsibility: "There are, moreover, seemingly unanswerable arguments that, if they are correct, demonstrate that the existence of moral responsibility entails the existence of free will, and, therefore, if free will does not exist, moral responsibility does not exist either. It is, however, evident that moral responsibility does exist: if there were no such thing as moral responsibility nothing would be anyone’s fault, and it is evident that there are states of affairs to which one can point and say, correctly, to certain people: That’s your fault (“How to Think about the Problem of Free Will”)." Now, you may think that he needs a further argument for this (and like Carlos and Tamler say, in order to think that this is a good strategy, one would need to be convinced of this ‘further thing’, here the existence of MR). But I think that he thinks the existence of this further thing (or this further, further thing) is obvious. But of course not all agree, so not all will be persuaded by his indirect proof. Bob, I hope to address general strategies for answering the Existence Question in the negative in a future post. One way will be ‘direct’, in showing that free will is such-and-such-a-thing, and then showing that that thing doesn’t exist. This seems to be the strategy of the argument that you mention. But merely pointing out that a direct argument for the non-existence of free will is a bad argument will not show that free will does exist. Fabio, I know no one who thinks that proving free will is possible is enough to prove that it exists. Of course, if one can prove that it is impossible, this will be one way of ‘directly’ proving that free will doesn’t exist.