<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>دانشگاه قم</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>پژوهش‌های فلسفی -کلامی</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>1735-9791</Issn>
				<Volume>23</Volume>
				<Issue>3</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2021</Year>
					<Month>09</Month>
					<Day>23</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Making Sense of a Free Will that is Incompatible
with Determinism: A Fourth Way Forward</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>Making Sense of a Free Will that is Incompatible with Determinism: A Fourth Way Forward</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>5</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>28</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">2027</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22091/jptr.2021.7247.2595</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Robert</FirstName>
					<LastName>Kane</LastName>
<Affiliation>Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Texas, Austin. USA.</Affiliation>
<Identifier Source="ORCID">0000-0003-2000-3826</Identifier>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2021</Year>
					<Month>08</Month>
					<Day>21</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>For a half - century, I have been developing a view of free will that is incompatible with determinism and, in the process, attempting to answer the Intelligibility Question about such a free will: Can one make sense of an incompatibilist or libertarian free will without reducing it to mere chance, or mystery, and can such a free will be reconciled with modern views of the cosmos and human beings? In this paper, I discuss recent refinements to my earlier writings on such a view, refinements developed in recent years in response to the large critical literature on my views in the past several decades. My view has usually been designated an event-causal (EC) view of libertarian free will and distinguished from non-causal (NC) and agent-causal (AC) libertarian views. But I was never happy with this designation of my view as “event-causal” and did not use it myself in earlier writings. In this paper, I explain why I now reject it altogether. I have come to believe that to avoid numerous misunderstandings in current debates about free will, we must distinguish four different kinds of libertarian theories, not merely three: in addition to non-causal (NC), agent-causal (AC), and event-causal (EC) theories, we need to add a fourth kind, which might be called an agent-causal/event-causal (AC/EC) theory. My view has always been of this fourth kind. It represents what I call in the title of this paper the “fourth way forward” for making sense of an incompatibilist free will.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">For a half - century, I have been developing a view of free will that is incompatible with determinism and, in the process, attempting to answer the Intelligibility Question about such a free will: Can one make sense of an incompatibilist or libertarian free will without reducing it to mere chance, or mystery, and can such a free will be reconciled with modern views of the cosmos and human beings? In this paper, I discuss recent refinements to my earlier writings on such a view, refinements developed in recent years in response to the large critical literature on my views in the past several decades. My view has usually been designated an event-causal (EC) view of libertarian free will and distinguished from non-causal (NC) and agent-causal (AC) libertarian views. But I was never happy with this designation of my view as “event-causal” and did not use it myself in earlier writings. In this paper, I explain why I now reject it altogether. I have come to believe that to avoid numerous misunderstandings in current debates about free will, we must distinguish four different kinds of libertarian theories, not merely three: in addition to non-causal (NC), agent-causal (AC), and event-causal (EC) theories, we need to add a fourth kind, which might be called an agent-causal/event-causal (AC/EC) theory. My view has always been of this fourth kind. It represents what I call in the title of this paper the “fourth way forward” for making sense of an incompatibilist free will.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">free will</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">incompatibilism</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">libertarianism</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">agent-causal</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Event-causal</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">non-causal</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Determinism</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_2027_ec295dcfc5d7a6754e0741cabfeee262.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
