Compatibilism and Doxastic Control
- Andrei A. Buckareff
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Sharon Ryan has recently argued that if one has compatibilist intuitions about free action, then one should reject the claim that agents cannot exercise direct voluntary control over coming to believe. In this paper I argue that the differences between beliefs and actions make the expectation of direct voluntary control over coming to believe unreasonable. So Ryan's theory of doxastic agency is untenable.
- Alvarez, M., & Hyman, J. (1998). Agents and their actions. Philosophy, 73, 219–245. CrossRef
- Audi, R. (2001). Doxastic voluntarism and the ethics of belief. In M. Steup (Ed.), Knowledge, truth, and duty (pp. 93–111). New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Bach, K. (1980). Actions are not events. Mind, 89, 114–120.
- Bishop, J. (1989). Natural agency: An essay on the causal theory of action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Brand, M. (1984). Intending and acting. Cambridge: MIT.
- Bratman, M. (2001). Two problems about human agency. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 101, 309–326. CrossRef
- Buckareff, A. (2004). Acceptance and deciding to believe. Journal of Philosophical Research, 29, 173–190.
- Buckareff, A. (2005). How (not) to think about mental action. Philosophical Explorations, 8, 83–89. CrossRef
- Buckareff, A. (2006). Doxastic decisions and controlling belief. Acta Analytica, 21, 102–114.
- Buckareff, A. (forthcoming A). Hobartian voluntarism and epistemic deontologism. Disputatio.
- Buckareff, A. (forthcoming B). Mental overpopulation and mental action: Protecting intentions from mental birth control Canadian Journal of Philosophy.
- Buckareff, A., & Zhu, J. (2004). Causalisms reconsidered. Dialogue, 43, 147–155. CrossRef
- Feldman, R. (2001). Voluntary belief and epistemic evaluation. In M. Steup (Ed.), Knowledge, truth, and duty (pp. 77–92). New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Feldman, R. (2004). The ethics of belief. In E. Conee & R. Feldman (Eds.), Evidentialism: Essays in epistemology (pp. 166–95). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Ginet, C. (1990). On action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Mele, A. (1992). Springs of action: Understanding intentional behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Montmarquet, J. (1986). The voluntariness of belief. Analysis, 46, 49–53. CrossRef
- Mossel, B. (2005). Action, control and sensations of acting. Philosophical Studies, 124, 129–180. CrossRef
- Pojman, L. (1985). Believing and willing. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 15, 37–55.
- Ruben, D.-H. (1997). Doing without happenings: Three theories of action. In G. Holmstrom-Hintikka & R. Tuomela (Eds.), Contemporary action theory, vol. I (pp. 267–286). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
- Ruben, D.-H. (2003). Action and its explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Ryan, S. (2003). Doxastic compatibilism and the ethics of belief. Philosophical Studies, 114, 47–79. CrossRef
- Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Thalberg, I. (1984). Do our intentions cause our intentional actions? American Philosophical Quarterly, 21, 249–260.
- Compatibilism and Doxastic Control
Volume 34, Issue 2 , pp 143-152
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- doxastic voluntarism
- action theory
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, Franklin and Marshall College, P.O. Box 3003,, Lancaster, PA, 17604-3003, USA