The Problem of Free Will Revisited

Part of the Münster Lectures in Philosophy book series (MUELP, volume 4)


This paper concerns the effect that confused thinking has had on the language in which the free-will problem has been framed and discussed in recent philosophy. The thesis of the paper is that this language, this family of interwoven technical terms, has, as a consequence of this confused thinking, been corrupted – has in fact become hopelessly corrupt.


Free will determinism moral responsibility technical terms 


  1. Bennett, Karen. 2006. Proxy “Actualism”. Philosophical Studies 129: 263–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dennett, Daniel. 2013. Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  3. Fodor, Jerry. 2003. Why would mother nature bother? Review of Dennett’s “Freedom evolves”. London Review of Books 25 (5): 17–18.Google Scholar
  4. Frankfurt, Harry. 1969. The principle of alternate possibilities. The Journal of Philosophy 66: 829–839.Google Scholar
  5. Pothast, Ulrich, ed. 1978. Seminar: Freies Handeln und Determinismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  6. Santayana, George. 1963. Persons and places: The background of my life. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  7. Strawson, Galen. 2008. Freedom evolves. In Real materialism and other essays, ed. Daniel C. Dennett, 333–335. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Originally published in New York Times Book Review 108, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. van Inwagen, Peter. 1975. The incompatibility of free will and determinism. Philosophical Studies 27: 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 1978. Ability and responsibility. The Philosophical Review 87: 201–224.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 1983. An essay on free will. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1999. Moral responsibility, determinism, and the ability to do otherwise. The Journal of Ethics 3: 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2008. How to think about the problem of free will. The Journal of Ethics 12: 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2012. “Who sees not that all the dispute is about a word?”: Some thoughts on Bennett’s “Proxy ‘Actualism’”. Hungarian Philosophical Review 3: 69–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations