403 research outputs found
On the Resurrection of the Body: Discussion with Trenton Merricks
No full textIn a recent discussion, Trenton Merricks concludes that we cannot understand how God might miraculously bring it about that there will be the resurrection of the body. It is contended to the contrary, that it is not utterly mysterious how God might give us our bodies back
Examination of Merricks' Primitivism about Truth
No full textTrenton Merricks argues for and defends a novel version of primitivism about truth : being true is a primitive monadic but non-intrinsic property. This examination consists of the following triad: a critical discussion of Merricks’ argument for his view, a rejection of his objection against Paul Horwich’s minimalist theory of truth, and a direct objection against his view on the grounds that it entails being true is a mysterious and suspicious property. The conclusion is that Merricks’ primitivism should be rejecte
Examination of Merricks' Primitivism about Truth
No full textTrenton Merricks (2007) argues for and defends a novel version of primitivism about truth: being true is a primitive monadic but non-intrinsic property. This examination consists of the following triad: a critical discussion of Merricks’ argument for his view, a rejection of his objection against Paul Horwich’s (1998) minimalist theory of truth, and a direct objection against his view on the grounds that it entails being true is a mysterious and suspicious property. The conclusion is that Merricks’ primitivism should be rejected
Examination of Merricks' Primitivism about Truth
No full textTrenton Merricks (2007) argues for and defends a novel version of primitivism about truth: being true is a primitive monadic but non-intrinsic property. This examination consists of the following triad: a critical discussion of Merricks’ argument for his view, a rejection of his objection against Paul Horwich’s (1998) minimalist theory of truth, and a direct objection against his view on the grounds that it entails being true is a mysterious and suspicious property. The conclusion is that Merricks’ primitivism should be rejected
Examination of Merricks' Primitivism about Truth
No full textTrenton Merricks (2007) argues for and defends a novel version of primitivism about truth: being true is a primitive monadic but non-intrinsic property. This examination consists of the following triad: a critical discussion of Merricks’ argument for his view, a rejection of his objection against Paul Horwich’s (1998) minimalist theory of truth, and a direct objection against his view on the grounds that it entails being true is a mysterious and suspicious property. The conclusion is that Merricks’ primitivism should be rejected
Trenton Merricks. Self and Identity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2022. 208 s. ISBN: 978–0–19–284343–2
No full textZaman içinde aynı kişiler olarak kalıp kalmadığımız sorusu, benliğin ve özdeşliğin ne olduğu meselesini gündeme getirmektedir. Genellikle benliği bir yanılsama olarak gören ve onun zaman içinde aynı kalamayacağını öne süren günümüz felsefi akımına karşı Trenton Merricks, Self and Identity kitabında, benliğin zamansal özdeşliğini savunmaktadır
An Evaluation of Trenton Merrick\u27s Physicalism Regarding the Resurrection
No full textIn this article, the physicalism of Trenton Merricks is examined in relation to the Christian doctrine of the future resurrection of the body. Merricks\u27 position is found to have serious issues relating to how a person can maintain numerical identity through a process of death and being brought back into existence at the resurrection. Merricks never provides any way of understanding how this is possible. Further, his argument seems to presuppose that human beings are merely physical beings without sufficiently grounding this point. The article concludes that Merricks\u27 physicalism cannot account for the numerical identity which is necessary for the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body
Counterpart Theory Vindicated : a Reply to Merricks
No full textThe paper shows - contra what has been argued by Trenton Merricks - that counterpart theory, when conjoined with composition as identity, does not entail mereological essentialism. What Merricks's argument overlooks is that contingent identity is but one of the effects of grounding identity across possible worlds on similarity
The Truth About Freedom: A Reply to Merricks
No full textIn his recent essay in the Philosophical Review, “Truth and Freedom,” Trenton Merricks contends (among other things) that the basic argument for the incompatibility of God's foreknowledge and human freedom is question-begging. He relies on a “truism” to the effect that truth depends on the world and not the other way around. The present essay argues that mere invocation of this truism does not establish that the basic argument for incompatibilism is question-begging. Further, it seeks to clarify important elements of the debate, including the fixity-of-the-past premise in the incompatibilist's argument and the Ockhamist response. It sketches some potential links between the issues here and recent work on ontological dependence, and it connects the issues raised by Merricks to important work that has appeared in (among other places) the Philosophical Review.</jats:p
Foreknowledge and Freedom
No full textThe bulk of the essay “Truth and Freedom” (Philosophical Review 118 [2009]: 29–57) opposes fatalism, which is the claim that if there is a true proposition to the effect that an action A will occur, then A will not be free. But that essay also offers a new way to reconcile divine foreknowledge and human freedom. In “The Truth about Freedom: A Reply to Merricks” (Philosophical Review 120 [2011]: 97–115), John Martin Fischer and Patrick Todd raise a number of objections to “Truth and Freedom,” most of which are objections to its treatment of foreknowledge. Their central complaint seems to be that that treatment is, despite its claims to the contrary, merely a form of Ockhamism—and a poorly developed form of Ockhamism at that. This essay replies to Fischer and Todd's specific objections. But, more importantly, it further clarifies the fundamental differences between the way it reconciles divine foreknowledge and human freedom and the Ockhamist's way. In particular, this essay further demonstrates that when it comes to divine foreknowledge's compatibility with human freedom, the fundamental question is not the Ockhamist's question of whether God's beliefs about what an agent will do in the future are “hard facts.” Rather, the fundamental question is whether God's beliefs about what an agent will do in the future depend on what that agent will do in the future.</jats:p
- …
