Occasionalism and non-reductive physicalism: another look at the continuous creation argument

Malebranche’s so-called conservation is continuous creation (CCC) argument has been celebrated as a powerful and persuasive argument for Occasionalism—the claim that only God has and exercises causal powers. In this paper I want to examine the CCC argument for Occasionalism by comparing it to Jaegwo...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Lim, Daniel (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Nature B. V 2014
In: International journal for philosophy of religion
Year: 2014, Volume: 75, Issue: 1, Pages: 39-57
Further subjects:B Non-reductive physicalism
B Occasionalism
B Causal exclusion
B Continuous Creation
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Parallel Edition:Electronic

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1821418182
003 DE-627
005 20221110052731.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221110s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s11153-013-9412-7  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1821418182 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1821418182 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 0  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Lim, Daniel  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
109 |a Lim, Daniel 
245 1 0 |a Occasionalism and non-reductive physicalism: another look at the continuous creation argument 
264 1 |c 2014 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Malebranche’s so-called conservation is continuous creation (CCC) argument has been celebrated as a powerful and persuasive argument for Occasionalism—the claim that only God has and exercises causal powers. In this paper I want to examine the CCC argument for Occasionalism by comparing it to Jaegwon Kim’s so-called Supervenience argument against non-reductive physicalism. Because the arguments have deep similarities it is interesting and fruitful to consider them in tandem. First I argue that both the CCC argument and the Supervenience argument turn on the same general principle, what Kim calls Edward’s Dictum. It is doubtful that Malebranche or Kim succeed in grounding Edward’s Dictum, though Malebranche, I think, has more resources at his disposal to make his case. Even if this worry is waived, however, I argue that the completion of Stage 1 of the Supervenience argument can be used to raise a further worry for the CCC argument that cannot easily be resolved. 
601 |a Argumentation 
650 4 |a Causal exclusion 
650 4 |a Continuous Creation 
650 4 |a Non-reductive physicalism 
650 4 |a Occasionalism 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t International journal for philosophy of religion  |d Dordrecht : Springer Nature B.V, 1970  |g 75(2014), 1, Seite 39-57  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320442098  |w (DE-600)2005049-5  |w (DE-576)103746927  |x 1572-8684  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:75  |g year:2014  |g number:1  |g pages:39-57 
776 |i Erscheint auch als  |n elektronische Ausgabe  |w (DE-627)163967618X  |k Electronic 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/24709205  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-013-9412-7  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4208222190 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1821418182 
LOK |0 005 20221110052731 
LOK |0 008 221110||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-09-28#27CF29E5FBF9797BFFE57811599681C1DF27D9B8 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/24709205 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL