Riccardo Repetti
\nKingsborough College, CUNY<\/p>\n
This is the second article in a four-article series that examines Buddhist responses to the Western philosophical problem of whether free will is compatible with \u201cdeterminism,\u201d the doctrine of universal causation. The first article focused on the first publications on this issue in the 1970s, the \u201cearly period\u201d; the present article and the next examine key responses published in the last part of the Twentieth century and first part of the Twenty-first, the \u201cmiddle period\u201d; and the fourth article will examine responses published in the last few years. Whereas early-period scholars endorsed compatibilism, in the middle period the pendulum moved the other way: Mark Siderits argued for a Buddhist version of partial incompatibilism, semi-compatibilism, or \u201cpaleo-compatibilism,\u201d and Charles Goodman argued for a straightforward Buddhist hard determinism. The present article focuses on Siderits\u2019s paleo-compatibilism; the subsequent article focuses on Goodman\u2019s hard determinism. <\/p>\n
Read article<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ISSN 1076-9005 Volume 19, 2012 Buddhist Reductionism and Free Will: Paleo-compatibilism Riccardo Repetti Kingsborough College, CUNY This is the second article in a four-article series that examines Buddhist responses to the Western philosophical problem of whether free will is compatible with \u201cdeterminism,\u201d the doctrine of universal causation. The first article focused on the first publications … Continue reading Buddhist Reductionism and Free Will: Paleo-compatibilism<\/span>