Czy Rodericka Chisholma koncepcja „nieporuszonego poruszyciela” rzeczywiście jest tak niezrozumiała, jak się wydaje?

Abstrakt

Is Roderick Chisholm’s theory of the ‘prime mover unmoved’ really so mysterious and obscure?

The topic of this paper is Roderick Chisholm’s theory of a free human agent treated as an “unmoved mover” and “the cause of his own self.” The way R. Chisholm deals with problems concerning will and action has been utterly criticized as obscure and mystic. In the free will debate, R. Chisholm represents the libertarian way of thinking, which means that he argues against compatibilism that is: against the still more popular current flow in the debate. However, it is only incompatibilism that could be thoroughly defended — I am explicitly addressing this point in my paper.
My goal is, then, a defence of libertarianism and, in this particular context, a reconstruction of R. Chisholm’s theory so that it is clear that this conception is thoroughly compatible with human first-person-experiences as well as with the results of recent empirical research. All in all, R. Chisholm conceives many brilliant, convincing ideas concerning the possibility of the existence of free agents.