Special-Pleading Libertarianism

Says Robert,

"I would also add that any determinist who wants to prop up Kane’s view as representative of libertarian free will is presenting an intentional straw man and knows it (if he knows that Kane’s explanation is solely physical and intentionally leaves out the immaterial human soul)."

1. Yawn. This is bad. Many of the top action theorists in the world - both compatibilist and incompatibilist - would prop up Kane's view. Whose "Robert?" Some dude who posts anonymously.

2. Robert also seems to imply that libertarianism necessitates a immaterial soul. But of course Kane, and guys like Peter van Inwagen, don't think so. Funny that two of the top, most respected libertarians (PvI is now a mysterian, but he used to be fully libertarian) are physicalists about man's constitution. I suppose if I looked at PvI's work I would be "presenting an intentional straw man" too. Puh-lease.

3. Blackwell Publishing must have been guilty of an "intentional straw man" by having Kane represent the libertarian position in the Four Views book. To hold a view that demands this kind of paranoia is proof that one is caught in the grip of an extra-biblical tradition.

4. Robert would actually have us go to philosophers who do not specialize in action theory to find "the best" representatives of action theory! (Moreland and Plantinga.)

5. Check out what Robert himself has said about Kane's work on libertarian free will elsewhere: "Incidentally Kane discusses the CNC concept and problems with this kind of control in his important work on free will titled: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FREE WILL."

6. So when I take guys like Robert up on their repeated laudations of Kane (he told us to read Kane many-a-time here), and show that a lot of problems follow, all of a sudden I'm not allowed to go to Kane anymore since he's not "representative of libertarian free will."