مطالب

An agent’s efforts of will have long been at the center of Robert Kane’s influential account of libertarian free will. For several decades it has been a crucial part of his theory that there is a symmetry to these efforts. That is, Kane has long maintained that an agent engaged in an undetermined choice makes a simultaneous and sustained effort to choose and to choose otherwise. In a recent paper, Kane abandons this symmetry. I outline and evaluate this change in Kane’s theory. I begin by explaining how Kane’s theory has changed from a symmetric to an asymmetric account of undetermined free choices. I then explore the philosophical benefits of adopting an asymmetric account by considering its implications for the explanatory luck objection, the phenomenological objection, and the objection that engaging in dual efforts of will involves an unacceptable form of irrationality. Finally, I argue that despite these benefits, Kane’s asymmetric model opens the door to a more pervasive worry about luck and it gives up something most libertarians want: the unconditional ability to choose otherwise. Given these points, I conclude the cost of abandoning the symmetric account of efforts of will is excessively high.

Kurmanji uses two morphological forms of pronouns and R-expressions: direct and oblique. The direct form of first and second pronouns (local pronouns) is fully specified for person and number. In contrast, direct third-person pronouns and R-expressions are unmarked; however, these arguments still exhibit person and number agreement with verbs and number and gender agreement with Ezafe heads. There are two approaches to deal with direct unmarked arguments. In the asymmetric approach, these arguments are assumed to be fully specified for relevant φ-features, which are deleted at PF (Phonological Form) after agreement, whereas in the symmetric approach, they are merged as underspecified for relevant features and acquire their interpretation via agreement. Given the prevalence of unmarked arguments in Kurmanji, the symmetric approach is more economical and minimalistic, requiring fewer theoretical tools and computations. The present study shows that the key distinction between local pronouns and unmarked arguments lies in the specification of relevant φ-features. Direct unmarked arguments enter the derivation underspecified for these features, establishing a relation of ‘subset control’ in agreement and acquiring their interpretation by spreading features from the agreeing head at the LF (Logical Form) interface. This study also reveals that agreement in Ezafe constructions and pro-drop sentences also involve subset control and agreement is the only possible way to license φ-features, such as gender in inanimate arguments and person in R-expressions.