Causation is defined as a relation between facts: C causes E if and only if C and E are nomologically independent facts and C is a necessary part of a nomologically sufficient condition for E. The analysis is applied to problems of overdetermination, preemption, trumping, intransitivity, switching, and double prevention. Preventing and allowing are defined and distinguished from causing. The analysis explains the direction of causation in terms of the logical form of dynamic laws. Even in a universe that is (...) deterministic in both temporal directions, not every fact must have a cause and present facts may have no future causes. (shrink)

Kadri Vihvelin, in "What time travelers cannot do" (Philos Stud 81: 315-330, 1996), argued that "no time traveler can kill the baby who in fact is her younger self, because (V1) "if someone would fail to do something, no matter how hard or how many times she tried, then she cannot do it", and (V2) if a time traveler tried to kill her baby self, she would always fail. Theodore Sider (Philos Stud 110: 115-138, 2002) criticized Vihvelin's (...) argument, and Ira Kiourti (Philos Stud 139: 343-352, 2008) criticized both Vihvelin's argument and Sider's critique. I present a critique of Vihvelin's argument different from both Sider's and Kiourti's critiques: I argue in a novel way that both V1 and V2 are false. Since Vihvelin's argument might be understood as providing a challenge to the possibility of time travel, if my critique succeeds then time travel survives such a challenge unscathed. (shrink)

The rapid pace of technological advancements offers an essential field of research for a deeper understanding of man’s relationship with artifacts of her design. These artifacts designed by humans can have various mental and physical effects on their users. The human interaction with the artifact is not passive; on the contrary, it exhibits a potential that reveals the inner dispositions of human beings and makes them open to new creations. In this article, we will examine the impact of technology on (...) human life through the dispositional compatibilism perspective of the contemporary philosopher Kadri Vihvelin, arguing for a system of metaphysics in which ontology of properties depend on dispositions. In this context, the emerging phenomenon of dispositional compatibilism opens the door to developing new philosophical ideas for evaluating the concepts of compatibilism and freedom in the context of technology. Thus, it is emphasized that although technological devices shape human life, new and unforeseen powers may emerge due to human-artifact interaction. This article will examine the idea of dispositional compatibilism by specifically considering human interaction with text-based AI applications. The ability of AI to collaborate with human thought patterns is a meaningful example of the observation of dispositional compatibilism. In conclusion, the article aims to address the effects of technology on human freedom by approaching the human-artifact relationship from a dispositional perspective. It also aims to defend the claim that technological artifacts can positively contribute to human freedom from the perspective of dispositional compatibilism. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that it is open to semicompatibilists to maintain that no ability to do otherwise is required for moral responsibility. This is significant for two reasons. First, it undermines Christopher Evan Franklin’s recent claim that everyone thinks that an ability to do otherwise is necessary for free will and moral responsibility. Second, it reveals an important difference between John Martin Fischer’s semicompatibilism and Kadri Vihvelin’s version of classical compatibilism, which shows that the dispute between (...) them is not merely a verbal dispute. Along the way, I give special attention to the notion of general abilities, and, though I defend the distinctiveness of Fischer’s semicompatibilism against the verbal dispute charge, I also use the discussion of the nature of general abilities to argue for the falsity of a certain claim that Fischer and coauthor Mark Ravizza have made about their account. (shrink)

The new dispositionalists defend the position that an agent in a deterministic Frankfurt-style case has the ability to do otherwise, where that ability is the one at issue in the principle of alternative possibilities. Focusing specifically on Kadri Vihvelin's proposal, I argue against this position by showing that it is incompatible with the existence of structurally similar cases to FSCs in which a preemptive intervener bestows an agent with an ability.

This paper examines the view of abilities to act advanced by Kadri Vihvelin in Causes, Laws, and Free Will. Vihvelin argues that (i) abilities of an important kind are “structurally” like dispositions such as fragility; (ii) ascriptions of dispositions can be analyzed in terms of counterfactual conditionals; (iii) ascriptions of abilities of the kind in question can be analyzed similarly; and (iv) we have the free will we think we have by having abilities of this kind and (...) being in circumstances that are propitious for their exercise. I raise doubt about each of these claims. Further, I argue that even if abilities of the kind in question are dispositions, and even if determinism is compatible with our commonly having unexercised abilities of this kind, the compatibility of determinism and free will remains in question. (shrink)

This thesis is an investigation into the nature of those abilities that are relevant to free will when the latter is understood as requiring the ability to do otherwise. I assume from the outset the traditional and intuitive picture that being able to do otherwise bestows a significant kind of control on an agent and I ask what kinds of ability are implicated in such control. In chapter 1 I assess the simple conditional analysis of the sense of ‘can’ relevant (...) to free will, and I agree with the consensus that this analysis fails. In chapter 2 I consider Kadri Vihvelin’s contemporary version of the conditional account, which is cast in terms of dispositions. I develop, via engagement with Vihvelin’s view, an account of how modal properties such as dispositions and abilities should be individuated. In chapter 3 I use this account to show why Vihvelin’s account of free will is unsatisfactory. I also show how it helps us to better understand a distinction that is often made in the free will literature, namely, that between some notion of ‘general’ ability on the one hand and a notion of ‘specific’ or ‘particular’ abilities on the other. I argue that there are two important distinctions, both of which are relevant to free will. In chapter 4 I consider Keith Lehrer’s analysis of ‘can’ and conclude that while it fails to achieve Lehrer’s stated aim – namely, that of demonstrating that free will is compatible with determinism – it does contain some useful insights about the kinds of ability relevant to free will. In the fifth and final chapter I switch gears somewhat; I argue that various conditions typically treated under the banner of ‘the epistemic criteria on moral responsibility’ should instead be treated as conditions on an agent’s being able to do otherwise. (shrink)

In “The Zygote Argument is Invalid: Now What?” (2015), Kristin Mickelson published an objection to the Zygote Argument that she first presented in 2012 as workshop comments on a draft of Mele's "Manipulation, Moral Responsibility, and Bullet-Biting" (2013). Assuming that the phrase "determinism precludes free will" means something like determinism-related causal factors are what prevent people from acting freely when determinism is true, Mele's original Zygote Argument was invalid. At the workshop, Mickelson presented Mele with two options to address the (...) problem, a premise-preserving option and a conclusion-preserving option. That is, Mele could change the conclusion of the original argument to the negative, non-explanatory thesis entailed by its original two premises, or find a way to add premises that would support the positive, explanatory conclusion of the original argument (which, notably, is the conclusion that Pereboom supports using best-explanation reasoning in his Four-Case Argument). Mickelson used this as an opportunity to explain the key contribution that best-explanation reasoning makes to manipulation arguments -- and why the best variant of the manipulation argument might conclude that incompatibilism is FALSE. In response to Mickelson's objection, Mele changed the conclusion of the argument before "Manipulation, Moral Responsibility, and Bullet-Biting" went to print, choosing Mickelson's proposal to change its conclusion over the suggestion to change its premises. However, Mele failed to mention Mickelson's invalidity objection in print and that he changed the conclusion of his argument as a direct response to it; nor did Mele mention the costs that Mickelson outlined for the premise-preserving solution that he adopted or the benefits of a conclusion-preserving solution. At the same time, Mele began using the term 'incompatibilism' to pick out the negative, non-explanatory claim supported by the newly revised Zygote Argument--and also started to claim (without providing evidence) that those who use the term 'incompatibilism' to denote the explanatory claim deterministic causal factors *make it the case* that no one acts freely when determinism is true" is guilty of using the term in a nonstandard and nontraditional way that he had "never had any use for"--failing to mention that he clearly used the term in this explanatory sense in his 2005 critique of the Four-Case Argument, which is to be expected give that Derk Pereboom uses the explanatory definition (as do Kadri Vihvelin, Carolina Sartorio, and *most* other contributors to the free-will literature). In THIS reply essay, Mickelson responds to an attempt by Gabriel De Marco (FSU, advisor Alfred Mele) to defend the original Zygote Argument from Mickelson's 2012/2015 critique. Unfortunately, both of De Marco's proposed "solutions" are non-starters. The first is a non-starter because De Marco merely repeats the premise-preserving solution that Mickelson offered to Mele in 2012 and that Mele adopted in print in 2013. In other words, De Marco took credit for the premise-preserving solution to the invalidity objection that Mickelson developed (although he does *redescribe* Mickelson's solution in his own idiosyncratic jargon) and Mele had already adopted in print. De Marco's second solution is a non-starter because it is constituted by a patently invalid argument. Contrary to De Marco's proposal, it's not true that the conjunction of possibilism and incompossibilism deductively entails the positive, diagnostic claim that deterministic causal factors beyond one's control preclude (destroy, undermine, is antagonistically relevant to) free will when determinism is true. *My thanks to the editors of Philosophia for publishing this reply when PhilStudies would not. (shrink)

The compatibility of determinism and the ability to do otherwise has been implicitly assumed by many to be irrelevant to the viability of compatibilist responses to the manipulation argument for incompatibilism. I argue that this assumption is mistaken. The manipulation argument may be unsound. But even so, the manipulation argument, at the very least, undermines classical compatibilism, the view that free will requires the ability to do otherwise, and having that ability is compatible with determinism. This is because classical compatibilism, (...) in conjunction with any type of reply to the manipulation argument, has counterintuitive implications. In order to avoid such implications, we need not hold that determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility. But we must hold that determinism is incompatible with the ability to do otherwise. (shrink)

The problem of evil has always haunted theologians and philosophers. Throughout the course of this paper I will peruse the concepts of evil put forth by Spinoza and Plotinus. These two notions of evil have many similarities, yet there are some vital distinctions between the two. Plotinus and Spinoza both had rather unique views on the concept of evil that seemed to be ahead of their time in many ways. These two philosophers’ outlook on the notion of evil departs from (...) the classical theological perspective on evil. This departure from this classical line of reasoning is extremely significant for our modern-day outlook on the concept of evil. Therefore, perusing their ideas of evil will prove worthwhile. The aim of this paper is to compare and contrast these notions of evil and highlight their similarities and differences. Ultimately, by examining and connecting Spinoza’s and Plotinus’ way of dealing with the problem of evil, I hope to present the reader with a sound alternative route to the problem of evil. (shrink)

Throughout the course of this paper I build upon the foundations of William Desmond’s philosophy in order to develop a rebuttal towards the nihilistic consequences brought about by many modern thinkers, for example: Albert Camus. These nihilistic consequences seem to play a significant role in the drastic increase of anxiety and depression seen throughout our current epoch. Ultimately, philosophies such as that of Camus cannot avoid this fall into nihilism. Nevertheless, these ramifications seem to stem from a misinterpretation of Camus’ (...) notion of the ‘Absurd’. Thus, this confrontation with the absurd determines whether or not we can escape the consequences of nihilism that can be found throughout modernity. (shrink)

The paper analyses issues related to supervision and support of early career researchers in Estonian academia. We use nine focus groups interviews conducted in 2015 with representatives of social sciences in order to identify early career researchers’ needs with respect to support, frustrations they may experience, and resources they may have for addressing them. Our crucial contribution is the identification of wider support networks of peers and colleagues that may compensate, partially or even fully, for failures of official supervision. On (...) the basis of our analysis we argue that support for early career researchers should take into account the resources they already possess but also recognise the importance of wider academic culture, including funding and employment patterns, and the roles of supervisors and senior researchers in ensuring successful functioning of support networks. Through analysing the conditions for the development of early career researchers – producers of knowledge – our paper contributes to social epistemology understood as analysis of specific forms of social organisation of knowledge production. (shrink)

Vihvelin argues that Frankfurt-style cases should be divided into two kinds, according to when the trigger for the intention takes place: either prior to the agent's choice or after it. Most agree that only the former, which I call pre-decisional intervention, stands a chance of removing all of an agent's alternatives. Vihvelin notes that both sides in the dispute over whether there is a successful case of pre-decisional intervention assume that if there is a successful case, then it (...) will be a case where the agent has no alternative. Vihvelin thinks this is a mistake: agents subject to pre-decisional intervention still have alternatives, and the intricate discussion and development of ever more complex Frankfurt-style cases is beside the point. She argues for this by presenting a case, purportedly analogous to Frankfurt-style cases, where it is clear that there are alternatives available. Fischer has replied by disputing the analogy. In this paper I argue that Vihvelin is right to think the cases are analogous, but that both Fischer and Vihvelin are wrong to think that Vihvelin's parallel case is one where there are alternatives. Despite appearances, this is not the case, and I construct a Fischer-inspired argument to show this. (shrink)

In this essay, I argue for the rejection of Vihvelin's ‘Three-fold Classification’ , a nonstandard taxonomy of free-will compatibilism, incompatibilism, and impossibilism. Vihvelin is right that the standard taxonomy of these views is inadequate, and that a new taxonomy is needed to clarify the free-will debate. Significantly, Vihvelin notes that the standard formal definition of ‘incompatibilism’ does not capture the historically popular view that deterministic laws pose a threat to free will. Vihvelin's proposed solution is to (...) redefine ‘incompatibilism.’ However, Vihvelin's formal definition of ‘incompatibilism’ is flawed according to her own arguments. In addition, Vihvelin's characterization of ‘compatibilism’ is incomplete, and at least two important free-will views are missing from her proposed taxonomy. Given the problems with Vihvelin's arguments for 3-FC, her novel view of the dialectic between the major free-will views lacks support. (shrink)

This paper is based on the comments I gave to Alfred Mele regarding his original Zygote Argument during my presentation at a small workshop on manipulation arguments in Budapest back in 2012. After those comments, Mele changed the conclusion of his original Zygote Argument (OZA) from a positive, explanatory conclusion to a negative, non-explanatory conclusion--and, correspondingly, redefined 'incompatibilism' so that it would no longer refer in his work to the view that determinism precludes (undermines, eliminates, destroys, etc.) free will, but (...) refers narrowly to the perhaps spurious association claim that appears in the conclusion of the revised Zygote Argument (Mele 2013+). Yet, over the last decade, Mele has made no comment in print about the changes he made, the invalidity objection that led to them, nor to the fact that his revised Zygote Argument was originally presented by me as a (non-optimal) reaction to my invalidity objection to his original Zygote Argument. To my knowledge, Mele has only mentioned this 2015 paper once, at it was not in the context of understanding manipulation arguments; it was, rather, in the context of defending his revised, non-explanatory definition of 'incompatibilism' at the opening of Aspects of Agency (p. 6, n. 4). There, Mele singles out *just this 2015 paper* as a place where they'll find what Mele degrades as a type of nonstandard/nontraditional definition of 'incompatibilism' that he rejects. This is notable because Mele provides no empirical evidence that his preferred definition is standard, and most (including Lehrer, who coined the term) reject the negative, non-explanatory, association-based definition that Mele came to endorse in the aftermath of my invalidity objection to OZA. So, if Mele had a genuine concern about philosophers who use the term 'incompatibilism', then Mele could have--and should have--named almost any leading figure in free will for this purpose (since most--including Pereboom, Vihvelin, Haji, etc.) reject the non-explanatory definition that Mele-2013+ now endorses. Yet, for untold reasons, Mele isolated the working definition of 'incompatibilism' used in one paper by one unemployed junior researcher to use as his example--even though Neil Levy had used this same definition in previously published work (eg. Levy 2011). Moreover, if Mele were genuinely interested in helping his readers understand the ambiguity of terms like 'compatibilism' and 'incompatibilism' it is a mystery that he referenced a paper in which nothing of substance hung on the definitions given to these terms -- especially considering that he might have instead pointed them to my OTHER 2015 paper, "A Critique of Vihvelin's Three-Fold Classification" in which the MAIN AIM of the paper is to expose the difficulties facing anyone who wants to define the terms 'compatibilism' and 'incompatibilism' in a way that everyone will accept (including a critique of the negative, non-explanatory "incompossibilist" definition that Mele adopted after my objection to OZA). By all appearances, Mele's main aim in citing specifically THIS paper and none of my other work was to give readers the false impression that my working definition of 'incompatibilism' played some role in my charge that his argument is invalid (which it doesn't, given that the term doesn't appear in either the premises or conclusion of that argument). Mele adds to this unseemly rhetorical campaign in his book *Manipulation Agents* where he mentions an invalidity objection in the intro (p. 84) and then discusses that objection in the final lines of Chapter 5 of the book (p. 120-121). The invalidity objection discussed here is completely pedantic, has never been seriously raised in the primary literature (and was previously addressed in multiple places my multiple philosophers, including me), and has nothing whatever to do with my invalidity objection. In other words, Mele was content to discuss an invalidity objection that no one has ever had to an argument that is clearly valid while completely ignoring the ONLY substantive invalidity objection to his argument in print. This is unfortunate, because it has led to serious confusion --including the patently false description of my invalidity objection to OZA as an objection to the revised version of the Zygote Argument that Mele adopted in *response* my objection (e.g., Capes mistakenly claims "Mickelson (2015) contends that arguments like this [i.e. like the revised Zygote Argument] are invalid. But that’s because she defines “incompatibilism” differently than I’ve defined it here" in his "Manipulation Arguments and Direct Arguments" chapter in the 2023 Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Free Will; I did not say this, and the definition of 'incompatibilism' is irrelevant to my objection). In "The Zygote Argument Is Invalid--Now What?", I simply use the invalidity of the simple 2-premise Zygote Argument as a foil to make a series of more philosophically significant points (e.g. regarding the dialectical structure of the free-will debate, the role of best-explanation reasoning, and to develop the first-ever "master manipulation argument"). Mele has yet to address my reasons for calling attention to the non-trivial invalidity of his OZA or to any of my answers to the "Now What?" question in this paper, even though this question and my proposed answers to this question are the paper's main point. For those interested in a more recent discussion of how the logical and metaphilosophical observations made in this "Now What?" paper have helped to move the free-will debate forward, I suggest looking at the discussions of the "paradigm shift" in the free-will debate that helps to explain why the free-will debate has become mired in stalemates and empty verbal disputes that are found, for example, in my contributions to the Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Free Will (Intro and Chapter 4, 2023) and my paper "Free Will, Self-Creation, and the Paradox of Moral Luck" (2019). (shrink)

In this paper I argue that there are different ways that an agent may be able to do otherwise and that therefore, when free will is understood as requiring that an agent be able to do otherwise, we face the following question: which way of being able to do otherwise is most relevant to free will? I answer this question by first discussing the nature of intrinsic dispositions and abilities, arguing that for each action type there is a spectrum of (...) intrinsic abilities. I suggest that recognising this allows us to articulate two ways in which an intrinsic ability is general (such that there are two kinds of non-general ability). And I argue that the abilities most relevant to free will need to be non-general in both of the ways identified. Along the way I show why these points threaten to undermine Vihvelin’s dispositionalist account of free will. (shrink)

In this leçon inaugurale (inaugural lecture) at the University of Neuchâtel, I explain how we can tackle the problem of determinism by asking whether it would give us a justification, an excuse, or an exemption. This strategy builds on Peter Strawson's in Freedom and Resentment, but completes it by (1) proposing a theory of excuses ; (2) proposing that lacking alternatives might give a weak justification--i.e. it might exclude wrongdoing. This forces us to make the best of two philosophical traditions, (...) namely semi-compatibilism (à la Frankfurt/Fischer) and compatibilism (à la Lewis/Vihvelin). My proposal is that whereas compatibilism may have the upper hand, semi-compatibilists have always been right about excuses. (shrink)

Kako je moguće baviti se Platonom danas, ukoliko je filozofija „svoje vreme obuhvaćeno mislima“? Autor Platonovom delu ne pristupa kao dogmatskom štivu, već kao tekstu prožetom paradoksima, koje izmiče svakom unapred pripremljenom, šematizovanom modelu čitanja. Obratiti se Platonu kao filozofskoj paradigmi isplativo je ukoliko filozofi koji progovaraju iz dubine vremena mogu nešto važno da nam saopšte i ukoliko smo kadri da im postavimo autentično pitanje. Zato filozofi moraju imati dah delfskog ronioca, jer biser se ne nalazi u svakoj školjci. (...) Knjiga Iz Platonove filozofije ulazi u red značajnih knjiga posvećenih Platonovoj filozofiji. Veći deo knjige je objavljen u časopisima od svetskog ugleda (na nemačkom i engleskom jeziku). Time je njen kvalitet potvrđen recenzijama koje su nastale van domaćih koterija, a delo se samerilo sa aktuelnim pristupima Platonu. Knjiga se bavi problemima koji su formulisani u drugoj polovini prošlog veka (napisano i nenapisano učenje), preko naizgled klasičnih tema (dvostruki paradoks, utemeljenje istorijskog i političkog, eros), do tekstova koji pogađaju fenomen aktuelnosti Platonove teorije i prakse (problemi kongitivne dispozicije i bioetike u Platonovoj filozofiji). Ispred nas je Platon u dijalogu sa filozofskim strujanjima s kraja dvadesetog i početkom ovog veka. Za Irinu Deretić smisao filozofskog dijaloga leži u procenjivanju i odmeravanju stanovišta u raspravi, kako bi se vlastito stanovište preciznije artikulisalo. Ne radi se o utopijskoj komunikativnoj zajednici - već o karakteru filozofskog dijaloga, koji je upućen na unutrašnji, a ne na spoljašnji agon. Platon iz sasvim nesofističkih razloga preuzima metodu sofista kada „slabiju stvar čini jačom“. Tome je suprotna eristička (ne)kultura, u kojoj strasti imaju prevagu na davanjem bilo kakvih, „a kamoli valjanih razloga“, piše Irina Deretić. Iz problematičnosti jezika i sučeljavanja sa bliskim granicama pojmljivosti, ne mora da proizađe i slabost logosa. Naprotiv, snaga logosa je obrnuto proporcionalna sposobnošću da se odredi njegova nemoć. Granicu Platonove misli Irina Deretić jezgrovito formuliše: „Platonov jezik je sav okrenut biću, i usmeren je na saznajno ovladavanje njime. Snaga argumenta učesnika u Platonovim razgovorima upravo se sastoji u njihovoj sposobnosti da tačno pogode stvarnost na koju se odnose i koju nastoje da izraze“. Ali to vodi oblikovanju samog karaktera dijaloga: sagovornici se podređuju vođstvu „same stvari“ mišljenja. Međutim, logos nije svemoćan, i inače, a pogotovo ne za Platona. Irina Deretić insistira na autentičnom smislu nemoći logosa kao racionalnog diskursa, koji se pokazuje na odlučujućim mestima, tamo gde njegove refleksije o idejama, posebno o Ideji Dobra bivaju suočene sa granicama njihove saznatljivosti i saopštivosti. Napokon, Platonova okrenutost biću nije dovela do teorije adekvatnosti između bića i jezika, nego do isticanja paradoksa i metafore. A šta je iza njihovog vela - ništa, ili su oni, naprotiv, konstitutivni za biće, da li uopšte može biti odlučeno? U skladu sa filozofskim vjeruju Nikolaja Berđajeva, može se formulisati karakteristika ove važne i lepe knjige: Iz dubine vremena izvire sposobnost da se filozofski misli, a to onda nije u koliziji sa aktuelnim „primenama“ filozofske refleksije. Naprotiv. (shrink)

In this paper I give consideration to some apparent impossibilities for the time travelers to the past. After criticizing the views of D. Lewis and K. Vihvelin, I will show in what sense they are really impossible.

Baba, bireyin anneyle birlikte temel tamamlayıcısı olması bakımından önemli ve merkezi bir unsurdur. Yaşam düzleminde baba; biyolojik, sosyolojik ve geleneksel kökene sahiptir. Birey ve toplum yaşamının yansıma alanlarından biri olan roman türünde görüngülenen babalık kavramının edebi düzlemde açımlanması, evren, ev, aile, toplum, Tanrı, otorite/ devlet, biyolojik ve duyuşsal babalar biçimindedir. Genetik yaratımın başat ögesi olmanın yanı sıra fizyolojik gerçeğin aşımıyla özneleşen bu kimlik görünümü bilinç ve bilinçdışındaki yansıları bireyin kozmik dünyasını ve aidiyet alanını inşa eder. Kendinden öncenin yok sayılmasının imkânsız (...) kabul edildiği yaratılış esasında babalık kavramı, bir önceki anlamının üzerine eklenerek birleşik bir görünge kazanır. İnsanlığın ve sözün ortaya çıktığı ilk andan itibaren yaşamsal düzlemin getirilerinden kopamayan romanlar aracılığıyla bireyin var oluşsal sancılarını yazınsal ifade alanına taşıyan sanatkârlar mevcut düzenin parçası baba figürünü anlatılar içine dahil eder. Birbirinin içinden doğan her edebi devirde farklı bir görünüm kazanan babalık kavramı, eserlerde ilahi yaratıcı; insanlığın atası kutlu kişi; otorite/iktidar; Öteki; soy bağı taşıyıcısı/gen aktarıcısı, koruyan, sahip çıkan; biyolojik bağ olmadan annenin eşi, üvey baba biçiminde bireyin yaşamına sonradan dahil edilen; manevi önder, çocuğun dünyaya doğumunda yer almayan ama güvenli alana doğumu sağlayan kutlu kişi ve fiziksel veya ruhsal ölümü ile ortaya çıkan babasızlık gibi baba figürünü karşılayan anlamlardan kopmadan yer aldığı görülür. Tematik bakımdan incelenen çalışma Giriş, Babalık Kavramı ve Babanın Türk Romanındaki Görünümleri başlıklı iki ana bölüm, Sonuç, Kaynakça olarak düzenlendi. Birinci Bölüm'de babanın Tanrı ve Âdem Baba, Otorite/İktidar, toplum ve birey hayatında babalık (genetik/kuşak aktarım nesnesi, Öteki baba ve dayanak/sığınak baba ve babasızlık) görünümleri tespit edildi. İkinci Bölüm'de belirlenen baba figürlerine uygun niteliklerdeki sekiz eserin (Orhan Pamuk-Sessiz Ev, Reşat Nuri Güntekin-Yaprak Dökümü, Güray Süngü-Mehmet'i Sakatlayan Serçe Parmağı, Alper Canıgüz- Oğullar ve Rencide Ruhlar, Alper Canıgüz- Cehennem Çiçeği, Kemal Tahir-Devlet Ana, Hasan Ali Toptaş-Sonsuzluğa Nokta ve Yakup Kadri Karaosmanoğlu-Nur Baba) babalık kavramı bağlamında tahliline yer verildi. Böylece bireysel ve toplumsal kimliğin inşa unsuru baba figürünün edebi eserlere yansımaları üzerine bir değerlendirme gerçekleştirildi. (shrink)