• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.135-165
• /
• 2010

In this paper, I explore Turner's argument against libertarianism. He claims that libertarians can't be compatible with naturalism, without abandoning the Consequence Argument. In order to support this claim, he proposes the Supervenience Argument. According to him, the Supervenience Argument can't be rejected without abandoning either the Consequence Argument or naturalism. But I show that libertarians don't have to accept his Supervenience Argument, even though they stick to the Consequence Argument, and that even though they accept his Supervenience Argument, they don't have to abandon the freedom of agent. For these reasons, I conclude that Turner's argument against libertarianism turns out a failure.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.105
• /
• pp.75-94
• /
• 2008

In philosophy of mind, both reductionism and deflationism claim that the problem of mental causation is overstated, but the reason why they claim that way is quite different. On the one hand, for deflationism, since the problem of mental causation is bogus problem we need to focus on epistemology or scientific explanation rather than metaphysics. On the other hand, although the proponents of nonreductionism seem to think of the principles of causal closure of the physical and causal exclusion proposed by Jaegwon Kim as tenable, they do not go with the reductive approach to the problem of mental causation. Instead they stay with the concept of supervenience to overcome mental causation problem that, reductionists think, leads us to the dilemma situation. Of course, deflationists do not think that supervenience is plausible not as much as supervenience physicalists think that it is. If so, in what way and how do deflationists regard the problem of mental causation as a bogus problem? In this paper, I shall examine the most plausible response to mental causation problem, the contemporary version of mind-body problem by critically discussing and clarifying matters concerning the problem.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.38 no.2
• /
• pp.298-311
• /
• 2003

Building the new administration capital city, one of presidential candidate Moo-Hyun Rho's election pledges, is now listed as a priority national policy agenda of the Participation Government. However, so many people's negative attitudes ranging from cynical skepticism to firm objections against the national policy agenda may threaten its smooth policy actualization. At this juncture, this paper attempts to present persuasive arguments and discuss some critical issues to be considered for building the new administration capital city successfully. The paper begins with taking a look at the current state of hyper-concentration of Seoul agglomeration area and its harmful effects, paints a vision of 'an evenly developed country as a whole' via illustrating the vision from the Swiss case, and reviews the performance of the precedent governments' reform measures for rectifying the hyper-concentration of Seoul agglomeration area. And then, the paper argues for building the new administration capital city as a potent solution to the problem of excessive concentration of activities in Seoul agglomeration area, as well as a driving force to spur the government to realize the Participation Government' enthusiastic vision: 'a decentralized and evenly developed country as a whole' and 'the hub country in the Northeast Asia'. In addition, the paper discusses the location of the new administration capital city in connection with the forthcoming national unification. Lastly, the paper deals with the important issues such as the procedure of people's approval, the population size and legal status of the new administration capital city, the relationship between building the new administration capital city and decentralization reform, etc.