ABSTRACT
This chapter analyses an attempt of Nelson Pike’s to draw a parallel between the arguments of Cicero and A. N. Prior with respect to the relationship between determinism and foreknowledge. Pike argues that Prior takes foreknowledge to entail determinism, given an ‘intermediate thesis’, the thesis that statements about human actions are true at times prior to the times at which the actions are performed. This chapter responds that Prior’s view is in fact that for any free act to be foreknown it must be present in its causes, and, while Prior does not deny that an act has causes, he does deny determinism.
