| Jan 17th, 2004 01:07 PM |
| Zhukov |
Yes.
But this time it is true.
|
| Jan 17th, 2004 01:03 PM |
| The One and Only... |
You do realize that is a classic argument made against every political ideology except conservatism, right?
|
| Jan 17th, 2004 09:48 AM |
| Zhukov |
Libertarianism is a good idea on paper, but it doesn't work in real life.
|
| Jan 16th, 2004 03:49 PM |
| mburbank |
If philosiphy were a newfangled ride on mower, OAO would have mulched himself by now.
If philosiphical terms were a box of mac and cheese, OAO would be putting the cheese powder in his coffee and bliding himself with the uncooked noodles in the vein hope they might turn out to be contact lenses.
If logical progression was a bionical, OAO would have chunky plastic bits in his urethra.
|
| Jan 16th, 2004 03:47 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Re: The One and Only...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
I realize that causal chains could have gone differently, you smug prig, but that's strictly hypothetical--still not a proof that free will can be reconciled with determinism. The choice was still caused by something prior and, as such, was not free.
|
You have a different view of freedom. I view freedom as the liberty to, not the liberty from.
For example, I can be free to see a doctor, but I cannot be free from having to worry about healthcare expenses.
Sometimes they overlap, but this is an irrelevant point.
Quote:
|
Oh really? Well aren't you just a fountain of philosophical originality? Let's hear it then.
|
Libertarianism is simply the most practical of political theories.
|
| Jan 16th, 2004 03:36 PM |
| Brandon |
Re: The One and Only...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Omniscient One
You are confusing two principles. Most free willists have admited that decisions are caused. They just have not admited that they are determined.
Principle of Universal Causation - All things are caused.
Principle of Universal Determinism - All things are caused in such a manner that they could not have been any other way.
|
I realize that causal chains could have gone differently, you smug prig, but that's strictly hypothetical--still not a proof that free will can be reconciled with determinism. The choice was still caused by something prior and, as such, was not free.
Quote:
|
I have a different base for libertarianism.
|
Oh really? Well aren't you just a fountain of philosophical originality? Let's hear it then.
|
| Jan 16th, 2004 03:18 PM |
| The One and Only... |
The One and Only...
That's probably because I'm not.
You are confusing two principles. Most free willists have admited that decisions are caused. They just have not admited that they are determined.
Principle of Universal Causation - All things are caused.
Principle of Universal Determinism - All things are caused in such a manner that they could not have been any other way.
I have a different base for libertarianism.
|
| Jan 16th, 2004 01:30 PM |
| Ant10708 |
I don't think he is even 20.
|
| Jan 16th, 2004 12:46 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pompous Fuckhead
That is not the only definition [of free will].
|
YES, YES IT IS! If your choice is caused it is, by definition not free! If you add deterministic elements to the concept of free will, it isn't "free will" anymore, it's compatibilism. Oh, and did I mention that I consider compatibilism garbage?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wikipedia.com
According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires.
|
This is nothing more than a desperate rationalization on the part of Hume. That hypothetical "could have" is nothing more than a phantom, a non-issue. The decision was caused. End of story. This psuedo-doctrine of compatibilism probably arose out of the terrifying realization among thinkers like Hobbes and Hume that determinism would completely undermine the traditional conception of justice and ethics. They made a last-ditch attempt to salvage man's responsibility for his actions.
But I can see why you're unwilling to dispose of free will, Mr. Laissez-Faire. If man isn't totally free, the primary justification for libertarianism is destroyed. Wouldn't that be the most beautiful irony? Your pompous alleigance to chemical and genetic determinism backfiring in your fat, middle-aged face.
|
| Jan 16th, 2004 11:38 AM |
| The One and Only... |
Perhaps I should clarify. Human desires do not change, because desire is a evolutionary tool that makes us fulfill instinctual goals. Human nature, on the other hand, can be changed in so far that different people in different situations can draw different conclusions.
I presume that I am using your definition of human nature here. In actuality, I would say that human nature stays the same: the conclusions drawn are merely different because of adaptive reasoning.
|
| Jan 16th, 2004 11:31 AM |
| theapportioner |
Quote:
|
I have been listening to the scientists. Recent studies have shown that two identical twins - even when having very different backgrounds - are overwhelmingly similar in their tastes. Advantage nature.
|
If you look more closely at the twin studies, you'll see that some traits are more heritable than other traits and tastes. For instance there is quite a range for various properties of intelligence. Or humor. Plus, keep in mind that many of these separated twins are raised in quite similar environments - most likely middle class, English speaking, etc. Take a newborn orphan twin from war-torn Congo and raise him in the US, leaving his brother behind - then come talk to me. Or take a twin and give him NO FAMILY WHATSOEVER and see if his personality develops in the same way. Nor are teratogenic effects ruled out - the twins shared the same womb. Maybe one would call this 'nature' but it is not genetic.
All it proves is that genes have some hand in shaping the totality of human personality. This is obvious, come on. It does NOT prove genetic determinism - otherwise you'd have no variances across all particular characteristics of personality. You say human nature does not change - you would HAVE to hold this radical genetic deterministic position.
Genes and environment operate in a complex dynamic - there is more evidence now that a large combination of genes operate to produce even one aspect of personality. Also, thresholds are important - a certain threshold of environmental stimuli is necessary to cause the over- or underexpression of certain genes, such as perhaps in the case of schizophrenia. Or are we to say that in recent years Americans are getting fatter, and their IQs on the whole are increasing, solely because of genetic drift or selection??? Others are getting with the program; you should too.
|
| Jan 16th, 2004 10:22 AM |
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
The definition of "free will" is pretty cut-and-dry. Decision-making that isn't "caused" by anything.
|
That is not the only definition.
Quote:
|
"Reasoning" implies a direction by consciousness. In the hard determinist view (of which chemical and genetic varities are a part), the conscious deliberation is merely an illusion. You didn't "reason," your brain went through chemical reactions.
|
Consciousness is merely awareness. I can still be consciously reasoning, even though that is only occuring because of my brain.
Quote:
|
What the fuck does identity theory have to do with this?? Listen to the scientists - the philosophers in this area are mostly blowing hot air.
|
I have been listening to the scientists. Recent studies have shown that two identical twins - even when having very different backgrounds - are overwhelmingly similar in their tastes. Advantage nature.
Quote:
|
So all thought emanates from reason. Even creative expression, word play. Whatever. You are just making up definitions, definitions that go against many of the ordinary uses of the word. But then you take your unconventional definitions and apply them in the same way as the conventional definitions. You want us to think you are talking about reason, when you aren't talking about it AT ALL. A philosophical abuse of language, language going on holiday
|
I'm not making up definitions. Rationalists have used that one for quite some time. Why do you think I quoted it?
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 11:43 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Another thing that's sort of unclear to me is how we should take Sartre's notion of free will. Is it to be understood only in the context of not being dragged down by being-in-itself? In other words, free from representation? I have heard he rejects determinism, but in a subjective sense only or also in an objective sense?
|
It seems to be a very radical sort of free will. I know that he rejects any sort of "human nature," believes that our choices shape what we are, and seems to think that our biological wants and needs are, for the most part, under the control of consciousness. I know Nietzsche accepted a more compatibilist view of determinism and free will, thinking that while we can make choices, the idea that there aren't subtle internal or external forces influencing us is absurd. Sartre, on the other hand, doesn't seem to make any concessions to determinism, but it's been awhile since I've read Being and Nothingness, so I'd have to double-check.
The basic drive of being-for-itself, he says, is to become "God"--a complete entity lacking nothing yet possessing cognition and subjectivity at the same time. Since consciousness itself is a lack, says Sartre, such a quest is futile. Attitudes towards others mirror this desire for "completeness." His concept of sexual desire, for example, places less emphasis on biology than it does on his belief that being-for-itself attempts to "possess" and merge with another subjective lifeform.
Quote:
|
Yeah, but our emotional states influence our thoughts, too.
|
True.
EDIT: Well, the Nietzsche position on the free will debate seems pretty clear on second thought:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nietzsche
The error of free will. Today we no longer have any pity for the concept of "free will": we know only too well what it really is--the foulest of all theologians' artifices aimed at making mankind "responsible" in their sense, that is, dependent upon them. Here I simply supply the psychology of all "making responsible."
|
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 11:25 PM |
| theapportioner |
"while science seems to have run counter to his theories, recent developments in cognitive psychology have shed tremendous light on how our thoughts can impact our emotional states."
Yeah, but our emotional states influence our thoughts, too.
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 11:23 PM |
| theapportioner |
Ahhh, thanks. That clarified a lot of things for me. It is strange that he uses the term 'being-for-itself' when it is meant to be a negation of being, tho'.
Another thing that's sort of unclear to me is how we should take Sartre's notion of free will. Is it to be understood only in the context of not being dragged down by being-in-itself? In other words, free from representation? I have heard he rejects determinism, but in a subjective sense only or also in an objective sense?
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 11:08 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Hmm, good question. I don't know it -that- well so I could be wrong about a thing or two, but... Sartre, and many other Existentialists, do maintain a pretty unambiguous subjective-objective split. Descartes really helped to get this tradition going. Though I agree with Sartre that we are not merely beings-in-themselves (though for different reasons), I do feel that there is something partially ontological about the idea 'being-for-itself', or transcendence. And I've never been able to make sense of this 'nothingness' in its relation to consciousness. I tend to see Existentialism as a type of 'way of life' philosophy, an attitude towards seeing things. In this view then, I don't have a problem with transcendence. But I think Sartre -is- saying more than that, and if he is, I have a hard time swallowing it.
|
According to Sartre, "nothingness" is consciousness (the being-for-itself). It exists only as a negation of being, contingent on yet able to control being-in-itself, which is a pretty unusual theory. It is what creates "free will" and is the director of all emotions. What sets him apart from Descartes is his rejection of the idea that this consciousness is the "self" or has an essence of its own. The self exists to Sartre, but outside of us, as the synthesis of all our previous actions and psychic states. A good description might be that one's "self" and "reputation" are the same in Sartre's world. Obviously there's no real way to "prove" this is the case--it just seems to have been the result of reflection.
What keeps me unwilling to totally reject Sartre's ideas is the fact that, while science seems to have run counter to his theories, recent developments in cognitive psychology have shed tremendous light on how our thoughts can impact our emotional states.
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 10:46 PM |
| theapportioner |
Hmm, good question. I don't know it -that- well so I could be wrong about a thing or two, but... Sartre, and many other Existentialists, do maintain a pretty unambiguous subjective-objective split. Descartes really helped to get this tradition going. Though I agree with Sartre that we are not merely beings-in-themselves (though for different reasons), I do feel that there is something partially ontological about the idea 'being-for-itself', or transcendence. And I've never been able to make sense of this 'nothingness' in its relation to consciousness. I tend to see Existentialism as a type of 'way of life' philosophy, an attitude towards seeing things. In this view then, I don't have a problem with transcendence. But I think Sartre -is- saying more than that, and if he is, I have a hard time swallowing it.
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 10:07 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Brandon, doesn't it strike you that he is embracing a kind of Cartesianism with that conception of reason? No self respecting philosopher these days would take the 'ghost in the machine' idea seriously.
|
I don't even think OAO knows what the hell ideas he's embracing anymore. He seems to just adopt whatever views are contradictory to the majority of the thread for the sheer pleasure of being a little prick.
I'm actually nostalgic for Vinth as our designated troll.
Anyway, since you brought up Cartesian duality, what's your take on Sartre's conception of consciousness (being-for-itself)? I'm not quite sold either way. I mean, it seems like he's moved away from Descartes' "ghost in the machine," since his idea of consciousness is more similar to Hume's (a mere transitory filter), but some critics still accuse it of being mysticism.
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 09:29 PM |
| theapportioner |
Brandon, doesn't it strike you that he is embracing a kind of Cartesianism with that conception of reason? No self respecting philosopher these days would take the 'ghost in the machine' idea seriously.
Quote:
|
Not true. The Identity Thesis has only been established in recent years.
|
What the fuck does identity theory have to do with this?? Listen to the scientists - the philosophers in this area are mostly blowing hot air.
Quote:
|
Reason is defined as "the process through which human beings perform thought." You had to employ reason in order to think of a cow.
|
So all thought emanates from reason. Even creative expression, word play. Whatever. You are just making up definitions, definitions that go against many of the ordinary uses of the word. But then you take your unconventional definitions and apply them in the same way as the conventional definitions. You want us to think you are talking about reason, when you aren't talking about it AT ALL. A philosophical abuse of language, language going on holiday.
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 08:07 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
That is only because of the way in which you define free will.
|
The definition of "free will" is pretty cut-and-dry. Decision-making that isn't "caused" by anything.
Quote:
|
How so? Those reactions are still occuring within my brain, are they not? Therefore, I am reasoning, and I did arrive to those conclusions, regardless of what triggered them.
|
"Reasoning" implies a direction by consciousness. In the hard determinist view (of which chemical and genetic varities are a part), the conscious deliberation is merely an illusion. You didn't "reason," your brain went through chemical reactions.
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 07:57 PM |
| sspadowsky |
I think what we need to do here is take a serious look at the egalitarian ruminations that evade our collective gestalt. Think about it: As Munchausen once said, "Wherever there be platitudes, fatalistic entropy is sure to follow." While my college-level philosophy book embraces such atavistic haberdashery, I am not certain I am inclined to proselytize. What are your thoughts?
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 07:43 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon
Alrighty, Mr. Logic, here's the problem.
If chemical reactions cause states of consciousness, then they're nothing more than hollow, useless projections, and you've completely destroyed any possibility of choice or free will.
|
That is only because of the way in which you define free will.
Quote:
|
According to your view of chemical/genetic determinism, the idea that you arrived at the conclusion to put your books away was nothing more than an illusion.
|
How so? Those reactions are still occuring within my brain, are they not? Therefore, I am reasoning, and I did arrive to those conclusions, regardless of what triggered them.
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 07:27 PM |
| Brandon |
Quote:
|
Chemical reactions cause consciousness. To think otherwise would invoke the problems of mind-matter dualism.
|
Quote:
|
You have a narrow view of compatabalism.
|
Alrighty, Mr. Logic, here's the problem.
If chemical reactions cause states of consciousness, then they're nothing more than hollow, useless projections, and you've completely destroyed any possibility of choice or free will. You also contradict yourself in saying:
Quote:
|
But reason is defined as thought, and I did, in fact, have to think about putting my book into my backpack. So my point remains.
|
According to your view of chemical/genetic determinism, the idea that you arrived at the conclusion to put your books away was nothing more than an illusion.
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 07:05 PM |
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theapportioner
Nice try. It's been figured out enough for me to know you are wrong. Read up on the contemporary literature. People are abandoning radical genetic determinism.
|
Not true. The Identity Thesis has only been established in recent years.
Quote:
|
Reason is a process, a thought is an event. I can think of a cow - how can you call that reason?? You are committing an awful awful awful philosophical abuse of language.
|
Reason is defined as "the process through which human beings perform thought." You had to employ reason in order to think of a cow.
|
| Jan 15th, 2004 06:53 PM |
| theapportioner |
Quote:
|
The science of genetics has not been perfectly figured out yet
|
Nice try. It's been figured out enough for me to know you are wrong. Read up on the contemporary literature. People are abandoning radical genetic determinism.
Quote:
|
But reason is defined as thought,
|
Reason is a process, a thought is an event. I can think of a cow - how can you call that reason?? You are committing an awful awful awful philosophical abuse of language.
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
