Steve said:
I can't see why saying that the will is part determined and part random can add
up to a sort of freedom worth wanting.
dmb says:
"James was the first to overcome the standard two-part argument against free
will, i.e., that the will is either determined or random. James gave it
elements of both, to establish freedom but preserve responsibility." (Doyle)
To say that the will is determined is to argue against free will. To say that
the will is random is to argue against free will. James argues for free will
against these denials. To say that everything is determined is to assert
determinism. To say there are determining factors but not so much that
everything is determined is NOT determinism. To say that everything is random
is to deny this freedom for a different reason. To say that everything is
either determined OR random is still a denial of this freedom. James does NOT
predicate freedom on either position. He asserts freedom by denying that
everything is one or the other. He is disputing the iron block universe of his
determinist opponents because you cannot have moral responsibility in such a
universe. We cannot change, evolve or improve in such a universe. In such a
world our acts are just one more link in the causal chain of events, just a cog
in the law-like operation of a machine, or just a random event in a sea of c
haos. Jamesian free will gives us a very different universe, wherein we are
responsible and your choices have real effects on the world, wherein life is a
real fight instead of a meaningless series of events.
If you think this isn't something worth wanting, then you're a psychopath or a
robot or something less than human. Seriously, do you really not see what a
moral nightmare James is trying to climb out of? Do you really not see how
determinism destroys everything that human beings care about? If determinism is
true, then we are simply wrong to regret the holocaust and all those pedophile
priests and we have no basis on which to hold anyone accountable for anything.
We also have no reason to praise or congratulate anyone for anything. That's
enough to make any sane person put a shotgun in their mouth and pull the
trigger. Not worth having?! Man, you're just not getting this at all, are you?
Steve said:
Personally, if the terms free will and determinism are worth keeping at all,
then I would think of them as compatible intellectual patterns.
dmb says:
Free will and determinism are compatible intellectual patterns?! Sigh. No, they
are mutually exclusive intellectual patterns, like hot and cold or up and down.
These concepts are defined in relation to each other so that determinism means
a denial of free will and free will means a denial of determinism. How can
anyone talk to you about this if you can't even discern the difference between
"up" and "down". It's as if your aim and purpose is to convince me that you
have a serious cognitive disorder. It's like you actually want me to believe
that you cannot speak english. Get a dictionary. You'll plainly see that
determinism and free will are not compatilbe. That's why they call it a
dilemma, you know? This confusion leads you to say things like....
Steve said:
It [compatibilism] is not the idea that we have SOME free will but we are also
SOMEWHAT controlled. Compatiblism says that free will and determinism are both
true. It says that the serpent of causation is thus over everything. ...
dmb says:
No, Steve. If the serpent of causation is over everything then there is no free
will and you cannot rightly call it compatibilism. If you say causation is over
everything, then you are a determinist and if you are a determinist then your
are denying free will. The compatibilist does say we are free to some extent
and we are controlled to some extent. James and Pirsig both say exactly that.
They say causality is not over EVERYTHING even while they admit that there are
controlling factors and restraints on our freedom but they are not totally
controlling, otherwise their could be no freedom at all.
Steve said:
...But at the same time, though everything can be thought of as having a cause,
"everything" is a collection of value choices.
dmb says:
Oh, for Pete's sake. Now you're equating obedience to causal laws with value
choices?! Again, you are simply defying the meaning of the terms. If your acts
are the effects of causes, then they are not the result of your choices. If
they are the effects of causes, you cannot rightly say they were chosen.
Apparently you are conflating "causes" as the operation of mechanical laws with
"causes" as having a reason or a motive for your choice. You are using one word
to talk about two opposed ideas at the same time and in the same sentence.
I was caused to freely choose by the laws of physics, and it's a good thing
too. Clearly, "freedom" is just another word for slavery and bondage and those
with shortest chains can range the farthest. When I fly down as far as I can go
into the sky, for example, ice boils me and fire freezes me. But I feel free
and alive, as alive as any corpse ever felt. Trust me on this, no matter what
those hacks over at Webster's or Stanford say about it. Make no mistake about
it, gents, slavery is the essence of freedom and if you doubt it just ask Steve
Peterson - or George Orwell.
Oh, and Dynamic Quality is like a hot stove. Pirsig's analogy, obviously, is
meant to put an end - once and for all - to the terrible habit of sitting on
DQ. Sitting on DQ is exactly what the mystics don't want and that's why they
jump off so quickly. Why? Because if you're sitting on DQ you cannot follow it.
Following DQ means that you are slave to freedom, that you are free to do
exactly what DQ causes you to do. And that's what freedom all about; getting
pushed around by forces beyond your control and for which you can't held
responsible. As we all know, Pirsig's inquiry into values and morals ends only
when he finally proves that there is no such thing, when he shows us that
values are really just another name for the laws of cause and effect. That's
the main point, isn't it? Quality is what you like. Quality is what you are.
But what you like is just subjective and "you" are an illusion. Once we drop
all this metaphysical baggage, we can see that values and morals and pe
ople are just meaningless ideas that refer to nothing at all. Then we can see
that "experience" and "empirical reality" are just comforting fictions invented
by chance. Therefore, freedom is bondage to the necessity of chaos and that's
why Socrates was right to drink the hemlock. (He was going to choose exile but
Steve talked him out of it by promising to join him and engage in a long debate
on free will as they traveled together. It was that prospect that caused
Socrates to guzzle poison as fast as he could.)
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
