Steve said:
It is a quite common mainstream philosophical position called "compatiblism" to
assert that free will and determinism ought not be thought of as mutually
exclusive.
dmb says:
I know what compatibilism is and I have been saying all along that the MOQ is a
form of compatibilism. Its says we are free to some extent and controlled to
some extent. But you are not saying that. You're describing compatibilism as a
position that maintains two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time. That is
nonsense. By analogy, a thing can be warm but it cannot be rightly described as
hot and cold at the same time because one rules out the other. It says there
are determining factors but not to the exclusion of all freedom. It simply
doesn't make any sense to say we are 100% determined and also say that we are
free. To be a compatibilist, you cannot embrace determinism too. To be a
compatibilist, you cannot deny freedom but that's exactly what the determinist
does. And you are misreading the "real contemporary philosopher heavy-weights"
you bring up to support this idea and you are oblivious to the fact that they
are predicating their views on the metaphysical baggage
you keep saying we ought to get rid of.
Steve said:
...Your version of determinism here is the old metaphysical one with
mechanistic laws "out there" controlling the universe in spite of appearance to
the contrary.
dmb says:
The traditional version of determinism, as Pirsig explains, is based on
extending the laws of causality from physics to human action. Other than Pirsig
and James, is there anyone else who rejects causality without also rejecting
science. Is there a determinist in this world who doesn't predicate his views
on causality? If you drop the metaphysical baggage, then what reason is there
to deny freedom as we actually experience it? Without some kind of metaphysical
baggage, you just can't arrive at such a drastic conclusion, a conclusion that
defies empirical reality. It's easy to acknowledge the idea that restraints are
known and felt in experience. That's just an empirical claim that involves no
trans-experiential entities or laws or principles. That's what the scholars
said in all those quotes you have totally ignored, by the way. Charlene
Siegfreid says that, Martha Nussbaum says that, David Granger says that, James
and Pirsig say that. So once again you are asking questions l
ong after they've been answered. At this point, I could probably reply to any
of your posts by simply cutting and pasting the things I already said.
Steve said:
If we are [dropping the metaphysical baggage], then we don't have to worry
about whether choices or causes are what is really real. Explaining behavior in
terms of human will doesn't mean that causes are illusory when we don't have an
interest in the appearance-reality game. Causal explanations don't make choices
illusory.
dmb says:
What's real is experience. Freedom and restraint are names for what's actually
experienced. Causality, as Hume famously pointed out, is not known in
experience. The resistences felt in experience are the real thing and causality
- not to mention substance- is a metaphysical posit that is supposed to explain
that empirical fact. And it's not that causal explanations make our choices
illusory. That idea works if you're talking about billiard balls or rocket
science. The problem is using causality to deny human freedom, which is exactly
what the causal determinists does. And it's no accident that both our favorite
pragmatists - James, Dewey and Pirsig - all reject this idea because,
pragmatically speaking, that is one of the worst ideas in the history of ideas.
Morally speaking, it's a total disaster of an idea. It produces a hopeless
nihilism. It's an idea so bad that James wanted to kill himself because he was
afraid that it might be true. It's an idea that says morality and f
reedom are meaningless illusions that have nothing to do with the way things
really are. If you think this "can be admired and appreciated on their own
merits like paintings in a gallery," then you are the worst art critic of all
time.
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
