make-up post, last post, goodbye post.

So in my last little baby post, I communicated that I was sick, and that I’d post back in the next few days. I didn’t. I realize this, and I apologize. Life moves fast for a second semester senior, and there’s a lot to think about.

I’ve also been informed that this is to be the last blog posting necessary, which is understandable, considering that the rough draft of the paper is due in a little bit under two weeks now. Scary.

So my last bit of research (at least for these purposes) comes from a link that I embedded in my post two weeks ago. Here it is again, in case you’re lazy.

A primary function of philosophy is the rejection of certain ideas that form an argument. For example, if I create an argument as such:

1) Bobby went to the store.

2) Whenever Bobby goes to the store, he buys beets.

3) Therefore, Bobby bought beets.

One might reject that Bobby went to the store at all, saying he instead went bowling, rendering the argument practically useless. This link deals with some rejections, and some rejections of rejections, for the hard-determinists argument. They go as such:

The author of this piece divides determinism into two different standpoints: the theistic (meaning “God-related”) standpoint and the naturalistic standpoint, which is similar to what B.F. Skinner and my two commenters mirror in their thoughts– mainly, that human actions are purely attributable to a mixture of science, natural phenomena, and chance.

This is an important subdivision. I have tried to shy away from bringing God into the argument deliberately, but theistic determinism is a standpoint that certainly cannot be rejected in an argument as divided as this (not to mention I am both a Christian and, particularly, a Calvinist, making me biased).

As for the arguments, all of them are quite sound. It is the responses to such arguments that distinguish the more accepted arguments from those that are less believable. For example, the naturalistic argument. Human behavior is clearly self-causable, and therefore the argument is no longer sound. Of course some would reject that human behavior is self-caused, but I believe it can be. Moreover, admitting that human behavior is self-caused is confirming that free will exists, proving hard-determinism from a purely naturalistic standpoint to defeat itself. This is quoted from the link:

“A determinist insists that both determinists and non-determinists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But “ought to change” implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism.”

I love that. I seriously laughed. And it makes perfect sense too. If I ought to believe in determinism, then I need to change. But to change, I need to have the ability, or the will, to change. And by doing so, I undermine determinism altogether. Golden.

At this point, I’m pretty much convinced that hard determinism cannot possibly be accepted given intelligent research. That being said, a number of individuals, B.F. Skinner included, probably beg to differ. I’ll be taking a look at his piece “Beyond Behaviourism” a little bit to use in my paper. I’m also expecting a copy of Augustine’s “On Free Choice of the Will,” which I’ll read through. These represent the fundamental ideas from both sides of the spectrum.

As far as I go? I really liked that link. I like the idea of theistic soft-determinism, but I’m still not even sure if the paper is to be in the first or third person, so my opinion may not count for a whole lot. Still, I’ve picked up a lot. I know the argument’s details, but more important even than these is the fact that this issue affects everybody, everything, everywhere.

Final summation? I wrote this post freely.

Ha!

-sa