human source!

Alright! So I met with my human source on this issue. His name is Alex Arnold. He’s a fifth year philosophy graduate student, whom I have been in a mentoring relationship for the past two years or so. Convenient, eh? Anyway, here’s a bit more about him if you’re interested.

Alright. So I asked his take on the argument, and here’s the jist of it. An important thing to consider (that I haven’t been to date), is the difference between compatibility and moral responsibility. It only seems to get more complicated, doesn’t it? According to him, one must consider, assuming that the two (free will and determinism) are NOT compatible, whether or not determinism or free will are compatible with moral responsibility, which is to say, that person x still is still held accountable to their morals before/during/after committing action p.

He himself does not believe that the two are compatible, but that free will is compatible with moral responsibility and hard determinism is not. This is the deciding factor. He makes an excellent point here, and I get the sense that I would not have even considered moral responsibility otherwise. I’m meeting with him again tomorrow with pen and paper, so I’ll have some direct quotes and branching research a wee bit later in the week. Promise.

-sa

the history of the issue.

So in my last post I mentioned that I noticed (with the help of my instructor) that this argument dates far back into time, as far as 1596, at the time that Henry IV, Part 1 was written (for those of you not aquatinted, my class is currently running through this play). Here’s the deal. I’d first like to talk a little bit about what I found in Henry, but I think that this is also an excellent opportunity to examine the early workings of free will and determinism.

Henry. For those of you that just so happen to own the Dover Thrift Edition (it has some very pristine crowns on the cover), flip to page 5. For those of you who don’t, here’s a link to the play. This is taken from Act I, Scene II.

“Falstaff: ” . . . and let men say we be men of good government, being governed, as the sea is, by our noble and chaste mistress the moon, under who’s countenance we steal.

Henry: Thou sayest well, and it holds well too; for the fortune of us that are the moon’s men doth ebb and flow like the sea, being governed, as the sea is, by the moon . . .”

Man alive. Talk about determinism eh? A few swift punches, please. This is a sobering thought though. Even five hundred years ago, fatalists, or as we have referred to them, “hard determinists” are pinning stuff on the moon and the sea. There is proof in a number of other pieces by Shakespeare that also indicate he often entertains the idea of fate. And his audiences loved it. This begs the question, how many other people do? How far back was the idea of fate, or the notion of free will, conceived?

Well, it wasn’t difficult to establish at least as far back as St. Augustine, who lived in 354AD. Whew. Here’s an article I found on Catholic Online. Even though I’m not a Catholic, I found one thing worth commenting on. Augustine automatically sort of assumes that our actions are free, saying that humans have a sort of “good will,” and follow this will for the retention of wisdom. Other than that, the article was pretty scarce, but they referenced Augustine’s text Free Choice of the Will, so I’m going to try and get my hands on a copy of that and examine it for the next posting. I also stumbled on this, which I want to discuss later. Sorry if that seems random.. needed a place to put it, and I’d like to know what you guys think about it.

On the flip side of the argument, I was pretty much unable to find anything. A few mentions of BF Skinner, but that was quite late in the game, as compared to Augustine. He’s old . . .

And forgive me if this is grasping at eggshells, but I think this raises a good point. If free will has been around so much longer, does that suggest that free will is the more widely accepted argument? The answer seems trivial. Does it mean, however, that it is more sound, among intelligent quarrelers (if you will)? I’m inclined to think yes. I still just think it takes too many guts to take a leap like that and really believe hard determinism.

In any case, I’ll be looking at some BF Skinner stuff, Augustine’s piece, and that link I mentioned earlier next time.

And a cool little note. In researching this section, I at one point googled “primitive hard determinism,” and . . .

Win. Beautiful progress.

Keep commenting, and I’ll do the same.

-sa

topic change. generous post. symbiosis. peanut butter.

Ah. So I have indeed fallen behind. Hopefully everybody will forgive me this time. I guess I’ve had a particularly off week. In any case, I’ll be posting a very generous amount today, so hopefully that will help cover last week as well. I also intend to post 2+ times per week instead of the mandated 1, as I am switching topics.

Wait. What?

Yes. After some further consideration, and a close examination of the packet, I’ve decided to change my topic to “Free Will and Determinism.” This is a debate that intrigues me, that I will have ready access to, and that I think I’ll genuinely enjoy researching and writing about. More-so than the Blink-related previous topic, in any case.

Alright. I’m happy to say that, as I said, finding exposure to this topic really is quite simple. I’ve recently acquired a copy of Riddles of Existence, a collaboration between Theodore Sider and Earl Conee on some basic metaphysical issues. Chapter 6 of this collection is titled “Free Will and Determinism.” How appropriate. I’d like to talk a little bit about what I found.

Sider authors this chapter. Besides being a very amusing writer, he presents the issues quite well. The chapter deals primarily with the notion that every cause has an effect. One of the things that struck me is that he gave no distinct opinion between the left-hand side and right-hand side of the argument, leaving the reader to form their own opinion. The left and right-hand side? Hard Determinists vs. Libertarians (NOTE: libertarian in the metaphysical sense has no correlation to that in the political sense).

Hard Determinists are better known as fatalists, those that believe in fate. They believe that everything in the universe that has an effect must have a cause. This means, therefore, that everything can be explained in the sense of physics. Sider uses this example: consider Hitler’s decision to invade Poland. The invasion of Poland is Hitler’s effect, the decision his cause. We might then say that Hitler’s decision was the effect of a cause earlier: perhaps a move by the Allied Advance that required a counterattack. Eventually, all history leading up to Hitler’s invasion of Poland becomes a series of causes and effects, even before the time that Hitler was born. The question then becomes, how can we blame or prosecute somebody who had no say in invading Poland? Someone who was caused to do so? This becomes a difficult truth to accept. And to some degree, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it? Sider counters with this: “If you come across someone who claims to believe in hard determinism, here’s a little experiment. Punch him in the face, really hard. Then try and tell him not to blame you. After all, if causes and effects determined this moment, then how can you be to blame?” I thought that was pretty funny. I also became readily concerned as I read this. As a human being, I simply just believe that my choices are free. It’s a principle that this nation was founded on. It’s something that you just come to accept from day one. For somebody to bring that into question is pretty bothersome. Isn’t there any other alternative? Thankfully, yes.

Libertarians believe in free will. They believe that humans are not subject to the laws of cause and effect, but instead that we are given the option to choose freely what we do. Some libertarians believe in a part known as the soul, a separate entity not explainable by science, whereas others may claim that humans are a race that simply surpasses the laws of nature. Most of us don’t really consider it, but we are for the most part libertarians. After all, it takes a lot of guts to believe in fate so readily.

I really don’t like hard determinism. I do like libertarianism though (who wouldn’t?). The problem that I found arises is finding the balance between the two. It certainly seems plausible that causes and effects determine a majority of situations, but I’d still like to know that I’m choosing crunchy peanut butter over smooth at Martin’s because crunchy is, to be fair, a million times better. Sider doesn’t answer this question, or give any indication as to which he believes. My next move? To try and find an author that does.

And I did. Curtis Brown, professor of philosophy at Trinity University, writes a killer response to the problem. The solution? Compatiblisim. The link can be found here. I love reading in philosophical format, but if it bugs you, here’s basically my take on what Brown says.

Brown says that both Libertarians and Hard Determinists believe that freedom and fate are not compatible with each other, which is to say, neither can live while the other survives (I can’t believe I just made a Harry Potter reference. . .  smite me). The view that Sider fails to mention is soft-determinism, which basically states that the two are compatible. Soft-determinists, or “compatibilists” believe that actions that are free are indeed caused, but are influenced by our beliefs and/or desires, and therefore are not completely subject to externality. As much as I know about it, I tend to like the idea of compatibility. That being said, I came around the idea just yesterday, so it probably hasn’t fully settled. Perhaps it is because it seems incompatibility would keep one chasing his or her tail for days on end. Compatibilism poses its problems too, however. Some of these are listed on that site. Isn’t there any sound solution? My hypothesis right now is that there isn’t, but that I can get a pretty good idea why that is. Both sides have some convincing stuff. In any case, I will obviously be looking into this in further research.

One last thing. I have realized that it would be easy to simply update one’s blog every Monday and not reach out to help other people on their senior exit expedition. I have done it myself, and it bothers me. I want constructive feedback like everybody else does. I guess I’d like to kind of set up a primitive system. If you are willing to take the time out of your day to scratch my back, then I’ll be sure to pay your blog a visit and do the same. It’s not much, but it’s my idea of the first step towards a kind of symbiotic blogging community of senior exiters.

crunchy peanut butter is still my choice. ha!

-sa