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