|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 31, 2008 10:37:39 GMT -8
OK, so very little time, but I just wanted to post some thoughts on the implications of absolute determinism that must be grappled with if one accepts the theory. So, just a couple of examples of "implications" of the theory thought all the way out:
a) convicted child rapists could not have chosen other than they did
b) if I "chose" right now to do anything (murder my neighbor, jump out in front of traffic, cuss out my children) and actually did it, then it would not only not be my "fault" but I could not have chosen otherwise. I would be a complete victim of fate.
c) right and wrong completely break down all together, because the concepts of right and wrong inherently imply moral responsibility and culpability for wrong actions. If absolute determinism is true, then there is no point at all in speaking of right and wrong
d) if absolute determinism is true, then if I "chose" to sit here and do absolutely nothing until I died of starvation and actually managed to do so, then my action would be completely justified and I could not have done otherwise, even if my kids and wife were screaming at me to get off by butt and eat
e) Hitler and Stalin themselves had no choice at all in their decisions- they are not morally culpable for their actions because they had no control over them
f) If I saw someone lying dying on the side of the road and I did not help them I would be as morally justified as if I did helm them. Either way, I wouldn't be making a true decision, just relying on impulses out of my control.
The preceding thoughts are just some of the reasons why philosophers have never been nearly as down with determinism as certain types of scientists.
Scientists think because they can identify a multitude of factors (brain chemistry, etc..) which impinge or influence free will and because the universe must go back to a single cause that there must be no free will. And yet they live in absolute contradiction to determinism all day long.
It's the same with radical Calvinists in the theological realm.
OK, so this was a quick fire from the hip, not super organized, but I still think well worth a response from anyone toying with really accepting absolute determinism.
And, by the way, if one is going to soften the concept of determinism by just suggesting that there are indeed many forces and factors which impinge on free will, then that's not really pure determinism anyway.
Lastly, remember that in my view predestination and free will are paradoxical simultaneous truths. In my opinion, this is the only sane position given the facts and realities, though it is impossible to rationally explain. the existence of things that we can't explain shouldn't bother us too much, acknowledging that as finite creatures there must be things "beyond us".
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 8, 2008 0:51:30 GMT -8
The preceding thoughts are just some of the reasons why philosophers have never been nearly as down with determinism as certain types of scientists. This sentence sounds as if philosophers dismissed determinism because they didn’t WANT those implications to be true. Well, “life isn’t a musical request programme” as we say in Germany (a possible English equivalent would be: life isn’t always a bowl of cherries). Just because an idea isn’t really pleasant, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Before I start to reply, we have to make sure that we are talking about the same thing here. I’m well aware that there is some kind of philosophical concept called determinism but I hardly know anything about the discourse and its results. So I’m not gonna sign it. Here is what I mean when I speak of determinism. Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. (from Wikipedia) a) convicted child rapists could not have chosen other than they did As far as I know, child rapists are usually “Triebtäter”. I can’t find a literal translation for this German word. It consists of two nouns: Trieb = drive (for instance sexual drive) and Täter = committer. They commit their crimes due to an abnormally strong sexual drive. Their sexual drive is stronger than their ability to back off. Paedophilia is considered a mental disease today. Could a child rapist have chosen other than he did? That’s what every judge tries to find out at court. Depending on the medical estimate, the offender goes into jail or an asylum. Determinism yes or no, it is commonly accepted that some people, especially mentally sick people, actually have no choice. The words “to have a choice” are somewhat misleading here. Let’s say you’re buying some ice-cream. There are a lot of different flavors. Yet you have only the money to buy one sort. Technically speaking you have the choice, cause nobody would prevent you from buying any of these. But in reality your final choice is already fixed before you know it. The decision was the result of multiple factors you are unaware of. Now, I do believe there are scales. The more time you have to evaluate and the more action alternatives you are able to create, the closer your decision comes to a “free will decision” because the factors that determine your decision become more balanced. I’m sorry if this is confusing, I wish I could explain what I mean in my native language so we could avoid misunderstandings. I’ll try to illustrate what I mean with an example. If I forced you to choose the ice-cream sort within 3 seconds, you wouldn’t really have time to think about it. Maybe you would choose something you wouldn’t have chosen if you had had more time. Maybe you would choose the sort you are most familiar with or which has the most appealing color. But maybe, if you had time to think about it, you would see that there is also a flavour you haven’t checked yet, but that has been recommended to you. Do you see what I mean? The latter decision is also determined, but there are more factors included. The more factors involved, the more possible outcomes. And the more time the more balanced the factors are. Or let’s take Lewis’ example with the bear and the friend. Let’s say you are sitting at a campfire and all of a sudden a grizzly bear jumps out of the scrub. If you only had one second to decide and that decision was definite, then probably most people would be won over by their flight impulse and leave the friend behind. That's not mean or rude or immoral, but a natural instinct. But if you saw the bear approaching from a distance and you realize that you had a gun, the outcome of your decision would probably be different. Bottom line: the more action alternatives one can create and the more time you have to unconsciously and consciously weigh the influence factors, the more “free” you are though you are never really free. Mentally sick people and people of low IQ have less possibilities to create action alternatives and are hence less free. b) if I "chose" right now to do anything (murder my neighbor, jump out in front of traffic, cuss out my children) and actually did it, then it would not only not be my "fault" but I could not have chosen otherwise. I would be a complete victim of fate. You would be the victim of all the factors that made you do it. c) right and wrong completely break down all together, because the concepts of right and wrong inherently imply moral responsibility and culpability for wrong actions. If absolute determinism is true, then there is no point at all in speaking of right and wrong I fully disagree. Right and wrong do exist. Although what is right and what is wrong is very flexible and a matter of definition, all societies have their standards. If you think, you can kill somebody because there is no right and wrong, you can do it. But you will have to bear the consequences. The awareness of consequences is certainly a considerable factor in the pool of factors determining your decisions. Although I don’t believe in God and don’t believe in a universal morality and don’t think I’ll burn in hell after I die, I don’t run amok. Why? Because of multiple reasons. I feel no urge to kill or do harm. It totally disagrees with me. With everything I’ve learned and experienced. I also know the consequences (like jail). I’ve learned what my society considers to be right and wrong and internalized it. If you gave me a loaded gun and told me to kill somebody for the fun of it, my determined reply would be: no! I strongly believe that everybody must be held responsible for his actions, even if he isn’t really free. Let’s say a schizophrenic person with a split personality uses to commit crimes while suffering from a blackout. This person isn’t responsible in the true sense of the word. But we can’t let him walk around as if nothing had happened, because he means danger to innocent people. This person must be put into a closed sanatorium. Or take a child. I guess we agree that a little child can’t really understand all the consequences of his actions. Yet, we teach that child responsibility. I’m not a father yet, but I’m sure you’ll agree that boundaries have to be set. The child learns that it can’t do anything it pleases. The experience of your education will become part of the deterministic factors which fix the decisions of your son in the future. Your education isn’t the only factor though, don’t worry  The same goes for grown ups. If the determined chain reaction of your life leads you to the point where you steal something, you have to be held responsible. Because if you learn that your action won’t be tolerated and you’ll suffer punishment, this experience might prevent you from taking the same decision next time. If we take away the concept of responsibility, we dismiss a strong factor that determines our decisions in a reasonable, healthy way according to our standards. d) if absolute determinism is true, then if I "chose" to sit here and do absolutely nothing until I died of starvation and actually managed to do so, then my action would be completely justified and I could not have done otherwise, even if my kids and wife were screaming at me to get off by butt and eat What do you mean by “completely justified”, Bartleby? e) Hitler and Stalin themselves had no choice at all in their decisions- they are not morally culpable for their actions because they had no control over them Hitler and Stalin did what they did because of all the circumstances that led them there. They are responsible for their actions though, as I pointed out above. Whether their actions were morally wrong or not is in the eye of the beholder. I think it was wrong. But I just read about a national poll in Russia. The Russians are to decide who their biggest national hero of all times is/ was. And guess who’s in the lead? Right, Stalin! Here’s a link I found telling the same story in English. (I don’t know the reliability of the website I just posted. But its pretty much the same content as in the German article and that was in a reliable newspaper.) www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1415671.php/Stalin_leads_internet_poll_of_greatest_Russian_heroes f) If I saw someone lying dying on the side of the road and I did not help them I would be as morally justified as if I did helm them. Either way, I wouldn't be making a true decision, just relying on impulses out of my control. That’s right. You would be surprised how many people actually don’t help, because they are scared. Their fear is winning over their sense of duty. However, if we took this perspective you just took, like saying: “who cares, it’s all determined anyway”, we get to the wrong path. Because our moral standards influence our decisions. If we took them away, even less people would help. If we morally condemn such behaviour, we automatically increase the chance, that morality increases it’s influence on the factors which determine your decision. Scientists think because they can identify a multitude of factors (brain chemistry, etc..) which impinge or influence free will and because the universe must go back to a single cause that there must be no free will. And yet they live in absolute contradiction to determinism all day long. What’s the contradiction? Could you please elaborate? And, by the way, if one is going to soften the concept of determinism by just suggesting that there are indeed many forces and factors which impinge on free will, then that's not really pure determinism anyway. As I said, I don’t know the philosophical concept of determinism in its depth. I described what I understand as determinism. If that’s “only” soft determinism or not pure determinism - I don’t really care. I’d like you to explain why determinism ceases to be determinism only because the decision can be traced back to several factors, though. Okay, that was pretty long. I hope you understood what I was trying to say. I don’t feel like I explained it well. Lastly, remember that in my view predestination and free will are paradoxical simultaneous truths. In my opinion, this is the only sane position given the facts and realities, though it is impossible to rationally explain. You are making it pretty easy for yourself. And you don’t really believe I’ll let you escape with that, do you? I commented on the useless article by Peter Kreeft elsewhere on this board. Your paradox is the ultimate bend. A pitiable evidence of incapacity. You speak of facts and realities but can you also provide them? Don’t bring me Kreeft again, cause he doesn’t provide facts and realities but assumptions and opinions and lots of begging the question. And then you have the nerve to say we shouldn’t bother about what we can’t explain. That’s like saying: “I believe that God exists AND that he doesn’t exist. But let’s not think about it. It’s a true paradox, I give you my word. We shouldn’t bother to explain it.” It’s not that I deny that there is logic beyond human logic. But if we can’t decipher that logic all we can do is guess. If we rely on the dimensions we don’t know, EVERYTHING we claim to know could be wrong. No evidence, no proof would be valid, including all the evidence you say speaks for God’s existence. Nothing. If we refuse the human perspective we can stop all these discussions about truth right away. They are useless. A human guess, even if it is based entirely on fact (this means fact understandable by human logic), would be nothing but a blindfolded shot into open space. I’m sorry Josh, but the only sane position, to use your words, when you acknowledge the existence of facts beyond human capacities, is Agnosticism. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2008 20:46:57 GMT -8
Wow. Lots of thoughts on this as I'm reading. Thanks for putting in the time. It's always harder "defending" something ;D than looking for holes in others' arguments.
But for now, since I don't have time there was one thing that stood out to me:
When did I say this? Because I can't imagine myself saying that and if I did I want to publicly retract it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 10, 2008 22:47:44 GMT -8
When did I say this? Because I can't imagine myself saying that and if I did I want to publicly retract it. Lastly, remember that in my view predestination and free will are paradoxical simultaneous truths. In my opinion, this is the only sane position given the facts and realities, though it is impossible to rationally explain. the existence of things that we can't explain shouldn't bother us too much, acknowledging that as finite creatures there must be things "beyond us". |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 11, 2008 8:47:01 GMT -8
OK, now it's time for me to experience a language difficulty.
"Bother" in both of these two phrases means something quite different:
Josh:
shouldn't bother us too much
Mo:
should bother about
In my quote I was using bother to mean "worry", whereas in your phrase I would interpret bother to mean "spending time on".
So, to clear it up, let me be clear that I think investigating all kinds of beliefs and assertions is beneficial, even if final conclusions aren't reached, because tracing a topic as far as it can go helps us see things we've never seen before. All that I was saying was that if we turn up finding, after we've done all we can, things that still seem paradoxically, we shouldn't be too surprised (or bothered) because reality contains many such paradoxes.
Hope that helps. Sorry for confusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 14, 2008 17:53:02 GMT -8
True, but determinism goes against common, deep seated intution. All humans, including most determinists, act as if they really did have free will. And thinking about determinism too much just helps unravel the theory. It could even be argued that determinism goes against first principles by arguing that a corollary of "I think, therefore I am" is "I choose, therefore I am", but I'll leave that for any resident philosophy majors  . All this means, to me, is that determinism has the burden of proof over free will. More in a bit... my connection is weak here at the beach. I'm on baby nap duty while Justus and Rose are swimming in the pool  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 14, 2008 18:09:19 GMT -8
It's quite possible that some people in some circumstances have little or virtually no choice. That's still a far cry from determinism. According to the logic you attribute to judges, if determinism is true, then shouldn't they be putting everyone into asylums?
It would be best not to use the word "free" for you case at all, because it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Either there is some free will or there is none. You are arguing that there is no free will at all. So you're just saying that with more 'action aleternatives' one's determined decisions are just more complicated. This idea, in turn, renders the word "decision" deceptive as well, because most people read "choice" into that word. Better to boil everything down to chemical reactions- some basic and some complicated.
More to come... Riley just woke up... time to go swimming!
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 15, 2008 0:42:23 GMT -8
True, but determinism goes against common, deep seated intution. All humans, including most determinists, act as if they really did have free will. And thinking about determinism too much just helps unravel the theory. It could even be argued that determinism goes against first principles by arguing that a corollary of "I think, therefore I am" is "I choose, therefore I am", but I'll leave that for any resident philosophy majors . All this means, to me, is that determinism has the burden of proof over free will. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. You started to tackle determinism, so I would have thought the burden of proof is on your side. Just to get one thing straight: I don't feel like I'm decided on matters of determinism. It rings true to me, but I definitely haven't thought everything through. I think it's great we are discussing this together. For the time being, I think determination still stands unharmed. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 15, 2008 1:10:44 GMT -8
It's quite possible that some people in some circumstances have little or virtually no choice. That's still a far cry from determinism. According to the logic you attribute to judges, if determinism is true, then shouldn't they be putting everyone into asylums? Maybe. Provided that they get the experience in those asylums which will prevent them from committing crime again. However, we really have to differentiate. People who are mentally sick need treatment. People who aren't mentally sick but went the wrong way need to LEARN the consequences of their actions. There's a huge difference. By the way, just yesterday a trial ended, sending a woman into an asylum who had killed her three children. The woman suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. According to the doctors "she had no choice" (original statement) and can't be held responsible neither. It would be best not to use the word "free" for you case at all, because it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. That's why I put free into exclamation marks. Either there is some free will or there is none. Okay George W., black or white, no shades inbetween. I'll turn the tables around too. Either the will is absolutely free or it isn't really free will. D'accord? I think there is no free will. But I think you can get closer to what we would call free will. Try to picture my concept like a mathematical asymptote in a coordinate system. The graph will never touch the line of "free will", but theres still a big difference between the point of having no action alternative and having several action alternatives. So, you are taking the words "decision", "free", and "choice" away from me. I fear I won't be able to keep on the discussion without vocabulary  I think "choice" can be read into "decision", yes. But that doesn't mean that choice is free. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 19, 2008 13:58:44 GMT -8
What determinism is saying is that anyone who does something wrong is as unable to not do wrong as those who are "mentally sick"- no matter how many action opportunities are presented to them. You can't differentiate if you buy into the model.
Again, free will would say that most of us are able in some situations at least to judge our own impulses. I suspect a huge part of this debate has to be with the old philosophical gulf between the rationalists and the empiricists- rationalists argue that "mind" is a separate (though interrelated) reality from our physicality. Rationalists argue, in fact, that there are a great many things which really exist which are not material.
If all that exists in material, then determinism must be true. But to the rationalist, mind can make free will choices and decisions with the raw data of nature (such as our impulses).
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 19, 2008 14:28:34 GMT -8
What determinism is saying is that anyone who does something wrong is as unable to not do wrong as those who are "mentally sick"- no matter how many action opportunities are presented to them. You can't differentiate if you buy into the model. You are missing the point. Yes, neither the psychopath nor the regular delinquent could have chosen differently. Nobody ever could have done other than they did. BUT while the experience of punishment might lead the regular delinquent to a different choice in the future, the same experince won't work for the psychopath. For his perception of reality is all the way different. The asylum won't have the same effect on both persons either. If we don't hold sane people responsible for their actions, we diminish the chances for improvement in the future. It's logical. And really simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 19, 2008 16:26:14 GMT -8
This does make sense.
Can I back up for a second here and get a few statements out:
1) From a quick perusal of the state of the free will/ determinism debate at large (just do a search on the web), one notes that the debate is well entrenched on both sides. There's an interesting website I found which in a pretty unbiased way lays out arguments pro and con for both sides which helps establish this.
2) Determinism's strongest points come, as you say, from neuroscience and some other scientific disciplines. At the heart of this is, as I mentioned above, an assumption of "materialism"- namely, that there is no self other than the brain.
3) Free will's strongest points come from pointing out the moral conundrums and pragmatic difficulties with the implications of determinism. Also, free will theorists often rely on arguments that there is more to the "self" than it's physical components.
It seems, from perusing what's out there, that I started at just the right point of attack against thoroughgoing determinism- that is, the unworkable implications if there is indeed no free will.
4) While determinists might be able to demand "responsibility" for someone's actions in a pragmatic sense, they can't really postulate any moral absolutes or really determine guilt or innocence. Those words in their commonly defined sense become meaningless.
5) Is a paradox between free will or determinism possible? I have more thoughts on that when I return....
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 22, 2008 11:30:34 GMT -8
3) Free will's strongest points come from pointing out the moral conundrums and pragmatic difficulties with the implications of determinism. If those are the strongest points of free will advocates, they better rest their case. Those aren't really arguments. It's just an expression of dislike. I can understand why determinism isn't philosophically beautiful. Or at least not as beautiful as the imagination of free will. But our opinion about the beauty of the concept does nothing to it's validity. Also, free will theorists often rely on arguments that there is more to the "self" than it's physical components. Can this be backed by measurable evidence? Or is it merely another escape into the safety of the unfalsifiable? It seems, from perusing what's out there, that I started at just the right point of attack against thoroughgoing determinism- that is, the unworkable implications if there is indeed no free will. What unworkable implications? I think I pointed out that the implications aren't unworkable at all. If I didn't, please point out to which of your implications I didn't give you a satisfying answer and I'll try to be more precise. 4) While determinists might be able to demand "responsibility" for someone's actions in a pragmatic sense, they can't really postulate any moral absolutes or really determine guilt or innocence. Those words in their commonly defined sense become meaningless. First off: morals aren't meaningless in the world of determinism. They are essential for the success of our species! That there might be no celestial right or wrong doesn't bother me at all. 5) Is a paradox between free will or determinism possible? I have more thoughts on that when I return.... .... |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 14, 2008 20:39:59 GMT -8
It's more than an expression of dislike. Determinism isn't pragmatically workable. For instance, wouldn't you agree as a sociologist that for people living is extremely negative social situations (generational poverty, addiction, abuse, etc..) one of the most important factors related to their improvement or recovery is the belief that they have a real choice. You know I work with at-risk high school students with behavioral problems, right? The very worst thing I could do to them would be to preach determinism. If I did, it would actually decrease the likelihood that they make it in this world (and the odds are already stacked against them). If I preach free will, their odds increase. I firmly believe this. For an interesting tangent, see the note below *. Don't you think that it's odd that a result of determinism would be that disbelieving it would consistantly prove better for an individual than believing it? *Conversely, and ironically, the second most important factor, imo, is a believe in some kind of beneficial superintending power: God, destiny, etc.. I realize that whether a belief works is not the definitive test for the truth of a claim, but it is a valid argument in favor of a claim nonetheless. That a belief in choice and a beneficial superintending power is the best combination for successful advancement in life is, to me, an argument that perhaps free will and predestination do exist simultaneously. And I really think Scripture backs this up. In other words, it would indeed be strange if the best advice I can give my kids for their health and wellbeing as humans is in fact untrue and the worst advice (determinism trumps your illusion of choice and there is no destiny) true. Lastly, Mo, I'm curious about your thoughts on this article I found online: A Brief Defense of Free Will |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Sept 16, 2008 8:38:13 GMT -8
It's more than an expression of dislike. Determinism isn't pragmatically workable. For instance, wouldn't you agree as a sociologist that for people living is extremely negative social situations (generational poverty, addiction, abuse, etc..) one of the most important factors related to their improvement or recovery is the belief that they have a real choice. As a sociologist I would doubt that people from the lowest social classes are actually dealing philosophically with the question of freedom of choice to begin with. Secondly I would argue that the most important factor for improvement to them isn't a free choice but a real chance. It's not as if determinism would mean that there is no way out of a bad situation. determinism doesn't imply that you are stuck in misfortune forever. I already pointed out in this thread that people have choices all the time. Although the decisions they take aren't free, they feel like they are free and that's fair enough. You may not have a free will, but you have choices and chances anyway. You know I work with at-risk high school students with behavioral problems, right? The very worst thing I could do to them would be to preach determinism. If I did, it would actually decrease the likelihood that they make it in this world (and the odds are already stacked against them). If I preach free will, their odds increase. I firmly believe this. Huh? I don't understand what one thing has to do with the other. 1. I don't understand why you would teach those students determinism. I mean, shouldn't you be teaching them more basic stuff? 2. I don't see how determinism would decrease the likelyhood that they make it in this world?  If determinism is true, we have been living within determinism all the time. And than every case of somebody who fulfilled the American dream and made it from rages to riches did so within the world of determinism. Again, determinism doesn't mean that one will be stuck in a bad situation for ever. Maybe the fact that you are dedicating yourself to them will already have an impact for the better. You seem to think that teaching determinism equals telling them that there's nothing one could do about one's situation. That simply isn't true. 3. How are their odds going to increase through free will? Seriously, I think the question of free will or determinism has very little effect on people in their daily life. I don't think much about it. I do the things I have to do without asking myself wether I could have actually chosen differently. What should I ask myself this for? The odds of these people will increase if you tell them that they can do something about their situation. This perfectly works with determinism. Don't you think that it's odd that a result of determinism would be that disbelieving it would consistantly prove better for an individual than believing it? No. And I don't think you can generalize. Just because you don't like the idea, it doesn't mean that other people don't like the idea. Earlier cultures have lived with the concept of destiny* quite happily. I just can't understand why you dislike it so much. Seriously. For instance in situations when you apparently took a bad choice. Let's say you are sitting at "who wants to be a millionare" and you make it to the million dollar question and you gamble and lose. Í'd argue that it's easier to get over this knowing that you couldn't possibly have decided differently To be quite frankly, if we assume that determinism is fact, I don't see how this would change my life at all. After all, you do like watching movies don't you? Well guess what, the end is already determined ;D Enjoy the ride! *Conversely, and ironically, the second most important factor, imo, is a believe in some kind of beneficial superintending power: God, destiny, etc... If you are saying that God is a crutch for the weak I'm totally with you. I realize that whether a belief works is not the definitive test for the truth of a claim, but it is a valid argument in favor of a claim nonetheless. Huh? why? That's like saying: the belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster works. Ergo, that's a valid argument for the FSM-claim! That a belief in choice and a beneficial superintending power is the best combination for successful advancement in life is, to me, an argument that perhaps free will and predestination do exist simultaneously. What's going on here? Josh, you are presenting a series of wishful thinking. There are so many fallacies in here I don't know where to start. First off, that belief in Choice and God is the best combination is nothing but an assertion and opinion of yours. Secondly, Belief in God and choice is by no means an argument for the existence of both. I can believe in Zeus and Wotan simultaneosly but that doesn't mean any of them exists. Thirdly you are again equalizing free will and choice. I don't think this is legitimate. Fourthly your conclusion that the existence of a superintending power and choice is an argument for the simultaneos existence of free will and predestination is simply a false cause argument. In other words, it would indeed be strange if the best advice I can give my kids for their health and wellbeing as humans is in fact untrue and the worst advice (determinism trumps your illusion of choice and there is no destiny) true. This is a conclusion built on an assumption built on an assertion. Who says the worst advice you can give your children is the truth? I don't share your negative view of determinism. I just don't see the problem. I live happily with the concept of determinism. I can't relate to your problems with it. Lastly, Mo, I'm curious about your thoughts on this article I found online: Man, I can't read such a long article just now. Is it really worth it? If I read it and it isn't worth it I'll be pissed shirty. How did you give a name to the link, by the way? *I realize you are differentiating between destiny and determinism. What exactly is the difference? Does the former necessarily imply the existence of a God who has put up a personal plan for everybody? I think both terms refer to the same. Both lead you to your final destination without that you could have chosen differently. Please fill me in. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 16, 2008 9:58:51 GMT -8
Mo, I only have time to point out that much of what I'm saying here has to do with the Pragmatic test of truth claims, made popular by William James, and which is commonly considered as having some validity by philosophers.
The idea is that truth can be known by observing what works.
Certainly I'd argue that this can't be the ultimate test of truth.
Some give the Pragmatic test greater weight than others. I see it as just one test that a truth claim must pass: is the claim or idea workable in the real world?
So, what I'm arguing above throughout is the workability of determinism. I am subjecting it to the Pragmatic test of truth, for what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 16, 2008 10:38:19 GMT -8
The subject of fatalism (which overlaps quite a bit with determinism) is seriously considered by both sociologists and educators as having a potentially negative effect on academic, social, and economic success among "lower classes". It's precisely the lowest classes that are hit most hardest by fatalistic views of reality. I agree with you that many folks aren't consciously aware that they hold this philosophy, but that doesn't mean that they don't hold it subconsciously and that it doesn't affect their outlook greatly. Here's one article on fatalism among Mexican-American girls: www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5W-4378SY8-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d59890f48f6f6d5581528b494317212aIn education, a student's perception of their locus of control (what they perceive have control over) is a dominant factor of their success. Though there are ways to attempt to motivate "high fatalists", many researchers recognize such ideas as obstacles in education and advancement. Unfortunately, one can't access a lot of this material on the web, but check out the last paragraph in this abstract: www.jstor.org/pss/3485195Anyway, I hear about this pretty regularly in education circles- namely that the students who see their choices as real and free have more of a chance of success than those who see themselves as merely reacting to circumstance. |
|
. 
If determinism is true, we have been living within determinism all the time. And than every case of somebody who fulfilled the American dream and made it from rages to riches did so within the world of determinism. Again, determinism doesn't mean that one will be stuck in a bad situation for ever. Maybe the fact that you are dedicating yourself to them will already have an impact for the better. You seem to think that teaching determinism equals telling them that there's nothing one could do about one's situation. That simply isn't true.