DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
John Oswald wrote:How would you reply to THE WESTERN SOCIALIST writer's statement, seeing that he was also conversant with Engels, but rejects the term "free will."?
I'd say it's a mistake to think that all that "free will" can mean is *ABSOLUTE* free will in the sense of "A". And then gives examples of why I think this is the case. Two papers to read would be "Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person" by Harry Frankfurt and "Freedom and Resentment" by PF Strawson. Then I'd leave them to it. Which is what I'm going to do now…
OK. So you've just repeated "A" but in a more verbose manner.What do you think Engels was going on about in the quote I put in the first reply?Idealism / materialism is irrelevant to the question since the realm of ideas follows causal laws or it doesn't, neither of these options allow for "free will" as defined in "A".Determinism doesn't give us "free will" as defined by "A" because all causes have antcedent causes.But indeterminism doesn't give us free will in sense "A" either because things just happening at random is not being a cause.
Recognising a difference does not equal despising."Free will" isn't an all or nothing kind of thing, that's the rub. It turns out to rest on social facts, not metaphysical claims about the nature of reality.
If you want to choose to argue that you have the same mental capacities as a butterfly, go ahead. I'm not sure why you'd want to do that though and I'm not sure if you'll get many takers.So to return to the topic. All that has been said is:A: "Free will" means to be an uncaused causer. There can be no such thing as an uncaused causer so "free will" does not exist.B: Yes you are right there can be no such thing as an uncaused causer, it's a self contradictory concept like "square circle". But if you look at how people actually use the concept of "free will" in their everyday lives and how they act and react towards each other as moral agents, the concept is wider than that, so there certainly still is a meaningful way in which the phrase can be used.And that's about all that can be said…
It's all been said before. This is probably one of the most over done areas of philosophy. I'm freely choosing to end my contribution to this discussion now.
John Oswald wrote:What is your need to hold on to it, when just "will" is shorter?In effect they are both the same thing that's why..
If you choose to believe you don't have free will that's up to you. Lot's of people try to convince themselves that they don't, I used to be one. Even those that think they don't have free will still spend time delibirating and giving blaim and praise to other people according to how they act to themselves and others.Imagine what a world would be like if we thought all human action was the equivolent of a reflex. Very odd indeed.
When we meanigfully talk about "free will" we are not dependent on any particular metaphysical stance."Free will" in the sense of being an uncaused causer is incompatible with both a determined and indetermined universe. But when it comes down to it being an uncaused causer is not what we are talking about when we are talking about freedom of the will.
I'm pretty sure no social science denies agency. Denying free will is equally absurd, and nobody actually does deny it – they just try to convince themselves that they do. To deny free will would mean viewing cold calculated premeditated actions and reflexes as essentially the same.The mistake is to think that "free will" has to be some kind of uncaused cause. It doesn't. "Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore the freer a man’s judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control. Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity" Engels – Anti-Duhring
John Oswald wrote:Furthermore, you reject Godwin, Shelley, Holbach, Diderot, La Mettrie, and all the pre-marxian materialists, and dispute that the Currey article is a socialist classic?Ideas move on and develop. These people are who Marx refered to as "the old materialism" in the Theses on Fuerbach. We live in the 21st century, not the 19th.
Quote:And you affirm that we only have thoughts and feelings that we want to have?I can certainly have unpleasent thoughts, and am subjected to external and internal influences I am not aware of. That does not mean that all my actions are no different to reflexes and I do not have "free will"
Quote:Consequently, you could cease to be a Socialist this afternoon and be a Catholic instead, with no reason compelling your will?There would be no freedom in doing that. There is no freedom in being a butterfly fluttering about changing direction every second for no good reason. Free will means being able to act accordingly to our desires and currently held beliefs.
robbo203 wrote:Had the election been two weeks later we could be talking about PM CorbynI think the event of the lost majority and proposed DUP coalition will have had something to do with the loss in Torie power..
ALB wrote:We don't contest elections to get votes but to get our message across.I'm actually inclined to think that election time is the *worse* time to try and get our message out. People are looking for things to vote for that offer quick simple fixes to problems they are facing in everyday life, especially in these days of austerity, we just have nothing to offer on this level – we're offering something a lot more abstract and long term…Why not run a co-ordinated 'election' style campaign when there isn't actually an election. Might gain more traction, but then of course might not…
Lord Buckethead gets more votes than us, 249. Personally I think we should really reconsider this fixation with standing in every election.. I know some people are keen on them but really do the figures show that it's worthwile?
