Philosophy

[Rekkusu]

Hmm, sorry this might be out of topic to well...what's currently being discussed, but has anyone taken PHIL1010? - Thinking about reasoning? Since, I might consider taking either this course, or the one McLake mentioned in the earlier pages PHIL1007. XD Also is it true that you seriously just need to take 3 class tests? Or is this the case only for History & philosophy courses?

Cheers

[Weeping Brook]

And of course Free Will is the crux of the argument against the Problem of Evil.

What about this:

Avoidability condition on freedom: I do something freely iff I could have acted otherwise.

"In whatever manner man is considered, he is connected to universal nature, and submitted to the necessary and immutable laws that she imposes on all the beings she contains, according to their particular essences...Man's life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant..."

This law of causality Holbach speaks of is more or less what is known today as:
Determinism: Whatever happens is determined by prior events.

Human choices and actions are no exception. Whatever you decide to do, your decision was inevitable given prior conditions. Granted the decision feels free but this is an illusion. (Such illusions are not unknown. Post-hypnotic suggestion: subject on hands and knees, I was wondering about the quality of the tile etc.) And if the decision is not free -- if you couldn’t have chosen differently -- then neither is the resulting action. For you couldn’t have acted any differently than in fact you did.

Hard determinism is the view that first, determinism is true, and second, this shows that freedom is an illusion. Here is the basic argument.


(1) Whatever happens is determined by prior events. (Determinism)


(2) I act freely only if I'm able to act otherwise. (Avoidability Condition)


(3) If my action is determined, I'm unable to act otherwise.


(4) Therefore, I don’t ever act freely. (1,2,3).

Seeing this argument, you might argue that the best strategy is simply to deny determinism. But does that solve the problem? Is indeterminism any more compatible with freewill?

Indeterminism: Some events are not determined by prior events.

Consider the freewill dilemma (see also p. 387-8 of Reason and Responsibility):


(1) If determinism is true, we can never do other than what we do; so we are not free.


(2) If indeterminism is true, then some events--possibly some actions--are random; but if they are random, we are not their authors. So we are not free.


(3) Either determinism or indeterminism is true.


(4) Therefore, we never act freely.

It appears that denying determinism is no help in preserving for us some space for genuine freedom.

I'm not saying I agree with it. Determinism is obviously very controversial, but it has a point. Being morally inclined myself I'd like to believe in Free Will. Whether it exists or not is an entirely impossible question to answer. Of course, everything in philosophy is.

[Peteage]

hmm. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to here it, does it still make a sound?

[Weeping Brook]

Haha no, I didn't write that! Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough, they're just some good lecture notes on the topic.

However I consider myself a proponent of Determinism, albeit with a Wittgenstein-ian caveat. Perhaps I'd think differently if I weren't so determined to be a rationalist.

On the subject itself, the operative word is obviously choice. Since I think since it's impossible to make a choice based on experiences/backgrounds we don't have, Free Will is limited to the bounds of Determinism.

[MonkEE]

Well, I am a design guy, I was researching about interaction design and it lead me to the idea of "Causal". I am pretty much a noob on philosophy but its somewhat interesting. Anyways what I understang about "Causal" is that is is about cause and effect, if you hate, you piss people off, if you eat noodles, you will be full, if you have alot of kids or the human population increases, the world gets warmer.

What's different in each case is the amount or degree to which cause/effect takes place. Is it better to be neutrual or to advocate for large proportion of effect that places alot of emphasize on change?

Well in nature, speaking from design's perspective, there is an idea called "The Golden Proportion/section", you might want to look it up, its pretty well recognised throughout hitory. It is basicly a proportion of cause/effect of exacly 1.618033988, that dictates the perfect/the most beautiful/the ideal/ the just right rate of evolution, length of a rectangle, the shape of a leaf, whatever it might be, but it occurs the most in nature. It sounds like a load of bs but it's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

[davidkedz]

Let's stretch this thread longer. I like philosophy and I greatly respect anyone who is willing to think that deeply.

I haven't bothered reading every page of the thread, but there was a section on determinism versus moral culpability that I thought I'd leave a comment on.
I'm a firm supporter of determinism (within some unusual parameters though... as, for example, I believe that at some point within our evolution, it may eventually be possible for a meta-reflexive consciousness to access free will). And Deus knows how many times I've heard people trying to counter determinism by stating that if it were true, moral culpability (and by extension, morality) couldn't exist.

There are arguments against this eventuality, but I (rather radically for my High School's Philosophy Club) do not believe in any absolute morality (or even relativism in its usual sense) anyway. So my philosophical stand encapsulates the fact that determinism is currently operating, and morality is no problem here as it actually doesn't exist. But this obviously leaves pointlessly gaping holes in our social structure. After all, what justifies the operations of a legal system if not some fundamental aspect of morality?

I propose 'convenience', whereby a large amount of entities governed by individual egocentrism (personal security in the case of the justice system) manages an equilibrium within a society that ideally tends to resemble utilitarianism (the greatest amount of 'happiness' for the greatest amount of people). Nowhere within this explanation do morals actually apply.

...

You know... for every philosophical statement I propose, a multitude of possible problems arise. To cover them all, I'd have to write an essay. And I'm really not in the mood today. I just wanted to contribute some more food for thought and give this thread a second chance.
Very simply put...

Bump!

[KFunk]

There are arguments against this eventuality, but I (rather radically for my High School's Philosophy Club) do not believe in any absolute morality (or even relativism in its usual sense) anyway. So my philosophical stand encapsulates the fact that determinism is currently operating, and morality is no problem here as it actually doesn't exist. But this obviously leaves pointlessly gaping holes in our social structure.

Determinism needn't eliminate morality. Certainly, it creates major issues for our notion of responsibility i.e. how can someone be held responsible for a bad act if they had no choice in the matter, being part of a causal chain. However, within this framework an action can still be seen as 'good' or 'bad', even if noone is strictly responsible for it. Also, keep in mind that morality need not just be some kind of inert valuation - it has a causal push of its own. (bump)

[_dhj_]

There is no inconsistency between determinism and morality because determinism is the objective reality and morality is part of human perception. What's also part of perception is the illusion of individual free will. Within this illusion (illusionary only in objective terms and real in subjective terms) morality rests nicely.

[nichhhole]

hmm. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to here it, does it still make a sound?

haha... someones been watching the simpsons ;p

[Iheartpaulfrank]

And of course Free Will is the crux of the argument against the Problem of Evil.

What about this:

Avoidability condition on freedom: I do something freely iff I could have acted otherwise.

"In whatever manner man is considered, he is connected to universal nature, and submitted to the necessary and immutable laws that she imposes on all the beings she contains, according to their particular essences...Man's life is a line that nature commands him to describe upon the surface of the earth, without his ever being able to swerve from it, even for an instant..."

This law of causality Holbach speaks of is more or less what is known today as:
Determinism: Whatever happens is determined by prior events.

Human choices and actions are no exception. Whatever you decide to do, your decision was inevitable given prior conditions. Granted the decision feels free but this is an illusion. (Such illusions are not unknown. Post-hypnotic suggestion: subject on hands and knees, I was wondering about the quality of the tile etc.) And if the decision is not free -- if you couldn’t have chosen differently -- then neither is the resulting action. For you couldn’t have acted any differently than in fact you did.

Hard determinism is the view that first, determinism is true, and second, this shows that freedom is an illusion. Here is the basic argument.


(1) Whatever happens is determined by prior events. (Determinism)


(2) I act freely only if I'm able to act otherwise. (Avoidability Condition)


(3) If my action is determined, I'm unable to act otherwise.


(4) Therefore, I don’t ever act freely. (1,2,3).

Seeing this argument, you might argue that the best strategy is simply to deny determinism. But does that solve the problem? Is indeterminism any more compatible with freewill?

Indeterminism: Some events are not determined by prior events.

Consider the freewill dilemma (see also p. 387-8 of Reason and Responsibility):


(1) If determinism is true, we can never do other than what we do; so we are not free.


(2) If indeterminism is true, then some events--possibly some actions--are random; but if they are random, we are not their authors. So we are not free.


(3) Either determinism or indeterminism is true.


(4) Therefore, we never act freely.

It appears that denying determinism is no help in preserving for us some space for genuine freedom.

I'm not saying I agree with it. Determinism is obviously very controversial, but it has a point. Being morally inclined myself I'd like to believe in Free Will. Whether it exists or not is an entirely impossible question to answer. Of course, everything in philosophy is.

Haha. Those are some great notes you got there. We discussed this in PHIL1011: Reality, Ethics and Beauty.

[_dhj_]

haha... someones been watching the simpsons ;p

lol overrated analogy...

[risole91]

Question:

What kind of jobs/careers will philosophy take you down?



I know this is a dead thread.

[Dumsum]

Academic.

[risole91]

Academic.

As in uni lecturer?

[Vancen]

existentialism is pretty interesting,
what are peoples thoughts on it?

Existensialism and the absurd are tons interesting!
But im not heavily into the deep philosophical sides of either, camus and satre are so good though!
Up the existensialist fiction!

[HNAKXR]

Nietzsche is interesting.

[jasonml]

I can answer any philosphical question.

[inasero]

How about this one- what's the meaning and purpose of life?

[Dumsum]

How about this one- what's the meaning and purpose of life?

Is there one?

I think the reason people try to find meaning in their lives is to justify their survival instinct, which itself is a product of evolution. That doesn't mean there is meaning though. In my opinion we should first try to establish the necessity of a meaning to life before trying to figure out what it is. At least then we know it exists.

[metalheaven]

Nietzsche is interesting.

I second that.

[metalheaven]

I can answer any philosphical question.

Is there really any definitive answer to philosophical questions? Can there be this ideal objectivity within our subjective perceptions of our world?

[lolokay]

yes

[duck.fluff]

Awesome book - Sophie's World by Jostein Gaardner
All about those kinds of questions. I love it.

[Nebuchanezzar]

did you do introductory logic?

why?

edit: wait, you must have done the pussy philosophy course. the "senior" one, right?

lame. that's not logic. it's pussy philosophy!

[Nebuchanezzar]

was it the critical thinking course or introductory logic.

all im saying is that from what i hear, the critical thinking one isn't really all that philosophical.

now that you have a grounding though, you should try some of the other junior courses. you'd prolly like them.