Quote:
Originally Posted by GdB
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
I just remembered why I don't usually get into these discussions. All I see is endless meandering semantic games that people have been playing for centuries.
|
Wittgenstein, Tractatus:
Quote:
|
6.53 The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—but it would be the only strictly correct method.
|
If one wants to talk about philosophical topics, one must be clear about the concepts one is using. Sometimes dis-covering the correct meanings of certain concepts solve a philosophical problem completely. So the case with the seemingly contradictory concepts of free will and determinism. Under the correct definitions of laws of nature and what free will really is, the 'problem' is not solved: it just simply does not exist.
But it is OK if you are not interested in philosophy. |
Putting a bandaid over the oil warning sign in your car doesn't get rid of the problem; it just ignores it. Changing the definition of free will that is more to your liking doesn't get rid of the problem. It just puts a spin on it that makes it appear as if there is no conflict. You keep using the concept "free will" as not being forced by the laws of nature. No determinist that I know is saying that you are being forced by the laws of nature such that your choice has been determined for you in advance of you making it. Although there is no law prescribing what you must choose, your life history, experiences, and heredity present conditions that push you in a certain direction for satisfaction, which is completely beyond your control. You are not free to choose the option that appears the least preferable in your eyes. You cannot do it. This natural law is descriptive. It is not telling you what you must choose in advance, but that does not mean your will is ever free (based on your compatibilist definition) to choose that which you prefer the least in comparison. For example, if choosing B (eating peanuts that I know will put me in anaphylactic shock which could kill me) is an impossible choice because it gives me less satisfaction under the circumstances (that is, if I prefer living over dying), then I am not free to choose A (choosing not to eat the peanuts). If a choice doesn't go as planned, this doesn't mean you can't make a "better" choice the next time a similar situation presents itself, but it certainly doesn't mean your will was ever free to choose that which you preferred less given your particular circumstances.
Re: Free will in philosphy and science
Threaded Mode
