Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If you're actually serious about being understood, here is a constructive task for you to complete. Define the following (as clearly and concisely as you can, but in your own words instead of directly quoting from other sources):
|
1. Determinism (as normally defined).
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.
deterministic - definition of deterministic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
This definition leaves out the will, or agent, entirely and turns us into pre-programmed automatons, reacting to antecedents events without any say in the matter. It also removes responsibility because the definition implies that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions. This creates another artificial dividing line between these two opposing ideologies by the way they are defined, not because they are in true opposition. Lessans reconciles these two artificial divisions which makes them look incompatible, by correctly defining the terms. We can then see that they are not only compatible, but responsibility for one's actions remains intact.
2. Causal indeterminism.
The core idea of indeterminism is closely related to the idea of causality. Indeterminism for some philosophers is an event without a cause. But we can have an adequate causality without strict determinism, the "hard" determinism which implies complete predictability of events and only one possible future.
Causality does not entail determinism
An example of an event that is not strictly caused is one that depends on chance, like the flip of a coin. If the outcome is only probable, not certain, then the event can be said to have been caused by the coin flip, but the head or tails result was not predictable. So this causality, which recognizes prior events as causes, is undetermined.
Indeterminism
There is confusion with this theory as well. Even though there is not adequate causality of "hard determinism" which implies complete predictability of events and only one possible future, this in no way means that there are two possible futures. The choices, although not predictable according to hard determinism, are still just as determined because we can only move in one direction (which was never understood). That's why I mentioned that the definition of "hard" determinism presents an artificial dichotomy with "freedom" of choice.
3. Lessans' version of determinism.
Here is his definition in a nutshell.
Then let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be; or he has a choice, and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled, by his
nature, to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.
4. Libertarian free will.
The Libertarian view - According to libertarianism, the idea that God causes men to act in a certain way, but that man has free will in acting that way is logically false. Free means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused. God limits the actions of men, but not their mind or will. Man has the ability to turn to God in Christ and sincerely ask for help, selfishly perhaps, apart from specific (special) divine enablement. According to Arminianism, God, in his freedom, not only sets a condition on salvation and wills only to save those who would ask Him to rescue them. God, then, predestines those who He “foreknew” to salvation. Or, according to Open Theism, God is anxiously waiting to see what each person will do, for he cannot know ahead of time what the choice might be.
Libertarian free will - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity
You can easily see the confusion here. Man has free will because his decisions are not caused. If he doesn't ask for help to change his ways, he is subject to punishment because God gives man a choice and [this gets really confusing] He predestines those who He "foreknew" to salvation and anxiously waits to see what each person will do. So for those who don't ask for salvation (which he already predestined), he destroys by sending them to hell for their bad choices. 
5. Compatibilist free will.
The Compatibilist view - This view affirms that man freely chooses what God has determined that he will chose. In this way, the idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible for his actions are compatible ideas. Free will is affected by human nature and man cannot choose contrary to his nature and desires. This view acknowledges man as a free moral agent who freely makes choices. But due to the effects of the fall, as contained in the doctrine of total depravity, man’s nature is corrupted such that he cannot choose contrary to his fallen nature — He cannot discern spiritual things or turn to God in faith apart from divine intervention.
Libertarian free will - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity
The idea that God is in charge, and the idea that man can be held responsible, are not compatible ideas. If God has determined what man freely chooses, it's not a free choice at all. Therefore man cannot be held responsible, but the implications are feared since it is believed if man is not held responsible for his choices, he would become even less responsible. Lessans faces the implications head on. The compatibilist view is an effort to close the gap between these two opposing ideologies, but they have fallen short of a coherent explanation.
6. Lessans' version of free will.
He has no version of free will because we have none. That doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to choose what we want, but what we want is in the direction of "greater" satisfaction which is fixed because we cannot move in the direction of dissatisfaction, or what is less preferable when a more preferable alternative is available [in our eyes]. |
Well that's not what I asked for, is it Peacegirl? In fact it's pretty much the exact opposite of what I asked for...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If you're actually serious about being understood, here is a constructive task for you to complete. Define the following (as clearly and concisely as you can, but in your own words instead of directly quoting from other sources):
|
I guess I'm not that serious about being understood because I'm not defining these terms again. They were explained clearly and I responded to each one. It's never going to be enough for you.
1. Determinism (as normally defined).
2. Causal indeterminism.
3. Lessans' version of determinism.
4. Libertarian free will.
5. Compatibilist free will.
6. Lessans' version of free will. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Then state which of these theses his account is and is not compatible with, and explain why.
|
I explained very clearly why Lessans' account is not compatible with these terms. You need to go back and reread what I wrote.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Point (6) doesn't require Lessans to think we have free will, but is just asking for the meaning of the term as he uses it. It can be the meaning of free will in the sense that he thinks does not exist. If he uses the word in two ways then you may need two answers.
|
It was very clear in the book how this expression is used and does not contradict his definition of determinism. It supports it.
Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 54-55
The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical
doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by
antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his
character. According to this definition we are not given a choice
because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or
circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do
what I make up my mind not to do — just as you mentioned a
moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not
environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make
me do it because over this I have mathematical control. Since I can’t
be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will
free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet
nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”
“How about that, he brought out something I never would have
thought of.”
All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals that man has
mathematical control over the former but absolutely none over the
latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater
satisfaction.
It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions.
The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone? Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any
discussion surrounding this issue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You've also made the error of looking things up on a Christian website, meaning all your definitions are only formulated with reference to God and theological concepts.
|
Within the Christian framework, there is a lot of similarity with the basic assumptions and definitions of the secular community. I'm not going back and redoing it, so you're going to have to be satisfied with what I posted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Can you try again, and this time provide what I actually asked you for? (In your own words, without quoting or referencing other websites.)
|
I told you that you have to meet me halfway. Now it's your turn to let me know that you understand where Lessans explains where his definition. I'll answer the one you set up for me, but I'm not answering any of the others again.
For each point just a simple:[/quote]
1. Determinism (as normally defined) is the thesis that...
we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events.
Lessans' account is incompatible with this thesis because...
we are not caused to do what we do by antecedent events. In other words, the environment does not cause someone to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused.
Read this excerpt again if you're truly interested in understanding this discovery because it explains the difference between the standard definition and Lessans' definition. If you're only interested in testing me to see if I understand the book, then don't read it, but if that's the case I won't be able to continue the conversation.
Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 55-56
Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is
free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding
this issue for although it is true man has to make choices, he must
always prefer that which he considers good not evil for himself when
the former is offered as an alternative. The words cause and compel
are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because in
order to be developed and have meaning it was absolutely necessary
that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives
meaning to short. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop
scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue
and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are
mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as
children were sacrificed at an earlier stage.
These activities or motions
are the natural entelechy of man who is always developing, correcting
his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by
better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal
compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control.
Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and
make corrections when necessary since he is always learning from
previous experience.
The fact that will is not free demonstrates that
man has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and
during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do
because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was
caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause’, like choice
and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than
man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two
plus two, it is that already.
|