In philosophy, there has been endless debate about the topic of free will and choice. I'd say that there are three general schools of thought on the question.
Hardcore determinists deny that free will and choice exists, as they effectively think that history is entirely pre-determined as if there is only one possible future (and therefore only one possible choice for a human being to make) at all times. In effect, a determinist believes that we are all sock puppets. If they're religious, we're all just sock puppets for a diety. If they're secular, we're all just sock puppets for the laws of nature. In either case, it implies that there is no such thing as personal responsibility. That's determinism in a nutshell (although there are "compatibalist" determinists who claim that free will is compatible with determinism; but this is an illogical position, because determinism inherently implies that every action someone engages in could not have been done/chosen in any other way).
Hardcore new age people believe not in free will so much as the idea that the entire world is nothing but a tabula rasa. Unlike the determinist, who believes that the physical world around us pre-determines all human choice, the radical new ager believes that our minds and thoughts dictates and pre-determines the physical world. In effect, a new ager believes either that everyone is eachother's sock puppet, or that the world or universe is completely determined by our conciousnesses (which often leads to the notion that "life is just an illusion"). This makes them get caught up in irrationalism and primitivism.
Free will is a self-evident observation that comes from our experience of making choices, experiencing their consequences, and modifying our behavior in reaction to those consequences. Free will involves internal deliberation, the consideration of alternative goals and alternative means of achieving goals. It implies that is more than one possible end, and more than one possible means to that end, and that humans are capable, through the admitedly imperfect use of their rationality, to choose among these means and place their desires in an order of preferances. It arises from our nature as human beings. And it is a fallacy to assume that free will is necessary a religious notion; it is a philosophical notion that has been used in a secular context for a long time. The free will proponent does not believe in sock puppets.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
". . .and therefore only one possible choice for a human being to make"
You can make any choice you want . . but it's pre-determined. That's what makes it hard to understand.
". . .there are "compatibalist" determinists who claim that free will is compatible with determinism; but this is an illogical position, because determinism inherently implies that every action someone engages in could not have been done/chosen in any other way)."
It's not illogical. You can exercise all the free will you want and it's still determined; it only means that the perception of this determination is beyond the human capacity because of the inherent complexity. You would need a universe to model a universe, which, of course, you can't do.
To understand the position you would need to imagine free will as an illusion. Hence, no matter what you think about it, you can't escape feeling that you have it. The complexity of the laws of physics is such that you can't perceive beyond the illusion.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1411677315/ref=sr_11_1/104-9633264-8915903?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Post a Comment