Free-Will-ists (not free willie-ists) say that I observe the ability for myself to make a choice...therefore free will.
Determinists argue that the human is obviously a construct of physical components...therefore determinism (or sometimes partly random, still unchosen). Even worse...look into the timespace or arrow of time theory.
The sane position:
Compatibilism: Why are we talking as if free will and determinism are opposed? You have to very carefully define "choice" in a non-intuitive manner to make free will conflict with determinism. Let us instead use sane definitions of "choice", Free Will and Determinism. If so...there is no conflict at all.
As a neophyte philosopher, I spent years as a determinist, then more years as a free-will-er, then back to determinism for years. Finally, I discovered compatibilism...which asks the right questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I took a course called "Freedom in Literature" in my last year of college. It was listed as a course in the English department, but they had a philosophy professor teaching it. We read some excellent books, and I had some excellent discussions with a fellow classmate. I remember coming leaving the class as a hard determinist and feeling quite uncomfortable with it. In fact for several months I experienced what I can only describe as a philosophical crisis. I didn't want to reject free-will, but I felt the non-materialist view was absurd. Fortunately, about a year later I read "Freedom Evolves" by Daniel Dennett and I've been at peace with compatibilism since then.
Todd,
I'm glad you were only stuck with the problem for a year. It took me 10+...and for almost the whole time I was in said philosophical crisis.
What's your definition of choice, then?
Post a Comment