misc
describe determinism
determinism is the doctrine that all states are determined completely by prior states
describe free will.
free will is the ability to make choices without certain kinds of compulsion.
if determinism is true, do we have free will?
no. if determinism is true, we could not have chosen otherwise. therefore we are not free.
if determinism is false, do we have free will?
no. if determinism is false, then we cannot be sure if our actions will turn out the way we want them to turn out. so we have no control over our actions, so we have no free will.
so do we have free will?
no.
but we think we have free will?
yes. but that is an illusion we are under.
but free will looks pretty attractive. how can you explain the fact that i can raise and not raise my right hand. i can raise my right hand when you ask me to raise it. i can also not raise my right hand when you ask me to raise it. how do you explain that?
well, they can be explained by the prior conditions and the laws of nature.
so that means i am not free to raise my right hand?
yes.
but perhaps freedom means something other than being completely determined by the laws of nature.
well, that freedom is not free.
maybe our freedom is not free.
so we have no free will.
...
i think my coursemates here dont take philosophy seriously. its easy enough to say that we might be brains in a vat, that we might be dreaming, that we dont know anything other than the contents of our sense experiences, that we dont know if the sun will rise tomorrow. if you say you dont know and you challenge people to prove according to your standards if they disagree with you, surely nobody is going to say anything to you. but then philosophy stops for you.
i think one of the main aims in philosophy is to make sense of life. how do we make sense of this feeling of freedom that we have. if it is not free will (as described above), what is it? can we make sense of it? why do we think it is valuable? does it contradict with what we know abt the external world? maybe that should be the proper question of free will.
scepticism is an important part of philosophy. the sceptic is always there, often for good reasons. the challenge is to answer him not with indubitable proof (for they dont exist in philosophy) but to persuade him that your reasons are good enough. again, philosophy is not about finding the ultimate nature of reality, it is about making sense of the reality that we inhabit - that is what makes philosophy rewarding. often we find it very difficult to provide reasons, but that is what makes philosophy challenging.
determinism is the doctrine that all states are determined completely by prior states
describe free will.
free will is the ability to make choices without certain kinds of compulsion.
if determinism is true, do we have free will?
no. if determinism is true, we could not have chosen otherwise. therefore we are not free.
if determinism is false, do we have free will?
no. if determinism is false, then we cannot be sure if our actions will turn out the way we want them to turn out. so we have no control over our actions, so we have no free will.
so do we have free will?
no.
but we think we have free will?
yes. but that is an illusion we are under.
but free will looks pretty attractive. how can you explain the fact that i can raise and not raise my right hand. i can raise my right hand when you ask me to raise it. i can also not raise my right hand when you ask me to raise it. how do you explain that?
well, they can be explained by the prior conditions and the laws of nature.
so that means i am not free to raise my right hand?
yes.
but perhaps freedom means something other than being completely determined by the laws of nature.
well, that freedom is not free.
maybe our freedom is not free.
so we have no free will.
...
i think my coursemates here dont take philosophy seriously. its easy enough to say that we might be brains in a vat, that we might be dreaming, that we dont know anything other than the contents of our sense experiences, that we dont know if the sun will rise tomorrow. if you say you dont know and you challenge people to prove according to your standards if they disagree with you, surely nobody is going to say anything to you. but then philosophy stops for you.
i think one of the main aims in philosophy is to make sense of life. how do we make sense of this feeling of freedom that we have. if it is not free will (as described above), what is it? can we make sense of it? why do we think it is valuable? does it contradict with what we know abt the external world? maybe that should be the proper question of free will.
scepticism is an important part of philosophy. the sceptic is always there, often for good reasons. the challenge is to answer him not with indubitable proof (for they dont exist in philosophy) but to persuade him that your reasons are good enough. again, philosophy is not about finding the ultimate nature of reality, it is about making sense of the reality that we inhabit - that is what makes philosophy rewarding. often we find it very difficult to provide reasons, but that is what makes philosophy challenging.