Agency

JohnJones · January 3, 2011, 10:49pm

anon:

Wikipedia:

Human agency is the capacity for human beings to make choices and to impose those choices on the world. It is normally contrasted to natural forces, which are causes involving only unthinking deterministic processes. In this respect, agency is subtly distinct from the concept of free will, the philosophical doctrine that our choices are not the product of causal chains, but are significantly free or undetermined.

I believe agency is a distinct concept from both free will and causal determinism. But I admit this is problematic. It seems to me that from a deterministic point of view, agency must necessarily be deterministic, or else it is just a version of free will. And sounds compelling to me. But I can’t say I understand exactly what it says - after all, what does “multiple domain supervenience” mean? It would be pretentious of me to act like I have more than even a tiniest bit of a clue. I’m sure it sounds compelling to me, just because I intuitively agree with its conclusion that “downward causation will occur in consonance with the principles of physics, rather than in violation of them.” This conclusion just plain makes sense. But surely that doesn’t make it true.

Any comments?

Human agency is not a human capacity. It is a condition of being human, not a property.

Only_Humean · January 3, 2011, 10:57pm

I’m not entirely sure when philosophy wasn’t 9 parts big-egos-dancing-around-with-semantics to 1 part value.

But I don’t see any value in your hostility and rudeness to otherwise civil questions either, so please cut it out.

Fent · January 4, 2011, 12:35am

anon:

Wikipedia:

Human agency is the capacity for human beings to make choices and to impose those choices on the world. It is normally contrasted to natural forces, which are causes involving only unthinking deterministic processes. In this respect, agency is subtly distinct from the concept of free will, the philosophical doctrine that our choices are not the product of causal chains, but are significantly free or undetermined.

I believe agency is a distinct concept from both free will and causal determinism. But I admit this is problematic. It seems to me that from a deterministic point of view, agency must necessarily be deterministic, or else it is just a version of free will. And sounds compelling to me. But I can’t say I understand exactly what it says - after all, what does “multiple domain supervenience” mean? It would be pretentious of me to act like I have more than even a tiniest bit of a clue. I’m sure it sounds compelling to me, just because I intuitively agree with its conclusion that “downward causation will occur in consonance with the principles of physics, rather than in violation of them.” This conclusion just plain makes sense. But surely that doesn’t make it true.

Any comments?

For agency I think one may have to be highly astute in a particular activity. If we take professional guitarists, for example, they practice for countless hours in order to create dexterity, a good knowledge of tones, scales, and patterns. The higher the knowledge and dexterity, the more space they create for themselves to make decisions on their instrument; they usually have copious amounts of options up their sleeve on what “patterns” they will put together.

I think this theory applies in most areas. If we want to make choices we have to know the multiple complexities of the particular situation we find ourselves in. The more we know about the why, how, and what of the situation, and the more willpower/self-discipline we possess, the more options that open up to us on what decisions we can make.

To cut a long stroy short, agecny has to be cultivated, not instantly presumed.

Calrid · January 4, 2011, 8:00am

Yeah well you would. It’s not a question that needs an answer so wibbling on about nothing is pointless, the answer is that free will only exists because we do, the concept is arbitrary and humanocentric and has no value or meaning outside of our conceptual beliefs that the Universe must obey causality or not. What counter needs to be made is his.

Calrid · January 4, 2011, 8:03am

JohnJones:

anon:

Wikipedia:

Human agency is the capacity for human beings to make choices and to impose those choices on the world. It is normally contrasted to natural forces, which are causes involving only unthinking deterministic processes. In this respect, agency is subtly distinct from the concept of free will, the philosophical doctrine that our choices are not the product of causal chains, but are significantly free or undetermined.

I believe agency is a distinct concept from both free will and causal determinism. But I admit this is problematic. It seems to me that from a deterministic point of view, agency must necessarily be deterministic, or else it is just a version of free will. And sounds compelling to me. But I can’t say I understand exactly what it says - after all, what does “multiple domain supervenience” mean? It would be pretentious of me to act like I have more than even a tiniest bit of a clue. I’m sure it sounds compelling to me, just because I intuitively agree with its conclusion that “downward causation will occur in consonance with the principles of physics, rather than in violation of them.” This conclusion just plain makes sense. But surely that doesn’t make it true.

Any comments?

Human agency is not a human capacity. It is a condition of being human, not a property.

It is conditioned by humanity like any instinct is, the instinct to see god in the sky,hence and then instinct to think that we are ultimately free whether its possible to know or not.

The big questions ultimately boil down to evolutionary advantage and natural selection therefore.

anon · January 4, 2011, 12:58pm

Fent:

anon:

Wikipedia:

Human agency is the capacity for human beings to make choices and to impose those choices on the world. It is normally contrasted to natural forces, which are causes involving only unthinking deterministic processes. In this respect, agency is subtly distinct from the concept of free will, the philosophical doctrine that our choices are not the product of causal chains, but are significantly free or undetermined.

I believe agency is a distinct concept from both free will and causal determinism. But I admit this is problematic. It seems to me that from a deterministic point of view, agency must necessarily be deterministic, or else it is just a version of free will. And sounds compelling to me. But I can’t say I understand exactly what it says - after all, what does “multiple domain supervenience” mean? It would be pretentious of me to act like I have more than even a tiniest bit of a clue. I’m sure it sounds compelling to me, just because I intuitively agree with its conclusion that “downward causation will occur in consonance with the principles of physics, rather than in violation of them.” This conclusion just plain makes sense. But surely that doesn’t make it true.

Any comments?

For agency I think one may have to be highly astute in a particular activity. If we take professional guitarists, for example, they practice for countless hours in order to create dexterity, a good knowledge of tones, scales, and patterns. The higher the knowledge and dexterity, the more space they create for themselves to make decisions on their instrument; they usually have copious amounts of options up their sleeve on what “patterns” they will put together.

I think this theory applies in most areas. If we want to make choices we have to know the multiple complexities of the particular situation we find ourselves in. The more we know about the why, how, and what of the situation, and the more willpower/self-discipline we possess, the more options that open up to us on what decisions we can make.

To cut a long stroy short, agecny has to be cultivated, not instantly presumed.

I like what you’re saying. I wrote a bit on the same subject on another forum - . I’m “Googaw”. If anyone is interested, it’s a short thread and I think a good read. I learned a lot from “my_wan” there. And my response on page 2 to the comments about Libet’s experiments by “207bones” seem very similar to your own ideas here.

WW_III_ANGRY · January 4, 2011, 1:12pm

Well, in all honesty I too would be denying my free will as well, if I acted like that.

JohnJones · January 4, 2011, 1:18pm

Essentially you claim that there is no humanity, there is only an assembly of properties like agency and capacity. You can’t claim that there is a “humanity” if there are no identifiers or conditions of that humanity. I don’t think you can see this.

Calrid · January 4, 2011, 7:55pm

No why do you insist on erecting strawmen?

Is that all your education taught you how to talk around a subject not about it?

I’m not a solopsist. Get to the fucking point.

This gets tiresome after a while: you think this, no I never said this, then you think that, no I never said that; then you are wrong because you think this. Christ is this philosophy now being right by just talking shit until the person you are talking to gets bored or wearisome of sophistry and strawmen? I fricking hope not or you just wasted all your formative years.

JohnJones · January 5, 2011, 2:55pm

Here’s the point:
If you claim that humanity has human properties like agency and capacity, then what is humanity?

von_Rivers · January 5, 2011, 3:54pm

JohnJones,

You don’t understand what a definition is. If someone tells you what properties a thing has, they’re already offering a definition (complete or not). Your question betrays that misunderstanding.

JohnJones · January 5, 2011, 11:33pm

If you claim that there is humanity, and human properties, what is humanity?

captaincrunk · March 18, 2011, 4:38pm

A property that emerges from a collection of other properties, some of which are exclusive to humanity (but not all) and not all of which are necessarily always required to have an instantiation of humanity.

EDIT: At the very least you could have abstracted from what he said that humanity is a haver of the properties like agency and capacity.