Yeah, I understand that you might conflate choice with free will, an easy mistake to make. I don’t, though.
Ok, so you’re a determinist. And a “choice” is just what you necessarily had to do. So freedom, in your dictionary, means bondage?
I don’t conflate the two. I’m saying that from the point of view of determinism, choice and free will are both equally illusory.
EDIT: I’m also saying choice means you could have done otherwise. That’s what choice means. Determinists say you couldn’t have done otherwise.
I’m a determinist. We make choices. At least, from what I understand the word “choice” to mean, it’s not “illusory” at all, but maybe what I mean by “choice” is different from what you mean.
Allow me to attempt to explain:
One of the common analogies made in determinist/free will discussions is likening a human being to a falling rock. The rock will fall down a cliff according to the laws of physics. The rock has no choice in the matter, it will fall as it will fall, there is only one thing it can and will do, and it does it. It falls in exactly the way it falls, and it couldn’t have fallen any other way. Likewise, a determinist would say that all events, including human ones, are like that: there is only one thing that can possibly result from the current state and the current laws, and nothing else will or can happen. What makes a human’s action “choice” and a rock’s not is just a matter of categorizing: even though they were both completely determined by physics, etc, the category of “choice” applies to the actions of a body that were determined by a brain. The brain is just as pre-determined as the rock, but one is called “choice” just because that’s what the category called “choice” means.
That’s an eloquent description of the determinist position, and you say you are a determinist. So that much makes sense to me. But I think it’s strange to not, then, call choice an illusion. I understand that you are calling a certain category of determinism “choice”, but that’s not what nearly anyone means when they use the word.
There’s no need to label me as a determinist I already told you that’s irrelevant, for the 4th time. Free will is not freedom, you should not equivocate freedom with free will. Pure freedom doesn’t exist, anywhere, but thats another topic.
My point isn’t to label you, it’s to get you to see how inconsistent and ill-thought-out your ideas seem to be. Maybe it’s just a problem of expression, but that’s always the excuse, isn’t it? My own ideas on this are inconsistent as well (that’s why there’s a “problem”), but you seem to think you aren’t just relying on intuition to guide you. I think your confidence is misplaced.
You don’t seem to understand what the implications of believing versus not believing in determinism are. If you believe in determinism, there is no such thing as a choice. If you don’t, then how does the world work? How does a rock fall? Compatibilism is a misnomer. Compatibilists don’t actually believe that determinism and free will are compatible. Most “compatibilists” are determinists.
Please point out any inconsistency’s I have stated instead of trying to fish for them by labeling me. I am arguing for Compatibilism, that is all. You can label me a Compatibilist. Compatibilists do believe free will and determinism are compatible and I already explained how, probably 3 or 4 times as well. Determinism does not say anything about there being a prerequisite about no choice.
Wiki states: Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. There are many versions of this thesis. Each rest upon various alleged connections, and interdependencies of things and events, asserting that these hold without exception.
O_H, would you say you’re saying the same thing as Flannel Jesus?
Just looking for clarification at the moment.
Five pages and you think all I’ve done is try to label you? Forget about it WW3, I give up. There is no problem for you.
I didn’t say that is all you’ve done. I was simply trying to assist you in critiquing me so I know how to respond to answer your critique more succinctly.
Ok, WW3, let’s start here, in case it leads to something fruitful. Explain what you mean by “everything has an essence”. Examples will probably help.
Definition of ESSENCE
1
a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being b : the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence c : the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is
Thus all things, including abstract concepts, have an essence.
Lets just say its: mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending b : a disposition to act according to principles or ends
from websters.
That’s because you are looking back and saying you had no choice. If you look ahead, then you have a choice. And I don’t think that most people use your definition of the word ‘choice’ - most people use it to mean a set of options.
As for the rock analogy, I prefer a water analogy. Water will flow down a slope according to the laws of physics. Let’s assume that water is a conscious being. At any point in time, it has a choice of which direction to flow. It always chooses the path of least resistance. It doesn’t ‘know’ what the the path of least resistance is until it arrives a specific location. In fact it doesn’t ‘know’ what the path of least resistance is until after it has taken the path and is looking backwards - saying “oh, so that was the the easiest way”.
Scale that up to the level of a human being who has a decision processing brain which is the result of literally millions of experiences. At any point in time, the human is presented with a set of choices. The decision between those choices is much more complex than the ‘decision’ that water has to make but none the less it is just as driven by past history/experience.
Not really, as the bolded text highlights. But I’m sympathetic to his explanation, insofar as I don’t believe anything supernatural is going on.
But without choice there are no options. I don’t get this at all. If it is true that “The law of universal causation … may be enunciated as follows: … given the state of the whole universe … every previous and subsequent event can theoretically be determined” then there is no philosophical difference between looking forwards or looking backwards. From a deterministic perspective, all is determined - there is no choice. Though “choice” sounds more acceptable and less supernatural than “free” will, from the determinist’s point of view, it is equally wrong. There is no wiggle room at all.
This is just a description of determinism that plays fast and loose with the meaning of the word “choice”.
Only_Humean, I apologize but I think I’m being a little bit dense. Can you explain further? What does “of his own free will” as “the context in which we are to judge his actions” mean, if it’s referring to neither physical determinism (conditioned response to stimuli) nor semantics (per Flannel Jesus)? Are you just saying that we can still judge people even if their course in life is completely predetermined?
I think there is so much semantic variety in this thread that I have to rethink how to approach this. If I find time at some point I might come up with a multiple choice “test” (not really a test) that clarifies certain positions which are or are not compatible with certain other positions. But that might be too much for me, in which case I guess I’d just drop it. Seems like we’re talking past each other. I just don’t understand your approach to this.