Reclaiming Freedom
Steve Taylor says of determinism: “I refute it thus!”
See how this works? The author merely assumes that his own premises here are by default the starting block. We actually are free to develop more autonomy! You merely cherry pick the science and – presto! – you too can be more authentic.
As for the influences of our environment, don’t they go all the way back to the day we are born? Don’t they cover years and years of hard-core indoctrination in the family, the community, the state, the culture, the historical parameters of “I”?
And who then gets to decide which set of behaviors best exemplify a positive development toward a more meaningful life?
With or without autonomy, “I” is a profoundly problematic vantage point
Or, perhaps: As humanistic psychology is compelled to suggest, we have innate potentials and characteristics that are independent of external factors, even if this aspect of us may be so obscured from us that we can barely see it.
And this cries out for a context in which explore all the factors this might include, Again, even assuming some measure of autonomy. After all, what can possibly be more complex than human psychology at work in interactions revolving around identity, value judgments and political power? And, at this intersection, “adverse cultural and social influences” are all over the map. God or No God. Liberal or conservative. Nature or nurture.
And how does he actually demonstrate this? Well, he doesn’t of course. He doesn’t cite an experience that he had in a particular set of circumstances. He doesn’t note a clear-cut distinction between memetic and genetic influences. He doesn’t expound on how exactly he managed to resist these influences in order to remold his own behavior so as to override the adverse cultural and social influences that curtailed him before.
Let alone examine this pertaining to actual behaviors that clash in regard to conflicting goods. It’s all just contained in a world of words.
Like this one:
A classic approach of the “serious philosopher”.