Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:24 pm
Well, people can be rationally consistent or irrational, relative to their basic premises. That often happens, because people are sometimes silly or inconsistent creatures. That's life.
What matters, then, is not his agreement or disagreement, but the
logical entailments of that original view he has.
So in Determinism, it is fundamental that one must believe that all causes are strictly predetermined. That means that is is impossible for human volition to contribute anything to an outcome.
Even if a professed "Determinist" fails to understand that, the logic of his basic claim requires it.
We know that some events are inevitable, and thus determined; that is undeniable. If you hit your thumb with a hammer it is going to hurt, and that outcome could not have been otherwise. If you recognise that, then you believe in determinism to some extent.
No, that's not Determinism. That's just simple belief in cause and effect.
Nobody doubts that. A hammer hits a thumb, and the thumb is going to hurt. The only person who could disagree would be some kind of Idealist, like a Buddhist, who would say the whole thing was an illusion.
Don't worry: I'm not Buddhist, and I'm not going their route.
Determinism is an
absolute belief. It means that NOTHING exists which is not ENTIRELY cause-and-effect, AND NOTHING ELSE. There's no place in Determinism, not even a modest one, for a hint of volition. According to Determinism, all actions -- including human actions -- are
nothing but materials in motion.
Now, at what point between those two views of deterministic outcome would you need to place yourself before earning the title of determinist?
A Determinist does not believe in the spectrum you describe. A consistent Determinist would simply have to refuse your question altogether.
However, a believer in will, like me would be able to accept your question. And he/she might say, "Well, for particular actions, I can't always tell you; but I can tell you that my will is capable of contributing to / altering / arranaging / making an impact on many outcomes.
He/she would add that it's not the hammer-thumb kind of situation, but rather the "what shall I have for lunch?" type situation. In that situation, a person sits down and asks herself, how do I feel? And maybe she chooses an egg salad.
In describing that event, the Determinist has to say that her apparent "choice" is actually forced. She has to choose egg salad, because the chemicals in her digestive system and neural pathways are combined in such a way that "egg salad" is the only possibly outcome. And that sounds prima facie plausible, at least as a possible explanation of what's happening.
But it's not the only thing that's happening, and it's not determinative of the outcome. The will-believer, like me, is going to point out that her body chemistry was actually jonesing for a hot dog. But she also knows that hot dogs are often full of "filler meats." She's health conscious. So, in spite of her longing for a hot dog, and after a process of deliberating between the values of wanting and health, the young lady selects egg salad instead. Her digestive system and neural activities may incline her, but they cannot write an ironclad demand for her. She can choose either egg salad or hot dog, and the decisive element is her will, in that case. She
chooses health over taste.
The Determinist has to deny that entire deliberation process means anything, or can have any impact at all on what she chooses. It was always fated to be egg salad, and no other possibility ever existed.
You're proving it right now, as a matter of fact. You're trying to convince. But if Determinism were true, then what my (or your) opinion is on any matter is not within our personal control. It's predecided for us, by material forces, and nothing else.
But I would also know that my trying to convince you, and whether or not I succeeded, was part of that deterministic process.
No, because "convincing" is then not real. It's just an odd feeling that goes along with certain
predetermined outcomes, but it refers to nothing.
Not "logically." It would only be "logical" if the first premise is granted. But there's no reason to grant it, and, in fact, every reason not to. For it is evident we are discussing, debating, changing minds, and so on. So the evidence suggests our choices do actually change things. And It's up to the Determinist to show it doesn't -- which, ironically, if he can do, he disproves Determinism, because he's made us change our minds, and it's changed something in the actual world.
When a belief is inherently self-contradicting, which "believing in Determinism" is, then it's the best reason you'll ever have to know it's an error.
That is not a coherent argument, and I'm not going to let you bog me down by trying to unpick it.
Here's the other possibility: it's right, so there actually isn't a way to "unpick" it. I'm just trying to tell you what Determinism itself requires. No more.
I'm not "ridiculing." I'm summarizing and pointing out the contradictions in the view. That's quite different.
Belittling views you don't agree with is part of your style...
You may think so, though I don't often mock. If a person is rational and clear-thinking, it's unnecessary. If they're not, it's not effective.
Either way, it's not true in this case. I'm simply pointing out what logic requires a Determinist to believe. Sound philosoophy requires us to do that: it says, don't accept views that are wrong, espeically those that make no sense
on their own terms. Determinism is one of those.
for choosin' to take care.
