Philosophy Now Forum

Choice or determinism are themselves two things to CHOOSE from. When choice or determinism is an issue to argue and reason and try to convince the other side to accept, there must be some choice (between choice and determinism) in the listener. So one’s rational choice is Choice itself.

So what is your choice, choice or determinism?

Kayvan Barin

K1Barin, good argument against the philosophy of "determinism". I've always thought the never ending argument of "choice vs determinism" started when philosophers attempted to debunk religion. If that is so, philosophers have been unable to construct a convincing debunk argument, because the argument goes on.

Thank you Wieg. May be this can be some convincing final argument for religion and against determinism.

K1Barin wrote:Choice or determinism are themselves two things to CHOOSE from. When choice or determinism is an issue to argue and reason and try to convince the other side to accept, there must be some choice (between choice and determinism) in the listener. So one’s rational choice is Choice itself.

So what is your choice, choice or determinism?

An obvious confusion between the concepts of choice and determinism, and the arguments that can be constructed with either one. What is it that you're picking exactly when you choose "determinism" or "choice"? It seems that there are some implicit statements missing here (which allows for ambiguity), but the choice for one argument does not erase the distinction between choice and determinism.

K1Barin wrote:Thank you Wieg. May be this can be some convincing final argument for religion and against determinism.

It appears you are lumping the ability to choose somehow with theistic belief? They are two mutually exclusive arguments. Daniel Dennett is a compatibilist, so he argues for both free will and determinism - but also happens to be an atheist. I think you are making two separate arguments here. 1) That we have free will 2) Determinism precludes God. Which one would you like to discuss?

aiddon wrote: 1) That we have free will 2) Determinism precludes God. Which one would you like to discuss?

My main discussion is that we have free will. The issue of religion and God popped up and I just made a simple comment.

Conde Lucanor wrote: but the choice for one argument does not erase the distinction between choice and determinism.

I believe in distinction between choice and determinism too. Actually I believe that they are opposite to each other. I tried to reason that determinism is contradictory to itself, while choice is not.

K1Barin wrote:

aiddon wrote: 1) That we have free will 2) Determinism precludes God. Which one would you like to discuss?

My main discussion is that we have free will. The issue of religion and God popped up and I just made a simple comment.

This is one of the most popular themes in philosophical discourse and one that has been given much coverage. I fear that we will simply covering this ground again, in an amateur way. I suggest you read Sam Harris and Daniel Sennett in this respect. They argue from a neurological point of view mainly and are very engaging. Saying that, I will discuss it if you want.

K1Barin wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote: but the choice for one argument does not erase the distinction between choice and determinism.

I believe in distinction between choice and determinism too. Actually I believe that they are opposite to each other. I tried to reason that determinism is contradictory to itself, while choice is not.

I may agree with the intention, but not necessarily the argument proves the point. First, because is circular reasoning:

1. Choice or determinism are two things to CHOOSE from.
2. We choose either one of them.
3. Therefore, choice or determinism are two things to CHOOSE from.

The first premise and the conclusion are the same.

Secondly, because an advocate of determinism could use the same argument to make his/her point, by just saying: your choice was inevitable. And so, back to square one.

I choose choice even though choice has no content yet.

tbieter wrote:I choose choice even though choice has no content yet.

Yes and I am not going to choose determinism because it can never have any content; it is contradiction to choose determinism. And also there is no thinking and arguing necessary if one is going to be determined to believe in determinism.

Let me explain this. If determinism is true, one who believes in determinism can not get credit because she/he was determined to do that. And if determinism is true, there is no shame in believing in choice, because it was determined too. So why to bother.

But if choice is true, the one who believes in choice can be proud, because she/he chose it her/himself. And there may be shame in believing in determinism, because it is chosen by choice and free will. So it matters.

tbieter wrote:I choose choice even though choice has no content yet.

Sorry for the first part of my previous reply. I did not get what you said.

To reply to that, there are so many things to choose in ordinary life. so there is content in choice. The question is, are all the ordinary life decisions maid by choice or determinism?

I don't think its necessary to take sides. Choice and determinism are two aspects of action like past and future are aspects of time.

K1Barin wrote:Choice or determinism are themselves two things to CHOOSE from. When choice or determinism is an issue to argue and reason and try to convince the other side to accept, there must be some choice (between choice and determinism) in the listener. So one’s rational choice is Choice itself.

So what is your choice, choice or determinism?

This equation seems illogical, life is much more than mere choises between "choise" and "determinism", you need to reason and give examples why you condense it so harshly to those 2 choises only.

Compatibilism (W.T. Stace) offers a possible way out of this age old dilemma. If the cause of said event is internal, resulting actions are determined by ourselves. Just a thought.