The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

Self-determination vs. Determinism

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
READ OP - Which one is false?
Determinism
Freedom
Incompatibilism
View Results
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#1New Post! Mar 02, 2010 @ 22:44:36
Here's the basic structure of the argument:

1. Determinism is true
2. Self-determination is true
3. Self-determination and determinism are incompatible

All three of these propositions can't be true at the same time, so one of them must be false. Let me explain each one.

Determinism is the thesis that every event which happens, including human actions, are determined to happen by the events which precede them. Causality seems to imply this: every event has a cause, it can't come from nothing, so in order for something to happen its cause must happen; if its cause happens, it must happen. Hence, if a human action is caused by, for example, a desire or a motivation, then as soon as that desire or motivation happens the action must happen. Since we do not cause our own motivations, we can not cause our own actions indepedently. We are therefore not free agents, but part of a causal chain like everything else.

Self-determination can be defined here as the idea that we determine our own actions independently and are free, to some extent, of the constraints imposed by previous events. We originate series of events ourselves; we are, in effect, all causa sui (self-caused) 'prime movers'. Since we are not determined by previous causes, we have 'liberty of indifference', which means that when we choose to do something, we could have chosen otherwise and were not forced to do what we actually did. The choice was free, the action was contingent.

Incompatibilism is the assumption that determinism and self-determination don't go together. This is a pretty natural assumption to make. An incompatibilist, then, is forced to assume that either determinism is false or self-determination is false. Nonetheless, there are many that argue that while determinism is not compatible with self-determination, it still allows some kind of human freedom, and things like moral responsibility are compatible with determinism since they do not actually require us to have liberty of indifference. For the sake of this argument, we will call such people compatibilists - that is, they think freedom and determinism are compatible (but they do not necessarily think determinism and self-determination are compatible).
sister_of_mercy On March 11, 2015




London, United Kingdom
#2New Post! Mar 02, 2010 @ 22:47:58
@buffalobill90 Said

Here's the basic structure of the argument:

1. Determinism is true
2. Self-determination is true
3. Self-determination and determinism are incompatible

All three of these propositions can't be true at the same time, so one of them must be false. Let me explain each one.

Determinism is the thesis that every event which happens, including human actions, are determined to happen by the events which precede them. Causality seems to imply this: every event has a cause, it can't come from nothing, so in order for something to happen its cause must happen; if its cause happens, it must happen. Hence, if a human action is caused by, for example, a desire or a motivation, then as soon as that desire or motivation happens the action must happen. Since we do not cause our own motivations, we can not cause our own actions indepedently. We are therefore not free agents, but part of a causal chain like everything else.

Self-determination can be defined here as the idea that we determine our own actions independently and are free, to some extent, of the constraints imposed by previous events. We originate series of events ourselves; we are, in effect, all causa sui (self-caused) 'prime movers'. Since we are not determined by previous causes, we have 'liberty of indifference', which means that when we choose to do something, we could have chosen otherwise and were not forced to do what we actually did. The choice was free, the action was contingent.

Incompatibilism is the assumption that determinism and self-determination don't go together. This is a pretty natural assumption to make. An incompatibilist, then, is forced to assume that either determinism is false or self-determination is false. Nonetheless, there are many that argue that while determinism is not compatible with self-determination, it still allows some kind of human freedom, and things like moral responsibility are compatible with determinism since they do not actually require us to have liberty of indifference.


Couldn't you also take a compatibilist approach? Like Frankfurt's First and Second Order Desires?

I love existentialism so I'm routed in the self-determinism. However I know it's not always true (for example if the choice has been coerced) and so therefore is flawed, so I'm not sure. I definitely don't believe in the dualist approach to the argument.

Edit: For argument's sake I voted that 'Freedom' is false.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#3New Post! Mar 02, 2010 @ 23:04:27
@sister_of_mercy Said

Couldn't you also take a compatibilist approach? Like Frankfurt's First and Second Order Desires?

I love existentialism so I'm routed in the self-determinism. However I know it's not always true (for example if the choice has been coerced) and so therefore is flawed, so I'm not sure. I definitely don't believe in the dualist approach to the argument.

Edit: For argument's sake I voted that 'Freedom' is false.



Sorry, the OP is a bit long-winded. Determinism and self-determination are incompatible. However, determinism may be compatible with a 'watered-down' version of freedom which still allows things like moral responsibility.

Frankfurt's argument is flawed because second-order desires could easily be determined. Second-order volitions provide a relative freedom, i.e. freedom from first-order desires, but it is not absolute self-determination - this would require third-order desires, which would in turn require fourth-order desires and so on in an infinite regression. He reconciles determinism with a kind of freedom which distinguished persons from 'wantons', but he does not reconcile it with self-determination and liberty of indifference.
aquine On May 30, 2014
Psalm 2 = Rev 11:15


Banned



Alice SPrings, Australia
#4New Post! Mar 03, 2010 @ 02:12:47
@buffalobill90 Said

Here's the basic structure of the argument:

1. Determinism is true
2. Self-determination is true
3. Self-determination and determinism are incompatible

All three of these propositions can't be true at the same time, so one of them must be false. Let me explain each one.

Determinism is the thesis that every event which happens, including human actions, are determined to happen by the events which precede them. Causality seems to imply this: every event has a cause, it can't come from nothing, so in order for something to happen its cause must happen; if its cause happens, it must happen. Hence, if a human action is caused by, for example, a desire or a motivation, then as soon as that desire or motivation happens the action must happen. Since we do not cause our own motivations, we can not cause our own actions indepedently. We are therefore not free agents, but part of a causal chain like everything else.

Self-determination can be defined here as the idea that we determine our own actions independently and are free, to some extent, of the constraints imposed by previous events. We originate series of events ourselves; we are, in effect, all causa sui (self-caused) 'prime movers'. Since we are not determined by previous causes, we have 'liberty of indifference', which means that when we choose to do something, we could have chosen otherwise and were not forced to do what we actually did. The choice was free, the action was contingent.

Incompatibilism is the assumption that determinism and self-determination don't go together. This is a pretty natural assumption to make. An incompatibilist, then, is forced to assume that either determinism is false or self-determination is false. Nonetheless, there are many that argue that while determinism is not compatible with self-determination, it still allows some kind of human freedom, and things like moral responsibility are compatible with determinism since they do not actually require us to have liberty of indifference. For the sake of this argument, we will call such people compatibilists - that is, they think freedom and determinism are compatible (but they do not necessarily think determinism and self-determination are compatible).

Everything comes from nothing. God made everything from nothing. Therefore determinism is false.

Because of sin human beings are separated from the True 'prime mover'. In Christ we are reconciled to Him. Therefore self-determinism is false as when one is in Christ the self is destroyed.


Incompatibilism =


God bless you.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#5New Post! Mar 03, 2010 @ 19:18:01
@aquine Said

Everything comes from nothing. God made everything from nothing. Therefore determinism is false.

Because of sin human beings are separated from the True 'prime mover'. In Christ we are reconciled to Him. Therefore self-determinism is false as when one is in Christ the self is destroyed.


Incompatibilism =


God bless you.



So people aren't free? They are slaves or puppets of God?

Determinism is not at all incompatible with creationism. It simply deals with all events after creation.
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#6New Post! Mar 09, 2010 @ 18:15:50
We don't know what, if anything, preceded this universe. Therefore your question only applies to events within it.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#7New Post! Mar 10, 2010 @ 12:25:21
@ThePainefulTruth Said

We don't know what, if anything, preceded this universe. Therefore your question only applies to events within it.



No doubt.
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#8New Post! Mar 10, 2010 @ 16:24:04
Then if, as everything seems to indicate, there is no supernatural or irrational exceptions to natural law, everything would be predetermined if there were no life--or more specifically, no sentience. Our self-awareness gives us the power to override our nature, to choose to take a different path than the one our evolutionary programming leads us to take.

We could follow our programming for survival and self-promotion by killing someone and taking what they have, as some do. Or we can choose not to. That's just an example of the many choices we have, and have to make every day. Most of them are more subtle though.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#9New Post! Mar 10, 2010 @ 16:28:13
@ThePainefulTruth Said

Then if, as everything seems to indicate, there is no supernatural or irrational exceptions to natural law, everything would be predetermined if there were no life--or more specifically, no sentience. Our self-awareness gives us the power to override our nature, to choose to take a different path than the one our evolutionary programming leads us to take.

We could follow our programming for survival and self-promotion by killing someone and taking what they have, as some do. Or we can choose not to. That's just an example of the many choices we have, and have to make every day. Most of them are more subtle though.



I agree that we are free from the instinctual drives that other creatures are incapable of analysing due to our consciousness, but this is only a relative freedom, and does not constitute self-determination. You should read Schopenhauer's prize-winning essay on freedom of the will.
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#10New Post! Mar 10, 2010 @ 16:41:59
@buffalobill90 Said

I agree that we are free from the instinctual drives that other creatures are incapable of analysing due to our consciousness, but this is only a relative freedom, and does not constitute self-determination. You should read Schopenhauer's prize-winning essay on freedom of the will.


What is relative freedom, the inability to override natural law? Defy gravity? Of course we are so limited. What we are free to do, at least, is to make moral choices (where morality is to honor the equal rights of all humans to their life, liberty and property, free from violation through force or fraud).

I don't see what Schopenhauer has to do with it. He merely advocated withdrawing from our desires--which is a form of free will btw.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#11New Post! Mar 10, 2010 @ 17:42:26
@ThePainefulTruth Said

What is relative freedom, the inability to override natural law? Defy gravity? Of course we are so limited. What we are free to do, at least, is to make moral choices (where morality is to honor the equal rights of all humans to their life, liberty and property, free from violation through force or fraud).



That isn't how I would frame morality, personally. In any case, we are often free to choose but do not have liberty of indifference or self-determination.

@The PainefulTruth Said

I don't see what Schopenhauer has to do with it. He merely advocated withdrawing from our desires--which is a form of free will btw.



In his essay on freedom of the will, he points out that we are free to do as we will but not free to will as we will. Although we can be motivated by absent or imaginary concepts, as opposed to the prevailing pressures in our immediate perception, we are still forced to choose the prevailing motivation. Our ability to retrospect gives us the illusion of liberty of indifference; we can imagine having made a different choice in the same situation, but if we analyse it properly it is apparent that we would have had to have different motivations which would have depended on prior conditions out of our control.
arcades On August 08, 2013




Northbay, Canada
#12New Post! Mar 10, 2010 @ 20:33:35
It's a combo of Determinism and self-determination.

Therefore I don't agree with Incompatibilism.
arcades On August 08, 2013




Northbay, Canada
#13New Post! Mar 10, 2010 @ 20:55:26
@buffalobill90 Said

That isn't how I would frame morality, personally. In any case, we are often free to choose but do not have liberty of indifference or self-determination.




In his essay on freedom of the will, he points out that we are free to do as we will but not free to will as we will. Although we can be motivated by absent or imaginary concepts, as opposed to the prevailing pressures in our immediate perception, we are still forced to choose the prevailing motivation. Our ability to retrospect gives us the illusion of liberty of indifference; we can imagine having made a different choice in the same situation, but if we analyse it properly it is apparent that we would have had to have different motivations which would have depended on prior conditions out of our control.



Why would we be forced to still choose the prevailing motivation?

What if a person has changed there perception in such a way that there never is a prevailing motivation?

Also It's not to hard to learn to control your dreams.

When your in control of your dreams all of the sudden we are free to will as we will, and we can experience that and remember and learn from that experience.

Also if you know what conditions you need to experience to get the motivation required to take a coarse of action, with complete control over your experience via dreams you could actually control your determinism.

Dream and experience the circumstances needed, then act in real life.

All of the sudden we have complete control over the reality that supposedly shapes us using this technique.
ThePainefulTruth On May 06, 2013
Verum est Deus


Deleted



Peoria, Arizona
#14New Post! Mar 11, 2010 @ 22:15:06
@buffalobill90 Said

That isn't how I would frame morality, personally. In any case, we are often free to choose but do not have liberty of indifference or self-determination.


For instance?.?



Quote:
In his essay on freedom of the will, he points out that we are free to do as we will but not free to will as we will. Although we can be motivated by absent or imaginary concepts, as opposed to the prevailing pressures in our immediate perception, we are still forced to choose the prevailing motivation. Our ability to retrospect gives us the illusion of liberty of indifference; we can imagine having made a different choice in the same situation, but if we analyse it properly it is apparent that we would have had to have different motivations which would have depended on prior conditions out of our control.


"free to do as we will but not free to will as we will" comes perilously close to being an early example of psychobabble. And if I'm reading your interpretation correctly, it only means that we have the ability to lie to ourselves--which I'll grant is spades.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Religion & Philosophy
Sun Jun 19, 2011 @ 03:24
32 2405
New posts   Philosophy
Sun Apr 04, 2010 @ 04:03
23 1683
New posts   Religion
Wed Mar 04, 2009 @ 21:25
7 882
New posts   Random
Sun Jan 18, 2009 @ 23:02
12 819
New posts   Is it true?
Sat Aug 16, 2008 @ 19:54
27 3268