The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers

Author: TheRealNihilist

Posts

Total: 120
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@simplybeourselves
I was mainly speaking about how we view things but I guess having free will can be part of a person's viewpoint.

Can you demonstrate how a specific standard can be superior to another? If you don't want to answer that how do you answer whether or not we have free will?
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'd need some clarification on what you mean when you ask how a specific standard can be superior to another. Could you give an example of the sort of standard you mean? 
I answer whether we have free will or not by looking at the sort of free will that most people believe in. It seems that what most people believe in is that whenever we do something we could have always done something else instead, and not out of pure randomness, but out of choice ... that we are in some way self-causing. And not in a shallow way where we cause our actions with our mind but then our mind itself is ultimately caused by factors beyond our  control ... but in an ultimately deep way so that we are somehow to be the cause of ourselves in an ultimate sense that would require one to be Causa sui. But such a kind of self-causation is impossible because it would lead to an infinite regress and we are finite beings. So that's a simple sketch of how it can be shown that the free will that most people believe in is impossible without requiring any sort of scientific evidence at all.  It's something that is impossible both under determinism and indeterminism, both under naturalism and supernaturalism and both under physicalism and idealism. 

My favorite version of the argument against the strong version of free will that most people irrationally believe in that is given by a professional philosopher is the following argument by Galen Strawson:

Premise 1: You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
Premise 2: To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects
Premise 3: But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
Conclusion: So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@simplybeourselves
Could you give an example of the sort of standard you mean?
God exists. Whatever the Bible says is true would be an easy example. 
I answer whether we have free will or not by looking at the sort of free will that most people believe in. It seems that what most people believe in is that whenever we do something we could have always done something else instead, and not out of pure randomness, but out of choice ... that we are in some way self-causing. And not in a shallow way where we cause our actions with our mind but then our mind itself is ultimately caused by factors beyond our  control ... but in an ultimately deep way so that we are somehow to be the cause of ourselves in an ultimate sense that would require one to be Causa sui. But such a kind of self-causation is impossible because it would lead to an infinite regress and we are finite beings. So that's a simple sketch of how it can be shown that the free will that most people believe in is impossible without requiring any sort of scientific evidence at all.  It's something that is impossible both under determinism and indeterminism, both under naturalism and supernaturalism and both under physicalism and idealism. 

My favorite version of the argument against the strong version of free will that most people irrationally believe in that is given by a professional philosopher is the following argument by Galen Strawson:

Premise 1: You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
Premise 2: To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects
Premise 3: But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
Conclusion: So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.
I agree with this. An easier way I think would be to say so why did you pick this option instead of another. When they give a reason like not enough money or not being there. They would have to yield they are contingent on factors meaning they are not free to carry out their will.

Another way of seeing this is that did you have free will as a child? If they said yes then they would have to say they chose to cry over not getting something. They might yield so you can say you are contingent on reactions that you do not have control over. If they don't yield then I guess you can say you were purposefully making your parents less happy because you I can. I don't think they would accept that. 

I guess this one is the easiest example but I like to hear you thoughts about is did you choose to be born? They would have to say no (or maybe they would say something different) and then keep moving to an age or something else. The more they push the question can be levied as so people under 18 are not worthy of moral consideration?  
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Wait, so are you talking about normativiy? Like, why is one explanation *better* than another ... and not better merely in terms of being more effective at achieving your goal .... but better full stop, categorically? Is that what you mean by standards?

"I agree with this. An easier way I think would be to say so why did you pick this option instead of another. When they give a reason like not enough money or not being there. They would have to yield they are contingent on factors meaning they are not free to carry out their will."

Of course, but it complicates matters when they give their reason for their action as "Because I freely chose to do it." .... then such an argument is needed.

"Another way of seeing this is that did you have free will as a child? If they said yes then they would have to say they chose to cry over not getting something."

Not necessarily because they might hold that whilst they don't have full control in all situations, situations such of those being an example, they at least have full control under some situations.

Even those who believe in strong free will also believe that there are exceptions to it such as addictions, compulsions, etc. I doubt many people who believe in free will would believe that Tourettes sufferers choose to have their tics for example.


The point is that whilst they may not think that they ALWAYS have ultimate control over their actions .... they at least believe that they sometimes do. And my point is that they never do and nobody ever does.

"I guess this one is the easiest example but I like to hear you thoughts about is did you choose to be born? "

Once again, even those who believe they have strong free will don't think that they chose to be born. Their claim is not that they ALWAYS have strong free will over EVERYTHING, even things that just happened to them, before they even existed, their claim is that there are many actions that they can take that they do freely make in a strong and ultimate sense.

The argument against free will is not to simply say that they don't always have strong free will .... it's to say that they NEVER have strong free will and nobody and nothing ever does or can have it.

simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
But even if your example argument was sufficient, as you seem to believe it is, that would already show that philosophy can give concrete answers because the point is that this problem of free will doesn't require any scientific evidence and it's a truth that can be discovered truly a priori. Whether free will is real or not is a substantive and concrete question that can be answered through philosophy and without doing any science.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@simplybeourselves
and not better merely in terms of being more effective at achieving your goal .... but better full stop, categorically? Is that what you mean by standards?
Yep.
Of course, but it complicates matters when they give their reason for their action as "Because I freely chose to do it." .... then such an argument is needed.
Sure.
they at least believe that they sometimes do. And my point is that they never do and nobody ever does.
Guess I have to talk in the situations they think that have free will then. 
But even if your example argument was sufficient, as you seem to believe it is, that would already show that philosophy can give concrete answers
I wouldn't call that concrete mainly examples on something we agree upon. If we didn't agree on free will I wouldn't have given examples instead would be arguing against free will. 

Basically what we agree upon isn't what i consider to be concrete. If it is based on people agreeing with each other then it can simply change with a different group of people. A synonym of concrete would be universal if it wasn't clear on what I mean is concrete. 

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you want a concrete solution, then add four parts aggregate to two parts sand and one  part cement and then combine thoroughly with water.

N.B. Always wear safety equipment when mixing concrete...It is especially important, not to inhale cement dust.


This is my concrete philosophy.

Does this yield for you?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
But even if your example argument was sufficient, as you seem to believe it is, that would already show that philosophy can give concrete answers because the point is that this problem of free will doesn't require any scientific evidence and it's a truth that can be discovered truly a priori. Whether free will is real or not is a substantive and concrete question that can be answered through philosophy and without doing any science.
Logic itself is based on empirical observation.  One of the very first things we learn as infants is "cause and effect".

Free-will is merely an emotion we feel when making (apparently) uncoerced "decisions".

Every "free-will" "decision" we make is (EITHER) based on historical influences (OR) totally "random" (disconnected from historical influences).

Is a "random" consequence an act of "will"?

Is a deliberate act of will "free"?

The entire premise of "free-will" is logically incoherent.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Basically what we agree upon isn't what i consider to be concrete. If it is based on people agreeing with each other then it can simply change with a different group of people. A synonym of concrete would be universal if it wasn't clear on what I mean is concrete. 
It sounds like you're pursuing APODICTIC TRUTH.

And good luck discovering APODICTIC TRUTH without engaging in "philosophy".
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Saying that literally everything involves empiricism, even logic and rationalism--which is supposed to be definitionally distinct from empiricism--is to make the whole concept of empiricism vacuous.  Sure, everything requires empiricism if you literally redefine empiricism to cover everything ... but to do so is to simply kid yourself rather than to say anything substantive.

What's more, a thing would still be a thing even if we didn't exist to have empirical evidence of it. The laws of logic don't require any knowledge of them. So I completely disagree that logic is fundamentally empirical even if we use your overly wide sense of the word where you completely eliminate the distinction between rationalism and empiricism.

The fact that you accept that the entire premise of free will is logically incoherent already shows that philosophy can give concrete/substantive answers to questions. If you accept and recognize that already then I didn't even need to give my argument: you already agree with me. Philosophy can show that free will doesn't exist purely via a priori logic without requiring any empirical evidence.  Precisely because you can't have empirical evidence against something that isn't even logically incoherent. 

I didn't say that apodictic truth can be discovered without engaging in philosophy. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
...but to do so is to simply kid yourself rather than to say anything substantive.
Please "say anything substantive" that makes a coherent distinction between "empiricism" and "logic".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
...a thing would still be a thing even if we didn't exist to have empirical evidence of it.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

Any "thing" that "exists" without "evidence" is an aspect of NOUMENON.
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Sure. The fundamentals of logic are analytic whereas empiricism is fundamentally synthetic. The fundamentals of logic are absolute whereas empirical evidence is relative. The fundamentals of logic are fundamentally objective but empiricism is fundamentally subjective, even if it's robusty inter-subjective. The fundamentals of logic are a priori whereas empiricism is fundamentally a posteriori. 

To put it simply: All you need to explain the difference is the basic analytic-synthetic distinction or the basic a-priori versus a-posteriori distinction. Very, very easy to give an answer to that. 

Finally, it's no wonder that you think empiricism covers everything and philosophy is useless  if  you don't recognize a coherent distinction between logic and empiricism, lol. 


simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
It seems like you're agreeing with me. What we know to exist is not the same as what actually exists. And things can be both known through empiricism *and* logic. 

Ultimately, I think that knowledge is best made sense of through a view that combines both empiricism and rationalism. See my profile for  my view on that.

And, yes, that's another way of explaining it: empiricism deals with phenomena whereas logic deals with noumena. It seems to me like you're agreeing with me. So I don't understand why you don't accept the distinction.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
The laws of logic don't require any knowledge of them.
How do you know this?
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Because a rock is still a rock regardless of if humans are around to observe it.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
The fundamentals of logic are analytic whereas empiricism is fundamentally synthetic.
ANALYTIC
"separating something into component parts or constituent elements" 

SYNTHETIC
"attributing to a subject something determined by observation rather than analysis of the nature of the subject and not resulting in self-contradiction if negated"

This sounds like, "Solve et Coagula".

“Solve” or “solutio” refers to the breaking down of elements and “Coagula” refers to their coming together.

One is "reductive" and the other is "constructive".

Logic demands we employ both.

Empirical (synthetic) experience is meaningless without drawing some conclusions about whatever phenomenon is observed.

Logical (analytic) conclusion is meaningless without some reference to observable (empirical/synthetic) correlation.

These are inter-dependent concepts (perhaps you've heard of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
Because a rock is still a rock regardless of if humans are around to observe it.
Nice, the old "argumentum ad lapidem".

I understand we find it easy, in fact, it's intuitive and downright "obvious" that "things" "exist" "independent of observation and evidence".

But what you seem to be missing is that this "common sense" (a priori "fact") is a de facto philosophy in-and-of-itself, namely Naive Objectivism (naive realism).

Any "thing" we don't have evidence of is an aspect of NOUMENON.

Part of the NOUMENON is potentially "knowable", Mysterium Invisus and part of it is fundamentally unknowable, Magnum Mysterium.

I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability).  I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium).  For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of.  In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend.  All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality".  I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly.  It's like the old story of the princess and the pea.  Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@zedvictor4
I'll keep that in mind whenever I'm building a house.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
It sounds like you're pursuing APODICTIC TRUTH.

And good luck discovering APODICTIC TRUTH without engaging in "philosophy".
Not possible. Unless you change the definition of universality or have a logic which claims it is universal during or before that you would have to agree with it.

simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I said that the fundamentals of logic are analytic. I didn't say that all logic was analytic.
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I gave a tautology, which is a necessarily true statement, rather than making the fallacy of a stone. Just because I used a stone as example doesn't mean I gave a fallacy involving a stone. The fact that I asserted that a rock is a rock doesn't mean that all that I was doing is making a baseless asseriton. Far from baseless, "a rock is a rock" is necessarily true on account of it being tautologically true. "A rock is a rock" is on a par with A=A which is the law of identity which is the fundamental law of logic and cannot be false.
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
A noumenon has to be a thing for it to be anything at all, as far as I'm concerned. Either there is a such thing as X or there isn't. And "There's no such thing as X" equates to "X doesn't exist". Either the noumenon is a thing or it is nothing at all.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,066
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Apologies.

I was feeling a bit obscure.

Though the question is presented in such a way .
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
I said that the fundamentals of logic are analytic. I didn't say that all logic was analytic.
How do you know this?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
I gave a tautology, which is a necessarily true statement,
Nope.  You failed to make your definitions explicit.

And because you failed to make your definitions explicit, you've inadvertently made an "appeal to common sense", which is a naked "appeal to ignorance".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@simplybeourselves
A noumenon has to be a thing for it to be anything at all, as far as I'm concerned. Either there is a such thing as X or there isn't. And "There's no such thing as X" equates to "X doesn't exist". Either the noumenon is a thing or it is nothing at all.
I like where you're going with this.

NOUMENON is a special case.

In order for a "thing" to properly "exist" we must have some way of detecting it empirically, either directly or indirectly.

NOUMENON is not detectable empirically, but it is LOGICALLY NECESSARY.

We only "know" of NOUMENON, because we can deduce that we DO NOT currently know "everything".

Therefore, NOUMENON "exists" more like a category, and less like an actual "thing" (even though it may contain currently undetected things).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Not possible. Unless you change the definition of universality or have a logic which claims it is universal during or before that you would have to agree with it.
What's your definition of "universality"?

Do you believe "universality" is only what "all humans" find "undeniable"?

Or would your "universality" extend to all animals and hypothetical alien life forms?
simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I gave a tautology and you responded with "nope". I will simply correct you and tell you that you must not know what a tautology is if you think that the statement "a rock is a rock" is not a tautology then you're simply wrong.

simplybeourselves
simplybeourselves's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 129
0
2
6
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
0
2
6
I don't agree that a thing has to be detectable empirically by us for it to exist. And it's begging the question in favor of empiricism being the only reasonable view by doing that. Of course empiricism is the only reasonable view if you literally define something that can't be empirically detected as not real. But it's still the case that a thing that can't be detected would at least be a thing that can't be detected. X is still X whether empirically observed or not. 

So you aren't giving an argument for your view at all because you're literally defining something not empirically detectable as non-existent. So you're just question-begging.

Whereas I am not giving an argument for the fundamental laws of logic because argument itself already presupposes it so it's putting the cart before the horse. I can't possibly give an argument without already assuming the laws of logic to be true. Whereas it *is* possible for your view to be wrong because all it would require would be for some things in the universe to be unknowable. And you can't possibly know that that isn't the case. You are just merely defining such things as not really things or not really real. It's just question-begging.