Critique My Philosophy of Life? (Repost)

Philosophy
21
The regress argument shows that free will--in the way in which I define it--is impossible.
I'm glad I was sitting down when I read that one. Empty rhetoric.
As you know, I define free will as "that which is sufficient for one to be ultimately responsible for one's intentional actions". It is this definition which is relevant to my philosophy, because showing it to be impossible renders irrational a whole range of negative emotions (see bottom of page 6 of the document), which strongly conduces to peace of mind.
It doesn't seem reasonable to achieve peace of mind on the issue of free will by eliminating the possibility of free will based on fallacious straw man reasoning. But maybe that's just me.
You have yet to demonstrate any fallacy in the regress argument, or to show that the impossibility of free will--the way I have defined it--does not conduce to peace of mind.
I think I'll make up an absurd definition of atheism and declare it impossible. And then act as if I showed atheism as anyone defines it as impossible.
I am afraid that you are the one attacking a straw man. I have not claimed or implied that free will in any way other than that in which I have defined it is impossible.
But most importantly, can you show that the regress argument is not sound? To do so, you must either show that at least one of its premises is not necessarily true, or that the premises do not logically entail the conclusion.
I'd argue that Kane sets the bar unnecessarily high for free will. If entity y can choose either x or ~x options and does so with a reasonable expectation of outcomes then the choice is free. It doesn't matter whether the entity was created entirely by another. Strawson would argue that the outcome is luck if it is not causally determined, but as we can see, Strawson reduces *everything* to luck. If everything is luck no matter what it is then luck ceases to mean anything.
I have now explained why I use my definition of free will. Your version of free will is a compatibilist one, which is irrelevant to my philosophy. My version of free will is not compatibilist, though I am always eager to point out that my model produces every bit the same degree of "control" that compatibilists can claim yet remaining indeterministic. You should rethink whether it's relevant or not. Compatibilism isn't even at issue without determinism. If you believe that your definition of free will is relevant to my philosophy, then please show exactly how.
You're starting to sound like a moral realist. Are you saying that people ought to have sound arguments and credible reasons for their beliefs? Come on. It's just luck, isn't it? You could change your mind tomorrow about what it takes for you to believe in a god or gods.
I am saying that one can be rational only if one has sound arguments and credible reasons for one's beliefs. This has nothing to do with my metaethical views.
It still kind of sounds like you're implying that we ought to be rational, which is a corollary to claiming we ought to have sound arguments and credible reasons for our beliefs. Since it's all luck anyway, why bother drawing any distinctions?
Yes, I believe that one ought to be rational, but solely for prudential reasons, not moral ones.
Ought we to strive for doxastic rationality?
Without doxastic rationality, we cannot have a meaningful conversation. And in practice, doxastic irrationality could be disastrous. Again, this has nothing to do with my metaethical views. What's wrong with disastrous? You say it almost as if it would be bad. Again, I believe that one ought to be rational, but solely for prudential reasons, not moral ones.
We probably can't have a meaningful conversation without free will. At least not without bringing it to the approximate level of the meaningful conversation between a cell nucleus and the outlying structures of the cell.
Again, you are attacking a straw man. The impossibility of ultimate responsibility does not preclude meaningful conversation.
OK, so you are not willing to discuss the arguments.
When you say it that way it makes it sound like I'm not willing to discuss the arguments (at all). It's an issue of strategy, not ability. If I remind you, for example, that the argument from evil is an inductive argument of unimpressive strength that's not likely to matter to a person who holds that the existence of god is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. It's not extraordinary to point out weaknesses in atheistic arguments. You'll stick to your default set of beliefs.
More empty rhetoric. You are refusing to present any arguments because you predict that I will not be persuaded, but you do not know this. And if you present no arguments, I can guarantee you that I will not be persuaded.
You are welcome to prod my philosophy for consistency.
You use moral-sounding language for things you insist are non-moral, and one of the foundations for your peace of mind is built on a foundation of straw (the Strawson straw man).
You have not demonstrated any inconsistency between my moral skepticism and the rest of my philosophy. And you have failed to refute the regress argument.
Ah, but I am not without a coherent philosophy.
You must be the one who knows, then. ;-)
More empty rhetoric.
And you seem to be implying that classical theism is unphilosophical.
What's the foundation for that inference?
You basically implied that classical theism is chosen by those without a coherent philosophy.
I suppose this is not surprising, given that you are unwilling to discuss the arguments for and against it.
It would be inaccurate for you to imply that I am unwilling to discuss atheistic and theistic arguments except as a matter of strategy. I've doubtless argued a number of them on this discussion board already. And that content is dwarfed by arguments I've posted elsewhere.
The bottom line is that you are unwilling to discuss arguments for and against theism with me.
There is an abundance of evidence that other minds exist.
Name one. Earlier you referred me to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to wrestle with arguments there. Ever been to the section on other minds? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/#7
As discussed in the section on the analogical argument, the behavior of others combined with the connection between one's own mental states and one's behavior constitutes evidence that other minds exist.
By contrast, there is no credible evidence that the God of classical theism exists, and a great deal of credible evidence that he does not.
I'll leave it to you to develop the contrast beyond the level of bald assertion.
My recommended readings on atheism demonstrate that there is no credible evidence that the God of classical theism exists, and the atheological arguments summarized in my document demonstrate that there is a great deal of credible evidence that the God of classical theism does not exist.
22
Empty rhetoric.
Nah. Makes a nice segue to the explanation.
It doesn't seem reasonable to achieve peace of mind on the issue of free will by eliminating the possibility of free will based on fallacious straw man reasoning. But maybe that's just me.
You have yet to demonstrate any fallacy in the regress argument, or to show that the impossibility of free will--the way I have defined it--does not conduce to peace of mind. I've pointed out the straw man fallacy. If you're comforted by a sound argument based on a straw man fallacy then bully for you. Doesn't make it reasonable.
I think I'll make up an absurd definition of atheism and declare it impossible. And then act as if I showed atheism as anyone defines it as impossible.
I am afraid that you are the one attacking a straw man. I have not claimed or implied that free will in any way other than that in which I have defined it is impossible. What does "Free will impossibilism" mean on your list of philosophical positions? Is there a tiny asterisk waiting to be viewed after I zoom in 500%? You could improve your presentation by avoiding ambiguities. If you mean free will is impossible then your wording is okay. If you mean free will as you define it is impossible then your readers will appreciate a bit more explanation up front, including the caveat that free will according to Kane's definition may be possible.
My version of free will is not compatibilist, though I am always eager to point out that my model produces every bit the same degree of "control" that compatibilists can claim yet remaining indeterministic. You should rethink whether it's relevant or not. Compatibilism isn't even at issue without determinism.
If you believe that your definition of free will is relevant to my philosophy, then please show exactly how.
It's only important if the peace of mind you derive from your position on free will is supposed to be rational. So it's really up to you. How do you justify on a rational basis achieving peace of mind by dispatching one particular definition of free will, that being a straw man of Kane's position created by Galen Strawson? What's the point of using that straw man to rid one's self of the emotions you listed?
Yes, I believe that one ought to be rational, but solely for prudential reasons, not moral ones.
Perhaps then it follows to use a non-rational argument (flattening straw man free will) for the prudent purpose of achieving peace of mind.
I believe that one ought to be rational, but solely for prudential reasons, not moral ones.
I'm not seeing the clear distinction between the two that you apparently see. It smacks of George Smith's attempt to bridge the is/ought divide by proposing that if one wants x then one ought to y. But it begs the question of whether wanting x is an ought.
We probably can't have a meaningful conversation without free will. At least not without bringing it to the approximate level of the meaningful conversation between a cell nucleus and the outlying structures of the cell.
Again, you are attacking a straw man. What's the non-straw man? I'm just telling you what I think. I'm not altering anybody else's argument, let alone producing a weakened version of it suitable for defeat.
The impossibility of ultimate responsibility does not preclude meaningful conversation.
Not surprising, since you appear to admit that it doesn't preclude free will either. All it does is preclude free will as you defined it.
More empty rhetoric.
It's common sense. I'll be happy to explain further.
You are refusing to present any arguments because you predict that I will not be persuaded, but you do not know this.
I'm taking you at your word that you will require extraordinary evidence to accept the existence of god. Yeah, you might be lying. But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
And if you present no arguments, I can guarantee you that I will not be persuaded.
No, you can't guarantee it. You might be unlucky this time. ;-) I'm not presenting no arguments. I'm arguing the incoherence of your stated view of things, in the expectation that you will be more open to theistic arguments after confronting difficulties with your own view of things. And you're so smart I'll be able to save time. With a fresh perspective you'll re-examine the old arguments in a new light and convince yourself far better than I ever could. ;-)
You use moral-sounding language for things you insist are non-moral, and one of the foundations for your peace of mind is built on a foundation of straw (the Strawson straw man).
You have not demonstrated any inconsistency between my moral skepticism and the rest of my philosophy. And you have failed to refute the regress argument.
You say we should be rational. You claim to void negative emotions by showing the impossibility of free will. It turns out your argument shows the impossibility of straw man free will (and you apparently admit it). Is it rational to rule out the negative emotions if libertarian free will is possible according to Kane's definition but not Strawson's? The soundness of a straw man argument is not particularly important, is it?
You basically implied that classical theism is chosen by those without a coherent philosophy.
Quote me? I'm not seeing it. It seems likely you misinterpreted something. I'll be happy to quell the misunderstanding once you identify the offending statement.
The bottom line is that you are unwilling to discuss arguments for and against theism with me.
Right now, as a matter of strategy, yes. When you leave out that part repeatedly you produce a misleading impression. That qualifies, if I can borrow your expression, as empty (and misleading) rhetoric.
As discussed in the section on the analogical argument, the behavior of others combined with the connection between one's own mental states and one's behavior constitutes evidence that other minds exist.
Arguments by analogy are notoriously weak, of course. This isn't news to you, is it? I sent you to the summary conclusion. You were to have read this: "What is clear is that there does not seem to be what might be called a received solution to the problem." Instead, you cherry picked a grain of positive out of a sandbox of negative.
By contrast, there is no credible evidence that the God of classical theism exists, and a great deal of credible evidence that he does not.
I'll leave it to you to develop the contrast beyond the level of bald assertion.
My recommended readings on atheism demonstrate that there is no credible evidence that the God of classical theism exists, and the atheological arguments summarized in my document demonstrate that there is a great deal of credible evidence that the God of classical theism does not exist. That's not the requested contrast. You've got an argument by analogy that other minds exist. You intend to stand pat with that? It's not much with which to build a case for contrast, even assuming your atheological arguments are stronger than you think they are.
23
Empty rhetoric.
Nah. Makes a nice segue to the explanation. You have consistently refused to engage with any arguments in the document, including the atheological arguments and the regress argument for the impossibility of free will. You have failed to show that theism is not an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Your attempts to draw an analogy between theism and claiming the existence of other minds fail, as the latter is hardly an extraordinary claim. I have explained why my definition of free will is relevant to my philosophy, but you refuse to listen. You have not even attempted to show how negative emotions such as anger and regret can be rational in the absence of ultimate responsibility. As a result, your repeated "straw man" accusations are a useless distraction. Your overall strategy of attempting to find inconsistencies in the document has failed. Nowhere in the document do I imply the existence of objective moral facts in the way in which I characterize them, and nowhere in the document do I make any statement that would require the existence of free will in the way in which I have defined it. Recall that the purpose of this thread is to solicit feedback so that the document may be improved. It is now clear that your feedback will lead to no improvements to the document, so I will end our conversation here. Thank you for your time.
24

Phil if this is your first run in with Bryan you should know that he is a Reactionary and a christian. Heavy emphasis on Reactionary!!
He is a master of intricately obfuscating a discussion and using subtle effects to derail your main thrusts by attempting
to change your words around and also emphasizing irrelevant points to reform the argument to suit his thrust.
I don’t recall him ever actually stating a position here-ever. He only strives to derail your position, that’s all.
You should continue on with him a bit more. You got a good taste there, try some more. It’s really a good exercise in debate.

25
Phil if this is your first run in with Bryan you should know that he is a Reactionary and a christian. Heavy emphasis on Reactionary!! He is a master of intricately obfuscating a discussion and using subtle effects to derail your main thrusts by attempting to change your words around and also emphasizing irrelevant points to reform the argument to suit his thrust. I don't recall him ever actually stating a position here-ever. He only strives to derail your position, that's all. You should continue on with him a bit more. You got a good taste there, try some more. It's really a good exercise in debate.
Thanks for the information, VYAZMA. Sadly, Bryan's posts are of relatively high quality compared to the other critiques I have received. And I have posted on almost all of the major philosophy discussion boards. I am still waiting for a discussion that precipitates a significant improvement to my document.
26
Phil if this is your first run in with Bryan you should know that he is a Reactionary and a christian. Heavy emphasis on Reactionary!! He is a master of intricately obfuscating a discussion and using subtle effects to derail your main thrusts by attempting to change your words around and also emphasizing irrelevant points to reform the argument to suit his thrust. I don't recall him ever actually stating a position here-ever. He only strives to derail your position, that's all. You should continue on with him a bit more. You got a good taste there, try some more. It's really a good exercise in debate.
Thanks for the information, VYAZMA. Sadly, Bryan's posts are of relatively high quality compared to the other critiques I have received. And I have posted on almost all of the major philosophy discussion boards. I am still waiting for a discussion that precipitates a significant improvement to my document. Yes he's well spoken. Acidly sarcastic, but well versed in the subjects, no doubt. But he's very ideologically bent. I don't hold ideology against people myself(actually I probably do...), but it can make for some heated discussions. It doesn't help when the discussion revolves around philosophy either. Very little empirical foundation for either side of debate to get a footing on.
27
Phil if this is your first run in with Bryan you should know that he is a Reactionary and a christian. Heavy emphasis on Reactionary!!
Relevant how, in the current context?
He is a master of intricately obfuscating a discussion and using subtle effects to derail your main thrusts by attempting to change your words around and also emphasizing irrelevant points to reform the argument to suit his thrust.
Any examples from the current context? We have that from Philosofer, actually. At first, he's happy to discuss potential inconsistencies in his position statement. Before long, his main issue is my supposed unwillingness to engage arguments of others not contained in the document. Did you read his document, VYAZMA? Read it and tell me if you get the impression that he's saying that free will is impossible. Philosofer says he doesn't even imply it. Even you should agree with me on that point. Read it and offer your judgment and reasoning. Contribute to the discussion.
I don't recall him ever actually stating a position here-ever. He only strives to derail your position, that's all.
Obviously my stated position above that free will is probably necessary for rational discussion doesn't count. One day VYAZMA will let me know what counts as taking a position and what doesn't.
You should continue on with him a bit more. You got a good taste there, try some more. It's really a good exercise in debate.
Well that's kind of positive. ;-)
28
Relevant how, in the current context?
Well both of those will run counter to his philosophy in general. So I see that as relevant. Even in a critique setting. After all what else is there but critique around here?
Any examples from the current context? We have that from Philosofer, actually. At first, he's happy to discuss potential inconsistencies in his position statement. Before long, his main issue is my supposed unwillingness to engage arguments of others not contained in the document. Did you read his document, VYAZMA? Read it and tell me if you get the impression that he's saying that free will is impossible. Philosofer says he doesn't even imply it. Even you should agree with me on that point. Read it and offer your judgment and reasoning. Contribute to the discussion.
I only followed ya'lls exchange regarding one point out of the many you both were exchanging. It was the one about credible or extraordinary claims regarding the existence of god. I thought Phil's position on that was pretty sound. I thought you kept twisting it around and around. But again, I don't want to go into this. It's ideologically based. That's the same reason I didn't read Phil's Thesis. Because I don't want to critique it-or anything like that. I have read lot's of folks ideas on the free-will thread. Including yours. It can't be settled. I am a hard determinist. I'd rather go along with someone who believes in Free-will explicitly than try to understand all of the grey areas that people try to flesh out like compatibilism etc etc.
Obviously my stated position above that free will is probably necessary for rational discussion doesn't count. One day VYAZMA will let me know what counts as taking a position and what doesn't.
Yes I knew that statement of mine was risky and blurry. I'll respectfully retract that. But not enthusiastically.
You should continue on with him a bit more. You got a good taste there, try some more. It's really a good exercise in debate.
Well that's kind of positive. ;-) Ha ha ha...yeah, I meant it positively. Really. I don't want to war with you Bry. I wish you would be more open and come out from behind that weird literary shield that you hurl barbs from. I reckon you feel outnumbered here and under siege when you visit. That's understandable given the obvious ideological gulf that exists between you and the majority of members here.
29
Well both of those will run counter to his philosophy in general. So I see that as relevant. Even in a critique setting. After all what else is there but critique around here?
In my second reply in this thread, I mentioned to Philosofer that I am a theist. So he'd already know that he's getting a "hostile" critique. It's relevant if my POV colors the content of my criticism. So if you're going to say it's relevant apart from letting Philosofer know that mine is a hostile critique, it behooves you to provide an example of what you're talking about. Without that, your actions come across as trying to discredit what I say by putting labels on me. I don't think that behavior matches the standard the CFI forum upholds as its ideal. I'm not hung up on being labeled. I'll wear whatever label people pick out for me if they can bring themselves to address the content of what I write. Calling me a reactionary is a stretch. Call me that if you like, but provide some content aside from the labeling.
I only followed ya'lls exchange regarding one point out of the many you both were exchanging. It was the one about credible or extraordinary claims regarding the existence of god. I thought Phil's position on that was pretty sound. I thought you kept twisting it around and around.
I made two good points about the "extraordinary evidence" criterion. First, it's at least a cousin, rhetorically, to the fallacy of appeal to incredulity. Though we agreed that it isn't fallacious (I poked fun at myself while making that point). Second, applied to the standard people use in real life it appears to be flatly wrong. My main point wrt to the extraordinary evidence criterion is that it is cliched. It's fine to require good evidence for believing anything. If somebody thinks they have good evidence no god exists then naturally it will be hard to change their minds without good evidence.
But again, I don't want to go into this. It's ideologically based.
The issue of whether Philosofer promotes the impression that he disproves free will using a standard definition requires hardly any philosophical knowledge. It's simply an issue of reading and interpreting English. I'm sorry to see you pass on the opportunity to help Philosofer improve his attempt to communicate clearly to others.
I wish you would be more open and come out from behind that weird literary shield that you hurl barbs from.
I think I'm kindly. :-) Yes, I argue mercilously, in a sense. But I'm careful not to make things personal as by namecalling and the like. Bad ideas deserve rough rhetorical treatment.
I reckon you feel outnumbered here and under siege when you visit. That's understandable given the obvious ideological gulf that exists between you and the majority of members here.
lol--don't cry for me, Argentina! I'm here because I choose to post here. I'm not the least bit intimidated, and I don't feel besieged. I visited first because I think a group of skeptics will have better skeptical arguments than skeptics visiting theistic discussion boards (not the most solid thesis I ever came up with, but there are some good arguments here regardless). Now I visit for the first reason plus my familiarity with the virtual community. You've welcomed an outsider (not without a few bumps), and I appreciate it. I like the people here, generally speaking. And as for the current discussion, I've tried to keep my focus on two key issues: epistemology (that's why I explored Phil's view of the extraordinary evidence notion), and the coherence of his presentation. I'll post once more in reply to him, pointing out two areas where he can clearly improve his presentation. It's an argument that even one relatively uninterested in philosophy such as you claim to be ought to be able to appreciate. And one final thing: I've gone out of my way in this thread to be an open book in terms of why I'm approaching the issues this way. Phil's initial openness to criticism of the consistency of his presentation, followed by a declaration that my criticism has failed--unaccompanied by any attempt to reasonably address the criticism--is suspicious. There's reason to view his behavior as evasive. Christians aren't the only ones who play rhetorical games.
30
Empty rhetoric.
Nah. Makes a nice segue to the explanation. You have consistently refused to engage with any arguments in the document, including the atheological arguments and the regress argument for the impossibility of free will. Baloney. I've addressed Strawson's arguments in detail in the past, so I know the two primary weaknesses to his argument, both of which I have shared. 1) His definition of free will alters Kane's definition to make it amenable to his regress argument. It's a straw man. 2) Strawson's regress reduces every phenomenon to luck. When everything is luck by necessity, it empties the word of meaning. You apparently don't care that it's a straw man argument and keep repeating that I'm not attacking the soundness of the argument. I've pointed out more than once to you that soundness doesn't redeem a straw man argument. Instead of addressing that issue you elect to terminate the discussion.
You have failed to show that theism is not an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
Bummer. No doubt I also failed to turn a triple somersault while riding a dolphin.
Your attempts to draw an analogy between theism and claiming the existence of other minds fail, as the latter is hardly an extraordinary claim.
Oh. So if one thing is extraordinary and another thing isn't, then it's impossible to draw an analogy between them? Regardless of any other similarities? You're not offering serious arguments, here. Consciousness is immaterial, and there's a perfectly reasonable comparison between your unwillingness to apply Occam's razor to the issue of other minds when you're zealous to wield it against gods and morals. It's an issue of consistency.
I have explained why my definition of free will is relevant to my philosophy, but you refuse to listen.
I listened and judged your claim of relevance spurious. You've declined to explain how disproving straw man free will rationally justifies neutralizing negative emotions. And your claim that you do not imply that you disprove free will aside from a version you've carefully defined doesn't pass the sniff test. You use the label "free will impossibilism" in your description of your philosophy. That's unequivocal. Your subsequent use of Strawson's regress argument gives the impression that you're using a standard definition like Kane's. But you're not. You're using Strawson's corruption of Kane's description.
You have not even attempted to show how negative emotions such as anger and regret can be rational in the absence of ultimate responsibility.
Right, but I was going to do that right after the dolphin and I jumped through three consecutive rings of fire (while each of us juggle 10 miniature marshmallows, which the fires will roast, after which we distribute the roasted marshmallows to the audience). I really wasn't expecting this type of silliness from you. There's no need for me to make any argument about the rationality of negative emotions. The issue is your statement of philosophy and whether it is consistent. You esteem rationality and then turn rationality on its head by dismissing negative emotions based on a disproof of one straw-man version of free will. Any successful model of libertarian free will, perhaps the one defined by Kane, negates the would-be rationality of your argument. It's hard to break it down more simply than that. Maybe I can come up with a suitable analogy if the concept stumps you.
As a result, your repeated "straw man" accusations are a useless distraction.
That doesn't follow.
Your overall strategy of attempting to find inconsistencies in the document has failed.
If saying it makes it true, then you're right. The truth is that you used Strawson's definition and Strawson's regress argument. Strawson's definition changes Kane's, so as a refutation of Kane's argument for LFW, Strawson's is a failure. That should concern you deeply, and I'm puzzled why would would attempt to dismiss it so lightly. It's hard to imagine that your method of addressing the issue promotes peace of mind, unless the behavior is somehow connected to cognitive dissonance.
Nowhere in the document do I imply the existence of objective moral facts in the way in which I characterize them, and nowhere in the document do I make any statement that would require the existence of free will in the way in which I have defined it.
That is, as you say, empty rhetoric. It is your statements in this thread that hint at objective moral oughts, not statements in your document, and I'm not charging you with an inconsistency on that count. Though I'm still keeping tabs on it.
Recall that the purpose of this thread is to solicit feedback so that the document may be improved. It is now clear that your feedback will lead to no improvements to the document, so I will end our conversation here.
It's your prerogative to cease participation in our discussion, of course. But there are two clear improvements you can make to your document based on my criticisms. First, as I've already mentioned, make clear to your readers whether you claim to show LFW impossible or merely LFW according to the version that makes Galen Strawson's regress argument work. If you don't do that, you'll leave the impression that the argument shows that LFW conceptions such as Kane's are impossible. That's misleading. Second, until you rule out the best possibilities for coherently describing LFW you have no rational basis for discounting your negative emotions (or however you've worded it). It's akin to disproving the existence of balloons by proving that rubber doesn't exist and then simply ignoring the possibility of mylar balloons. If you're going to discount negative emotions you'll need a rational basis for doing it. Strawson's argument can't do that for you.
Thank you for your time.
I'm still hoping you can do better.
31
Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page document that may be found at the following link: <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byh6JnTg3RMecHhxV0pYeklqV0U/edit?usp=sharing"> I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document. I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have. Enjoy!
I'll admit I clicked the link with my cynical specs on - but dang, that's an interesting project you undertook and from my simpleton perspective you did an excellent job of covering the bases. It helps that most of the… the… value judgements perhaps… in any event, I found much to agree with and nothing that made my eyes roll. Great job. And keep on keep'n on :-)
32
Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page document that may be found at the following link: <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byh6JnTg3RMecHhxV0pYeklqV0U/edit?usp=sharing"> I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document. I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have. Enjoy!
I'll admit I clicked the link with my cynical specs on - but dang, that's an interesting project you undertook and from my simpleton perspective you did an excellent job of covering the bases. It helps that most of the… the… value judgements perhaps… in any event, I found much to agree with and nothing that made my eyes roll. Great job. And keep on keep'n on :-) Do you think his statement of beliefs makes it appear that he thinks libertarian free will (the kind advocated by Robert Kane, whom he cites) is impossible?
33
Do you think his statement of beliefs makes it appear that he thinks libertarian free will (the kind advocated by Robert Kane, whom he cites) is impossible?
Oh lordie, you asking me? :lol: First, I don't know enough about Kane's ideas, to dare. Second, I got too much cynicism, if not contempt, for what little libertarian notions I'm familiar with - and particularly the truly crazy things people say under the libertarian mantle, to take on that argument. As for Philosofer123, I was simply saying I thought what he wrote made sense and he did a pretty nice job of organizing it.
34
Do you think his statement of beliefs makes it appear that he thinks libertarian free will (the kind advocated by Robert Kane, whom he cites) is impossible?
Oh lordie, you asking me? :lol: Well, yes I'm asking you! :-)
First, I don't know enough about Kane's ideas, to dare.
It seems to me that one need not know anything specific about Kane's ideas on libertarian free will to offer a judgment on whether one has argued that his ideas should be classed as impossible. If, for example, I write that "Kane's conception of free will is impossible" then it should be clear to pretty much anybody that I think Kane's model is impossible even if they don't know of Kane or his ideas.
Second, I got too much cynicism, if not contempt, for what little libertarian notions I'm familiar with - and particularly the truly crazy things people say under the libertarian mantle, to take on that argument.
Well, it's a complicated argument so I don't blame you for not getting into it. But this is more an issue of interpreting English.
As for Philosofer123, I was simply saying I thought what he wrote made sense and he did a pretty nice job of organizing it.
I'm a little disappointed his fellow skeptics aren't giving him a tougher time. Some of you are moral realists, and relatively few (from what I can tell) buy into an essentialyl hedonistic ethics. If his arguments are that good then you should agree with him. If they aren't so good then you should criticize them, in my opinion. Where's the passion that ignites free will discussions (for example) between atheists of opposing views? ;-)
35

Hi Bryan,
It’s been a while since we spoke about this. I’m posting because I think I might have a little to add and some improvement on definitions.
Luck and Libertarian Free will.
The first thing is to see what the problem with determinism is for what I’ll call Libertarian free will and then the problem will allow me to define what Libertarian free will is, since it’s what we would have to be able to do to overcome the problem.
The problem is one of luck, I’ll say what that means:
If circumstances beyond my control had been appropriately different I would have made different choices for better or worse.
I could not have made different choices without circumstances beyond my control having been appropriately different.

Since what libertarian free will is supposed to do is overcome this problem I can now define it:
Libertarian free will is that I could have done otherwise without circumstances beyond my control having been appropriately different.
I believe Robert Kane did start out trying to overcome the problem with determinism I’ve discussed. If he’s defined free will differently I’d say he hasn’t managed to overcome the problem and so has gained no more freedom or responsibility than determinism has to offer.
Galen Strawson’s argument is against us having freedom and responsibility over and above that which determinism has to offer and that is impossible since Libertarian free will is impossible by my definitiion and that is what it would take.
Stephen

36

When this thread becomes a free will thread again (‘hijacked’ in Philosofer123’s words), Philosofer123 can start his next repost…
I would suggest that if somebody wants to discuss free will he can react in one of the existing free will threads or in the first ‘Critique My Philosophy of Life’-thread, and just post a link to his/hers posting here and the other way round. Or maybe an administrator can move this part of the discussion (beginning with Bryan’s first post) to the other thread started by Philosofer123? Then the context is still clear.
After Philosofer123’s first complaint and reposting about ‘hijacking his thread’, I find it not very decent to do this again in here.

37
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byh6JnTg3RMecHhxV0pYeklqV0U/edit Philosofer123 page 9 o Negative visualization  This is the practice of visualizing things going wrong, which should eliminate shock when they do go wrong  To eliminate fear and anxiety, one may ask oneself, “What is the worst thing that can happen?" with respect to a particular situation. Often, this worst-case scenario is not very harmful in the overall context of one’s life.  If the worst-case outcome would not itself necessarily disturb one’s mind, then the anticipation of that outcome should not disturb one’s mind. And the more disciplined one’s mind, the less likely that the worst-case outcome would disturb one’s mind.  As a bonus, negative visualization may lead one to better appreciate the positive aspects of one’s current situation
Given my background I have a more pragmatic approach to these things - as opposed to keeping it within the bounds of cerebral philosophical musing. For instance when I think of "Negative visualization" If you are always expecting the worst out of a situation, then there is a good chance a situation will have negative out comes. But, to ignore negative potentials, and hope that wishful thinking and happy manifestations will carry the day - can set up failure. Negative visualization is also an excellent way to stay safe. On the road when I've been in a close call, or seen one, or seen telltale skid marks - I do dwell on what may have happened, that in turn makes me that much safer and alert a driver - than if I just went through my driving days never thinking of the real dangers that surround that act. On my various jobs, where I put myself in harms way - a healthy sense of 'negative visualization' forces me to think about what I'm about to undertake and in turn to take the time to follow safe practices and use the proper safety gear and go about my job in a deliberate thoughtful manner. Particularly since I've moved past regular full-time full-crew construction projects to semi-retired Handyman and small construction projects and it's not uncommon for me to be working alone with no one around to save me should a serious accident happen. ==============
Philosofer123 Existential skepticism  Existential skepticism is the view that it is highly implausible that life has inherent meaning, purpose or value  I believe that existential skepticism follows from the combination of atheism, afterlife skepticism, free will impossibilism and moral skepticism o According to this combination of views and modern science, life is a randomly generated, contingent and nonmoral phenomenon that is devoid of free will and destined for annihilation in a blink of the cosmic eye, at both the individual level and the aggregate level. As such, it is difficult to imagine what kind of inherent meaning, purpose or value that life could possibly have.  However, one’s life may still have subjective meaning, purpose and/or value, and one may still subjectively value the lives of others
I can't do the philosophy thing too well - though I do a lot of personal philosophizing. In my world the above all adds up to one sentence I realized long ago: "Your life means as much or as little as you yourself want it to mean." oh no did I just allow this to circle right back to "free will" - and I was trying so hard to get away from that…. :sick:
38

StephenLawrence, GdB
I’ve been addressing free will in the context of Phil’s document, since his reliance on Strawson’s regress argument leaves him using a straw man to neutralize the role of negative emotions in his life. My questions recently have centered on Phil’s denial that he implies that he rules out LFW across the board, and his subsequent claim that his reasoning for neutralizing negative emotions is rational based on Strawson’s argument (without addressing the straw man nature of same).
It’s improper to suggest that my posts addressing the issue of free will in this thread are instances of hijacking. Indeed, Phil hasn’t suggested as much. Rather, he simply insists that my critique has failed while not offering a coherent support for his claim.

Stephen wrote:

It's been a while since we spoke about this. I'm posting because I think I might have a little to add and some improvement on definitions.
Meaning no offense, Stephen, but my experience with you is that your rhetorical imprecision nearly always ends up serving as a wall blocking effective communications.
The problem is one of luck, I'll say what that means: If circumstances beyond my control had been appropriately different I would have made different choices for better or worse. I could not have made different choices without circumstances beyond my control having been appropriately different. Since what libertarian free will is supposed to do is overcome this problem I can now define it: Libertarian free will is that I could have done otherwise without circumstances beyond my control having been appropriately different.
That's a statement of indeterminism, not free will (at least not without quite a bit more description). The issue here is Strawson's insistence that Kane's "ultimate responsibility" needs an infinite regress to work. But Strawson does not bother to argue that Kane's "ultimate responsibility" is the same as the concept Kane argues can lead to "ultimate responsibility": "self-forming actions." If self-forming actions are different from actions exhibiting ultimate responsibility, then Strawson's argument does not refute Kane's position. http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/ultimate_responsibility.html To the best of my interpretive ability, Stephen, you do not correctly describe the situation between Kane and Strawson. Stephen, GdB, I invite both of you to look at Phil's statement of beliefs and offer your opinions on whether he appears to claim that LFW is impossible. Yet the regress argument he borrows from Strawson assumes things about self-forming actions that Kane does not assert. Strawson effectively conflates the two (ultimate responsibility and self-forming actions) by insisting that that an agent must self-forming actions in an infinite regress to have ultimate responsibility. That doesn't track with Kane's reasoning. "Kane, a libertarian, responds to Strawson by saying that we are causes of ourselves. Although we cannot choose our birthplace or families, we can always choose to be different. An alternative view is that we can be responsible for actions that we are not ultimately responsible for. It is sufficient that we merely shape ourselves or have reasons for actions to make us morally responsible." http://philosophywithlouise.blogspot.com/2011/04/moral-responsibility-and-its-skeptics.html
39
Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page document that may be found at the following link: <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byh6JnTg3RMecHhxV0pYeklqV0U/edit?usp=sharing"> I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document. I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have. Enjoy!
I'll admit I clicked the link with my cynical specs on - but dang, that's an interesting project you undertook and from my simpleton perspective you did an excellent job of covering the bases. It helps that most of the… the… value judgements perhaps… in any event, I found much to agree with and nothing that made my eyes roll. Great job. And keep on keep'n on :-) Thanks, citizenschallenge!
40
The issue here is Strawson's insistence that Kane's "ultimate responsibility" needs an infinite regress to work.
Or if it doesn't it doesn't overcome the problem of luck which was the motivation for it in the first place. I'll leave it there. Stephen