compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Did John Calvin Believe in Free Will?
MATTHEW BARRETT at the TGC website
Unfree and Coerced?

Doesn’t Calvin’s argument imply that man is coerced? Not at all, Calvin replies. Man sins willingly. Yes, it is out of necessity, but not out of compulsion. Such a distinction is one of Calvin’s chief points in his treatise against Pighius, who argues that necessitas (necessity) implies coactio (coercion).
Again, let's acknowledge that Calvin's speculations here are not derived from actual transcripts he provides of conversations he had with the Christian God. No, instead, like all of those who have a very different take on Him, they are derived solely from how he himself interpreted the Bible and the historical accounts of Christianity. None of what he claims goes much beyond that.

Well, unless, of course, someone here can provide us with more definitive evidence regarding Calvin and the Christian God.

Then that truly convoluted distinction between doing something out of necessity willingly but not being compelled to. Now, sure, if all one need do here is to make that distinction "in their head", I can imagine any number of arguments that revolve entirely around a "world of words".

But if one is asked to demonstrate how "for all practical purposes" he or she chooses particular behaviors out of necessity willingly but is not compelled to...?

How exactly does that work? Especially given the added conundrum that revolves around reconciling an omniscient Christian God with human autonomy. God know everything you will ever do but you are still doing it of your own volition.

Then, of course, way, way, way up into the intellectual clouds we go:
However, as Paul Helm explains, for Calvin “it does not follow from the denial of free will that what a person chooses is the result of coercion.” Coercion negates responsibility, but necessity is “consistent with being held responsible for the action, and being praised or blamed for it.” Therefore, Calvin can affirm that man “acts wickedly by will, not by compulsion.”
How is this sort of spiritual/philosophical/intellectual assessment not utterly dependent on how one defines the meaning of words used to define the meaning of yet more words still placed in a particular order.

How do you connect the dots between acting wickedly by will but not out of compulsion given that the Christian God is said to be "all-knowing"?

And please try to explain it us in such a way that it involves more than just your own "spiritual/philosophical/intellectual" world of words assessment.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Our Nietzschean Future
Paul O’Mahoney considers the awful fate Nietzsche predicts for humanity.
No Free Will: To Power or Otherwise

The nature of the projected crisis is indicated by a conviction expressed throughout Nietzsche’s writing: his absolute unbelief in the freedom of human will.
Here we go again...

Someone claims to reject the freedom of human will. But how far does this go? Did Nietzsche argue that he did not believe in the freedom of human will because he was literally never able to opt to believe in it? Are all of the books he wrote merely but one more inherent, necessary manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world? Or is he like Big Mike here...a freewill determinist. We live in a determined universe but his arguments are still more rational than yours.

In other words...
Though the precise nature of his unbelief in human freedom is subject to debate, what is certain is that Nietzsche did not conceive of human beings as being in any traditional sense free agents, responsible for their actions.
Okay, is that vague enough for you? And how precise can we be in regard to pinning down what in "any traditional sense free agents are"? Free agents from the perspective of the Objectivists, the Libertarians, the Anarchists, the Communists?

Given, say, a particular context?
Our thoughts and consciousness are functions of deeper processes beyond our ken, and the freedom of our will is an illusion.
Okay, but, again, how deep? All the way? And how does the answer that any of us might give here not bump up against this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
The part many here will just "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" out of addressing...merely asserting that their answer is the one everyone who is not a retard or a moron is obligated to accept.
There are different varieties of denial of free will, support for several of which can be found in Nietzsche’s writings, but none of them allows a notion of freedom substantial enough to grant us responsibility for our choices and actions.
Okay then, what are we to make of this in regard to the Uberman and the Last Man?

Neither one of them are really responsible for being what they are? The masters are masters only because they were "fated", "destined" to be masters? Same with the flocks of sheep?
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Did John Calvin Believe in Free Will?
MATTHEW BARRETT at the TGC website
Willful Captivity

Does [the above] mean that Calvin does affirm “free will”? If by freedom one means, as Pighius argues, that man’s will is in no way determined but that man has the self-power to will good or evil toward God (what is today titled libertarian freedom), so that by his own strength he can equally will either, then free will is rejected by Calvin.
That's when some here will start insisting that nothing of what we opine about any of this is really philosophically relevant until we first define what we mean by words like free will, determinism and compatibilism.

Or how we define God?

So, I would then interject, given a particular experience that Calvin might have encountered himself, what did he affirm as a manifestation of how he defined free will, determinism and compatibilism? And what if others defined them differently? How would we go about pinning down the optimal definition? And how does that relate to the manner in which different people define God differently?

Connecting the dots between those words and the world we lived in...and the world we interact with others in.
But if by free will one means, as Augustine maintained, that man wills out of voluntary necessity (not coercion) then willful choice can be affirmed.
Again, pinning down the exact definition of necessity and coercion so as to precisely differentiate them...given a particular situation?

In any event, ever and always keep all of this up in the clouds of abstraction:
Nevertheless, even if man wills out of necessity it is only a necessity to sin prior to effectual grace. “For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity wills in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity.”
Got that? Something to with how each of us understands "in our head" the existential bond between an omniscient God and human autonomy? And the existential bond between human autonomy and Original Sin?
Therefore, the bondage of the will to sin remains and yet such slavery is a voluntary and willful captivity. For example, consider the Devil himself. The Devil can only do evil all of the time and yet he is fully culpable for his actions and commits them voluntarily though out of necessity.
What could be clearer?

Now all we need from Christians here is for them to note specific examples of how all of this plays out in regard to the behaviors that they choose.

As for the Devil only being able to do evil but still being culpable for doing evil?

Come again?

Besides, if God is omnipotent, the Devil doing evil can only be construed as part of His mysterious ways. As with Judas Iscariot betraying Christ. Otherwise, He had the power to stop Judas and the Devil from doing what they did. Allowing them to be able to do good instead.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Our Nietzschean Future
Paul O’Mahoney considers the awful fate Nietzsche predicts for humanity.
The first [variety of denial of free will] notes simply that we cannot possibly be responsible for who we are, because we have no say in our makeup. We aren’t responsible for our genes, biology, biochemistry, brain function, or the formative environment in which we are born and grow.
Okay, but, come on, given the actual existence of free will [and, let's face it, discussing this is always problematic...even surreal], we know that, given the either/or world as it is objectively and the fact that much of it is beyond our control, there are still any number of things that are in fact within our capacity to leave the same or to change. And to the extent that we can effectuate some measure of rule, reign and restraint over our behaviors, is the extent to which it seems reasonable to hold ourselves responsible. I only note that this "rule, reign and restraint" are often [existentially] manifestations of dasein. That, in other words, had our lives been different, we might be ruling, reigning over or restraining entirely different behaviors.
As these factors are so profound, go so deeply into making us the kind of person we are, with the desires and thought-processes that we have, we cannot realistically be said to be responsible for our choices and actions.
The same thing. What particular behaviors chosen in what particular set of circumstances? The factors can be profound but they can also be realistically accounted for as more rather than less thought out. Again, given some measure of free will.
Galen Strawson believes this to be Nietzsche’s position, and he subscribes to the same stance. He sums up the point by saying that we cannot create ourselves. Illustrating this, the world’s most famous long-term developmental study, the Dunedin Study, has shown how, controlling for variables such as social class, poor impulse control in childhood is the most reliable predictor of poor outcomes in health, wealth and crime in adulthood. The study notes that current research emphasises how genetic factors and brain function play quite significant roles in impulse control – and both are naturally outside of the control of a subject who did not create himself.
Great. Another "study". And what study has ever been propounded that did not start with one set of assumptions about the human condition rather than another in regard to such things as health, wealth and crime. The Leopold and Loeb Syndrome. Lots of Nietzsche there, right?

"...two brilliant teenagers intent on demonstrating their Nietzschean superiority over the masses."

Only, again, how far to take it? In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, all they were doing was only what they could never have not done in the first place. They may have been brilliant but they had absolutely no capacity to not be anything other than what the laws of matter compelled them to be.

Then back to this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" of course.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 7:50 pm Our Nietzschean Future
Paul O’Mahoney considers the awful fate Nietzsche predicts for humanity.
The first [variety of denial of free will] notes simply that we cannot possibly be responsible for who we are, because we have no say in our makeup. We aren’t responsible for our genes, biology, biochemistry, brain function, or the formative environment in which we are born and grow.
Okay, but, come on, given the actual existence of free will [and, let's face it, discussing this is always problematic...even surreal], we know that, given the either/or world as it is objectively and the fact that much of it is beyond our control, there are still any number of things that are in fact within our capacity to leave the same or to change. And to the extent that we can effectuate some measure of rule, reign and restraint over our behaviors, is the extent to which it seems reasonable to hold ourselves responsible. I only note that this "rule, reign and restraint" are often [existentially] manifestations of dasein. That, in other words, had our lives been different, we might be ruling, reigning over or restraining entirely different behaviors.
As these factors are so profound, go so deeply into making us the kind of person we are, with the desires and thought-processes that we have, we cannot realistically be said to be responsible for our choices and actions.
The same thing. What particular behaviors chosen in what particular set of circumstances? The factors can be profound but they can also be realistically accounted for as more rather than less thought out. Again, given some measure of free will.
Galen Strawson believes this to be Nietzsche’s position, and he subscribes to the same stance. He sums up the point by saying that we cannot create ourselves. Illustrating this, the world’s most famous long-term developmental study, the Dunedin Study, has shown how, controlling for variables such as social class, poor impulse control in childhood is the most reliable predictor of poor outcomes in health, wealth and crime in adulthood. The study notes that current research emphasises how genetic factors and brain function play quite significant roles in impulse control – and both are naturally outside of the control of a subject who did not create himself.
Great. Another "study". And what study has ever been propounded that did not start with one set of assumptions about the human condition rather than another in regard to such things as health, wealth and crime. The Leopold and Loeb Syndrome. Lots of Nietzsche there, right?

"...two brilliant teenagers intent on demonstrating their Nietzschean superiority over the masses."

Only, again, how far to take it? In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, all they were doing was only what they could never have not done in the first place. They may have been brilliant but they had absolutely no capacity to not be anything other than what the laws of matter compelled them to be.

Then back to this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" of course.
I think you conflate Free Will and volition. We go into our futures as if we are free and despite not being free. It's the very rebellion against unfree that makes us free. Part of that rebellion is against God the powerful dictator, and shouldering the responsibility ourselves. The future is largely unpredictable and dangerous and that's the way nature is.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

Belinda wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 9:04 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 7:50 pm Our Nietzschean Future
Paul O’Mahoney considers the awful fate Nietzsche predicts for humanity.
The first [variety of denial of free will] notes simply that we cannot possibly be responsible for who we are, because we have no say in our makeup. We aren’t responsible for our genes, biology, biochemistry, brain function, or the formative environment in which we are born and grow.
Okay, but, come on, given the actual existence of free will [and, let's face it, discussing this is always problematic...even surreal], we know that, given the either/or world as it is objectively and the fact that much of it is beyond our control, there are still any number of things that are in fact within our capacity to leave the same or to change. And to the extent that we can effectuate some measure of rule, reign and restraint over our behaviors, is the extent to which it seems reasonable to hold ourselves responsible. I only note that this "rule, reign and restraint" are often [existentially] manifestations of dasein. That, in other words, had our lives been different, we might be ruling, reigning over or restraining entirely different behaviors.
As these factors are so profound, go so deeply into making us the kind of person we are, with the desires and thought-processes that we have, we cannot realistically be said to be responsible for our choices and actions.
The same thing. What particular behaviors chosen in what particular set of circumstances? The factors can be profound but they can also be realistically accounted for as more rather than less thought out. Again, given some measure of free will.
Galen Strawson believes this to be Nietzsche’s position, and he subscribes to the same stance. He sums up the point by saying that we cannot create ourselves. Illustrating this, the world’s most famous long-term developmental study, the Dunedin Study, has shown how, controlling for variables such as social class, poor impulse control in childhood is the most reliable predictor of poor outcomes in health, wealth and crime in adulthood. The study notes that current research emphasises how genetic factors and brain function play quite significant roles in impulse control – and both are naturally outside of the control of a subject who did not create himself.
Great. Another "study". And what study has ever been propounded that did not start with one set of assumptions about the human condition rather than another in regard to such things as health, wealth and crime. The Leopold and Loeb Syndrome. Lots of Nietzsche there, right?

"...two brilliant teenagers intent on demonstrating their Nietzschean superiority over the masses."

Only, again, how far to take it? In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, all they were doing was only what they could never have not done in the first place. They may have been brilliant but they had absolutely no capacity to not be anything other than what the laws of matter compelled them to be.

Then back to this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule" of course.
I think you conflate Free Will and volition. We go into our futures as if we are free and despite not being free. It's the very rebellion against unfree that makes us free. Part of that rebellion is against God the powerful dictator, and shouldering the responsibility ourselves. The future is largely unpredictable and dangerous and that's the way nature is.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

You just flounced out of the room, Iambiguous. Come back!
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 1:16 pm You just flounced out of the room, Iambiguous. Come back!
Are you a 'hard determinist' Belinda?
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:34 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 1:16 pm You just flounced out of the room, Iambiguous. Come back!
Are you a 'hard determinist' Belinda?
Yes, I am a hard determinist. But I am not a fatalist, or a piece of furniture, or a billiard ball so I can try to defy my history and move on.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: compatibilism

Post by attofishpi »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:42 pm
attofishpi wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:34 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 1:16 pm You just flounced out of the room, Iambiguous. Come back!
Are you a 'hard determinist' Belinda?
Yes, I am a hard determinist. But I am not a fatalist, or a piece of furniture, or a billiard ball so I can try to defy my history and move on.
Oh, I thought you were an ION.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by iambiguous »

What is the difference between determinism and fatalism?
From the MyTutor website

This is something that has always baffled me. How can determinism and fatalism -- destiny -- not be interchangeable if one starts with the assumption that the human brain itself is but more matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter?
First of all, the thing to realise is that both of these theories have the same result in the end. They both mean that how our life ends up is decided by forces other than ourselves. But the difference between the two is in how the direction of our lives is decided.
Okay, for all practical purposes, the same result. Our life unfolding in accordance with factors/variables beyond our control...but still able to go in different directions? Now, the different directions might make sense because sure, look around you...nature is always going in different directions. Look at the path of a hurricane. But how is that the same or different from the paths that humans take if in the end the same laws that govern the matter in hurricanes govern the matter in human brains?

Explained thusly:
In fatalism, we have one true "fate" and we will end up there no matter what. Our life may take whatever journey it want, but we cannot escape our eventual fate.
Hard determinism in other words. On the other hand, why speak of "one true 'fate'" instead of one true fate?

Then the hairs are split: the "versions":
What exactly decides this fate is different depending on the version of fatalism we are discussing. For example, some people might believe that we have a fate that is decided by a God, but this is just one version of fatalism.
Cue how some then reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy?
Determinism, on the other hand, means not only that we have one pre-decided fate that we will end up with, but also that every event in our life is decided by earlier events and actions. In short, fatalism is the theory that there is some destiny that we cannot avoid, although we are able to take different paths up to this destiny. Determinism, however, is the theory that the entire path of our life is decided by earlier events and actions.
That sound you hear is me pulling out my hair.

Please...

Someone explain to me how one's life can be destined/fated but go in different direction. In such a way that matter in the human brain like matter in the hurricane is not wholly behind any new direction?

Given this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.
Only not in theory. How, given the behaviors that you "choose"/"choose" in a no free will world, is your life is destined/fated... but not determined?

No intellectual contraptions, in other words. Real behaviors examined please.





No pinheads please. Well, unless you're fated, destined and/or wholly determined to post, of course. :wink:
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

A fatalist believes future events follow from past events and nobody can do anything to change what will be.

A determinist ,who is not also a fatalist, believes future events arise from the vast pool of possibility, and therefore past history is not the only cause of future events and chance/chaos also shapes future events.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 11:39 pm A fatalist believes future events follow from past events and nobody can do anything to change what will be.

A determinist ,who is not also a fatalist, believes future events arise from the vast pool of possibility, and therefore past history is not the only cause of future events and chance/chaos also shapes future events.
The latter sounds like kind of indeterminist.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 11:39 pm A fatalist believes future events follow from past events and nobody can do anything to change what will be.

A determinist ,who is not also a fatalist, believes future events arise from the vast pool of possibility, and therefore past history is not the only cause of future events and chance/chaos also shapes future events.
To me the difference between a fatalist and a determinist is that the former more or less takes him/herself out of the picture and is a subcategory of determinists. The future is determined, there's nothing I can do. Weeeelllll.....IOW the fatalist is a determinist who decides that his or her actions are meaningless and presumably is more depressed and perhaps takes less action. It makes no difference, so why bother. The determinist believes also that the future will be what it will be, but does not then decide there is no point in acting. So, the fun of the mill determinist would be more likely to try to create the future he or she wants, despite knowing that the future will be what it will be.

The ontology is the same. They do not differ on ontology regarding cause and effect. But the fatalist's belief affects his or her behavior in a different way.

So, I consider the fatalist a specific subgroup of determinists. They are a type of determinist who is affected by their beliefs in a clump of related ways.
Fatalism is a family of related philosophical doctrines that stress the subjugation of all events or actions to fate or destiny, and is commonly associated with the consequent attitude of resignation in the face of future events which are thought to be inevitable
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Belinda »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 1:54 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 11:39 pm A fatalist believes future events follow from past events and nobody can do anything to change what will be.

A determinist ,who is not also a fatalist, believes future events arise from the vast pool of possibility, and therefore past history is not the only cause of future events and chance/chaos also shapes future events.
To me the difference between a fatalist and a determinist is that the former more or less takes him/herself out of the picture and is a subcategory of determinists. The future is determined, there's nothing I can do. Weeeelllll.....IOW the fatalist is a determinist who decides that his or her actions are meaningless and presumably is more depressed and perhaps takes less action. It makes no difference, so why bother. The determinist believes also that the future will be what it will be, but does not then decide there is no point in acting. So, the fun of the mill determinist would be more likely to try to create the future he or she wants, despite knowing that the future will be what it will be.

The ontology is the same. They do not differ on ontology regarding cause and effect. But the fatalist's belief affects his or her behavior in a different way.

So, I consider the fatalist a specific subgroup of determinists. They are a type of determinist who is affected by their beliefs in a clump of related ways.
Fatalism is a family of related philosophical doctrines that stress the subjugation of all events or actions to fate or destiny, and is commonly associated with the consequent attitude of resignation in the face of future events which are thought to be inevitable
I'd go along with that. Fatalism, and predestination too, are subcategories of determinism.

Things such as internal combustion engines, or self-filling lavatory cisterns , more resemble fatalists than determinists. This is because engines and inanimate feed-back systems are nothing but their back-histories. They don't face towards the future but do as their histories dictate. This is why fatalism is a bad belief----it turns a living forward facing man into a robot.
Post Reply