A Few Questions
robert green
usenet, and I was quite surprised to see that most of my beliefs are shared
by a significant demographic of atheists. However, what I found more
surprising was that one member of this forum mentioned that the majority of
atheists rejected the concept of free will. Not yet having the (undoubtedly
many) benefits of a college education and therefore those of an appropriate
philosophy course, nor any idea of what literature would be pertinent to the
topic, I concluded after some thought that I did not quite understand the
concept of free will or the lack thereof. Therefore, I decided, that
without the proper knowledge, I could not form a personal judgment on this
particular topic. I have read some Ayn Rand, and understand that she is a
defender of the concept of free will, but have not read any arguments or
counter-arguments on the topic. If anyone could describe (briefly if
necessary) any arguments for either side, I would be grateful. Thank you in
advance.
Also, I was quite impressed with some of the arguments that Ayn Rand made in
Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (the only two works by that author that I
have read to date), yet I was also in agreement with many of the arguments
made by libertarians. I apologize for what is undoubtedly lack of knowledge
concerning both ideologies, but are there any obvious conflicts between two?
Again, an apology, as I have only recently begun reading atheist literature
of any type.
Justin
_________________________________________________________________
<b>MSN 8:</b> Get 6 months for $9.95/month.
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Eric Pepke
> If anyone could describe (briefly if
> necessary) any arguments for either side, I would be grateful. Thank you in
> advance.
My problem with the concept of free will is that it rolls around like a glob
of mercury, to the extent that when anybody talks about free will, I never
know what they're talking about precisely enough to argue whether it
exists or not, much like the transcendental god-concepts. This is
exacerbated by the fact that few free-will advocates are willing to
answer what I consider the most salient question, which is "free from
what?" I know what it is to be free from coercion, for example,
provided that coercion is adequately define, but I don't know what
"just free" means. Free from Jerry Falwell? Free from physics?
And so, what you get is the meaning of "free will" in discussions
blobbing back and forth between several states, some of which
are fairly obviously existent, some of which are fairly obviously
nonexistent, some of which are fuzzy, and some of which
are unfalsifiable.
Zakath
into
> usenet, and I was quite surprised to see that most of my beliefs are
shared
> by a significant demographic of atheists. However, what I found more
> surprising was that one member of this forum mentioned that the majority
of
> atheists rejected the concept of free will.
the atheists I know. Since I did not see the original post to which you
refer, it may be that the poster had a particular definition of the term in
mind that is different from that in common usage.
> Not yet having the (undoubtedly
> many) benefits of a college education and therefore those of an
appropriate
> philosophy course, nor any idea of what literature would be pertinent to
the
> topic, I concluded after some thought that I did not quite understand the
> concept of free will or the lack thereof. Therefore, I decided, that
> without the proper knowledge, I could not form a personal judgment on this
> particular topic. I have read some Ayn Rand, and understand that she is
a
> defender of the concept of free will, but have not read any arguments or
> counter-arguments on the topic. If anyone could describe (briefly if
> necessary) any arguments for either side, I would be grateful. Thank you
in
> advance.
Since I believe that I have free will, and have not heard any substantive
atheistic arguments to the contrary, perhaps someone can ride to the rescue
here...
> Also, I was quite impressed with some of the arguments that Ayn Rand made
in
> Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (the only two works by that author that I
> have read to date), yet I was also in agreement with many of the arguments
> made by libertarians. I apologize for what is undoubtedly lack of
knowledge
> concerning both ideologies, but are there any obvious conflicts between
two?
> Again, an apology, as I have only recently begun reading atheist
literature
> of any type.
>
> Justin
Your comparison is not even apples and oranges, it's a bit like apples and
cheese. Libertarianism is a political viewpoint while atheism is a religious
viewpoint. There are atheistic libertarians and theistic libertarians, just
as their are atheists who are republican, democrat, or any number of other
political persuasions. The politics of libertarianism, as I understand them,
have nothing to do with one's views on the existence of one or more deities.
Zakath
(Zak...@cox.net)
avril
"Eric Pepke" <epe...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.03082...@posting.google.com...
> My problem with the concept of free will is that it rolls
around like a glob
> of mercury, to the extent that when anybody talks about free
will, I never
> know what they're talking about precisely enough to argue
whether it
> exists or not ... <snipped> This is
> exacerbated by the fact that few free-will advocates are
willing to
> answer what I consider the most salient question, which is
"free from
> what?" ...<snipped>
I get confused by the arguments for free will yet, overall, I
can't see that anything is outside of the interaction and
interdependence on outside forces and relationships, so at the
most fundamental level, I can't see that free will truly exists.
Even so, aren't all our laws of morality and ethics based upon
the perception of free will, however it might be defined? What
is 'good' and 'bad' if we don't fundamentally get to make free
choices? My definitions of good and bad, for that reason, take a
different slant. I think of 'good' as meaning 'pleasant to
experience' or 'helpful'; and 'bad' as 'unpleasant to experience'
or 'unhelpful' - where those words are entirely subjective to the
individual and his/her experience of the world. For example, it
is not good to me that one another country invade another country
because (since I idenfify with the pain of other human beings) it
hurts me to think of others being hurt - unless of course, a
larger purpose is achieved which would make me happy for that.
Avril
(Replace US in the address with underscore)
Tony Dermody
> I stumbled upon this extremely fascinating forum during my first foray into
> usenet, and I was quite surprised to see that most of my beliefs are shared
> by a significant demographic of atheists. However, what I found more
> surprising was that one member of this forum mentioned that the majority of
> atheists rejected the concept of free will. Not yet having the
> (undoubtedly many) benefits of a college education and therefore those of
> an appropriate philosophy course, nor any idea of what literature would be
> pertinent to the topic, I concluded after some thought that I did not quite
> understand the concept of free will or the lack thereof. Therefore, I
> decided, that without the proper knowledge, I could not form a personal
> judgment on this particular topic. I have read some Ayn Rand, and
> understand that she is a defender of the concept of free will, but have not
> read any arguments or counter-arguments on the topic. If anyone could
> describe (briefly if necessary) any arguments for either side, I would be
> grateful. Thank you in advance.
This is the problem of freedom and determinism. There are two questions:
(1) whether human choices and actions are causally determined, or are in a
way free, and (2) what the implications are morally, personally, and
socially.
Determinism is the thesis that all our mental states and acts, including
choices and decisions, are effects necessitated by preceding causes. Thus
our future is fixed and unalterable, just as the past is. Whether this
thesis is true or false depends on our natures and not on desires, hopes,
or feelings.
There is much debate in philosophy about these matters and it is too
complicated to go into here. I suggest you get a copy of the Oxford
Companion to Philosophy or a similar encyclopaedia about philosophy (See:
Oxford Companion to Philosophy; edited by Ted Honderich; Oxford University
Press; London and New York; 1995; ISBN 0-19-866132-0; page 292).
There is some tendency to use the term 'causality' or 'principle of
causality' as equivalent to determinism. However these two concepts are in
fact incompatible. The relation of cause and effect involves a flow of
power from cause to effect, and hence a certain freedom on the part of the
cause. But if every event is completely determined, it can hardly be
regarded as a cause, since the cause is shifted back in an infinite
regress. Thus causality as a universal principle equivalent to determinism
has no connection with the ordinary every-day relation of cause and effect.
The problem is to show how causal relations can exist within a framework of
determinism.
Freedom is linked to the relation of cause and effect and is associated
with efficacy or power. If the causal relation is to have any meaning (i.e.
a definition based on experience), it must mean the free action of a
subject on an object so as to cause a change in the object. I don't think
it's possible to give any adequate definition to freedom (or power), which
departs from this setting. Thus, the idea of freedom is inherent in the
causal subject-object relation but is incompatible with strict determinism.
I need only add that quantum mechanics is said to have rejected causal
determinism arising from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I am not sure
what the philosophical effect of this is yet, though I do have some rather
undeveloped ideas on it. Nevertheless, it is clear that there are difficult
problems here for both science and philosophy which need further work, and
which will need new scientific advances before they can be resolved.
Finally, one ought not to forget that our concepts of freedom, determinism,
free will and so forth are drawn from our practical engagement with the
world and are given meaning by our activity. When we make a decision or
perform an action we know that something or other is free. Thus, we have to
be careful, in pursuing such concepts to their logical conclusions, lest we
may be applying logical laws (i.e. laws of thought) to the material world,
leading to contradictions between the two spheres (i.e. between thinking
and the real world).
> Also, I was quite impressed with some of the arguments that Ayn Rand made in
> Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (the only two works by that author that I
> have read to date), yet I was also in agreement with many of the arguments
> made by libertarians. I apologize for what is undoubtedly lack of
> knowledge concerning both ideologies, but are there any obvious conflicts
> between two? Again, an apology, as I have only recently begun reading
> atheist literature of any type.
If I were you, I wouldn't take Ayn Rand's objectivism too seriously. It
is more than a bit facile.
There is a minor movement in the USA of followers of this novelest, who
wrote 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead', among others. They believe
in unbridled capitalism without social protections. It's a ruthless and
cold blooded philosophy with self interest at its centre. They do not
believe in government much beyond a police force and would do away with
taxes. They believe that money is the proper evaluation of a person's worth
and the only valid one.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) the English philosopher thought the world
consisted of a 'state of nature' which he described as 'bellum omnium
contra omnes'. He saw reason as the only way to reign in human passions.
Hobbes was one of the first to develop a materialistic theory of society
and the state.
As for the execrable Ayn Rand, she, like Thomas Hobbes, depends on reason
to mitigate the inherent selfishness of humanity, though Hobbes is a
towering giant of a philosopher compared to her. But the key thing to note
is that, for both, reason prevails: for Rand it operates at the level of
the individual; for Hobbes at the level of the multitude. But neither is
able to escape the duality of the individual versus society. They remain
like Buridan's Ass, in a kind of frozen indecisiveness, between total
freedom and total regulation.
The bourgeois mind set is so obsessed with the notion of the 'free'
individual, a notion directly related to the theory of the market, that
they become blind to the fact that there exists no pure free individual,
nor did there ever. Human beings always and everywhere are found in
society. Society is the very condition which gives substance to the notion
of the free individual.
Forget Rand.
--
Tony Dermody.
"Art is the science of feeling, science the art of knowing. We must know to
be able to do, but we must feel to know what to do". (Christopher Caudwell:
"Illusion and Reality"; 1937).
Eric Pepke
> I get confused by the arguments for free will yet, overall, I
> can't see that anything is outside of the interaction and
> interdependence on outside forces and relationships, so at the
> most fundamental level, I can't see that free will truly exists.
> Even so, aren't all our laws of morality and ethics based upon
> the perception of free will, however it might be defined?
That's a good point. Free Will seems to be a lot like what my
friend John Murray used to call "vacuumware." It exists to
fill a void, but it still sucks.
Less flippantly, Free Will seems to be a concept that
people keep around so that they can build other concepts
out of it.
> What
> is 'good' and 'bad' if we don't fundamentally get to make free
> choices? My definitions of good and bad, for that reason, take a
> different slant. I think of 'good' as meaning 'pleasant to
> experience' or 'helpful'; and 'bad' as 'unpleasant to experience'
> or 'unhelpful' - where those words are entirely subjective to the
> individual and his/her experience of the world. For example, it
> is not good to me that one another country invade another country
> because (since I idenfify with the pain of other human beings) it
> hurts me to think of others being hurt - unless of course, a
> larger purpose is achieved which would make me happy for that.
There's been an awful lot written about this. What you are
describing sounds like an empathy-based approach. Augustine
wrote a lot about this. It also is one of the central themes of
Philip K. Dick. I think that empathy, de facto, is probably one
of the major sources, if not the major source of goodness and
decency. It seems to me sufficient for the majority of people.
There's also the question about how much good and bad have
to do with morality. When I look around at how people use the
term "morality," what actions they describe as moral and immoral,
what crimes and transgressions they specifically identify as immoral,
very little of it has to do with my view of good and bad behavior.
For example, you speak of a country invading another country.
It's highly unlikely that most people would identify that as a moral
crime unless prompted. If you put it on a list along with, oh,
let's say getting fellated by an intern, and asked people to
identify the moral crime, they'd overwhemingly go for the latter.
When supporting moral systems, people tend to use murder
and theft as examples. However, when using the term "moral"
in an everyday sense, people think about sex. And, usually,
the term "immoral" is applied to a disapproved-of act only when
there is no stronger word (like "criminal" or "violent") to
describe it.
Igtheist
> surprising was that one member of this forum mentioned that the majority of
> atheists rejected the concept of free will.
Did he/she take a survey? I would expect that if we are talking about
the christian concept of free will with it's dependency on uncaused
actions I would probably agree. No atheist I know believes that god
endowed us with the ability to freely choose without regard to prior
cause. However there are many conceptions of free will. I view it
as christians trying to explain something and getting the mechanics
wrong. Much like their explainations of everything else.
> Not yet having the (undoubtedly
> many) benefits of a college education and therefore those of an appropriate
> philosophy course, nor any idea of what literature would be pertinent to the
> topic, I concluded after some thought that I did not quite understand the
> concept of free will or the lack thereof.
This is certainly an area where multiple definitions are being used.
Often you find people discussing this talking at cross purposes
because they are not using the same definitions or are coming from
different discussions.
> Therefore, I decided, that
> without the proper knowledge, I could not form a personal judgment on this
> particular topic.
I have found quite a few very good papers on free will on the
internet. If you search using "free will" along with other terms
like "compatibilist" or "determinism" or "libertarianism" you will be
on the right track.
> I have read some Ayn Rand, and understand that she is a
> defender of the concept of free will, but have not read any arguments or
> counter-arguments on the topic.
I am familiar with Ayn Rands arguments. I believe that in her
defense of free will she is wrong. If I have some time at some point
I will give you my arguments. I think I can give a fair criticism
without painting a straw man version of her position.
I came across Rand later in life. I ended up reading all her
non-fiction books on philosopy and none of her novels. I had not
heard of Libertarianism other than some goofy ads for the LP on TV.
I was already deeply aware of the superiority of capitalism to
communism. I was also an avid follower of Richard Dawkins. I
believed and still believe that selfishness is the primary existant
with altruism being built on top of it. Thus Ayn Rand appealed to me
because her philosophy seemed to match reality better than other
philosophers. It was also a breath of fresh air to see a philospher
that was not so confused as to think that reality was something one
could question. That plus the fact that she was actually attempting
to make her ideas understood and not trying to obfuscate.
I think one of the basic problems with objectivism is that it is
foundationalist. Foundationalist means that it uses some root
justification. Christianity is foundationalist and is based on an
authority figure - God. Objectivism is based on some root axioms
from which it deduces the rest of it's tenets.
Another problem is that although it promotes a non-authoritarian
philosophy it does so with an intellecutally authoritarian manner.
Possibly due to it's foundationalist nature. Note that there are
objectivists like David Kelly who have rejected this intellecutual
authoritarianism. He is literally shunned by the fundamentalist
sects of this quasi-religion. I think the words shunned,
fundamentalist, and sect certainly apply.
Note that I loved David Kelly's "The evidence of the senses". He does
a great job of explaining and undermining philosophical skepticism and
also Kant. Note that I also consider myself a skeptic but this is
again a label with multiple target philosophies. I am not a skeptic
in the sense of questioning physical reality.
I do very much like many of Ayn Rands attacks on other philosophys.
One doesn't have to accept a philosophy in whole to use it to
understand flaws in other philosophies. I know of no overarching
philosophy that is not vulnerable to some sort of attack. Her
attacks on everything from Christianity through Communism, Socialism,
and Behaviorism are great. She does a great job of showing that at
their roots that these philosphies share many of the same flaws.
Another problem I have with Ayn Rand is that she uses terms in
provocative ways which is contrary to popular understanding. For
instance, her use of the word *selfish*. What she means by this is
not what the normal person would expect. As used in her philosophy
*selfishness* means a kind of "enlightened self interest". I think
she was a shrewd business woman and used this term to sell more books.
Much like pop music icons like Madonna.
Lastly, I find that Ayn Rand then misapplies her own philosophy.
Both in her novels (I have read excerpts) and in her personal life.
For instance, I in no way see how in the Fountainhead one could come
up with a justification for the hero blowing up the public housing.
I didn't read the book but from what I understand he had given his
ideas away for free to someone who he should have been well aware
would not apply them exactly to his wishes. In addition, he knew
beforehand that other peoples efforts would be comingled with his
ideas and thus he would loose control. I find it implausible that any
jury would ever let him off either. Since you read the book you
should understand with this bare outline of my objection. Correct me
if I misunderstand.
I could continue with other objections.
That said I think it is very valuable to read Rand. She as some
unique and valid arguments.
> If anyone could describe (briefly if
> necessary) any arguments for either side, I would be grateful. Thank you in
> advance.
Maybe that was just a turn of phrase but this is an area where there
is not merely two sides.
You will have to cover these concepts: Philosophical Libertarian (not
the same as political Libertarian), Compatibilism, Determinism.
There are many subfactions and I am not sure those are the only major
catagories.
Personally I am a compatibilist. I think whether the world is
determinist or not has no bearing on whether we have free will. I
also think the word "free" in free will is superfulous. Both
philosophical libertarianism and determinism share the belief that
whether the world is deterministic or not has a bearing on whether
free will exists or not. They also share the belief that determinism
and free will are incompatible. To resolve this conflict
philosophical libertarians reject determinism while Determinist reject
free will. Compatibilists believe that they have made a more
fundamental mistake in believing that the two are incompatible.
There are different compatiblist positions also.
My position on determinism is that as far as I can tell it is a
non-falsifiable hypothesis. Thus I don't believe that it is truly a
meaningful word when being applied to the real world. I don't yet
know what would count for or against it. One can build intellectual
models that are deterministic or not. Thus I think it is useful for
categorizing models of the world but it is not something I think is
practical. So discussion is not entirely pointless if you keep this
in mind. I might be persuaded against this view but it would require
a very clever description of determinism. The problems I currently
have is that our ability to gain knowledge depends on the fact that we
are embedded in the system we are studying and that we have limited
computational abilities. Understanding and predicting the states of
a simple intellectual model from the outside is a different story.
I am of the position that randomness is not a requirement for free
will. In fact I believe that it is important that the world have a
certain amount of predictability in order for free will to operate.
Even if I am wrong and will somehow is built atop random events also I
believe that the world is complex enough that causal relationships are
asynchronous. So in a certain sense caused events can be as random
as truly random events. I do not think that having a truly
non-deterministic system really gives you anything above an beyond
what a deterministic.
In addition I think there are different classes of deterministic
models. The standard billard ball model is missing the very
capabilities I think are required of a system that supports free will.
I mean this literally. If we had a model where there were equal
sized perfectly elastic billiard balls bouncing around perfectly
elastic in a three dimensional world then I don't believe it could
support free will. I don't think free will could arise in the first
place in such a system. There is no mechanism of self organisation.
Nor do I think you could obtain it by any form of forced initial
state. It might be possible to arrange the directions and positions
of the balls to do some complex pseudo computaions that you could
interpret from outside the system. But I don't think those
computations would have meaning within the system. I think for free
will to exist the system needs to allow for models of the laws of the
system to be represented within the system itself. The only way I
know to properly support this in a deterministic system is for that
system to support the evolution of self replicating sub-systems.
Of the writers on this subject my position is closest to Daniel
Dennet. Although I have not read more than a few short essays by
him. I understand he has a full blown book.
There are many of what I believe to be fundamental mistakes made in
these areas. For instance, some but not all, determinists seem to
think we are not responsible for our actions if they are caused. I
find this absurd if only in the fact that in order to choose we must
be aware of past conditions. It is as if these hard determinists
only consider people responsible if they do not have a past and do not
use their sensory organs. This is patently absurd.
> Also, I was quite impressed with some of the arguments that Ayn Rand made in
> Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (the only two works by that author that I
> have read to date), yet I was also in agreement with many of the arguments
> made by libertarians.
Rand seems to think she can prove that certain theories of Liberarians
are false merely by deduction. Although I am not certain the
particular Liberarian ideas will work neither am I convinced they
cannot. Hard core libertarians have come up with historical working
examples of things that at first thought shouldn't work (based on a
traditional government education).
I am libertarian my leanings.
> I apologize for what is undoubtedly lack of knowledge
> concerning both ideologies,
No need to apologize. It's a lot of work even when the proponents of
a philosophy strive to be understood (unlike say the postmodernists).
Very few people have the stamina to get the big picture on a
philosophy when it is obvious that parts of it are wrong.
> but are there any obvious conflicts between two?
Yes. Rand *hates* libertarians. Basically I think she hates any
other ideology perhaps the more so as it becomes more similar. ;)
She has a big problem with free market policing. She claims it can't
work. I personally am not sure it can or cannot. There are
historical examples of it working on partial scale but I don't know if
it is stable for the entire system. I think it requires everyone to
have the same basic cultural background in order to work. People
have to believe in it and follow it's rules for it to work. Not
everybody but just a critical mass.
Just a warning. Now that you have admitted to even reading Rand if
you take any position in favor of capitalism you will be branded by
some on these forums as a Randian. Despite the fact that there is
plenty of support outside of the things that Rand gets wrong. Expect
to be called names. These people are of the exact same bend as Rand
and her most fundamentalist followers who would also treat you the
same way. So these vehement anti-Randians have more in common with
her than you might.
> Again, an apology, as I have only recently begun reading atheist literature
> of any type.
If you are like me you will find that much of what is cover you had
already discovered by yourself. However there are still plenty of
novel arguments and information that will keep it exciting. Sometimes
it is even exciting to see there is someone who has observed and
deduced the same things as you. Often with more supporting evidence.
Good luck. I hope I have been helpful. I do so out of ultimately
*selfish* motives :).
> Justin
Why Justin? Aren't you Robert Green.
PS. That name sounded familiar then I remembered:
Robert Green Chevrolet - Monticello New York Chevrolet Dealer
Route 17, Monticello NY 12701
Igtheist
> Your comparison is not even apples and oranges, it's a bit like apples and
> cheese. Libertarianism is a political viewpoint while atheism is a religious
> viewpoint.
True. But I think he was referring to objectivism vs. libertarianism.
These two overlap more because objectivism covers politics,
economics, religion, and philosophy.
> There are atheistic libertarians and theistic libertarians, just
> as their are atheists who are republican, democrat, or any number of other
> political persuasions. The politics of libertarianism, as I understand them,
> have nothing to do with one's views on the existence of one or more deities.
True, but reality is uglier than this. Liberarianism is a new thing
with old roots. The closest position to libertarianism in the past
would be the Classical Liberal. However the label "Liberal" has been
coopted by the socialists and their ilk. I think that modern day
Libertarianism owes much of it's roots to Ayn Rand even if they reject
some or most of her thought. I for instance came to learn about
libertarianism through Rand. Over time I have read much more on
libertarianism now than Rand because the literature is so vast. I
also moved into Austrian economics.
I think I just converted my wifes uncle from Keynesianism to Austrian
economics. We just had a two hour discussion and I managed to meet
all his objections with rational short explanations. It even got to
the point where I was able to make disparaging statements about FDR
without him even objecting. In the past he was firmly convinced of
the savior status of FDR (he's in his late 50s to 60s).
So talking about this stuff is not always pointless. He's no
libertarian but he at least now realizes that FDR and Hoover were the
ones responsible for the length of Great Depression and not
capitalism. Prior depressions caused by fractional reserve had only
lasted two years at most. He got the whole fraudulent nature of the
fractional reserve issue, causes of the business cycle, gold backing
and everything. Funny thing is that he has an economics degree and I
don't. He wants to use this knowledge to manage his retirement money
and avoid as much of the coming meltdown as possible. For instance he
is going to move out of long term bonds.
Igtheist
> If I were you, I wouldn't take Ayn Rand's objectivism too seriously. It
> is more than a bit facile.
It is interesting that you would think it facile given that you get so
much incorrect about it later on. I will point them out.
> They believein unbridled capitalism without social protections.
This is a false statement. Rand had a good understanding of the
requirement for contract enforcement and other governmental
underpinnings for capitalism to exist. Part of the reason she was
against libertarians.
She didn't believe in no social protections. She just believed they
could be accomplished volunarily instead of at the point of a gun.
> It's a ruthless and cold blooded philosophy with self interest at its centre.
This is overdone but given Rands propensity to polemics and
redefinition of terms it is quite understandable that you think so.
Her philosophy did not specifically advocate "Damn everyone get what
you can". It did point out that altruism is in and of itself selfish
and I think she did a convincing job. She also helps people not to
feel guilty about not doing *altruistic* acts if they don't match what
they value. Leading the good life according to Rand does not require
one to lead the life of a martyr. She also pointed out that many
instances of altruism were not true altruism ala Dawkins. She
understood this without having read the evolutionary literature
either. Thus sacrificing for ones children is not true altruism but
is really selfish behavior.
> They do not believe in government much beyond a police force and would do
> away with taxes.
As I remember it Rand believed in an Army and courts and wanted it
supported by taxes. So this is false.
> They believe that money is the proper evaluation of a person's worth
> and the only valid one.
This is a total fabrication. It is obvious you have not read her
philosophy so why do you feel competent to comment on it.
I am curions as to how you came to this conclusion. Were you fed
this by some philosophy professor? Did you read some hack job
magazine article?
Objectivism has lots of problems so lets stick to the facts. Do we
need to lie in order to get to the truth?
> As for the execrable Ayn Rand, she, like Thomas Hobbes, depends on reason
> to mitigate the inherent selfishness of humanity, though Hobbes is a
> towering giant of a philosopher compared to her.
I more got the feeling that Rand wanted to use reason to mitigate the
inherent self destructiveness of altruistic philosophies. Altruism
is after all self destructive behavior (by definition).
Part of the problem I have with Rand is that people are substantially
not rational animals.
> But the key thing to note
> is that, for both, reason prevails: for Rand it operates at the level of
> the individual;
> for Hobbes at the level of the multitude.
I haven't read hobbes but multitudes can't reason. Only individuals
can reason. Social structures can evolve within groups ala Hayek or
Popper. But that is not reason.
> But neither is> able to escape the duality of the individual versus society. > They remain like Buridan's Ass, in a kind of frozen indecisiveness, between
> total freedom and total regulation.
Both objectivists and libertarians have mechanisms for group
coordination based on individual action. For them proper group
interaction is an emergent property. This is something that is often
lost on liberals. In fact, Hayek, proved that socialism cannot work
economically. Anti-individualist tend not to understand the
arguments of the individualists.
> The bourgeois mind set is so obsessed with the notion of the 'free'
> individual, a notion directly related to the theory of the market, that
> they become blind to the fact that there exists no pure free individual,
> nor did there ever.
False. Also a straw man argument. Individualist philosophies are
very deep and encompass far more than you give them credit for. It
is in fact socialist philosophies that end up failing on issues of
plan coordition, justice and other SOCIAL issues.
> Human beings always and everywhere are found in society.
Not always, but that is a minor point as it probably only involves
shipwreck surviors. This is substantially true but the question is
"So what?" Philosophies based on individual liberty are about how
society should be structured. Without society there is no issue of
individualism. There can only be individualism with no society so the
problem wouldn't arise.
The fact that you think this way shows that you have little background
in individualist philosophies. Objectivism and Libertarianism are
not about how we should live on separate islands after all.
> Society is the very condition which gives substance to the notion
> of the free individual.
Society can be structured many ways. I wouldn't want to live in one
that didn't respect individual freedom.
> Forget Rand.
A rather rash decision.
Chris
>
> the perception of free will, however it might be defined? What
> is 'good' and 'bad' if we don't fundamentally get to make free
> choices?
I have never seen the problem here. If we do have free will, we are
responsible for what we do and deserve to face punishment.
If we do not have free will, then it is not our fault if we introduce
a retibution system that punishes people even though they have no
choice. The same principle that would prevent people being held
responsible for their actions vis-a-vis breaking the law, would
prevent the rest of us being held responsible if we act as if they did
have free-will.
Paul Filseth
> robert green wrote:
> > I have read some Ayn Rand, and understand that she is a defender of
> > the concept of free will, but have not read any arguments or
> > counter-arguments on the topic. If anyone could describe (briefly
> > if necessary) any arguments for either side, I would be grateful.
>
> questions: (1) whether human choices and actions are causally
> determined, or are in a way free,
Hi, Robert. Tony's characterization partly prejudges the
question. There's a long tradition, going back to David Hume, of
"compatibilism" -- the opinion that freedom and determinism do not
conflict.
> But if every event is completely determined, it can hardly be regarded
> as a cause, since the cause is shifted back in an infinite regress.
Here he's confusing "cause" with "first cause". Even if there's
infinite regress, every event in the chain is still a cause of those
coming after it.
> > I was quite impressed with some of the arguments that Ayn Rand
> > made ... yet I was also in agreement with many of the arguments
> > made by libertarians. I apologize for what is undoubtedly lack of
> > knowledge concerning both ideologies, but are there any obvious
> > conflicts between two?
Rand brings a lot of metaphysical baggage to the table that
libertarianism dispenses with, like insisting that value is objective
and there's no difference between analytic and synthetic statements.
Rand looked down on libertarianism because that stuff was really
important to her; whereas non-Randites seldom even notice that she
wasn't a libertarian.
> If I were you, I wouldn't take Ayn Rand's objectivism too seriously.
> It is more than a bit facile. There is a minor movement in the USA
> of followers of this novelest... They believe that money is the proper
> evaluation of a person's worth and the only valid one.
There is a major movement all over the world of people who have
no qualms about making up absurd lies about their political opponents.
Rand and her followers are a frequent target of such gentlemen. Form
your own opinions about her and don't take all the facile abuse by
people with an axe to grind too seriously.
> As for the execrable Ayn Rand, she, like Thomas Hobbes, depends on
> reason to mitigate the inherent selfishness of humanity, though
> Hobbes is a towering giant of a philosopher compared to her.
Arguably; but then they're both towering giants compared to a
certain philosopher Tony is partial to.
> But neither is able to escape the duality of the individual versus
> society. They remain like Buridan's Ass, in a kind of frozen
> indecisiveness, between total freedom and total regulation.
Rand chose freedom; Hobbes chose regulation. Indecisive,
Buridan's ass.
> The bourgeois mind set is so obsessed with the notion of the 'free'
> individual... Forget Rand.
Don't forget the people who believe there's such a thing as
"the bourgeois mind set". It's a good idea to try to understand
other people's ideas, even if you don't agree with them. And even
if they aren't willing to do the same.
--
Paul Filseth Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only
To email, delete the x. proved it correct, not tried it. - Donald Knuth
Paul Filseth
post, covering lots of subjects. It contained) :
> In addition I think there are different classes of deterministic
> capabilities I think are required of a system that supports free will.
> I mean this literally. If we had a model where there were equal
> sized perfectly elastic billiard balls bouncing around perfectly
> elastic in a three dimensional world then I don't believe it could
> support free will. I don't think free will could arise in the first
> place in such a system. There is no mechanism of self organisation.
If you mean that's _all_ there is, then of course you're right;
what you're describing is an ideal gas. It just goes directly to a
state of uniform temperature and pressure and then never changes. But
the traditional billiard ball model contained other forces between the
particles in addition to elastic collisions. Electromagnetism and
gravity were well known; and it was understood that there could be
more we didn't know about. There had to be, to form stable molecules;
and also to form solids and liquids. Whether self-organizing systems
can exist in a billiard-ball model depends on the details of all the
inter-particle forces.
> Rand *hates* libertarians. Basically I think she hates any
> other ideology perhaps the more so as it becomes more similar. ;)
Right -- this is entirely normal human psychology. Catholics
are much more inclined to have religious wars with Protestants than
with Hindus.
Mark Folsom
>
> This is the problem of freedom and determinism. There are two questions:
> (1) whether human choices and actions are causally determined, or are in a
> way free, and (2) what the implications are morally, personally, and
> socially.
>
> Determinism is the thesis that all our mental states and acts, including
> choices and decisions, are effects necessitated by preceding causes. Thus
> our future is fixed and unalterable, just as the past is. Whether this
> thesis is true or false depends on our natures and not on desires, hopes,
> or feelings.
This is a false dichotomy. Determinism is *not* the opposite of free will.
A world with quantum indeterminism can still be in conflict with free will.
Causation does not imply determinism. Events at the quantum level can
*cause* succeeding events without *determining* their exact outcome.
>
> There is much debate in philosophy about these matters and it is too
> complicated to go into here. I suggest you get a copy of the Oxford
> Companion to Philosophy or a similar encyclopaedia about philosophy (See:
> Oxford Companion to Philosophy; edited by Ted Honderich; Oxford University
> Press; London and New York; 1995; ISBN 0-19-866132-0; page 292).
>
> There is some tendency to use the term 'causality' or 'principle of
> causality' as equivalent to determinism. However these two concepts are in
> fact incompatible. The relation of cause and effect involves a flow of
> power from cause to effect, and hence a certain freedom on the part of the
> cause.
No, it doesn't.
> But if every event is completely determined, it can hardly be
> regarded as a cause, since the cause is shifted back in an infinite
> regress.
A single event can very well be regarded as the cause of a succeeding event,
even in a deterministic world. That it was caused by something else is a
peripheral issue.
> Thus causality as a universal principle equivalent to determinism
> has no connection with the ordinary every-day relation of cause and
effect.
> The problem is to show how causal relations can exist within a framework
of
> determinism.
There is no framework of determinism. The universe doesn't operate that
way. It may be a good approximation for big objects most of the time, but
it isn't actually true. There is no determinate chain running back to the
beginning and out to the end of time.
>
> Freedom is linked to the relation of cause and effect and is associated
> with efficacy or power. If the causal relation is to have any meaning
(i.e.
> a definition based on experience), it must mean the free action of a
> subject on an object so as to cause a change in the object.
You must be just making this stuff up.
> I don't think
> it's possible to give any adequate definition to freedom (or power), which
> departs from this setting. Thus, the idea of freedom is inherent in the
> causal subject-object relation but is incompatible with strict
determinism.
The idea of freedom, as you have presented it, probably doesn't exist.
Maybe you can come up with an example of an uncaused, but nonrandom,
microscopic event?
[snip]
Mark Folsom