Compatibilism

What do you argue

  • Free Will
  • Determinism
  • both (Compatibilism)
0 voters

Determinism vs. Free will, its a reputable question.

I argue that determinism has heavy influence over one’s life, yet his choices during existential moments also can affect it. I’d say determinism has a greater part of it because of evolutionary psychology and neuroscience junk. Plus one’s knowledge affects their choices.

That is why I believe in compatiblism.

Consider this: To tell your crush how you feel about her. You run into them unexpectedly at the park around 10pm one night while walking your dog (Determinalism/Fate). She is sitting in the grass with her 3 friends, being annoying and random like 16 year old chicks do. They are trying to decide how to spend the rest of their night, by calling guys and disagreeing amongst themselves places to go to.

They know your name from a high school class, but not much else. You can choose to tell her sometime during the conversing or silence that she looks nice and you liked her for this past semester. Or you can be humble and not bother her, and later on when you part, politely say goodnight. This would be unselfish, yet you wouldn’t mind holding her in your arms and taking all her troubles away. This is an existential moment. Free Will could influence local fate in your life. Determinism had heavy influence in lining up all the past events, and especially this present situation.

…It sounds corny, but this ‘example’ led me to settle on compatibilsm.

I don’t know if this would fall under determinism, par se, simply out of the fact that things happen. The universe does move on, and most would agree in some form of predicatable pattern, whether or not we accept free will or determinism. The fact that when a leave a tennis ball precautiously close to the end of a shelf it likely will fall does not give credance to deteminism affecting my actions.

That said I believe in free will in terms of the actual actions we perform. I will in no way object that things can influence our actions (everything from environmental stimuli to neurobiological controls) but unltimatly the decision comes down to free will. Given the non-deterministic nature of quantum physics at the moment I feel it is safe to argue that the universe is not instrumentally deterministic (assuming an objective reality for a second). With that in mind the situation you present seems very simple to me: events lined themselves up in a certain way (natural progression of the universe) but not in any specific way (NOT determinism, just a coincidence your crush happened along your path) and you were presented with a decision which you can weigh the pros and cons and make a decision (free will). Obviously there are ways to try and determine what choices you will make, but these are not perfect (game theory does reasonably well though) and cannot show which you will choose but merely offer odds you will choose different options.

Thanks for response. I suppose I am ignorant to my own argument.
I understood it to be about cause and effect. maybe i don’t know what determinism is, i argued it was fate up to now, but coincidence…? Is it nuetral to either side?

Don’t get down on yourself, buddy! So… did you tell her she was cute?! :slight_smile:

More seriously! ‘Compatibilism’ just means that we can choose to explain an event in one of two ways, loosely-- either in terms of objects (presumed to behave in ‘determined’ ways) or conversely in terms of subjects (presumed to have ‘free will’.)

But this epistemological position doesn’t actually address reality. We have to emphasize that ‘free will’ and ‘determinism’ are not only compatible, but identical explanations. This means that we always have a choice regarding the event – whether to become equal to it and take responsibility, ultimately for the ‘event’ of our existence… or whether to abandon the event, and therefore ourselves, insofar as we are only subjects to the degree we become equal to the events of our lives.

So the question of free will is really about irresponsibility: how do we get subjects to obey determinate laws? Needless to say this is already a quite political question. But most simply, let me say that in ethical terms, an ‘easygoing’ compatibilism-- where we could choose ‘either’ explanation (objects or subjects) without realizing we have to simultaneously choose both, and that the categories themselves are only distinguished by faithful subjects following rules– in ethical terms, such a compatibilist theory seems to offer a ‘perpetual motion machine’ for justifying the ego, for covering over insecurity. If I become weak in a situation and give into cowardice, I am able to argue that it was the ‘objective’ situation that prevented me from acting. Conversely, if I become equal to the event, if I am faithful to it and take responsibility for my subjective engagement with reality, then I am empowered to take credit for it as a subject.

Compatibilism is like an uneasy political compromise. Neither option seems better than the other; this doesn’t mean we have to settle for either. We have to say the option itself is false: the distinction between determinism and free will is the distinction made between a subject and an object… but all distinctions are made by subjects. Thus the question is entirely one of subjective engagement and responsibility. We have to have good faith, we have to be true to the process we are!

I think a lot of one’s life is determined, but we do have free will that arises once our rational faculties develop.