Yep, that has been the general pattern over the years. In particular with the objectivists.
I’ve narrowed it down to three possible reasons:
1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives “for all practical purposes” from day to day.
2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can’t know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can’t know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.
3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that “I” in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods — and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where “I” becomes fractured and fragmented.
And, really, how long will many philosophers [objectivists especially] pursue exchanges that revolve around assumptions like this? They become philosophers to find answers. Then they bump into me. And I argue that, in all likelihood, answers to the Big Questions will never be known by them, or are compelled by nature, or, in regard to their interactions with others in the moral and political spheres, are but existential fabrications ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed in in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change.
But: That this, in turn, can only be my own existential contraption. At least until I come upon an argument able to convince me not to think as, here and now, I do.
Again, in regards to this, we are in two different exchanges. Either he will embed his general description assessments of determinism in contexts in which he makes an attempt to demonstrate that his will is free or he won’t.
Look at how you handle yourself in these discussions. You don’t embed your general descriptions in contexts and you don’t demonstrate them.
Why should he? Or anyone for that matter?
My point is that it seems reasonable to connect the dots between the human brain as matter in sync with the laws of matter, and the behaviors I choose – any behaviors – as being entirely in sync with that in turn.
Only I acknowledge that I am not myself able to demonstrate that. Instead, on this thread, I copy and paste arguments made by others and react to them.
If he does in fact believe he is in possession of free will, how does he explain this beyond his “general descriptions”? Beyond what I construe to be his pedantic assertions about these relationships?
Only here and now I am “stuck” with believing that nature may well have compelled me to assert this myself. I just don’t know what to believe because I have no capacity to know what to believe for sure.
In your last post, you brought up the context of Mary and her abortion. But what did you actually analyze about it? What did you explain with it? What did you demonstrate?
Over and again I point out I am not in possession of either the knowledge or the experience needed to demonstrate what seems reasonable to me “in my head”.
“I” here being an existential contraption. In other words, in regard to determinism, I am basing my thinking now on the actual confluence of lived experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge. Put all of these variable together and over the years “I” have come to believe what I do. I can only speculate as to how my thinking here and now might have been very different had the variables in my life been very different.
Thus: taking that into account, how do the philosophers and scientists come to pin down an argument that transcends “I” as an existential contraption, and arrives at an argument [complete with evidence] that finally pins down once and for all the extent to which “I” is in possession of actual volition.
Is he himself in possession of that knowledge and experiential background? It would seem that he certainly believes that he is. Otherwise where would he get the confidence to insist that those who don’t think like he does are morons and desperate degenerates?
To wit:
You’re missing my point though. Assuming we do possess some measure of autonomy, my point is less in regard to the points being raised themselves and more in regard to the extent to which one insists that only his or her points reflect that which all rational men and women are obligated to embrace.
Who wants to discuss “what all rational men and women are obligated to embrace” when you can’t even agree to some simple dictionary definitions of words??
Come on, over and again I challenge folks to take the dictionary definitions of words – “freedom”, “justice”, “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “evil”, “determinism”, “autonomy” – and use them to describe their own interactions with others. Sometimes in the context of morality, sometimes in the context of free will.
So, was any particular Mary in any particular context free and just in opting for a particular abortion because abortion was the right thing for her to do given that she was free to opt not to have one?
Okay, Mr. Philosopher, what say you?
This thread merely focuses the beam on Mr. Philosopher demonstrating that whatever he says was in turn always predicated on the fact that he could have freely opted to say something else instead.
In other words, regarding what in particular and in what actual context, ought all rational men and women agree?
You act as if he has some crazy ideas about ‘freedom’ which he has completely fabricated out of a web of words. Settle that before moving on to the obligation of all rational men and women. Please. [-o<
That’s preposterous. Cite something on this thread that I posted to indicate that this is how I react to him.
Let’s face it, with him there are any number of your own arguments that make you a moron or a desperate degenerate.
I don’t have any control over what he thinks of me. Therefore, I’m not concerned about it.
Yes, but you merely assume that you do have some measure of control over it and have freely opted not to be concerned about it.
You just know this. Even though I have myself yet to come upon an argument [backed up with ample evidence] to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to share this argument as well.
What does it mean to speak of ordinary human behavior when to the best of my knowledge here and now it has not been demonstrated definitively that what we choose to do we choose to do of our own volition.
It’s observed human behavior whether it’s chosen of “our own volition” or not.
Right. You observed it. So the fact that you observed it makes determining whether you observed it of your own volition…irrelevant?
Autonomy has everything to do with it. Are we compelled by the laws of nature to describe what we do? Or to hit tennis balls with tennis rackets? Or to analyze to one conclusion rather than another?
Everything here seems to revolve around a comprehensive understanding of how the brain actually accomplishes this. And then going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.
No. Once you describe something, then the description is either accurate or inaccurate. The words correspond to a high degree with the something or they don’t. Autonomy doesn’t enter into it.
Sure, you may not be capable of producing an accurate description but that’s separate from the evaluation of the description.
Note to others:
A little help please. Is he making an important point here that I keep missing? What is he actually saying about describing something? Something that I fail to grasp given my own assumption that in a wholly determined universe, we can only describe what nature compels us to describe given that the descriptions themselves are derived from a human brain that is derived from the evolution of mindless matter into conscious matter that is no less embedded in the laws of matter themselves.
Mind is mysterious matter, no doubt about it. It may well be derived from the God that he believes in. Or there may well in fact be some component of the human brain that somehow was able to bring about human autonomy.
I’m just looking for the argument and the evidence able to convince me of that.
Sure, we can just assume that Mary was free to choose an abortion; and that in choosing to have one, she either was or was not behaving morally.
Mary has choices. She chooses one which she has the power to enact and acts. There are consequences to her decision.
Yes, and you merely assume that these choices are free. That these consequence are solely as a result of that assumption. And that becomes a demonstration enough for you.
Notice that I did not use the word ‘free’. After one establishes that she has choices and that she acts on a choice that she has the power to execute, then one can go on to discuss what it means for the choice(s) to be ‘free’.
Okay, let’s try another context. One that most here will be familiar with. Describe for me the difference between Trump being “free” to argue that The Squad in Congress ought to go back from where they came, and, instead, him being free to argue it.
How is it fully determined that in fact this easily observed/described decision on his part is not but the psychological illusion of “choice”?
How are all of us here not in the same boat that I suggested above:
In fact, one suspects that his only recourse here [as with mine and probably yours] is to Google those folks who are in fact exploring this experimentally, scientifically, phenomenologically etc., and extracting the arguments most in sync with his own particular subjective prejudice.
How is this not “for all practical purposes” still the bottom line here?