>If all reality is governed by the principle of causality, and therefore if every phenomenon/event is pre-determined by other phenomena/events, according to well-defined physical laws, then this will also necessarily apply to the person/subject's actions and thought: therefore there is - there cannot be - no room for free will.

>This formulation seems to me to be a classic circular reasoning (therefore fallacious, or at any rate tautological) in the sense that it implicitly assumes the very thing it seeks to prove:

Point of departure: The universe is governed by the principle of causality.

P2 The principle of causality suggests all phenomenon/events are the consequence, and predetermined by, other [causal] phenomenon/events.

P3 People are phenomenon of the universe

C Therefore people's actions and behaviour are also governed by the principle of causality.

I don't see how this argument begs the question. I think it's just concluding something besides what you think it does, that human action is predetermined not that the universe is.

Who are the "we"? While I value philosophy, it's not identical to physics in any shape or form in ways that concern academics.

Hey,

Are you familiar with Descartes and his meditations on first philosophy? So do you remember where he goes into how people come to know things they've never had access to, like perfect beauty? So do you remember his argument about not being able to know a thing from the negation of that thing?

If you're familiar with this argument can you break down why you can't come to know a thing from the absence of that thing? I remember understanding this when I first read the book but now that I'm thinking about it years later I don't seem to have the argument lined up in my mind. Can you help? I did a quick Google search and I don't see any exact references and explanations of this line I find interesting.

Thanks in advance.

You should enter politics

Frankish is a fool. Textbook definition.

Philosophy is "love of wisdom ". Wisdom is that knowledge which can only be had in the light of all experience. And knowledge can be either subjective (reletive to an individual's mind), or objectively true (for all people, demonstratable to the 5 senses and mind of all).

So the entire purpose of philosophy, is to find truth. To find what is real, to all human beings. Philosophy reveals objective and universal truths.

But a person who has teleologically resigned themselves to the moral reletavism of secular post modernism, by definition, denies and can never find, truth.

They end up "begging the question" towards their own foolishness. They become reletavistic animals, who run on self interest, alone.

[removed]

In the article they say both native English speakers and native Spanish speakers had similar results in each other's language. Tbf though these are probably small studies, and culture might matter as well, and direct social environment you speak the language in, like French with your family and friends, English at work, and German with your SO's family.

[removed]

Knowledge for knowledge's sake!

To me "being usefully wrong" appears same as "being practically right".And many a time "being practically right" can be much superior to being right idealogically.

Who is this "we"?

You and...?

Well this was specifically about philosophy and the idea of "being right", not about "a person's aims".

It can result in confirmation bias, for one thing

I don't think so.

Let us assume that Reality is indeed deterministic, and that this inevitably and certainly leads to the impeccable logical inference of the non-existence of free will, of choice, of critical thinking etc.

OK, only one thing remains to be asked. Why would logical reasoning be a good method of dealing with the problem?

The only answer can be: because logical reasoning, it's election as a method, its development and its inevitable conclusions -- the full package -- is also, inevitably given and pre-determined.
If reality is deterministic, we are deterministically driven to use logic to prove that reality is deterministic.
And there you are, stuck in a circular reasoning, therefore invalid according to the canons of logic itself.

I thought this was going to be an article on a sort of moral equivalent to the fact that people who speak languages that don't have a different word for pink (for example)(they call it a light red) find it harder to differentiate between pink and red than we do. I think also Japanese(?) has a seperate word for light blue, and hence can differentiate between shades of blue better/easier.

Still interesting though.

I can’t tell if it is correlation or causation, but as a multiple language speaker I have a seriously overactive empathy impulse and would consider myself highly moral. Empathy generally breeds morality, making the effort to understand other cultures makes you native culture feel less significant, which I think it is part of it. You also have to make yourself repeatedly vulnerable and rely on the kindness of strangers as you learn.

I'm not a hard determinist, but aren't you just strawmanning the position here? I think most HD would agree with you that begging the question is fallacious.

I have never heard a mathematician ever say that mathematics' task or aim is to observe the world as it is.

You would think.

I'm learning Spanish from English and part of this, I think, is that certain PC language-isms in English don't appear in Spanish. Things are said much more bluntly, without much care put into "offensive" vocabulary. As such, my English brain tells my Spanish brain it's being racist, even if it's not.

Logic cannot disprove free will in favor of hard determinism

The big, ancient question: can free will and deterministic causality coexist?

We can trivially answer:

A) yes. I perceive causality, I perceive free will, this is what is offered to me originally, in the flesh and bones, and this is it.

However, several people would answer:

B) no, because deterministic causality and free will are not LOGICALLY compatible.

A first B1) argument usually looks like this.

If all reality is governed by the principle of causality, and therefore if every phenomenon/event is pre-determined by other phenomena/events, according to well-defined physical laws, then this will also necessarily apply to the person/subject's actions and thought: therefore there is - there cannot be - no room for free will.

This formulation seems to me to be a classic circular reasoning (therefore fallacious, or at any rate tautological) in the sense that it implicitly assumes the very thing it seeks to prove: the premise (all reality is deterministically causal) already contains the conclusion (if "ALL" reality is deterministically causal then necessarily the actions and thoughts of men -- which are part of reality -- will also be deterministically causal).

Therefore,we will have to opt for a B2) variant.

We start from the observation a of a "weaker" and less dogmatic causality (we observe the existence of causality without assuming from the premises that "everything is always causal," otherwise we would fall back to B1). And let's say that from this premise we can come to LOGICALLY affirm its incompatibility with free will.

It's not important which logical steps might lead us to this result. Let us simply assume and admit that from X (I observe causality in the world-of-things) -we can develope an impeccable logical reasoning -> and in the end conclude Y (there is no free will, because what we call free will - our thoughts and actions and decisions - is causally pre-determined).

However, a corollary of Y is necessarily that the very activity of "impeccable logical thinking/reasoning," is also totally subjected to causal pre-determination. And not only with regard to the development of the reasoning process, but also with regard to its very "use" as a instrument to resolve the present question. I was going to write "with regard to the methodological choice to use logic to solve the free will problem"... but at this point to speak of "choice" would be paradoxical, wouldn't it?

Now, this corollary tends to be warmly welcomed by supporters of determinism. Logical reasoning (like mathematics, moreover) is used as a method of inquiry, it develops and it comes to its conclusions **by virtue of invincible necessity ** (not choice or discretion).

And THIS is what - according to some - makes this method "certain," secure and reliable.

But doesn't this also ultimately make B2 circular?

Let's examine a classic example of flawed circular reasoning:

That God exists corresponds to the truth. Why? Because the Bible says/proves that.

And why would the Bible be reliable?

Because the Bible is the absoulte and Word of God (it's "God's intended key to understand the world".)

Reformulated and adapted:

That Reality is totally deterministic, with no room for free will, corresponds to the truth. Why? Because Logic says/proves that.

And why would Logic be reliable?

Because Logic is the necessary instrument given to us by the deterministc Reality (it is the key of interpretation direclty and invincibly imposed on us by Reality itself)

This is the criticality underlying the totality of pan-deterministic systems.

How to evalue the knowledge one acquires from them, insofar as it cannot be conceived that the prefaced introduces a novative/modifying element within the pre-given configuration of the system?

They could have egomaniacal intent.

I'm multilingual at native level and I have to say that my moral compass definitely stays the same.

Now that you mention self-description, I have realised that I speak about myself very rarely in Spanish. I wonder if my weird phrasing and generally strange way of speaking has less to do with me being autistic and more to do with me subconsciously avoiding self-description.

Hah! I'm the opposite! I hate how in French I have to pick gendered words to refer to myself. Meanwhile I can reach a true neutral when speaking in English and never gender myself... Language is great.

This sounds awfully like Sapir Whorf