Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Theoretical Philosophy » A Question About Free Will » 10/30/2018 9:36 am

DanielCC
Replies: 9

Go to post

seigneur wrote:

DanielCC wrote:

Because if free will does not exist in its full sense, that of libertarian free will, then it casts moral responsibility into doubt.

Isn't libertarian free will absolute, which in turn would make moral responsibility also absolute? As such, wouldn't honest mistakes be as culpable as malicious acts?

Of course not. Virtually no ethically system will treat mistakes or unintended consequences as symptomatic of personal wickedness, as they lack the requisite intention.

seigneur wrote:

Imagination is absolutely free in libertarian sense, and that has its consequences too. I would definitely not want my will to be similarly free, with instant gratification and all the latter consequences.

What do you mean? There's a difference between imaginative association and deliberately imagining some thing but what is the relevance of imagination here? Maybe if one's imagination automatically created ex nihilo it would be relevant but even God can consider something as the case without actually making it so.

seigneur wrote:

Libertarian free will cannot be had and should not be craved after. Will works the way it works, limited and restricted. Better to learn to live with it.

Are you actually going to explain your position (let alone give arguments for it) or just sit there making vacuous New Atheistesque assertions?

Theoretical Philosophy » A Question About Free Will » 10/30/2018 5:02 am

DanielCC
Replies: 9

Go to post

seigneur wrote:

Cosmyk wrote:

Do you think these experiments cast free will into doubt?

Why call it free in the first place? Should it be as free as libertarians would have it? Is it not good enough to have simply will that works with some limitations like everything else about humans?

Because if free will does not exist in its full sense, that of libertarian free will, then it casts moral responsibility into doubt. That doesn't mean people aren't prey to predispositions due to social and biological factors but the ultimate element of choice must always remain.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/

Theoretical Philosophy » A Question About Free Will » 10/29/2018 1:50 pm

DanielCC
Replies: 9

Go to post

This article, originally linked to by UGADawg, might be of interest to people here.

http://www.owl232.net/papers/fwill.htm

Chit-Chat » How Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price prove convertibility » 10/25/2018 9:02 am

DanielCC
Replies: 15

Go to post

Hypatia wrote:

I actually kind of like Lovecraft. His mythos is basically the horrific personification of a nihilistic reality that ultimately just doesn't care.

I wouldn't consider it "hauntingly beautiful" by any stretch of the imagination, but metaphysical horror does have a certain allure to it.

I like Lovecraft very much - he was one of my first great literary loves after Conan Doyle and Tolkien. I’d even be willing to say his work does contain instances of unique heightened beauty e.g. in ‘The Colour from Space’ or The Whisperer in Darkness’, the only issue being that it is a one note Rococo beauty.

Lovecraft was no great philosopher though as his disciples like to make out (amusingly few of them are able to even point out even one of the New Englander’s supposedly devastating argument for atheism). His philosophy really is a natural evolution of Oswald Spengler’s civilisational theory to species coupled with a heavy dose of Nietzschean aestheticism.

In terms of ‘haunting beauty’ or spiritual depth he is nothing compared to Arthur Machen though ;)

Chit-Chat » How Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price prove convertibility » 10/25/2018 6:08 am

DanielCC
Replies: 15

Go to post

FZM wrote:

The success of some spin campaign that the Soviets weren't really left wingers at all but were in fact 'religious' types?

I don't see the issue as one can be both leftist and religious. Hell there are even Marxists who are willing to ditch the traditional materialism (one is tempted to say they are showing their original Hegelian roots).  Whether or not oneshould be is a completely different question.

seigneur wrote:

FZM wrote:

The success of some spin campaign that the Soviets weren't really left wingers at all but were in fact 'religious' types?

Let's look at some objective criteria:

Soviet ideology promoted nationalism. Check.
Soviet ideology promoted family values. Check.
Stalin's personality cult with singing hymns and praises to his name, and referring back to him with reverence and devotion on every little local party meeting. Check.

These are conservative and religious values, are they not?

I disagree, they are values associated with some religious movements. They might be correct values but they do not directly follow from the truth of theistic claims. Conservative is a just a political term though as there is a lot of overlap between conservative and more traditional Christian values.

A better criteria for 'Religious values' would be:

Belief in a transcendent absolute good:
Belief that by certain forms of devotional praxis one can bring oneself closer to this good:
Belief in a soul and a transcendent afterlife:
 

Chit-Chat » How Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price prove convertibility » 10/23/2018 4:07 am

DanielCC
Replies: 15

Go to post

For obnoxious atheist Lovecraft scholars S.T. Joshi is worse than Price...

Although as with so many of the New Atheists I'm grateful to both Price and Joshi as their descent into political incorrectness has done much to explode the the Atheism = Leftism = Goodness therefore Atheism = Goodness reasoning so prevalent the 2000s. 

Religion » Trump is a messenger of HaShem » 10/22/2018 3:39 pm

DanielCC
Replies: 8

Go to post

Remember to keep things argument orientated please folks. I know politics stir the passions but we must seek to transcend partisan struggles.

Theoretical Philosophy » Why did the modern metaphysical picture of reality prevail? » 10/20/2018 5:51 am

DanielCC
Replies: 8

Go to post

RomanJoe wrote:

With regards to voluntarism and nominalism I'm referring to the shift in late medieval thinking away from the Aristotelian mindset and more towards something approaching theistic personalism--where God's will is seen as something unfettered by essences, final causality, natural kinds. Instead, the divine will in conjunction with omnipotence is viewed as something that could break causal connections, override the constitution of things thus changing what was seemingly their essence or form.

Come the advent of modernity virtually no non-idealist philosopher has thought this though. Descartes of course does say things like this about God's will but he was in an absolute minority (Leibniz and many others took him up over it very early on).

I find that definition of theistic personalism odd. On the ontological schema put forward by Plantinga and his followers God's Omnipotence does not allow Him override metaphysical necessity (necessity of nature). I agree that Ockham is responsible for that point about causal connections you make but in all fairness he was just drawing out the consequences of the scholastic emphasis on 'causal concurentism' as opposed to 'mere conservationism' (that God was required as an active as well as a sustaining cause, on which, of course, the temptation for Occasionalism raises its ugly head). I agree that Humea inspired scepticism about modality was a disaster for theology though.

So in answer I'd be more incline to blame this problems on the breakdown of understanding regarding the concepts involved (causality and essential properties for instance) rather than a theological change.

Ouros wrote:

DanielCC wrote:

Because of the early modern confusion of the a priori, an epistemic notion, with the necessary, a logical/metaphysical notion. This is what lead to Hume's Fork (as he assumed the only prospective form of non narrowly logical necessity was causal necessity) ergo the absurdity of Logical Positivism and towards t

Theoretical Philosophy » Why did the modern metaphysical picture of reality prevail? » 10/19/2018 5:15 am

DanielCC
Replies: 8

Go to post

Because of the early modern confusion of the a priori, an epistemic notion, with the necessary, a logical/metaphysical notion. This is what lead to Hume's Fork (as he assumed the only prospective form of non narrowly logical necessity was causal necessity) ergo the absurdity of Logical Positivism and towards the idealism of Kant and his followers.

I wouldn't call the modern metaphysical picture nominalist though, as one of the greatest achievements of early 20th century philosophy (Russell, Moore, Frege, Husserl and others) was killing stone-dead the old arguments for nominalism employed by Mill and co.

As for 'Voluntarist' what do you mean? If anything the modern picture from the 17th century onwards has been marked by philosophers trying to smuggle determinism in as a free will under the label of 'compatibilism'. Until Kant there were only a few who protested about this e.g. Reid and Clarke.

Practical Philosophy » Why has consent become the ruling principle of ethics? » 10/13/2018 4:55 am

DanielCC
Replies: 9

Go to post

I think people tend to confuse the ethical and the legal side of things. If someone freely permits one to do something to them one should not be legally responsible for any damage it causes (provided of course that the person granting permission foresees this). So I think it's based on a confusion between normativity and forensic responsibility.

I'd be cautious about throwing round accusations of 'Voluntarism' - from Hume onwards Anglo-Saxon philosophers have yearned for Compatibilism, which of course is no free will at all. Free will also presents a perennial annoyance for naturalists.

RomanJoe wrote:

I was having a conversation with a couple of friends. Somehow, after a few beers, we got talking about a notorious case where some guy consented to being cannibalized by another man. Both of them agreed that, since it was his choice and both parties gave full consent, there was nothing wrong with the cannibalization morally. One of them thought it was akin to cases of assisted suicide.

I would be interested in this persons opinion of dueling - is it permissible for two people to enter into a fight to the death providing they both agree to it to begin with.

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum