Sept. 10: Fate
|
|
|
To do for next class - 1) Read chp 5 & 6; Bring a question about philosophy to class that hasn't been answered in the text; Also, bring a philosophical question to class. |
To do for next class - 1) Read chps 7-9; 2) List all of the assumptions you notice that Taylor makes in his arguments for the nature of space and time. |
Freedom and determinism
What is determinism? For Taylor it is "in the case of everything that exists, there are antecedent conditions, known or unknown, which, because they are given, mean that things could not the other than they are." This principle assumes causes. Of course, we all as seemed causes in our everyday lives. Philosophers have used this assumption, since the time of Aristotle, to prove the existence of supernatural beings.
There is, of course, an important consequence of the thesis of determinism. As Taylor puts it "what am I been a helpless product of nature, destined by her to do whatever I do and to become whenever I become?" He provides for us the example of the kleptomaniac, alcoholic, and compulsive hero. He notes that these people can hardly be held morally responsible for something they cannot help but do. Given determinism, this seems to be the case for everyone. Of course, we may not be able to know all of the causes that produce a specific outcome (chaos theory guarantees this) but metaphysically speaking no one can be held responsible for anything. Of course, this is a consequence of determinism and is not going to help us decide whether determinism itself is true or false.
In trying to determine this Taylor takes as his data the fact that we think we deliberate and the fact that it is sometimes up to me what I do. He notes that:
What does it mean for something to be "up to me"? Clearly, it is not completely up to me how, for example, fast I can walk. Nevertheless, the conjunction "I believe that I can walk fast and I can walk slow in the future" (note that this is not a disjunction) seems to be a valid one. If this is not a valid conjunction then my speed of walking does not seem to be up to me. What do you think of these as data in themselves? (I.e. the belief that I do sometimes deliberate, and the belief that it is sometimes up to me what I do)
Logical versus causal possibility
What is the difference between causal necessity, impossibility, and possibility and logical necessity, impossibility, and possibility? How is this related to the thesis of determinism? In short, the difference is that in the causal cases we must consider the way the world actually works. In the logical cases, we must consider only what we can, in some sense, imagine. Logical possibility includes Santa Claus, unicorns, and headless men. Logical impossibility includes round squares, three-dimensional points, and married bachelors. Since the time of Hume, philosophers have denied that causal connections involve logical necessity. The determinism only assumes causal necessity. The denial of determinism insists on multiple causal possibilities. This is much more than a simple lack of constraints. If this were not the case, there would be no contradiction in saying that an action was both determine and free.
Soft determinism and indeterminism
What is soft determinism? (1) determinism is true (2) behavior
is free since it is not externally constrained (3) the causes
of behavior are acts of will.
Are there problems with this view? I will defend soft determinism.
(Infinite regress of causes: i.e. what are the causes of my volition?)
What does indeterminism entail? Simply it entails that my actions need not be caused. But, if they are not caused at all I might simply be a random motion machine (Daniel Bennett has an interesting paper on this topic). This does not seem to make the responsible for my actions. If I do not cause my actions they are not under my control.
Theory of agency
Taylor presents as a possible solution to the conflict between determinism and indeterminism the theory of agency. What the you think this theory is? How does it differ from soft determinism? The difference, I believe, can be found in his introduction of the self and nonsufficient causes. What is a self? A self or person seems to be more than just the collection of the parts of a person's body. Perhaps in includes the events which have affected the person. It is not entirely clear. In fact, it is very difficult to define precisely and opens as many difficulties as it solves. What about nonsufficient causes? In general, causes are thought by philosophers to be in antecedent sufficient condition or set of conditions. To deny a set of causes sufficiency seems to be denying they are causes.
Perhaps, like Socrates, we should be content with the wisdom gained from realizing our ignorance.
Fatalism
What is fatalism? How does it differ from determinism? The fatalism is born of the realization that much of what we do seems to be beyond or control. When and where we are born, whether we are male or female, our genetic makeup, and whether or not we live in San Francisco when the big one strikes, seem to be important in determining our destinies but also seem to be beyond our control. More than that, these features of our lives seem to be determined by coincidence and chance. Fatalism is the belief that whatever happens is unavoidable. This position seems to be entailed by a consistent determine this who endorses universal causation and the theory of causal determination of human behavior. The fatalism and determine this agree that the future is as the past -- fixed. Note that fatalism is not the belief that some things will happen no matter what. That, as Taylor notes, is a logically incoherent belief (e.g. not getting into a plane will prevent dying in a plane crash).
What does Taylor think are the benefits of fatalism? Do you agree? Taylor seems to feel quite strongly that fatalism should be a consolation. (Read the bottom of p. 56 to the top of p. 57) what sort of society would we have if everyone was a fatalist of the kind Taylor describes?
Sources of fatalism
What are the two main sources of fatalism? The two main sources of fatalism are religion and logic (science?). In particular, Christian religions hypothesize is the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God. Of course, if God is omniscient he knows both your future and your past in totality. Thus it seems what he knows of your future is fated for you. Fatalism is simply entailed by God's omniscience. The second source of fatalism is logic or science. It seems to be a presupposition of science and logic that there are true things and false things. In this case, we can see how there is a set of true sentences about our past. By extension, there should be some set of sentences, whether knowable by us or not, about our future which is true. If this set of sentences about the future are true at the present moment, it seems they are unavoidable and fatalism has won today.
Osmo's Story
What did you think of the story of Osmo? Taylor argues that the only difference between Osmo and ourselves is the psychological fact that he came to believe the set of true statements about his future. It seems to me on the assumption that statements are either true or false fatalism may be tautological. (Taylor also assumes that there can be a complete set of true statements about any event. One could defeat fatalism by denying this instead) Taylor realizes the first of these assumptions and therefore defends the law of excluded middle. What does he mean when he says "nothing becomes true or ceases to be true; whatever is truth at all simply is true?" What is the law of excluded middle? The law is that for any X such that X is a meaningful statement X is either true or false.
Did you have a favorite objection? Did you disagree with any of his rebuttals? My favorite was No. 5. Contrary to what Taylor claims, the law of excluded middle is not the holy cow of philosophy. It has come under fire from a number of logicians calling themselves intuitionists.
Summary and discussion
What is the position Taylor holds at the beginning of chapter 5 and into chapter 6? Are there any central assumptions he is making?
Taylor begins chapter 5 with the strong claim that there is no vagueness in reality itself. However, there are those including Prigogine who believe otherwise. Prigogine is a somewhat well respected chemist who has won a Nobel prize for his work in thermodynamics. More recently, he has been proposing a theory which presumes statistical measures rather than absolute ones to be the foundations of physics. He argues that the symmetry built into classical physics is not evident in reality itself and that a statistical view (especially one which includes the second law thermodynamics as fundamental) more easily accounts for the asymmetry we see in our world.
It seems evident to me that throughout this book Taylor has a very Newtonian view of the universe. When Taylor makes assertions like: "the sea, at any exact time and place, has exactly a certain salinity and temperature, and every grain of sand on its shore is exactly disposed with respect to all others" it can only be presumed that he believes these things because he either accept a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics or ignores it altogether. The question then comes are we granting Taylor too much in believing in his Newtonian universe? Taylor is able to provide a strong argument for determinism based on this assumption. This is not surprising as the assumption allows him to introduce and justified Laplacian demon.
1) Read chps 7-9; 2) List all of the assumptions you notice that Taylor makes in his arguments for the nature of space and time.