Best free will & determinism books according to redditors
We found 58 Reddit comments discussing the best free will & determinism books. We ranked the 28 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 58 Reddit comments discussing the best free will & determinism books. We ranked the 28 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
land has a fixation on time stuff that i can't make heads or tails of. he wrote this, and is currently writing a book about bitcoin that from what he's mentioned so far seems to also be about weird time shit. maybe it's meaningful but it makes my eyes glaze over.
Four Views on Free Will by John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas is an excellent broad survey of the debate, and is a great introduction to the main ideas of the topic.
Schopenhaur is my favorite philosopher/writer. His writings are genius. I read http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Aphorisms-Penguin-Classics-Schopenhauer/dp/0140442278/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410879540&sr=1-1&keywords=schopenhauer after a suggestion here on TRP and I plan to read his main work, http://www.amazon.com/World-Will-Representation-Vol/dp/0486217612/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410879540&sr=1-3&keywords=schopenhauer when I find the time. My recommendations to everyone: read him, it is very, very pleasant literature.
A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will https://www.amazon.com/dp/019514970X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_yhZJxbH93KQ9M
https://smile.amazon.com/Four-Views-Free-Martin-Fischer/dp/1405134860
Agreed. Also Heretics.
A lot of scientists and indeed certain philosophers (or, at the least, people who have received a philosophical education) seem to consider determinism to be a settled question. However, there is some empirical work that seems to perhaps allow for indeterminism in the brain, and while the specifics are not fresh in my mind, Robert Kane's work makes use of some of this science. I'd recommend A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will to get you started, wherein he presents some of this science.
Many scientists are hard determinists because they take incompatibilism for granted. You are at least aware of compatibilism, so you don't seem to be doing this. As far as for what compatibilists say, it varies with the compatibilist, but the common thesis is that determinism doesn't threaten moral responsibility. Some of the more popular compatibilists are PF Strawson (Freedom and Resentment), Harry Frankfurt (Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility and Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person), and John Fischer & Mark Ravizza, who wrote Responsibility and Control, a very influential text that argues for semicompatibilism, the thesis that determinism doesn't threaten moral responsibility even if it does threaten free will.
Science cannot falsify compatibilism, and free will is completely plausible with what we know today.
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Oxford-Readings-Philosophy/dp/019925494X
or
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Hackett-Readings-Philosophy/dp/1603841296
or
http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Introduction-Free-Will/dp/019514970X/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414387211&sr=1-9&keywords=Free+will
We can change our desires and tendencies, but we will change them according to our current ones which include desire to change them in the first place. Moreover, our current desires are based on our previous desires which are based on even older desires. Ultimately, if we follow causation of each desire, we will end at factors upon which we had no control.
I assume, those factors which are beyond our control are what Einstein referenced when he paraphrased Schopenhauer.
In a previous thread you mentioned Sam Harris as a person who piqued your interest in free will debate. Even though I am a layman, I came to conclusion that Sam unknowingly or even worse knowingly left out many important questions (of which Frankfurt cases are most significant) unanswered in his book and speeches. I strongly encourage you to read proper positions on free will debate. My suggestion is book called 'Four Views on Free Will'. I also recommend Derk Pereboom's lectures if you gravitate toward position similar to hard determinism.
For anti-liberal books you may have to go far and wide, all the way back to Plato and Aristotle in some cases. I've read The Tyranny of Liberalism, which covers some of it, and these posts may have some hints; much of it comes from Thomistic thought which doesn't attack liberalism under that name. This one in particular is very apropro this year, as we see the Republican God embrace LBGT++ and gay marriage.
As for freedom of speech - we (in theory) have it in the USA, but as your examples show, it's not doing much for us. I think you've got the idea though - distributism is applied subsidiarity, and subsidiarity results in lots of authorities in different areas and spheres. So freedom of speech shouldn't be extended to prevent a Bishop from forbidding his priests to say Mass incorrectly, or to prevent you from throwing someone off your property who is yelling at you.
I do think that the correct response to "bad" speech is often going to be "good" speech. And sometimes good speech will result in death.
I should note that I think Aristotle is right about the size of a polity - about 100k max. I think distributism would lead towards that. More than that breeds all sorts of problems.
four views on free will. good book if you're interested in free will. each author has an article arguing for their position, and another responding to the other three articles. all four authors are leading writers on free will
Ebook: https://www.amazon.de/dp/B01N5WF7D3/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486156499&sr=8-1&keywords=julien+b%C3%B6ker
Physical: https://www.amazon.de/dp/1520519729/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1486156519&sr=8-2&keywords=julien+b%C3%B6ker
Like I said only in german right now, but will be available soon in english. I will let you guys know.
According to many traditionalist conservatives, the central tenet of liberalism is autonomy. Happiness doesn't really factor in so much because the highest good for the modern liberal, according to the traditionalist view, is the pursuit of individual preferences and desires insofar as one's pursuit does not infringe upon that of other autonomous individuals. Which explains why liberals are waging a secular jihad against all the received tradition, particular loyalties, and identities that are not freely chosen or are otherwise in conflict with the goal of equal satisfaction of desires.
This is clearly not the way to order a society. The logic behind liberalism doesn't distinguish the value between pursuing a lifestyle that leads to a happy outcome versus one that does not, as long as those outcomes are the result of autonomous decisions. If my choice is to cut my self off from all the meaningful social attachments that have traditionally been understood to lead to happiness and pursue a life of atomized hedonism, what liberal argument can stop me? I'd be miserable, but who are you to tell me what to do, shitlord? Unfortunately millions of people are doing just that and the consequences are plain to see. As James Kalb in his essay The Tyranny of Liberalism writes, "in the name of giving us what we want liberalism denies us everything worth having."
I found these books helpful in improving my understanding of liberalism:
The Tyranny of Liberalism by James Kalb
Against Liberalism by John Kekes
With Robert Kane, I suggest starting with A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will and then following it with Four Views on Free Will, a collaborative debate which includes other philosophers; with one each defending libertarianism, compatibilism, incompatibilism, and revisionism. You'll get a much better feel for the debate rather than a lopsided bias.
Before any of that, I suggest that you listen to Alfred Mele's interview debunking a lot of the pseudoscientific [mis]interpretations which have accrued around the subject of free will, and which are essentially to our era what phrenology was back in its heyday. He's written a few books on the subject, of which Free: Why Science Hadn't Disproved Free Will Yet is the most accessible.
Neuroscientist Peter Ulric Tse's The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation is also invaluable as far as providing a scientific account.
Don't know if its true, but this is one of my most favorite quotes on ants:
>"But the bulldog-ant of Australia affords us the most extraordinary example of this kind; for if it is cut in two, a battle begins between the head and the tail. The head seizes the tail in its teeth, and the tail defends itself bravely by stinging the head: the battle may last for half an hour, until they die or are dragged away by other ants. This contest takes place every time the experiment is tried."
>
> - Schopenhauer, Arthur (1818)
>
> Book: The World as Will and Representation
Bull ants don't f*ck around.
There are even a couple in that family of ant that have workers who are able to turn into queens unlike the normal/classical way that ant colonies work. They live more like cockroaches - a sort of collective of sisters.
On free will specifically? Start with the SEP to get a basis. Then for specific books and examples I'd recommend:
Metaphysics:
Conee and Sider's Riddles of Existence is a good place to start, I think.
You might also be interested in epistemology, given your enjoyment of the Matrix. Some epistemologists argue that we cannot know that we aren't in matrix-type scenarios.
Check out Pritchard's What is this Thing Called Knowledge? for a very accessible intro.
I think S. Blackburn's Think is an excellent introduction to some of the major areas in philosophy. You might also what to look at some of the philosophical books in the "Very Short Introduction" series, for example the Philosophy, Metaphysics, Ethics, Philosophy of Science and Free Will ones, which as you can guess are good places to start.
A book I quite enjoyed as an introduction to the great philosophers was The Philosophy Book, which not only gave clear descriptions of each of the philosophers' views, but also often gave a clear flowchart summary of their arguments.
I was introduced to his argument, and various arguments regarding free will, in my introductory Philosophy class. One of the books we were assigned was written by him: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Introduction-Free-Will/dp/019514970X
Quite a good book in my opinion, and covers a whole lot of different sides and views, with really no bias that I can tell.
Here's an overview of it though: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kane/
To quote Conee and Sider (2007): "Up, down, and here are not objective spatial features. They are not built into space; rather, they reflect perspectives on space."
I'd also recommend reading Schopenhauer, and Ligotti's book The Conspiracy against the Human Race. I do enjoy Cohle's diatribes, but for people who haven't heard of philosophical pessimism he can just sound like a depressed angry guy.
Here is the mobile version of your link
There is a great argument for the scientifically based idea that we do not have free will. Mark Balaguer and Sam Harris both have books that discuss this from a neurological stand point. Very good reading.
Sam Harris: Free Will
Mark Balaguer: Free Will
Sure - Aquinas (On Kingship and the Summa and his commentaries), Edward Feser, an internet clown named Zippy, Jim Kalb, St Peter & Paul, Leo XIII, and more.
Honestly, it took the clown to point out things I'd understood but couldn't explain; for example that something was off with the founding of America, and that the Enlightenment isn't the fulfilment of Aquinas's thought on law, and why voting always seems so squicky. Edward Feser pointed out similar things, but I honestly sometimes have a hard time following him.
No worries, I'm just chillin. Thanks for the recommendation, and I'll counter it with Schopenhauer's work, as it is more of my idea of God. https://www.amazon.com/World-Will-Representation-Vol/dp/0486217612
Certainly.
Film
Predestination IMDB
This movie was made from the book "All you Zombies" by Robert Heinlein. Amazon
Books
The Free Will Delusion: How We Settled for the Illusion of Morality
by James B. Miles Amazon
Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind
by Trick Slattery Amazon
The Cruelty of Free Will: How Sophistry and Savagery Support a False Belief Edition
by Richard Oerton Amazon
That's a few to get you started, I didn't want to overwhelm you. But if you read and watch these, in the next intelligent conversation you have you'll have a lot more to talk about.
You're not even aware that all of your "thoughts" have already been disproven. You're at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to understanding what reality is, and due to the Dunning-Kruger effect you really have no idea just how wrong you are. The universe is made of mathematics (numbers, i.e. sinusoidal waves within dimensionless - mental - Leibnizian monads). Ontological mathematics and the PSR is reality 'in itself'.
How shall we describe you? Which do you think fits best? Ortega mediocrity, extreme-sensory autist, Dunning-Kruger type, functionary, Mandarin, nihilist (in the worst possible sense, not in the life-affirming or Nietzschian sense), charlatan, arrogant Ignoramus, Sophist, anti-knowledge, anti-intellectual, anti-Truth, irrational (rejects the PSR and objective reason), empiricist (believes in what he "sees", just like any simple-minded animal), when the senses evolved for survival, not truth - and reality 'in itself' is not sensory, it is intelligible - conceptual - dimensionless (mental) - rational - mathematical - a priori - objective for everyone in the universe.
>assume there's a divine creator for a second, why is there one
There isn't. Invalid argument.
>the set A of axioms
You can't even get past your autistic fixation with non-existent sets when discussing "God", how sad.
>bunch of things that exist for no reason
Nothing exists for no reason. Leibniz, Godel and Hegel understood reality. You've failed at the first step.
>take the creator out of the discussion and everything functions the same
Take ontological mathematics (the PSR) out of the discussion and reality falls apart and can't function at all. Alternatively, reject reason in your delusional head and reality still functions the same, because reality couldn't care less about your moronic, already disproven, subjective opinions. The Truth is not a democracy.
Kudos to you for trying to answer, but all of the answers you've provided have already been disproven.
>There is no one system ... considering that we can't actually prove the universe exists at all under Cartesian skepticism
There must be 'one system', one Theory of Everything with which to understand reality. The universe is one system, completely interconnected and holographic. Pretending that "the universe may or may not exist" is defeatist, anti-rational and fails at the first hurdle. The universe exists. Non-existence rationally cannot exist.
>"Mind" as far as language goes, appears to be an idea separate of the brain that encompasses the actions that go on in the head by normal physical laws.
My God, could you get any more autistic? It's not about semantic language, it's about what 'mind' is. Cartesian mind (unextended, 0-dimensional frequency domain) is the counterpart to Cartesian matter (extended, 6-dimensional spacetime domain) To dismiss mind as "nonexistent" because you can't "see" or sense it, is anti-rational.
>As per above, the head
You're objectively wrong, mind is nowhere with regards to spacetime, it is in the dimensionless mathematical Singularity, the infinite plenum of Leibnizian monads.
>Mind *is* matter
Objectively wrong. Read: How Science [Empiricism] Undermines Reason. Otherwise get lost, because it's moronic to attack a position without studying it, or knowing the first thing about it.
>Existence is just the state of being included in the set of "things that exist"
Stupid answer. I asked what existence is MADE FROM. WHAT IS THE ARCHE? You didn't even understand the fucking question, it's entirely beyond you. You state "existence is the set of things that exist" as if that fucking meant something, when it just begs the question. Existence is actually made from reason (mathematics).
>There is no free will, just the illusion of it. Sure I may act as if I have free will, as I am incentivised to do so, but none of these decisions were made by rules that defied normal material logic in the
What so, I'm being trolled right now by a collection of random atoms, by arrangements of food, by a pre-programmed robot? Who fucking knew. I CHOSE to respond to you. I had the choice: I could CHOOSE to ignore you (which is what you deserve) or respond (even though your IQ barely escapes single digits, so you won't understand anything I write). Empiricist, materialist, "illusory free will", braindead. Determinism applies to temporal objects within dimensional spacetime: monadic minds are uncaused causes outside of spacetime, in the dimensionless (non-sensory) Singularity, and therefore have total free will. Book you need to read
>They are just models of reality that are the most accurate that we have that we hope to discard into a single, more accurate model.
You're not interested in reality, just useful models. Just empirical accuracy (but never eternal Truth) - mathematics. The single, 100% accurate model is mental, ontological mathematics. Because you're a braindead empiricist, you'll never grasp that salient fact. Science advances one funeral at a time.
>No reason, just that we can only observe
You're so much like an animal, that "just observes". It's like a cockroach decided to incarnate into human form but still doesn't have a fucking clue what knowledge is, and he just "crawls around and observes". There's something rather than nothing, "for no reason". That's a non-answer, evasion and begs the question.
Given that you can't understand anything else I don't expect you to understand Godel either, you'll just misinterpret him with your empiricist/materialist/sensory/irrational bias. He was a rationalist in the Leibnizian vein, and you can't even understand his thoughts, my thoughts, or the thoughts of ontological mathematics. They're literally beyond you, since you're a "no reason, just observing" cockroach pretending to be human.
>Accepting that there can be no reason is perfectly valid
Then why are mathematical laws - Euler's Formula, any scientific formula you can think of (that hasn't been butchered by materialism) always correct? If there was "no reason" then this would be a 0% rational universe, which means it would be a permanent LSD trip of magic and miracles, not a rational universe governed by mathematical laws. Or you were going to say: "For no reason (grunts)", right? Get fucking lost.
My apologies for misunderstanding you. Your use of language here seemed to suggest you were working from a vague definition of Impressionism that doesn't accurately represent that movement (most definitions of Impressionism are like that, unfortunately):
>Like in the sunken cathedral, it is chock full of moments where debussy is playing the piano, using specific techniques and harmonic and rhythmic choices to give the listener the impression of bells ringing or the impression of the cathedral rising and sinking in the water or any other number of things.
The issue there being that Impressionism in visual art is not about "giving the viewer the impression" of a thing (which Symbolism has in spades), not of merely representing the thing (which you can do with any style and technique, really), but of communicating the painter's perception of the thing. Subjectivity is the topic of the painting. I assumed that if you were being careful about the distinction, you wouldn't be using that word so haphazardly.
>When I was taught about impressionism in music school, we still talked about all the things you talk about with debussy and symbolism, we just called it impressionism.
So our two choices are 1.) keep calling it Impressionism and perpetuate an inaccurate notion of what Impressionism was, or 2.) actually look up what Impressionism was and what Symbolism was and use that to inform our discussion about how and if to describe Debussy's music as analogous to art works in other media. It's pretty lousy musicology to look the other way on a historical movement with which the composer was actually associated in favor of a corrupted adjective that has been uncritically passed along, so I would vie for the second option.
>But when I say lets look at it in a vacuum, I really mean that Im not sure we define impressionism the same way in music as you do in visual art.
And this is a critical point! European modernist art movements contended with the problem of representation, responding to an established order that was breaking down in the newly industrialized 19th century, as well as to technologies like photography and new paint production methods. Impressionists could look at a subject and say, "That cloth is white... but I see a bunch of different colors in it, actually." Is there a way to do this in music? I really don't know. In a way, I feel like the Spectralists come close, in that their method was to do a spectral analysis of a trombone note for example and reassemble the structure of partials by orchestrating them out.
But this is at most an aesthetic and technical parallelism: the Spectralists had different priorities than the Impressionists, they were expressly mediated by computer analysis (consider the implications upon the subjectivity the Impressionists sought to preserve), and the analogy to representation in visual art is still pretty tenuous. The thing that confined Impressionism to painting was its focus on techniques and problems unique to painting. The requirements for an Impressionist aesthetic are perhaps incompatible to music or literature. Schopenhauer famously remarked upon how "direct" music is, how it does not need to rely upon representation of reality to get its point across:
>>The inexpressible depth of all music, by virtue of which it floats past us as a paradise quite familiar and yet eternally remote, and is so easy to understand and yet so inexplicable, is due to the fact that it reproduces all the emotions of our innermost being, but entirely without reality and remote from its pain. In the same way, the seriousness essential to it and wholly excluding the ludicrous from its direct and peculiar province is to be explained from the fact that its object is not the representation, in regard to which deception and ridiculousness alone are possible, but that this object is directly the will; and this is essentially the most serious of all things, as being that on which all depends. (The World as Will and Representation, vol.1, 264)
This makes music just fine for the methods of the Symbolists, but arguably makes Impressionism in music an impossibility.
Blargh! No, don't read Sam Harris. He's a charlatan.
Here is a much more intellectually serious introduction to free will:
https://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Introduction-Free-Will/dp/019514970X
Ahoy burnerOneHour! Nay bad but me wasn't convinced. Give this a sail:
Blargh! Nay, don't read Sam Harris. He's a charlatan.
Here be a much more intellectually serious introduction t' free will:
https://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Introduction-Free-Will/dp/019514970X
> While it might raise the question of why we weren't created with the beatific vision, simply raising the question does not disprove Aquinas's position. A question is different from a challenge.
You're right and I was not clear. The question would be this: if it is possible for God to create a world without sin (think beatific vision) initially, why didn't he? If sin is the ultimate evil, then God--being both perfectly good, all powerful, and all knowing--would create a world in which humans would never sin. He would have the knowledge, power and goodness to make it happen. This holds especially true if compatiblism is true.
The Plantinga free will defense has solved the logical problem of evil. No serious atheist philosopher even attempts to salvage the logical form knowing Plantinga single handedly buried it. The Thomist does not have this defense available for himself.
The problem, bluntly speaking, with compatibilism is that God is still the ultimate metaphysical cause of all human action, including the most morally heinous and disgusting acts in human history. Catholics like to laugh at Calvin and Luther but are committed to the same exact metaphysic.
> A choice is always made with determinism? What does choice even mean, then? Do you just mean that every situation is contingent? What about in the case of necessary truths? Where is the choice in say, the truth "God exists"? Or "Socrates is a man"?
All I can say here is you might want to read a philo of action book if you're not clear what I mean by this. This might seem harsh but if you cannot grasp the basic concepts of how, even under determinism, a choice is always happening, you need an introduction. I would recommend this book.
> Frankly nothing I've ever read by Plantinga suggests that he understands Aquinas much at all.
It just depends on what you have read by Plantinga. Plantinga is far beyond both of us, I would hope you admit.
https://www.amazon.com/Prize-Freedom-Cambridge-History-Philosophy/dp/0521577667/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1502897876&sr=1-3-fkmr1&keywords=schopen+prize+essay
http://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Great-Debates-Philosophy/dp/1405134860
> I'd love to have a list of references or at least critical works that led you to this then.
The Tyranny of Liberalism by James Kalb is the best reading I can recommend. Also, the author of this blog was my teacher IRL. He has a series of posts that gives Liberalism a much more comprehensive treatment than my paper.
> Also it seems your excruciating detail has left you emotionally invested in the thinking to the point that even with an unsolved case you can't admit you might be in error.
It's not that I'm emotionally invested. It's that Liberalism doesn't stand up to logic. I don't believe in Liberalism for the same reason I don't believe in square circles.
> "Objective evidence" is physical, observable, and measurable. It's used in scientific research and criminal investigations, rarely in philosophical discussions.
Objective is not a synonym for physical.
> Solve the above ambiguous case and we'll talk more. Until then your argument is refuted.
Except it's not. Lacking logically positivist verification criteria doesn't refute anything. Logical positivism is, after all, an error.
What I can tell you for sure is that you didn't tell me anywhere near enough about the situation to come to a right judgement. Where are the men? Who is the closest to death? How much chance of help is there? These are important considerations.
I like dipping in and out of conflicting worldviews, but if you want just one, from what you've written I think you might like panpsychism. I don't know of a lot of books on the subject, but Panpsychism by Peter Ells is an interesting introductory-level book.
There are more options if you want to go college philosophy level, but I've never read them. IMO Panpsychism is somewhere between philosophy and pop/amateur philosophy, but it's worth reading if you're interested. Personally I'm more a fan of Yogacaran "all is mind" but I don't know of a clear text on the subject, and if you're into something like physicalism that might not be your thing.
This on my Christmas list would get me some Britishness and my wife might make a man out of me when it arrives.
This would help me in my research and career
This pen scanner is the geekiest thing I've got
This book is phallic because it relates to psychoanalysis
To begin with the end of your response.
I don't think eliminating people who don't want that would be enough, unless you are willing to go full Khmer Rouge. Most of the people who are pushing ideas that would expand state power and bureaucracy are not doing so to push state power and bureaucracy. It happens as an unintended consequence. Many of them might in fact believe that they are limiting it, for instance, by expanding freedoms, rights, and so on, and yet not realizing that to enforce these rights they will have to radically expand state power. This is why, instead, I am more interested in disrupting the ideological apparatus that keeps the who wheel rolling, not unlike what Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and so on did to the ideology that dominated before them. I mean, mass murder eventually happened - just further down the line.
Why does my preference matters? At the moment, it really doesn't. Look at me. I'm just a dude discussing semi-obscure writers on a fringe sub-reddit of a fringe movement. My ideas will only matter if I can one day present, argue for, and eventually rally others to my ideas.
I would also say that I am an impotent subject who desires not to be impotent. If I wasn't, I would just go on to enjoy life under modern capitalism like all the other subjects out there. After all, it's not an uncomfortable existence. Though for personal reasons I do hate it.
And now, for the actually hard question - who gives a damn.
Okay. This is a bit hard to tldr for the sake of a comment, but here goes. I really need to get reading and writing so that these things can be out there to provide further context.
So when I say "I don't want to see any more expansion of state power and bureaucracy'', I am saying the following things:
Negatively: I oppose further expansion because I consider state power, bureaucracy, and the legal-rationalistic model as understood by Weber has de-humanizing, alienating, and turning us into human resources to be taxed and managed. I disagree fundamentally with Imperial Energy's conceptualization of the state as a sort of super-predator, and rather follow Foucault in agreeing that it's basically a shepherd of individuals, an impersonal resource manager. This clashes with my conception of the good life and how we should lead lives as humans, and therefore I take exception to it and will fight against it.
To expand further, the modern state also more or less dissolves natural human relationships such as associations, guilds, and nations, leading to a general impoverishment of culture. In other words, the expansion of state power and bureaucracy is the expansion of gessellschaft and its attendant ills. An impoverished and bare life, despite our abundance of material goods. In the words of William Morris, an age of shoddy things.
Positively: I want a return to what Benjamin Constant called ''Ancient politics'', or a return to Aristotelian body politic. A return to gemeinschaft. All modernist political movement are repeating the same mistakes. We need a complete re-framing of the conversation. We need a new political and moral theory if we are to actually get ourselves out of this.
So let's be clear here: I'm just another disgruntled modern subject suffering from a certain malaise. The only difference between me and the next poor schmuck, however, is that I have been trying to 1) conceptualize and articulate the problems and 2) actually come up with solutions, proposals, and plans.
I hope I addressed your questions without shifting goal posts too much.
> gishgallop me
"Bro you gave me so many alternatives to my stemlord hyperdeterminism wtf gish gallop"
Amazing take
> mutually exclusive
If you read the first 10 pages of Tse's book he literally says that Robert Kane's model of Ultimate Responsiblity and Self Forming Actions are compatible with his criterial causation model, so no, they aren't mutually exclusive, he explains a different physical method of it occurring though the primary requirements for both forms of free will are the same.
> I'll start challenging them one by one.
Or you could just... read a fucking book :)
Harris's doesn't count btw.
> Pretending that Kane's position is not ridiculous is the opposite of being serious about the conversation.
I guess if i only read one page critiques and none of Kane's responses or none of the alternative formulations and explanations done by Mele like you did this conversation, then sure, I can see that being your take.
Whatever brother, I'll let you go back to complaining about Jordan Peterson and incels, you really are doing God's work, or just work once you finish that little endeavor of yours.
If you're interested in learning more about the debate surrounding free will, causal determinism, moral responsibility, etc. I recommend reading the following book:
https://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Free-Martin-Fischer/dp/1405134860
​
It's an excellent introduction to the issues surrounding Free Will and it gives equal time and space to the various stances, and also allows the four authors to respond to each other's arguments. On a personal note, Fischer was one of my philosophy professors in college and I still consider him a mentor years later.
Here's a good start for metaphysics: https://www.amazon.com/Riddles-Existence-Guided-Tour-Metaphysics/dp/0199215189
If you want a free PDF, check LibGen.
If one decides to perform an action in advance, and then performs that action, was it not a self-determined action? He was determined to slap the person in advance, but it was still a choice he made given many alternative options. Furthermore, is free will simply the freedom of action, or is it also the freedom of self-determination? I would argue that free will gives us the freedom to form ourselves into the people we wish to be, not just to perform the actions we wish to perform. He may have shaped himself into the type person that would slap an opponent instead of debating. Since this sub is about existentialist philosophy, you will probably find more people here agree with the idea of shaping ourselves into the people we wish to be.
>(or as Steven Pinker puts its a ghost inside your body pushing all the buttons)
Ah, another reference to a "pop intellectual" who isn't an expert in philosophy or free will. I've seen Sam Harris, Robert Salpolski, and now Steven Pinker as the defenders of hard determinism. It tends to be neuroscientists and psychologists in the popular science community. Why hasn't anyone mentioned a professional philosopher that shares their deterministic views; one who can provide a solid philosophical foundation for such beliefs? It may be because the majority of professional philosophers either believe free will is compatible with a deterministic universe, or that there is free will and it is incompatible with determinism.
>Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.
If you're interested in learning more about the justifications and challenges for free will, I recommend reading Elbow Room by Daniel Dennet and Four Views on Free Will. I can guarantee you'll learn more about free will from those two books than you will by listening to Steven Pinker.
Free Will, MIT Press essential knowledge series.
Five Books recommendations.
Free Will Explained, for the philosophically naive determinist.