My Philosophy

[Philosofer123]

Over the past few years, I have formulated my philosophy of life, a 13-page document that may be found at the following link:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byh6...it?usp=sharing

In the first half of the document, I present and defend the following positions: atheism, afterlife skepticism, free will impossibilism, moral skepticism, existential skepticism and negative hedonism. The second half of the document is devoted to ways to achieve and maintain peace of mind.

I have found the entire exercise to be very beneficial personally, and I hope that you will benefit from reading the document.

I am posting my philosophy to solicit feedback so that it may be improved. I welcome any constructive criticism that you may have.

Enjoy!

[YesNo]

This is only a comment on the free will portion of the document. You believe that none of us are responsible for our intentional actions because: (page 3)

For any agent S and intentional action A, S does A because of the way S is in certain mental respects.

The phrase "in certain mental respects" is hand waving, but I understand that to mean we are determined by some material brain changes which we are apparently not responsible for. You might want to make this more precise by checking out various philosophers who study "mind". One reference giving a wide range of viewpoints would be The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Mind: http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Handboo.../dp/019959631X.

Let us assume you are right. That means you were not responsible for writing the paper which was an intentional act on your part. It also means that I am not responsible for this response that I am making because it also was an intentional act. Since neither of us are responsible for what we have written, is there any reason to continue the dialog?

Furthermore, does one even have the ability to decide whether something is true or false? That would be an intentional act and therefore determined. How do we know our assessments of truth or falsity, determined by whatever unconscious process is controlling us, are correct? The most that evolution would give us is that whatever we view as true or false gives us a greater ability to reproduce.

If what is true or false is therefore arbitrary, why bother writing a philosophy? Of course, if you are correct about free will, you had no real choice in performing that intentional activity.

[Philosofer123]

The phrase "in certain mental respects" is hand waving, but I understand that to mean we are determined by some material brain changes which we are apparently not responsible for.

I am referring to the agent's beliefs and desires. The regress argument assumes neither physicalism nor determinism.

Let us assume you are right. That means you were not responsible for writing the paper which was an intentional act on your part. It also means that I am not responsible for this response that I am making because it also was an intentional act. Since neither of us are responsible for what we have written, is there any reason to continue the dialog?

Of course. Just because I cannot be ultimately responsible for my actions does not mean I cannot change my mind.

Furthermore, does one even have the ability to decide whether something is true or false? That would be an intentional act and therefore determined. How do we know our assessments of truth or falsity, determined by whatever unconscious process is controlling us, are correct? The most that evolution would give us is that whatever we view as true or false gives us a greater ability to reproduce.

Again, the regress argument does not assume determinism. Also, the impossibility of ultimate responsibility does not rule out rational thought processes that can consider the evidence and the arguments and evaluate whether a particular statement is true or false.

If what is true or false is therefore arbitrary, why bother writing a philosophy?

What is true or false is not arbitrary, as discussed above. I wrote my philosophy because it enables me to determine how to live well.

[YesNo]

I am referring to the agent's beliefs and desires. The regress argument assumes neither physicalism nor determinism.

How does it avoid determinism? Or physicalism? To me this doesn't make sense. The concise version of the regress argument you state as:

More concisely, free will requires ultimate self-origination, which is impossible

Admittedly, no one has absolute free will. There are always influences and even subconscious actions that don't require a conscious choice. However, I hear you taking an extreme view that free will of any sort is impossible, that you cannot contribute adequately to any change that occurs sufficiently to be responsible for what happened. Basically, I hear you saying that you cannot make a choice of any sort and be responsible for that choice.

Of course. Just because I cannot be ultimately responsible for my actions does not mean I cannot change my mind.

Are you responsible for the act of changing your mind should it happen to occur? If you are not responsible, who or what is responsible for that occurring? I could suggest "evolution" or "natural selection" or "random neurons firing" as pseudo-agents whom some might see as responsible. They are pseudo-agents because they do not actually make choices themselves.

Again, the regress argument does not assume determinism. Also, the impossibility of ultimate responsibility does not rule out rational thought processes that can consider the evidence and the arguments and evaluate whether a particular statement is true or false.

I wonder what is required to have a "rational thought process". Do we need to make a choice in the process, for example, to remain rational since we don't have to? Do we have adequate free will to make that choice?

What is true or false is not arbitrary, as discussed above. I wrote my philosophy because it enables me to determine how to live well.

If free will is impossible, how could you live your life in any other way than you find yourself living it?

It's an interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up. I don't know the answers. I'm more trying to clarify what is involved for myself.

[Philosofer123]

How does it avoid determinism? Or physicalism? To me this doesn't make sense.

The regress argument allows for quantum indeterminism that does not translate into macro-level indeterminism, and it allows for randomness in one's unintentional actions. Also, even if there are indeterministic/random factors involved in one's intentional actions, one cannot be responsible for such factors, so the conclusion of the argument (that ultimate responsibility is impossible) still holds.

Admittedly, no one has absolute free will. There are always influences and even subconscious actions that don't require a conscious choice. However, I hear you taking an extreme view that free will of any sort is impossible, that you cannot contribute adequately to any change that occurs sufficiently to be responsible for what happened. Basically, I hear you saying that you cannot make a choice of any sort and be responsible for that choice.

My view is only that free will in the way I have defined it (in terms of ultimate responsibility) is impossible. Free will of other types may still be possible.

Are you responsible for the act of changing your mind should it happen to occur? If you are not responsible, who or what is responsible for that occurring? I could suggest "evolution" or "natural selection" or "random neurons firing" as pseudo-agents whom some might see as responsible. They are pseudo-agents because they do not actually make choices themselves.

Yes, the regress argument establishes that one's actions are ultimately a function of factors that are completely outside of one's control, such as heredity, sensory input, and random/indeterministic factors.

I wonder what is required to have a "rational thought process". Do we need to make a choice in the process, for example, to remain rational since we don't have to? Do we have adequate free will to make that choice?

A rational thought process is one that employs reason. No ultimate responsibility is required for one to apply reason.

If free will is impossible, how could you live your life in any other way than you find yourself living it?

You could not. But this is perfectly compatible with the usefulness of a philosophy of life.

[Skydaemon]

The regress argument allows for quantum determinism that does not translate into macro-level determinism, and it allows for randomness in one's unintentional actions. Also, even if there are indeterministic/random factors involved in one's intentional actions, one cannot be responsible for such factors, so the conclusion of the argument (that ultimate responsibility is impossible) still holds.

My view is only that free will in the way I have defined it (in terms of ultimate responsibility) is impossible. Free will of other types may still be possible.

Free will as I define it, is having the outcome of a choice you are faced with making be non-predetermined, or that you can affect the outcome.

Enter the two-face example (of batman fame). Deciding to make your choice based on a coin flip (or whatever substitute you wish for a random event) requires absolute universal determinism to make the outcome predetermined. Any randomness in the universe anywhere opens the door for free will. That you were destined to choose to leave it up to chance doesn't change the fact that the ultimate outcome isn't predetermined unless the whole universe is.

I dunno what you mean by ultimate responsibility, but it seems like a cop-out. You'd essentially have to claim that inanimate objects like the coin bear ultimate responsibility for choices, even though you selected the coin as arbiter, and you execute the action. If two-face points a gun at your head, and says you live or die based on the flip of a coin, he doesn't get to avoid ultimate responsibility for shooting you afterwards. In outsourcing your actions to chance, you are accepting responsibility for both possible outcomes. I also don't believe this constitutes an unintentional action. You've defined two intentional acts, and let chance choose which is executed.

[Philosofer123]

I dunno what you mean by ultimate responsibility, but it seems like a cop-out. You'd essentially have to claim that inanimate objects like the coin bear ultimate responsibility for choices, even though you selected the coin as arbiter, and you execute the action.

Not at all. I am claiming that ultimate responsibility is impossible.

If two-face points a gun at your head, and says you live or die based on the flip of a coin, he doesn't get to avoid ultimate responsibility for shooting you afterwards.

But the regress argument demonstrates that all of two-face's actions--including the action of "pointing a gun at your head, and says you live or die based on the flip of a coin"--are ultimately a function of factors completely outside his control. Therefore, two-face cannot be ultimately responsible for his actions.

[Skydaemon]

I don't really find determinism compelling, but if that pleases you so be it.

I find the focus odd though. You basically begin with an assertion that people aren't independent actors, have no agency, and everything they do is scripted by the universe. After that you proceed to discuss peace of mind and living well. I can't see how either matter in this theory.

In your theory, you really don't exist as an independent entity, at least, no more so than as a label. Why does it matter if you live well or not? You'll live as you were determined to, a gear in the machine, the concept of living well has no meaning. You aren't capable of living badly or well, just as you were molded to live. In this theory, I'm not sure "you" even should be recognized independently of the universe around you. The universe will act as it must, and there is no you.

[Philosofer123]

I don't really find determinism compelling, but if that pleases you so be it.

The regress argument does not assume determinism.

I find the focus odd though. You basically begin with an assertion that people aren't independent actors, have no agency, and everything they do is scripted by the universe. After that you proceed to discuss peace of mind and living well. I can't see how either matter in this theory.

In your theory, you really don't exist as an independent entity, at least, no more so than as a label. Why does it matter if you live well or not? You'll live as you were determined to, a gear in the machine, the concept of living well has no meaning. You aren't capable of living badly or well, just as you were molded to live. In this theory, I'm not sure "you" even should be recognized independently of the universe around you. The universe will act as it must, and there is no you.

You are confusing free will impossibilism with fatalism.

[Skydaemon]

The regress argument does not assume determinism.

You've claimed this but it isn't apparent how it's workable. To my eyes it does.

Simply, if determinism isn't in play, then your choices are not dictated by factors around you. Influenced sure, but not dictated. Influenced leaves, choice and responsibility intact.

This:

But the regress argument demonstrates that all of two-face's actions--including the action of "pointing a gun at your head, and says you live or die based on the flip of a coin"--are ultimately a function of factors completely outside his control.

is not true without an assumption of determinism. In any system but a deterministic one, the above is a choice.

[Skydaemon]

You are confusing free will impossibilism with fatalism.

I don't see how your argument differs in any respect from fatalism, but this comes down to determinism again. You seem to believe you've avoided determinism, and thus your theory isn't fatalism. I don't see it.

[Philosofer123]

You've claimed this but it isn't apparent how it's workable. To my eyes it does.

Simply, if determinism isn't in play, then your choices are not dictated by factors around you. Influenced sure, but not dictated. Influenced leaves, choice and responsibility intact.

This:


is not true without an assumption of determinism. In any system but a deterministic one, the above is a choice.

The regress argument allows for quantum indeterminism that does not translate into macro-level indeterminism, and it allows for randomness in one's unintentional actions. Also, even if there are indeterministic/random factors involved in one's intentional actions, one cannot be responsible for such factors, so the conclusion of the argument (that ultimate responsibility is impossible) still holds.

[Philosofer123]

I don't see how your argument differs in any respect from fatalism, but this comes down to determinism again. You seem to believe you've avoided determinism, and thus your theory isn't fatalism. I don't see it.

As I explained in my last post, the regress argument does not assume determinism. However, even if it did, it would not imply fatalism, since determinism does not imply fatalism.

[Skydaemon]

even if there are indeterministic/random factors involved in one's intentional actions, one cannot be responsible for such factors.

Why not?

If you know that pushing a button may make you rich, or it may blow up the world, and you push it, how do you avoid responsibility? Morally, ethically, you clearly bear responsibility, especially if you knew the range of outcomes in advance. Causally, you must assume at least partial responsibility for your action as well. This is like the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter. You are still responsible for it even if you didn't intend for the precise outcome.

I guess I just reject this notion that you claim no responsibility for your chosen actions if you don't know the outcome in advance or if randomness (especially limited randomness) is involved. Real world law tends to support this view as well. If you unleash a monster on the world, you are responsible for any damage it causes.

You seem to like this idea of unintentional actions as a method of absolving responsibility. I don't think intentionality is required for responsibility.

[Philosofer123]

Why not?

Because one cannot be responsible for randomness.

If you know that pushing a button may make you rich, or it may blow up the world, and you push it, how do you avoid responsibility?

As demonstrated by the regress argument, your pushing the button is ultimately a function of factors that are completely outside of your control, such as heredity, sensory input, and perhaps random/indeterministic factors. Since you cannot be responsible for these factors, you cannot be ultimately responsible for pushing the button.