Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ludovico]

On the other hand, materialism means everything we do is governed by bio-chemistry in our brains. There can be no free will, as all the universe is governed by a materialistic dynamic of cause and effect. The sick bastard who killed that 10 year old girl is no more responsible for what he did than hurricane Katrina is New Orleans.

With nothing greater than ourselves, we can create our own ethics. Terminating another persons life is merely moving up the date of the inevitable, afterwhich the victim has no awareness - so no harm.

While creating our own ethics can give us a Bentham and Kant, it can also give us a Machiavelli and Tony Soprano.

[MariusVI]

I don't think materialism necessarily entails determinism, or even, as you seem to imply, something that goes in the direction of predestination. I am in favor of the view that free will has to be created, even enforced (there's a great deal of punishment and threatening involved), in an organism, say a human being, by culture - by other, mosttimes older human beings who have already been conditioned in a similar manner. Yes, indeterminism sprouting from determinism - free choice being a matter of having been disciplined and trained in the course of years and years in saying "no" against all kinds of urges, and "yes" to the pains that come with hard work, study, etc. Free choice, I said, so you're still able to say "yes" to the urges or any particular urge, and "no" to study and an energy-sucking career. If free will had been given to humans by some kind of metaphysical state of the universe, one wouldn't be able to train them, to discipline them, to make them tough and persistant - and, factually, one wouldn't really need to care about training and disciplining them. But we do care, and take care - because in spite of all highstrung belief we know that our children won't come to any free will without us forcing them to. And we can force (as well as seduce) them because they aren't born with free will, but as mere bodies susceptible to pain, want, etc.

Or in other words, free will isn't necessarily linked to religion (or metaphysics). And it isn't given - we have to forge it in the uncreated conscience of our children, just like it was once forged in ours, long years ago. If you have children yourself, I'm sure you've done this: saying "no" when they wanted a cookie in the end gave them the capability to say this "no" themselves, to control their urges and desires, to stretch their will over years. Similarly, punishing them when they got bad grades made them work harder, and train both their intellect and their self-control, etc. Really, a lot of people will deny what I am propounding here in words, but affirm it in deeds.

Regarding your other claim: ofcourse we are creating our own ethics, but this is a sociological and not a psychological process, and therefore hardly to be controlled by any of us. A whole different thing would be the psychological process, involving the individual - as I'm sure you know, you being a librarian, Dostoevsky experimented with this in Crime & Punishment, showing us the individual who is convinced he can create his own ethics. The problem is that he starts, and keeps starting, from the standpoint of the individual and his subjectivity: there is a primacy of the self, which breaks down once he is really confronted with the other. What I was hinting at in my previous message is that in materialism one may find a primacy of the other, or at least an affinity with that primacy... leading to a far different conclusioin than you draw.

[Ludovico]

Seems that everything you talk about is the opposite of free will. From the second we come out of the womb, and maybe before, all experience begins to shape us. These societal forces may discipline us, but that's self control, not free will. We become a puppet of our family, culture....all social influences. While we may resist inner urges, we may also kill because out society demands it - honor, duty, loyalty, etc. infringe on our free will, not enhance it. Around the world female genital mutilation occurrs due to societal ethics. These people actually think they are doing the right thing.

However, the main point is how does free choice occur if our mind is a product of the physical brain. Our choices would be the result of brain biochemisty. Is there anything in chemical or physical science that allows for a freely chosen result?

Raskolnikov finally makes the right decision due to his conscience. How does this happen in brain chemistry? Seems that unless we have a conscious process independent of pure material biology, free will is a dubious concept.

That implies something metaphysical. This would also allow us to break free of societal influence, and make independent (not merely disciplined) choices.

[MariusVI]

No, conscience isn't of much importance to Raskolnikov: he turns around because his self-control, his autonomy fails. If his story would be only a matter of conscience, it would get in touch with the thoughts of such "nihilist" Russian writers of the 1860's as Chernychevsky, Pisarev and Dobruljubov - the people Dostoievski declared his opponents. Understanding his novel as a polemic against nihilism's advocacy of not only rationalism in everything, but also and foremost of the possibility of shaping and governing yourself, I don't favor an interpretation of it that moves in the direction of conscience.

I indeed think children are a "puppet" of societal forces, culture, family, social influences, and certainly their own bodily urges - that, as a matter of fact, is what I stated. Indetermination (indeterminism) issues from determination (determinism) - or at least, it may issue from it, under the right circumstances. I don't think the proverbial child raised by wolves will develop in such a way - or maybe it will, wolves being more social and caring than a lot of people. The point I try to raise is that free will has to be fostered by society in its children (not to mention its older constituents), and that the only possibility for raising it lies in these children's capacity of being determined - in really complex, because often (seemingly?) inconsistent and contradictory ways, making them individuals in whom a lot of different forces keep eachother in check.

It's on that point, where they are keeping eachother in check, until their conclave releases one of them, that free will has to be located. Ofcourse it is determined, a product of decades of determination encompassing the very visuality and language this conclave has to work with. (If you agree that our linguistic skills are determined, by the way, you'll either have to state that free choice involves no language at all, or that determination enters into free will.) In other words, indetermination is determined - a thousand times, by circumstances, hundreds of lines of causality, language, the extent of our rational skills, etc. This determination provides us with the intelligence to discern several options and think them over - and choose between them, freely, because it can choose either the one or the other option, against a background of determination. Balancing on this point of discernal is what we have to teach our children - or maybe not. Raskolnikov did his balancing act and decided that if there was the option to kill, and his will was truly free, he could decide to kill and carry this killing out without any further consequences for his mental health - so he decided that much. Maybe we don't want to overdo any lessons in free will...

I'm against all metaphysics. You seem to say a man can break free from societal influence, but that also encompasses rationality and language - breaking free from those two means becoming an animal, and certainly not moving into the direction of free will. Furthermore, we don't need any metaphysics in order to believe in free will - the state of thinking has made some progress since the nineteenth century, after all. Free will can arise in the realm of physics, in which it ofcourse will be limited to the options the intellect is capable of discerning, and in which it will be determined - and a locus of indetermination. Ofcourse the meaning of the words "determination" and "indetermination" shifts here - adapts itself to 21st century science. And it ought to do so, after the so-called "Linguistic Turn:" indetermination now encompasses several meanings of the word "determination," therefore encompasses determination, in a manner of speaking - just like determination encompasses several meanings of the word "indetermination" (I'm thinking of quantum physics and string theory here), therefore encompassing indetermination. It's no longer a case of pitting words against eachother, no: as we are no longer dealing with metaphysical absolute, semantics become muddled, and that is what we have to adapt to.

At least... you people will have to adapt to my muddled semantics, I guess. I'm sure I can express myself better in my native language, but in English this is as good as it gets - I can't invest too much time in this discussion, after all. If I give it a shot and try to be really clear, I'd guess I'd have to say something like that: freedom and matter no longer have to be seen as mutually exclusive, but meet eachother in a point where no absolutes exist and clear-cut lines get blurred - in understanding this the meaning of our words evolves into something less "clair et distinct," but more in touch with our way of being in this world.

[Ludovico]

Well, you express yourself very well. However, I'm wondering if your agument based on the highest level of physics isn't actually what was orignally meant by metaphysics.  As you point out, and as Shakespeare stated to aptly, the problem is words, words, words !

Materialism no longer means a Newtonian universe, so doesn't modern theoretical physics contain all the elements of metaphysics. We are talking about the ultimate nature of the universe! Seems we have already gone far beyond materialism - so where will it take us? That remains to be seen. We may merely be trapped by old dichotomies which are no longer relevant.

When I talk about breaking free of societal forces, I do not meant going back to lord of the flies. I envision it to be more like Plato's alegory The Cave . From birth, we are chained up looking a shadows, but it is possible to break free, and obtain objective clarity. Of course, all those still seeing shadows will persecute us, for once our eyes adjust to the light, we are capable of seeking a real truth free of that which is imposed by society. That doesn't mean we will agree, but simply be capable of having genuine discussion, not merely parroting the conventional.

I have to disagree about Raskolnikov. I read this great novel long ago, but I think the whole point is his conscience overcomes his rational, individualistic (and possibly utilitarian) thinking.

[t'Sade]

Please forgive me for not jumping in on this, but frankly, you blew past me about three pages ago and I'm frantically googling to try keeping up. Oh, and this is an absolutely fascinating conversation.

[Ludovico]

Please forgive me for not jumping in on this, but frankly, you blew past me about three pages ago and I'm frantically googling to try keeping up. Oh, and this is an absolutely fascinating conversation.

Thank you for hosting it! 

[MariusVI]

Heh, I guess I'll have to accept your disagreeing about the Raskolnikov case, as I've said nearly everything that can be said about it without resorting to endnotes, and a very detailed reading of the novel. If you read the novel a very long time ago, however, it might be worthwhile to re-read it, keeping my explanation in mind - I assure you the book doesn't lose anything of its vitality in re-reading it: it becomes more dear.

Indeed, physics and metaphysics may be difficult to separate - in certain points. But this failure of separation doesn't mean the whole of metaphysics suddenly enters into physics, or gets involved with it and credible to me - let's view metaphysics as a scale, one end of it merging with physics, the other still keeping its distance.

But yes, dichotomies smack too much of Hegelianism to me - in truth, if I dare say such a thing, nearly everything just moves past everything, failing to fully hit (contradict) anything: there are no contradictions (of thesis and antithesis), except in formal logic and mathematics. To bring in Shakespeare once again, not the time, but the order of thought is out of joint - and therefore capable of understanding a lot more than when it wouldn't be: just think of all the details, nuances, slightly inconsistent stories and arguments it may be able to fathom now!

"Objective clarity" is a phrase which, I'm sure, is going to make you feel uncomfortable... If not, I'm willing to return to it after I've had some sleep - I didn't get any since posting my previous message here. All kinds of family alerts are calling me from one side of the country to the other, and I'm taking care of people 22 hours a day (24 would be an exaggeration). OK, sometimes my head sinks and I nap a little, but I wouldn't call it sleep...

I would call sleep what I'm going to get now!

t'Sade, if you never read Dostoievsky: Crime and Punishment would really grip you, and we could talk about his other books later...

[t'Sade]

t'Sade, if you never read Dostoievsky: Crime and Punishment would really grip you, and we could talk about his other books later...

I'll put that on my list of things to read. It's a bit bigger and I have to finish this novel I started writing, but I'll read it sooner than later. Plus, I want to understand what y'all are saying.

[Ludovico]

t'Sade, if you never read Dostoievsky: Crime and Punishment would really grip you, and we could talk about his other books later...

I'll put that on my list of things to read. It's a bit bigger and I have to finish this novel I started writing, but I'll read it sooner than later. Plus, I want to understand what y'all are saying.

That would be really good - cause then you could explain it to us !!  

Hope you got some sleep, Marius...

It's interesting you associate thesis/antithesis with Hegel. Almost all books state it that way, and it's the usual way Hegel is taught. However,  it actually came from Fichte, and was rejected by Hegel, who always got annoyed people explained him that way.

Hegel also felt there were no dichotomies, or static moments of being. All reality is in a constant state of becoming (he gives credit to Heraclitus), and at no single instant is there permanence. This continual state of change (or evolution) is caused by internal contradictions  , which are in all existence. These contradictions lie within all things themselves, not as two separate opposites. He calls it unity in diversity. This is why change is continuously occurring: The Dialectic ! 

Hegel is extremely  hard to understand (he did this purposely) - you kinda need to grasp him intuitively. However, for him, all reality had a meaning, and was moving towards and end. In materialism, we must create our own meanings - which can be quite dangerous, as Raskolnikov demonstrates.

I don't think anyone really has objective clarity . It's a goal and process. You can only begin the process of reaching objective clarity when you realize you don't have it. By accepting absolutely everything you believe may be wrong, you are on your way.

Socrates spent (and gave) his life trying to show this.

[der Wandersmann]

The Tentmaker said it best:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

[MariusVI]

Well, Lud, actually I didn't use Hegel's name, but was only referring to Hegelianism - that which was done using his books, and often not even that, in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Still, though I do sympathize a bit with your way of understanding Hegel, I'm not sure we're really talking about the historical Hegel here anymore... It seems to me there might be some influence of a couple of French differentialists interfering.

Apart from this, I was using the word "dichotomies" to conjure the association of (semantic) forces meeting eachother sort of head on (more or less), instead of just brushing past eachother. As language isn't much of a problem for Hegel yet, it's difficult to take this brushing into account - language, and maybe thought as well, keeps functioning pretty much as formal logic, pitting A against -A both on the verbal and on the conceptual/referential level. Like this: rationalism and irrationalism must be conceptual/referential opposites and in perpetual tension, because these words translate into (basic) formal logic as A and -A. This being the case, their conceptual/referential/(extensional) "content" can't occupy the same space - there can't be a shared set. Freud, often called an irrationalist, must for this reason, or in this mode of thought, be completely opposed to Mach, often called a rationalist - but he isn't. Nor is he opposed against reasoning in a surrealist way (and really, the surrealists didn't quit reasoning either), and a lot more could be said about this. No, the meaning of the word "irrationalism" can and often will be such that it will "glide through" the semantic realm of a meaning of the word "rationalism," or will glide past it without communicating with it. But in Hegelianism (and more, in Hegel), I believe, there's a lot of communication happening, and it's remarkably well-ordered, systematic, even machinic. The word "dichotomies" was used by me while thinking of these topics, and not of an ontology of being vs. becoming.

Anyway, what makes you think that Hegel tried to be opaque on purpose?

[Ludovico]

     Some think Hegel felt it added to his alure, and that he could have explained his ideas more simply. It took me over an hour to get through the Phenomenology (although I was watching Dr. Zhivago at the same time). 

     You refer to formal logic a lot, but does it ever translate into real topics?  As you say, the problem is language - which is not reality, only our way of expressing it. Therefore, in actual reality, dichotomies may not exist - we only create them in our attempts to understand and express them. Rationality and Irrationality may be two sides of the same coin - not separate ways of thinking.

If we stop thinking in words, and then trying to communitcate it to others, we may be able to gain the real truth.

[MariusVI]

The Tentmaker said it best:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

Sorry, I didn't recognize this before, though I did read Edward Fitzgerald a couple of years ago. Ay-Wun mentioned Omar Khayyam, so I thought, time to reread...