What about the concept of ‘free will’? Is the concept of free will incoherent? Take, for example, knowing that this page is black and white. This means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going to the brain. It also means an awareness of this. What is it? Is it incoherent to say humans are embodied spirits?
What about the concept of ‘free will’? Is the concept of free will incoherent?
Yes, it is. Intentionality (will) is generated by certain causal properties of the brain and its interactions with the environment. People have will, but it is not free. In fact, ‘free will’ is gibberish; since if your actions are not decided by your values and thoughts then they aren’t even your values. Even aside from the mechanical issue Austrian economics would imply a logical determinism in that a man can not do other than what he wants to.
-
Ask a question
-
Answer question
-
Suggest your own answer
-
Verify your answer
-
???
-
Profit.
In the method of inquiry called metaphysics, we assume humans have free will and that therefore human beings are finite beings. Beings that begin to exits at some point in time and finite beings need a cause. Beings that change in time are composed of substance and accident, beings that are members of a class of being have form (soul) and matter (body), finite beings have essence and existence. An infinite being (God in Western religions) is a pure act of existence.
It is irresponsible and irrational to say metaphysics has no content or is incoherent because you have to make a decision about revelation. When Jesus was on the cross, he told one thief he would be soon in paradise, but he said nothing to the other thief. This should scare you.
Boogedy-boogedy-boogedy!!
I certainly got scared.
I prefer the modern English Shakespeare. I can read Milton and Shakespeare, and even Chaucer, but it’s not worth it. The sentential structure and elements of the words are just too different to make it fun; especially because I don’t really like fiction that much to begin with.
In the method of inquiry called metaphysics, we assume humans have free will and that therefore human beings are finite beings.
That definition has jack and shite to do with metaphysics. Metaphysics is the philosophical branch that studies the nature of reality. It doesn’t ‘assume’ anything, especially not having to do with human beings being magical ghosts. Seriously, do you ever have any idea what you are talking about or do you just spout out inane BS you’ve cribbed from half-wit apologists? Most of your posts don’t even make grammatical sense.
Well, he does know his science, since Mr. Roemer’s website (I checked it when he linked to the Why Are Liberals Liberals? article) seems to show that he works as a science textbook editor or something close.
Well, it’s good to know the man has some calling other than spouting incomprehensible religious nonsense. Maybe he should avoid the Law of Rothbard and focus on the textbooks.
You need to know editing skills for that kind of job far more than you need knowledge of the field involved.
I am working on the theory that liberalism is a neurotic response to God’s revelation to man that our purpose in life is to serve God in this world in order to be with Him in the next. Prophets are summoning, not demanding, this belief and it produces anxiety in the nonbeliever. It is a fearful summons because it is accompanied with the threat of damnation and loss of friendship (worse in the Middle Ages).
The non-neurotic response to this summons is to either believe or accept your status as an individual deprived of the gift of faith from God. Non-neurotics give religion to their children so that they, at least, can have meaningful lives.
The neurotic response is to think people of faith are irrational. The word liberals use is unenlightened. Liberals also feel they are more compassionate than people of faith because they care about their fellow human being, not just about getting to heaven.
This irrational response does not eliminate the anxiety. One of the defenses neurotics use to cope with anxiety is inhibition. The following quote is from Karen Horney’s book, The Neurotic Personality of Our Time, by Karen Horney In this quote Horney describes three levels of inhibitions:
“Let us consider for example, a person listening to a paper and having critical thoughts about it. A minor inhibition would consist in a timidity about expressing the criticism; a strong inhibition would prevent him from organizing his thoughts, with the result that they would occur to him only after the discussion was over, or the next morning. But the inhibition may go so far as not to permit the critical thoughts to come up at all, and in this case, assuming that he really feels critical, he will be inclined to accept blindly what has been said or even to admire it; and he will be quite unaware of having any inhibitions. In other words, if an inhibition goes so far as to check wished or impulses there can be no awareness of its existence.” (Page 55, New York: W. W. Norton)
A number of the responses to my post indicate the second level of inhibition. Some of my critics are unable to gather their thoughts and come up with a coherent response.
An example of the third level of inhibition, I think, is Milton Friedman’s inability to see the irrationality of macroeconomics. In his unconscious mind he must have known it, but he lacked the character to expose himself to criticism by fellow liberals.
And what’s the excuse/explanation for the inhibitions of religious neurotics? Or is the implication that no such thing (inhibited religious neurotic) could possibly exist?
“The non-neurotic response to this summons is to either believe or accept your status as an individual deprived of the gift of faith from God. Non-neurotics give religion to their children so that they, at least, can have meaningful lives.”
You may want to provide overwhelming evidence before you psychologize why people don’t believe you. As it is, the case for religion is hardly dominating in philosophy. I could just as easily say that the neurotically religious force feed their ideas to their children to rationalize their broken moral compass and own force-feeding as children.
But that would make too much sense. I wonder if this guy has a fetish for Gary North.
That’s it, I call troll. I’m calling either hard core troll or a severe form of asperger’s combined with delusions of grandeur on this one.
I hadn’t thought of it, but he does king of scream ‘Aspie’.
I’m not psychologizing about people who don’t believe me. I am psychologizing about people who think I am irrational. As I said, there are many non-believers who keep it to themselves and give religion to their children. I have no criticism of such people.
My evidence is this:
-
Liberals are irrational about evolution, as my essay “Why Are Liberals Liberals?” argues.
-
Liberals don’t know or pretend they don’t know the cosmological proof of God’s existence.
-
Liberals think macroeconomics makes sense.
I am not a psychologist. I am quoting and following Karen Horney on this kind of psychologizing. Horney distinguished between character neurosis and situational neurosis. Character neurosis involves a distortion of the personality. Situational neurosis does not.
Who has a better theory then me? I don’t think there is anything neurotic about being a Democrat and being in favor of the welfare state. But thinking that humans evolved from animals and that “quantitative easing” is a good policy is crazy-- I mean neurotic.
But thinking that humans evolved from animals … is crazy – I mean neurotic.
/end thread