Another reason why philosophers are useless

[Innoruk]

They are unable to come up with a coherent definition of “free will”.

Definition #1:
Some will assert that in order to have free will, one needs the following:

1. at least two different courses of action - where both of them would lead to a desired (willed) outcome for the agent
2. the locus of decision (which one to choose) must be with the agent
3. the agent can execute either action

Definition #2:
Others dispute this. They say that it is enough to be able to “will, wish, desire” to execute a certain action, but it is not necessary that one should be free to actually carry out that action. These people wish to separate “free will” and “freedom of action”. In their opinion the internal freedom of “wishing to do something” is a sufficient criterion of “free will”.

What is your opinion? I suggest to give an example why you prefer definition #1 or definition #2 (as the case may be).

 

[Tyrel]

Another reason why those who don’t study philosophy are so bad at it.

There are not two definitions of one single concept here, but rather there are two concepts [both of which are at least prima facie consistent and coherent]. The first definition you give expresses the libertarian position on free will, since libertarians believe in categorical free will. The second definition is the one advanced by philosophers who accept an alternative view called ‘soft’ determinism, usually also called compatibilism (though it’s only one kind of compatibalism, technically). The soft determinist believes that everything is determined in the strictest sense, and that you can have ‘free will’ if and only if by free will you mean merely the ability to act in accord with your desires (nevermind that your desires and thoughts are determined).

Catholics have always upheld the libertarian position, especially against the protestant reformers who all denied the strong categorical free will which would make accepting Jesus a ‘work’ (thus Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, etc all deny that man has libertarian free will, and the council of Trent reaffirmed that man does).

 

[Ion]

I disn’t study philo but my feeling is that free will is defined more like choice; animals can choose, have choices based on evaluations and do not require abstract thinking.
In my opinion will must be defined in relation with a purpose; we say we have power of will when we are going hard/long period of time, to reach a purpose
choice is at a moment will is for a period of time, will requires abstract thinking

 

[minion]

What is your opinion?

My opinion is, the statement “philosophers are useless” is, well, a philosophical position.

Therefore, you’re a philisopher, and you just said your own position was useless.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

They are unable to come up with a coherent definition of “free will”.

Definition #1:
Some will assert that in order to have free will, one needs the following:

1. at least two different courses of action - where both of them would lead to a desired (willed) outcome for the agent
2. the locus of decision (which one to choose) must be with the agent
3. the agent can execute either action

Definition #2:
Others dispute this. They say that it is enough to be able to “will, wish, desire” to execute a certain action, but it is not necessary that one should be free to actually carry out that action. These people wish to separate “free will” and “freedom of action”. In their opinion the internal freedom of “wishing to do something” is a sufficient criterion of “free will”.

What is your opinion? I suggest to give an example why you prefer definition #1 or definition #2 (as the case may be).

OP: Philosophy is terrible because it cannot define X; for example:
1st philisophical definition of X
and 2nd philisophical definition of X

Me: Why did you just provide examples proving your position wrong?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

OP: Philosophy is terrible because it cannot define X; for example:
1st philisophical definition of X
and 2nd philisophical definition of X

Me: Why did you just provide examples proving your position wrong?

Philosophy works by exploring the consequences of tentative definitions. This is a very good procedure, and very illuminating. Suppose one person says “Abortion is always wrong.” And the other says, “Miscarriage is spontaneous abortion. You’re saying miscarriages are wrong?” You see, the definition must be clarified, or else two disputants will be talking past each other.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

They are unable to come up with a coherent definition of “free will”.

Definition #1:
Some will assert that in order to have free will, one needs the following:

1. at least two different courses of action - where both of them would lead to a desired (willed) outcome for the agent
2. the locus of decision (which one to choose) must be with the agent
3. the agent can execute either action

Condition #2 is underspecified, which makes it compatible with Definition #2. Why can’t the locus of my decision be with me, even if the decision flows from my wishes or desires? Moreover, if the decision does not flow from my wishes and desires, then what on earth do we mean by saying it is free? If it doesn’t accord with what I want, it is perfectly random, no?

 

[polytropos]

Definition #1:
Some will assert that in order to have free will, one needs the following:

1. at least two different courses of action - where both of them would lead to a desired (willed) outcome for the agent
2. the locus of decision (which one to choose) must be with the agent
3. the agent can execute either action

Definition #2:
Others dispute this. They say that it is enough to be able to “will, wish, desire” to execute a certain action, but it is not necessary that one should be free to actually carry out that action. These people wish to separate “free will” and “freedom of action”. In their opinion the internal freedom of “wishing to do something” is a sufficient criterion of “free will”.

What is your opinion? I suggest to give an example why you prefer definition #1 or definition #2 (as the case may be).

I think I know what you are getting at. In explaining the problem of evil, theists often appeal to the fact that man’s free will entails his ability to do evil. On the contrary (or so it seems), God is free but cannot do evil. Your issue, I take it, is that theists seem to appeal to two separate definitions on different occasions, according to how it suits their needs.

I see the resolution in the distinction between freedom of will and potency (the ability to do something). God, by His omnipotence, can do anything, but because he is all-good, only chooses to do good. There is not a limit on God’s potency; it is just logically impossible for him to choose to do evil. On the other hand, the prevention of evil would entail that man lacks the potency to do evil. This does not directly undermine his free will; man can still will evil (a man is guilty of violating the Fifth Commandment if he wants to kill someone who he cannot reach, because he is willing evil even though he cannot actualize his will).

However, when man cannot in principle do evil, then he ceases to have a choice. Suppose that God decides to make killing impossible. Then it is incoherent for someone to will murder when it is in principle impossible to murder anyone. Murder is just not an option.

An alternative way of stating this is, suppose that there is some evil act which is prevented. We have no way of knowing what it is, because it is impossible for us to commit it. Can we still will this vague, undefined evil act if we have no concept of what it is?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Travon Martin was free to attack George Zimmerman and free to run home. Zimmerman did not force Martin to attack him. So assuming no one else was present, who else but Martin was free to will the attack on Zimmerman?

 

[Markus61]

Mmm, interesting.
As a Philosopher I object to the assertion that I am ‘useless’.
I can, for instance, change a tyre, cook, use tools etc.
Is Philosophy as a practice useless ? Perhaps this is the assertion made here, and if it is, then we are left with a conundrum.
Philosophy, after all, simply means “Love of Wisdom”.
To say that ‘philosophy’ is useless is to say that the motivation to seek the Truth is without purpose.
When I worked as a lecturer in philosophy, and as a teacher later in High School, my aim as a Philosopher was to awaken in my students an ‘iridescent sense of wonder’ (from Plato). Whether I succeeded or not is a question of judgement best left to those it was my privilege to have taught. Nevertheless, the assertion that ‘philosophy is useless’ can only be sustained if one is prepared to also assert that the love of wisdom itself is an end and not just a beginning.
Had I the time or inclination, I could explain how philosophy, before its own specialisation into all of the existing sciences has given the person who posted his assertion the very means to post on this forum. It is no accident that at many universities to this day, departments of the sciences are called departments of natural philosophy. QED

 

[Innoruk]

There are not two definitions of one single concept here, but rather there are two concepts

For the purposes of this thread this is irrelevant. Of course the concept of “compatibilist” free will is an oxymoron, but this is not what I was talking about (how can anything be “free” if it is predetermined?)

The question here is: “does the concept of free will incorporate the freedom to act on that will, or not?”.

 

[Innoruk]

My opinion is, the statement “philosophers are useless” is, well, a philosophical position.

No, it is a statement of fact, coming from observation.

 

[Innoruk]

Condition #2 is underspecified, which makes it compatible with Definition #2. Why can’t the locus of my decision be with me, even if the decision flows from my wishes or desires?

But it is. Our desires, inclinations, wishes are part of what we are. We evaluate them, their corollaries, and choose a course of action. Again the question is: “does the concept of free will incorporate the ability of acting on that will”?

 

[Innoruk]

I think I know what you are getting at. In explaining the problem of evil, theists often appeal to the fact that man’s free will entails his ability to do evil.

No, that was not my intent in this thread. Therefore, no matter how tempting it would be to get into your proposed line of thought, I will have to decline most of it.

However, it is pertinent to point out that one’s disposition is an important part of what we are, and if someone is able but unwilling to act contrarian to one’s nature, it does not limit one’s freedom. Nevertheless, if one is unable to act against one’s “nature”, than that being is a robot.

We could discuss the rest of your post somewhere else.

 

[Innoruk]

As a Philosopher I object to the assertion that I am ‘useless’.

I am sure you do.

I can, for instance, change a tyre, cook, use tools etc.

I bet that non-philosophers can perform these actions as well.

Is Philosophy as a practice useless ? Perhaps this is the assertion made here, and if it is, then we are left with a conundrum.

The assertion was that philosophers are unable to agree on such basic concepts as “free will”. I think it was spelled out quite clearly in the OP. And without a proper set of definitions of basic principles, there is no way to get into a fruitful discussion - and that is one reason why philosophy is useless.

So, I would have been pleasantly surprised if you (as a philosopher) had attempted to stay within the topic of the thread, and not try to derail it into irrelevancies - but alas it was not to be. Typical “philosopher’s” behavior.

Let’s see if you can answer the actual topic of this thread: “does free will include the ability to act on that will, or not”?

As a lighthearted observation, here comes a cute little joke:
Q: What is the most frequent sentence a freshly “minted” philosopher says in his first job?
A: You want fries with that?

 

[Markus61]

We do need some clarification here.

1.- you stated that ‘philosophers are useless’ in your heading, which is your assertion.

2.- it shouldn’t come as a surprise that philosophers disagree on the concept free will and if you read your Rahner you will discover a range of arguments to consider.

3.- Your little joke about ‘fries’ has no relevance to your post.

4.- You commit a category error by confusing the subject with the practitioner.

5.- Are philosophers useless because they are lovers of wisdom, or are they lovers of wisdom because they are useless ?

6.- I am writing this reply in point form because you have offered no argument to which to reply. Simple repetition of an assertion lends it no additional value.
I am now entirely at a loss to understand whether your post was a genuine inquiry or not.
Do you honestly believe that philosophers are useless because none of them have reached a definitive answer to your question ?
I am very interested in your answer to the problem of the free will argument, and how you come to your own conclusions without employing the tools of philosophy, if indeed you know what they are.

7.- Quantum physics has established that the past and the future co-exist, which opens a very interesting problem for free will that I find fascinating.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

7.- Quantum physics has established that the past and the future co-exist, which opens a very interesting problem for free will that I find fascinating.

Could you provide a reference for this statement?

 

[Markus61]

Sure, thank you for your interest
NeuroQuantology 2005 |Issue 2|Page 88-110
Syntropy 2012 (1): 90-103
and a ppt for another kind of explanation:
a-c-elitzur.co.il/uploads/articlesdocs/Missng%20Link.ppt

I have tried to cite articles easily accessible on the net.

I am not a physicist and do not pretend to understand the
theory, but as far as I am able to establish, the facts are beyond dispute,
hence my interest in the subject.

In a sense, this view also backs up the scriptures which assert that God is
also cognisant of both past and future.

Kind Regards,
Markus

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Woudn’t it be a useful philosophical statement that philosophers are useless?

The fact that philosophers can contradict each other is not a proof that philosophy is useless, any more than the fact that scientists can disagree would prove that science is useless.

 

[polytropos]

The assertion was that philosophers are unable to agree on such basic concepts as “free will”. I think it was spelled out quite clearly in the OP. And without a proper set of definitions of basic principles, there is no way to get into a fruitful discussion - and that is one reason why philosophy is useless.

Sounds more like one reason why philosophy is difficult.