The extent to which people are unknowingly/unreflectively influenced by others is grossly underestimated. We like to pretend that we've come to our conclusions based on evidence and informed opinion, but that's B.S (mostly).
We are influenced by what we are exposed to - period. Yes, we can reject a minority of things we are exposed to based on previous experience and reflection, but we pretend we do this much more than we actually do.
We are a blank slate and we are mostly not in control of the quill. We don't realise this because of our myth of 'free will', which is a lie, but a lie nearly everyone in the West believes in.
This lie persists because it fits neatly into our framework of moral accountability. It is also comforting to people who feel pressure and obligation.
Why must the will be 'free'? Why not partially or full determined?
I don't like analytical philosophy because it's generally pointless, but in this case, using Ockham's Razor, can't I just say 'something compelled me' or 'there was some psychological need that was fulfilled by me writing'?
Does a thought come when I will it? Or does a thought come when it does and I may (or may not) reflect on it?
You don't need 'free will' to explain human behaviour. We are animals afterall. And I'd argue that the concept of free will leads to an erroneous understanding of human behaviour.
Some cultures don't have the concept of free will as we understand it and they function just fine.
It is not required for morality, however, and it's destructive and wrong to give people a false sense of autonomy. Free will should be banished.
...
"Don't think of a pink elephant"
...
Did you just think of an elephant?
What is it your ‘free will’ that made you think of an elephant, or just the impression your brain made by seeing the words and applying the learned response of reading comprehension?
Re: ‘blank slate’ – I mean only in regard to children and adults and their everyday experiences involving the prefrontal cortex, not the more emotional amygdala. Most of my statements are qualified, as I still allow for ‘hard-wired’ responses which are universal and not overcome without significant training (e.g. the weird and wonderful ways Buddhists train their mind). The baby example is interesting, though I’d need more to ask more questions to comment.
You can call still have a framework of moral accountability without free will. Who deems one guilty? Other people. If a person commits a crime when they are drunk/drugged we still hold them accountable, even though they were less in control of themselves at the time.
Hell, if you’re a white man, you’re guilty for everything despite being an unthinking monster!
We are animals in a strict scientific sense. Do chimpanzees, dolphins and pigs have free will, or only humans? Does ‘complexity’ give rise to free will?
Consciousness is an interesting topic, but I really think we can’t go wrong in delegating to neuropsychology or neuroscience and leaving the rest as speculation. What gives rise to thought? The brain. How do we know there are thoughts? Through reflection, a hard-wired function of the brain.
Reflection is a fascinating topic. The Metamorphosis and The Stranger are two of my favourite literary works on the topic. Those novels also consider our notions of the self. Arguably, it is reflection that distinguishes us from many other animals (but not all). Of course, I agree with the distinctions you’ve made between humans and other animals, but fundamentally we are still animals. I don’t mean that in a crude, disparaging way.
When you see humans as animals - foremost determined by their biology and environment which, not an omnipotent independent will - you really understand their behaviour. This understanding is not available from the rationales, justifications and consoling stories we like to tell ourselves and others. Basically, human behaviour, like most herd animal behaviour, boils down to reproduction and social status (acceptance/dominance/protection/access to mates, resources, etc.). Humans have the unique ability to fool themselves about this though – the more ‘educated’, the greater the delusion.
I thank you for challenging me on this because I am looking to refine my philosophy of Life. My philosophy is naturalistic/Darwinist and I just don’t see the need for ‘free will’ to explain anything. I still believe in responsibility, accountability, not blaming others, internalising the locus of control, etc. I am an amateur Existentialist and Stoic, but deviate from the Existentialists in regard to free will, seeing it as a Western moral concept that has been reified. It is a useful concept for Western explanations of morality, but it is also deeply misleading.
You want things, do things, and have certain opinions due to marketing, mass media and ideology which you are not reflective of, at all. (Same goes for me). You may be able to recognise some of the influence and perhaps even come up with some compelling reasons for some of your behaviour, but the bulk will be unreflective and simply herd-following. Reason and free will has nothing to do with this behaviour.
This understanding has significant implications when we think about why the Political Right has been losing for 50 years: we simply don’t expose enough people with enough of our ideology. The Right has relied on principles, reason, common sense, etc. to persuade people while continuing to be drowned out by the Left. That obviously hasn't worked, because despite some token electoral victories, the Left has just about won the culture war.
We are influenced by what we are exposed to - period. Yes, we can reject a minority of things we are exposed to based on previous experience and reflection, but we pretend we do this much more than we actually do.
We are a blank slate and we are mostly not in control of the quill. We don't realise this because of our myth of 'free will', which is a lie, but a lie nearly everyone in the West believes in.
This lie persists because it fits neatly into our framework of moral accountability. It is also comforting to people who feel pressure and obligation.
Why must the will be 'free'? Why not partially or full determined?
I don't like analytical philosophy because it's generally pointless, but in this case, using Ockham's Razor, can't I just say 'something compelled me' or 'there was some psychological need that was fulfilled by me writing'?
Does a thought come when I will it? Or does a thought come when it does and I may (or may not) reflect on it?
You don't need 'free will' to explain human behaviour. We are animals afterall. And I'd argue that the concept of free will leads to an erroneous understanding of human behaviour.
Some cultures don't have the concept of free will as we understand it and they function just fine.
It is not required for morality, however, and it's destructive and wrong to give people a false sense of autonomy. Free will should be banished.
...
"Don't think of a pink elephant"
...
Did you just think of an elephant?
What is it your ‘free will’ that made you think of an elephant, or just the impression your brain made by seeing the words and applying the learned response of reading comprehension?
Re: ‘blank slate’ – I mean only in regard to children and adults and their everyday experiences involving the prefrontal cortex, not the more emotional amygdala. Most of my statements are qualified, as I still allow for ‘hard-wired’ responses which are universal and not overcome without significant training (e.g. the weird and wonderful ways Buddhists train their mind). The baby example is interesting, though I’d need more to ask more questions to comment.
You can call still have a framework of moral accountability without free will. Who deems one guilty? Other people. If a person commits a crime when they are drunk/drugged we still hold them accountable, even though they were less in control of themselves at the time.
Hell, if you’re a white man, you’re guilty for everything despite being an unthinking monster!
We are animals in a strict scientific sense. Do chimpanzees, dolphins and pigs have free will, or only humans? Does ‘complexity’ give rise to free will?
Consciousness is an interesting topic, but I really think we can’t go wrong in delegating to neuropsychology or neuroscience and leaving the rest as speculation. What gives rise to thought? The brain. How do we know there are thoughts? Through reflection, a hard-wired function of the brain.
Reflection is a fascinating topic. The Metamorphosis and The Stranger are two of my favourite literary works on the topic. Those novels also consider our notions of the self. Arguably, it is reflection that distinguishes us from many other animals (but not all). Of course, I agree with the distinctions you’ve made between humans and other animals, but fundamentally we are still animals. I don’t mean that in a crude, disparaging way.
When you see humans as animals - foremost determined by their biology and environment which, not an omnipotent independent will - you really understand their behaviour. This understanding is not available from the rationales, justifications and consoling stories we like to tell ourselves and others. Basically, human behaviour, like most herd animal behaviour, boils down to reproduction and social status (acceptance/dominance/protection/access to mates, resources, etc.). Humans have the unique ability to fool themselves about this though – the more ‘educated’, the greater the delusion.
I thank you for challenging me on this because I am looking to refine my philosophy of Life. My philosophy is naturalistic/Darwinist and I just don’t see the need for ‘free will’ to explain anything. I still believe in responsibility, accountability, not blaming others, internalising the locus of control, etc. I am an amateur Existentialist and Stoic, but deviate from the Existentialists in regard to free will, seeing it as a Western moral concept that has been reified. It is a useful concept for Western explanations of morality, but it is also deeply misleading.
You want things, do things, and have certain opinions due to marketing, mass media and ideology which you are not reflective of, at all. (Same goes for me). You may be able to recognise some of the influence and perhaps even come up with some compelling reasons for some of your behaviour, but the bulk will be unreflective and simply herd-following. Reason and free will has nothing to do with this behaviour.
This understanding has significant implications when we think about why the Political Right has been losing for 50 years: we simply don’t expose enough people with enough of our ideology. The Right has relied on principles, reason, common sense, etc. to persuade people while continuing to be drowned out by the Left. That obviously hasn't worked, because despite some token electoral victories, the Left has just about won the culture war.
Comments
Post a Comment