contractualist OP t1_j76l55c wrote
Philosopher83 t1_j7alkgj wrote
this part (italic quote below) (from the first link) did not seem consistent (but I might be splitting hairs) - the second element of it does not seem to follow from the first part. it is too much of a physical to metaphysical jump so the logic doesn't translate well. I don't think it makes sense to suggest that a lack of sensation of free will means that we do not indeed have it, and that we cannot be held responsible. Many people often feel/think that they have less choice or no choice when there is often always a choice - the perception doesn't always correspond with the reality. The definition of agency freedom probably needs to be less constricted. I would suggest rewriting it, considering the logic of the sentence - i.e. it doesn't ring as valid / the logic seems off; you didn't mean it ironically correct? I think it stems from the definition - the meaning of the word 'agency' transcends a persons feeling/sensation. I believe agency has more to do with capacity to act and responsibility for such action - the whole ought implies can discussion in ethics.
"For example, we say that a chair exists because we perceive a chair to exist. We don’t call a chair “something that causes the perception of a chair, but which objectively we cannot call a chair since its existence as such is subject to our perceptions of it.” Instead, we call it a chair.
The same goes for free will. If we do not have the sensation of free will, then we don’t have free will and, therefore, can’t be held responsible."
I think the whole dynamic occurs on a slightly more complex level than this link describes. or maybe I just come at it from a different interpretive priority - I do think we are sort of on the same page in a variety of ways. But, the factors that contribute to behavior are subconscious and conscious so I don't see freedom as the ideal term to use - i see freedom as an overused concept in philosophy, particularly American philosophy. I am unsure how to accurately describe the distinction between the linguistic functions of the terms other than to say that I prefer the term sovereignty as an existentially derived primary right rather than freedom as some sense, quality, or capacity that someone possesses. I am more interested in the primordial existential state of being and how this translates to higher-order ontological principles as axiomatic to normative and political discourse - i.e. how we arrive at the higher-order principle and then see how this relates to our right to self determination and ethics/morality. I did appreciate how the phrase higher-order principles was used, but without a stated basis for this/these principles how can it be objective? The project of objectivity in morality and ethics seems like a faulty way of thinking to me - I ontologically categorize ethics and morality as subjective not objective. I think many people want to base ethics and morality on objectivity because of the concrete priority humans have. I see this as more of a will to power type approach, rather than seeking the necessary relational approach implied by the metaphysical category of being.
it did occur to me that you could be using the term objective in the sense of not being biased - i was using it here to refer to the correspondence our framing has with objective, concrete tendency.
​
​
In the second link I wasn't sure I agreed in part because of definitions and tracking meaning and interpretive priority, but I thought it might be good to suggest that It might bare more fruit to reference and predicate the free will/determinism debate as more spectral rather than as dichotomy. For example, we do have free will in certain ways, but we also have limits to this, which might be considered deterministic. if you think about the it from subconscious to conscious there isn't really a hard line - sometimes we are explicitly aware and other times we are on autopilot - it isn't an either/or proposition. Free will and determinism occur simultaneously at different thresholds of conscious experience.
contractualist OP t1_j7bh56n wrote
There is a lot here that id be happy to address. Feel free to DM me if you’re interested.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments