Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Dennetts compatibilism

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 10:12:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thoughts?

The life 32 thing was interesting but I didn't find his argument a whole lot convincing. I was a little disappointed.

Has any one here read his book? What's your opinion?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2012 10:27:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think his position is really compatibilism.

He's saying that our lives are "evitable" because we can perform actions that direct our futures....in short, our decisions are part of the causal chain that determines our lives. This would be a good response to the mistaken people that think determinism equates to doing nothing and letting yourself "be caused", but it isn't actually a bow to free will since he says those decisions are determined.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 11:52:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
He is a compatibilist. He even states it in an interview. He believes determinism and free-will are compatible. What else would he be?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 2:15:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 11:52:10 AM, phantom wrote:
He is a compatibilist. He even states it in an interview. He believes determinism and free-will are compatible. What else would he be?

Yes I know he says that, but I still don't think his position is "meaningful" compatibilism. ...because the kind of freewill that he is allowing to exist with determinism is not really freewill in a meaningful sense. It is freewill in the sense that your actions DO shape your future, and your future is not inevitable in an effort-independent sense. However, this position could easily be engulfed by determinism by pointing out that the decisions you make are themselves determined...but Dennetts position, as I understand it, only makes sense when taken in a relative context, as in, relative to you and your life, your future is not inevitable. When taken in an objective context, with regard to all things that happen in the universe, your future is in fact inevitable. His compatibilism, I think, is founded on the former perspective...and that's why I believe it's not a meaningful type of compatibilism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 5:46:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 11:52:10 AM, phantom wrote:
He is a compatibilist. He even states it in an interview. He believes determinism and free-will are compatible. What else would he be?

Of course he's a cpmpatibilist, but Ike just won'taccept that, this free will thing is religion to Ike and he would argue with Dennett about what Dennett thinks he believes.

It wouldn't matter what Dennett says he believes either, by using his own made up definitions and his special kind of logic, by repeating it all over and over again, and concluding with ad hominem attacks on Dennett, he would end by triumphantly declaration to have won the debate with Dennett.

Ike's religion is funny that way.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 6:51:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 2:15:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/26/2012 11:52:10 AM, phantom wrote:
He is a compatibilist. He even states it in an interview. He believes determinism and free-will are compatible. What else would he be?

Yes I know he says that, but I still don't think his position is "meaningful" compatibilism. ...because the kind of freewill that he is allowing to exist with determinism is not really freewill in a meaningful sense. It is freewill in the sense that your actions DO shape your future, and your future is not inevitable in an effort-independent sense. However, this position could easily be engulfed by determinism by pointing out that the decisions you make are themselves determined...but Dennetts position, as I understand it, only makes sense when taken in a relative context, as in, relative to you and your life, your future is not inevitable. When taken in an objective context, with regard to all things that happen in the universe, your future is in fact inevitable. His compatibilism, I think, is founded on the former perspective...and that's why I believe it's not a meaningful type of compatibilism.

It seems like that's the same with most compatibilists (Not that his arguments are the same). Why does it have to be meaningful free-will? As long as he believes in some sort of free-will he's not a hard determinist.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)