Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Autonomy and Determanism/Causality?

BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2009 11:29:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I learn something new everyday.
Autonomy(Definition from Merrian-Webster Online): self-directing freedom and especially moral independence

Never knew what that word meant. I also did not know that many people, including skeptics accept this idea of autonomy.

But am I correct in believing that autonomy and causality are contradicting ideas?

Someone who believes in absolute causality, i think that's what a hard/real determanist believes, cannot logically believe that he/she has has the freedom of directing ones self in one moral direction over another.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 12:36:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 11:29:46 PM, BiigDogg wrote:
I learn something new everyday.
Autonomy(Definition from Merrian-Webster Online): self-directing freedom and especially moral independence

Never knew what that word meant. I also did not know that many people, including skeptics accept this idea of autonomy.

But am I correct in believing that autonomy and causality are contradicting ideas?

Someone who believes in absolute causality, i think that's what a hard/real determanist believes, cannot logically believe that he/she has has the freedom of directing ones self in one moral direction over another.

Not really. You appear to confuse present causality with some floating concept of a person devoid from their prior actions. The 'freedom,' under determinism arrives from prior instances of thought, knowledge, concepts, where the individual creates in their mind a certain hierarchy of related concepts, is essence a standard, applied, if rational, again, depending on prior instances if rationality is considered virtuous etc. The individuals direction is guided by the adding of knowledge and its applications to new concepts and situations. Sure, for example, I may not have the 'freedom' to advocate taxation in an intellectually honest fashion, that standard however was based upon prior instances of accepting, or discarding certain concepts, claims to truth, claims to reality. Not from some not me, outside of my judgement, aspect of causality.

To state otherwise would be to assert my position on anything is a whim of causality, some sort of mental attribute that is unrelated to the self.
BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 2:11:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 12:36:09 AM, Puck wrote:
At 11/15/2009 11:29:46 PM, BiigDogg wrote:

Not really. You appear to confuse present causality with some floating concept of a person devoid from their prior actions. The 'freedom,' under determinism arrives from prior instances of thought, knowledge, concepts, where the individual creates in their mind a certain hierarchy of related concepts, is essence a standard, applied, if rational, again, depending on prior instances if rationality is considered virtuous etc. The individuals direction is guided by the adding of knowledge and its applications to new concepts and situations. Sure, for example, I may not have the 'freedom' to advocate taxation in an intellectually honest fashion, that standard however was based upon prior instances of accepting, or discarding certain concepts, claims to truth, claims to reality. Not from some not me, outside of my judgement, aspect of causality.

Im not sure this was correctly directed ay mu post. If so I apologize, but my question is can autonomy and causality(In the mind of a hard determenist) coexist.

To state otherwise would be to assert my position on anything is a whim of causality, some sort of mental attribute that is unrelated to the self.

Well, I can take a stance on materialistic causality, where I believe all things have a cause and are without choice. Every thought, movement, or any physical activity(including ideas-- physical things made by the processes of the brain) has a cause.
So, my desire to type on this topic is an object of causality(not a whim).
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 3:30:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 2:11:38 AM, BiigDogg wrote:

Well, I can take a stance on materialistic causality, where I believe all things have a cause and are without choice. Every thought, movement, or any physical activity(including ideas-- physical things made by the processes of the brain) has a cause.
So, my desire to type on this topic is an object of causality(not a whim).

Yes, and apparently also ignore what constitutes those prior instances that led to the response. You misinterpret what I mean by whim, not some chance 'now' action, but some action devoid of individual process in the lead up to it.
BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 8:16:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 3:30:34 AM, Puck wrote:
At 11/16/2009 2:11:38 AM, BiigDogg wrote:

Well, I can take a stance on materialistic causality, where I believe all things have a cause and are without choice. Every thought, movement, or any physical activity(including ideas-- physical things made by the processes of the brain) has a cause.
So, my desire to type on this topic is an object of causality(not a whim).

Yes, and apparently also ignore what constitutes those prior instances that led to the response. You misinterpret what I mean by whim, not some chance 'now' action, but some action devoid of individual process in the lead up to it.

I did Misunderstand because a whim defined by merrian-webster online is a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea or turn of the mind. So, if I take into account your definition, 'some action devoid of individual process in the lead up to it(which isn't in the spirit of the actual word)' then I say, you're wrong.

I spoke of absolute materialistic causality, mentioning thinking which implies understanding(Whether or not you agree thinking implies understanding doesnt matter in this case, just thought I'd throw it in there). I would think we both agree that thinking, even if caused externally is in itself an individual process. So to accept absolute causality even on the daily or big issues of life does not constitute a whim.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 2:05:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/15/2009 11:29:46 PM, BiigDogg wrote:
Autonomy(Definition from Merrian-Webster Online): self-directing freedom and especially moral independence

Never knew what that word meant. I also did not know that many people, including skeptics accept this idea of autonomy.

But am I correct in believing that autonomy and causality are contradicting ideas?

Someone who believes in absolute causality, i think that's what a hard/real determanist believes, cannot logically believe that he/she has has the freedom of directing ones self in one moral direction over another.

The self, while entirely caused itself by prior events, is what directs our decision-making process. Depending on definitions for "freedom" and "moral independence," this can be used to support the idea of autonomy even for a hard determinist. The self is indeed what directs us to make a specific moral decision instead of another one; it is the self that under determinism prevents us from being able to make some of the decisions that we're not going to make.
BiigDogg
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2009 6:47:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/16/2009 2:05:16 PM, omelet wrote:
At 11/15/2009 11:29:46 PM, BiigDogg wrote:
The self, while entirely caused itself by prior events, is what directs our decision-making process. Depending on definitions for "freedom" and "moral independence," this can be used to support the idea of autonomy even for a hard determinist. The self is indeed what directs us to make a specific moral decision instead of another one; it is the self that under determinism prevents us from being able to make some of the decisions that we're not going to make.

Thank you, I am too tired to see the flaws in this argument, but you have answered my question. Maybe I will see something wrong with it later.

P.S. I learn by negation. I try my hardest to falsify or find the illogic in any argument, if i cannot find it, I do not deny it.