Timeline for Strawson on Free Will: What are the most persuasive challenges to his position?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 13, 2023 at 9:44 | vote | accept | Futilitarian | ||
| Dec 30, 2022 at 2:12 | comment | added | Futilitarian | Maybe, but where would "the way one is' be measured? And why? | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 19:19 | comment | added | Stewart | What about a "bootstrap" self-determinism? You can grant that all subsequent self-determinisms are actually non-free. But the infinite regress is stopped with a postulated a priori "way one is". | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 9:18 | answer | added | Hudjefa | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 8:50 | comment | added | Hudjefa | I'd say look at the bright side! Strawson's making a strong case for determinism (no free will), but though infinite regress is problematic, at no point in in his argument does the statement "we can't self-determine" or its equivalent appear. That's a win in me book mes amies, a win. | |
| Dec 29, 2022 at 8:16 | answer | added | Pertti Ruismäki | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 28, 2022 at 8:40 | comment | added | Conifold | Sure. For example, "when we make conscious decisions to act a certain way, we make these decisions on the basis of reasons... So if one is to make decisions in a self-determined way, one must also self-determine the way one is" is fallacious in at least two ways. First, "on the basis of" is different from "determined by" (causes need not be sufficient), one contributes to the "way one is", but surely does not "determine" it (that is the folk idea, pace Strawson). Second, the contribution is distributed along the chain (so there is no regress to the origin, as with all vague predicates). | |
| Dec 28, 2022 at 5:56 | comment | added | Futilitarian | @Confiold. Thanks for the Petit link. I was looking in the wrong place. I'm having difficulty however understanding your point, "his "intentional acts" are not just supposed to regress but also cannot accumulate "intentionality" incrementally". Are you saying that there might be some means of accumulating intentionality somehow that escapes the notion that our current state is a product of a previous state (preventing causa sui)? Can you attack a specific premise(s) in either Strawson or Studebaker's paraphrasing to give me a clearer idea of what you mean? | |
| Dec 28, 2022 at 2:46 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | "There are arguments against free will and moral responsibility" - the people I've seen linking those things together most strongly are people who do believe free will exists, and are using that as a criticism of those who don't believe it exists. The actual people who don't believe it exists tend to maintain that people are morally responsible for their actions, but also that their actions are defined by their environment (from where one might conclude that we should rehabilitate criminals if possible, rather than just by default leaving them in a cell to rot to punish them). | |
| Dec 28, 2022 at 1:18 | comment | added | Conifold | Do you mean Pettit's paper linked in my previous answer? The link is still active. And the flaws that make all mental regress arguments fail, Strawson's included, are the same, I was not addressing your version specifically. Although his is particularly bad because his "intentional acts" are not just supposed to regress but also cannot accumulate "intentionality" incrementally and work like pushes in a line of falling dominoes because... he says so. | |
| Dec 27, 2022 at 23:20 | answer | added | Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine | timeline score: 7 | |
| Dec 27, 2022 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1607843777506328579 | ||
| Dec 27, 2022 at 20:28 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Dec 27, 2022 at 16:25 | answer | added | Nikos M. | timeline score: 10 | |
| Dec 27, 2022 at 15:31 | answer | added | Dcleve | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 27, 2022 at 15:03 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | In order for oak trees to exist, they must have a trunk. Therefore, oak trees cannot exist. | |
| Dec 27, 2022 at 14:26 | answer | added | Professor Sushing | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 27, 2022 at 13:23 | comment | added | Futilitarian | @Conifold. I see the question you referred to as rather distinct, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. I acknowledge both rely on an infinite regress, but whereas mine failed on a number of counts you identified earlier (although a further reading of Hacker leaves me less persuaded... I was actually going to ask you for the Petit ref. again 'cos I can't find it), Strawson's - if only to me - seems on the face of it relatively good. Your criticism of Strawson requires I do more reading I suspect, but I would appreciate an answer from you to help me better understand your points. | |
| Dec 27, 2022 at 13:16 | comment | added | Conifold | Didn't you ask this before? Frankly, I am surprised that Strawson's argument is seen as "logically robust" considering how full it is of holes. From maximalist idea of self-determination, to mixing causes/reasons with sufficient causes, to treating a vague predicate as if it was crisp to get the regress, and to explicit ruling out of causa sui at the end on little more than rhetorical exclamations. Pessimism is an emotional attitude, if that is what persuades you it isn't logic's doing, nor should it be expected to be widely shared. | |
| Dec 27, 2022 at 13:16 | answer | added | user40843 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 27, 2022 at 12:32 | history | edited | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added Studebaker link
|
| Dec 27, 2022 at 12:24 | history | asked | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |