Critique My Philosophy of Life?

[Philosofer123]

Hm, having read through your document I feel that while you are right that one cannot be ultimately held responsible for their actions, by the way you define free will people can still be held somewhat responsible for their actions, which means reactions aren't entirely irrational.

It brings to mind the saying "he should've known better". If you can change your path in life, you can avoid bad doing things as well. And that means you might be responsible for the things you do under some circumstances.

Thank you for reading and commenting.

The way in which you decide to "change your path in life" is a function of how you are, mentally speaking.  And you cannot be responsible for how you are, because how you are is ultimately, in every detail, a matter of luck (as shown by the regress argument).  Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for changing your path in life, or for any of the resulting effects.

I also disagree that you cannot feel significant negative emotions and happiness at the same time. It is quite possible to be happy with some things that are happening and angry/sad/distressed/regretful at others.

Recall that I define happiness as "any of a spectrum of agreeable mental states ranging from contentment to intense joy".  Under this definition, one cannot feel significant negative emotions and be happy at the same time.

[Philosofer123]

Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

You are describing compatibilist free will.  Please see my comment above.

[Solitary]

Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Determinism is assumed to mean X therefore Y, but it really means that an infinite amount of events determine an out come, not I make a choice based on the fact I have freewill. You have will power and can make a choice, but that does not imply it is freely done and not determined by events unknowed to you that are unconsciously done. When you drive a car you are not conscious of decisions you do after you have learned to drive, but the first time you are very much aware which makes it hard at first before the car becomes part of you unconsciously. I'm not saying you can't make a choice, but where does free will fit in when you do it when so many variables come into play when all it takes is will power to do it? In other words I'm not denying will power that enables you to choose,   just that it is not freely done. Can you choose to make any choice you want, like all at once becoming a Christian or serial killer? If not, you don't have free will. Solitary

[leo]

Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Determinism is assumed to mean X therefore Y, but it really means that an infinite amount of events determine an out come, not I make a choice based on the fact I have freewill. You have will power and can make a choice, but that does not imply it is freely done and not determined by events unknowed to you that are unconsciously done. When you drive a car you are not conscious of decisions you do after you have learned to drive, but the first time you are very much aware which makes it hard at first before the car becomes part of you unconsciously. I'm not saying you can't make a choice, but where does free will fit in when you do it when so many variables come into play when all it takes is will power to do it? In other words I'm not denying will power that enables you to choose,   just that it is not freely done. Can you choose to make any choice you want, like all at once becoming a Christian or serial killer? If not, you don't have free will. Solitary

Great post !

[leo]

Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Determinism is assumed to mean X therefore Y, but it really means that an infinite amount of events determine an out come, not I make a choice based on the fact I have freewill. You have will power and can make a choice, but that does not imply it is freely done and not determined by events unknowed to you that are unconsciously done. When you drive a car you are not conscious of decisions you do after you have learned to drive, but the first time you are very much aware which makes it hard at first before the car becomes part of you unconsciously. I'm not saying you can't make a choice, but where does free will fit in when you do it when so many variables come into play when all it takes is will power to do it? In other words I'm not denying will power that enables you to choose,   just that it is not freely done. Can you choose to make any choice you want, like all at once becoming a Christian or serial killer? If not, you don't have free will. Solitary

Great post !

[Plu]

The way in which you decide to "change your path in life" is a function of how you are, mentally speaking. And you cannot be responsible for how you are, because how you are is ultimately, in every detail, a matter of luck (as shown by the regress argument). Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for changing your path in life, or for any of the resulting effects.

Under this assumption you are also not able to change your outlook on life the way you claim is possible. It's either going to happen or it's not, but that's not in your hands.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Oh, I´m sorry, I forgot that there are some people to whom you need to explain letter by letter what you´re saying because their minds simply cannot make a commun logical connection. So, I will reformulate and take the time to explain to you, solitary, what I have ment when I asked "Who is to be hold responsible for this horrible crime?". Any person with an average IQ would have understood that I was questioning the concept of the "free will impossibilism" applyed to human beings (whom I believe to be capable of making moral choices) and not to a tree, nor to the dogs that ate the girl (that was my example).

The problem is not our IQs, but your inability to post something that isn't incomprehensible gobbledygook. Perhaps if you said what you meant and meant what you said, you wouldn't have this problem. It follows the old saying: "You can do it right, or you can do it again."

[Philosofer123]

The way in which you decide to "change your path in life" is a function of how you are, mentally speaking. And you cannot be responsible for how you are, because how you are is ultimately, in every detail, a matter of luck (as shown by the regress argument). Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for changing your path in life, or for any of the resulting effects.

Under this assumption you are also not able to change your outlook on life the way you claim is possible. It's either going to happen or it's not, but that's not in your hands.

Not at all.  There is no inconsistency between the impossibility of being ultimately responsible for one's actions (that is, the impossibility of incompatibilist or contra-causal free will) and being able to change one's outlook on life.  The latter requires only compatibilist free will, which is perfectly compatible with my philosophy.

[stromboli]

Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Determinism is assumed to mean X therefore Y, but it really means that an infinite amount of events determine an out come, not I make a choice based on the fact I have freewill. You have will power and can make a choice, but that does not imply it is freely done and not determined by events unknowed to you that are unconsciously done. When you drive a car you are not conscious of decisions you do after you have learned to drive, but the first time you are very much aware which makes it hard at first before the car becomes part of you unconsciously. I'm not saying you can't make a choice, but where does free will fit in when you do it when so many variables come into play when all it takes is will power to do it? In other words I'm not denying will power that enables you to choose,   just that it is not freely done. Can you choose to make any choice you want, like all at once becoming a Christian or serial killer? If not, you don't have free will. Solitary

Yes, but. The point is that it is experiential. If I make a conscious act of choosing between two or more choices, regardless of how you paint the bigger picture, that is an act of free will. If a god exists that knows the outcome of my choice before it happens, then in the larger sense it is not a free choice. But still, experientially, it is a free choice. If I choose to take my own life as a rational choice in a society that is against the action, I have made a choice based on parameters that I have found to be valid.

(edit) and this is why I don't like philosophy. Because it always turns into he said, she said, "but according to kant"........bleep bleep bleep dribble. Gag me. I'm done.

[Plu]

The way in which you decide to "change your path in life" is a function of how you are, mentally speaking. And you cannot be responsible for how you are, because how you are is ultimately, in every detail, a matter of luck (as shown by the regress argument). Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for changing your path in life, or for any of the resulting effects.

Under this assumption you are also not able to change your outlook on life the way you claim is possible. It's either going to happen or it's not, but that's not in your hands.

Not at all.  There is no inconsistency between the impossibility of being ultimately responsible for one's actions (that is, the impossibility of incompatibilist or contra-causal free will) and being able to change one's outlook on life.  The latter requires only compatibilist free will, which is perfectly compatible with my philosophy.

You might not be ultimately responsible for your actions, but you are still somewhat responsible for your actions if you can change your outlook on life. Which means that you can still be held responsible for what you do in certain situations.

It makes no sense to have a system where you can make choices but are not responsible for them. You don't need ultimate responsibility to be responsible for the choices you can make.

[Philosofer123]

Not at all.  There is no inconsistency between the impossibility of being ultimately responsible for one's actions (that is, the impossibility of incompatibilist or contra-causal free will) and being able to change one's outlook on life.  The latter requires only compatibilist free will, which is perfectly compatible with my philosophy.

You might not be ultimately responsible for your actions, but you are still somewhat responsible for your actions if you can change your outlook on life. Which means that you can still be held responsible for what you do in certain situations.

You can change your outlook on life, but you cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life.  Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for any of the effects of changing your outlook on life, such as what you do.

It makes no sense to have a system where you can make choices but are not responsible for them. You don't need ultimate responsibility to be responsible for the choices you can make.

It makes perfect sense.  Consider the following analogy:

Bob is normally a very nice and altruistic individual.  But one day, he is kidnapped and hypnotized to be vicious and selfish.  Under hypnosis, he chooses mug a stranger.  Would you hold Bob responsible for his choice to mug?  Clearly not, since Bob cannot be held responsible for the way he is under hypnosis.  But analogously, the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be responsible for the way that they are--that is, the way that they are is, in every detail, a matter of luck.  And our choices are a function of the way we are.  Hence, we cannot be truly responsible for our choices.

[Solitary]

Free will is something we have debated here often. If you believe in determinism, or that a god has infinite knowledge of your past and future, then free will in the larger context does not exist. Your capacity for free will is also modified by a number of factors including environment, culture, genetic predisposition and so on. Yet at the end of all that, I can claim to have free will.

I can make a rational choice based on known factors and evidence available to me at the time. free will is ultimately about rational choice. In that context, I have free will.

Determinism is assumed to mean X therefore Y, but it really means that an infinite amount of events determine an out come, not I make a choice based on the fact I have freewill. You have will power and can make a choice, but that does not imply it is freely done and not determined by events unknowed to you that are unconsciously done. When you drive a car you are not conscious of decisions you do after you have learned to drive, but the first time you are very much aware which makes it hard at first before the car becomes part of you unconsciously. I'm not saying you can't make a choice, but where does free will fit in when you do it when so many variables come into play when all it takes is will power to do it? In other words I'm not denying will power that enables you to choose,   just that it is not freely done. Can you choose to make any choice you want, like all at once becoming a Christian or serial killer? If not, you don't have free will. Solitary

Yes, but. The point is that it is experiential. If I make a conscious act of choosing between two or more choices, regardless of how you paint the bigger picture, that is an act of free will (No it isn't, it is an act of will power only.) If a god exists (He doesn't exist and changes nothing.) that knows the outcome of my choice before it happens, then in the larger sense it is not a free choice. But still, experientially, it is a free choice. If I choose to take my own life as a rational choice in a society that is against the action, I have made a choice based on parameters that I have found to be valid. Right, and those parameters determine the outcome from your will power.

(edit) and this is why I don't like philosophy. Because it always turns into he said, she said, "but according to kant"........bleep bleep bleep dribble. Gag me. I'm done.

[leo]

^^^^ I hear you solitary . :)

[Plu]

Not at all.  There is no inconsistency between the impossibility of being ultimately responsible for one's actions (that is, the impossibility of incompatibilist or contra-causal free will) and being able to change one's outlook on life.  The latter requires only compatibilist free will, which is perfectly compatible with my philosophy.

You might not be ultimately responsible for your actions, but you are still somewhat responsible for your actions if you can change your outlook on life. Which means that you can still be held responsible for what you do in certain situations.

You can change your outlook on life, but you cannot be responsible for changing your outlook on life.  Therefore, you cannot be truly responsible for any of the effects of changing your outlook on life, such as what you do.

It makes no sense to have a system where you can make choices but are not responsible for them. You don't need ultimate responsibility to be responsible for the choices you can make.

It makes perfect sense.  Consider the following analogy:

Bob is normally a very nice and altruistic individual.  But one day, he is kidnapped and hypnotized to be vicious and selfish.  Under hypnosis, he chooses mug a stranger.  Would you hold Bob responsible for his choice to mug?  Clearly not, since Bob cannot be held responsible for the way he is under hypnosis.  But analogously, the regress argument demonstrates that no one can be responsible for the way that they are--that is, the way that they are is, in every detail, a matter of luck.  And our choices are a function of the way we are.  Hence, we cannot be truly responsible for our choices.

No, this is poor reasoning. The infinite regress argument fails the moment it bounces on a point where you did what you did because of a choice you made, because at that point you are responsible for choosing that path instead of another that would have avoided the point where you are now.

If the bad thing is in branch A, but you have stood at a point previous where you had the choice between taking branch A with the bad thing or branch B without the bad thing, then you are now responsible for the occurance of the bad things in branch A, as you could have also chosen to take branch B. (Becoming responsible obviously for any bad things that might happen to be in branch B)

Saying we cannot be responsible because we do not control every little part of our life is trying to dodge your way out of taking any kind of responsibility for the parts we do control.

[Philosofer123]

No, this is poor reasoning. The infinite regress argument fails the moment it bounces on a point where you did what you did because of a choice you made, because at that point you are responsible for choosing that path instead of another that would have avoided the point where you are now.

I'm afraid not.  The regress argument successfully demonstrates that every single choice you make is ultimately a matter of luck.  Hence, you cannot be held truly responsible for any of your choices.

Saying we cannot be responsible because we do not control every little part of our life is trying to dodge your way out of taking any kind of responsibility for the parts we do control.

The regress argument demonstrates that we do not have ultimate control over any part of our lives.