Critique My Philosophy of Life?

Post Reply New Topic

As I value my anonymity, I do not feel comfortable disclosing my profession. I have a solid formal education, but not in philosophy or psychology. With respect to philosophy and psychology, I am self-educated.



In fact, I am looking for any venue in which I feel that I may receive helpful feedback. I have posted my philosophy on a number of philosophy discussion forums, with mixed success. I chose Wrong Planet for its relatively high quality of discussion, not because it is an autism forum. That said, I feel that it may be fruitful to discuss my philosophy with those who may have a different perspective on life, or with those who have very different life experiences.

Well you've certainly chosen well if you're looking for a diverse group, Mr. Mysterious. (Would knowing your profession and not your name really endanger your anonymity? You must be quite famous).

Good luck.

denny

Am now far more interested in guessing who the OP is than in addressing the thread topic.

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=184322

The only thing worse than not having one's Philosophy of Life critiqued is having one's Philosophy of Life critiqued inadequately?

I believe in determinism, and intuitively the regress argument makes sense to me. However, I don't think the conclusion follows from the premises. I don't think the conclusion of "ultimate responsibility is impossible" follows from "knowing cumulative prior influencing factors affected the brain's decision-making state".

I fail to see why "cumulative prior influencing" removed a person's responsibility ? The regress argument appears to provide no premise to make this leap.



I understand now that you are not appealing to determinism based on what you wrote above.

There is a problem when discussing this whether "the illusion of randomness" for example, is an example of "indeterminism". I can roll a dice and think it has a random outcome, however, the determinists would argue that the outcome is not random. If all factors are known, then the outcome would be known.



Ok. Apologies. I understand now.

If you are going to try to challenge the validity of the regress argument, please use the premises as stated in the argument. Your quote--"knowing cumulative prior influencing factors affected the brain's decision-making state"--is not contained within the argument.



Not necessarily. There is the possibility that quantum indeterminacy could result in indeterminacy at the atomic/macro level.

Here is what you wrote about the regress argument ...

"For any agent S and intentional action A, S does A because of the way S is in certain mental respects. Therefore, to be ultimately responsible for A-ing, S must be responsible for being that way in the relevant respects. But to be responsible for being that way, S must have chosen to become (or intentionally brought it about that he would become) that way in the past. But if S chose to become that way, then his choice was a product of the way he was in certain mental respects. Therefore, to be responsible for that choice, he would need to be responsible for being that way. But this process results in a vicious regress. Therefore, S cannot be ultimately responsible for his A-ing, and thus cannot have free will".

The highlighted portion is the relevant part.

a. This presumes people are not responsible for how their DNA functions ?
b. This presumes people are not responsible for managing the influences upon them ?

c. However, there appears to be no rationale for such presumptions ?

d. If we hold people responsible for their DNA, and managing influencing factors, then the conclusion would not appear to follow from the premises ?

e. If they are held responsible for their DNA at least, then that is the same as saying, "People are not responsible for themselves", and the regress "argument" should be shortened, to state this presumption.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 22 Mar 2014, 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What you have highlighted is an intermediate conclusion in the argument, not a premise. It is supported by the following premise in the argument: "But if S chose to become that way, then his choice was a product of the way he was in certain mental respects." If you disagree with this premise, please explain why. Or, if you feel that the intermediate conclusion does not follow from this premise, please explain why not.

Regarding your questions:

a. How anyone be responsible for their DNA, which is something over which they have no control?
b. People cannot be ultimately responsible for "managing the influences upon them" because the way in which they manage such influences is a function of the way they are, mentally speaking, which sets one off on the regress.

i'm probably not exactly qualified to participate in this discussion, but i do have a few questions out of curiosity:

how is it that you've determined that decision-making in humans is determined beforehand by their genetics, environment, and the past history of every particle in the universe etc., and not merely influenced by those factors, with free will being the ultimate influence on decision-making? how can you say for certain every choice every individual makes is basically physiologically/biologically determined beforehand? and if you can't assert that with certainty, how can you possibly believe we are not responsible for our own decisions?

in all honesty, you sound like someone who needs people to agree with him that it's alright to be selfish and self-interested. that's certainly not a new idea--you've just dressed it up in fancy academic terminology. still looks like a polished turd to me.

"See, mum - I told you "I didn't ask to be born" was a legitimate philosphical argument!"

why do i have a funny feeling he's going to ignore me?

Join the club. I posited an alternative way of understanding 'responsibility', and didn't even get a 'please see page x' for my troubles. It was that much beneath him that it wasn't worth his time subtly informing me it was beneath him.

i suppose it's only what i deserve for daring to be sub-genius on such a forum.

I can provide some answers ...

a. His argument does not rely on determinism. He does not believe "every decision an individual makes is basically physiologically/biologically determined beforehand".

b. He cites the "impossibilism regressive argument" that states that a person is not ultimately responsible for any action, because if we regress throughout a person's existence i.e., go back in time throughout the person's life, then we will see that outside factors influenced that person, and going back to conception, we can see that the person did not choose their DNA, and thus, did not choose to be that person. Thus, the person no responsibility for any action, he argues.

c. Starving artist, you ask the pertinent question, "How does we known that a person is not merely influenced by those factors, with free will being the ultimate influence on decision-making?"

He acknowledged earlier that per the "impossibilism regressive argument" - one can never have free will, because one never selected their own DNA.

As I have explained before, the regress argument does not assume determinism. Also, you have not refuted the regress argument. In order to do so, you must show either that one or more of its premises is not necessarily true, or that its premises do not entail its conclusion.



Your ad hominem attack accomplishes nothing.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that an individual is genetically inclined to act in a certain way, but decides to act differently. This does not provide an escape from the regress, because the fact that the individual acts in opposition to their genetic inclination is a function of the way that the individual is, mentally speaking.

Try as you may, there is no escape from the regress.