Critique My Philosophy of Life?

Post Reply New Topic

correct me if i'm wrong, but "the way that the individual is, mentally speaking" is speaking of their neurology, yes? and our neurological structure changes as we develop and grow, and the decisions we make shapes that growth and development over time, does it not? therefore "who we are", mentally speaking, as adults is not something that is set at birth by our genetics, but is rather the sum of our genetics plus how our experience and decisions have shaped our neurology until the present. so, if our decisions shape who we ultimately become, neurologically speaking, how do we escape personal responsibility?

i just thought of an example, from personal experience, that may help illustrate where i'm coming from. i apologise in advance if i get verbose in my explanation.

there exist in my family some traits which are likely genetically derived, like narcissism, aggression, various other unpleasant pathologies. it is logical to assume i carry at least some of the markers for some of these traits; which is the same as saying i carry within me the genetic "seed" for some nasty neurological tendencies. and i remember feeling the influence of said "seed" in my childhood--times of stress or conflict where i felt these traits influencing my behaviour. as i grew up, i recognised these "impulses" for what they were and made a conscious choice to fight them, to do everything within my power to not turn out like the members of my family who readily embraced them; and since i have made this choice, the impulses faded until they were no longer a part of who i am and ceased influencing how i behaved. if i had not chosen to fight these impulses and instead indulged them, i posit i would have ended up a very different adult than i am today--likely i would be much more like my sister, and make decisions more like hers.

by your reasoning i am not ultimately responsible for what i do--yet what i do today would be very very different if i had not made different conscious choices in the past, because the brain i would be using with would be different (it would be seriously pathological).

you call it an attack; i call it an observation based on the evidence presented.

btw, i should add that my "aspie superpower" is psychoanalysis, not philosophical analysis. that may help you understand the motivation for my comment above.

Last edited by starvingartist on 22 Mar 2014, 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is, because there is no regress.

If there is free will (as I believe), there is responsibility. There is no such thing as 'pure' free will, or 'utlimate' responsibility in the way you suppose that then leads into this regress - you're chasing a horizon that ever recedes and declaring that there's no such thing as a destination. Free will and responsibility are situational. They have no meaning otherwise - what you are looking for there is something more akin to randomness.

+1



I can't see how it's ad hominem, either.

probably i should just be glad i managed to ask a pertinent question

Not necessarily. The regress argument does not assume physicalism or mind/brain identity.



We make the decisions we do because of how we are at that time, mentally speaking. And again, the regress looms.

But my point is that you made the decisions you did (such as fighting impulses) because of the way you were at that time, mentally speaking. And again, the regress looms.

Your observation is flawed. See pages 11-12; particularly the part about cultivating a benevolent disposition.

yes--and the way i was at that time was the result of previous choices i made, not simply my genetics. still don't see this "regress".

And you made your previous choices because of the way you were at that time. Now do you see?

Well, we can't all be you-know-who. Or Philomena Cunk.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvXC8I4Gms4[/youtube]

Yes, and because there is no view from nowhere, there's no such thing as sight.

A few days back you said:



And if you defined Free Will or 'ultimate responsibility' differently? Would that make it harder to evade those negative emotions?

We have Free Will, or we do not. There is no 'limited' Free Will. There is not an 'unlimited' Free Will we could possibly have, of which ours is but a pale imitation. Free Will is not some essence of which we only possess a small amount, and a larger amount would make us more 'free'. Free Will is the situation of being able to make one choice when we could just as easily make another. It is the exercising of one option over others, where all options are possible. It does not get any freer than that, and nor does it need to.

Free Will is situated within our circumstances, our character, and our being persons. Indeed, it can only meaningfully be so. I like libraries. I hate pubs. I would not be exhibiting a less limited freedom, or more meaningful freedom, if I went to the pub rather than the library. We make these choices as people, as humans. They are meaningful, free choices because they are born of our character and circumstance. It seems to me your idea of 'ultimate free will' would resemble an epileptic fit.

If you want to do away with responsibility, you may want to look at determinism, or arguing against personhood or the self.

You have misplaced Free Will. To repeat myself - it is like chasing the ever receding horizon, and declaring there's no such thing as a destination.

You want a sort of Free Will, but not the sort that comes with responsibility. How fortunate your definitions and arguments lead you to such a conclusion.

Also:



Why? Or is this simply a first-principle of yours?

this reminded me of charlie brooker and gave me a craving--then i had to go watch a couple of old episodes of screenwipe.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1lG_SVw9d4[/youtube]

no, i still don't. i feel like i've been argued into a meaningless corner, actually.

basically you're telling me that, since the very first conscious decision i ever made (which was predetermined by my genetic material when i made it and therefore not a "true" exercise of free will) all my conscious decisions have been simply the result of that first decision, which was the result of genes. this argument is reductive to the point of absurdity, the idea that human conscious thought and analysis and will weighs nothing against the irresistible pull of deterministic biology--and the "regress" you speak of is dependent on the simplicity of that reduction, which makes it impossible for me to take seriously as an argument.

i return to the observation i made earlier--this document strikes me as an attempt to escape personal responsibility in rhetoric, and i question it's validity based on what i see as it's motivation, which i think is beneath consideration. even if there is some abstract inferential argument out there that some would perceive as "removing the burden of personal responsibility to allow for peace of mind", it means nothing to me on a personal level because absence of responsibility is not something that i believe would ever bring me peace of mind, or any other potential "benefit".

Your question demonstrates that you have not bothered to read the document.

I will not respond to any further posts of yours except those that clearly demonstrate that you have read the document.