14 Ye are the alight of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15 Neither do men light a acandle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your alight so shine before men, that they may see your good bworks, and cglorify your Father which is in heaven.
16 Let your alight so shine before men, that they may see your good bworks, and cglorify your Father which is in heaven.
I feel as though I have something to contribute in the following post, which, fortunately, to those of you who do not enjoy the scriptures, does not necessitate them, and they will not be included. The following is a logical argument. But I do not feel that I should keep what I have reasoned to myself:
We have learned, fairly recently, about the standpoint of Determinism (or, Hard Determinism) in my Philosophy class. Determinism, as I understand it, is the viewpoint that everything you do, think, and even everything you are is determined. From serial killers to priests, we are all determined in what we do and who we are. If a man were to be accused of a crime, a hard-and-fast hard determinist would not blame him for what he had done, because the determinist would reason that what he had done was inevitable. It had been determined. It wasn't his fault. I'd like to point out a few things I think are logically wrong with determinism as a philosophy. If any of you out there are determinists, please hear me out, and if you find anything fallacious in my thinking, please go ahead and leave your argument in the comment box.
Now, this is going to be an argument which, for the time being, works under the assumption that we are determined.
We are determined
If we are determined, as I see it, then we are determined either by something, or we are determined by nothing. Don't worry, if I am simplifying, further on in the argument, I will explain.
We are determined
|
|
By Something ------------------ By Nothing
Let's look at being determined by Something first: When I say being determined by Something, I mean that we are determined by a higher being. One being, or one group of beings with the same purpose. Now, if we are determined by a being, if that being is taking its time to determine what we do, then it has some interest in us, correct? So is it fair to say that it is either benevolent (it wants the best for us) or it is not benevolent (it hates us and wants us to fail)? Let us assume these two options for the time being.
We are determined
|
|
By Something ------------------ By Nothing
|
|
Benevolent ----------------- Malicious
Now, here we reach the argument for the side of being determined by something. If we are determined by something which wants the best for us, would it not want us to know the truth? Wouldn't it want us to at least be sure in our own belief? If so, why then is determinism only one philosophy among many? If this being (or group of beings) controls what we think and how we act, it could have then introduced solely the philosophy of determinism. Why did it introduce anything else? It seems to me that it would not introduce anything but determinism if it wanted the best for us; if it wanted us to understand.
Now, what about a malicious higher being? If we are determined, and that being did not want us to progress or grow, or did not want the best for us, why then did it introduce determinism to our minds in the first place? It could've left that concept completely out of the picture, and not taken the risk that we would understand. This, to me, seems to blot out those two arguments.
Admittedly, there is a third option, which I had not yet considered before I began to blog: that the being simply sees us as its toys, and, since it can make us think what it wants to, does not need to worry about an uprising, and so does not need to worry that we have determinism in the mix. In the end, we would be nothing to this being, and, I assume, if it did not want us to, we would not be elevated to its plane of thought, and therefore would have no choice but to continue being determined by us. That seems, though, to fall under the column of malicious. So, I suppose, a malicious higher being is the only option. under being determined, "By Something." Lets leave that option open.
We are determined
|
|
By Something ------------------ By Nothing
|
|
Alright, now lets back up and look at being determined, "By Nothing." What I mean by this is that we are simply determined by the chemicals in our own body, and this is a result of the Big Bang Theory, and nothing else; in this situation, there is no God; no higher being that is guiding our thoughts and actions. Then I ask you this: throughout history, we have (under this theory) evolved into something greater not only physically, but mentally. We have built great things, made great steps in philosophy, and made other progressions as a human race. Here is my question: Why have we progressed if determined by nothing, or rather, by the chemicals in our brains? What non-being has a concept of progress? Why are we where we are now? This botches that section up for me too.
We are determined
|
|
By Something ------------------ By Nothing
|
|
Again, if I've left anything out or made any fallacies, point them out. I won't be offended. I would love for you to critique this if you feel so inclined. Please do. It still has quite a lot of refinement before it can be seriously considered, I think. Thanks for reading.
Please credit me with this argument, unless you can find someone who came up with it first.
Hi Gabriel,
ReplyDeleteHere's a few thoughts.
First, with regard to the concept of "blame," in your introduction you introduce determinism as something that necessarily renders every determined agent blameless. Even in such a world, however, I don't see why me, you, and everybody else can't still blame and hold all agents responsible for their deeds in an effort to redirect (i.e. determine) their futures in a way that is most pleasing to each of us.
Next, there's a sticky wording problem. You introduce a dichotomy that we're either "determined by something or nothing." Being "determined by nothing" sounds like a definition of free will, but this is not actually what you meant, which is shown later as you define this dichotomy to mean, "Either we're determined by a superior intelligent agent or not." I think the "something or nothing" wording doesn't fit what you mean very well.
With this dichotomy in mind, the conclusion that there must be an agent in charge is never established. You said that a deterministic world without a guiding agent cannot account for our apparent "progression," but you didn't support this idea. I suggest starting by defining what exactly "progress" means and then explaining what it is that would prevent such progress from occurring in a god-free deterministic universe.
Going a bit deeper, it would probably be good to keep in mind that many people who think deterministically only think that way because it is the only thing that makes sense to them. I personally do not understand the mechanism of "free will," nor how ANY agent could ever have it. This introduces a kink when you try to communicate your argument to me because even if there were a superior agent responsible for our deterministic world, I can't help but think the superior agent would itself have to be determined as well, and determined ultimately by its own supernature/universe. This would mean that ultimately, all things are determined by existence's most default nature, which would establish the "no superior agent required" side of your dichotomy.
You introduce another dichotomy that if there is a superior agent responsible for our deterministic universe, then its motives with respect to us are either purely benevolent or purely malevolent. You leave out the possibility of the superior agent having evil motives regarding some things and good motives regarding others, or even the possibilities of general or mixed indifference toward us. For example, considering that somewhere north of 99% of all of the species that have lived on this planet are now extinct, what's the likelihood that human beings are the ones in this evolutionary chain that this superior agent set out to create in the first place? What's the likelihood that we're the chosen species that the superior agent actually cares about and has been waiting 14 billion years for us to arrive so that it can finally start having "the real fun"?
You also make the statement that if a benevolent being is in charge, then it would want us to know "the truth." This not only assumes that knowing "the truth" would be best for us, but also that we're even capable of understanding what "the truth" really is. It may just be the case that the big picture is so complex and tangled that the superior agent can't explain it in a way we'd understand. Or it may be that this superior agent operates on a level beyond (or even outside of) what we call "consciousness" and "intelligence," so much so that such things don't even concern it.
Regarding whether your argument is original, René Descartes explored this same road in quite a lot of depth. If you haven't already, you might be interested in researching what he had to say, as well as Victor Hume's witty replies to him.
Edit: DAVID Hume. I don't know who "Victor" is. Hahaha
ReplyDeleteTHANK. YOU. -STITCHES-. I want people to post on this stuff. Seriously. I want people to pick away at my thinking and show me where my arguments have fallacies. It helps me realize what's wrong with them and refine them accordingly. So in all sincerity, thank you. And thank you for introducing me to Descartes' argument. I'll see if I can find it. And David Hume's replies as well. Honestly, it's really nice for someone to be telling me I'm thinking wrong. I'll think hard about what you said. Expect a rebuttal. :) :)
ReplyDelete