Freedomain Radio

I'm sort of on the fence on this topic. I realize that determinism has the problem of being able to make people objectively responsible for their actions, but by the same token free will has the problem of explaining how "free will" seems not to be free at all, but rather a result environmental influences.

Question for Stef: I see you're quite emphatically in the free will camp. Yet I see plenty of podcasts of you psychologically deconstructing people and coming up with theories to explain for why they are the people they are; most theories having to do with parenting. Doesn't this take the "free will" out of them "choosing" to be the people they are? Surely you would agree peoples "choices" are highly influenced by the personality of the "chooser," the personality of which was not created out of free will, but by genetics and uncontrollable life experiences. How do you reconcile this? 

Self-knowledge is essential for freedom, I think.

I do not know of a determinist who has ever gone to extensive therapy - the inevitabilitle results of a lack of self-knowledge leads to an emotional sympathy for determinism - again, in my opinion...

You could see that all over the recent debate.

The less aware of yourself you are, the fewer choices you have for how to behave in any given circumstance. The fewer the choices you can make, the more predictable you are (and, just as a matter-of-fact, the less free you are).

Put another way, the capacity to make reasoned choices is impossible without self-awareness, virtue is impossible without the capacity to make reasoned choices, and happiness is impossible without virtue.

reason ==> virtue ==> happiness.

Well perhaps you can check out the debate...

Seems like many of the determinists have different ideas. For instance, all in the debate found the rock down the hill analogy correct.  But many in the comments section of the video did not like that. Is it all one philosophy to consider yourself a determinist?

Also, if all determinists claim choice and want all of the implications of free will (ethics, right and wrong, causal blame)... what exactly is even being argued?  That if one is overweight, it's just too hard for them to stop eating unhealthy?  That conditioning happens instead of rational mind?

Is there any wisdom at all that can be rung out of determinism?

I understand how a free-willers can say that criminals are responsible for their actions. But they can't deny the statistically significant fact that most criminals had physically and/or emotionally abusive childhoods. 

The problem is that I don't see free will anywhere. All I see in people are collections of genes and life experiences that lead them to make certain decisions in certain situations. I'm not trying to argue for determinism here, I'm trying to argue against free will, because I honestly can't think of a single example of it. 

What is the criteria for a criminal when you are a determinist? Even as an indeterminist, I would not dare to classify a criminal. Take a look at all the cocaine thing and Colombia. It is a result of raging death squads, giving people less options than imaginable. And yet the media always know who is the criminal there. It does not matter whether you are or are not responsible for your actions, because there are actions that you will trigger according to how you behave, be it determined. Theoretically, I would not kill someone I love. I would not kill someone I don't know, because I have absolutely no reason to do so. Yet, some people seem to do. I can try talking to them and change their views, but it does not include any moral principles. So, that I am determined does not matter at all, because it DOES NOT mean that somebody controls me (be it a supercomputer, lol).

I meant Monsanto, not McDonalds, sorry for the confusion.

Paul:

Stefan Molyneux:

Well perhaps you can check out the debate...

Okay, but can you please elaborate some more on the determinists' lack of self-knowledge?

 

 

I think that the debate itself does a pretty good job of that...

Stefan Molyneux:

I think that the debate itself does a pretty good job of that...

Captain Trips:

Stefan Molyneux:

I think that the debate itself does a pretty good job of that...

What are you experiencing emotionally when you deflect his questions like that?  Are you examining why you seem to be unwilling to address someone who has a pretty solid counter example to your claim?

wow lead the witness much?

Paul:

Stefan Molyneux:

I think that the debate itself does a pretty good job of that...

I'm sorry, Stef, but I still don't understand.

Maybe we could have a conversation about this in the next few days? You know, I'm here for self-knowledge, and if there is something you noticed and I'm overlooking, it would be great if you could help me find out what it is.

Sorry for being unclear, what I meant is that the people I was participating in the debate with kept changing the subject when I pointed out logical contradictions, which means that they held their positions not because of reason and evidence, but rather for some other, psychological reason, of which they were not aware -- and I say this because I have been in that position myself in the past, and perhaps in the present as well, and so I have a pretty good idea when I see it.