APC - Argument from Paradigm Case: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » APC - Argument from Paradigm Case » APC - Argument from Paradigm Case

APC - Argument from Paradigm Case

Page: 1 2

APC - Argument from Paradigm Case

Shamantrixx
sociopat

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2009
Location: Croatia / Rijeka

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 179

Posted 10/07/09 - 01:13 PM:	#11
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: Argument by assertion. Tell me why I could not come up with the idea of free will by mentally combining the idea of will (a phenomenon that is quite familiar to me) and the idea of not caused (which could just be the negation of caused, though Hume might use causality itself as a counterexample to the validity of APC). Or if not caused isn't enough, we can go with self-caused (a combination of self and caused, with the same caveat as before). Is it not obvious that we have to experience something which happened "against our will" in order to recognize that to be in contrast to things that happen "according to our will", and the term "free will" is simply a distinction from experiences "against our will"? So only thing that you can claim is that everything happens against your will, but even by saying it you demonstrate your free will. Now unicorn is something completely different. It refers to an external "object" that I have no reference to. I know the word and how unicorn should look like, but that comes from verbal or graphical "representations" of the unicorn... not from personal experience of unicorn, as it is the case with "free will". Unicorn or UFO are quite different terms from free will or red and blue. Every red object is reference to word red, and yet there is no separate object that word red refers to. Free will has a reference in absence of things unfolding "against my will", yet there is no "thing" that free will refers to. Unicorn IS a THING, so I don't see what we could possibly achieve with using it as an example. Postmodern Beatnik wrote: Well, I tend to agree with Bugs Bunny: "Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive." Nice point from what appears to be so trivial character
Everybody experiences far more than he understands. Yet it is experience, rather than understanding, that influences behavior. Marshall McLuhan

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 10/07/09 - 06:21 PM:	#12
Shamantrixx wrote: Is it not obvious that we have to experience something which happened "against our will" in order to recognize that to be in contrast to things that happen "according to our will", and the term "free will" is simply a distinction from experiences "against our will"? No, that is not obvious at all. That's why there's been an argument over the matter for roughly 2500 years. In fact, many people would not recognize what you are describing -- namely, compatibilist style free will -- as free will at all. Hard determinists, for example, would deny that what you are speaking of is a legitimate form of free will at all. And I assumed you meant libertarian (aka "metaphysical") free will right up until reading your last post because the term "free will" -- when not qualified -- typically refers not to compatibilist style free will, but rather libertarian free will. Your view, that this is the "obvious" meaning of free will, is in the minority. This makes it quite dubious that an argument like APC, which appeals to majority conceptions, could support your position. So again, it is not at all obvious that the term "free will" is simply a reference to the distinction you mention. And thus we come back to my point: we have an expression -- call it "free will" or "libertarian free will" -- that is perfectly meaningful, but it cannot be proven to exist merely by this fact. Moreover, it is not clear that the notion of libertarian free will cannot be explained through some sort of mental melding of concepts. Both of these points count against APC, especially as you have presented it. Shamantrixx wrote: So only thing that you can claim is that everything happens against your will, but even by saying it you demonstrate your free will. Hard determinists -- of which I am not one, by the way -- do not deny the existence of the will. They deny the freedom of the will. The will, to them, is another phenomenon that has been determined by the great chain of causality. Compatibilists and soft determinists do not take this to be a problem, as they think there is a viable sense of "free will" left over even if this point is admitted. But determinists disagree. It's "libertarian free will or bust" for them. (I apologize if this seems pedantic; but if we do not understand the various positions in the debate, how can we possibly hope to figure out which one is correct?) Shamantrixx wrote: Now unicorn is something completely different. It refers to an external "object" that I have no reference to. I know the word and how unicorn should look like, but that comes from verbal or graphical "representations" of the unicorn... not from personal experience of unicorn, as it is the case with "free will". You said: In order for a word to exist it has to have a reference in the "real world" because our capability to assimilate language largely depends on being exposed to those references in order to make sense of language. The word unicorn exists, so I asked for its referent. Now you say it has no referent, which is to concede my point (i.e., that the original formulation of the argument in favor of APC was problematic). Shamantrixx wrote: Nice point from what appears to be so trivial character There is great depth in comedy, even when that depth is on the surface.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.