Philosophy Forums


Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge
Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919
Posted 05/14/09 - 06:05 AM:
Subject: Cartesian Free Will and Knowledge
quote post
#1
I've discussed this issue in the past, but I'm going to try to discuss it more specifically this time. My question is whether we can actually obtain knowledge about the world without free will. From DesCartes, Meditation IV, #12:

"But if I abstain from judging of a thing when I do not conceive it with sufficient clearness and distinctness, it is plain that I act rightly, and am not deceived; but if I resolve to deny or affirm, I then do not make a right use of my free will; and if I affirm what is false, it is evident that I am deceived; moreover, even although I judge according to truth, I stumble upon it by chance, and do not therefore escape the imputation of a wrong use of my freedom; for it is a dictate of the natural light, that the knowledge of the understanding ought always to precede the determination of the will. And it is this wrong use of the freedom of the will in which is found the privation that constitutes the form of error. Privation, I say, is found in the act, in so far as it proceeds from myself, but it does not exist in the faculty which I received from God, nor even in the act, in so far as it depends on him."

Clearly DesCartes is linking the ability to know with the ability to choose. He describes the process as (1) you must first understand something clearly and distinctly, and (2) you must judge the thing and decide if it is correct. The act of judging is an act of the will. This process seems to me to be correct. So, my question is whether it even makes sense to say that you "know" something if you lack a free will? That is, if your knowledge regarding a particular item is in your brain solely due to deterministic causes, and it is there without having gone through any libertarian judgment process, is there any way to say that the item of knowledge in your brain at that time is any more likely true or not true? The implications being that without libertarian free will, we can know nothing about the world.

"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House"
"I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

NoodlesHighChief
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
Location: West Africa

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 43
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 06/07/09 - 03:37 AM:
quote post
#2
I don't believe libertarian free will is necessary for knowledge in Descartes metaphysics because Descartes is not talking about real knowledge coming from libertarian free will. I define libertarian free will to be free will in which the individual is the causa sui for the act in question. Descartes says that when we know a proposition clearly and distinctly, we will be left in a state of without "indifference." Divine grace or natural knowledge will compel us to assent to the truth of the proposition. Thus we are not the causa sui for the assent. It comes almost automatically. So if there was clear and distinct knowledge in a mind due to deterministic causes it seems possible that a divine grace could compel assent to that knowledge just as if that knowledge had at some point been subjected to a libertarian judgment process.

"This morning, I will practice an extra twenty minutes of yogic discipline, after which the pain is banished to a cul-de-sac in a remote suburb of my conscious mind." - FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper
Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 06/07/09 - 04:59 AM:
quote post
#3
<p><p>"Choice" and "free will" are both ridiculous illusions, methinks.</p><br />
<p> </p><br />
<p>Lets imagine there is a guy called Bob. Bob will do what Bob does.</p><br />
<p>Bob will always does what Bob does.</p><br />
<p>If Bob stops doing what Bob does then he isn't Bob anymore.</p><br />
<p>Put Bob in a situation and he will react exactly as Bob would.</p><br />
<p>In terms of knowledge: Bob knows exactly what Bob would know.</p><br />
<p>Bob will always choose what Bob would choose; therefore he doesn't really have a choice at all, he was always going to make the choice that Bob would choose because he is Bob.</p><br />
<p>The idea that Bob can choose not to act in the same way that Bob is already determined to act, is the same as entertaining the idea that Bob can choose wether or not to be Bob.</p><br />
<p>Bob isn't an agent that can choose wether or not to express his Bobness. No, he is Bobness. I would go as far to say as there is no Bob, there is only Bobness. Bob can be nothing other than Bobness.</p><br />
<p>
A quantum of strength is equivalent to a quantum of urge, will, activity, and it is only the snare of language (of the arch-fallacies of reason petrified in language), presenting all activity as conditioned by an agent -- the "subject" -- that blinds us to this fact. ....so does popular morality divorce strength from its manifestation, as though there were behind the strong a neutral agent, free to manifest its strength or contain it. But no such agent exists; there is no "being" behind the doing, acting, becoming; the "doer" has simply been added to the deed by the imagination -- the doing is everything.
</p></p>
NoodlesHighChief
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
Location: West Africa

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 43
Posted 06/11/09 - 03:22 AM:
quote post
#4
What is Bobness besides that which is a product of all the actions chosen by Bob? Bobness is just a summation of all the modalities describing the substance that is Bob. There can be no Bobness without a substance in which Bobness inheres, namely, Bob.

"This morning, I will practice an extra twenty minutes of yogic discipline, after which the pain is banished to a cul-de-sac in a remote suburb of my conscious mind." - FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper
Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519
Posted 06/11/09 - 10:48 AM:
quote post
#5
NoodlesHighChief wrote:
What is Bobness besides that which is a product of all the actions chosen by Bob? Bobness is just a summation of all the modalities describing the substance that is Bob. There can be no Bobness without a substance in which Bobness inheres, namely, Bob.

Essence precedes existence. What is Bob (Bobness) is what makes Bob be Bob.
Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919
Posted 06/11/09 - 10:58 AM:
quote post
#6



NoodlesHighChief wrote:
I don't believe libertarian free will is necessary for knowledge in Descartes metaphysics because Descartes is not talking about real knowledge coming from libertarian free will. I define libertarian free will to be free will in which the individual is the causa sui for the act in question. Descartes says that when we know a proposition clearly and distinctly, we will be left in a state of without "indifference." Divine grace or natural knowledge will compel us to assent to the truth of the proposition. Thus we are not the causa sui for the assent. It comes almost automatically. So if there was clear and distinct knowledge in a mind due to deterministic causes it seems possible that a divine grace could compel assent to that knowledge just as if that knowledge had at some point been subjected to a libertarian judgment process.


How is this assessment consistent with the citation I provided in my first post which made specific reference to having the power to abstain from affirming or denying?  It seems that the proper use of the free will is to wait until a proposition is known clearly and distinctly, but to judge prior to that would be a misuse of the free will.  That being the case, knowledge comes to those who are prudent prior to judging, but the act of judging itself is a matter left to the free will and the amount of analysis prior to judgment is up to the person.  I don't see how you can distill away free will as being a necessary  component for obtaining knowledge based upon the quote provided previously.


"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House"
"I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

NoodlesHighChief
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
Location: West Africa

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 43
Posted 06/11/09 - 05:47 PM:
quote post
#7
Hanover,

The quote you refer to discusses the source of falsehood not the source of truth. Descartes does say the source of error is when the will is extended beyond the reach of the understanding, that is to say when we pass judgment on things we do not understand. But when it comes to truth, it is not a libertarian use of free will that brings of knowledge of it. Again, I define libertarian free will as the individual being the causa sui of the act. It entails indifference, the ability to chose one way or another. What brings us knowledge in Descartes view is a divine compulsion towards the truth.

In the Fourth Meditation Descartes wrote:

Nor is it true that, in order to be free, I must be capable of moving in either direction; on the contrary, the more I am inclined in one direction the more freely I choose it, either because I clearly recognize it as being true and good or because God so disposes my innermost thoughts.

The assertion that "God so disposes my innermost thoughts" shows that libertarian free will is not necessary for at least some knowledge. I do have an issue with the assertion "because I clearly recognize it as being true." I am not sure what this process of recognizing entails. Perhaps it is libertarian free choice. Nevertheless because we are sometimes compelled be an outside force (God) to assent to a true proposition and thereby gain knowledge, free will is not a necessary component for obtaining knowledge.

"This morning, I will practice an extra twenty minutes of yogic discipline, after which the pain is banished to a cul-de-sac in a remote suburb of my conscious mind." - FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper
oag
banned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555
Posted 06/13/09 - 02:22 AM:
quote post
#8
I think the introduction of free will vs forced knowledge is overcomplicating things a bit. In the final analysis all "knowledge" can be denied. I can deny that the sky is blue by pointing out that if our eyes received a broader spectrum of light it would be more purplish in color. In practice everybody knows that the sky is blue. Since the very bottom line is that everything we label as knowledge is always just very firm belief the question of free will becomes moot. We are free to choose not to believe. It may be folly to do so but that choice is always available. We have no knowledge beyond Cartesian doubt. Doubt = free will. He seems to be hoist by his own petard if you are going to hold him to a notion of forced knowledge.
NoodlesHighChief
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 06, 2009
Location: West Africa

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 43
Posted 06/13/09 - 10:35 AM:
quote post
#9
oag wrote:
I think the introduction of free will vs forced knowledge is overcomplicating things a bit. In the final analysis all "knowledge" can be denied. I can deny that the sky is blue by pointing out that if our eyes received a broader spectrum of light it would be more purplish in color. In practice everybody knows that the sky is blue. Since the very bottom line is that everything we label as knowledge is always just very firm belief the question of free will becomes moot. We are free to choose not to believe. It may be folly to do so but that choice is always available. We have no knowledge beyond Cartesian doubt. Doubt = free will. He seems to be hoist by his own petard if you are going to hold him to a notion of forced knowledge.


I grant you that doubt is an exercise of the will. Descartes says the will is the ability to affirm or deny a proposition. In the case of doubt it would be denying a proposition But doubt on its own is not what discovers knowledge. Doubt is a tool for setting aside a false belief. When Descartes finds a reason to doubt a proposition he sets it aside as not clearly and distinctly true. But when Descartes does discover knowledge, such as in the cogito, it is because he can not doubt it. At that time he is no longer able to doubt a "natural light of reason" shows/compels him to realize that a certain proposition is true. This natural light of reason is outside the scope of our free will. It leaves us in a state of "indifference" such that when we see it we are compelled to assent and not able to deny or doubt its truth. To Descartes it seems that those like you who think they are "free to chose not to believe" have not seen the natural light of reason and are still lacking any real clear and distinct knowledge.

"This morning, I will practice an extra twenty minutes of yogic discipline, after which the pain is banished to a cul-de-sac in a remote suburb of my conscious mind." - FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper
Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919
Posted 06/13/09 - 05:23 PM:
quote post
#10



NoodlesHighChief wrote:




I grant you that doubt is an exercise of the will. Descartes says the will is the ability to affirm or deny a proposition. In the case of doubt it would be denying a proposition But doubt on its own is not what discovers knowledge. Doubt is a tool for setting aside a false belief. When Descartes finds a reason to doubt a proposition he sets it aside as not clearly and distinctly true. But when Descartes does discover knowledge, such as in the cogito, it is because he can not doubt it. At that time he is no longer able to doubt a "natural light of reason" shows/compels him to realize that a certain proposition is true. This natural light of reason is outside the scope of our free will. It leaves us in a state of "indifference" such that when we see it we are compelled to assent and not able to deny or doubt its truth. To Descartes it seems that those like you who think they are "free to chose not to believe" have not seen the natural light of reason and are still lacking any real clear and distinct knowledge.


This does sound right as you've explained it because it was Descartes' belief that the existence of the self was not subject to doubt, meaning one is compelled to believe it.  The question then remains when is something distinctly and clearly known to such a level that it is not longer subject to doubt.  It would seem that the will would be critical in suspending judgment so that a decision would not be made too soon.  It also seem that the will would  be critical in deciding what other information/evidence were needed before making a judgment.  Most knowledge cannot be deciphered a priori like the cogito, so I'm assuming that to some extent the will must be used to go out and gather additional evidence for whatever proposition that one is considering.


"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House"
"I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



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