To my previous post named 'On Human Choice'. I got this feedback from a dear friend of mine, Awais Aftab. He had certain reservations regarding my take on the subject. Since his objections are quite relevant, I have decided to write a blog entry. Below are his remarks regarding my position.
___________________________________________________________________________________
A thought provoking and insightful post. Loved the thought process.
I'd like to mention two reservations though:
1) You wrote "A hard determinist will argue that since the young guy cannot alter this fact; his whole future will be determined by this very act." I believe this is erroneous as such, because a hard determinist will argue that his whole future will be determined by his collective past events as a whole, in which a particular individual past event may or may not play a role.
2) You wrote "I will be the one who will give it a meaning. I have the choice to give it a meaning." A hard determinist will say that even the process of ascribing meaning to a past event will be determined by the past and by factors external to you. Whatever meaning you decide to give to the past event would also be determined.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here is my reply to him.
Awais!
You are absolutely right about the hard determinist's position. To be honest it is very difficult to argue with a hard determinist as they will always take a step back and hide behind some sort of causality (whether materialistic or psychological) and deny the possibility of human choice.
However, my issue is this. Even when our actions are controlled by external factors; we may interpret them in a specific way. That is where the internal part comes in. By that I mean our response towards it. I know a hard determinist will come up with the argument that even our response is also determined by past events and external forces. I refuse to accept this claim.
Hard determinism fails to explain the difference in people's behavior coming from the same economic and social background. For example, Two brothers sharing same life style may differ in their response to certain events including failed love affairs, spiritual crisis, loss of a loved one etc.
Secondly, if hard determinism is true then personal motive should flow with a kind of lubricant. However, the very existence of struggle and resilience proves the futility of external factors. The fact that we have to work hard to achieve something negates the claim of at least hard determinism.
Thirdly and most importantly, hard determinism can never conceptually negate the possibility of freedom or choice. This may sound counter intuitive but I will elaborate my point. Imagine if everything is determined by our past experience and external forces (as hard determinists argue) then this leaves us with a potential position where the 'freedom' of a person is determined by his past events and external forces. Meaning that a person A was determined by the very external forces to live a free life ( To say it in another way, he had no choice but freedom). In principle, a hard determinist cannot negate the possibility of such scenario. They will have to accept it because of their primary position.
Now, here comes my main argument. If hard determinism leaves 'potential' or 'rare' room for freedom or choice then it means anyone can fall to this category as a matter of luck. Since we can't exactly know whether we belong to such category or not we can never know whether we are completely determined or completely free. To borrow Dennet's terminology, that is where we seem to suffer from an 'epistemic horizon'.
Finally, I may resort to a psychological assertion. Hard determinism seems to generate a feeling that 'Nothing's gonna change my world'. However, the moment one accepts that one is not free. One is a changed person. I know this is more of a psychological feeling than a logical argument. Truth has a strange liberating effect on us even in captivity. As the Bible says, ''Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
I know that none of my arguments are conclusive. But the very existence of debate and doubt for me leaves room for choice on this subject.
___________________________________________________________________________________
A thought provoking and insightful post. Loved the thought process.
I'd like to mention two reservations though:
1) You wrote "A hard determinist will argue that since the young guy cannot alter this fact; his whole future will be determined by this very act." I believe this is erroneous as such, because a hard determinist will argue that his whole future will be determined by his collective past events as a whole, in which a particular individual past event may or may not play a role.
2) You wrote "I will be the one who will give it a meaning. I have the choice to give it a meaning." A hard determinist will say that even the process of ascribing meaning to a past event will be determined by the past and by factors external to you. Whatever meaning you decide to give to the past event would also be determined.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here is my reply to him.
Awais!
You are absolutely right about the hard determinist's position. To be honest it is very difficult to argue with a hard determinist as they will always take a step back and hide behind some sort of causality (whether materialistic or psychological) and deny the possibility of human choice.
However, my issue is this. Even when our actions are controlled by external factors; we may interpret them in a specific way. That is where the internal part comes in. By that I mean our response towards it. I know a hard determinist will come up with the argument that even our response is also determined by past events and external forces. I refuse to accept this claim.
Hard determinism fails to explain the difference in people's behavior coming from the same economic and social background. For example, Two brothers sharing same life style may differ in their response to certain events including failed love affairs, spiritual crisis, loss of a loved one etc.
Secondly, if hard determinism is true then personal motive should flow with a kind of lubricant. However, the very existence of struggle and resilience proves the futility of external factors. The fact that we have to work hard to achieve something negates the claim of at least hard determinism.
Thirdly and most importantly, hard determinism can never conceptually negate the possibility of freedom or choice. This may sound counter intuitive but I will elaborate my point. Imagine if everything is determined by our past experience and external forces (as hard determinists argue) then this leaves us with a potential position where the 'freedom' of a person is determined by his past events and external forces. Meaning that a person A was determined by the very external forces to live a free life ( To say it in another way, he had no choice but freedom). In principle, a hard determinist cannot negate the possibility of such scenario. They will have to accept it because of their primary position.
Now, here comes my main argument. If hard determinism leaves 'potential' or 'rare' room for freedom or choice then it means anyone can fall to this category as a matter of luck. Since we can't exactly know whether we belong to such category or not we can never know whether we are completely determined or completely free. To borrow Dennet's terminology, that is where we seem to suffer from an 'epistemic horizon'.
Finally, I may resort to a psychological assertion. Hard determinism seems to generate a feeling that 'Nothing's gonna change my world'. However, the moment one accepts that one is not free. One is a changed person. I know this is more of a psychological feeling than a logical argument. Truth has a strange liberating effect on us even in captivity. As the Bible says, ''Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
I know that none of my arguments are conclusive. But the very existence of debate and doubt for me leaves room for choice on this subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment