Many modern determinists seem to be throwing in the towel a bit early. Just because the origin of a thought or action is not yet entirely traceable or appears to happen long before the person is cognizant of having a thought or action doesn't mean that there is no will involved. It just means the timeline starts earlier than we thought. Maybe much earlier. And to note that many of our actions are nearly automatic and don't require much aforethought doesn't imply a lack of free will, either. I'm glad I don't have to think much about most daily activities, once I've decided to do them and I already know how. Assent is still necessary for actions, perhaps less necessary for thoughts, but, as Epictetus might say, it's a good idea to practice assent to develop the means to think and act well.
Agreed, except that we really ought to get rid of the term "free will" entirely. It begs the question and leads to confusion. Free from what? From cause and effect? In other words, a miracle? No such thing.
Great article. Among other things, I still have occasional trouble with some of the basic terms of Stoicism (like "impression") and I find that it helps to have it explained again in a new way, which you did (very helpfully) here. Suggested edit: "pneuma (breadth)" should be "breath", right?
A few days ago I listened to a podcast between Lawrence Krauss and Robert Sapolsky on the illusion of free will. It was fascinating and although a bit over my head I came to be sympathetic to the idea of determinism. Towards the end they seem to imply that just because we don’t have free will it doesn’t necessarily mean that we can’t influence the future as if we had free will. Is this something akin to what the stoics believed?
David, Krauss is often confused when it comes to philosophical matters, even though he pretends not to be and even scoffs at philosophy as useless. What you describe appears to be one such case: he is a determinist, and yet arguing for something like compatibilism?
The Stoics did not frame things in terms of free will, a term introduced later by Christians in the context of the famous debate about the problem of evil. They talk of "prohairesis," which usually translates as volition, the currently preferred psychological term.
Their position was that we live in a deterministic universe, meaning a universe with cause-effect. Our internal mechanisms, which are responsible for our volition, are part and parcel of that web of cause-effect, not merely its passive output.
In my view, “Free will” was/is a concept, made up, by members of the ‘believer cult’, ( as is the rest of it, frankly...)to give God a free pass...absent this, religious belief becomes too problematic.
Regarding Plato and Aristotle's akrasia, (weakness of the will) vs Socrates's Motivational Cognition (mistaken judgement), I am in the Socrates camp. It seems that if someone accepts that they have akrasia, it removes personal responsibility from action or inaction and provides no or little room for personal growth.
I hear you. But to be fair, Aristotle thought that akratic people do have a moral responsibility to get their butt off the couch and go to the gym, so to speak. I think the two explanations differ in terms of how describe things, but virtuous action is the prescription in both cases.
It seems to me that the 'soul' is not made of stuff, but is a 'dynamical pattern' of stuff. This seems to be what Aristotle was saying. Thomas Aquinas somehow turned Aristotle's soul' into a ghost.
My favorite metaphor for living creatures like us (as well as plants, etc.) is a soliton -- self-propagating excitation/wave. Mathematical solitons 'live' forever but their physical analogs don't. It is the self-propagating pattern that is their 'soul.' It doesn't matter what specific 'stuff' they are made of and indeed much of the matter we are composed of is replaced over time (like Ship of Theseus).
The famous Carron river soliton maintains its 'identity' though not composed of the same 'water' as it goes upriver.
Oct 24, 2023·edited Oct 24, 2023Liked by Massimo Pigliucci
Agree with u-“It seems to me the soul is not made up of stuff…”. It’s just plain made up. Imo, after one dies is very likely similar to as before one was born….’one’ just returns to the carbon cycle. Why is that bad/scary for people? Live a good life, enjoy your time here…”control what is in your control”.
Arthur, interesting metaphor, though I don’t get much consolation from thinking that when I die my mathematical soliton will continue to exist in Platonic space…
Me neither. Nor do I get much comfort from the notion that in an infinite universe there will still be an infinite number of near [a] me's elsewhere/when.
[a] I think that Cantor's 'uncountable infinities' (e.g., real numbers) make it impossible for them to be identical, but they can be infinitesimally close.
Yep! For a philosopher, you are very sensible. Maybe it's the science background </:-_)
😆
Many modern determinists seem to be throwing in the towel a bit early. Just because the origin of a thought or action is not yet entirely traceable or appears to happen long before the person is cognizant of having a thought or action doesn't mean that there is no will involved. It just means the timeline starts earlier than we thought. Maybe much earlier. And to note that many of our actions are nearly automatic and don't require much aforethought doesn't imply a lack of free will, either. I'm glad I don't have to think much about most daily activities, once I've decided to do them and I already know how. Assent is still necessary for actions, perhaps less necessary for thoughts, but, as Epictetus might say, it's a good idea to practice assent to develop the means to think and act well.
Agreed, except that we really ought to get rid of the term "free will" entirely. It begs the question and leads to confusion. Free from what? From cause and effect? In other words, a miracle? No such thing.
Great article. Among other things, I still have occasional trouble with some of the basic terms of Stoicism (like "impression") and I find that it helps to have it explained again in a new way, which you did (very helpfully) here. Suggested edit: "pneuma (breadth)" should be "breath", right?
Chuck, thanks for the kind words. And yes, it should be "breadth," thanks for catching the typo!
Pretty neat stuff
A few days ago I listened to a podcast between Lawrence Krauss and Robert Sapolsky on the illusion of free will. It was fascinating and although a bit over my head I came to be sympathetic to the idea of determinism. Towards the end they seem to imply that just because we don’t have free will it doesn’t necessarily mean that we can’t influence the future as if we had free will. Is this something akin to what the stoics believed?
David, Krauss is often confused when it comes to philosophical matters, even though he pretends not to be and even scoffs at philosophy as useless. What you describe appears to be one such case: he is a determinist, and yet arguing for something like compatibilism?
The Stoics did not frame things in terms of free will, a term introduced later by Christians in the context of the famous debate about the problem of evil. They talk of "prohairesis," which usually translates as volition, the currently preferred psychological term.
Their position was that we live in a deterministic universe, meaning a universe with cause-effect. Our internal mechanisms, which are responsible for our volition, are part and parcel of that web of cause-effect, not merely its passive output.
In my view, “Free will” was/is a concept, made up, by members of the ‘believer cult’, ( as is the rest of it, frankly...)to give God a free pass...absent this, religious belief becomes too problematic.
Regarding Plato and Aristotle's akrasia, (weakness of the will) vs Socrates's Motivational Cognition (mistaken judgement), I am in the Socrates camp. It seems that if someone accepts that they have akrasia, it removes personal responsibility from action or inaction and provides no or little room for personal growth.
I hear you. But to be fair, Aristotle thought that akratic people do have a moral responsibility to get their butt off the couch and go to the gym, so to speak. I think the two explanations differ in terms of how describe things, but virtuous action is the prescription in both cases.
It seems to me that the 'soul' is not made of stuff, but is a 'dynamical pattern' of stuff. This seems to be what Aristotle was saying. Thomas Aquinas somehow turned Aristotle's soul' into a ghost.
My favorite metaphor for living creatures like us (as well as plants, etc.) is a soliton -- self-propagating excitation/wave. Mathematical solitons 'live' forever but their physical analogs don't. It is the self-propagating pattern that is their 'soul.' It doesn't matter what specific 'stuff' they are made of and indeed much of the matter we are composed of is replaced over time (like Ship of Theseus).
The famous Carron river soliton maintains its 'identity' though not composed of the same 'water' as it goes upriver.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?&q=soliton+in+scotish+river&qpvt=soliton+in+scotish+river&mid=64041C367CB2125ECE9A64041C367CB2125ECE9A&&FORM=VRDGAR
Agree with u-“It seems to me the soul is not made up of stuff…”. It’s just plain made up. Imo, after one dies is very likely similar to as before one was born….’one’ just returns to the carbon cycle. Why is that bad/scary for people? Live a good life, enjoy your time here…”control what is in your control”.
The point of the comment was that Aristotle's notion of the soul was not so 'thing' but a pattern. Aquinas et Al. turned it into a ghost.
Even the old testament is not big no 'soul' or life after death,
As you probably recall, I do have a preference for seeing the worlds as patterns rather than things.
😆
Arthur, interesting metaphor, though I don’t get much consolation from thinking that when I die my mathematical soliton will continue to exist in Platonic space…
We non-mathematical solitons do not survive our dissolution. On the other hand, we have a much richer life than the mathematical variety.
Me neither. Nor do I get much comfort from the notion that in an infinite universe there will still be an infinite number of near [a] me's elsewhere/when.
[a] I think that Cantor's 'uncountable infinities' (e.g., real numbers) make it impossible for them to be identical, but they can be infinitesimally close.
I'm always amazed how the "ancients" came to their conclusions without the benefit of what we call science.
The human mind is amazing and human beings have always endeavored to explain phenomena with the resources at hand
I know, right?
Thank you, an excellent start. I look forward to developments.
The next one coming out next week!