Determinism

[Veshtrusja]

Dicka qe kam shkruajtur ne lidhje me Lirin kundra nje shkrimetari i cili mendon se liria eshte thjesht nje iluzion:

Freedom is something all may grow up wanting and many of us believe we are free but others have questioned the notion of freedom. “Are we really free?” This is the question John Hospers addresses in his paper “Meaning and Free Will”. Hospers argues for determinism, that is, that there is a cause for our behavior as humans and that the notion of Free Will is simply an illusion. Hospers concentrates on the unconsciousness in justifying his position. Although Hospers knows how to define free will and through psycho-analytical ideas in relation to the unconsciousness tries to make a case for determinism, I do not agree with many of his ideas leading to determinism and rejecting free will.

As Hospers begins his paper he gives us a general definition of what it means to be free. To Hospers the “most obvious conception” of freedom is that an act is free only if it is a voluntary act. Hospers then goes on to ask a series of question: “…does “voluntary” entail “premeditated”? Are acts we perform semi-automatically through habit to be called free acts? To what extent is a conscious decision to act required for the act to be classified as voluntary?” Later on in the paper we see Hospers’ reply to these questions. According to Hospers, most of us wouldn’t call many people free who behave voluntarily and even with premeditation, or as Hospers put it, “even with calculation afore-thought and under no compulsion (necessity) …” This reply is based on his belief that people are “moulded” by influences which in turn determine their behavior. This is where I disagree. Sure we are “influenced” by our environment “to some extent”, especially when we are young, but this doesn’t mean that when we are grown adults (once capable of reasoning) that we do not choose what we wish to be influenced by. In his paper, Hospers gives an example of a 12 year-old child murderer. The child was grown in a very negative environment among other things and, according to Hospers, it is the influence of such an environment that is to blame and not the child. However, there are cases where a child may grow up in a perfectly healthy environment and still become a murderer or a child might even grow up in a negative environment and not become a murderer. Therefore, our actions or our behavior may be influenced, but only if we allow it to influence us, only if our “will” isn’t strong enough. Hospers further goes on to say that as a result of such influences, one may have certain character traits that they cannot change even if they would. I must disagree here. People are constantly changing. We evolve as people, we learn, and we change. But, the change occurs only if the desire for the change is strong enough. Where does such desire come from? It comes from our will and our ability to reason and intellect directing our desires. Hospers mentions that a typical moralist would say an act is free when it is determined by a man’s character. But then he questions what happens when the man couldn’t do anything to shape his character. The key word here is “shape”. It is crucial in defining one’s character. Hospers believes our character is a result of environment shaping us but that may not be true. Perhaps our character is a combination of our environment and something within us, such as our soul.

Throughout the rest of the paper, Hospers focuses on the unconsciousness as a form of argument for determinism. Hospers believes it is the unconsciousness that determines what the conscious impulse and conscious acts will be. He focuses on the Oedipal Conflict to build his justifications. As an example he refers to Shakespeare’s _Hamlet. If we took a psychoanalytical position (as Hospers does) we would say to Hamlet that “what you feel such hatred toward your uncle for, what you are plotting to kill him for, is precisely the crime which you yourself desire to commit: to kill you father and replace him in the affections of your mother.” I don’t agree with this conclusion. The Oedipal Conflict in itself is debatable and has been criticized and proven wrong (by giving other explanations) in certain aspects by other psychiatrist. For instance, while Hospers would believe Oedipal Conflict could justify the idea that children see bad dreams including the parent of the same-sex (where the parent may die or something happens to them), other psychiatrists have concluded that those children see such dreams in relation the parent which they fear the most (or who disciplines the most). This is only an example to show that the entire Oedipal Conflict may not necessarily explain what goes on in our unconsciousness. Furthermore, in relation to the example with Hamlet, isn’t it possible for Hamlet to feel anger towards his uncle because Hamlet shared a bond with his father? Hamlet hated his mother for betraying her husband and marrying the uncle. Couldn’t Hamlet’s urge to kill his uncle come as a result of him wanting Justice? Hamlet wants the punishment to fit the crime, yet he suffers because he doesn’t desire to kill but he feels he must in order to have justice served. Therefore, such events may have reason unrelated to the Oedipal Conflict but just as easily justifiable.

Later on in his paper Hospers gives a few more examples to conclude that “…we are not free with respect to the emotions that we feel-when we love or hate…there are unconscious motivations for our basic attractions.” But, if we had no control over our desires perhaps we might all be criminals if we could be so easily influenced by society and allow it to determine what we become. However, we are not all criminals. Why? Because we do reason and we do change as well as learn and feel according to what we believe is good. Not only as a result of what our environment teaches us but the manner which we choose to interpret what our environment teaches us. Hospers goes on to give a specific example to support his idea in relation to a gambler. At one point in the paper he mentions: “…his (the gambler) conscious will is only an instrument, a slave in the hands of a deep unconscious motivation which determines his action.” My question here would be isn’t it equally possible for the unconscious to be a result of our will? In the case of a gambler where he may lose everything, stop gambling for a time, then begin once more, Hospers says: “The man doesn’t know he is a victim rather than an agent” This doesn’t necessarily show that our actions are a result of our unconsciousness. We see people everyday making conscious decisions but we cannot start assuming that all our decisions are controlled by the unconsciousness, especially when we are adults (capable of reason and control). For instance, my father used to smoke and he had started since he was a teenager. At around 50-years-old he decided to quit. He did quit. He doesn’t even desire to smoke any longer. He “chose” not to be “a victim” of cigarette smoking. Similarly, the man who gambles should be just as capable of stopping but he doesn’t “choose” to do so, or his will isn’t strong enough, but you cannot say the man doesn’t know what he’s doing. One must learn to control his desires, but his doesn’t mean our desires are controlled by our unconsciousness or that we are incapable of controlling our desires or ourselves for that matter.

Another example Hospers refers to in making his case for determinism is in relation to a “Popular” University student who, as Hospers describes, in relation to friends “a remark that would not hurt A but would hurt B he invariably makes to B rather than to A.” None of this is conscious and (according to Hospers) his unconsciousness is “far more shrewd and clever than his conscious intellect.” My question is: why must one say the unconsciousness is far more clever rather than ones will is weaker or that ones reasoning is weaker? Also in such a situation a person may be considered selfish. It appears that psychologists use the ideas of the unconsciousness to look for something that does not necessarily exist in every case. Why must the unconscious explain why a person is selfish and yet not explain why a person isn’t selfish. Why must the unconsciousness explain the acts of a criminal mind and not be just as justifiable for a normal mind raised under similar environments as that of a criminal. How would these instances be explained? In relation to Hospers’ university student example, a person may act a certain way because that is what satisfies them consciously and doesn’t consider that they might hurt another in the process. For example I have a hard time waking up early in the morning and it’s become necessary for me to press the snooze button many times. This disturbs members of my family but I consciously continue to do it because it is what satisfies me at the moment even though I know it bothers others. This is something I choose to do and not a result of something unconscious I have no control over. Therefore not all cases may be justified using the unconsciousness and not all acts are a result of how we’ve been raised in a certain environment.

Overall Hospers tries to point out that an act may be caused by one’s desire, but one’s desire may be beyond one’s control. In my opinion, although we are influenced to some extent by our environment (parents, school...etc), we are still capable of choosing what we wish to have the biggest influence on us. If there was a cause for all acts according to a determinist and if there is a cause for our desires –the unconsciousness, then as a free will advocate I would like to know what is the cause of our unconsciousness?

[PrInCiPiEl]

Përshëndetje

Veshtrusja http://www.forumishqiptar.com/images/icons/icon14.gif
Të lumtë për shkrimin e shkëlqyeshëm :)

• Duke u bazuar në veprimtarine e Kant-it( për mua një prej mendjeve më të ndritura në historine e filosofisë!):
  Ekzistenca e Zotit , lirise dhe shpirtit NUK MUND TË PËRGËNJESHTROHEJ , NUK MUND TE HEDHEJ POSHTË.
  
  Kështu në veprën "Kritika e mendjes praktike", më 1788 , Kanti vendos se Ligji i Moralit na ofron neve bazat per te marrur vendime te caktuara rreth objekteve transcedente ,qe mendja teorike nuk mund te bente.
  Keshtu ne besojme ne vullnetin e lire sepse ne DUHET TE BESOJME , nese do te perdornim konceptet morale si pergjegjesia , faji ,lavderimi, fajesimi,ndeshkimi etj,, sepse bazuar ne determinizem , ne fakt askush nuk eshte pergjegjes per akcionet(veprimet) e tyre , dhe sqarimet shkencore gjithmone do ti reduktojne njerezit ne krijesa te shkaqeve ne distance si psh. gjenetikes, femijerise,shoqerise, semundjeve etj.
  
  
  Ketu eshte interesante te permendim edhe nje dijetar te shquar dhe me influence te jashtezakonshme ne rrjedhat filosofike : Hamid El-Gazaliun , I cili ceshtjen e zgjedhjes se lire dhe vullnetit te lire e sqaroi duke deklaruar se : Njeriu eshte i lire ne ate qe ka dituri dhe se nuk eshte i lire ne ate qe nuk ka dituri !

.......



PrInCiPiEl

[katana]

I hope i wont need a paper in this topic!

[Veshtrusja]

When something interests you, I think its fun to write about it, actually I think it's even more fun to talk about it. (at least its easier for me to express myself in words rather than in writing).

Ciao :)