Comments on: Why Did You Choose to Read This? http://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2010/08/05/why-did-you-choose-to-read-this/ Sun, 14 Apr 2013 03:08:56 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Devyn B. http://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2010/08/05/why-did-you-choose-to-read-this/#comment-569 Devyn B. Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:24:47 +0000 http://blogs.bu.edu/ombs/?p=550#comment-569 The first thing to point out before presenting any academic argument is that the first thing determinists do after arguing the abscence of free will is to argue why you should not become Melvilles' Bartleby and simply die from inaction. They also argue for ethical descision making. To me, this alone reconfirms my soft deterministic outlook. That is, that there is a degree of freedom and that it varys with circumstance. Now, does the causal nature of something eliminate a "will" or can a will arrive from a cause? Though our genes provide a structure that may change depending on the environment, could part of the genetic product be a will? The argument for absolute determinism that states that a causal factor makes choice an illusion argues that either the completely arbitrary or the completly impossible happen. Looking to the past to claim that an event was determined is logically fallacious, since it has already happened. It does not eliminate the possibility that a will was responsible for the event's passing. The first thing to point out before presenting any academic argument is that the first thing determinists do after arguing the abscence of free will is to argue why you should not become Melvilles’ Bartleby and simply die from inaction. They also argue for ethical descision making. To me, this alone reconfirms my soft deterministic outlook. That is, that there is a degree of freedom and that it varys with circumstance.
Now, does the causal nature of something eliminate a “will” or can a will arrive from a cause? Though our genes provide a structure that may change depending on the environment, could part of the genetic product be a will? The argument for absolute determinism that states that a causal factor makes choice an illusion argues that either the completely arbitrary or the completly impossible happen. Looking to the past to claim that an event was determined is logically fallacious, since it has already happened. It does not eliminate the possibility that a will was responsible for the event’s passing.

]]> By: Monika Chitre http://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2010/08/05/why-did-you-choose-to-read-this/#comment-568 Monika Chitre Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:51:59 +0000 http://blogs.bu.edu/ombs/?p=550#comment-568 That's a good point. On a universal level, pretty much everything has a reason. That's indisputable. However, in terms of the human struggle with existence, people often ask, "Why me?" when bad things happen unexpectedly. That statement that you referred to was sort of a response to that rhetorical question that people ask themselves sometimes when tragedy occurs. Because of the idea of free will and the feeling of responsibility for one's actions, people like "if, then" statements. For example, when one loses suddenly loses a loved one, one might ask why this loss happened or was deserved. Yes, you can explain that a disease killed that person, but there is no explanation as to why that person's loved ones in particular should suffer. It is only human to react that way, but that statement asks for people to maybe think, "Why not me?" It is easy to sit and think of the many reasons why something might have happened to one person instead of another, but ultimately, that kind of evaluation of oneself in certain kinds of situations is senseless. I know it's an entirely different argument that is only loosely related to free will, but it's just something that was on my mind that I thought had some significance in this kind of debate. That’s a good point. On a universal level, pretty much everything has a reason. That’s indisputable.

However, in terms of the human struggle with existence, people often ask, “Why me?” when bad things happen unexpectedly. That statement that you referred to was sort of a response to that rhetorical question that people ask themselves sometimes when tragedy occurs.

Because of the idea of free will and the feeling of responsibility for one’s actions, people like “if, then” statements. For example, when one loses suddenly loses a loved one, one might ask why this loss happened or was deserved. Yes, you can explain that a disease killed that person, but there is no explanation as to why that person’s loved ones in particular should suffer.

It is only human to react that way, but that statement asks for people to maybe think, “Why not me?” It is easy to sit and think of the many reasons why something might have happened to one person instead of another, but ultimately, that kind of evaluation of oneself in certain kinds of situations is senseless.

I know it’s an entirely different argument that is only loosely related to free will, but it’s just something that was on my mind that I thought had some significance in this kind of debate.

]]> By: Kayla Ritchie http://sites.bu.edu/ombs/2010/08/05/why-did-you-choose-to-read-this/#comment-567 Kayla Ritchie Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:08:59 +0000 http://blogs.bu.edu/ombs/?p=550#comment-567 "It happened regardless of what caused it. That is what is most important." This statement ignores the very heart of the debate surrounding free will. While it may be simpler to think of events as isolated, discrete units in time, in truth all occurrences (above the subatomic level) are continuous, and are simultaneously the cause and the result of other occurrences. So, to say that something happened "regardless of what caused it" is to completely forget the sort of universe we currently inhabit. Something happens only because it was the natural effect of some causal relationship. Though it may be impossible to delineate the "causal path" of a specific event, especially when human consciousness is involved, it's useless to deny that one exists. “It happened regardless of what caused it. That is what is most important.”

This statement ignores the very heart of the debate surrounding free will. While it may be simpler to think of events as isolated, discrete units in time, in truth all occurrences (above the subatomic level) are continuous, and are simultaneously the cause and the result of other occurrences. So, to say that something happened “regardless of what caused it” is to completely forget the sort of universe we currently inhabit. Something happens only because it was the natural effect of some causal relationship.

Though it may be impossible to delineate the “causal path” of a specific event, especially when human consciousness is involved, it’s useless to deny that one exists.

]]>