[grassroots1]

Blaming foreigners who did evil deeds around here decades ago is easier than taking responsibility and reforming now.

I appreciate this point of view. You can see the quandary though. On the one hand, directly criticizing and placing responsibility on the individual is insensitive to the conditions that potentially drove the person to that behavior. "Stealing is wrong," without understanding the circumstances that led to the theft, for example. But on the other hand, constantly apologizing and making excuses for the behavior of others can be perceived as elitist and paternalistic, and to some extent is elitist and paternalistic. Also, it hinders our own sense of control over our situation. I like what I recently read in an article from Mother Earth by Voltairine de Cleyre.

DI.5 It is thus that the so-called Materialist Conception of History, the modern Socialists, and a positive majority of Anarchists would have us look upon the world of ideas, – shifting, unreal reflections, having naught to do in the determination of Man’s life, but so many mirror appearances of certain material relations, wholly powerless to act upon the course of material things. Mind to them is in itself a blank mirror, though in fact never wholly blank, because always facing the reality of the material and bound to reflect some shadow. To-day I am somebody, to-morrow somebody else, if the scenes have shifted; my Ego is a gibbering phantom, pirouetting in the glass, gesticulating, transforming, hourly or momentarily, gleaming with the phosphor light of a deceptive unreality, melting like the mist upon the hills. Rocks, fields, woods, streams, houses, goods, flesh, blood, bone, sinew, – these are realities, with definite parts to play, with essential characters that abide under all changes; but my Ego does not abide; it is manufactured afresh with every change of these.

DI.6 I think this unqualified determinism of the material is a great and lamentable error in our modern progressive movement; and while I believe it was a wholesome antidote to the long-continued blunder of Middle Age theology, viz., that Mind was an utterly irresponsible entity making laws of its own after the manner of an Absolute Emperor, without logic, sequence, or relation, ruler over matter, and its own supreme determinant, not excepting God (who was himself the same sort of a mind writ large) – while I do believe that the modern re-conception of Materialism has done a wholesome thing in pricking the bubble of such conceit and restoring man and his “soul” to its “place in nature,” I nevertheless believe that to this also there is a limit; and that the absolute sway of Matter is quite as mischievous an error as the unrelated nature of Mind; even that in its direct action upon personal conduct, it has the more ill effect of the two. For if the doctrine of free-will has raised up fanatics and persecutors, who, assuming that men may be good under all conditions if they merely wish to be so, have sought to persuade other men’s wills with threats, fines, imprisonments, torture, the spike, the wheel, the axe, the fagot, in order to make them good and save them against their obdurate wills; if the doctrine of Spiritualism, the soul supreme, has done this, the doctrine of Materialistic Determinism has produced shifting, self-excusing, worthless, parasitical characters, who are this now and that at some other time, and anything and nothing upon principle. “My conditions have made me so,” they cry, and there is no more to be said; poor mirror-ghosts! how could they help it! To be sure, the influence of such a character rarely reaches so far as that of the principled persecutor; but for every one of the latter, there are a hundred of these easy, doughy characters, who will fit any baking tin, to whom determinist self-excusing appeals; so the balance of evil between the two doctrines is about maintained.

http://praxeology.net/VC-DI.htm

Thoughts?

[Fasces]

Daktoria will soon send this thread to oblivion, but I think it is a non-issue. Even if the world is truly deterministic, operating under the assumption of the existence of a free will would itself create conditions which mold behavior.

An example, I feel, may be the best way I can express it. Let's take a rather innocuous subject, such as fining an individual parking illegally. If we accept a deterministic mantra, the decision of that individual to park illegally is determined entirely by the conditions prior to making that decision. However, we see even here an acknowledgement of the importance of conditions. If a 'free will fanatic', as the text says, had just prior instituted a hundred dollar fine for the act, would this not become itself a condition under which future human action would be determined?

Is there, in practical applications, then, a distinction worth making between the two, no matter what one believes philosophically?

[Stranger]

Maybe I'm a bit too tired or the quote is a bit cryptic, I will just focus on the thread title:

I'm with Schopenhauer here, so no free will. However, embracing this thought wholly is probably the worst thing a person can do and it should therefore only be an abstract concept. It just serves no practical purpose.

[grassroots1]

Interesting ideas, I'm gonna wait to comment. The quote is pretty difficult but if you go through it a couple times or just read the bold (or check it out when not tired or hungover ) it becomes more comprehensible. It was written in 1910 and published in Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, so that's the old language.

[Stranger]

The quote is pretty difficult but if you go through it a couple times or just read the bold (or check it out when not tired or hungover ) it becomes more comprehensible. It was written in 1910 and published in Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, so that's the old language.

Yes, I looked it up, actually. Maybe it's just the language barrier (even more so if it's older English), but I will check back tomorrow.

[Daktoria]

It isn't that people are predetermined, but that people are predisposed.

Deliberation is necessary to acknowledge people. Things already behave reactively.

That said, people are born into situations, with emotions, and with physical faculties, so while we can choose how to act, we can only choose among sets, and even those sets have optimal strategies.

Take the conventional prisoners' dilemma for example.

Each player only has two strategies to choose among, and the nash equilibrium of the prisoners' dilemma is for both players to defect.

Does that mean both players will defect? No, but the rational strategy is for players to defect because the average outcome is highest for defection, the best outcome is highest for defection, and the worst outcome is lowest for cooperation.

The superrational strategy would entail both players cooperating because the highest total outcome comes from cooperation. Furthermore, in repeated games, initial cooperation builds trust for future cooperation.

__________

Does superrationality take regulation? No.

Superrationality can also be achieved through idealistic a priori reflection because only idealists will consider many possibilities from solitary necessities. John Rawls called this "original position" in that people must not take their particular position for granted when defining a system of justice.

Pretty much, the key to living in a superrational society is the SIMULTANEOUS elimination of pragmatism. Pragmatism has to be eliminated so people aren't shortsighted or selfish, but this elimination MUST be simultaneous because if it's not, the side which has pragmatism eliminated first will be compromised AGAINST.

For example, in the prisoners' dilemma, say we have a multi-game setup where one player is persuaded by a third party to cooperate to achieve a "higher" outcome and at least support improved long term results.

The player who is NOT encouraged would still be inclined to defect, and the player who cooperates could be exploited. This exploitation can continue indefinitely such that the cooperator is perpetually stuck. In turn, the third party might even go to persuade the other side, but the other side won't necessarily see any reason to cooperate since it has an advantageous position.

If the first side defects in the second round, the third party will seek to discipline it. On the other hand, if the first side cooperates in the second round, the other side can again defect. Even if the third party intends on disciplining the other side, defection will still yield better results.

Therefore, the only way for superrationality to be achieved would be for the third party to persuade both parties AT THE SAME TIME and threaten EITHER with punishment if EITHER chooses to defect.

The problem is that the very CONSTRUCTION of the third party requires compromise on one party's part or another (such as paying taxes to support police and education). The side which pays taxes will also become weaker, so the third party will be inclined to persuade the constructing side first which FURTHER puts the constructor into a strategic hole.

Therefore, regulation is unreliable. The only way mutual cooperation can happen is if both sides decide to reflect in advance and communicate enough to show a complete system of reflection.

This is what the quote was really referring to. It was saying that determinists are making an excuse for their own bad behavior in order to persuade the naive to pay taxes, be regulated, and be indefinitely exploited.

[jonas64]

A simple, yet convincing account on whether determinism has the upper hand on free will (especially in economics) can be seen in both Marx and Milton Friedman. The first argued that the way we act, think, behave etc, was "determined" by the system we lived in. This point of view can strongly be linked to his view of historical materialism, probably the most consistent argument in favor of determinism. This view strongly dismissed any thought that people were truly free in choosing the way they acted, there are "stronger powers", that we don't control, this is were determinism can be linked to structuralism.

In my view, and as you can imagine, the Marxist approach offers a strong case in defending determinism, despite it being somewhat pessimistic. But how can anybody refute that the family we are born into, the school we went to, the experiences we have had, don't shape, don't determine the way we are and ultimately who we are?

[Lightman]

Marxism isn't deterministic. Communism isn't assumed to come. Rather, what the proletariat has is a choice between communism and barbarism.

[CounterChaos]

To be sure, the influence of such a character rarely reaches so far as that of the principled persecutor; but for every one of the latter, there are a hundred of these easy, doughy characters, who will fit any baking tin, to whom determinist self-excusing appeals; so the balance of evil between the two doctrines is about maintained.

Some of us are Alpha - some are not. To which balance is achieved. Is Alpha a perceived evil? It is to the one who is not. Vice versa.

Doughy characters Alpha? Yep from this ^ perspective. The Beta here is the one that rarely reaches the principled persecutor.

The Alpha apparently embraces a natural world perspective and is more comfortable with his lot.

[jonas64]

I beg to differ, Communism (in Marxism) is seen as an inevitable end, firstly passing through its lower stage (socialism). For this to happen, the Proletariat must become aware of itself being a class, and (supposedly) the contradiction dictating capitalism will force its own downfall. But it would seem rather naive to see Marxism as purely deterministic, as the theory does allow some breathing space for choices being made.
But can you argue against the view that structure (society, economic differences, race, sex, etc) doesnt strongly influence/shape what we are?

[CounterChaos]

Eventually, however, de Cleyre was moved to reject individualism. In 1908 she argued "that the best thing ordinary workingmen or women could do was to organise their industry to get rid of money altogether" and "produce together, co-operatively rather than as employer and employed."[11] In 1912 she argued that the Paris Commune's failure was due to its having "respected [private] property." In her essay, "The Commune Is Risen", she states that "In short, though there were other reasons why the Commune fell, the chief one was that in the hour of necessity, the Communards were not Communists. They attempted to break political chains without breaking economic ones…".[

Wiki

I agree with this. Free will will only be found if we adopt a Resourse Based Economy

[Lightman]

I beg to differ, Communism (in Marxism) is seen as an inevitable end, firstly passing through its lower stage (socialism). For this to happen, the Proletariat must become aware of itself being a class, and (supposedly) the contradiction dictating capitalism will force its own downfall. But it would seem rather naive to see Marxism as purely deterministic, as the theory does allow some breathing space for choices being made.
But can you argue against the view that structure (society, economic differences, race, sex, etc) doesnt strongly influence/shape what we are?

Again, communism isn't the inevitable end under Marxism. The downfall of capitalism is what's viewed as inevitable. The Marxist believes that either this collapse will be effected by a revolutionary proletariat, or that civilization itself will collapse.

[The Clockwork Rat]

^ ... or fascism.

The discovery that choices are made before we're even aware of them acts in favour of the determinist argument. However, even if we don't have free will in the sense of the mind/body duality, we still experience the effects of existing - the debate is (in my opinion) quite inconsequential with respect to ethics.

[jonas64]

So, are you arguing that the Proleteriat, as a whole, have the "choice"between communism and barbarism once capitalism collapses? If so, do you believe they are free in this choice? or whether structure plays a more important role?

[Lightman]

So, are you arguing that the Proleteriat, as a whole, have the "choice"between communism and barbarism once capitalism collapses? If so, do you believe they are free in this choice? or whether structure plays a more important role?

I'm not a Marxist.

But no, what I'm saying is that the Marxist believes that the proletariat can choose to end capitalism before capitalism collapses under its own weight and brings down civilization with it, or the proletariat can wait.

[grassroots1]

And this is partly why I created the thread. Because if we take the deterministic, materialistic understanding of history to its logical conclusion, even the actions of individuals are the result of their environmental circumstances. And yet, if we want to change society, don't we have to appreciate our individual agency and see ourselves as determining history as opposed to being determined by it? So that's why I liked voltairine de cleyre's assessment that it was a failure to view the universe in a way that was so deterministic, we lost that individual agency.

[onemalehuman]

grassroots1, it is great you agree with an issue of assessment, but how does one rediscover that which was lost by employing social justification forming a society is a greater good over sole results remaining civil minded not civic minding?

[grassroots1]

I'm sorry but I can't understand what you wrote there.

[onemalehuman]

Standard reply. Think outside time managment of an ever changing exponential compounding moment of self containment being self maintaining with self evident results working the same way as details never stay the same results duplicated twice as before or since arriving as conceived and contrived in theory or theology.

Can't believe or won't accept since this is free will vs determinism.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Nope, same here. Try using punctuation.