A more specific determinism "vs" free will debate.

[The Protagonist]

The argument that volition is axiomatic is flawed. In order for volition to be self evident, you must first assume the validity of the very premise in dispute.

To reject volition is NOT necessarily an act of volition. It would only be an act of volition if you assume that rejection was not the only possible outcome.

Edited February 14, 2006 by The Protagonist

[mrocktor]

The argument that volition is axiomatic is flawed. In order for volition to be self evident, you must first assume the validity of the very premise in dispute.

To reject volition is NOT necessarily an act of volition. It would only be an act of volition if you assume that rejection was not the only possible outcome.

To "reject" is an act of volition. The concept "rejection" implies judgment and choice. To assume is also an act of volition. There is no reason possible without volition, there is only reaction.

mrocktor

[The Protagonist]

To "reject" is an act of volition. The concept "rejection" implies judgment and choice. To assume is also an act of volition. There is no reason possible without volition, there is only reaction.

mrocktor

The human mind can analyse and calculate ("judge") and come to a conclusion ("choose"), but that does not imply volition.

Edited February 14, 2006 by The Protagonist

[AisA]

The human mind can analyse and calculate ("judge") and come to a conclusion ("choose"), but that does not imply volition.

It implies volition if you claim that the conclusion is true.

Since the mind is fallible and since errors in thinking are possible -- just witness the vast number of erroneous conclusions reached and/or accepted by millions of people -- any claim that a conclusion is true is also a claim to have avoided any such errors. But only a being in control of the function of its mind can make such a claim. Only a being with the ability to choose the logical over the illogical, with the ability to choose to think instead of evade, can know that its conclusions are true.

[Marnee]

JRS writes "... Dr. Peikoff's version of the law of causality which insists on only one possible outcome" in regards to the possible choices of focus or not focus. He claims the law of causality is contradicted by the existence of two possible outcomes.

I think what JRS is trying to pull here is plain but just to clear up the mud ....

This is a misrepresentation. JRS mixes up choices with outcomes and packages it into causality. Not the same things. And I beleive a stollen concept?

Anyway, even with regards to exactly what I quoted above, JRS gets it backwards. The point is that a result of a choice, or causality in any context, cannot be one thing and a contradictory thing. In other words, assuming focus and not focus are exact opposites, the result of a choice cannot be to FOCUS AND NOT FOCUS at the same time.

-- The sun cannot shine and not shine at the same time: Hence only one possible outcome -- An extension of A is A. The law of causality still stands. My apologies if this doesnt help the free will debate. Logically, if the law of causality is sound then free will follows, as several posters have pointed out.

Perhaps I missed something?

$

[Maarten]

I think you are right. The law of causality only means in this case that humans MUST choose by their nature, not that they don't have a choice. As a volitional being we are required to make choices about everything by our nature, and the most basic one of that is to focus or not. If one chooses not to focus then there may not be many other choices to make, but that does not mean they lost their volition.

Besides, the very fact that we're arguing about this subject implies the validity of volition.

[mrocktor]

The law of causality only means in this case that humans MUST choose by their nature,

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

I love that quote.

mrocktor