well said. my main point about choice isn't so much why you made the choice but the fact that it was definitely you that made the choice and not someone else. that's my proof that choice exists. it's kind of like Decartes' "I think therefor I am"
If even you subscribe to the "causality" camp, wouldn't everything ultimately start with a choice?? Then this intial choice causes other reactions and other choices?
Anyone who is interested in the arguments regarding choice and events through causality should check out Kant?s Third Antinomy which can be found in his Critique of Pure Reason (http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philoso...r/cpr-open.html) p.464.
In this work Kant goes into the issue of causality (fatalism) and the ideas of freedom in depth ? how they exist, how they could complement each other, etc, blah blah blah.
The concept many people hold to be freedom would be to Merovingian to be an illusion at best. When I decide to throw my keyboard across the room or go see the Matrix in the theater I wouldn?t have a choice in the matter. The choice I think I have is in reality a mere illusion, as I have already been conditioned through external influence (causes) to affect my ultimate choice. Brain chemistry, genetic make up, education, and experience all play in to what makes me me. To act on the idea of freedom I would have to be free from all desire and arguably all external influence. The choice I think I have in a matter is not actually a choice, as the choice I will make, has already been made regardless of my failing to see the connection in the chain of casually determined events. When I go to Burger King and look at the menu and ask myself if I should get a Whopper Combo with Onion Rings or with Fries, I simply think I have a choice in the matter which would follow from freedom, the ability to choose. However, based on the view of causality the choice has already been made for me ? based on prior experience, brain chemistry, etc
Freedom would say that we as human beings have a choice, and can either accept or abstain from external influences if we so desire. So when I decide to get the Whopper Combo with Fries do I do so because I as a ?free-agent? decide that?s what I want, or am I acting simply on the chain of causally determined events? Questions Questions Questions.
Causality is hardly without fault however, as if everything is simply an action following from a prior reaction, then how did the casually determined chain start in the first place. You can?t get something from nothing, as there would have had to have been something that was the first cause in the chain. Kant argues later that a free agent can start and act outside the chain of causality determined events that are already in place (which is compatible with the idea of god as a free agent). So if I was causality determined to opt for the Whopper with Onion Rings and I chose the Fries instead, I would manipulate the chain of events, and in fact start a new chain. Let?s say I?m playing pool and I hit the balls on the table with my Q. I, as a supposed free agent, would be the start of a new chain of events. The decision to hit a ball in a certain way would have been a decision that I myself choice, I then tell my the muscles in my arm to hit the balls with a certain amount of force, starting a new chain of events. The muscles in my arm move, the Q shoots out, hits the balls and they scatter around the table. From this view I, as an agent, am free to choose how to hit the ball ? however I also set off a new chain of events ? the movement of the muscles in my arm, the moving of the Q-stick, and the balls moving around the table.
However as human beings are we totally free from causality? Certainly not. Although I, acting as a supposed free agent could will that I could fly from here to New York City, I would be subject to gravity, friction, and other external factors. Even in the case where the Merovingian drank to much wine and had to take a piss. He could abstain from standing up when he did and going to the bathroom, but he would nevertheless eventually need to relieve himself based on the fact that his bladder can not hold an infinite amount of liquid, so while some argue that we are ?free? they must also realize that if we are free we also operate in a realm of causally determined events.
Well...it seems this is going around in circles but is very interesting and definetly makes me think.
I'm going to attack this problem from a different angle which many of you may disregard as old fashioned or ignorant...or may agree with. Religion.
Ok, I believe we do have a choice, although I agree that this is influenced by our past and those who have influenced us as the rest of you english intellects seem to.
I think of it this way, Luke 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will but yours be done." To put this in context for those who are lost, this is Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane asking God to let him stay alive and not endure the cross. As you may also see, Christ has already made his choice (lucky for us) and that is to follow his father's will. He knows he is not equal to God as he is the son of man as well as of God. Definetly, his birth and childhood greatly contributed to this choice but it wasn't the easy choice and it WAS a choice. "His sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground" (v44). This wasnt an easy choice. His mental effort alone made him sweat like this. He could have chosen otherwise, I believe this, but he didn't.
So, if christ had a choice then so do we. Not just big choices like that but lots of things. Sure there are reasons (causes) that influence why we make choices but we are different from animals in that we can reason and make choices and having a reason to make a certain choice does not render it fate. It just means we happen to have enough intellect to make a choice based on logic rather than instinct, or that our instincts tell us to make certain choices. Just because we chose not to do something else does not mean that we could not have done this. If cause makes choice non-existant then choices would surely be a whole lot simpler. some are inevitable becuase of how we thik and feel but there is still the element of choice.
I'm talking around in circles. Help me out or disagree.
Wow...this is a really good discussion. I would have voted for choice, idealistically but, even more-so with the arguments presented here, I would have to say causality. In any situation we have options but, those options are limited and created by previous circumstances or factors. AND, even given these options, I will be predetermined to chose one in particular, do to any number of factors regarding myself and the situation.
If I am at a restaurant, I have options on the menu. But, those options are limited and caused by the individual who created the menu. And their choices in menu items were caused by something else. Even if I tell the waiter, "Surprise me". I have made a "choice" (to not decide), which was perhaps caused by my indecisiveness (do to the overwhelming illusion of choice). But, now the waiter will make his choice for me based on some other factors about his preferences or past experiences. Still causal.
RELATED TO THIS TOPIC
If causality is accepted then, we are all very connected. For example, I'm having a bad day (caused by one thing or another) and I am rude to the clerk at the store, therefore putting her in a bad mood, causing her to be nasty to the next customer. Now this person, who I don't know, goes home upset because of how they were treated...do you see where I'm going with this?
BUT NOW
If we accept responsibility for the effects our "choices" may have on others, what can we do about it? Can we chose to act differently? We cannot if we subscribe to absolute causality because our actions would be predetermined in any given scenario.
This is a paradox...and that's my final answer.
"What one believes to be real, will be real in it's concequences"
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world"
10-19-2003 05:57 PM
