Re: Beyond Freedom and Dignity: A Philosophical Review

On May 29, 9:28 am, Wolf <ElLoboVi...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neil W Rickert wrote:
Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@xxxxxxxx> writes:

(review not quoted)

Good review. You hit on the problem with most (maybe all) arguments
against free will. Namely, when the conclusion is applied to the
arguer it implies that the arguer has no ability to reach that
conclusion.

My experience is that people who argue against free will attempt to
just brush off this objection. They don't answer it. They simply
deny that it has merit.

There is no logical connection between free will and the ability to
reach conclusions. Neither implies the other, therefore denying either
doesn't deny the other.

And of course my objection denies merit to the position you espouse. Any
criticism of the logic of am argument denies merit to that argument.

Well, that's debatable. I mean, don't I have to accept a conclusion?
Do I never have to make a choice of any kind in reaching a
conclusion? Don't we ever reject -- or fail to believe -- arguments
on the basis of what we call "intuition"? Is it not certainly the
case that the arguer only accepts, rejects, or even makes that
argument because of their past contigencies, and therefore only
accepts it because they have to, not because the argument is itself
actually or proveably true?

Basically, if they couldn't help but be convinced of that argument --
whether or not it was true -- then there's no real benefit or warrant
added by them advancing the argument.

But even if you are right, Skinner's view still has a specific problem
that I've outlined in the first post and hinted at twice now, so I
won't hint at it again [grin].

.