Volitional Will vs Determinism

[Peter]

Does this Thought of the Day support human volition or determinism?

If man does find the solution for world peace it will be the most revolutionary reversal of his record we have ever known.

George C. Marshall

The word “if” in the quote, implies volitional change but the pessimism implies determinism.

Here are some other sayings that support one view or the other.

Que sara sara. What ever will be will be, or, it just wasn’t meant to be.

Try, try again.

The devil made me do it.

Do the right thing.

It is in the hands of the gods.

And there are whole “doctrines” like Objectivism, ("Man is a being of self-made soul." AR,) Christianity, and Constitutional Government that rely on people being volitional.

Rational anarchist, George H. Smith’s treatise, IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM is founded on the idea that people are volitional,

George wrote:

I call this rational anarchism, because it is grounded in the belief that we are fully capable, through reason, of discerning the principles of justice; and that we are capable, through rational persuasion and voluntary agreement, of establishing whatever institutions are necessary for the preservation and enforcement of justice.

End quote

Some scientists postulate up to eleven dimensions while humans can only directly sense a few. We may never directly view the subatomic world or other dimensions. It may be the same for personal determinism. It is outside our purview. If our lives were determined, then nihilism would be the universal norm.

Michael wrote:

That's better and more in line with the law of identity as I always understood Rand to mean it. And there is even an implied qualifier--based on human knowledge up to now . . . I get so tired of time-travel from these scientific-minded folks. They treat the future as if it were the past--as if they were God and can decree that there is only "one possible outcome." This is what I call the God's-eye view.

Anyone who has read Rand knows that when she talks about any human knowledge at all--and that means any--including the fundamental nature of the universe, she is talking about it from the perspective of a human being. This means that if new facts arise that a human being can grasp intellectually and validate, he will revise his statements of fact. The examples are countless.

End quote

Thank you Michael. And I am not saying, peterdjones, that ignorance is bliss. I don't think that some day science will prove humans to exhibit a variety of "Hard Determinism." Someday, human consciousness may rise immortally like the Phoenix. When our volitional *souls* die something is irretrievably lost. A Determinist could never *feel* that. I prefer to think that the future (and humans) can be altered one way or the other, dependent upon volitional action.

Today, I am an integrated, independent Objectivist, and I rely on contextual definitions that I know are correct based on Objectivist principles and their applications in my time.

Peter Taylor

Notes

From: "George H. Smith"

Reply-To: "George H. Smith"

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Soft versus hard determinism (was: Re: Free will is incompatible with moral responsibility)

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:27:29 -0600

Victor Levis wrote:

"In other words, Gayle, could you please lay out the differences not only between volitionism and soft determinism, but also between soft and hard determinism?"

The labels "soft" and "hard" determinism were coined by William James (a defender of volition), who first used them in his 1884 lecture, "The Dilemma of Determinism." James wrote:

"[D]eterminists today insist that they alone are freedom's true champions. Old-fashioned determinism was what we may call *hard* determinism. It did not shrink from such words as fatality, bondage of the will, necessitation, and the like. Nowadays, we have a *soft* determinism which abhors harsh words, and, repudiating fatality, necessity, and even predetermination, says that its real name is freedom; for freedom is only necessity understood, and bondage to the highest is identical with true freedom . . . . Now, all this is a quagmire of evasion under which the real issue of fact has been entirely smothered."

James used the term "soft" in a derogatory sense, to mean something like "soft-minded." He believed that determinists should accept the logical implications of their own their position and repudiate notions like "choice" and "moral responsibility" altogether, whereas many determinists try to salvage these concepts through what James viewed as little more than linguistic contortions.

Today "soft" determinism often goes under the name of "compatibilism," because these determinists claim that their arguments, properly understood, are "compatible" with our commonsense notions of freedom, choice, morality, etc.

Another distinction, one drawn along different lines, is that between physical and psychological determinism. The former attributes causal efficacy only to material things and events, and views consciousness as a kind of epiphenomenon. The latter, in contrast, attributes causal efficacy to mental states and events.

It so happens that psychological determinists are, for the most part, "soft" compatibilists, whereas physical determinists tend to take the "hard" position in repudiating all notions of freedom and morality -- but it would also be theoretically possible for them to reverse positions in this respect, depending on how they interpret their own theories. In general, however, it is a safe bet that a psychological determinist will also be a "soft determinist," or "compatibilist."

I hope this helps.

Ghs

[anthony]

Michael,

Well.

You should get cross more often! Excellent.

Science has its deceivers just like everywhere else, and it's not pleasant to admit I've also lost some respect for it.

When science first began overturning Faith, it left a vacuum (imo) that those scientists lacking integrity rushed to fill.

God is dead: we are His heirs - kinda thing.

Not an orchestrated conspiracy, merely the will to power by individuals.

(Could explain why and how defenders of Faith are now able to rationalize science in their cause.)

Tony

[Peter]

whYNOT Tony wrote to Michael:

You should get cross more often! Excellent . . . Science has its deceivers just like everywhere else, and it's not pleasant to admit I've also lost some respect for it.

End quote

Over the years I have joked about demanding that Determinists answer some basic questions. If you are determined, what made you say that? Where is your proof? Where in your DNA is it programmed, etc.

This is not to say that some human behavior is not expressed in our DNA, just that ALL of our behavior is not expressed deterministically. For example, our propensity to “put on the pounds” is undoubtedly due to the reaction to food scarcity that evolved during the last ice age. Those that stored fat during good times survived to reproduce. Weight Watchers is volition in action.

Objectivist Ellen Moore wrote about Determinists:

In essence, you think everything is physical and follows physical laws. Yet, occasionally you mention mental, psychological, and human abilities arising from choice. You appear to think all these are subjective. But, all knowledge cannot be subjective without being irrelevant to any human purpose. You also say you accept the axioms of Objectivism, existence, identity, and consciousness. This is exactly the focal point of the problems you express - beginning at the level of these axioms . . . . I will assure you that, according to Objectivism, volitional consciousness does NOT reduce to mysticism, subjectivism, magic, or the "ghost in the machine".

End quote

I remember soft determinist, Bill Dwyer, delighted in posing all questions to a logical test. Get your syntax to the bare bones of mathematical analysis to prove what “The One Right Answer” may be.

Hard determinist, Dennis May wrote:

Evolution and feedback. Evolution has formed a continuum of complexity in living organisms for us to study. As a human develops, the complexity of though process increases for a number of years. What is missing? The latest feedback oriented learning computer programs can easily reach the level of verbal understanding demonstrated by an 18 month old human. Feedback and adaptive systems are nothing new. A few initial settings and amazing complexity can be achieved in relatively little time.

End quote

And now we have IBM’s “Watson” beating Jeopardy contestants.

I have no doubt more of our behavior will be proven to be hard wired over time. Yet, the one thing that will not be disproved is Volition.

It sure is fun and a challenge to be a ‘pretend” Determinist and to be able to predict the market, or the future, or the next big Hollywood trend, but when you look at the predictions of past Futurologists their predictions are as dumb as the predictions by self-described Psychics, because Volition is the reason the future is not determined.

Stick with science, fMRI’s, and all we WILL know in the future, but never doubt that it will always be YOU that knows it . . .

I just started thinking about the standard “giant asteroid about to hit the earth” Hollywood plot. Why do people in the cities riot and steal TV’s?

Peter Taylor

[kiaer.ts]

What a load of baloney.

One thing scientific-minded folks don't get with Rand is that the God's-eye view is foreign to her thinking, whereas they are perfectly capable of rationalizuing anything until they get there. Just throw in a little math and jargon and you can postulate the most outrageous thing if you want. But that ain't Rand.

This determinism thing is a case in point. Here is a direct quote from the article by Kiekeben that Stutlle thinks "did a pretty good job of discussing the contradiction (or incoherence)." (She is talking about Rand's contradiction and incoherence, of course.)

According to Rand, then, the law of identity implies that everything has a cause, and this in turn implies that, at any given moment, there is only one way that anything can act — only one outcome that is possible.

Implies to whom? To Rand?

Baloney.

Not in the stuff I have read. On the contrary, let me paraphrase part of that statement: At any given moment, there is only one set of ways that anything can act — only one set of outcomes that is possible--and that set comes from the existent's identity.

Ahhh...

That's better and more in line with the law of identity as I always understood Rand to mean it. And there is even an implied qualifier--based on human knowledge up to now.

But look at what Kiekeben said. How's that kind of tripe for sneaking in a concept that is foreign to Rand, attributing it to her, then claiming this proves she held contradictions and that makes her an incoherent philosophical Yogi Berra?

I get so tired of time-travel from these scientific-minded folks.

Once again, spot on. Just one complaint. "Scientific minded folks" should have come in scare quotes, since it is a pose on their part, not an actual conflict between science and philosophy.

[Peter]

Not So Silly Similarities -

A dollar today and a dime in 1955. The Yahoo homepage is speculating, “Is it time to eliminate the dollar?”

Charley Sheen and that guy at Solo.

Determinists and kids playing Gotcha!

The voices of Doctor Oz and Fox’s Sean Hannity.

The themes to “Dexter” and “The Odd Couple.”

Peter

Did someone already quote this on the thread? It's still good a second time.

From TNI:

Nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it. The potential is a superlative machine: his consciousness; but it is a machine without a spark plug, a machine of which his own will has to be the spark plug, the self-starter and the driver; he has to discover how to use it and he has to keep it in constant action. The material is the whole of the universe, with no limits set to the knowledge he can acquire and to the enjoyment of life he can achieve. But everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by him—by his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind . . . .

[peterdjones]

Valid philosophy is based on actual human beings and their human being. It is not based on any pure up-in-the-clouds contrived doctrine coughed up out of conjecture. It is determinism itself that is "so much for" philosophies as philosophy is necessary for the serious choices people make and therefore determinism implicitly uses philosophy as a stolen concept.

--Brant

Rand meets Sartre!

[peterdjones]

But look at what Kiekeben said.

He said that Peikoff said "only one possible action", which he did, and that Rand approved his words before publication, which she did.

"A thing cannot act against its nature, i.e., in contradiction to it's identity, because A is A and contradictions are impossible. In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of it's identity."--LP

I get so tired of time-travel from these scientific-minded folks. They treat the future as if it were the past--as if they were God and can decree that there is only "one possible outcome." This is what I call the God's-eye view.

I wasn't aware that all scientists are determinists.

Anyone who has read Rand knows that when she talks about any human knowledge--and that means any at all--including the fundamental nature of the universe, she is talking about it from the perspective of a human being. This means that if new facts arise that a human being can grasp intellectually and validate, he will revise his statements of fact.

Or condemn the science that gives rise to them as "irrational". Objectivists are still arguing against the Big Bang 50 years down the line. To name but one.

"A solid fact is something in the past or present. That we can know with absolute certainty.

This is getting funny. Rand is supposed to be this pragmatic, open-to-correction character, and then

out she comes with "absolute certainty"

After a pattern has been identified and corroborated by countless sane, healthy human beings over centuries, this allows man to state with certainty which set of future acts will be in line with that identity. But it does not place a cap on it. On the contrary, all concepts to Rand are open-ended so that new "non-observed until then" instances can be included.

That's a contradiction. If something is ever "stated with certainty" that does put a cap on it. OTOH, of everything is open

ended, nothing is certain

The only restriction that is placed on the future is that an existent cannot act contrary to its nature.

Can its nature change?

Edited March 9, 2011 by peterdjones

[peterdjones]

Some scientists postulate up to eleven dimensions while humans can only directly sense a few. We may never directly view the subatomic world or other dimensions. It may be the same for personal determinism. It is outside our purview. If our lives were determined, then nihilism would be the universal norm.

if our lives are determined, they will be whatever they are determined to be. Maybe we are determined to be irrational

optimists

Thank you Michael. And I am not saying, peterdjones, that ignorance is bliss. I don't think that some day science will prove humans to exhibit a variety of "Hard Determinism." Someday, human consciousness may rise immortally like the Phoenix. When our volitional *souls* die something is irretrievably lost. A Determinist could never *feel* that. I prefer to think that the future (and humans) can be altered one way or the other, dependent upon volitional action.

Well that wasn't a bunch of subjective whims...stone cold fact there, Mr Objectivist!!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

He said that Peikoff said "only one possible action", which he did, and that Rand approved his words before publication, which she did.

I was talking about Rand.

I wasn't aware that all scientists are determinists.

Are they?

Or condemn the science that gives rise to them as "irrational". Objectivists are still arguing against the Big Bang 50 years down the line. To name but one.

What's the point?

This is getting funny. Rand is supposed to be this pragmatic, open-to-correction character, and then

out she comes with "absolute certainty"

Funny? That's funny.

That's a contradiction. If something is ever "stated with certainty" that does put a cap on it. OTOH, of everything is open ended, nothing is certain.

So you say.

Can its nature change?

In your world, I suppose.

Michael

[Selene]

Did someone already quote this on the thread? It's still good a second time.

From TNI:

Nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it. The potential is a superlative machine: his consciousness; but it is a machine without a spark plug, a machine of which his own will has to be the spark plug, the self-starter and the driver; he has to discover how to use it and he has to keep it in constant action. The material is the whole of the universe, with no limits set to the knowledge he can acquire and to the enjoyment of life he can achieve. But everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by him—by his own choice, by his own effort, by his own mind . . . .

Peter:

Are you sure this Ayn quote is not from the Virtue of Selfishness?

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to continue for a little bit on Kiekeben's case. I just did an overview of determinism on the CDROM to make sure an impression I had was correct. And I found out it is.

I don't agree with some aspects of what I read, but my spot checking made it clear that there is one really big honking misrepresentation in Kiekeben's article. I quote him below quoting Peikoff:

Leonard Peikoff explains the point as follows: "Every entity has a nature; ... it has certain attributes and no others. Such an entity must act in accordance with its nature. The only alternatives would be for an entity to act apart from its nature or against it; both of those are impossible. ... In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity. This is the action it will take, the action that is caused and necessitated by its nature." (Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, 14.)

. . .

"As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no 'facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise'... Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do." (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, 333.)

Now try to square this with the following quote (which I also gave in a previous post):

According to Rand, then, the law of identity implies that everything has a cause, and this in turn implies that, at any given moment, there is only one way that anything can act — only one outcome that is possible.

Do you get the impression that something is left out?

I do.

But you won't if you read that out of focus.

So let's look closely.

Where does Peikoff say that "only one outcome" is possible in the future in terms of meaning "only one specific action" is inevitable? He doesn't. You can look but you won't find it. Yet this is the meaning Kiekeben attributes to him (and by extension to Rand).

It's really easy to do, though. Especially if you are out of focus. All you have to do is ignore what Peikoff is talking about before he gets to the passages quoted.

And what do you have to skip? I will paraphrase it since this makes it more immediately clearer than explaining hierarchical thinking (but I can do that and do quotes later, too, if needed). Between an existent acting according to its nature and not acting according to its nature, only one outcome is possible: it must act according to its nature.

This says nothing about any specific act being predetermined. In other words, "act according to its nature" can be one act from among many possible ones.

Kiekeben misrepresents the idea precisely on this point. But he gets worse.

The only important difference between the two passages is that in the latter Peikoff specifically points out that this does not apply to human actions.

The two passages he refers to are in the first quote above. When I first read that, I thought, say what? That dude's wrong.

And he is.

According to Peikoff (and Rand), an attribute of man's mind is free will. That is his nature. So, returning to my paraphrase, between man acting according to his nature and not acting according to his nature, only one outcome is possible: man must act according to his nature.

This means he must choose--the act of choice itself being the "only outcome" mentioned. The outcome is not that he must choose only one specific predestined thing, thus he has no real choice. His nature in terms of volition is so profoundly consistent that he can choose not to choose.

I admit when Peikoff says "there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity," this is not his finest hour in terms of clarity. If you keep in mind the standard, it becomes clear. So let me paraphrase Peikoff like I did myself to include the standard: between an entity acting according to its identity and not acting according to its identity, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity.

That means only one kind of action from among the two. Not one specific predestined action from among all actions imaginable.

Kerrrrriist!

I never thought I would be standing up for Peikoff. But there it is.

If you (the reader) look at my previous post on past, present and future, you will see that this all fits together perfectly--that is, unless you suffer under a misrepresented meaning of what someone wrote like the hapless Kiekeben did.

Now, like I said above, there are some things where I disagree with Peikoff on his presentation of determinism and free will. His views on science aren't anything to brag about, either. But that is for another time.

For now, one of my disagreements is not--most definitely not--that he contradicted himself on determinism (and ditto for Rand for that matter) and did a Yogi Berra (when you come to a fork in the road, take it).

Incidentally, I believe Peikoff's lack of clarity here is due to that passive voice thing I sometimes rant and rail against. Rand had a fondness for the passive voice when she cloaked her prose in a learned style. She also used semi-personified nouns like "the good" where simply saying "good" was needed. The idea was to use a form of rhetoric that made her sound highfalutin. Peikoff aped her a lot on these mannerisms. (Maybe one day I will make a list of them.)

So, in the case under discussion, instead of Peikoff saying something like an entity must act only according to its identity, he says only one action is possible to an entity--the action expressive of its identity.

They both say the same thing, but one sounds more like academic BS than the other. Apparently, Rand and Peikoff valued that since they did it so often.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That thing by Kiekeben was discussed on another thread and George Smith summed it up in a more elegant manner than I did. His post is kind of buried over there, so I am repeating his comment here. That way people interested in looking at the ideas in this article can have an easier time referencing the comments about it. (He is addressing Peter Jones--the same one as above in this thread.)

I read the article (by Kiekeben) that you linked. It is virtually worthless. I say this because it makes no effort to understand, much less explain, the agency theory of causation that constitutes the foundation of Rand's theory of causality and free will. It has many other problems as well, such as a failure to understand how Rand linked the Law of Identity to causation. A philosophical theory is not difficult to refute when you present a caricature of it.

Michael

[peterdjones]

"...Objectivists only pay lip service to the revisability of Objectivism. In practice,

where science conflicts with Objectvism, the science in question is condemned on some ad hominem grounds."

Case in point:

Now, if you consult Dave Harriman's course, you will see that quantum mechanics, the theory of everything,

string theory, is riddled with contradictions and is arbitrary, 'cause it reflects the corrupt epistemology dominant in the

intellectual world. So you cannot decide that that is the standard by which to judge philosophy. Put it another way -

science is not what scientists say. Science is what scientists say if they use a rational methodology, but scientists, even in their capacity

as holding chairs at universities, can be - and a great many of them are - as irrational, dishonest and corrupt as in any other field.

"

LP (of course)

Edited March 11, 2011 by peterdjones

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

When you say something like, "Objectivists only pay lip service..." are you talking about all Objectivists?

Inquiring minds and all...

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Objectivists only pay lip service to the revisability of Objectivism.

Who, Peikoff and Harriman? If you’ve spent much time on this site you’ll have read a great deal of criticism of both. I suspect you’ve come to the wrong place. BTW, where does your quote come from?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I'm not too sure, but this guy's style and opinions (and overgeneralized sloppiness) are very close to those of Kimmler, but without the detours into weirdness.

Maybe he's Kimmler's brother or cousin?

btw - The quote came from a post of his I threw into the Garbage Pile.

Michael

[peterdjones]

I admit when Peikoff says "there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity," this is not his finest hour in terms of clarity.

If he is trying to express strict determinism, he is perfectly clear. It is only unclear as an expression of what you think he ought

to be saying.

Another possible get out is to adopt the view that the Law of Identity and Law of Causality only render certain actions impossible, whilst not rendering any single action inevitable. This view, call it the Revised Theory, is attractive because it retains the identity-causality link, and renders volition compatible with the (revised) Law of Causality. In many ways, it is a good theory. The problem is that it is not the Rand-Peikoff theory (as their comments about the metaphysical versus the man-made illustrate),. Their theory has it that only humans can perform actions that are not necessitated by causality, whereas the Revised theory makes it quite possible for any entity to behave indeterministically so long as it is in its nature. The question of whether an entity behaves deterministicalyl or randomly or volitionally could only be decided by careful study of the entity in question. Rand is in no position to declare from her armchair that humans are the only volitional beings in the universe. Likewise, the Revised theory would allow some entities to behave randomly. For instance, an electron could be in a spin-up state, or spin-down, but no other state is possible to it. The standard quantum mechanical behaviour o of funamental particles is quite in line with the Revised Theory — a fact that that would seem advantageous to some,. But not to Rand and Peikoff remain very much opposed to it, for the usual aprioristic, armchair reasons:-

Philosophy certainly has a veto power over any subject if it violates principles established philosophically. So, if Heisenberg says for instance in the principle of uncertainty that causality is a myth or has been overturned on the subatomic level, you can throw out Heisenberg's theory on that grounds alone. And the same is true for the idea of something proceeding out of nothing. In other words, that is something proceeding causelessly, because there was nothing before it and it violates the very meaning of nothing....

--LP

The Revised Theory has the methodological implication that you cannot tell whether a specific entity is random, determined, or volitional without knowing anything about that entity. However, Rand and Peikoff reject randomness (as opposed to volition) in all its forms, and insist that a uniform causality applies to all non-human beings. Therefore, they do not hold to the Revised Theory.

If you keep in mind the standard, it becomes clear. So let me paraphrase Peikoff like I did myself to include the standard: between an entity acting according to its identity and not acting according to its identity, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity.

That means only one kind of action from among the two. Not one specific predestined action from among all actions imaginable.

But you just quoted a number of passages where Rand and Peikoff state very clearly that there is only one action available to (non human) entities, and they mean that to be a specific-fine grained action, not a mere category of actions such as a choice.

[peterdjones]

Objectivists only pay lip service to the revisability of Objectivism.

Who, Peikoff and Harriman? If you’ve spent much time on this site you’ll have read a great deal of criticism of both. I suspect you’ve come to the wrong place. BTW, where does your quote come from?

Please give an example of an Objectivist who has decided that Rand was wrong about something on the basis of scientific evidence

[peterdjones]

Peter,

When you say something like, "Objectivists only pay lip service..." are you talking about all Objectivists?

Inquiring minds and all...

Michael

Just the dozens I have communicated with over the years.

[9thdoctor]

Please give an example of an Objectivist who has decided that Rand was wrong about something on the basis of scientific evidence

Virtually every Rand admirer I know of rejects her notion of homosexuality as "psychological immorality". Even the fundies.

[Brant Gaede]

Peter,

When you say something like, "Objectivists only pay lip service..." are you talking about all Objectivists?

Inquiring minds and all...

Michael

Just the dozens I have communicated with over the years.

What is attracting you?

--Brant

the world wants to know

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But you just quoted a number of passages where Rand and Peikoff state very clearly that there is only one action available to (non human) entities, and they mean that to be a specific-fine grained action, not a mere category of actions such as a choice.

Peter,

This is a good example of ignoring what I said. Do I need to quote it?

You can disagree with with I said and the meanings I derived and why. That's your disagreement and I tend to respect disagreement. But to ignore what I said and pretend you are making intelligent conversation with me does not inspire me to want to discuss anything with you.

I can't take that seriously and I don't think anyone should.

Are you familiar with the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature site? If you bash Rand and Objectivism, you will be well received there--even if you do there like you do here. To be fair to the site's owner, Daniel Barnes (who I like), he prefers intelligent statements far more than unintelligent ones. But just bashing Rand is OK too.

You might think about giving it a try.

Michael

EDIT: Here is a quote showing part of the problem.

The problem is that it is not the Rand-Peikoff theory (as their comments about the metaphysical versus the man-made illustrate),. Their theory has it that only humans can perform actions that are not necessitated by causality...

This is wrong. I can find quotes if need be, but these discussions are long and life is short, so I'll just comment on the obvious for now. Anyone with elementary familiarity with Rand's ideas on philosophy knows that she considers entities to be causal agents. And a human being is an entity in her understanding.

In essence, this poster's line of argument is to keep saying "Rand was wrong" and misrepresenting her views. When you point out the correct meaning, he says, "No it isn't," with very little to back that up, and keeps parroting "Rand was wrong."

This is one of the traps of using the cognitive-normative inversion as your system of reasoning. Judgment trumps fact and that is not knowledge. In politics they call this spin.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Their [Rand and Peikoff's] theory has it that only humans can perform actions that are not necessitated by causality, [...].

Not quite. The theory holds that humans are causally necessitated to choose, that choosing is the action that a human must take (disregarding that choosing X is a different action from choosing Y). See the passage on pp. 68-69 I mentioned here. I'll type in the whole passage later.

What follows next in OPAR is Peikoff's discussion of the supposed axiomatic status of the Objectivist theory of volition, in which he intricately contradicts himself multiple ways. I like to think that Rand wouldn't have given a pass to that discussion. The earlier part, however, is material he expressed in the 1976 course which Rand attended.

Ellen

[Peter]

Ellen Stuttle wrote:

What follows next in OPAR is Peikoff's discussion of the supposed axiomatic status of the Objectivist theory of volition, in which he intricately contradicts himself multiple ways.

End quote

I found this interesting old letter for critics of Rand and Leonard. Do Compatibilists squirm involuntarily?

Peter Taylor

From: wswdwyer

To: objectivism@wetheliving.com

Subject: RE: OWL: RE: Causality and Free Will

Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:42:49 -0700

Andrew Schwartz (4/22/05) writes,

"I would love to understand the determinist/compatibilist argument

better, and I am wondering if any compatibilists on the list might be

willing to speak to a couple of questions I have...

"1. How do you define determinism? What differentiates determinism from

other viewpoints in this area? (I'm not looking for a definition of

compatibilism, but of the determinism compatibilism proposes is

consistent with free will.)"

As I understand it, the "compatibilist" position is compatible with free

will only if "free will" is defined differently from the traditional

view of free will. The traditional view says that we are free to make

either of two different choices under identical conditions, a view which

compatibilism rejects. So, compatibilism is really a version of

determinism, and as such is ~incompatible~ with the traditional view of

free will.

Compatibilism achieves its "compatibility" between determinism and free

will only by redefining free will to mean something different than what

free will has traditionally meant. According to the compatibilist, free

will is simply the freedom to choose an action ~if~ one were to value

choosing it. It's a conditional freedom. So, although I am not free to

vote for a socialist since I don't believe in socialism, I nevertheless

have free will, because I ~could~ vote for him if I did believe in it.

Determinism is the view that every choice a person makes is necessitated

by antecedent causes. According to compatibilism, those causes include

a person's knowledge and values. For example, a man chooses to drink a

glass of water because he is thirsty, but would choose not to drink it,

if his sweetheart's life depended on his not drinking it. (This is an

example from one of Rand's journal entries.) The point is that the

man's actions are not free, because they are determined by his values -

by his thirst, in the one case, and by his love for his sweetheart, in

the other. This view is sometimes called "soft determinism."

"2. What are the practical consequences of accepting this determinism?

What differentiates these consequences from the consequences of

accepting alternative viewpoints in this area?"

It is often argued by volitionists that we cannot rationally punish or

reward people for their actions, if they don't have free will. For if

they don't have free will, then they couldn't have chosen otherwise

under the same circumstances and cannot therefore be held responsible

for their actions.

The determinist would agree that we can't hold people responsible for

their actions unless they could have chosen otherwise, but not under

~the same circumstances~; ~under those circumstances in which their

values were different~. For example, I am responsible for my vote, even

though I could not have voted otherwise given my political convictions,

because I could have voted otherwise ~if my political convictions were

different~.

Moreover, the determinist would argue that it is ~only~ if my choices

are necessitated by my antecedent values that I can be held responsible

for those choices. Otherwise, he would say, there is no necessary

connection between my choices and my values, in which case, my choices

will not reflect my values. It would be entirely pointless to punish or

reward me for a choice that bears no necessary connection to what I

actually value, if for no other reason than that the punishment or

reward would have little, if any, effect on my behavior.

Consequently, far from determinism undermining the case for punishment

or reward, it is ~free will~ that would undermine it, because the

purpose of punishing or rewarding someone is to influence his behavior,

and in order to influence his behavior, the punishment or reward has to

be in response to what he actually values. If his actions weren't

~determined~ by his values, then punishing or rewarding him for those

actions would be pointless and ineffectual.

- Bill

[Peter]

I am interested in the folks who like to consider themselves *nearly Objectivists* or at least want to *hang out* with Objectivists but fail to accept the key tenets of Rand’s philosophy as demanded by Ayn Rand herself. She maintained that her philosophy must be integrated. Anyone who has not integrated and accepted the whole of her philosophy is not an Objectivist. From Rand’s perspective, at some point these *failures* are being stubborn or irrational and should not be associated with. I prefer the sociability of the David Kelley's and Michael Stuart Kelly's approaches.

There are some proponents of Rand who do not accept every aspect of even her minimalist-required philosophy but to me they have great personal worth. Rational Anarchist George H. Smith, does not accept Rand’s political theory demanding that the retaliatory use of force be put into the hands of government. There are determinist / compatibalists like Bill Dywer who are not satisfied with her lack of scientific basis for human thought. The well spoken Roger Bissell at one time or another has said he agrees with compatibalism AND rational anarchism, and was recently denied admission to an Objectivist club. These people are a lot of fun to read and be around, even if only in cyberspace.

I am an Independent Objectivist. I think of Peikoff, The Ayn Rand Institute and even Ayn Rand herself as Fundamentalist Objectivists; fundamentalist almost like a religion.

Fundamentalist Objectivist Ellen Moore wrote:

Rand maintained that each human consciousness is required by its identity to act volitionally. A human consciousness ~cannot~ act deterministically. It is not programmed metaphysically as a determined automaton because its nature is volitionally causal. Each consciousness has the individual, independent power to initiate, direct, and control only its own actions of awareness.

End quote

I agree . . . and yet, I still want to hear what determinists have to say. I think the key verbal paraphrase in the above quote as concerns determinism is, “humans initiate their own actions of awareness.” And again I agree one hundred percent, yet . . . let me start over without throwing out what I have already written.

The point I am trying to make is that people like Bissell or George H. Smith are eloquent defenders of Rand while taking exception with some aspects of her philosophy. I don’t like Official Objectivists behaving in a religious manner as in considering those in non-compliance as being heretical. I don’t like the Objectivist practices of *OFFICIAL* shunning and ostracizing.

But I do agree with individuals deciding with whom they will associate. And as an adjunct to that agreement I see nothing wrong with a moderator, moderating a forum. I would just prefer that limitations on a person’s ability to discuss an issue on Objectivist Living be kept to a minimum and if necessary to my personal decision to not read or respond to someone’s post. I can only imagine the task of Michael who probably reads most if not everything written on his forum.

Peterdjones wrote:

Another possible get out is to adopt the view that the Law of Identity and Law of Causality only render certain actions impossible, whilst not rendering any single action inevitable. This view, call it the Revised Theory, is attractive because it retains the identity-causality link, and renders volition compatible with the (revised) Law of Causality. In many ways, it is a good theory . . . Likewise, the Revised theory would allow some entities to behave randomly.

end quote

Interesting. So Mr. Jones is NOT a hard determinist? And he recently used the word "evasion." And he has spoken to numerous Objectivists over the years. And he may like to hang out with us. I hope peterdjones in particular would be a bit more forthcoming with HIS THEORIES of human consciousness. Do you agree with other aspects of the Objectivist Philosophy? Show us how to correct Objectivism, if you can.

Peter Taylor