OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 04:07:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What does /OC/ think about Inspiring Philosophy?  (Read 1028 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 791


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2014, 10:17:35 PM »

Note here that the rest of the passage refers back to these conditions, discussed previously, which establish voluntary action: The presence of one's 1. Wish. [2. Volition.] 3. Consideration between alternatives. 4. Decision. [5. Execution.]

So how's this Compatabilistic?

Quote
The conditions for acting ἐφ'ἡμῖν are established in the first passage; as long as those conditions are met, then the action is voluntary (free). These conditions do not preclude determinism.

Certainly correct, just as the Buddhist pratitya-samutpada does not preclude determinism as well. It does not follow that he is compatabilistic since human beings have the ability to do otherwise. If not he/she is simply the product of prior causes.


Quote
is missing the important preceding line, which reads, in part:

Quote
...a human being originates and fathers his own actions as he fathers his children.

The human begetting of children is certainly no uncaused or ultimate cause... police

It is. In this context, Aristrotle is referring to a male that begets his own children. If the father does not engage in the process of intercourse, no children would be created. If the father does engage in intercourse, children shall be begetted and as the ancient mindset goes, he is the cause of the children. This therefore is considered "uncaused" within this context.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 10:20:17 PM by sakura95 » Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2014, 02:59:48 PM »

So how's this Compatabilistic?

Insofar as it doesn't rule out determinism. But recall that you were the one who originally referred to Aristotle's account as Compatibilistic.

It does not follow that he is compatabilistic since human beings have the ability to do otherwise. If not he/she is simply the product of prior causes.
It does not follow that he is incompatibilistic.

Being able to provide prior causes for an agent's wish-volition-consideration-decision-execution process does not make an act involuntary according to Aristotle; locating the immediate cause of an action outside of the agent, in such a way as to bypass agency, does (as in the case of one being carried away by a storm at sea, or having one's hand forced.) If the agent's wish-volition-consideration-decision-execution process is an immediate explanation of the action in question, then that action is free; none of this requires the absence of a further causal history outside of the agent.

Quote
Aristrotle is referring to a male that begets his own children. If the father does not engage in the process of intercourse, no children would be created. If the father does engage in intercourse, children shall be begetted and as the ancient mindset goes, he is the cause of the children. This therefore is considered "uncaused" within this context.

He is a cause of the children, but he is in no wise the ultimate cause or the uncaused cause. "Something which is uncaused only in a given context" sounds like nothing more than imprecise language for an immediate cause, which has preceding causes.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 03:06:52 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 791


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2014, 03:59:00 PM »

Insofar as it doesn't rule out determinism. But recall that you were the one who originally referred to Aristotle's account as Compatibilistic.

Of course it doesn't rule out determinism just as the pratitya-samutpada doesn't but it doesn't mean that it is Compatabilistic.

Quote
It does not follow that he is incompatibilistic.

It does. Compatabilist Free Will does not account for the ability to do otherwise. It is simply doing what the entity wants without coercion or interference.

Quote
Being able to provide prior causes for an agent's wish-volition-consideration-decision-execution process does not make an act involuntary according to Aristotle; locating the immediate cause of an action outside of the agent, in such a way as to bypass agency, does (as in the case of one being carried away by a storm at sea, or having one's hand forced.) If the agent's wish-volition-consideration-decision-execution process is an immediate explanation of the action in question, then that action is free; none of this requires the absence of a further causal history outside of the agent.

But that isn't what I said. Of course prior causes play a role in shaping and providing the choices which we must "focus" upon and rationalize which of the possible choices are the most suitable course of action to take. This is in line with the pratitya-samutpada which also agrees that just because an agent's "wish-volition-consideration-decision-execution process" have prior causes which are external to the agent, it does not follow that the agent cannot choose otherwise or that his/her action is involuntary. However this does not entail compatabilism, unless you decide to use it in its general sense that is "Free Will is compatible with Determinism" but not the redefined Free Will that compatabilists propose.

Quote
He is a cause of the children, but he is in no wise the ultimate cause or the uncaused cause. "Something which is uncaused only in a given context" sounds like nothing more than imprecise language for an immediate cause, which has preceding causes.

Yes that is correct but whether or not there shall be children bearing his genes depend upon the father. The father himself is caused by a myraid of prior causes ala interdependent Origination style.

I did some deeper research into the Buddhist pratitya-samutpada and I have to make some clarifications here. I'm agreeing with the Mahayana Tradition's view of it not the Theravada. The Theravadians tend to view the pratitya-samutpada in the Cause and Effect sense as in a linear chain. The Mahayana views it as a huge web of causes that are interconnected. This provides room for Determinism and Indeterminism to exist together.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2014, 05:44:52 PM »

It does. Compatabilist Free Will does not account for the ability to do otherwise. It is simply doing what the entity wants without coercion or interference.
And in more accurate translation, Aristotle is speaking to the latter, as we have established.

Of course prior causes play a role in shaping and providing the choices which we must "focus" upon and rationalize which of the possible choices are the most suitable course of action to take.
Alright, sounds good.

However this does not entail compatabilism, unless you decide to use it in its general sense that is "Free Will is compatible with Determinism" but not the redefined Free Will that compatabilists propose.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Yes that is correct but whether or not there shall be children bearing his genes depend upon the father. The father himself is caused by a myraid of prior causes ala interdependent Origination style.
Those causes are jointly sufficient to explain the effect in question, are they not?
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 05:46:05 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 791


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #49 on: November 21, 2014, 06:16:49 PM »

And in more accurate translation, Aristotle is speaking to the latter, as we have established.

Unfortunately he's not.

Quote
Those causes are jointly sufficient to explain the effect in question, are they not?

Yes that is correct but that includes input from the agent. The choices the agent makes is not caused by prior causes but self determined by him/herself. His/her input would play a significant role in shaping the effect just as in the context of the father choosing whether or not to bear children.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2014, 03:11:02 PM »


Quote
Those causes are jointly sufficient to explain the effect in question, are they not?

Yes that is correct but that includes input from the agent. The choices the agent makes is not caused by prior causes but self determined by him/herself.
Can you give me an example of a possible input which is not itself explained by anything?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 791


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2014, 03:19:32 PM »


Quote
Those causes are jointly sufficient to explain the effect in question, are they not?

Yes that is correct but that includes input from the agent. The choices the agent makes is not caused by prior causes but self determined by him/herself.
Can you give me an example of a possible input which is not itself explained by anything?

No. But this is fine because it is what the Mahayanist version of the Pratītyasamutpāda assumes as well whilst preserving Libertarian Free Will. All things are dependent upon multiple causes and conditions. However not all of these conditions and causes are determined and could be akin to that of Quantum Mechanics.

   
« Last Edit: November 22, 2014, 03:19:46 PM by sakura95 » Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #52 on: November 24, 2014, 09:16:55 PM »

Quote
Can you give me an example of a possible input which is not itself explained by anything?
No.
Ok...

not all of these conditions and causes are determined and could be akin to that of Quantum Mechanics.
So... are you giving me something you consider to be an example: "Something akin to Quantum Mechanics"?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 791


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #53 on: November 24, 2014, 09:23:59 PM »

So... are you giving me something you consider to be an example: "Something akin to Quantum Mechanics"?

That's right

Now there's no escape. Admit that Aristrotle is not a compatabilist and that the Mahayanist view of the interdependent arising is legitimate and more closely aligned with his view  Smiley
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #54 on: November 25, 2014, 03:56:20 PM »

So... are you giving me something you consider to be an example: "Something akin to Quantum Mechanics"?
That's right
So far you have:

1. An agent's choice has multiple immediate explanations.
2. One or more of those causes are unexplained by anything, and are "something akin to quantum mechanics" (which is itself an explanation, but we won't get into that).

The ability of the agent to do otherwise does not fall out from this; furthermore, Aristotle makes no mention of this sort of unexplained agent cause, at least as far as beings like us are concerned.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2014, 03:58:41 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 791


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #55 on: November 25, 2014, 04:50:20 PM »

So... are you giving me something you consider to be an example: "Something akin to Quantum Mechanics"?
That's right
So far you have:

1. An agent's choice has multiple immediate explanations.
2. One or more of those causes are unexplained by anything, and are "something akin to quantum mechanics" (which is itself an explanation, but we won't get into that).

The ability of the agent to do otherwise does not fall out from this; furthermore, Aristotle makes no mention of this sort of unexplained agent cause, at least as far as beings like us are concerned.

1) Yes indeed

2) This is the case, including the act of exercising Free Will that is to say the decision making process is caused by the agent who exercises Free Willings rather than the act of exercising being determined by prior causes. Also, Quantum Mechanics is indetermined which is why we have the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment in the first place or perhaps the notion that the position of a particle is unknown until an observer makes a measurement. Given this, the quantum world which would also effect the movements and behavior on a macro scale as the Interdependent Arising proposes which is to say that any phenomenon is caused by an infinite number of causes which in turn alters and affect future and subsequent phenomenons. This is included when an Agent makes a choice. External causes places a limit on the options he/she can pursue. The Agent's past experiences would also play a role in how the decision would be made. The agent himself however would be the one who makes the decision and focus upon the possible alternatives and past experiences when making the decision following Ayn Rand's explanation of Free Will. This means that the agent is capable of doing otherwise and that his/her choice is not determined to be.

According to Aristrotle we are responsible for our actions because we are the cause of them or to be more exact, the "Prohairesis" which is the decision making process that takes place when contemplating between various possibilities towards an "end". This is exercised by the agent's own self not through prior causes which Aristrotle explicitly makes clear when describing it as he wrote,

Quote
"Hence choice is either desiderative reason or ratiocinative desire, and such an origin of action is a man."
Nicomachean Ethics, Book 6, Chapter 2



Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,077


Nepsis or Sepsis™


« Reply #56 on: Yesterday at 03:55:41 AM »

Given this, the quantum world which would also effect the movements and behavior on a macro scale as the Interdependent Arising proposes which is to say that any phenomenon is caused by an infinite number of causes which in turn alters and affect future and subsequent phenomenons. This is included when an Agent makes a choice. External causes places a limit on the options he/she can pursue. The Agent's past experiences would also play a role in how the decision would be made. The agent himself however would be the one who makes the decision and focus upon the possible alternatives and past experiences when making the decision
Yet this choice would not be up to the agent according to your stringent incompatibilist standard for "up to us." It would be up to a combination of indeterminism and prior causes. All this sounds like is Aristotle's standard account with some indeterminism thrown in, which does not solve your problem.

According to Aristrotle we are responsible for our actions because we are the cause of them or to be more exact, the "Prohairesis" which is the decision making process that takes place when contemplating between various possibilities towards an "end".
That's part of it, yes.
Quote
This is exercised by the agent's own self not through prior causes which Aristrotle explicitly makes clear when describing it as he wrote,
Quote
"Hence choice is either desiderative reason or ratiocinative desire, and such an origin of action is a man."
Nicomachean Ethics, Book 6, Chapter 2

And yet, as we've previously established, Aristotle did not believe that an action with origin in man was itself not the effect of prior causes. I really suggest that you read about luck and chance in his Physics, as well as about the four causes, and look carefully in Ethics, how Virtue states are formed (i.e. conditioning of pleasure and pain, etc.) The sort of account you are proposing just doesn't seem to fit; or, if it does, you'd have to do a lot of work to make that sort of case.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 03:59:29 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Tags: apologetics  You Tube boring 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.085 seconds with 40 queries.