Many modern determinists seem to be throwing in the towel a bit early. Just because the origin of a thought or action is not yet entirely traceable or appears to happen long before the person is cognizant of having a thought or action doesn't mean that there is no will involved. It just means the timeline starts earlier than we thought. Maybe much earlier. And to note that many of our actions are nearly automatic and don't require much aforethought doesn't imply a lack of free will, either. I'm glad I don't have to think much about most daily activities, once I've decided to do them and I already know how. Assent is still necessary for actions, perhaps less necessary for thoughts, but, as Epictetus might say, it's a good idea to practice assent to develop the means to think and act well.
Great article. Among other things, I still have occasional trouble with some of the basic terms of Stoicism (like "impression") and I find that it helps to have it explained again in a new way, which you did (very helpfully) here. Suggested edit: "pneuma (breadth)" should be "breath", right?
A few days ago I listened to a podcast between Lawrence Krauss and Robert Sapolsky on the illusion of free will. It was fascinating and although a bit over my head I came to be sympathetic to the idea of determinism. Towards the end they seem to imply that just because we don’t have free will it doesn’t necessarily mean that we can’t influence the future as if we had free will. Is this something akin to what the stoics believed?
Regarding Plato and Aristotle's akrasia, (weakness of the will) vs Socrates's Motivational Cognition (mistaken judgement), I am in the Socrates camp. It seems that if someone accepts that they have akrasia, it removes personal responsibility from action or inaction and provides no or little room for personal growth.
It seems to me that the 'soul' is not made of stuff, but is a 'dynamical pattern' of stuff. This seems to be what Aristotle was saying. Thomas Aquinas somehow turned Aristotle's soul' into a ghost.
My favorite metaphor for living creatures like us (as well as plants, etc.) is a soliton -- self-propagating excitation/wave. Mathematical solitons 'live' forever but their physical analogs don't. It is the self-propagating pattern that is their 'soul.' It doesn't matter what specific 'stuff' they are made of and indeed much of the matter we are composed of is replaced over time (like Ship of Theseus).
The famous Carron river soliton maintains its 'identity' though not composed of the same 'water' as it goes upriver.
Yep! For a philosopher, you are very sensible. Maybe it's the science background </:-_)
Many modern determinists seem to be throwing in the towel a bit early. Just because the origin of a thought or action is not yet entirely traceable or appears to happen long before the person is cognizant of having a thought or action doesn't mean that there is no will involved. It just means the timeline starts earlier than we thought. Maybe much earlier. And to note that many of our actions are nearly automatic and don't require much aforethought doesn't imply a lack of free will, either. I'm glad I don't have to think much about most daily activities, once I've decided to do them and I already know how. Assent is still necessary for actions, perhaps less necessary for thoughts, but, as Epictetus might say, it's a good idea to practice assent to develop the means to think and act well.
Great article. Among other things, I still have occasional trouble with some of the basic terms of Stoicism (like "impression") and I find that it helps to have it explained again in a new way, which you did (very helpfully) here. Suggested edit: "pneuma (breadth)" should be "breath", right?
Pretty neat stuff
A few days ago I listened to a podcast between Lawrence Krauss and Robert Sapolsky on the illusion of free will. It was fascinating and although a bit over my head I came to be sympathetic to the idea of determinism. Towards the end they seem to imply that just because we don’t have free will it doesn’t necessarily mean that we can’t influence the future as if we had free will. Is this something akin to what the stoics believed?
Regarding Plato and Aristotle's akrasia, (weakness of the will) vs Socrates's Motivational Cognition (mistaken judgement), I am in the Socrates camp. It seems that if someone accepts that they have akrasia, it removes personal responsibility from action or inaction and provides no or little room for personal growth.
It seems to me that the 'soul' is not made of stuff, but is a 'dynamical pattern' of stuff. This seems to be what Aristotle was saying. Thomas Aquinas somehow turned Aristotle's soul' into a ghost.
My favorite metaphor for living creatures like us (as well as plants, etc.) is a soliton -- self-propagating excitation/wave. Mathematical solitons 'live' forever but their physical analogs don't. It is the self-propagating pattern that is their 'soul.' It doesn't matter what specific 'stuff' they are made of and indeed much of the matter we are composed of is replaced over time (like Ship of Theseus).
The famous Carron river soliton maintains its 'identity' though not composed of the same 'water' as it goes upriver.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?&q=soliton+in+scotish+river&qpvt=soliton+in+scotish+river&mid=64041C367CB2125ECE9A64041C367CB2125ECE9A&&FORM=VRDGAR
I'm always amazed how the "ancients" came to their conclusions without the benefit of what we call science.
Thank you, an excellent start. I look forward to developments.