Re: article on Dennett, free will and counterfactuals
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
>We are disappointed when we don't do as well as we'd have liked. And that disappointment can be a helpful determinant, it can change us. But if we imagine, as most people do, that they could have done better, their disappointment will grow into self-contempt, a serious barrier to self-improvement.
> It's a useful concept looking back too, we need to be disappointed when we didn't do our best and satisfied when we did. Blocking this off is a bad thing to do.
In my version, fiction is clearly separated from facts. In your version, "didn't do our best" is a fiction mistaken for a fact, very dangerous to the psyche.
- Stephen, Tom: I'm not interested in getting back into it, but convinced that there is no useful sense of CHDO, compatibilist, libertarian, or otherwise. By useful I mean not so confusing that it doesn't do more harm than good. Perhaps if a majority of the population had a thorough understanding of philosophical issues and jargon, but it doesn't.
There's only CHDOITHBDWTW, could have done otherwise if things had been different which they weren't.
But I'm definitely not interested in going back into that discussion again.
--- In email@example.com, "twclark2002" <twc@...> wrote:
> Thanks Stephen. You state the important conclusion when you say at CFI:
> "The difference is the difference between the responsibility, praise,
> blame, guilt etc that should fall out of compatibilist theory and the
> intuitive sense of responsibility, praise, blame etc that people
> actually have. Compatibilist responsibility and so on is functional,
> what people holding each other responsible, blaming, shaming, praising
> and so on does is influence will, it influences the choices we make.
> "But if this is the case why do so many people say if determinism is
> true we are not responsible, not to blame and so on? It's because
> the responsibility people actually believe in is not just this
> functional thing that influences behaviour, it is a deeply deserved
> responsibility, a deeply deserved guilt, a deeply deserved blame, deeply
> deserved praise and so on. So to try to illustrate the difference, if we
> think about my murderer, if he had no way of getting to a situation of
> not committing the murder from the circumstances of his birth (leaving
> randomness aside), then I think we naturally have a sense of there but
> for circumstances go I, that was a rotten bit of luck, fancy being born
> in those circumstances, certainly not a sense of he deserves to suffer
> for what he has done."
> I think what you've said here should reassure Ken and other progressive
> naturalists that you see the practical signficance of sticking with the
> compatibilist sense of CHDO. Thanks for your efforts at the CFI forum
> and elsewhere to get this idea across.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "stephnlawrnce"
> <stephnlawrnce@> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Ken Batts" ken@
> > >
> > > Sorry, but any consensus we might have is acadenic and moot, since
> you admit you give little importance to the "specific" sence of CHDO
> which I believe is incredibly important. As long as compatibilists blur
> the distinction between facts and fictions, as Tom put it, the
> revolution will not occur.
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > Hi Ken,
> > I just posted a piece on CFI
> http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/474/P1410/ which I
> hope helps unblur the situation.
> > Best,
> > Stephen