![]() ![]() ![]() In so doing, I turn back to one of its earliest and most committed defenders, William of Ockham. I endeavour here to restore confidence in self-knowledge, and hence in personhood, by reviving the introspective argument. Despite its commonsense appeal and despite its role in shaping the tradition of metaphysical libertarianism, the introspective argument for free will has all but disappeared from the current debate and is widely regarded as a dead horse. How can we claim to be aware of ourselves as selves when we are so fundamentally deceived about what we are? People on the street claim to know of the existence of free will by examining their own experiences from the inside, what philosophers call 'introspection'. According to them, the belief is just as inescapable as it is mistaken.īut evolutionary determinism is disturbing because it undermines the possibility of self-knowledge and therefore personhood. Even the determinists themselves, who allegedly know they do not have free will, cannot stop believing they do. Without this conviction we could not function in a fully human way. For any given plan of action, we believe we could do otherwise. ![]() In our every waking moment we regard ourselves as agents with choices about what to think and what to do. Let us call this view 'evolutionary determinism', and let its proponents grant that the sensation of free will is central to human consciousness. Human beings, they seem to say, believe they have free will, not because this belief is true, but only because it is a useful survival strategy. It is common for philosophers to argue that free will is a natural illusion, by which they mean that belief in free will is a product of evolution. There is a disturbing movement afoot in contemporary philosophy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |