Reddit mentions of Four Views on Free Will

Four Views on Free Will by John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas is an excellent broad survey of the debate, and is a great introduction to the main ideas of the topic.

https://smile.amazon.com/Four-Views-Free-Martin-Fischer/dp/1405134860

We can change our desires and tendencies, but we will change them according to our current ones which include desire to change them in the first place. Moreover, our current desires are based on our previous desires which are based on even older desires. Ultimately, if we follow causation of each desire, we will end at factors upon which we had no control.

I assume, those factors which are beyond our control are what Einstein referenced when he paraphrased Schopenhauer.

In a previous thread you mentioned Sam Harris as a person who piqued your interest in free will debate. Even though I am a layman, I came to conclusion that Sam unknowingly or even worse knowingly left out many important questions (of which Frankfurt cases are most significant) unanswered in his book and speeches. I strongly encourage you to read proper positions on free will debate. My suggestion is book called 'Four Views on Free Will'. I also recommend Derk Pereboom's lectures if you gravitate toward position similar to hard determinism.

four views on free will. good book if you're interested in free will. each author has an article arguing for their position, and another responding to the other three articles. all four authors are leading writers on free will

> gishgallop me

"Bro you gave me so many alternatives to my stemlord hyperdeterminism wtf gish gallop"

Amazing take

> mutually exclusive

If you read the first 10 pages of Tse's book he literally says that Robert Kane's model of Ultimate Responsiblity and Self Forming Actions are compatible with his criterial causation model, so no, they aren't mutually exclusive, he explains a different physical method of it occurring though the primary requirements for both forms of free will are the same.

> I'll start challenging them one by one.

Or you could just... read a fucking book :)

Harris's doesn't count btw.

> Pretending that Kane's position is not ridiculous is the opposite of being serious about the conversation.

I guess if i only read one page critiques and none of Kane's responses or none of the alternative formulations and explanations done by Mele like you did this conversation, then sure, I can see that being your take.

Whatever brother, I'll let you go back to complaining about Jordan Peterson and incels, you really are doing God's work, or just work once you finish that little endeavor of yours.

If you're interested in learning more about the debate surrounding free will, causal determinism, moral responsibility, etc. I recommend reading the following book:

https://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Free-Martin-Fischer/dp/1405134860

​

It's an excellent introduction to the issues surrounding Free Will and it gives equal time and space to the various stances, and also allows the four authors to respond to each other's arguments. On a personal note, Fischer was one of my philosophy professors in college and I still consider him a mentor years later.

If one decides to perform an action in advance, and then performs that action, was it not a self-determined action? He was determined to slap the person in advance, but it was still a choice he made given many alternative options. Furthermore, is free will simply the freedom of action, or is it also the freedom of self-determination? I would argue that free will gives us the freedom to form ourselves into the people we wish to be, not just to perform the actions we wish to perform. He may have shaped himself into the type person that would slap an opponent instead of debating. Since this sub is about existentialist philosophy, you will probably find more people here agree with the idea of shaping ourselves into the people we wish to be.

>(or as Steven Pinker puts its a ghost inside your body pushing all the buttons)

Ah, another reference to a "pop intellectual" who isn't an expert in philosophy or free will. I've seen Sam Harris, Robert Salpolski, and now Steven Pinker as the defenders of hard determinism. It tends to be neuroscientists and psychologists in the popular science community. Why hasn't anyone mentioned a professional philosopher that shares their deterministic views; one who can provide a solid philosophical foundation for such beliefs? It may be because the majority of professional philosophers either believe free will is compatible with a deterministic universe, or that there is free will and it is incompatible with determinism.

>Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

If you're interested in learning more about the justifications and challenges for free will, I recommend reading Elbow Room by Daniel Dennet and Four Views on Free Will. I can guarantee you'll learn more about free will from those two books than you will by listening to Steven Pinker.

http://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Great-Debates-Philosophy/dp/1405134860