I think that this topic deserves far, far more investigation and discussion. I remember years ago reading a similar discussion about the nature of ‘love.’ Is there something “magical” or is it just a bunch of chemical reactions and cultural/environmental/biologically evolutionary cues, etc? Like you, I personally lean towards the non-ethereal, non-magical view. And just like so many other ‘facts’ once settled about ourselves and our world, as time goes on we discover more and more about laws physics and how biology is destiny. And our moral and normative constructs are just that: the ways in which, over millennia, humankind has experimented with and developed all sorts of ‘education’ and enforcement mechanisms that are intended to order and ‘civilize’ our lives and interactions.
All very important and fascinating. We make judgments about our own and others’ behaviors, intentions, and motivations all the time, including through secular law and the ‘laws’ of faith. And these judgments serve as guidelines, gateways, glue, and grievances of all of the tribes we create and inhabit, including in our own minds.
It’s not unsurprising that one is inclined to reference Shakespeare in all of this. His particular genius seems to me to be bound-up in his capacity to have us inhabit, play-out, and gain otherwise elusive insights into the life-shaping forces and consequences of our ‘human’ condition, including the possibility that,
“Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Or that,
“The fault . . . Is not in our stars, but in ourselves . . .”
My Shakespeare prof at Rice University, over a half century ago, required us to memorize a passage. I chose that MacBeth speech, that some say is the most pessimistic in Shakespeare, and have always been glad I did'--"Tomorrow and tomorrow creeps forth in this petty pace from day to day; Life's. . . " And I'm sure you know that Faulkner et al have been inspired by that passage for book titles.
My introduction to the philosophy of Shakespeare was from a cartoon in Playboy magazine. It showed a stereotypical criminal in his hideout with the police bursting through the door. The criminal says: "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare; which was from Hamlet. I actually thought about that for quite some time. I had no philosophy courses in college, and my airline pilot training was no help in that department; so I read the writings of some philosophers later in life, including most recently Sapolsky's book, Determinism. Or, rather, tried to read it. It did make me think deeply about the free will issue; but reading the Gadfly's blog critique was more helpful. As a non-scientist, it seems to me that a sort of determinism leads one to narrow choices in our free will. Everyone's early years of education and environment will determine a different set of narrow choices for each individual.
Do we really hold people responsible? Many heinous acts turn out to be by repeat offenders. Then there are places like my city, San Francisco, where it's rare to even witness a driver pulled over for dangerous driving.
Here in Texas, which is supposedly "tuff on crime," a common story on the local news is a hideous crime committed by someone with a rap sheet stretching around the block. I, true blue bleeding-heart liberal that I am, demand "Why the #@%*! wasn't he in prison?!?"
I spent 10,000 words murdering Bobby Sapolsky on this, including a look at the idea that he, as part of Paul's Not.Even.Wrong in his book, made a category mistake, per Gilbert Ryle, and that (a la the Sam Harris Keith mentions) his real focus was ethical naturalism, not determinism. https://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2024/02/i-just-murdered-robert-sapolsky-but-it.html
That said, Slammng Sammy is wrong, too, and not that good of a philosopher himself, either.
That that said, I think a lot of people who approach volition from an ethics-based angle get to determinism for the wrong reasons.
I know Whitehead's well-known comment, which Massimo Pigliucci has put forth from time to time, but, Plato's just not the starting point, by and large, today.
Kant claimed that Hume awakened him from his "dogmatic slumbers." So, if it had not been for Hume, there never would have been The Critique of Pure Reason.
Right. And, Whitehead was a pantheist idealist, so he had reason to tout Plato anyway! While empiricism itself is of course dead, the issue of what knowledge is, philosophy of mind and psychology (sorry, Nietzsche, you weren't the first psychologist) go back to Hume.
I think that this topic deserves far, far more investigation and discussion. I remember years ago reading a similar discussion about the nature of ‘love.’ Is there something “magical” or is it just a bunch of chemical reactions and cultural/environmental/biologically evolutionary cues, etc? Like you, I personally lean towards the non-ethereal, non-magical view. And just like so many other ‘facts’ once settled about ourselves and our world, as time goes on we discover more and more about laws physics and how biology is destiny. And our moral and normative constructs are just that: the ways in which, over millennia, humankind has experimented with and developed all sorts of ‘education’ and enforcement mechanisms that are intended to order and ‘civilize’ our lives and interactions.
All very important and fascinating. We make judgments about our own and others’ behaviors, intentions, and motivations all the time, including through secular law and the ‘laws’ of faith. And these judgments serve as guidelines, gateways, glue, and grievances of all of the tribes we create and inhabit, including in our own minds.
It’s not unsurprising that one is inclined to reference Shakespeare in all of this. His particular genius seems to me to be bound-up in his capacity to have us inhabit, play-out, and gain otherwise elusive insights into the life-shaping forces and consequences of our ‘human’ condition, including the possibility that,
“Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Or that,
“The fault . . . Is not in our stars, but in ourselves . . .”
My Shakespeare prof at Rice University, over a half century ago, required us to memorize a passage. I chose that MacBeth speech, that some say is the most pessimistic in Shakespeare, and have always been glad I did'--"Tomorrow and tomorrow creeps forth in this petty pace from day to day; Life's. . . " And I'm sure you know that Faulkner et al have been inspired by that passage for book titles.
Some have cited this passage and claimed that Shakespeare was the first existentialist!
Beautiful comment, Jon. Thank you. I will be submitting to Ed a piece titled "Ethics 101" that will be a follow-up to this.
Almost any profound truth about human beings can be found in Shakespeare. The Greek tragedians are right up there with him.
And, after an exhaustive review from our 300-person editorial review board, we will, I promise, publish Ethics 101 ASAP
My introduction to the philosophy of Shakespeare was from a cartoon in Playboy magazine. It showed a stereotypical criminal in his hideout with the police bursting through the door. The criminal says: "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare; which was from Hamlet. I actually thought about that for quite some time. I had no philosophy courses in college, and my airline pilot training was no help in that department; so I read the writings of some philosophers later in life, including most recently Sapolsky's book, Determinism. Or, rather, tried to read it. It did make me think deeply about the free will issue; but reading the Gadfly's blog critique was more helpful. As a non-scientist, it seems to me that a sort of determinism leads one to narrow choices in our free will. Everyone's early years of education and environment will determine a different set of narrow choices for each individual.
Thanks, James. Let me recommend as better than Sapolsky Daniel Dennett's books on free will: Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves.
Thanks, Keith. I appreciate the recommendations.
Do we really hold people responsible? Many heinous acts turn out to be by repeat offenders. Then there are places like my city, San Francisco, where it's rare to even witness a driver pulled over for dangerous driving.
Here in Texas, which is supposedly "tuff on crime," a common story on the local news is a hideous crime committed by someone with a rap sheet stretching around the block. I, true blue bleeding-heart liberal that I am, demand "Why the #@%*! wasn't he in prison?!?"
I spent 10,000 words murdering Bobby Sapolsky on this, including a look at the idea that he, as part of Paul's Not.Even.Wrong in his book, made a category mistake, per Gilbert Ryle, and that (a la the Sam Harris Keith mentions) his real focus was ethical naturalism, not determinism. https://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2024/02/i-just-murdered-robert-sapolsky-but-it.html
That said, Slammng Sammy is wrong, too, and not that good of a philosopher himself, either.
That that said, I think a lot of people who approach volition from an ethics-based angle get to determinism for the wrong reasons.
Thanks, "Gadfly!" Loved your blurb about all of modern philosophy being a series of footnotes to Hume.
I know Whitehead's well-known comment, which Massimo Pigliucci has put forth from time to time, but, Plato's just not the starting point, by and large, today.
Kant claimed that Hume awakened him from his "dogmatic slumbers." So, if it had not been for Hume, there never would have been The Critique of Pure Reason.
Right. And, Whitehead was a pantheist idealist, so he had reason to tout Plato anyway! While empiricism itself is of course dead, the issue of what knowledge is, philosophy of mind and psychology (sorry, Nietzsche, you weren't the first psychologist) go back to Hume.
Jeez, you can figure out what the hell he was? Kudos to you! For me, Process and Reality is gibberish.