User talk:Brews ohare/Standard argument

Candidate to replace redirect to Dilemma of determinism

This draft is intended as a stand-alone article on Standard argument against free will, and comments are solicited. Brews ohare (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This draft proposal is only a beginning effort, and the points of view of more philosophers could be mentioned, and the explanation of those that are presented doubtless can be improved. It is a start, and perhaps other editors will be encouraged to suggest improvements upon it. Brews ohare (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brews, The argument against free will is not technically a dilemma. There are two independent arguments out of three possibilities. The reformulation of the problem as a "dilemma" suggests that there are only two independent choices, not only metaphysically but also in the actual world. Just because the reader cannot think of other choices does not prove that the picture is complete. To avoid the unwarranted suggestion that physical laws and chance completely describe the actual world, ruling out free will in the actual world, we should avoid 'dilemma'.

"Indeterminism" can be understood two ways. It can be chance alone, or everything other than determinism which also includes free will. BlueMist (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMist: I agree with you entirely. I believe the dilemma as posed in Dilemma of determinism and as espoused by Pfhorrest and possibly by Russell, and clearly explained by Rowlands, is not the dilemma suggested by James, who attacked a narrow view of determinism and supported indeterminism as 'everything else'. My discussion of the 'dilemma' presents a broader view of the 'dilemma', and I hope it is clear. I'd appreciate further comments about the various formulations of the 'dilemma' of which the 'two-horn' version is the muddiest of all. . Brews ohare (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Brews ohare (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that it also is clear from the very beginning of this proposal that it does not use the 'dilemma' point of view that artificially constricts interest to two premises, but adopts a syllogism with three premises and a conclusion. Brews ohare (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMist: In your opinion, is 'standard argument' suitable for posting as it is, or do you have some suggestions for changes? Brews ohare (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]