Talk:Libertarianism (metaphysics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alas, my contributions to this sort of philosophy article are always my biggest problems from an NPOV perspective, since I've usually decided long ago that there just isn't a reasonable argument on the other side, so I don't even know what to write for "the opposition". :-)
So if someone knows of any arguments that purport to resolve the "not-random but not-determined" issue, this article needs it... Evercat 01:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You wanted a rewrite, you got it. 1Z 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Libertarianism (philosophy)
- Moved from User talk:The Anome
Hi - I see it was you who started Libertarianism (philosophy) - someone added something and the whole article ended up being inconsistent, so I've commented out a substantial part of it...
I'm not even clear myself these days what Libertarianism actually is. Is it:
1. The view that if Alice is free she "could have done otherwise".
Or is it:
2. The view that if Alice is free then some causal chains are started by her, and there are no prior causes of this.
There are certainly arguments to the effect that Alice "could have done otherwise" even if the prior state-of-the-world entails that Alice does not do otherwise, so the 1st view can be made consistent with compatibilism and determinism. However, I doubt that the 2nd view can.
I rather thought that Libertarianism was the 2nd view, however what you wrote makes me wonder if it's the 1st... Evercat 01:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, can I ask you for a source on the "compatible with determinism" bit? As I look through Google, it really seems like libertarianism is the combination of incompatibilism with the view that we do have free will, ie see this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry: libertarian free will, the kind of free will that is incompatible with causal determinism. or this one: A libertarian is an incompatibilist who believes that we in fact have free will and that this entails that determinism is false. Evercat 14:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I was just trying to keep the previous text as an alternative view. You've now convinced me, and I'll move the other text to the talk page. -- The Anome 22:56, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Removed from the article
I removed the following paragraph from the article, after discussion between myself and Evercat:
- Some libertarians take the philosophical view that determinism and free will are compatible. They believe the fact that one's choice may be in theory determined or predictable, does not alter the fact that it was a free choice. For example, being able to predict that someone will not cross the street when a car is coming, is not taken to imply the person has no free will. He makes that choice because he wants to live. We may be able to predict that choice, because we know the person enjoys life, but it is still the case that the person chose what he wanted to choose.
[edit] incompatibilism & compatibilism
All libertarians subscribe to the philosophy of incompatibilism which states that reality is indeterministic.
could anyone change this expression? i think it is not accurate: compatibilism or incompatibilism just states whether freedom and determinism is reconcilable or not. It is not about any deterministic or indeterministic view of the world. pls correct either me or the text. cheers.
- You're right, it's entirely possible to be an incompatibilist and believe that reality is deterministic, though one of course will not then believe in free will. Still, all Libertarians will have to be incompatibilists... I'll try and fix up the text. Evercat 18:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Improving the article
I've never heard of "libertarianism" being used this way. The article badly needs references to "philosophical" libertarians, or at least to people who use the term.
[edit] Move?
In my opinion, as libertarianism (the political philosophy) is a philosophy, too, this the name for this article doesn't really differentiate it. I propose moving this to "Libertarianism (free will)." Let me know what you think. Dave
- Perhaps Libertarian free will would be a good title, though it would require some small modifications to the article text. Evercat 20:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Done.Dave 01:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and re-moved (haha) the article to "Libertarianism (metaphysics)". It's called "libertarianism" more than "libertarian free will", and metaphysics is sufficiently distinguished from politics to be unambiguous. Philwelch 23:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] References?
Why no references to books or external links of any actual published thought regarding libertarianism in metaphysics? --Serge 22:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] History...
What this article lacks is an explanation of the history of "libertarianism", especially as applied to actual use of the word in relation to the idea. did Hume refer to it by that name?
You can, more often than not, learn as much from the history of a thing as you can from any encyclopedic explanation of it (other than its history). Hopefully someone can add a history to this item. --Kaz 01:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I must say that although this article contains some valuable information, it seems to be affecteed by POV. It talks as much as deterministic counter-arguments to libertarianism as it does libertarianism itself. The inference that could be drawn is "libertarians say this, but actually they're wrong for these reasons." May I also propose a counter-argument to the idea that our perception of free choice is only an illusion. Logic is all that leads determinists to their conclusions, which in itself is a form of perception, as much as any other thought-form. Although it does seem effective in discovering practical truths, that is not to say that it is the sole means to truth. Furthermore, if we cannot trust our internal perception of free will, why should we trust any other perceptions any more? Absolutely everything that we conclude, is, aferall, based on nothing more than our perception of the world. -Scott
- I have incorporated a version of that objection into the new article.1Z 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Objection to supernatural libertariansim
"This objection is merely a failure to understand what supernatural libertarianism is proposing -- a non-physical component to the pscyhe, a soul, in which the free will resides."
On the contrary: the whole point of appealing to brain science is that if you can explain the mind using only physical components, a non-physical psyche is redundant. 1Z 22:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
