A cloud of confusion remains on analytical philosophy about determinism and indeterminism, compatibilism and incompatibilism. In Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia (Portuguese journal of Philosophy), Christina Schneider, of university of Munich, wrote: 

«First: There is the problem of determinism versus indeterminism. If the world is deterministic, it is held, then there is no place for alternatives, so wheter or not the result of any human deliberation, is manifested in the "extra-mental" sphere is independent of deliberation. What happens in the world is fixed once and forever from the very begining. This is the root of the disagreement between compatibilists and imcompatibilists. Compatibilists say that indeterminism is not indispensable ingredient for freedom, incompatibilists opt for the contrary. (...) If the world is indeterministic an option to be taken seroiusly, then - so van Inwagen argues - the manifestation of any deliberative process is a pure matter of chance.» (Christina Schneider, Freedom is not a Mistery, in Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, Tomo 3, Fascículo 4, pagina 1274, Braga, 2007; the bold is put by me).

The first confusion of Christina Schneider is about what  is deterministic world: on saying that «If the world is deterministic, it is held, then there is no place for alternatives» she makes a remarkable error. Deterministic world is not a world subject to an absolute fatalism. In deterministic world there is the free will, the deliberation of bilions of human beings and, hence, there are always alternatives, at least apparently. In fact,  the inteligence and capacity of deliberation and free action of man are indeterministic factors to be attached to the deterministic character of the natural world.  There are, always, alternatives because of men´s deliberations and actions: for example, a government may choose to install a nuclear plant in a region of Portugal or Spain (determinism of nuclear energy) or to not install it (absence of determinism of nuclear radiation). Considering both cases, there will be different results in each one. So, it is wrong to state about deterministic world, as Christina Schneider does, that  «What happens in the world is fixed once and forever from the very begining». She confuses determinism with fatalism. On fatalism, there are no alternatives, on determinism there are various alternatives for the same situation or being.

The second confusion of Christina is the confusion on compatibilism and incompatibilim. She argues:«Compatibilists say that indeterminism is not indispensable ingredient for freedom, incompatibilists opt for the contrary.» This is wrong. What is compatibilism? It is any formal theory that articulates two entities or two different ways of being. The so-called soft determinism is a compatibilism because reconciles or harmonizes free will and determinism biophysical (Example: a giant wave in the sea approaches but I am free to shove it or not). The so-called libertarianism (free will and absence of byophisical determinism)  is also a compatibilism - «Oh, heresy!», claim analytical philosophers  - because it reconciles the human free will with the freedom of biophysical nature, without fixed  and necessary laws.

What is indeterminism? Indeterminism is the absence of necessity, the existence of  chance, random. There are two kinds of indeterminism: in human´s minds and in biophysical nature. Free will is a part of indeterminism although no analytical philosopher conceives this. It is impossible to exist free will without indeterminism. The essence of free will is indeterminism.

www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

© (Direitos de autor para Francisco Limpo de Faria Queiroz)

What is libertarianism?

Acording to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, it is :

«Libertarianism (metaphysical)  A view that seeks to protect the reality of human free will" by supposing that a free choice is not causally determined but not random either (see DILLEMA OF DETERMINISM) .» (Simon Blackburn, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2005, pag 210)»

The distinction between compatibilism and libertarianism is not clear in this Dicitionary and in minds of many second class philosophers as Blackburn and his epigonous, including almost all authors of portuguese manuals of philosophy for secondary schools (Pedro Galvão, Luis Rodrigues, Desidério Murcho, Pedro Madeira, Paulo Ruas, Aires Almeida, etc): 

«II-Soft determinism or compatibilism. Reactions in this family assert that everything you should want from a notion of freedom is quite compatible with determinism. (...)«III-Libertarianism. This is the wiew that, while compatibilism is an evasion, there is a more substantive, real notion of freedom that can yet be preserved in the face of determinism (or of indeterminism). In Kant, while the empirical and phenomenal self is determined and not free, the noumenal or rational self is capable of rational, free action»  (Simon Blackburn, Dictionary of Philosophy, pag. 141; the bold is put by us).

There is a lack of clearness! Why is compatibilism "an evasion"? Blackburn is unable to explain it rationally to us.

On presenting the moral of Kant as an example of libertarianism, as he defines it, Blackburn commits an error. Kant is a compatibilist: admits free will, base of categorical imperative, and no free will (an inferior will, slave of the desires), base of the hypothetical imperative. There is not a self preserved from deterministic influence because the self, acording, to Kant has a double nature: noumenal ( a priori) and phenomenal.

Nobody has his free will preserved from biological and social pressions - except God, perhaps- so libertarianism, as they define it, is an ilusion, a confused view.

Compatibilism is a form of libertarianism - defining this, correctly, as the theory which admits free will - and the other form of libertarianism is free will coexisting with indeterminism in biocosmical nature.

Portuguese Note:  Em 31 de Janeiro de 2008, às 21.30 horas, na biblioteca municipal de Beja, lançamento do livro «Os acidentes em Lisboa na Astronomia-Astrologia, Accidents and Astrology in U.S.A.» da autoria de quem escreve este blog. Convidam-se os professores e amantes da filosofia, do sul de Portugal e Huelva e Sevilla, a estarem presentes. É uma festa para nós, os filósofos, apoderarmo-nos das alavancas da epistemologia, das ciências (história social e política; astronomia) e inflectirmos estas, nomeadamente a história mergulhada no oceano de um certo indeterminismo.

www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

© (Direitos de autor para Francisco Limpo de Faria Queiroz)