In his article «Free Will and determinism»  The Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy postulates:

«Causal determinism says that everything that happens is caused; it allows that our choices and actions are effective as links in the causal chain, so that deliberation has a point, but insists that they are themselves caused. Determinists are sometimes divided into hard and soft. Hard determinists say that our actions are caused in a way that make not as free as we might have thought, so that responsability, if it implies free will, is an illusion. The causes may be physical or physiological (events in the brain), or else mental (e.g. conscious or unconscious desires and childhood experiences which cause such desires). Soft determinists, by far the largest class in recent times, say that our actions are indeed caused, but we are not therefore any less free that we might be, because the causation is not a constraint or compulsion on us. So long as our natures and choices are effective as items in the causal chain, the fact they are themselves caused is irrelevant and does not stop them being what they are. Indeterminists, however, insist that determinists, of whatever complexion, can give no sense to the sentence "He could have done otherwise", where this means something more than simply "He might have done otherwise (had his nature or circumstances been different)". Soft determinism often hold that what justifies praise and blame is solely that they can influence action. This, says indeterminists, misses the point of these concepts, which are essentially "backward-looking". Hard determinists are incompatibilists, i.e., think free will and universal causation are incompatible. Soft determinists are compatibilists. Indetermininists may be either, but are usually incompatibilists.»

«One difficulty with indeterminism is that mere absence of causation does not seem enough. If our actions are no more than random intrusions into the causal scheme of things how can we be any more responsible for them than if they were caused?  Indeterminists are sometimes called libertarians. But more strictly, libertarians are those who postulate a special entity, the "self", which uses the body to intervene from outside, as it were, in the causal chain of events, but is itself immune to causal influence. (...)»

«Such a self must at least be open to pressure from things in the world (or why would it ever make a wrong or weak-minded choice?), and to define its actual relation to the world seems difficult.» (Michael Proudfoot, AR Lacey, Routledge Dicionário de Filosofia, fourth edition,  pages 145-146; bold is put by us).

One notable error of this text is: the terms causation and caused are used inappropriately. Cause for these authors is the same as determinism or infallible law of cause and effect - I call it deterministic causation - but there is another type of causation, the free causation that proceeds from free will. It is a mistake to say, for example, that "if I decide to stay at home or go to the beach and I go to this one it is an uncaused action", as Proudfoot and Lacey maintain. No! It is an action caused by my free will or my instinct. Both of these are the cause of actions.

Another  capital error of this text is the confusing definition of indeterminism. In fact, there are 3 meanings of the concept of indeterminism, that Proudfoot and Lacey fail to discern:

1) Biophysical indeterminism, that is, the absence of infallible laws in physical and biological nature. Example: miracles such as the «miracle of the Sun» in Fátima in October 1917, an exceptional optical phenomenon of a mystical nature.

2) Psychological indeterminism without free will. Example: a man suddenly exalts himself in public space and attacks another.

3) Indeterminism inherent in free will. This last one is a rational organ that is inserted in indeterminism because it can choose one thing or its opposite. Example: a conscientious voter analyzes the programs of the different parties and candidates for parliament and decides to vote either on the right or on the left.

Let's see how it is presented to us  the confused concept of indeterminism. Proudfoot and Lacey write:  «Hard determinists are incompatibilists, i.e., think free will and universal causation are incompatible. Soft determinists are compatibilists. Indetermininists may be either, but are usually incompatibilists.» This is not clear at all: hard determinists, a great part of them libertarians, denny the existence of free will, but soft determinists, including many libertarians or indeterminists, assure there is free will... Confusion, only confusion! The inconsistency in the definition is absolute when it says that indeterminism does not accept that our actions are caused but says that part of the indeterminists share the soft determinism that is based on the notion of cause:

«One difficulty with indeterminism is that mere absence of causation does not seem enough. If our actions are no more than random intrusions into the causal scheme of things how can we be any more responsible for them than if they were caused? »

The confused definition of libertarianism begins by saying that there is free will arising from a self immune to physical determinism but then admits that the self is under pressure from physical determinism. This is the same as soft determinism, the self decides freely but is under pressure from biophysical determinism:

«Indeterminists are sometimes called libertarians. But more strictly, libertarians are those who postulate a special entity, the "self", which uses the body to intervene from outside, as it were, in the causal chain of events, but is itself immune to causal influence. (...)»

«Such a self must at least be open to pressure from things in the world (or why would it ever make a wrong or weak-minded choice?), and to define its actual relation to the world seems difficult.» 

Let us use Ockham's razor, eliminating the duplications of the same definition.

Libertarianism understood as the ability of the self to decide without suffering pressure from the physical and social world is impossible to occur in human beings, who feel hungry, cold, job insecurity or social prestige, love and jealousy, fear of falling ill and dying.The correct definition of libertarianism must be as follows: it is the statement  that postulates there is free will in human beings and which is subdivided into biophysical determinism with free will and biophysical indeterminism with free will. Examples of the latter are: in the middle of summer, the temperature drops 10º below zero (anomaly) and a person decides to stay at home or go out to play in the snow, thinking about the consequences; the occurrence of strange rotations of the Sun visible to the naked eye (indeterminism) before which each spectator decides to turn their backs so as not to be deluded or to contemplate such an unusual phenomenon.

Another error is the distinction between hard determinism and soft determinism:  in fact, determinism is always with the same intensity in both theories. A stone thrown from the top of a tower falls to the ground with the same speed in hard determinism as in soft determinism. Instead of hard determinism whe should say biophysical determinism without free will and instead of soft determinism we should say biophysical determinism with free will.

 Another error is the definition of Soft Determinism: «Soft determinists, by far the largest class in recent times,say that our actions are indeed caused, but we are not therefore any less free that we might be, because the causation is not a constraint or compulsion on us.» If all of our actions are caused - that is, in Proudfoot's logic, actions biophysically determinists - exercise compulsion on us contrary to what the Dictionary says. This should say, within its logic, that in  soft determinism there are free, "uncaused" actions, but it does not say. Example: «I decide to go to a library and order a book», it is an action generated or caused by my free will, but "uncaused" in the terminology of Proud and Lacey.

This blog requires thousands of hours of research and reflection and produces knowledge that you won't find anywhere else on the internet. In order for us to continue producing it please make a donation to our bank account with the IBAN PT50 0269 0178 0020 4264 5789 0

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

© (Copyright to Francisco Limpo de Faria Queiroz)

The contradictories, ie, entities and qualities that have some difference between them, can be: contraries, semi-contraries or collaterals. The collaterality - the term is mine, in the field of dialectics - is, therefore, the minimum difference while the contrariety (black versus white, lion vs zebra, revolutionary proletariat versus bourgeoisie, for example) is the maximum difference. Empiricism is contrary to idealism? No. David Hume was an empiricist and idealist - something that analytic philosophers are unable to conceive due to the cloud of confusion within it they vegetate.

 In fact, the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy, exposing the standpoint of analytical philosophy, does not classify David Hume as an idealist but only as empiricist:

«Hume, David, 1711-76. Scotish, born in Edinburgh, and generally regarded as the greatest of "British empiricists" (...) This led him to generally skeptical conclusions about such notions as REASON, CAUSATION and necessity...» (Michael Proudfoot, A.R. Lacey, Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy, Fourth Edition, page 169)

In this Dictionary there is not a single reference to the idealism of Hume. But, in fact, Hume is an idealist: he suppresses the reality of matter in itself.

Then, what is the relationship between empiricism and idealism? It is a relationship of collaterality. There is a realistic empiricism, an idealist empiricism and a phenomenological empiricism. This is the same ontological empiricism added of different pedestals: the real matter (realism), the unreal matter (idealism), the problematic matter(phenomenology).

www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

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

Os filósofos analíticos falam de quatro correntes essenciais de (meta) ética: determinismo radical, determinismo moderado (compatibilismo), libertismo (incompatibilismo) e indeterminismo. Mas se falam em determinismo radical e moderado, não deveriam falar em indeterminismo radical e indeterminismo moderado? 

A lógica, em particular o princípio do terceiro excluído («Uma coisa ou é A ou não A, descartando a terceira hipótese) impõe essa dualidade. O pensamento dos "analíticos" como Simon Blackburn, Michael Proudfoot e A.R.Lacey - e os seus espelhos reflectores em Portugal: João Branquinho, Sofia Miguens, Ricardo Santos, Desidério Murcho, Pedro Galvão, Luís Rodrigues, etc - é assimétrico. Eles não conseguem reduzir à grande dualidade primordial a diversidade das correntes num dado campo, neste caso o campo do livre-arbítrio e determinismo. A grande filosofia - refiro-me à dialética, que quase todos só conhecem parcelarmente - compadece-se de assimetrias empíricas, porque o mundo apresenta disformidades, irregularidades, mas, enquanto filosofia ordenadora do pensamento e propulsora deste para mais além, é simétrica.  Racionalidade é simetria do pensamento e simetria do devir social, astrofísico e biofísico: não há alto sem baixo, nem inverno sem verão, nem revolução sem contra-revolução, nem vida sem morte, etc.

O que é o libertismo, senão indeterminismo? Pois as correntes hão-de ser ou deterministas ou não deterministas, isto é, indeterministas. O libertismo não pode estar fora desse dualismo. Ou está num campo ou está noutro ou está em ambos (neste último caso é o princípio do quarto excluído que formulei em artigo deste blog de 31 de Agosto de 2011).

O que é o livre-arbítrio, senão indeterminismo?

E o determinismo moderado, o que é, senão uma combinação de determinismo (princípio segundo o qual «nas mesmas circunstâncias, as mesmas causas geram sempre os mesmos efeitos») com indeterminismo (o livre-arbítrio que, nas mesmas circunstâncias, me leva a deliberar e agir de modos diferentes)?

Blackburn apresenta a doutrina de Kant sobre os dois "eu", numénico e fenoménico, como um exemplo do libertismo:

«III- Libertismo. Esta posição advoga que o compatibilismo é apenas uma fuga e que há uma noção mais substantiva e real de liberdade que pode ainda ser preservada em relação ao determinismo (e ao indeterminismo). Em Kant, enquanto o eu empírico ou fenoménico é determinado e não é livre, o eu numénico ou racional tem capacidade para agir racional e livremente. Mas, uma vez que o eu numénico existe fora das categorias do espaço e do tempo, esta liberdade tem aparentemente um valor duvidoso. Outras respostas libertistas incluem a sugestão de que o problema está mal colocado...» (Simon Blackburn, Dicionário de Filosofia, pag 256, Gradiva).

Não faz sentido falar em libertismo como incompatibilismo num universo em que se reconhece haver determinismo. O próprio Kant compatibiliza o eu numénico ou eu livre, capaz de se opor ao egoísmo e pugnar por ações «desinteressadas» e nobres, com o eu fenoménico ou eu animal, veículo das pulsões corporais e materiais (a avidez do dinheiro, o salvar a pele à custa dos outros, a gula, a luxúria, etc): ora manda um «eu», ora manda o outro «eu» em cada circunstância. Se a liberdade e o determinismo existem, em esferas diferentes, são compatíveis, do mesmo modo que os EUA e a URSS foram compatíveis de 1922 a 1991 enquanto houve União Soviética socialista burocrática: eram incompatíveis nas suas essências internas se as sobrepuséssemos - o capitalismo de livre-empresa e o capitalismo de estado «comunista» - mas coexistiam, compatibilizavam-se na cena mundial. Ora os confusos teóricos da "análise" admitem que libertismo coexiste com o determinismo físico do mundo:

«O libertismo não diz que não há acções determinadas - uma constipação é uma acção determinada por factores que escapam ao nosso controlo - mas somente que algumas acções não são o desfecho necessário de causas anteriores. Há acontecimentos que estão fora do nosso controlo, mas nem todos os acontecimentos estão fora do nosso controlo.» (Luís Rodrigues, Filosofia para a prova intermédia do 10º ano, pag. 31, Plátano Editora, o negrito é posto por mim).

Então se o libertismo admite que há ações submetidas ao determinismo, onde está o incompatibilismo?

www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

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