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)

About the conflict free will/ determinism the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy exposes the following theories:

«Reactions to this problem are commonly classified as: (I) hard determinism. This accepts the conflict and denies that you have real freedom or responsibility. (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 view that , while compatibilism is only an evasion, there is a more substantive, real notion of freedom that can yet be preserved in the face of determinism (or indeterminism).( The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Great Britain, 2005, pag 141)

 This division is wrong, equivoque.

What is the difference between compatibilism and libertarianism? Compatibilsm is a species of the genus libertarianism. They can ´t be organised on a hierarchy at the same level, as if they were  mutually extrinsic concepts. They are not.

 A correct hierarchy of theories can be obtained by dialectical method of the main contradiction: there are two poles, one of them consisting of fatalism and no  fatalism without free will ( four theories) and the other consisting in Libertarianism (two theories). Let ´s see our division, much clearer than these one proposed by Simon Blackburn:

1. THEORIES EXCLUDING FREE WILL

 Indeterminist Fatalism. All facts in bio cosmic nature are predestined not by constant laws (determinism) but by a capricious destiny impossible to be predicted, and man is not free, does n ´t possess free will.

Determinist Fatalism. All facts in bio cosmic nature are predestined by constant laws (determinism) and, thus, can be predicted, and man is not free, does n ´t possess free will. The Oxford Dictionary calls this view hard determinism.

Indeterminism no fatalist without free will. The facts in bio cosmic nature are «free» and unpredictable, that is to say, there are no constant laws of cause-effect (determinism), and man is not free, does n´ t possess free will, but his will is manipulated by biological and geological impulses inside and outside.

Determinism no fatalist without free will. The facts in bio cosmic nature can be predicted partially, as they obey to determinist laws, and the same with the human behavior, ruled by determinist laws, without free will, but hazard obstructs fatalism.

2. THEORIES ADMITING FREE WILL

Determinist Libertarianism or compatibilism. The facts in bio cosmic nature are under constant laws of cause-effect (determinism), and man is free, possesses free will.

Indeterminist Libertarianism. The facts in bio cosmic nature are «free» and unpredictable, that is to say, there are no constant laws of cause-effect (determinism), and man is free, possesses free will.

The ingredients to build these theories and modes of reality are three: hazard, necessity and free will (hazard under man ´s control).

 www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

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