Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_iu8zu3u wrote

Reply to comment by gimboarretino in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 24, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

>If all reality is governed by the principle of causality, and therefore if every phenomenon/event is pre-determined by other phenomena/events, according to well-defined physical laws, then this will also necessarily apply to the person/subject's actions and thought: therefore there is - there cannot be - no room for free will.

>This formulation seems to me to be a classic circular reasoning (therefore fallacious, or at any rate tautological) in the sense that it implicitly assumes the very thing it seeks to prove:

Point of departure: The universe is governed by the principle of causality.

P2 The principle of causality suggests all phenomenon/events are the consequence, and predetermined by, other [causal] phenomenon/events.

P3 People are phenomenon of the universe

C Therefore people's actions and behaviour are also governed by the principle of causality.

I don't see how this argument begs the question. I think it's just concluding something besides what you think it does, that human action is predetermined not that the universe is.

1

gimboarretino t1_iu9340n wrote

Because, if C Is true, it necessarly means that the process of going from PoD to P2 to P3 to C is also a phenomen governerd by the principle of causality.

So, essentialy, you're saying that everything is predetermined because you are predetermined to say so.

Which is logically invalid, circular.

1

SuperSirVexSmasher t1_iu9i9ru wrote

I believe I get what you're saying but I don't believe the argument is circular. Your criticism seems to be that you believe the argument isn't sound because it's a consequence of predetermination, not that the argument isn't valid per se. What I see in the argument is "everything is predetermined, I'm a thing, I'm predetermined," which by itself seems logical.

I think your objection is epistemological, you're questioning how you can know a thing is predetermined if your idea about that thing is the consequence of predetermination, am I correct?

1

gimboarretino t1_iu9w4jv wrote

yes, the argument can be logical per se, internally coherent let's say, but if we "zoom out" taking with us the results and "update" our knowledge with that, the consequence is that epistemological objection.

you believe that reality is deterministic just because you are deterministically forced to believe so.

Logic does not give any additional value or to that belief, being logic reasoning nothing more than a deterministc phenomenon forcing you to that conclusion.

1