[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.59 MB, 940x1640, Kant_foto.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16454858 No.16454858 [Reply] [Original]

Can you refute the argument for free will he gives in the Critique of Practical Reason?
For those who haven't read it, check the Introduction and then read the definitions and the 4 theorems in the first chapter. It can be done in less than 30 minutes

>> No.16454875

>>16454858
Kant third antimony

>> No.16454878

>>16454858
how about you just explain it in your own words, or are you incapable?

>> No.16454905

>>16454875
Have you read the first and second appendix?
>>16454878
I would have to write a long ass post. I'll do it if no one here has actually read the text

>> No.16454911
File: 47 KB, 564x705, 5ab769cdd3a872e57b9a44980a76f9ce.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16454911

1. I perceive my own free will.
2. There are no reason to think my perception is faulty.
3. Therefore it's rational to trust my perception and believe that I indeed have free will.

>> No.16454918

>>16454911
Hey there anon, we talked a few days ago. I was the guy who argued that determinism is compatible with probabilistic causality.

>> No.16454932
File: 58 KB, 564x1002, 4b21e94fec8323a750ecc3ebfe9b76a8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16454932

>>16454918
Hi. My thread was deleted. I remember you.

>> No.16454983

>>16454858
I don't accept the premise

>> No.16455389

>>16454911
>1. I perceive my own free will.
>2. There are no reason to think my perception is faulty.
>3. Therefore it's rational to trust my perception and believe that I indeed have free will.

1. I perceive that the sun circles the earth.
2. There are no reason to think my perception is faulty.
3. Therefore it's rational to trust my perception and believe that the sun indeed circles the earth.

>> No.16455418

>>16455389
>2. There are no reason to think my perception is faulty.
Wrong. Clearly you think the sun does not circle the earth and that's a great reason to doubt your perception that it does.

>> No.16455521

>>16454911
Isn't our perception of causality reason to doubt free will? If anything causality perception is more direct than perception of free will.

>> No.16455546

>>16454911
How would you deal with problems of explicating the concept of free will. To me there seem to be no way of making the concept meaningful in any real way, unless we adopt some compatibilist view (like on the grounds of possible worlds, or action without excessive constraints from other agents).

>> No.16455863

>>16454983
Which premise?

>> No.16456094

No, because I don't want to refute it. There are things more acute even though they have a "clear" answer. For example, elaborating a deduction of the moral law as ratio cognoscendi de la libertad (in its more than 4 senses).

Biological predeterminism can try to be challenging.

>> No.16457110

>>16454905
>I would have to write a long ass post. I'll do it if no one here has actually read the text
heh, anon you'd better back it up

>> No.16457124

Just read prize essay you simps

>> No.16457146

I have a simpler argument for free will:

I'm capable of doing X
You're not capable of doing X
I possess the freedom to do X while you don't

The will is free in relation to its environment.

>> No.16458690

>>16457146
Except this doesn’t refute the terrible fact that you were never capable of making different decisions given the same stimuli. Any genuine defense of free will needs to supply this if it wants to use the moniker