poor old hitler

Originally posted by LemonJello
Helloooooooo! I'm saying that your view as you endorse it -- that is, your libertarian stance as you have expounded it -- commits you to a ridiculous conception of the self. Jesus you're impossibly slow.

And you must not understand what is meant by 'personal identity' either. That's clearly not what I meant when I said "the same Cho". I'm asking wh ...[text shortened]... hat makes you today the same person you were yesterday? And what constitutes you today?

It's difficult to know sometimes if you have figured out the difference between my rhetorical stance and actual stance , so forgive my interpretation of your question.

There's no doubting that human charactor influences decision making , that's obvious. What isn't obvious is what human character actually is. To me it's self evident that within us all lies the capacity for great good or bad. Hitler for example could have used his creativity in all sorts of ways but in the end his passion , persona and creativity were used destructively. But who knows what he could have been? so who is hitler ? was his charactor static ? Did he grow over time? Was there an evil seed within him that you and me don't have? Is part of who he is because of his choices? That's what we would like to think , we also like to demonise him and forget the other side of him that painted. You need to answer these fundamental questions about what a human being is before you can say that our choices are entirely determined. One of the key planks of my concept of free will is human potential , sometimes it is fulfilled and sometimes not , but we all have within us the capacity for evil (the milgram experiment proved that)

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's difficult to know sometimes if you have figured out the difference between my rhetorical stance and actual stance , so forgive my interpretation of your question.

There's no doubting that human charactor influences decision making , that's obvious. What isn't obvious is what human character actually is. To me it's self evident that within us ot , but we all have within us the capacity for evil (the milgram experiment proved that)

None of that even remotely addresses my question, but whatever.

To first-order, one's character is a consortium of action guiding dispositions. And I'm sorry, KM, but one never fully determines his own character. Early on in life, most of the credit goes to social inculcations, and some of these are just enduring. Later, much of the credit will go to you yourself as you reflect, revise, prioritize the contents of this consortium, but your character will never be fully of your own sculpting.

Your conception of freedom just doesn't exist, and it would be a dreadful world if it did because freedom would do nothing but frustrate our own interests. If ever you can tell me what explains your acting differently at T4; or if you can bring some considered argument against compatibilism that doesn't just beg the question or make appeals to consequences, let me know.

----------
Maybe I shouldn't have brought up the notion of personal identity here, although it's highly relevant. I might pick it up somewhere else later. I think also sometime when I have some time to spare, I'll start up a thread on another issue that I'd like to discuss with you: the problem of action. Not sure when that will be.

Originally posted by LemonJello
None of that even remotely addresses my question, but whatever.

To first-order, one's character is a consortium of action guiding dispositions. And I'm sorry, KM, but one never fully determines his own character. Early on in life, most of the credit goes to social inculcations, and some of these are just enduring. Later, much of the credit will go ...[text shortened]... e that I'd like to discuss with you: the problem of action. Not sure when that will be.

Later, much of the credit will go to you yourself as you reflect, revise, prioritize the contents of this consortium, but your character will never be fully of your own sculpting. LEMON

I don't understand how you can sculpt yourself if your actions are always determined. How can you get credit? All the credit goes to the forces that are driving you surely. You cannot sculpt your character if you and your character are one and the same , that would be like looking at your own eye without a mirror! What is this thing "you yourself" as distinct from your character.?

Originally posted by LemonJello
None of that even remotely addresses my question, but whatever.

To first-order, one's character is a consortium of action guiding dispositions. And I'm sorry, KM, but one never fully determines his own character. Early on in life, most of the credit goes to social inculcations, and some of these are just enduring. Later, much of the credit will go ...[text shortened]... e that I'd like to discuss with you: the problem of action. Not sure when that will be.

And I'm sorry, KM, but one never fully determines his own character.


................That's not what I said or have ever said

Originally posted by knightmeister
Later, much of the credit will go to you yourself as you reflect, revise, prioritize the contents of this consortium, but your character will never be fully of your own sculpting. LEMON

I don't understand how you can sculpt yourself if your actions are always determined. How can you get credit? All the credit goes to the forces that are driving you ...[text shortened]... own eye without a mirror! What is this thing "you yourself" as distinct from your character.?

I fail to see how one is identical to one's character, and I don't know why you are supposing that. My dispositional traits are part of what of constitutes me.

There are good reasons to think character is not static, even well into maturity. Character is conduct guiding. So if my conduct changes appreciably over time, it would be difficult to argue that my character has not changed. What agent is responsible for such changes? Clearly, the one who determines the conduct, and that's me (proximately that is, which is the best you're going to get). So what is your problem here, knightmeister?

I think character is largely exogenous early on, more and more endogenous with maturity. Questions related to if and how much character can change past a certain maturity are I think good ones that interest me. I'm reading an essay right now, actually, that addresses some of that. I don't think this is critical to this discussion, however.

You're confused if you think the cosmos is responsible in any meaningful way for my actions. I already addressed that confusion, bbarr already addressed that confusion, dottewell already addressed that confusion, maybe others too.

So what is your problem here, knightmeister?

OK, reading over again, actually, I think I see better your problem. I was talking about determining conduct, and you're actually asking about determining the dispositions that guide conduct. It's a good question to what extent I can assume responsibility for my character: there are any number of antecedents involved, including prominently inculcation from upbringing and probably genetic makeup. I do think there is, especially beyond a certain maturity, an input from me to the determination of my character, which comes about through introspection and reflection. How big of a determining factor is this? It would probably be hard to say.

What I don't understand is why you think this is relevant or critical. I've already explained to you numerous times what I think freedom is, and my view of freedom doesn't hinge on my being a, or the, predominant determining factor of my own character. If you think I'm mistaken in this regard, present some argument to that effect.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I fail to see how one is identical to one's character, and I don't know why you are supposing that. My dispositional traits are part of what of constitutes me.

There are good reasons to think character is not static, even well into maturity. Character is conduct guiding. So if my conduct changes appreciably over time, it would be difficult to argue ...[text shortened]... y addressed that confusion, dottewell already addressed that confusion, maybe others too.

You're confused if you think the cosmos is responsible in any meaningful way for my actions LEMON j

.....so what is responsible for your actions then ? If you say "YOU" then what is this "YOU" . What you called you is constituted of elements of the forces and matter within the cosmos. Determinism logically dictates that any action you take is naturally rooted in some cause and that cause can be indirectly traced back to the cosmos (physical/natural laws). Because you must logically claim that causality works in a forced way (in the sense that every choice has a cause that inevitably results in said choice) then there must be a whole series of inevitable , forced , caused events that lead indirectly from the big bang right up to you choosing to do something. You may say that YOU or your SELF are choosing but do you think an owl has a "self" .? What is this self that you talk of? In your view it can only be an illusionary sensation that makes you feel as if you are directing yourself autonomously whereas logically it must be the forces of the cosmos that are actually directing you.
You are a pawn on a chessboard that thinks "you" have chosen E4 whereas infact the only logical conclusion is that the cosmos moved you there (consciously or unconsciously , indirectly or directly - it makes no difference). Determinism logically means that your choices are driven and forced by forces that you have no control over. The cosmos will "have it's way with you" and if that means that part of the deal is that you feel you have autonomy of choice as a pawn then that does not change anything.

Originally posted by LemonJello
OK, reading over again, actually, I think I see better your problem. I was talking about determining conduct, and you're actually asking about determining the dispositions that guide conduct. It's a good question to what extent I can assume responsibility for my character: there are any number of antecedents involved, including prominently inculcation f ...[text shortened]... haracter. If you think I'm mistaken in this regard, present some argument to that effect.

I do think there is, especially beyond a certain maturity, an input from me to the determination of my character, which comes about through introspection and reflection. How big of a determining factor is this? It would probably be hard to say. LEMON

Why the hesistation? You cannot determine your charactor in your view. EVERYTHING is driven by who you are and who you are is driven by cosmological forces. You can only influence your charactor to the extent that your charactor dictates but you cannot influence that though can you? You are still being driven , but you cannot become the driver unless you and the car are separate. The only way you could influence your character would be if there is something in you that is more than just "your character" , otherwise everything you do will be driven deterministically by your character.

Originally posted by LemonJello
OK, reading over again, actually, I think I see better your problem. I was talking about determining conduct, and you're actually asking about determining the dispositions that guide conduct. It's a good question to what extent I can assume responsibility for my character: there are any number of antecedents involved, including prominently inculcation f ...[text shortened]... haracter. If you think I'm mistaken in this regard, present some argument to that effect.

What I don't understand is why you think this is relevant or critical. I've already explained to you numerous times what I think freedom is, and my view of freedom doesn't hinge on my being a, or the, predominant determining factor of my own character.LEMON

This is where Hitler comes in. If hitler is not free to be anything other than hitler and has no potential to be hitler the painter (or whatever) then how do we judge him? We can say his character was flawed but he cannot be held responsible for his character can he? He is not free to be anything else. His human potential to be a creative compassionate person is gone. He is merely a bad pawn in a deterministic terrible chess game. That's not the kind of freedom I want or that I think we actually have. I don't think I am free if I am stuck with my character flaws and have no ability to change them through my choices.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If hitler is not free to be anything other than hitler and has no potential to be hitler the painter (or whatever) then how do we judge him? We can say his character was flawed but he cannot be held responsible for his character can he?

I brought this up in several other threads and you basically ignored it.
The question is not "how do we judge him" but "why do we judge him".
You are assuming that a judgment is based on cause, that the ultimate cause is responsible and punishable. What is curious is that you essentially admit that in your view the ultimate cause is incoherent so the question becomes "in your view of free will, how do we judge him?".

In my view, judgment has nothing to do with 'ultimate cause' as it is not about revenge or accounting. But rather it has more to do with prevention of a repetition. As such it is the flaw in his character that needs either correction or elimination in order to safeguard society. Where the flaw came from or what caused it is not relevant except in cases where there is a possibility of a repetition of that flaw coming about again.

For example:
I create a robot. The robot goes on a killing spree (due to my intentional programming). Do you punish me and leave the robot to go free? According to you the robot is not guilty of any crime as it was acting deterministically.
Now suppose I create a robot and due to it being hit by lightening its circuits get altered and this causes it to go on a killing spree. Its not the robots fault and its not my fault so do we both go free? (With the robot proceeding to kill regularly)
Now suppose a meteor hits the earth and essentially goes on a killing spree. Who do you punish?

Also do you deny that many people are essentially 'victims of circumstance'. If Hitler had been born and raised differently would he have been equally bad?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I brought this up in several other threads and you basically ignored it.
The question is not "how do we judge him" but "why do we judge him".
You are assuming that a judgment is based on cause, that the ultimate cause is responsible and punishable. What is curious is that you essentially admit that in your view the ultimate cause is incoherent so the qu ...[text shortened]... tance'. If Hitler had been born and raised differently would he have been equally bad?

What is curious is that you essentially admit that in your view the ultimate cause is incoherent so the question becomes "in your view of free will, how do we judge him?". WHITEY

No in my view the ultimate cause for some choices is us , the buck stops there.

Originally posted by knightmeister
He had no choice......he could only have ever been what he was. Anyone else feel sorry for him? I'm glad I wasn't born him. Phew! Lucky escape eh? Poor stalin too eh? Not to mention the victims of these guys.
Bleak universe if you are a determinist isn't it?

It could all happen again . And if the cosmos is going in that direction there's diddly s ...[text shortened]... path of determinism is still there in billions of humans. Free will just won't go away.

What was so horrible about Stalin and Hitler's lives? From their point of view of course. Well, losing the war must have sucked, but he got to be king of the world for a bit.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What was so horrible about Stalin and Hitler's lives? From their point of view of course. Well, losing the war must have sucked, but he got to be king of the world for a bit.

Hitler killed himself which to me suggests deep sadness. I could ask how would you like it if you were predetermined from birth to live a life of mass murder and carnage? Is it a life you would choose for yourself?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I brought this up in several other threads and you basically ignored it.
The question is not "how do we judge him" but "why do we judge him".
You are assuming that a judgment is based on cause, that the ultimate cause is responsible and punishable. What is curious is that you essentially admit that in your view the ultimate cause is incoherent so the qu ...[text shortened]... tance'. If Hitler had been born and raised differently would he have been equally bad?

In my view, judgment has nothing to do with 'ultimate cause' as it is not about revenge or accounting. But rather it has more to do with prevention of a repetition. WHITEY

I think I largely agree with this in the sense that the most important issue is not how many darts we throw at hitlers photo but how we can stop a hitler arising in the future.

What I would say though is figuring out how hitler came to have a flawed character and looking at what causes are ultimately responsible for this are linked. However , if hitler's destiny was fixed by determinism how was it preventable? How can we stop the inevitable happening again in the future of we (via our own free acts) are unable to influence determinism via a direct choice? The only sane approach is to say that hitler's "destiny" was preventable and that we could have prevented it. If we can't even say this then how can we have a chance of preventing a future hitler? Your view excludes the possibility that hitler could ever have done otherwise and that his carnage was unpreventable/inevitable in real terms. Hitler was going to do what he did and determinism was going to dictate his destiny long before he was ever born. How are you going to prevent the next hitler?

Your view implies we are powerless to change the events that determinism dictates will happen . You would have needed my view to help you prevent hitler's carnage.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Hitler killed himself which to me suggests deep sadness.

I suspect it was a result of loosing the war and not regret over committing the carnage. It wouldn't surprise me if Churchill had committed suicide if he lost the war and knew that he would soon be put on trial and almost certainly executed.