Pe măsură ce continuăm să explorăm liberul arbitru, astăzi Hank consideră o cale de mijloc între determinismul dur și liberul arbitru libertar: compatibilismul. Această viziune caută să găsească modalități prin care acțiunile noastre motivate intern pot fi înțelese ca libere într-o lume deterministă. Vom aborda, de asemenea, cazurile din Frankfurt și respingerea de către Patricia Churchland a dihotomiei liber sau nu și concentrarea ei asupra gradului de control pe care îl avem asupra acțiunilor noastre.
—
Produs în colaborare cu PBS Digital Studios: http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy este sponsorizat de Squarespace.
http://www.squarespace.com/crashcourse
—
Doriți să găsiți Crash Course în altă parte pe internet?
Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashC…
Twitter – http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr – http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Asistență CrashCourse pe Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse
CC Copii: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids
Cursuri interesante:
- Determinism vs liberul arbitru: Filosofia cursului intensiv #24
- Aristotel și Teoria Virtuții: Filosofia cursului intensiv #38
- Anti-Vaxxeri, teorii ale conspirației și responsabilitate epistemică: curs intensiv de filozofie #14
- Cum să argumentezi – Inducere și răpire: Filosofia cursului intensiv #3
- Argumente împotriva identității personale: Filosofia cursului intensiv #20
- Unde rezidă mintea ta?: Filosofia cursului intensiv #22
- Locke, Berkeley și empirism: Filosofia cursului intensiv #6
- 5. Argumente pentru existența sufletului, Partea a III-a: Liberul arbitru și experiențe în apropierea morții
- Problema răului: Filosofia cursului intensiv #13
- Aquinas și argumentele cosmologice: Filosofia cursului intensiv #10
I never learned how to control my bladder. Thanks for the kind assumption though
LAST
5 min 9 sec mark was fax.
Incompatibilism is just nonsense.
Of course our brains dictate what we do, in a hard deterministic way, and a criminal with a brain tumor is obviously not responsible for his actions.
But hard determinism runs into problems with chaos theory and quantum theory right? Where the same cause can have an infinity of different effects
Sneezing is NOT normal
Crash Course cannot claim ignorance regarding how they chose to frame this "lesson".
I'd choose to view it as a choice. A difficult one. He let illness change him.
Thanks!
6:21 sneezing isn't normal, I never sneeze.
"Even if everything is determined, it's what I want"
– Eren Yeager
Very interesting! I still can't tell what I think about determinism vs. free will vs. compatibilism! I thought it was strange though that you used as an example a conspiracy theory. I know you said that it hadn't actually happened but still feels like it wasn't a great idea to perpetuate the idea of tampering with voting in people's minds because that could lead to more distrust. Still a good video though
3:11 but whether they decide to drink the alcohol was already determined, yet if one refuses this argument, it would be a contingency argument that traces back to before that guy was conceived, then further back to when the universe first started
Compatibilism is comprised of cowards
I regularly come back to these two videos. I'm a hard determinist surrounded by libertarian free will-ers. Whenever the topic of free will comes up, everyone's always aghast that I don't believe it exists.
The conversation will inevitably boil down to "I have an internal belief system and make choices" versus "yes, but your beliefs are shaped by external factors, like upbringing, the media you consume, your life experiences, etc". And then we kind of get stuck there because I can only envision one factor that shapes decisions that isn't deterministic, and that's pure random chance (which defeats free choice anyways), and they can't envision a world that lies entirely out of our control.
The problem I keep running into is that, so often, the free will argument comes down to "but it just FEELS right", and my brain can't wrap around that as a satisfactory answer. Maybe it's my brain being too clinical and analytic, but the idea that determinism is wrong because we don't like the implications and that libertarian free will is right because we get warm fuzzies from what that implies just sits so wrong with me. It goes against reason just for our own selfish comfort.
I would love to hear better arguments in favor of will and choice, and I keep coming back to determinism videos to see if ageing or new perspectives will change my mind, but I end up just as hard of a determinist as ever.