Free will: An impossible reality or an incoherent concept?

IF 0.4 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
S. Leach
{"title":"Free will: An impossible reality or an incoherent concept?","authors":"S. Leach","doi":"10.1515/humaff-2022-0035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The problem that Tallis attempts to address in Freedom: An Impossible Reality (2021) is that science appears to describe the entire world deterministically and that this seems to leave no room for free will. In the face of this threat, Tallis defends the existence of free will by arguing that science does not explain our intentional awareness of the world; and it is our intentional awareness that makes both science and free will possible. Against Tallis, it is here argued that his argument is vulnerable to two criticisms. Firstly, his characterisation of science as apparently deterministic is inaccurate. Secondly, he has not solved the problem he has set himself but rather recast it, so that his conclusion leaves us having to account for free will, not in a deterministic universe, but either as a product of chance or as a miracle. It is here suggested that when we set aside the illusory threat of scientific determinism, we also set aside the temptation of free will (as its spurious answer). That done, we may better focus upon agent’s freedom of action – as discussed by philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke and Hume – the rational capability of an agent to act upon their wishes, given the constraints under which they find themselves.","PeriodicalId":44829,"journal":{"name":"Human Affairs-Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly","volume":"32 1","pages":"413 - 419"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Affairs-Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2022-0035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The problem that Tallis attempts to address in Freedom: An Impossible Reality (2021) is that science appears to describe the entire world deterministically and that this seems to leave no room for free will. In the face of this threat, Tallis defends the existence of free will by arguing that science does not explain our intentional awareness of the world; and it is our intentional awareness that makes both science and free will possible. Against Tallis, it is here argued that his argument is vulnerable to two criticisms. Firstly, his characterisation of science as apparently deterministic is inaccurate. Secondly, he has not solved the problem he has set himself but rather recast it, so that his conclusion leaves us having to account for free will, not in a deterministic universe, but either as a product of chance or as a miracle. It is here suggested that when we set aside the illusory threat of scientific determinism, we also set aside the temptation of free will (as its spurious answer). That done, we may better focus upon agent’s freedom of action – as discussed by philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke and Hume – the rational capability of an agent to act upon their wishes, given the constraints under which they find themselves.
自由意志:一个不可能的现实还是一个不连贯的概念?
塔利斯在《自由:不可能的现实》(2021)一书中试图解决的问题是,科学似乎以决定论的方式描述了整个世界,而这似乎没有给自由意志留下任何空间。面对这种威胁,塔利斯为自由意志的存在辩护,他认为科学不能解释我们对世界的有意识意识;正是我们有意识的意识使科学和自由意志成为可能。反对塔利斯的观点是,他的论点容易受到两种批评。首先,他把科学描述为明显的确定性是不准确的。其次,他没有解决他给自己设定的问题,而是重新定义了它,所以他的结论让我们不得不解释自由意志,不是在一个决定论的宇宙中,而是作为偶然的产物或奇迹。这里有人建议,当我们抛开科学决定论的虚幻威胁时,我们也抛开了自由意志的诱惑(作为它的虚假答案)。这样,我们就可以更好地关注行为主体的行动自由——正如霍布斯(Hobbes)、洛克(Locke)和休谟(Hume)等哲学家所讨论的那样——在给定约束条件下,行为主体按照自己的意愿行事的理性能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
25.00%
发文量
41
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信