Prof. Dr. Nunner-Winkler emailed a further comment on my philosophy.
This posting comprises her comment followed by my reply.
It is kind of her to comment in English. Although she studied in England and USA, it is slightly unfair of me, a pedantic Englishman, to analyze her words so precisely.
Now read on:-
Random effects make no great difference. Human strivings are doomed to failure, to meaninglessness, whether the world is governed by deterministic laws or by random. For me the claim that there is no freedom of choice is neither proven nor true. That is the reason that I find your taking such a strong position on this (maybe metaphysical) issue ‘negativistic’ from a practical point of view. From a theoretical perspective you commit what Habermas calls a ‘performativer Widerspruch’: In warning mankind, or setting hope in Obama, i.e. in your actions, you draw on preconditions that in your thinking you deny.
Answer from Chris Wood
“Doomed to failure”:
I pointed out that a bird striving to build a nest often succeeds, but that this does not seem to depend on free will, or conscious thought processes.
“Meaningless”:
“Meaning” is more problematic. The noun means the information content of some communication. I am striving to write this, and the result has meaning, at least if somebody reads it. The communication may be spoken or a gesture. That this has meaning can surely be doubted only if no living thing notices. Bees returning to a hive dance to indicate where nectar can be found. Again this has meaning at least when other bees understand. Eucalyptus trees communicate (chemically) to trees downwind when attacked by caterpillars. Trees that get the message then produce chemicals that taste nasty. Such a message also has a meaning. So a message with a meaning may have little to do with conscious thought, and does not imply a free choice.
Do my efforts mean anything?
The verb “mean” has other shades of meaning. When one asks “what did you mean?” or “what do you mean to do?” or “what is that supposed to mean?”, one is asking about thought processes that are not fully apparent. This does relate to conscious thought.
Conscious thought as free will:
You (and Frank) strongly associate free will with conscious thought. This is quite popular, but I was trying to delve deeper. The state used to punish fairly sane people fairly automatically for crimes. This has gradually shifted towards more useful punishments. This corresponds with what you were talking about regarding the shift from rule-based ethics towards ethics of responsibility. The punishment should aim to have total effects that are (maximally) good according to commonly accepted ethics. A man can be rather mad, and still have conscious thoughts. It is then a bit stupid to punish according to a metaphysical view of how much his madness impairs free will. It is better to accept that free will is an illusion and try to deal with him for the general benefit of all. So my position is practical and positive, and fits your ethics shift! I saw recently that a man got a 10 year sentence combined with enforced psychiatric treatment, which will keep him locked up more than 10 years if need be. This looks like a careful combination of prevention, deterrence, and reformation, (but is rather expensive). I cannot believe in my own free will if I see it as an illusion in all other animals.
Am I inconsistent?
My position seems to me almost wholly consistent. What is this precondition that I deny? My warnings and my hopes in Obama result from my logic, which has developed by evolution (including the evolution of an education system). My logic tends often to produce reasonable results; otherwise it would not have evolved. But there are random elements in the whole process. Sometimes my logic gives me pleasure, though now I could be gardening or sitting in a beer garden. My only inconsistency is that I use the word “philosophy” (love of thought) for my views about the limited importance of consciousness!
Am I negative?
My philosophy is not particularly negative, although I should admit that for 50 years my favorite poem has been The City of Dreadful Night!
Should I take Habermas seriously in this context?
I have not time to study his copious writings, but I found one relevant quote:- „der intuitiv unbestreitbaren Evidenz eines in allen unseren Handlungen performativ mitlaufenden Freiheitsbewusstseins“. What was he trying to say? To me, ” intuitiv” and “Bewusstsein” fit badly together, but perhaps my German is too limited. “Unbestreitbar” does not seem very philosophical!
Popper seems nearer to me than to Habermas:
Looking in wikipedia, I find:-
William W. Bartley wrote: “Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over has wasted or is wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper’s way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology.”
I had come to a similar conclusion, (without studying the matter very carefully). I do not know how much I was influenced (indirectly) by Popper. I thought I was being slightly original in applying evolution theory to the development of ideas and knowledge, but now I see in wikipedia that (here too) Popper was there long before me! I thought that I got the idea from reading Dawkins books. Probably my idea of an ethic based on knowledge is also totally unoriginal.
Strangely, such wikipedia entries in English and German hardly correspond! One is nothing like a translation of the other!
Loading ...