The absurd: Life if absurd because the human mind invariably seeks meaning, value, and order in the world yet the world itself doesn't contain any of them. The absurd is the relationship between these two facts. The entirety of human life consists in a striving for what one can never find, hence, it is absurd.
Kierkegaard:
1. (a) Interpret the following passage from Kierkegaard. How is it relevant to Camus concern?:
An old proverb fetched from the outward and visible world says: "Only the man that works gets the bread." Strangely enough this proverb does not aptly apply in the world to which it expressly belongs. For the outward world is subjected to the law of imperfection, and again and again the experience is repeated that he too who does not work gets the bread, and the he who sleeps gets it more abundantly than the man who works. In the outward world everything is made payable to the bearer, this world is in bondage to the law of indifference, and to him who has the ring, the spirit of the ring is obedient, whether he be Noureddin or Aladdin, and he who has the world's treasure, has it, however he got it. (Philistines, Knights of Infinite Resignation and Knights of Faith)
(b) Come up with at least two examples from your own life that illustrate the law of indifference.
2. Read 2nd & 3rd paragraph (the method) p. 18.
(a) What does it mean to "leap"?
(b) What does it mean to live without appeal?
3. Explain: "That revolt is the certainty of a crushing fate, without the resignation that ought to accompany it." and "The contrary of suicide is the man condemned to death."
P. 19:
(a) What is the relationship between consciousness, revolt, life?
(b) Why isn't suicide a response to the absurd?
4. (a) Explain rejection of metaphysical freedom.
(b) READ p. 29 1st full paragraph (and last sentence of previous paragraph).
(c) Explain the analogy with the mystics.
5. How do we live without appeal to a scale of values?
(a) What is implied by substituting quantity for quality of life?
(b) What are the practical implications of living an ethics of quantity of experience?
READ p. 21 last 2 paragraphs.
(c) Is is merely duration of life or something else that matters for quantity of life?
1. Why does existentialism horrify certain people?
(a) What does Sartre think of people who say things like: "So there remains within me, unused and quite viable, a host of propensities, inclinations, possibilities, that one wouldn't guess from the mere series of things I've done."
(b) How does Sartre think the existentialist attitude motivates people to act?
(c) What does Sartre mean when he says "there's no such thing as a cowardly constitution"?
(d) Why does he think people don't like this idea? Why does he think existentialism represents 'optimistic toughness'?
(e) What are your thoughts?
2. Intersubjectivity (Explain).
3. Objection: You're able to do anything, no matter what.
(a) What does Sartre say you cannot do?
(b) Try to explain the analogy between making a moral choice a painting a picture.
(c) How can moral decisions not be arbitrary even though there are no a priori values or rules?
4. How is it possible to pass judgment?
(a) Explain: "Every man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, every man who sets up a determinism, is a dishonest man."
(b) Why can't people choose dishonesty?
5. How can the existentialist pass moral judgment?
(a) What does Sartre mean "freedom is the basis of all values"?
(b) What do you think of this idea?
(c) How does our own freedom depend entirely on the freedom of others and the freedom of others depend on ours?
(d) When does Sartre morally judge someone to be a coward?
(e) What is the moral standard of action for existentialists?
6. How does Sartre respond to the charge that "values aren't serious, since you choose them"?
(a) What do you think about his response?
7. Sartre says at the end that "even if God did exist, it would change nothing." What do you think he means?
Review 1. What does "existence precedes essence" mean? 2. Why is "man anguish"? 3. What is bad faith/double dealing? Abandonment and Despair 1. Sartre discusses Kierkegaard and the story of Abraham. (a) How does this story relate to subjectivism? (b) How does this story relate to "man is anguish"? Interpretation: http://khamakarpress.com/2016/07/01/rabbi-yisrael-all-palestinians-must-be-killed-men-women-infants-and-beasts/ Killing Deuteronomy 20:10-15 – When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. Don't Ignore the Torah Matthew 5:17-19 – "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
Homosexuality
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet,”
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:27-32)
Second Coming
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
Judging
1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV) 1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."
Sins of the Father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Adultery Leviticus 20:10 - 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. Rape Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Women 1 Timothy 2:11-12 – "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." Deuteronomy 25:11-12 – "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." The Sabbath Exodus 35:2 – " For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death." Homosexuality Leviticus 20:13 – "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Prisoners of War Isaiah 13:15-18 - "Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished. See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children." Non-Believers Deuteronomy 17:2-5 - "If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death." Leviticus 24:13-16 - "Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death." 2. For Sartre, what does abandonment mean? (a) How is Sartre's atheism different from the old atheism? (b) Famously, Sartre says "man is condemned to be free." What does this mean? 3. (b) The existentialist doesn't believe in the power of passion." (a) What does this mean? (b) Do you agree/disagree? Why? 4. "The existentialist does not think that man is going to help himself by finding in the world some omen by which to orient himself." (Think about the story of Abraham and of the Jesuit priest). (a) What does this mean? (b) How does the story of the Jesuit relate to this point? Think of at 3 three different ways the Jesuit could have interpreted his situation. (c) How does the story of Abraham relate to this point? Suggest other ways Abraham could have interpreted the situation? (d) Do you agree or disagree with Sartre's point? How does Sartre's point also relate to anguish? How are abandonment and anguish connected? (e) Think of some omens that you or other people have used in the past. What would Sartre say about this? 5. What is the point(s) of the story about the young man? (a) How would you choose what to do? Why? What would Sartre say about your choice? (b) Why doesn't Sartre think appealing to an ethical system will answer the young man's question? How does this relate to abandonment? 6. What is Sartre's reply to the suggestion that we go with our feelings to guide important decisions? (a) What role do you think emotions should play in our decision-making? 7. What does Sartre say about turning to others for advice? (a) What are your thoughts on this? 8. What does Sartre mean by "despair". (a) What do the Marxists say about this? (b) How does he reply? (c) What are the implications of despair to our life plans?
"A study published in the International Journal of Business Administration found that what students read in college directly affects the level of writing they achieve. In fact, researchers found that reading content and frequency may exert more significant impacts on students’ writing ability than writing instruction and writing frequency. Students who read academic journals, literary fiction, or general nonfiction wrote with greater syntactic sophistication (more complex sentences) than those who read fiction (mysteries, fantasy, or science fiction) or exclusively web-based aggregators like Reddit, Tumblr, and BuzzFeed. The highest scores went to those who read academic journals; the lowest scores went to those who relied solely on web-based content."
Another study that shows something I've argued for a while now: it's quality, not quantity, that matters when it comes to reading. You can read a ton of books, but that doesn't matter if all the books are crap. Sure, read your schlocky novels and children's books for fun, but read something complex or thought-provoking too. Don't starve your brain. It's hungry. Feed it.
Camus & Kierkegaard: The Existential Situation
1. (a). What is the most important philosophical question one could ask? (Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, p. 3-4)
(b). Discuss Camus' answer. Do you agree or disagree?
2. (a) What does suicide entail? What consequences does it imply?
(b) Read Camus, p. 5.
(c) Discuss Camus's answer.
3. (a) Interpret the following passage from Kierkegaard. How is it relevant to Camus concern?:
An old proverb fetched from the outward and visible world says: "Only the man the works gets the bread." Strangely enough this proverb does not aptly apply in the world to which it expressly belongs. For the outward world is subjected to the law of imperfection, and again and again the experience is repeated that he too who does not work gets the bread, and the he who sleeps gets it more abundantly than the man who works. In the outward world everything is made payable to the bearer, this world is in bondage to the law of indifference, and to him who has the ring, the spirit of the ring is obedient, whether he be Noureddin or Aladdin, and he who has the world's treasure, has it, however he got it. (Philistines, Knights of Infinite Resignation and Knights of Faith)
(b) Come up with at least two examples from your own life that illustrate the law of indifference.
4. (a) For Camus, how do existential thoughts begin? (p. 12)
(b) Camus says "we live on the future". What does he mean? (p. 12)
5. Suppose Camus and Kierkegaard are right. Life is fundamentally absurd, unjust, and without intrinsic meaning. What follows from this?
Sartre Part 1 PDF V.1PDF v. 2 (full) 1. Four Charges against Existentialism A. Desperate quietism. Existentialism offers no concrete answers regarding how to face the world and structure you life. It says that there are no True answers. And so, instead of acting, we merely contemplate--which is a luxury. Thus, existentialism can't be a philosophy for the common person.
B. Dwells on human degradation. Existentialism dwells on all that is wrong with the human condition and ignores the beautiful and positive.
C. Incapable of human solidarity. Because existentialism because from the inescapable subjective point of view of the cogito, it is solopsistic. We cannot know the existence of other points of view and therefore are confined to our own internal world of concerns.
D. Ignores divine commands and man's place in the universe. If God and objective values don't exist then anything goes. There will be no standards according to which we can judge behavior--both our own and that of others.
1. (a) Explain what "existence precedes essence" means (p. 2).
(b) Give 2 examples of essence preceding existence.
(c) Why does Sartre think there is no human nature (p. 2-3)?
2. (a) Explain: "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself."
(b) In terms of answering the question of the meaning of life, what does existence precedes essence imply?
(c) Is this a good thing or a bad thing or both? Why/Why not?
(d) What is the relationship of existentialism to human dignity?
3. Sartre says "man will be what he will have planned to be, not what he wants to be."
(a) What does this mean? What is the difference between wanting and planning?
(b) Apply this advice to your own life. Think about some of the things you want to be. What would it mean to plan to be these things? How would you go about doing it?
4. Sartre says "man is responsible for what he is" (p. 16, Citatel) or (other translation) "Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to
be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as
he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which
he makes of himself" (p. 3 online).
(a) What does this mean?
(b) Why does he believe this?
(c) Do you agree or disagree with his position? Support your argument.
(d) Are you responsible for what you are?
5. Sartre says that by "man is responsible for what he is" that this doesn't only apply to the individual person but also to all of humanity (Citadel p. 16-17) (p. 4 online) and "To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil." Or (online translation p. 4) Who, then, can prove that I am the proper person to impose, by my own
choice, my conception of man upon mankind? I shall never find any proof
whatever; there will be no sign to convince me of it. If a voice speaks to me, it is
still I myself who must decide whether the voice is or is not that of an angel. If I
regard a certain course of action as good, it is only I who choose to say that it is
good and not bad."
(a) What does he mean?
(b) Do you agree? Support your position.
6. "Man is anguish" (Citadel p. 18, Online v. 2 p. 25)
(a) What does he mean?
(b) Have you experienced anguish in the sense he describes?
(c) Is he right that man is anguish?
7. One charge against existentialism is that because of its subjectivism 'anything goes'. He partially addresses the charge when implicitly references the Kantian standard and refers to bad faith.
(a) What does he mean by bad faith?
(b) How successful is this response?
(c) Defend your position.
8. Sartre discusses Kierkegaard and the story of Abraham (p. 26 v. 2).
(a) How does this story relate to "man is anguish"?
(b) How does this story relate to subjectivism and Descartes first meditation?
(c) Consider the next paragraph on angels and the voice of God. What is Sartre's point here? What is the relationship between possibility, interpretation, subjectivity, and anguish?
9. In the last section on anguish, Sartre speaks about the relationship between anguish, quietism, possibility, and value. (p. 27 v. 2)
(a) Explain the relationship between them.
(b) Why does he not think existential anguish necessarily implies quietism?
(c) What do you think about what he says in this passage?
10. If Sartre is right about the themes in question 8, how do we make our first 'movement'.
(a) How do we decide which of the infinite directions we can take our lives, the millions of possible ways to 'be'? If I'm a student, doctor, engineer, mother, etc... I have a framework from within which to make my choices (Sartre calls this an 'ethic'). However, how do I choose my ethic?
VII
1. (p. 27): Oh, tell me, who was it
first announced, who was it first proclaimed, that man
only does nasty things because he does not know his own
interests; and that if he were enlightened, if his eyes were
opened to his real normal interests, man would at once
cease to do nasty things, would at once become good and
noble because, being enlightened and understanding his
real advantage, he would see his own advantage in the good
and nothing else, and we all know that not one man can,
consciously, act against his own interests, consequently, so
to say, through necessity, he would begin doing good?
(a) Explain the above quote
(b) Why does the Underground Man think the person who holds this view is a pure, innocent child?
(c) i. Is he right? ii. Think of instances in your own life where you knowingly acted against your own interests. How do you explain why you did this?
2. (p. 30): I want to compromise myself personally,
and therefore I boldly declare that all these fine systems,
all these theories for explaining to mankind their real normal
interests, in order that inevitably striving to pursue
these interests they may at once become good and noble—
are, in my opinion, so far, mere logical exercises!
(a) Explain
(b) Do you agree or disagree? Why?
3. (p. 31): The only gain of civilisation for
mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations— and absolutely nothing more. And through the development
of this many- sidedness man may come to finding enjoyment
in bloodshed. In fact, this has already happened to
him. Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen
who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the
Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if
they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins
it is simply because they are so often met with, are so
ordinary and have become so familiar to us. In any case civilisation
has made mankind if not more bloodthirsty, at
least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty. In old
days he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at
peace exterminated those he thought proper. Now we do
think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this
abomination, and with more energy than ever.
(a) i. Explain the passage and ii. how it functions in relation with the quote in question (2).
(b) Do you agree or disagree? Why?
(c) In respect to the last sentence, the author asks "which is worse?". What do you think?
4. (a) What is the Crystal Palace? (p. 32)
5. (p. 33) Man is stupid, you know,
phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but
he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him
in all creation.
(a) Explain
(b) Can you think of current events or personal events that would support this view?
(c) If so, what does that say about human nature, technology, ethics, and politics?
VIII Dennett on telling people they don't have free will.
1. (p. 35) Indeed, if there really is some day discovered a
formula for all our desires and caprices—that is, an explanation
of what they depend upon, by what laws they arise,
how they develop, what they are aiming at in one case and
in another and so on, that is a real mathematical formula—then,
most likely, man will at once cease to feel desire,
indeed, he will be certain to. For who would want to choose
by rule? Besides, he will at once be transformed from a human
being into an organ-stop or something of the sort; for
what is a man without desires, without free will and without
choice, if not a stop in an organ? What do you think? Let us
reckon the chances—can such a thing happen or not?
(a) Is Dostoevsky right?
(b) Do you think it would affect people if we told them they had no free will?
2. (p. 35-36) ‘Our choice is usually mistaken from a
false view of our advantage. We sometimes choose absolute nonsense because in our foolishness we see in that nonsense
the easiest means for attaining a supposed advantage. [. . .] For if a desire should come into conflict with reason we
shall then reason and not desire, because it will be impossible
retaining our reason to be SENSELESS in our desires,
and in that way knowingly act against reason and desire
to injure ourselves.
(p. 37) You see,
gentlemen, reason is an excellent thing, there’s no disputing
that, but reason is nothing but reason and satisfies only the
rational side of man’s nature, while will is a manifestation
of the whole life, that is, of the whole human life including
reason and all the impulses. And although our life, in this
manifestation of it, is often worthless, yet it is life and not
simply extracting square roots.
(a) Explain the passages and how the 2nd is a reply to the first.
(b) Are reason and the will at odds?
(c) What do you think the respective roles of reason and the will are regarding giving meaning or value to life?
3. (p. 38) But very often, and even most often, choice
is utterly and stubbornly opposed to reason ... and ... and
... do you know that that, too, is profitable, sometimes even
praiseworthy?
(a) Why is this "stupid" caprice of ours sometimes the "most advantageous advantage"?
(b) Do you agree or disagree? Why?
(c) Sometimes the will and reason align and sometimes they pull apart. How do we decide which to follow?
4. (p. 40-41) (a) What does the history of man show?
(b) What is the "point" he must always make?
(c) What does the narrator say to the reply that science isn't trying to take away his free will, just make it align with reason?
5. (p. 39) There are continually turning up in
life moral and rational persons, sages and lovers of humanity
who make it their object to live all their lives as morally
and rationally as possible, to be, so to speak, a light to their
neighbours simply in order to show them that it is possible
to live morally and rationally in this world. And yet we all
know that those very people sooner or later have been false
to themselves, playing some queer trick, often a most unseemly
one.
(a) Can you come up with contemporary examples?
IX
1. (a) How does the author defend the view that we ought not align our will purely with reason?
(b) Who, that we've covered in our course, do you think he's referring to?
(c) Do you agree/disagree? Why?
(d) Why does the author think man so loves destruction? Explain the disanalogy between man and the ants.
(e) Do you agree/disagree? Why?
2. (p. 43). Man likes to make roads and to create, that is a fact
beyond dispute. But why has he such a passionate love for
destruction and chaos also? Tell me that!
(a) Explain.
(b) Why does the author think "man is a comical creature; there seems to be a kind of jest in it all. "
(c) What are your thoughts? Could you describe aspects of your own life this way?
3. (p. 44) And why are you so firmly, so triumphantly, convinced
that only the normal and the positive—in other words, only
what is conducive to welfare—is for the advantage of man?
(a) What else does the author think man values?
(b) Do you agree/disagree?
4. What does the author think gives life value that is not taken into account by science and reason?
How do you think actions come about? The common sense (and our experience) explanation is we (1) make a conscious decision to do something (2) our brain activates whatever neuro-pathways are required for the action, the (3) we perform the action. Libet's famous experiments give strong evidence showing that this is NOT the order of how our actions come about.
For many people, the famous Libet experiments show that we don't have free will. Free will is only an illusion. Our brains have already decided what we're going to do, then, after the fact, we only have the experience of deciding what we'll do. Watch the video yourself and think about what the experiment shows.
In case it wasn't clear from the video, here's how the experiment goes: The subject observes a timer thingy (the type of timer varies from experiment to experiment). The subject is asked to raise their finger whenever they want. By looking at the clock, they are also supposed to note the time at which they first became aware of their (conscious) desire to move their finger. The subject is also wired up to an EEG (electroencephalography) sensor which measures the electrical potentials around the scalp coming from the part of the brain responsible for motor activity. There's also an EMG (electromyography) sensor that measures the exact time the finger moves.
The results of the experiment show that there is a ramping up of brain activity .550 seconds before the subject's consciously aware of their decision or desire to move their finger. This "ramping up" activity is called readiness potential (RP). So, the order of events is (1) RP, (2) conscious willing to move the finger, (3) finger movement. In theory, because readiness potential happens before conscious awareness of a decision, Libet can know that we are going to move our finger before our own conscious awareness of our decision to do so! Mind=blown.
Wegner's Interpretation
Libet's experiments seem to give compelling evidence in favour of determinism. Our conscious experience of choice is an illusion. Our body's physical systems have already "decided" what to do and our consciousness of what we will do occurs only after this happens. Our conscious selves are merely along for the ride. "Voluntary" actions don't go: (t1) "hmmm...I'm going to move finger now", (t2) *finger moves*. They go like this (t1) brain initiates preparations for moving the finger (t2) meta-brain says "I decide to move my finger" (t3) *finger moves*.
From these experiments it doesn't seem like we consciously will our actions. Our dictator brain has already begun preparations for what you will do before you are even conscious of it. Our conscious selves just think they're making a decision. Curse you, evil brain! I want to be free!
Libet's Interpretation
Libet's own interpretation was different. He thought that rather than free will, we had "free won't". He thought, yes, the brain initiates urges and intentions but we have a window (about .1-.2 seconds) to consciously override the brain's urge.
To test his hypothesis he set up the following experiment. He set things up similar to the original experiment but this time he told the subjects to plan to move their finger at a set time on the timer and then to "veto" the intention to move their finger.
Results: RP started about 1 second (vs .550 sec. in the original version) before the set time. Then at about .1-.2 seconds before the subject was to move their finger RP flattened out.
Interpretation: The brain generated the unconscious desire to move the finger but when this desire entered into consciousness "free won't" was able to veto the urge. In other words, our desires and intentions are generated unconsciously but when they enter consciousness we have the ability to over-ride them. Problem: What if the process that generated the 'free won't' is also unconscious? Doh!
Mele's Interpretation
Alfred Mele be like, "whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis? That ain't no proof of determinism!" Poor Libet. He doesn't have a philosopher's training and therefore blurs some important distinctions. In Libet's interpretation of the results, he uses the words "intention," "decision," "wish," and "urge" interchangeably. Unfortunately for Libet, he never had the good fortune of taking philosophy 101 at UNLV where he would have learned that you can't just go around willy-nilly using words without first specifying what they mean. Let's look at some of the important distinctions and see how they apply to interpreting Libet's experiments.
Wanting/Urges to vs Intending/Deciding to
You can want to do A without having settled that you are actually going to do A. I want to live on a ranch with a herd of wiener dogs but I don't intend to do it (right now, anyway). I can want to eat all the donuts in the bakery but still do not form the intention to do so...
We can further see the distinction when we have competing wants. I want to finish my grading by 9pm but I also want to finish writing my lecture by 9 pm. I can't do both. The one that I end up doing is the one for which I formed an intention. When you make up your mind about a course of actionbetween competing wants then you can say you intend to do it. In short, wanting to A is simply having the desire to A. Intending to A requires making a decision to A.
Distal vs Proximal Intentions
We can also distinguish between distal and proximal intentions. A proximal intention is when I intend to do something that is temporally close. A distal intention is when I intend to do something in the more distant future. For example, on Saturday I intend to take my dogs for a hike.
Ok, back to Libet. Libet says that the process that produces the urge to move the finger (the 'act now' process) is occurring before conscious awareness to decide to move the finger. This process begins at around 550 msec before the finger moves. Also, the urge that initiates the 'act now' process creates a proximal intention to flex the finger. So far, we can agree with Libet that the "'act now' process is initiated unconsciously, "[...] conscious free will is not doing it"; i.e. conscious free will is not initiating the 'act now' process.
However, why should we suppose that the role of conscious free will is to produce urges or causally contributes to urges? Typically, free will is thought to apply to situations where the agent is deliberating between between possible courses of action or whether they should or should not act. Free will is not thought to have the role of producing urges, rather, it is about choosing.
Processes Have Parts
Free will doesn't create the urge. The origins of the urge are unconscious. However, the process that begins with an unconscious urge can give rise to a conscious intention to act or not act in accordance with the urge. The conscious intention is temporally closer to the final act (move finger) and so it seems as though it is the conscious intention rather than the unconscious urge that is causally responsible for the act.
Issue: What is the relationship between temporal distance and causal power?
Other Objections/Issues to Deterministic Interpretation of Libet Experiments Issue: Do these results generalize? Lab conditions vs Real life. Do the results generalize to all types of decisions/intentions? Objection: Of Course There's Prior Brain Activity!
If brain events underlie mental events then we shouldn't be surprised that there is brain activity prior to a conscious decision. Why should we suppose that the production of conscious decisions doesn't involve prior brain activity to lead up to the brain state that is a conscious mental state? Having no brain activity prior to a conscious decision would be the surprising finding. Not that there is prior brain activity.
Objection: The Meta-State
Consider that you've been reading this post for the last minute or so. The entire time that you were reading or watching the video were you actively conscious of the fact that you were reading or watching the video? Or were you simply reading and watching without the awareness "I'm reading/watching".
The argument here is that the Libet experiment measures an awareness of a conscious state; i.e., a meta-consciousness. Most activities that we do, we aren't actively aware of. When we drive, read, walk, etc...often doing so isn't part of our immediate conscious awareness, yet no one could seriously say that we aren't conscious when we do these things. Only when something draws our attention to our activity do we become aware of what we are doing; this is the meta-conscious state. It's having the awareness "oh, I'm doing X now" rather than the state of 'just' doing X.
The Libet experiments measure the meta-conscious state about a prior awareness of our decision to move our finger, not the immediate state of awareness that we want to move our finger. The time delay between the primary state and the meta-state is what accounts for the effect.
Further Studies that Might Prove Determinism True:
In further studies using an fMRI machine, scientists in lab coats have been able to predict a subject's decision of up to 7 SECS before the subject's own awareness of what she will choose. Ho. Lee. Crap. If this doesn't sound like evidence against free will, I don't know what is!
Objection 1: The Media Isn't Reporting the Whole Story and Is Sensationalizing (Surprise!)
What the data actually shows is that the scientist can predict your decision to move your finger at a rate 7% better than chance. If you were to make predictions blind, over the long run, you'd be right about 50% of the time. The fMRI data allows you to get it right around 57-58% of the time.
Reply: Yes, but 7-8% above chance is still a significant result. If you were given these odds in a casino, you'd be a fool not to take them.
Counter Reply: True dat. However, this result may be a consequence of how the experiment was set up. If subjects were incentivized to try to fool the experimenters, this predictive power might disappear. (If you have an fMRI machine, please do this study!)
Further Study: There may be newer studies that use better equipment and more sophisticated models that have better predictive power. There doesn't seem to be any a priori reason to suppose in the future 100% predictive power couldn't be achieved.
Preferences Vs Free Will
Suppose you frequently go out to dinner with someone you know very well. You've eaten with them many times. You know what their preferences are. You go to a new restaurant and, based on what you know about them, you successfully predict they will order the T-bone steak. Does the fact that we can accurately predict someone's actions tell us anything about free will?
The Mechanistic Brain Vs Free Will (Adina Roskies)
So maybe being able to predict someone's behaviour--be it from fMRI scans or from preferences--isn't sufficient to imply we don't have free will. Do these studies provide evidence for any other challenges to free will?
One thing these (and subsequent) studies make clear is that the brain is mechanistic. We can identify which parts of the brain and which neurons are responsible for certain actions and behaviours. In short, the brain behaves in mechanistic law-like ways. So, the difficulty is to explain how we get free will out of a mechanistic law-like system. Consider a computer. It performs its functions in mechanistic law-like ways, yet we don't attribute to it free will. How are we different? Are we really all like 2Chainz showin' up to the scene with our top down? Is it cuz we're made of meat rather than metal and silicon? What's so special about meat?
The underlying worry is that because we are meat-based mechanisms we don't have free will. But Adina Roskies suggests maybe this conclusion needn't follow. If we suppose that having a mind is necessary for free will then maybe having a better understanding of the brain's mechanism gives us a better understanding of mind.
For example, most theories of free will tell us that certain mental capacities are required for free will: the capacity for rational deliberation, the capacity to assign moral value to certain outcomes, the capacity to put judgments into action. So, while at first blush it may seem that neuroscience undermines free will, in fact it doesn't, it gives us a better understanding of the brain mechanisms, functions, and states that underlie the mental capacities that are integral to free agency. This type of study can inform us of things that can happen to the brain that can impede capacities for free agency.
An often cited example in the literature is a patient that led a perfectly normal life up to a point when he started to have pedophilic urges and eventually couldn't control himself. When he was sentenced to jail, he complained of a headache. When they scanned his brain they found a large tumor. When they removed the tumor his urges completely went away.
Later he started to feel the urges again and when they scanned his brain, they found a tumor in the same place. Once the tumor was removed, the urges disappeared again. This is fairly strong evidence for a causal relationship between the tumor interfering with normal brain activity and the ability to exercise one's will.
Epiphenominalism: The Role of Consciousness in Decision-Making
Epiphenominalism is the idea that our conscious experiences don't play any causal role. They just "ride on top" of whatever our brains are doing. They're superfluous. We encountered this idea earlier with Chalmers' Zombies, and blind-sight.
So, if our brains are causing us to act before we have any conscious awareness of what we're going to do, then why should we think that consciousness plays a role in decision-making? First of all, it looks like there are at least some areas where consciousness does play a causal role. Conscious experiences (memories) can inform decisions even if those decisions proceed unconsciously.
For example, my memory of the line for the salad bar being really slow causes me to choose something else like subway for lunch. The decision might be unconscious, but a conscious state plays a causal role in the decision.
Maybe Libet's results support limited epiphenominalism about decision-making. Consciousness doesn't cause the decision but it doesn't make consciousness irrelevant. My conscious experiences figure into my unconscious decisions. But the decision isn't caused by consciousness.
Should non-determinists be worried?
From a neuro-science point of view, Libet's findings make sense. The decision-making system does its job first, then the conscious monitoring system does its job. Of course the decision has to come first, otherwise there'd be nothing for the conscious monitoring system to monitor!
Possible Compatibilist interpretation: The urges/wants I have are going to be a consequence of my values and preferences. In that sense, they represent what "I" want rather than being totally random.
