[Vision2020] Campbell's Philosophical Work Direct Online For Free: Was: Joe Campbell promoted to Professor (was: ... Statesman)

Mon Feb 28 12:52:28 PST 2011

Great comments, Ted -- especially the use of the Lennon quote! A few
comments.

1/ I agree that a full study of free will and related powers will help us to
temper the tendency to blame and punish. But this is just one side of the
coin. The other side is praise and reward and I don't think we want to do
without that. So I don't think we can ever do away with free will, like
Pereboom suggests we can.

2/ You are correct that definitions of "free will" vary but there are only a
few strands worth noting, such as: the ability to do otherwise, the power of
sourcehood (or up-to-usness, as I like to call it), and the most fundamental
power necessary for moral responsibility. In my book I try to argue that
up-to-usness (arguably) captures all these notions. Thus, I have free will
to the extent that my acts are up to me and not some outside force.

3/ My own view is that free will is a set of active powers (like the power
to act) and cognitive capacities (the ability to partake in means-to-ends
reasoning, to deliberate, etc.) and thus is a naturalistic phenomenon.
Hence, I agree that eventually it will be scientifically explicable. I think
that part of the confusion around free will comes from thinking that it is
threatened by determinism and other "fatalistic" theses. Yet apart from the
power to act, which might be a fundamental power, all of the powers and
abilities associate with free will are dispositional powers, like fragility
or flammability. Just because it turns out the this piece of paper won't
burn, given the past and the laws of nature, it doesn't follow that it is
inflammable. Likewise, just because I will do X given the past and the laws,
it doesn't follow that I can't do otherwise.

I think dealing with puzzles like determinism, fatalism, and foreknowledge
will take us from the pre-scientific notion to something more helpful. That
is what philosophers have to offer: good old conceptual analysis. But as in
most cases the real work will eventually be done by scientists.

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> Given the importance of the concept of "free will" in everyones life,
> I find reading about the complexities and uncertainties on this issue
> well worth the time, even if the technical nature of philosophical
> writing can be "pretty dry," as you wrote, and even if I do not fully
> understand the text.  Actually, its fascinating, not dry at all...
>
> A widespread in-depth study of this concept might temper the all too
> human tendency to severely judge behavior and punish, without a full
> consideration of the questions regarding when human behavior is under
> rational deliberative control. From "Isolation" by John Lennon:  "I
> don't expect you to understand, After you've caused so much pain, But
> then again, you're not to blame, You're just a human, a victim of the
> insane"  http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/42604/
>
> Many people who have not studied the concept of free will in-depth
> appear to think they understand "free will."  This is perhaps similar
> to someone claiming to be a nuclear physicist, having only make it
> through simple Jr. High Newtonian Physics. I recall on Vision2020
> someone distinguishing "genuine free will," as opposed to someone with
> a mental disorder that disabled this capability.
>
> I do not confidently know how to define "free will," whether genuine
> or ersatz.  This would require that I be capable of parsing through
> and confidently resolving the complex conundrums and puzzles involved,
> which I cannot.  And there is sufficient credible disagreement among
> professional philosophers on these problems for a layperson to
> hesitate to consider the issues resolved: Derk Pereboom (
> http://www.arts.cornell.edu/phil/homepages/pereboom/ )
> "Living Without Free Will": http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1287
>
> Perhaps the scientific study of how the human brain functions
> (neurochemical mapping) will in the future more completely answer some
> of the questions regarding this concept.
>
> I am inclined to think that "free will" should be treated as a
> scientific concept, subjected to verification via replicatable
> scientific theory and experiment, through the peer review process in
> science publishing, before I would confidently accept well established
> precise conditions under which free will is or is not present in human
> behavior.  Free will is a concept that has its origins in
> pre-scientific thinking, and is entrenched in human culture, as is
> religion, for reasons that are not entirely based on science and
> logic.
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On 2/27/11, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for posting this Ted, and thanks to Ken for the original post
> about
> > the MIT book series.
> >
> > As Nick said, the book series is the result of the Inland Northwest
> > Philosophy Department. Even more so than with the conference, much of the
> > credit to the Topics in Contemporary Philosophy series goes to Michael
> > O'Rourke (UI) and other co-editors. I was a substantive co-author of at
> > least three of the introductions to this series.
> >
> > Most of my peer reviewed articles are difficult to get; the links below
> are
> > to unpublished work and drafts of published work. I hope to soon make my
> > work accessible from my website. But trust me, the work is pretty dry and
> > not the kind of thing you're likely to read when you have the time to
> read!
> > Mostly, I work in philosophical logic. "Strawson's Free Will Naturalism"
> is
> > about as good as it gets wrt my actual research.
> >
> > There is a link below to a draft of the first two chapters of my
> forthcoming
> > book, Free Will (Polity Press). I've added some material to these
> chapters,
> > most notably a section on the problem of free will and foreknowledge. The
> > first two chapters are a broad introduction to traditional and
> contemporary
> > issues about free will and moral responsibility.
> >
> > Best, Joe
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Kenneth Marcy kmmos1 at frontier.com
> >> Thu Feb 24 21:16:13 PST 2011 wrote:
> >>
> >> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-February/074967.html
> >>
> >> "Now, if the level of book sales would rise up a bit (or maybe a lot)
> life
> >> would be even better."
> >> --------------------------------
> >> When you give it away, the book sales might be impacted.
> >>
> >> Though the University of Idaho website appears to no longer offer
> >> Campbell's presentation "Strawson's Free Will Naturalism" referenced
> >> in this Vision2020 post from Nov. 2009 (
> >> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-November/067055.html),
> >> the WSU website offers Campbell's book on free will (I assume the book
> >> Campbell mentioned was forthcoming in the Nov. 2009 post above?)
> >> direct for free, as revealed below; also, the two essays as shown
> >> below are only a mouse click away.
> >>
> >> I have read (or rather, mouthed the words while my brain was seized by
> >> a state of stunned incomprehension) some of Campbell's work on free
> >> will, a very difficult and very important subject, critical to our
> >> understanding of religion and law, of placing blame, exacting
> >> punishment or gaining salvation, that astonishingly is assumed to be
> >> well understood by many people who have never done an in-depth study
> >> of the daunting complexities and uncertainties of the concept:
> >>
> >> "Pereboom on Deliberation":
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/2nd_annual_online_philoso/files/cambells_commentary_on_pereboom.pdf
> >> ---------------
> >> "Compatibilist Alternatives:"
> >>
> >> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwCompatCampbell.html
> >> ---------------
> >> "Free Will" (75 pages long, from Polity Press)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://libarts.wsu.edu/philo/faculty-staff/campbell/Campbell.FreeWill,%20Chs.%201-2.pdf
> >> ------------------------------------------
> >> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> >>
> >> On 2/24/11, Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at frontier.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday 24 February 2011 19:26:40 Joe Campbell wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> By the way, I found out today that I've been promoted to full
> >> >> Professor.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Congratulations!
> >> >
> >> > Now, if the level of book sales would rise up a bit (or maybe a lot)
> >> > life
> >> > would be even better. You may be sufficiently polite, or modest, to
> not
> >> > mention
> >> > the products with your name on them available from MIT Press, for
> >> example,
> >> > but
> >> > on the occasion of full professorship, I am not averse to mentioning
> >> > some
> >> of
> >> > the reasons for the promotion.
> >> >
> >> > Those who need some good reading material for any time of the year,
> but
> >> > especially handy in winter time when other activities are restricted,
> >> > may
> >> > wish
> >> > to check out the titles with Professor Campbell as author from MIT
> >> > Press:
> >> >
> >> > http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/author/default.asp?aid=20766
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ken
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> =======================================================
> >>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >>               http://www.fsr.net
> >>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> =======================================================
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110228/6e1b78b9/attachment.html 