Reply
Wed 12 May, 2010 12:55 pm
Hello everybody
As a newcomber to the forum, I may well go astray in my question or violate some conventions, please excuse me if this happens.
I have a question. Long ago I read a paper by some Australian philosopher, claiming that the Hobbes-Hume-Mill denial of the contradiction between free will and determinism results from an adoption of a special viewpoint - that of an onlooker. From aside, this philosopher claimed, they are indeed right. There is no apparent contradiction between the fact that somebody else's choice is governed by laws, and the fact that his choice is free in the sense that it is not subect to coersion. From the first person point of view things are different. Looking at my own process of choice, I am the generator of the process.
I now need a reference. Does anybody know that paper? The philosopher may be Campbell, that's what I remember, but I am not at all sure.
grateful, Ron
@raharoni,
Google throws up a couple of references to an article (unfortunately unnamed) by Keith Campbell in Paul Edwards (ed.),
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), so if you have access to that book, it might be worth a look, although it's only a guess.
@raharoni,
raharoni;163520 wrote:Hello everybody
As a newcomber to the forum, I may well go astray in my question or violate some conventions, please excuse me if this happens.
I have a question. Long ago I read a paper by some Australian philosopher, claiming that the Hobbes-Hume-Mill denial of the contradiction between free will and determinism results from an adoption of a special viewpoint - that of an onlooker. From aside, this philosopher claimed, they are indeed right. There is no apparent contradiction between the fact that somebody else's choice is governed by laws, and the fact that his choice is free in the sense that it is not subect to coersion. From the first person point of view things are different. Looking at my own process of choice, I am the generator of the process.
I now need a reference. Does anybody know that paper? The philosopher may be Campbell, that's what I remember, but I am not at all sure.
grateful, Ron
I suppose that from a first person view of things the Sun is small red ball not far above my head. But it is just because the first person view of matters is do limited, that we have adopted the third person (onlooker) view of things. We reject the subjective in favor of the objective. Is there a good reason to suppose that is not right?
Yes, I think that Campbell is the name of a prominent Libertarian of the time. I don't recall his first name.
Yes:
C. A. Campbell
C.A. Campbell
@kennethamy,
Many thanks,
what I need is a reference.
(to a paper claiming that the Hobbes-Hume-Mill argument is valid only from aside)
Anybody having any idea?
thanks, Ron
@raharoni,
raharoni;163520 wrote:Hello everybody
As a newcomber to the forum, I may well go astray in my question or violate some conventions, please excuse me if this happens.
I have a question. Long ago I read a paper by some Australian philosopher, claiming that the Hobbes-Hume-Mill denial of the contradiction between free will and determinism results from an adoption of a special viewpoint - that of an onlooker. From aside, this philosopher claimed, they are indeed right. There is no apparent contradiction between the fact that somebody else's choice is governed by laws, and the fact that his choice is free in the sense that it is not subect to coersion. From the first person point of view things are different. Looking at my own process of choice, I am the generator of the process.
I now need a reference. Does anybody know that paper? The philosopher may be Campbell, that's what I remember, but I am not at all sure.
grateful, Ron
Go ahead we welcome our conventions being violated.
What you have written here sounds interesting, please open a thread when you get the chance.
Who is you favourite author?
Thank you and welcome.
@sometime sun,
many thanks for the tentative reference, I will certainly have a look,
Ron