Merlin:Pardon me if I’m wrong, but I truly believe that “determinism” is just about single-way causation, no two-way causation.
It's hard to grasp at first, but it's easier when you see it. If A can only cause B, then B can only be caused by A.
Or in symbolic logic: A -> B, B -> A, A <-> B.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
ladyattis: It's hard to grasp at first, but it's easier when you see it. If A can only cause B, then B can only be caused by A.
That does not follow.
Even if A can cause nothing but B, it may still be the case that other things can cause B besides A.
That is, A may consist of one way to skin a cat. But there are other ways.
'A' may necessarily result in a skinned cat, but a skinned cat does not imply that method A was used.
ladyattis: It's hard to grasp at first, but it's easier when you see it. If A can only cause B, then B can only be caused by A. Or in symbolic logic: A -> B, B -> A, A <-> B.
If that were to follow, no differentiation between "A -> B" and "A <-> B" would be necessary.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
"...and the philosophers laughed and one of them said 'So you are determined to believe in determinism.' "
The simple response he could have given to win it back is "I am not free to do otherwise".
Logic is inherently deterministic. "Choice" is an empty set word attached to a proposition, nothing special. Determinism, in almost any sense, certainly doesn't conflict with Menger and Bohm-Bawherk, who were determinists. And I would say it would be very difficult to conflict with anything Mises had to say.
What's probably getting confused with questions like this is the nature of subjectivism - which in our case is not nihilism or skepticism
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
nandnor: That makes it feel like praxeology is just mental masturbation like any other religious or philosophical treatise, as far as explaining the objective world is concerned.
That makes it feel like praxeology is just mental masturbation like any other religious or philosophical treatise, as far as explaining the objective world is concerned.
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
Epic bump.
The Texas Trigger, I assume your reason for rejecting free will is to attempt to reconcile omnipotence with our subjective impression of choice. Are you a biblical literalist by any chance?
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Determinism could debunk any human science. But it is impractical as hell.
zefreak:Are you a biblical literalist by any chance?
Zefreak, there are many absurdities proclaimed in the world but few reach the absurdity of a literal interpretation of the Bible. So no, I am not a literalist. I think any scholarship done on the context of books like Genesis and Revelation will prove them to be works of poetry heavy in metaphor. Even without the scholarship, its pretty clear anyway.
For instance, if you do even the bare minimum of theological and historical research, the "world-wide" flood of noah and the arc is obviously regional. The term world-wide flood merely meant that everyone on the Earth besides Noah and his family would perish in that flood. By no means should we assume that the entire Earth was in fact flooded with water. The population at that time was so negligent and local that any flood we hear of on the daily news would likely dwarf it. Again, atheists and deists are free to reject even my conception of what the flood was, but it is important to understand (whether you believe in it or not) what the authors meant when they wrote what they wrote.
The kind of people who believe in the world-wide flood also believe there will be one man called the anti-christ who will rule the world, and there will be a definite and literal tribulation. This belief was largely the result of a man named John Darby falling off of his horse. The Revelation was all a dream...come on, no wonder the world thinks we are nut jobs.
I do have to ask, what prompted the question of whether or not I am a biblical literalist?
Hey there, sorry it took me so long to get back to you but I've been inactive for so long I always forget to check the forum.
The reason I asked is because it seemed like you possibly rejected free-will because of its implications for an omnipotent God. While I reject free will as a confused concept (on logical as well as evidencial grounds), I think God's omnipotence can be questioned using old testament scripture that is unrelated to free will.
I'm an athiest so I have no horse in this race, but if your reasoning for rejecting free will is as I thought, I think that I could persuade you that the God of the bible can't be omnipotent through other means if you are so inclined.
...(on logical as well as evidencial grounds)...
So what are the flaws in logic and what is the evidence?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer