129 results found (0.034 seconds)
Free Choice / Will
It is fundamental to the idea of moral responsibility that human agents are capable of free choice because one cannot be reasonable blamed for something one could not do or could not refrain from doing. While it is generally recognised that they can be subject to psychological and physical compulsions, or have their power of choice undermined by indoctrination and intoxication, it is commonly believed that unless impeded they can choose to act or not to act. Against this stands the challenge of determinism, the claim that every event is caused by a prior event which necessitates its occurrence. If the action of raising one’s hand was caused by a prior event, and that by a prior event, etc. then the sources of the hand-raising quickly move beyond the agent and into the far past. Some advocates of freedom reject determinism, others try to reconcile some sense of choice with it.
— Recorded in 1998. This course provides an introduction to the thought of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas on the topic of human nature. In this course, we will seek to recover one of the most important and most satisfying accounts of human nature in the history of philosophy. In order to underscore the distinctive features of that account and to test its veracity, we will examine texts not only from Aristotle and Aquinas but also from rival philosophers like Descartes, Hobbes, and Kant.
— Peter van Inwagen is one of the leading figures in contemporary metaphysics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of action. https://www.patreon.com/Friction https://discord.gg/uw69ZgP9WD https://www.twitter.com/FrictionPhilo 00:00 - Introduction 01:37 - Why reject hard incompatibilism 07:53 - Free will + determinism vs. free will + indeterminism 09:46 - Rule beta 14:19 - Philosophy of mind 19:38 - Identity over time 28:22 - Divine foreknowledge and freedom 32:17 - Molinism 36:17 - Modality 39:47 - God and abstract objects 41:23 - Preaching the gospel 47:22 - Good arguments for God 53:20 - Theory is prior to arguments 59:10 - Blame and praise 1:04:15 - Problems with monocategorical ontologies 1:10:44 - Downward causation 1:14:18 - Prevalence of compatibilism 1:16:44 - Existence claims as not univocal 1:19:45 - Mereological composition 1:24:29 - Vagueness and composition 1:26:21 - Meaning and rule-following 1:28:46 - Neutralism and ontological commitment 1:34:20 - Problems with denying free will 1:37:02 - Consequence argument begs the question? 1:40:14 - Problems with Libertarian free will 1:44:43 - Gunk worlds 1:47:47 - Teaching philosophy 1:50:52 - Four-dimensionalism 1:57:34 - Actualism vs. possibilism 1:59:49 - Conclusion Possibilities by Jay Someday https://soundcloud.com/jaysomeday Creative Commons — Attribution 3.0 Unported — CC BY 3.0
— Free will seems obvious, simple, common; but it's subtle, profound, maddening. Free will probes the deep nature of human existence. But big questions have big problems. How to make progress? Can bringing together scientists, philosophers and theologians help? That's what the 'Big Questions in Free Will' project is doing. Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: http://bit.ly/376lkKN Watch more interviews on free will: https://bit.ly/3hJityr Peter van Inwagen is an American analytic philosopher and the John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: http://bit.ly/2GXmFsP Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.