Quotes 2-9-2015
by Miles Raymer
“‘Here’s what I think, Mr. Wind-Up Bird,’ said May Kasahara. ‘Everybody’s born with some different thing at the core of their existence. And that thing, whatever it is, becomes like a heat source that runs each person from the inside. I have one too, of course. Like everybody else. But sometimes it gets out of hand. It swells or shrinks inside me, and it shakes me up. What I’d really like to do is find a way to communicate that feeling to another person. But I can’t seem to do it. They just don’t get it. Of course, the problem could be that I’m not explaining it very well, but I think it’s because they’re not listening very well. They pretend to be listening, but they’re not, really. So I get worked up sometimes, and I do some crazy things.’”
––The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, by Haruki Murakami, pg. 322
“My overall conclusion, then, is that we do have free will, though it is limited, so we need to learn how to develop it and to use it wisely.
This limited-free-will view is progressive in a certain way. Skepticism about free will––at least as it is likely to be perceived by most people––risks undermining people’s belief in the capacities necessary to advocate working hard to improve one’s position, to take responsibility for one’s failures, to exert willpower in the face of weariness, and to deliberate carefully among alternatives to make good choices––that is, to make personal and moral progress. The limited-free-will view, on the other hand, provides room for such virtues while it also suggests increased tolerance and compassion for people unfortunate enough to lack sufficient capacities for rational self-control. This view can counter an unlimited-free-will view that some people, especially in America, seem to hold, one that suggests people completely deserve everything that happens to them, good or bad. Realism about the limits of free will, along with a realistic and empirically informed understanding of our capacities, is both more forgiving than an unrealistic theory of unlimited free will and more hopeful and fruitful than a skepticism that risks erasing useful distinctions between (more) free and unfree actions.”
–– “Is Free Will an Illusion? Confronting Challenges from the Modern Mind Sciences,” by Eddy Nahmias, Moral Psychology, Vol. 4, ed. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, pg. 21
Truth or practicality? The limited-free-will position is quite practical and logical, for without a belief in free will, limited or unlimited, one does indeed seem to become weary about life and the all too many ethical choices one must make. I know;I have been there. But what of the truth? Not always very practical. In fact, oftentimes, unwanted, but for those who seek truth claims, should not one reason from the evidence to the conclusion, regardless of whether or not it brings us pleasure? Or should we be more practical and reason from undesired conclusions to practical truths regardless of the evidence? I for one am not pleased that the evidence seems to strongly indicate that we merely have the illusion of free will, but I prefer this objective truth to a practical one while not at all being ashamed to admit being practical when necessity dictates that I must be so. I just want to know the difference to which truth is which.
This is a good point. Keep in mind that the above quote is only Nahmias’ conclusion, not his evidence. His evidence for this view is, at least from my first impressions, quite convincing. You should definitely read this book when I’m done!
Thanks! Good point. I look forward to hearing his argument. I have been trying to get back what little free will I once believed I had. I will check out his book for sure.
Here’s the book: http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Psychology-Free-Responsibility-Volume/dp/026252547X/