Posts

Notes for 2/11/2026

 2/11/2026 [Philosophy Club every Monday, 4-5 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave")] [Bioethics Club: Mondays from 5:30pm-6:30pm in Leigh Hall 408] Is free will all-or-nothing or does it come in degrees? Compatibilism affirms that determinism could be true but we could still have free will. A better expression of compatibilism is that the truth or falsity of determinism is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we can have free will. Compatibilists reject the alternatives principle as being part of what defines free will. Rather, compatibilists think that the concept of free will needs to be defined in some other way than in terms of alternatives. Compatibilism is mainly motivated by the ‘Reasons Principle’: S performs A freely at T only if A is consistent with the totality of reasons S has at T for acting.   Compatibilism suggests that what really matters to a choice being “free” is that it is consistent with our internal motivations for...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes for 2/9/2026

 2/9/2026 [Philosophy Club every Monday, 4-5 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave")] [Bioethics Club: Mondays from 5:30pm-6:30pm in Leigh Hall 408] Do insects have free will?   What, exactly, is free will? Is free will compatible with determinism? Yes: Compatibilism No: Incompatibilism What, exactly, is determinism? Combination of two causal principles: Universal causation: Every event must have a cause. Causal uniformity:  Strong: Given exactly the same causes, the exact same effects must follow. Weak: Given relevantly similar causes, relevantly similar effects follow. LaPlacian demon: (Pierre LaPlace) Given a complete knowledge of the state of material reality at some time and perfect knowledge of the laws of nature, every subsequent event would be perfectly predictable. Incompatibilists say that if determinism is true, then there is no free will. So, for them, the whole question is whether or not determinism is true. Two varieties of incompat...
Post a Comment
Read more

NOtes for 2/4/2026

 2/4/2026 [Philosophy Club every Monday, 4-5 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave")] [Challenge for today: Try to think of (and possibly ask) at least one question.] Do you think all the suffering that exists in the world is deserved?   Strongest versions of Free Will Defense depend on a revised concept of omnipotence. Omnipotence: A being B is omnipotent if and only if for any logically possible state of affairs S that does not depend on the free will of some creature, if B wills S then S exists. Free will good = a good that results from the exercise of someone’s free will. It’s better if I do a good thing of my own free will than if I am compelled to do it. A world in which a significant number of free will goods exists is better than a world in which only compelled goods exist. It is at least logically possible that the current world which contains both free will goods and free will evils is better than any world God could have created in whi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes for 2/2/2026

 2/2/2026 [Philosophy Club every Monday, 4-5 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave")] [Challenge for today: Try to think of (and possibly ask) at least one question.] If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?   Argument from Evil Logical Argument from Evil – It is logically impossible that both God and evil exist Traditional attributes of God (despite being beyond understanding): Omnipotent = all-powerful Omniscient = all-knowing Omnibenevolent = all-good “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” (Epicurus) A being B is omnipotent =df. If B wills some logically possible state of affairs S, then S exists. Stone paradox: Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? Suicide paradox: Could God commit suicide?   LAE: 1.    If God...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes for 1/30/2026

 1/30/2026 Could a perfect designer produce an imperfect design? [Philosophy Club every Monday, 4-5 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave")] [Challenge for today: Try to think of (and possibly ask) at least one question.]   Most real-world arguments, even those that are deductive in structure, are really probabilistic.  This is because the premises in most arguments are derived from experience or testimony. Example: 1.    All ducks quack. 2.    Daffy is a duck. 3.    Therefore, Daffy quacks. The 1st claim here is called a “universal generalization.” Universal generalizations are justified either by definition (conceptual analysis) or by empirical observation (inductive reasoning). The reason to think all ducks quack is that all ducks observed so far quack. The first-cause argument rests on two premises that appear to be empirical rather than definitional: Everything that exists must have had a cause. Nothing can cause...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes for 1/23/2026

 1/23/2026 Do you think there has to be a reason for everything? A > A  Another version of cosmological argument Suppose we divide things that exist into two groups: Those that exist because of something else, and those that exist because of themselves (allowing self-causation or necessary existence). 1.    Everything that exists is either a dependent being or a necessary being.  2.    The universe exists. 3.    The universe is either a dependent being or a necessary being. [from 1 & 2] 4.    It is impossible that only dependent beings exist. 5.    Therefore, there has to be at least one necessary being. [from 1 & 4] 6.    The universe can’t be a necessary being. (first, because the universe can be conceived not to have existed, second because the universe changes – and necessary beings must be unchanging). [from 2, 3, and 4] 7.    Something other than the universe is a necessary being. [from 5 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes for 1/21/2026

 1/21/2026 One prominent philosopher once said that one of the most important questions is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” What do you think the answer is to this?   First Cause Argument 1.    The universe exists (and began to exist). 2.    Everything that began to exist had a cause for its existence. (Principle of Universal Causation) 3.    The universe had a cause. [from 1 and 2] 4.    Nothing can be its own cause. (No self-causation) 5.    Something other than the universe caused the universe. [from 3 and 4] 6.    That must be God. 7.    Therefore, God exists.   Once upon a time there was absolutely nothing at all. Then, for no reason whatsoever, the universe existed.  
Post a Comment
Read more