Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with Determinism

Individual free choice but collective predictability?

zaebiz — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:54:03 -0800

Can someone explain why despite the fact that every one of these incidents occurs at a unique time and place, each involves a complex history of events and personal decisions leading to its very unlikely outcome, that the death toll on the roads year-on-year is so predictable? See here and here. Why doesn't it jump around from 100 one year, to 8000 another year for example? What is it about human nature in particular that makes the rate of error leading to death so predictably in the same narrow range? This is not a question about law enforcement, personal practices or the nature of death. It's more a question of individual free will, statistics and aggregate regularity. Does anyone even understand the existential puzzle I am trying to unravel here or is it really just unmysterious?

Ellul'sive author

bluefrog — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:29:57 -0800

Any author other than Ellul making the "modern technology = loss of freedom" argument? I'm currently translating/adapting a textbook on technology and sustainable development. There is a short section on technological determinism presenting Jacques Ellul's "modern technology=loss of freedom" argument. The book also uses Kaczynski (the unabomber) and his manifesto as another example of this type of argument (citing the whole of paragraph 127). Frankly, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this (on many levels), and I'd rather not use Kaczynski at all. I might have the leeway to do this if I were to replace Kaczynski with another author that has a similar argument but no propensity to maim and kill people with bombs. Any suggestions?

(If you want to make the argument that using Kaczinsky in that context is perfectly legit, I'm willing to listen. The textbook is aimed at engineering students. One of my concern with using Kaczinsky is that it almost consitutes an "ad hominem" attack on the "anti-technology" argument: "Of course it's a completely ludicrous argument since it supported by such a crackpot")

Determinist Liberterian needs your help to unify his two widely apposing ideologies.

complience — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:42:37 -0800

Can someone believe in both Liberterianism, Determinism and proudhonism? I've asked this question before.. but the stasi who run metafilter deemed it subversive and deleted the post.

So Here i am giving it another go (although clearly not much of a go with that last comment)

My problem is this.. I deeply hold some political and philosophical ideologies on life and society but as much as i believe them to be true, I also realise that they completely contradict one another.

Please can you help me find someway to explain/justify/harmonize these beliefs.

Firstly I am a Libertarian.. I believe a human is most productive and creative when he is left to be free. Libertarian governments around the world succeed where as leftist governments are all without acception failures.

I also believe in the works of Adam smith and that the free market is the best way to create a stable economy

But

I am also a Determinist.. I believe that humans are no more than robots and that freewill does not exist except as an illusion in our consciousness.

and Thirdly

I am a Proudhonist in that I understand that all property anyone ever obtains is achieved only by some form of theft.

I have no choice.

liquorice — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:03:19 -0800

Is it ethically possible to be a lawyer and believe in determinism? By determinism’s line of thinking (if I have this correct), free will doesn’t exist and as such we should not be held morally accountable for our actions as they are not truly “free”.

If this is so, or at least, if you believe it is so, can you then go on to have a career in a field which is centred on prosecuting individuals/groups for their actions?

It seems incompatible to me. I know there is the argument that while free will may not exist, praise/blame helps promote/deter future actions and while this line of thinking makes sense to some extent it still does not sit well. You’re still prosecuting someone who had no free will in their actions.

I guess what I’m really asking is, is it possible to be human and truly believe in determinism? It seems that it’s just natural for us to condemn some people’s actions and celebrate others.

If I’ve got the whole idea of determinism wrong, forgive me and try and explain it as I’ve only garnered this from my university philosophy classes. Thank ye.