Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is reason the slave of the passions?

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?

#31

Post by yters »

woodruffw wrote: post #29
yters wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case he seems to not believe in free will. Free will is necessary to choose abstract concepts for their own sake, since as he notes only physical passions can drive us to take involuntary action. At any rate, it seems to be all part of the same package, at least to me. As a side point, I've noticed that pretty much all these cutting edge, modern ideas that we believe have overthrown the ideas of the past were…

> In that case he seems to not believe in free will. Free will is necessary to choose abstract concepts for their own sake, since as he notes only physical passions can drive us to take involuntary action. Hume argues explicitly for free will via compatibilism. The SEP has an excellent summary of the argument[1], but in sum: what matters for moral responsibility is hypothetical liberty. Our ability to will (undispute…

Compatibilism is not libertarian free will, which is what most people mean by "free will".

I've seen quite similar concepts to the ones you mention re: Kant, Mill, Descartes, etc in different Platonic dialogues. So, they are maybe micro innovative, but not in a big picture sense.

By "intelligent design" I mean Socrates began his quest looking for a philosopher that could explain the world in terms of 'why' orchestrated by an overarching mind, instead of 'how'. From Phaedo,

"One day I heard someone reading, as he said, from a book of Anaxagoras, and saying that it is Mind that directs and is the cause of everything. I was delighted with this cause and it seemed to me good, in a way, that Mind should be the cause of all. I thought that if this were so, the directing Mind would direct everything and arrange each thing in the way that was best."

Socrates goes on to find out Anaxagoras is blowing smoke, and in general is displeased with the scientism of his day, where everyone explains the world in terms of 'how' instead of 'why'. So, he then goes about questioning all the contemporary philosophers to see if any are able to articulate the kind of explanation he's looking for, and for the most part (except for Diotima) they are unable to give a satisfactory explanation.

Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?

#32

Post by n4r9 »

yters wrote: post #31
woodruffw wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In that case he seems to not believe in free will. Free will is necessary to choose abstract concepts for their own sake, since as he notes only physical passions can drive us to take involuntary action. Hume argues explicitly for free will via compatibilism. The SEP has an excellent summary of the argument[1], but in sum: what matters for moral responsibility is hypothetical liberty. Our ability to will (undispute…

Compatibilism is not libertarian free will, which is what most people mean by "free will". I've seen quite similar concepts to the ones you mention re: Kant, Mill, Descartes, etc in different Platonic dialogues. So, they are maybe micro innovative, but not in a big picture sense. By "intelligent design" I mean Socrates began his quest looking for a philosopher that could explain the world in terms of 'why' orchestrat…

> Compatibilism is not libertarian free will, which is what most people mean by "free will".

I think you've said something similar before, but it's a dubious claim. Philosophers spend their lives figuring out what we "really mean" when we use certain terms, and most of them are inclined towards a compatibilist interpretation.

Going back to when you brought up free will (I'm still not sure why you did!), instead of saying

> In that case he seems to not believe in free will

for clarity, you should have said

> In that case he seems to not believe in libertarian free will

But this is a given. Determinists generally do not believe in libertarian free will.

Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?

#33

Post by yters »

n4r9 wrote: post #32
yters wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compatibilism is not libertarian free will, which is what most people mean by "free will". I've seen quite similar concepts to the ones you mention re: Kant, Mill, Descartes, etc in different Platonic dialogues. So, they are maybe micro innovative, but not in a big picture sense. By "intelligent design" I mean Socrates began his quest looking for a philosopher that could explain the world in terms of 'why' orchestrat…

> Compatibilism is not libertarian free will, which is what most people mean by "free will". I think you've said something similar before, but it's a dubious claim. Philosophers spend their lives figuring out what we "really mean" when we use certain terms, and most of them are inclined towards a compatibilist interpretation. Going back to when you brought up free will (I'm still not sure why you did!), instead of sa…

Libertarian free will goes hand in hand with being able to choose abstract ideals over physical passions. I bring it up because it explains why Hume diverges from classical thought on the proper role of reason and passion.

Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?

#34

Post by n4r9 »

yters wrote: post #33
n4r9 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compatibilism is not libertarian free will, which is what most people mean by "free will". I think you've said something similar before, but it's a dubious claim. Philosophers spend their lives figuring out what we "really mean" when we use certain terms, and most of them are inclined towards a compatibilist interpretation. Going back to when you brought up free will (I'm still not sure why you did!), instead of sa…

Libertarian free will goes hand in hand with being able to choose abstract ideals over physical passions. I bring it up because it explains why Hume diverges from classical thought on the proper role of reason and passion.

I think I understand that. Hume didn't (to my mind) advocate that passions are physical, but he did claim that they are at the root of all choices and actions.

Going back to something you said previously, could you point m in the direction of where Epicurus has written similar ideas to Hume's?

Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?

#35

Post by yters »

n4r9 wrote: post #34
yters wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarian free will goes hand in hand with being able to choose abstract ideals over physical passions. I bring it up because it explains why Hume diverges from classical thought on the proper role of reason and passion.

I think I understand that. Hume didn't (to my mind) advocate that passions are physical, but he did claim that they are at the root of all choices and actions. Going back to something you said previously, could you point m in the direction of where Epicurus has written similar ideas to Hume's?

Here is a similar point to Hume's, that the mind's function is not to seek abstract ideals, but to optimize for pleasure. This sounds, to me, the same as saying humans are ultimately guided by passions, not by reason.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/ "The function of the human mind — that part of the soul that is located in our chest — is not to seek higher things, but to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. That is its entire objective; the risk (a substantial one) is that it may miscalculate, since it is subject to false beliefs and errors in cognitive processes."

Re: Is reason the slave of the passions?

#36

Post by n4r9 »

yters wrote: post #35
n4r9 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I understand that. Hume didn't (to my mind) advocate that passions are physical, but he did claim that they are at the root of all choices and actions. Going back to something you said previously, could you point m in the direction of where Epicurus has written similar ideas to Hume's?

Here is a similar point to Hume's, that the mind's function is not to seek abstract ideals, but to optimize for pleasure. This sounds, to me, the same as saying humans are ultimately guided by passions, not by reason. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/ "The function of the human mind — that part of the soul that is located in our chest — is not to seek higher things, but to maximize pleasure and minimize pa…

Thank you. It's fascinating that people used to consider the chest as a seat of higher thought. I guess even now we strongly associate it with emotions.

Based on that article I would say Hume's overall body of work is by a wide margin more contemporary than Epicurus' if not more subtle and sophisticated. The passions-slave-reason quotation is really only a tiny part of his writing. For example, Hume provides an intricate and judicious account of epistemology in which causality is reduced to a kind of anthropic pattern-recognition. This reconciles his account of psychology with the enlightenment understanding of the scientific method, which did not exist at the time of Epicurus.

Post reply on HN