Who am I? What am I? (Part V)


Lastly, as a man of free will, I believe in the natural rights of man but not in the same sense as a determinist. I also accept the concept of absolute truth as opposed to the concept of relative truths. I also recognize that in the acceptance of these beliefs I will be looked upon as an extremist.

we live in an imperfect state of existence. This I believe is an universal given. I also accept the fact that “cause and effect” is an universal law of behavior. Science has already ascertain some of these laws and we can learn of these laws through a branch of science called “Physics”. And we can look upon these laws as absolute truths of our universal physical world until those truths are proven false.

We know that these laws determines the behavior of all non-life forms. To what extent or to what degree that these laws can be used to measure the effects of human behavior is the debate between those who espouse to the idea of determinism and those who espouse to the idea of free will. It is a debate in terms of the causes of behavior not a debate in terms of effected behavior.

Psychology as well as Sociology are the two most recognized disciplines of the study of human behavior. Both disciplines define themselves as a science and the reason they use is in the proclamation of using the scientific method for the study of human behavior. The problem with this is the fact that the scientific method presumes a deterministic nature. And one of the factors of the deterministic method is the ability to determine the cause of behavior through the study and measurement of how the cause has an effect on something else. There is no method of measurement of the effects on human behavior.

Without a method of measurement it is absolutely impossible to make a scientific determination of cause of human behavior. This only allow the use of common sense as the means to determine cause. Common sense has been declared and proven to be an invalid determinant of behavior repeatedly by science for many a century now. Yet both, Psychology and Sociology, continue to use it as a means to determine cause. This is both illogical and unscientific and reveals the arrogance and self-righteousness of both disciplines when applied.

This if for no other reason is why I reject the concept of determinism as the foundational cause of human behavior. This, to me, only leaves the concept of free will as being the cause of human behavior. And given a free will I recognize that persons can reject my reasoning and continue to believe that human behavior is determined as so many prominent scientists do.

I have already posted a situation on my other blog where the acceptance of and the application of the theories founded in determinism has been acknowledged as having done more harm than it has helped. To what extent it has humbled those who promote this concept I have no idea.

I close this series with but one more thought. It was the age of enlightenment and men like our founding fathers that led the world out of the darkness of determinism and into the light of free will. And it is my hope that common sense does not lead us back into that world of darkness.

Now as grandpa would close his arguments, “What say you on this subject? ”

Advertisements
Categories: My Personal Philosophy of Life | Tags: , , , , , | 2 Comments

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “Who am I? What am I? (Part V)

  1. Hi there 🙂
    Just trying to clarify what you are suggesting.

    “Without a method of measurement it is absolutely impossible to make a scientific determination of cause of human behavior.”

    Are you suggesting that we cannot know if there is a cause, or are you suggesting we cannot know what the cause is? The latter is irrelevant. If there is not a cause, human behavor would be acausal.

    “This, to me, only leaves the concept of free will as being the cause of human behavior.”

    Does this mean that “free will” comes about (or can come about) without a cause and then it causes the human behavior? Are you suggesting indeterminism?

    If so, how can an acausal event (event without a cause) be a willed event…without a willer to cause such event?

  2. The Griper

    howdy, Trick,
    good questions.
    the answer to your question is that by using the “scientific method” cause cannot be ascertained for certain.
    that is why “common sense” is used in place of it.
    and the reason is because there is no means to measure the effects of human behavior so as to determine cause.
    this is the essense of Physics, the revealing of the physical laws of behavior.
    in other words, there are no laws of the behavior of human beings known.
    if laws of behavior of human beings were known then the debate of free will or determinism would also be answered

    an acausal effect could only occur in a perfect state of existance. the recognition of a being we call God is an example of an acausal effect.

Be respecful or your comment will be deleted. Also know that Alinsky tactics do not phase me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: